A Rainfall-Runoff Simulation

Model for Estimation of Flood

Peaks for Small Drainage Basins
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 506-B
A Rainfall-Runoff Simulation
Model for Estimation of Flood
Peaks for Small Drainage Basins
By DAVID R. DAWDY, ROBERT W. LICHTY, and JAMES M. BERGMANN
SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 506-B
Aparametric rainfall-runoff simulation model
is used with rainfall data and daily potential
evaporation data to predict flood volume and
peak rates of runoff for small drainage areas
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
V. E. McKelvey, Director
Library of Congress catalog-r. rd No. 78-185756
First printing 1972
Second printing 1972 (with minor revisions)
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 40 cents (paper cover)
Stock Number 2401-1226
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ____________________________ Bl
Introduction _________________________ 1
Historical development of parametric rainfall-
runoff models ____________________ 2
Transferability of results of modeling ______ 3
Advantages and disadvantages of parametric
simulation ________________________ 3
Acknowledgments ___________________ 3
Structure of the model ___________________ 3
General structure ___________________ 3
Infiltration component _________________ 5
Soil-moisture-accounting component ________ 7
Surface routing component _____________ 8
System identification ____________________ 8
Response of the model ________________ 10
Simulation model studies ___________..__ 12
Santa Anita basin _____________________ 12
General physiography _________________ 12
Precipitation ______________________ 12
Streamflow _______________________ 13
Evaporation ______________________ 14
Data screening _____________________ 14
Parameter definition __________________ 14
Santa Anita basin Continued
Parameter sensitivity _ _______________
Analysis of results _________________________
Parameter values
Fitting errors _
Effect of screened data ______________
Accuracy of simulation for Santa Anita basin.
Beetree basin
General physiography .
Precipitation __ .
Streamflow _ _ -
Evaporation ___ -
Parameter definition ________ .
Results and conclusion _ -
Little Beaver basin _____ .
General physiography .
Precipitation _ -
Streamflow __ -
Evaporation ___ -
Parameter definition -
Comparison of derived parameter values -
Sources of error and their impact __ .
Conclusions _ -
References cited -
Page
B14
15
15
16
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
21
24
24
24
24
24
24
26
27
28
28
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
FIGURE 1. Schematic outline of the model, showing components, parameters, and variables B4
2. Schematic diagram of the two-layered soil-moisture profile used with the infiltration equation in the
model ___________________________________________________________ 6
3. Graph showing the relation which determines the effective value of soil-moisture potential for use in
the infiltration equation ___________________________________ ___ 7
4. Graph showing the relation which determines rainfall excess as a function of maximum-infiltration
capacity and supply rate of rainfall ______________________________ 7
5. Schematic flow chart of the flood-hydrograph simulation program _________________ 7
6. Schematic drawing of the Clark unit hydrograph used in the surface-runoff routing component ____ 9
7. Map of the Santa Anita Creek basin, above the stream-gaging station near Pasadena, Calif______ 12
8. Graph showing the relation of mean annual rainfall and of area in the basin to elevation for the
Santa Anita Creek basin above the gaging station near Pasadena, Calif________________ 13
9. Typical scatter diagrams for simulation results in the Santa Anita Creek basin _____________ 16
10. Typical response curves showing sensitivity of fitting criterion to percentage changes in parameter
values ___________________________________________________________ 17
11. Map of the Beetree Creek basin, above the stream-gaging station near Swannanoa, N.C.________ 20
12. Graphs showing response of objective function during optimization with the split sample for Beetree
Creek basin ____t__________________________________________________ 21
13. Scatter diagrams for simulation results in the Beetree Creek basin _______________________ 22
14. Graph showing response of the objective function to change from the optimum value of parameter RR- 23
15. Map of the Little Beaver Creek basin above the stream-gaging station near Rolla, Mo___________ 24
in
IV CONTENTS
TABLES
Page
TABLE 1. The eight model parameters and their application in the modeling process B5
2. Qualitative comparison of errors involved in hydrologic modeling with analogous errors resulting from
standard linear statistical analysis _____________-__ - 10
3. Results of an empirical study of the response of the model to input and output errors 11
4. Mean annual rainfall, Santa Anita Creek basin, 1949-62._____.____ 12
5. Simulated peak discharges, using fitted parameters __-_ - 13
6. Fitted-parameter values ________________________________________________ 15
7. Storm-period data _______________________________________________________ 19
8. Results of fitting of model parameters to data and of split-sample testing for Beetree Creek near
Swannanoa, N.C______________________________________________________ 21
9. Results of fitting of model parameters to data for Little Beaver Creek near Rolla, Mo., using the Rolla
3-W rain gage ___________________: __________________________________ 25
10. Results of fitting of model parameters to data for Little Beaver Creek near Rolla, Mo., using the Sch'ool
of Mines rain gage ______________________________________________________ 25
11. Comparison of estimates for flood volumes and peaks for Little Beaver Creek by the use of the two rain
gages ____________________________________________________________ 25
12. Summary of results of optimization for the three study basins ___________________________ 26
SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
A RAINFALL-RUNOFF SIMULATIONMODEL FOR ESTIMATIONOF
FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS
By DAVID R. DAWDY, ROBERT W. LICHTY, and JAMES M. BERGMANN
ABSTRACT
A parametric rainfall-runoff simulation model is used with
data from a point rainfall gage and data on daily potential
evapotranspiration to predict flood volume and peak rates of
runoff for small drainage areas. The model is based on bulk-
parameter approximations to the physical laws governing
infiltration, soil-moisture accretion and depletion, and sur-
face streamflow. Three case studies are presented in which
an objective fitting method is used for determining optimal
best-fit sets of parameter values for the data available for
use in predicting flood peaks. Errors of prediction result both
from errors in rainfall input and from lack of model equiva-
lence to the physical prototype. These two sources of error
seem to be of the same order of magnitude for a model of
the level of simplicity of that presented. Major gains in
accuracy of simulation will require improvements in both
data and model. The limit of accuracy of prediction of flood
peaks by simulation with a bulk-parameter model using data
obtained from a single rain gage seems to be on the order of
25 percent.
INTRODUCTION
The development of the digital computer has
added a new dimension to hydrology. Solutions to
problems took hours with pen and pencil but now
they take seconds with the computer. In addition,
much more complex methods of analysis are feasi-
ble because of the speed of solution by the com-
puter. The impact of the computer has been particu-
larly great in the area of rainfall-runoff modeling.
Historically, surface-water hydrology has been con-
cerned with modeling, for flood routing and unit-
hydrograph analysis are mathematical modeling.
Complete rainfall-runoff simulation models date
back at least to the 1920's. However, the present
burst of activity in hydrologic simulation is a direct
result of widespread availability of the computer.
Computers have made rainfall-runoff simulation
on a large scale economically feasible. Practicality,
however, depends upon applicability and accuracy
of the simulation results. Simulation may be prac-
tical if one of the following applications is realized.
1. A rainfall record can be used to supplement a
streamflow record having a shorter period of
record than the rainfall record.
2. Model parameters for ungaged sites can be esti-
mated on the basis of the parameters derived
for gaged sites, and information can be gained
at the ungaged sites through the use of re-
corded or simulated rainfall data and the use
of estimated parameters at the ungaged sites.
3. The effect of man-made changes on a basin can
be related to changes in model parameters, so
that measured "before" conditions can be
compared with simulated "after" conditions
of sufficient accuracy for planning purposes.
Predictions obtained from rainfall-runoff simula-
tion models are successfully applied in any of the
above determinations only where the level of accu-
racy of the predictions is known. Measures of accu-
racy must be presented to the user in understand-
able terms. Accuracy should be measured in terms
of prediction, rather than in terms of fitting. Accu-
racy of fitting indicates only how well the model
can reproduce a set of data from adjusted model
parameters. Accuracy of prediction indicates how
well the model can reproduce a set of data that was
not used to derive the parameter values. Therefore,
prediction involves an independent test of accuracy
of the model.
The U.S. Geological Survey research program is
developing rainfall-runoff simulation models. Re-
search emphasis has been on the utility of the
models for practical field application to current
projects and has centered upon both development
of models and testing of their accuracy of predic-
Bl
B2
SYNTHESIS INHYDROLOGY
tion. This report is a statement of progress to date
(1971) on model development, including illustrative
examples of the results of prediction for several
basins in various hydrologic settings.
Hydrologic models have been developed in re-
sponse to hydrologic needs. The use of computers
has led to the development of more sophisticated
hydrologic models. The more sophisticated models
should be more accurate to justify their existence,
and their accuracy must be measured in terms of
their ultimate use.
The models discussed in this report are para-
metric models, or models that try to simulate physi-
cal conditions by a deterministic mathematical
description, which includes, as much as possible,
approximations to the physical laws governing
surface-water hydrology. Wherever possible, a
physical interpretation is placed upon the parame-
ters used in the models. A separate field of model-
ing not included in this study is that of stochastic
simulation. These models describe the hydrologic
record in statistical terms and use that statistical
description to generate synthetic "equally likely"
records. Each type of model has its advantages and
disadvantages for application to meet a particular
need.
The derivation of a set of optimum parameters
representing the hydrology of a basin must be based
on data. A parametric model requires both stream-
flow and rainfall data and, perhaps, other hydro-
logic data. Certain data other than that on stream-
flow also contain streamflow information, and use
of this additional information should reduce the
time required to collect streamflow data necessary
to achieve a given level of accuracy of prediction.
Most studies involving rainfall-runoff models in-
clude the assumption of a stationary time series,
at least during a period of calibration. Thus, the
model parameter values can not change with time.
Often, an assumption is made that, if parameters
do change, any such changes can be related to
physical changes on the drainage basin, particu-
larly to man-made changes.
HISTORICALDEVELOPMENT OF PARAMETRIC
RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELS
Parametric hydrology is that field of mathemati-
cal hydrology which attempts to synthesize a model
of the land phase of the hydrologic cycle, by ap-
proximating the physical laws governing the vari-
ous components of the rainfall-runoff system. Infil-
tration, soil-moisture storage, percolation to ground
water, evapotranspiration, and surface- and sub-
surface-flow routing are modeled by sets of equa-
tions that, hopefully, give a response equivalent to
the response of the component modeled. The com-
ponents and all necessary interrelations among
components are described by means of parameters,
some of which are empirical, and some of which
have a physical interpretation.
One of the earliest overall models of the hydro-
logic cycle was developed by Folse (1929). Develop-
ment of that model was begun in 1916 and
continued through the 1920's. During the 1930's,
advances were made in the description of all com-
ponents of the hydrologic cycle. Sherman (1932)
introduced the theory of the unit hydrograph, which
led to a flurry of developments, culminating with
Dooge's general linear theory of flood-flow routing
(1959). The Horton (1939) infiltration equation
was an empirical attempt to describe unsaturated
flow. Philip (1954) extended this by deriving an
approximation based upon the Darcy equation for
infiltration at a point. Theis (1935) showed the
analogy of Darcy's equation for flow through satu-
rated porous media to the heat-flow equation. Many
simplifications for specified boundary conditions
were subsequently developed and became the basis
for routing of ground-water discharges, such as the
equation of Kraijenhoff (1958) for instantaneous
recharge in two-dimensional flow.
The digital computer made it possible to combine
these many approximations into one overall approxi-
mation describing the operation of the land phase
of the hydrologic cycle. Linsley was the first to take
advantage of this possibility, and his efforts led to
the development of the Stanford Watershed Model
(Crawford and Linsley, 1966). Similar models have
been developed at many universities and in govern-
ment agencies, both in the United States and abroad.
The many models currently available or being
developed must meet certain criteria to be useful
in practical application. They must:
1. Require only input data that are generally avail-
able.
2. Be simple enough for the user to operate and to
understand.
3. Provide the output desired at an acceptable level
of accuracy for the application for which it
is used.
The U.S. Geological Survey flood-hydrograph
simulation model follows directly from the histori-
cal developments previously described, and is de-
signed to meet the criteria outlined above.
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B3
TRANSFERABILITY OF RESULTS OF MODELING
For modeling results to be transferable, the
parameters derived from simulation studies at
measured sites must be constant or must possess
invariant relations with physical variables which
can be measured in other basins. Time invariance
is required, or else any changes in time must be
the result of measureable physical changes within
the basin. Certain types of information may be
transferable without the use of simulation. For
instance, Benson (1962, 1964) showed that raw-
data analysis can lead to regionalization of flood-
frequency characteristics for a region. Simulation
might aid such a study by extending the data base
available for analysis. In addition, simulation is
necessary if the time sequence of flows, rather than
just their frequency of occurrence, is needed.
Parametric simulation is so structured as to in-
clude those parameters related to physical measures
of the basin. Therefore, transferability is implicit
in parametric simulation. To date (1970), however,
no studies have presented results leading to region-
alization of the parameters of either stochastic or
parametric simulation, although some thought has
been given to the problem (Benson and Matalas,
1967; Matalas and Gilroy, 1968). Feasibility of any
such regionalization of parameters can be tested by
comparing the sensitivity of results of simulation
with the accuracy of the parameter estimates. That
a statistical or physical parameter can be related to
some characteristic of a basin is of no value if the'
standard error of estimate of the resulting relation
is such that the simulation would be grossly in
error. Therefore, .the transferability of parameters
is limited by the sensitivity of the modeling results
to the magnitude of the errors in parameter values.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
PARAMETRICSIMULATION
Rainfall-runoff models, in general, are lumped-
parameter models, although often the surface-
streamflow routing is accomplished by the use of a
finite-difference approximation to the drainage sys-
tem. A lumped-parameter model attempts to use a
single parameter value to represent a physical
measure that also has spatial variability. The
models are, therefore, at least one step removed
from simulating the actual flow mechanics at each
point in the watershed. Derived parameter values
are, at best, average values for the basin, and are
an index to, rather than a measure of, the under-
lying physical system. This approximation intro-
duces a major source of error in a lumped-parame-
ter model and limits the accuracy of prediction
obtained by the use of the model.
The parameters in parametric-simulation models
should require a shorter period of record in order
to be as well defined as those for either determinis-
tic or stochastic black-box models. This has advan-
tages when data must be collected and the analysis
postponed until sufficient data are available. Trans-
ferability should be easier for parametric models,
although this is yet to be demonstrated. Parametric
models require more types of data for each event
modeled, both for system identification (fitting of
parameters) and for simulation of synthetic records.
The emphasis of the models presented in this
study is on flood-hydrograph simulation for small
drainage areas. Generally, there is little or no data
on small drainage areas; therefore, results must be
obtained on the basis of short records. In addition,
only a small percentage of smaller basins can be
gaged. Consequently, results must have transfer-
ability if the smaller, ungaged basins are to be
simulated. Concentration on the development of a
parametric model, thus, seemed to be warranted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The present report represents several years' re-
search by the authors. The project was begun as
the result of the efforts of R. W. Carter, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, and his helpful encouragement
throughout was important. Terence O'Donnell, Im-
perial College, London, joined the Survey's research
group during his year's sabbatical leave from
Imperial College, and his continued interest has
contributed to the development of ideas, particu-
larly on the use of objective fitting methods. Jaime
Amorocho, University of California at Davis,
Chester Kisiel, University of Arizona, and Jacob
Rubin, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, Calif.,
all helped encourage the authors to "say what they
mean, and mean what they say."
STRUCTURE OF THE MODEL
GENERALSTRUCTURE
The rainfall-runoff model described in this report
deals with three components of the hydrologic cycle
antecedent moisture, infiltration, and surface run-
off. Structure of the model is shown in figure 1.
Particular effort was made to design a model with
a degree of equivalence to the physical system.
Therefore, this model should be very similar in
structure to any other bulk-parameter model for
rainfall-runoff simulation. The antecedent-moisture-
B4 SYNTHESIS INHYDROLOGY
ANTECEDENT- MOISTURE
ACCOUNTING COMPONENT
Saturated-unsaturated soil
moisture regimes
Parameter Variable
EVC BMS
RR SMS
BMSM
DRN
Daily rainfall
Daily pan evaporation
Initial condition
BMS
SMS
INFILTRATION
COMPONENT
Philip infiltration
equation
* K ( 1 \ P ( m ~ mo) )
dt ~ K ( l '
Parameter Variable
SWF BMS
KSAT SMS
RGF
INPUT DATA
Unit rainfall
"BMS"
"SMS"
OUTPUT DATA
Rainfall excess
ROUTING
COMPONENT
Clark instantaneous
unit hydrograph
- A
D L __^ J\^
Parameter Variable
KSW SW
Time-area curve
Rainfall excess
Discharge
FIGURE 1. Schematic outline of the model, showing components, parameters, and variables.
accounting component is a more sophisticated ver-
sion of the antecedent-precipitation index (API),
which is designed to determine the initial infiltra-
tion rate for a storm. The infiltration component
uses the Philip equation, which is believed to be a
somewhat better approximation to the differential
equation for unsaturated flow than the classical
Horton exponential-decay-infiltration equation. Sur-
face routing is based on a linear approximation
developed more than 20 years ago (Clark, 1945).
The operation of the antecedent moisture ac-
counting component is designed to simulate mois-
ture redistribution in the soil column and evapo-
transpiration from the soil. It contains four
parameters: EVC, a pan coefficient converting
measured pan evaporation to potential evapotran-
spiration; RR, a coefficient that determines the
relative amounts of infiltration and surface runoff
for periods with daily rainfall input; BMSM, a
maximum effective amount of base moisture storage,
and DRN, a coefficient controlling the rate of drain-
age of the infiltrated soil moisture. The input to
this latter component is daily rainfall and daily
pan evaporation. The output is the amount of base-,
moisture storage (BMS) and of infiltrated surface-
moisture storage (SMS) . BMS represents a uniform
antecedent moisture content of the active soil col-
umn, and its range of values should simulate the
moisture range from wilting-point conditions to field
capacity. SMS represents the moisture content of
the surface layer that forms during infiltration.
The infiltration component is based on an ap-
proximation to the differential equation for un-
saturated flow (Philip, 1954). The equation is based
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B5
on a two-part accounting of the soil moisture, with
a wetting layer overlying a layer of uniform mois-
ture content (determined by antecedent events).
The infiltration component contains three parameters:
SWF, which represents the combined effects of mois-
ture content and capillary potential at the wetting
front for field-capacity conditions; RGF, a parameter
that varies the effective value of SWF as a function of
BMS-, and KSAT, the hydraulic conductivity of the
transmission zone. Inputs to this component are unit
rainfall data and the values of BMS and SMS derived
from previous times. The output is rainfall excess
that is, the remaining rainfall after abstractions by
infiltration.
Surface-runoff routing is based on the Clark form
of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. The single
parameter is a linear reservoir routing coefficient
(KSW). In addition, a time-area curve is derived
which distributes the excess rainfall into a trans-
lation hydrograph. The input to this component is
the rainfall-excess output computed from the infil-
tration component, and the output is the storm-
runoff hydrograph. Table 1 summarizes the eight
model parameters.
TABLE 1. The eight model parameters and their application
in the modeling process
Parameter
identifier
code1
Units Application
SWF. Inches
RQF
KSAT________ Inches per
hour.
BMSM.
EVC
DRN
RR__
Inches-
Inches per
hour.
KSW_________ Hours-
Effect of moisture content and capil-
lary potential at the wetting front
for field-capacity conditions.
Varies the effective value of SWF as
a function of BMS.
The minimum (saturated) value of hy-
draulic conductivity used to deter-
mine infiltration soil rates.
Soil moisture-storage volume at field
capacity.
Coefficient to convert pan evaporation
to potential evapotranspiration values.
Aconstant drainage rate for redistribu-
tion of soil moisture.
Proportion of daily rainfall that infil-
trates the soil.
Time characteristic for linear reservoir
routing.
1 For explanation of the parameter identifier codes, see preceding text.
The output from one component is the input to
the next. Even a model as simple as this one has
many interactions among the parameters. This is
particularly true of the antecedent-moisture-
accounting and infiltration components. Often, ad-
justments of a parameter in one component can be
compensated for by an adjustment in a different
component in another parameter. Over some error
range, many sets of parameter values may fit a
given set of data equally well. Even though the
parameters of the model are chosen so as to be
analogous to physical parameters in a basin, the
degree of similarity in the optimum set of derived
parameter values may mask the relation of the
values to their supposed physical prototype. Thus,
the conceptual physical equivalence of the model
may be lost in the fitting process. (This point is
discussed more fully in the section entitled "Fitting
Errors.")
INFILTRATIONCOMPONENT
"Infiltration" is the term used to describe the
entry into the soil of water available at the soil
surface. When rain falls on a soil it either infil-
trates, goes into detention storage, or becomes
surface runoff. The rate of infiltration into the soil
is, of course, limited by the supply rate of rainfall.
Darcy's law describes flow of a liquid in a homoge-
neous porous medium and is the basic mathematical
description of the infiltration process.
Many empirical equations have been used to ap-
proximate the infiltration process. One of the more
physically meaningful equations is that of Philip
(1954; Green and Ampt, 1911), which has been
used as the basis for the infiltration component in
the flood hydrograph synthesis program. The Philip
equation assumes a two-part soil moisture distribu-
tion, as shown in figure 2.
A soil column of initial moisture content, m0 , is
infiltrated by water which wets a thickness of soil,
x, to a uniform liquid content, m. Both m and m0
are relative moisture contents of their respective
soil columns, with m representing moisture content
near saturation.
The wetting front is at the depth, x, below the
soil surface. The equation assumes that both the
velocity of flow throughout the wetted column and
the soil suction at the wetting front are constant.
The capillary potential of an unsaturated soil acts
to move moisture from wetter to drier portions of
a soil column.
With these assumptions, Darcy's law reduces to
Vx_
k.
= P + x + H,
or
V = fa
p + g
X
(1)
where V is the downward velocity of flow in the
infiltrating column (units of L/T) ; kh is the capil-
lary conductivity (units of L/T) at soil moisture
B6 SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
SOIL-MOISTURE CONTENT
VOLUMETRIC SOIL-MOISTURE CONTENT
FIGURE 2. Schematic diagram of the two-layered soil-
moisture profile used with the infiltration equation
in the model. The initial uniform soil-moisture con-
tent, stated as a proportion of total volume, is mo,
and the depth of the wetted layer is x. The amount
of infiltrated moisture (SMS) is (m mo) a? , and
is shown as the hachured area. The amount of
antecedent moisture (BM8) is shown as the un-
hachured area. That portion of antecedent moisture
contained in the wetted layer is mo x, and is
shown as the unhachured area above the depth w in
the profile.
m; P is capillary potential at the wetting front
(units of L) ; and H is the depth of ponded water
at the surface (units of L). The capillary potential
generally is several orders of magnitude larger than
the depth of ponded water, so that the H term may
be ignored. Because
V = di/dt,
and
x = i/(m m0 ),
equation 1 becomes
di
1 +
P(m-m0)
(2)
(3)
(4)
where i is the accumulated infiltration in the wet-
ting column (denoted by patterned area in fig. 2).
The mnemonic identifiers used to designate equa-
tion 4 in the computer program and in this paper
are
FR = KSAT
where
1+
PS
SMS
(5)
FR = di/dt (units of L/T),
KSAT = kh (units of L/T),
PS = P(m-m0 ) | effective (units of L),
and
SMS = i (units of L).
The capillary potential at the wetting front is not
a constant, but varies according to the initial soil-
moisture condition. Colman and Bodman (1944)
stated (in a paper used by Philip for some of the
justification for his equation) that "of the changed
conditions brought about by using moist rather
than air-dry soils, the observed results indicate the
particular importance of the lowered potential
gradient at the wet front." However, neither Philip
nor Colman and Bodman gave a method for deter-
mining the variation of the potential. The flood-
hydrograph simulation program determines the
effective value of PS as varying linearly between
a value at plant wilting point and a value at field
capacity. This requires two parameters. The first
is the effective value of the product P(m-m0 ) at
field capacity (SWF). The other is the ratio
(RGF) of the product at wilting point to that at
field capacity. The effective value of the product of
capillary potential and soil-moisture deficit is de-
scribed by a linear relation to soil moisture deficit
and is computed as
PS = SWF RGF- (RGF-I)
BMS
BMSM
, (6)
where BMS is the beginning soil-moisture storage
in the soil column, and BMSM is the maximum
moisture storage in the soil column at field capac-
ity. This relationship is. shown in figure 3.
Equations 5 and 6 represent the approximation
used for infiltration at a point. Equation 5 is a dif-
ferential equation with a variable coefficient because
the soil-suction coefficient, PS, is a function of soil
moisture, as shown in equation 6. Infiltration occurs
throughout a basin at varying rates; however, the
flood-hydrograph synthesis program uses a scheme
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OP FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B7
RGF X SWF PS=SWF[RGF- (RGF-l) BMS ]
\. BMSM
SWF
Wilting
point
(BMS=0 )
Field
capacity
(BMS=BMSM)
SOIL-MOISTURE CONTENT
FIQTJKE 3. The relation which determines the effective
value of moisture content and capillary potential (PS)
for use in the infiltration equation.
first presented by Crawford and Linsley (1966,
p. 210) to convert point potential infiltration to net
infiltration over a basin. Letting SR represent the
supply rate of rainfall for infiltration, and QR rep-
resent the rate of generation of excess precipitation
that does not infiltrate, the equations are
QR = SR2 /2 FR SR < FR (7a)
= SR-(FR/2 ) SR>FR (7b)
The schematic representation of the relations is
shown in figure 4. The relation may be interpreted
as describing the probability distribution of poten-
tial infiltration throughout the basin by a straight
line, with net infiltration being the average through-
-di/dt=FR
0 25 50 75 100
PERCENTAGE OF AREA WITH INFILTRATION CAPACITY
EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN INDICATED VALUE
FIGURE 4. The relation which determines rainfall excess
(QR) as a function of maximum-infiltration capacity
(FR) and supply rate of rainfall (SR).
out the basin. However, no claim is made that equa-
tion 7 actually is a representation of the probability
distribution of potential infiltration. Certainly, such
a distribution would not be uniform, as implied by the
equation, nor would its shape be similar in time.
Rather, equation 7 is an empirical tool which elimi-
nates the absolute threshold value for infiltration.
Thus, there is some runoff from any volume of rain-
fall, although for low-intensity rains where soil
conditions are dry, the runoff is very small. The
major justification for equation 7 is that it aids the
modeling of the runoff volumes for the smaller, low-
intensity storms.
Equations 5, 6, and 7 together describe the infil-
tration component. The flow chart for the infiltra-
tion component is shown in figure 5.
FIGURE 5. Schematic flow chart of the flood-hydrograph
simulation program.
SOIL-MOISTURE-ACCOUNTINGCOMPONENT
The soil-moisture-accounting component in a rain-
fall-runoff simulation model determines the effect
of antecedent conditions on the infiltration compo-
nent. Although the moisture accounting system in
B8 SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
this model was designed to represent the physical
process to a large degree, the lack of full physical
equivalence, in application, may result in a curve-
fitting process, so that the fitted parameter values
have more apparent than real physical meaning. In
addition, there is a necessary constraint that the
soil-moisture accounting component must be com-
patible with the infiltration component, if a water
budget is to be maintained throughout the system.
These two facts should be kept in mind throughout
the description of the soil-moisture accounting
component.
The soil moisture component in the flood hydro-
graph simulation program is based upon the Philip
scheme described for the infiltration component.
The total moisture in storage in the soil column is
divided into two parts. The first is contained in a
base moisture storage (BMS) at a soil moisture
which can vary from field capacity to wilting-point
conditions. The second is a surface moisture storage
(SMS) near saturation. Thus, the total infiltrated
column is assumed to be near saturation capacity.
This assumption is based upon the results shown by
Colman and Bodman (1944). A schematic diagram
of the soil moisture accounting is shown in figure 2.
SMS depicts accumulated infiltration, and all in-
filtration during storm periods is added to SMS.
BMS, on the other hand, is used to compute the
relative soil moisture deficit. The unpatterned area
in figure 2 represents BMS. BMS and the ratio
RGF are together used to compute PS, the effective
value of the product of the capillary potential and
the soil moisture deficit, also a part of the infiltra-
tion equation.
Evapotranspiration losses are assumed to occur
at the potential rate. All evapotranspiration de-
mand is met from SMS, if possible. When storage
in SMS is zero, the evapotranspiration demand is
met from BMS.
Drainage occurs from SMS to BMS at a constant
rate as long as storage exists in SMS. Storage in
BMS has a maximum value (BMSM) equivalent to
the field-capacity moisture storage of an active soil
zone. Zero storage in BMS is assumed to correspond
to wilting-point conditions in the active soil zone.
When storage in BMS exceeds BMSM, the excess is
spilled to deeper storage. The spills could be the
basis for routing interflow and base-flow compo-
nents, if desired. However, these components of
streamflow are not modeled in the flood-hydrograph
simulation program. If other components of flow
make up a significant part of the flood peak, a rout-
ing of these spills would be necessary.
SURFACEROUTINGCOMPONENT
The excess precipitation generated in the flood-
hydrograph simulation program must be converted
into a flood hydrograph by a routing method. The
Clark flood-routing method (1945) is used to de-
velop the unit hydrograph for the basin. The Clark
method has two parts. First, the excess precipita-
tion is converted into a translation hydrograph
representing the effect of varying traveltimes in
the basin. The translation hydrograph for the basin
is represented by a time-discharge histogram. The
time-discharge histogram is developed from the
distance-area histogram for the basin. In essence,
the derivation assumes that distance and traveltime
are directly proportional. Because of variation both
in resistance to flow and in channel slope through-
out the basin, the assumption of proportionality of
distance and traveltime does not necessarily hold.
Therefore, a comparison of the shapes of simulated
and observed hydrographs for several flood events
can be used to revise the time-area histogram to a
more appropriate shape for a study basin.
The translation hydrograph must be routed
through some element representing storage in the
basin. For an instantaneously developed excess pre-
cipitation of 1 inch, this results in the instantaneous
unit hydrograph. The Clark method assumes a linear
time-invariant storage. Dooge (1959) presented an
excellent discussion on unit hydrograph methods
and the place of the Clark method in the general
theory. Figure 6 illustrates the operation of the
Clark method.
SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
The method of determining optimum parameter
values is based on an optimization technique devised
by Rosenbrock (1960). Wilde (1964) referred to
the method as "the method of rotating coordinates."
It is a hill-climbing procedure that does not require
evaluation of partial derivatives of the objective
function with respect to the parameters. All param-
eters must be bounded for the method to be used.
Thus, parameter values may be constrained to a
range of "reasonable" values if desired. The utility
of the procedure, as related to system identification
in hydrologic modeling, was discussed by Dawdy
and O'Donnell (1965).
The method revises the parameter values and
recomputes the objective function, using the revised
set of values. If the result is an improvement, the
revised set is accepted; if not, the method returns
to the previous best set of parameters. The objec-
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B9
Input of
excess
precipitation
Translation into
time-discharge
histogram
Attenuation
by linear
storage
Output flood
hydrograph
FIGURE 6. Schematic drawing of the Clark unit hydrography used in the surface-runoif routing component.
tive function, or {/-function, throughout this study
is based upon the sum of the squared deviations of
the logarithms of peak flows, storm volumes, or
some combination of both. Thus, the fitting proce-
dure develops a nonlinear least-squares solution.
The logarithms of flows are used because stream-
flow errors are generally more nearly equal in per-
centage than they are in absolute terms. Thus, if a
peak of 1,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) is esti-
mated in error by an average of 100 cfs (10 per-
cent), a peak of 5,000 cfs will have a greater
probability of an average error of 500 cfs (10 per-
cent) than of 100 cfs (2 percent). The logarithmic
transformation is meant to make the error of esti-
mation more commensurable for the large and the
small peaks. The sum of the squared errors is used
as an objective function because of the mathemati-
cal property that it is a convex function, and be-
cause of its direct analogy to least-squares fitting
in standard linear statistical theory. More concern-
ing this point will be discussed in the section en-
titled "Response of the Model."
Rosenbrock's method of optimization proceeds by
stages. During the first stage, each parameter rep-
resents one axis until arbitrary end-of-stage criteria
are satisfied. At the end of each stage, a new set of
orthogonal directions is computed, based on the
experience of parameter movement during the pre-
ceding stage. The major feature of this procedure
is that, after the first stage, one axis is alined in a
direction reflecting the net parameter movement
experienced during the previous stage.
To start the fitting process, the hydrologic model
is assigned an initial set of parameter values, and
the resulting simulated flood-hydrograph response
is computed. The objective function is calculated
and then stored in the computer memory bank as
a reference value; later, this reference value is used
to evaluate the results of subsequent trials. A step
of arbitrary length is attempted in the first-search
direction. If the resulting value of the objective
function is less than or equal to the reference value,
the trial is registered as a success, and the appro-
priate step-size, e, is multiplited by 9>1. If a failure
results, the step is not allowed and e is multiplied
by -ft, where 0<<1. An attempt is made in the
next search direction, and the process continues un-
til the end-of-stage criteria are met. At this point, a
new search pattern is determined, and another stage
of optimization undertaken. Only a limited amount
of information is output during optimization. The
{/-function value and associated parameter values
are printed for each successful trial. Also, a listing
by flood event of the simulated hydrologic response
and of observed data are output at the start of
each stage.
Note particularly that the concept of automati-
cally determining optimum model parameters re-
quires the objective function to be compatible with
the intended use for which the fitting is undertaken.
In order to give weight to both the volume and the
shape characteristics of the flood hydrograph, a
weighted objective function (US) including both
peak and volume error was used. One component
of the objective function used in optimization is the
sum of squared log deviations between recorded and
simulated flood peaks (Ul). Another component,
BIO SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
(Z72), is the sum of squared log deviations between
estimated and simulated surface runoff for each
storm period.
Estimated surface runoff is calculated by a crude
hydrograph-separation technique that integrates the
volume of runoff under the flood hydrograph, from
the start of the storm period through the period of
rise, and for a duration of recession after the peak.
The contribution from base flow is deducted and is
assumed to be equal to the volume derived by pro-
jecting the level of discharge from the start of the
rise through the period of integration. Recorded
flood peaks are similarly reduced by the antecedent
discharge level to account for the contribution from
base flow.
RESPONSE OF THE MODEL
The "game" of hydrologic simulation is based
upon engineering approximations. Approximations
introduce errors into simulation results. To properly
utilize a model, therefore, there must be some un-
derstanding of the magnitude of errors produced by
use of the model.
Errors in data are reflected in errors in the fitted
parameters in a simulation model. If perfect input
data are routed through a perfect model, the output
produced would agree perfectly with an error-free
output record. If errors are introduced into the in-
put or output record, or both, the output results
will not be exactly reproduced even from a perfect
model. If a fitting process is used, the parameters
will deviate from their true values in order to mini-
mize the deviations between the simulated and re-
corded traces, as specified in the objective function.
The "optimal" set of parameters will now be in
error, and the value of the objective function after
fitting will be less than its "true" value. This is so
because the value has been derived by a method
used to find the minimum value for the objective
function.
The fitting process is analogous to a statistical
least-squares analysis. The fitted parameters devi-
ate from their population values because of random
errors in the data. The standard error of estimate
is a measure of error in the data. The standard
error of prediction, however, is somewhat greater
than the standard error of estimate, for it includes
both the measure of lack of fit of the data used to
calibrate the model and the measure of error in the
fitted parameters. These relationships are given in
table 2.
TABLE 2. Errors involved in hydrologic modeling qualita-
tively compared with analogous errors resulting from
standard linear statistical analysis
Source of error
Differences between measured and
simulated flows during the cali-
Qualitative
size of error Statistical analog
variance
pling error variance.
a b Square of standard er-
ror of estimate.
bration period.
Differences between measured and
simulated flows outside the cali-
bration period.
a + 0 Square of standard er-
ror of prediction.
If the assumptions of regression theory were
valid, for a linear model with normally distributed
and homoscedastic errors of the dependent variable
(that is, the variance about the regression is inde-
pendent of the independent variables), the standard
error of prediction could be computed from the
standard error of estimate, the deviations of the
independent variables from their mean, and the
error in the coefficients for the independent vari-
ables. These assumptions seldom hold, however, so
that competent statisticians often resort to split-
sample testing. The assumptions also fail for hydro-
logic simulation, and the models are nonlinear, as
well; hence, there is no theory by which to compute
the error of prediction. Therefore, split-sample test-
ing must be used in hydrologic simulation modeling
whenever possible.
At present, nonlinearity of the hydrologic process
precludes any theoretical description of the mecha-
nism by which errors in data are transferred to
model parameters and, in turn, are combined with
input errors in the test period to produce errors in
the simulated streamflow. An empirical study for
the response of the model to input and output errors
is shown in table 3.
A recorded rainfall trace was assumed to be error
free and was routed through an optimized set of
parameters for the Little Beaver Creek basin near
Rolla, Mo. The optimized parameter values were
assumed to be the correct values to obtain a "true"
streamflow trace. Then, a random error with mean
zero and standard deviation of 10 percent was ap-
plied to all rainfall values. These "erroneous" rain-
fall values were then routed through the model with
the "true" parameter values, and the resulting value
of the objective function for the simulated stream-
flow trace computed. Next, an optimization run was
made which adjusted the parameters to minimize
that value. The "optimized" set of parameters is
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS Bll
TABLE 3. Results of an empirical study of the response of the model
to input and output errors
Parameter
identifier *
SWF . ___ _ ______ (in.)__
KSAT . _______ __(in. per hr)__
KSW ___________ ____(hr)__
EVC _____ __ __ ___ ______
BMSM __ ____ ____(in.)__
RGF _______ ________ __
RR _ ___._ __ _____ _ __
DRN _____________(in. per hr)
U:
Pd 3 . ___ ____ ____
pd __
Test 4 _ _ _ _______ _
Assumed
true
values
3.6
.063
1.0
.56
4.0
12.0
.8
.020
Values optimized to
rainfall errors of:
10
percent
3.6
.063
1.04
.57
4.02
11.9
.796
.018
3 . 0150(12)
.0097 (9.9)
.0039 (6.3)
.0196(14)
20
percent
3.8
.06
1.06
.58
3.98
11.94
.8
.017
.0538(23)
.0493(22)
.0152(12)
.0890(30)
Values optimized to
streamflow errors of:
5
percent
3.7
.063
.98
.559
4.04
12.12
.796
.020
.00233(4.8)
.00170(4.1)
10
percent
3.7
.061
.98
.56
4.04
12.21
.796
.019
.00915(9.6)
.00708(8.3)
1 For explanation of parameter identifier codes, see p. B3-B5.
2 P, true parameters; p, optimized parameters; D, correct data; d, erroneous data.
3 First value, shown without parentheses is the average of two-thirds of the squares of natural
logarithms of the sample peaks plus one-third of the squares for the sample storm volumes. The second
value, shown in parentheses, converts the first value to an equivalent "percent standard error" by
&?=antilog U, and averaging plus and minus percentages.
4 Average of nine separate test runs.
shown, along with the resulting value. The "true"
rainfall trace was then routed through the new
optimized parameters and the objective function
evaluated. Assuming independence of the two
sources of error one in the input data, and the
other in the model parameters the error of pre-
diction should be approximately equal to the square
root of the sum of the squares of the two separate
estimates of error. To test this relation, nine inde-
pendent sets of random errors were applied to the
rainfall values and routed through the model using
the optimized parameter values. The average U
value for the nine test runs is also given in table 3.
For the case of 10-percent rainfall errors, the
error introduced by data errors (Pd) is 0.0150,
while that for parameter errors (pD) is 0.0039.
The sum of these is 0.0189 which is to be compared
with 0.0196 (U test). The comparison of the error
of prediction, based upon the variance given above,
is 13.8 percent (Pd + pD), as compared with 14.3
(7 test).
Similar results are shown for input rainfall er-
rors with a 20 percent standard error. As also true
of the 10-percent errors, the error in simulated out-
put was magnified so that it is about 20 percent
greater than the rainfall error (Pd is 23 percent as
compared with the previous value of 12 percent).
Once again Pd 4- pD should combine to produce a
value comparable to that for the test results, and
0.0538 4- 0.0152 = 0.0690 is to be compared with
0.0890. The respective percentages are 26 and 30
for estimates of the error of prediction.
Errors in streamflow measurement are trans-
ferred to model parameters in the fitting process.
An example of this is shown in table 3. Errors of 5
and 10 percent were introduced into runoff esti-
mates, and a set of best-fit parameters derived. The
rainfall and runoff errors are independent in this
study, so that the square of the error of prediction
for 10-percent runoff errors and 20-percent rainfall
errors would be on the order of the sum of the two
variance terms, 0.0890 for rainfall errors and
0.00915 for runoff errors, or a 32-percent error for
the two combined, as compared with 30 percent for
rainfall alone.
Two points are particularly noteworthy in the
above results. First, rainfall errors have a magni-
fied effect on the simulated streamflow for basins
similar to the one chosen for the study. This prob-
ably is true for most basins with drainage area less
than 10 square miles. Therefore, rainfall errors
probably are the controlling factor determining ac-
curacy of streamflow simulation. Second, the re-
sponse of this wholly nonlinear hydrologic model
is approximately linear for errors in rainfall on the
order of magnitude investigated, which probably
are on the order of magnitude generally found in a
field study. One would expect that errors in rainfall
input would result in greater proportional errors in
predicted streamflow, because streamflow is a resid-
ual after abstractions. However, amounts of excess
rainfall for different time periods from different
parts of the basin are combined in the translation
routing, and the storage routing attenuates errors
by averaging by means of the storage process.
Therefore, the relative size of rainfall errors and
of errors of estimated streamflow depends upon the
extent to which the model of the routing process
attenuates the magnification of errors produced in
model estimates of excess rainfall.
That the errors of streamflow estimates are ap-
proximately linearly related to the errors of rain-
B12
SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
fall input data is particularly important. The line-
arity of errors indicates that there may be some
hope for the derivation of a theory of errors for
streamflow simulation. In addition, the linearity
gives some post hoc justification for the nonlinear
least square fitting technique used in the fitting
process.
SIMULATIONMODELSTUDIES
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof.
The empirical study described in the preceding
section does give insight into the modeling process
and, in particular, into the operation of the model.
To further illustrate the utility of the. model in
field application, three basin studies are presented.
They represent a range in location and hydrology.
The basins are Santa Anita Creek near Pasadena,
Calif., a semiarid basin; Beetree Creek near Swan-
nanoa, N.C., a humid basin; and Little Beaver Creek
near Rolla, Mo., a basin in which hydrology is typi-
cal of the interior United States. All three basins
have pronounced relief.
The data available varied from basin to basin.
Also, the relative stage of development of the model
led to the emphasis of different research goals dur-
ing the analysis of the different areas. Sufficient
rainfall data were available for the Santa Anita
Creek basin for a study to be made of the effect of
bias of rainfall measurements and of the effect of
time and space variability of rainfall on modeling
results. Beetree Creek basin was used to study the
effects of split-sample testing to study the metho-
dology of the use and limitations of the objective
curve-fitting method. Each basin will be discussed
separately, and a discussion of the overall results
and of the problems encountered will be presented.
SANTAANITABASIN
GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Santa Anita Creek drainage basin is a 9.7
square mile (25 sq km) area of the San Gabriel
Mountains in southern California. The rugged to-
pography ranges in elevation from 1,500 to 5,700
feet (460 to 1,700 m above sea level with the mean
elevation about 3,600 feet (1,100 m). Thin porous
soils covering a highly fractured bedrock combine
to give the basin high moisture-retention and ab-
sorption properties. The southerly facing basin re-
ceives about three-fourths of its rainfall during the
cool winters. The climate and soils support a thin
to dense growth of chaparral native to the area.
338
Mount Wilson /"
Elev 5710 ft/
/*-' ' x
58 i
Sturdavent
Elev 3225 ft (
PRECIPITATION
The precipitation-measuring network on the
Santa Anita Creek basin consists of 6 stations for a
14-year period ending with the 1962 water year.
The six sites provide good areal (fig. 7) and eleva-
tion (table 4) coverage of the annual precipitation
477 v ->.
Spring Camp* \
* y
\..__
EXPLANATION
Big Santa Anita dam
Rainfall, nonrecording station Elev1400 ft

Rainfall, recording station
2 MILES
Streamflow, recording station
FIGURE 7. Santa Anita Creek basin, above the stream-
gaging station near Pasadena, Calif.
TABLE 4. Mean annual rainfall, Santa Anita Creek basin,
California, 1949-62
Station
No.
58 _______
60________
63__ . . _.
338_
432 __ _ _
477.
Station
name
Mount Wilson _
Fern Lodge ____
Spring Camp _
Elevation
(ft)
3,225
2,500
1,400
5,710
2,035
4,670
Mean
annual
rainfall
(in.)
30.57
30.44
19.47
25.21
26.30
2 28.89
Deviation
from
basin
mean 1
(percent)
+ 3.2
-13.5
+ 0.6
Basin mean
Thiessen method:
Three stations 3 _
Elevation-area method __ -
28.3
29.5
29.5
1 Basin mean used was 29.5 inches.
2 Adjusted on the basis of double-mass analysis.
3 Stations 60, 338, and 477.
in the basin. A double-mass analysis of the 14-year
annual precipitation values show fair measurement
consistency among the 6 stations. Three sites with
continuous recorders (stas. 477, 60, 338) provided
the rainfall data required by the simulation model.
Two methods were used to determine the basin
mean annual rainfall during the 14-year period
(table 4). First, the standard Thiessen method gave
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS
PERCENTAGE OF AREA WITH ELEVATION LtSS THAN INDICATED VALUE
B13
6000
1000
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
MEAN ANNUAL (1949-62) RAINFALL, IN INCHES
32 36
FIGURE 8. The relation of mean annual rainfall and of area in the basin to elevation for the Santa Anita Creek
basin above the stream-gaging station near Pasadena, Calif.
a mean of 28.3 inches (71.9 cm) when all six sta-
tions were considered and a mean of 29.5 inches
when only the three recording sites were used. The
second method, a numerical integration of the rela-
tionships for elevation-percent area obtained from
topographic maps and elevation-annual rainfall de-
nned by the six gage records (fig. 8), gave an an-
nual mean of 29.5 inches. A value of 29.5 inches was
chosen as the estimate of the mean annual rainfall
and was used to evaluate the relation of individual-
station rainfall to basin-mean rainfall.
The 24 storm periods selected for simulation had
both complete records of the rainfall occurring at
the three recording stations and a significant rise in
stream discharge. The records for the storm pe-
riods were converted to discharge voiumes for 15-
minute time intervals. Daily rainfall records were
used between storms. The storm data were com-
piled from gage charts provided by the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District.
STREAMFLOW
The streamflow data used for fitting the model to
the Santa Anita Creek basin were those for the
U.S. Geological Survey gaging station near Pasa-
dena, Calif. The site has been gaged since 1916.
The mean flow has been 5.5 cfs (0.16 m3 /sec) or 7.7
inches (0.2 m) (meters) per year. The maximum
flow of about 5,200 cfs (147 m3/sec) occurred in
March 1938. The peak discharges during the storm
periods selected for study ranged from 17 to 2,530
cfs (0.5 to 71.6 rnysec). (See table 5.)
TABLE 5. Simulated peak discharges, using fitted parameters
[Observed and simulated discharges, reported in cubic feet per second (cfs),
do not include base flow]
Storm
No.
Observed
discharge
(cfs)
Simulated discharge (cfs) with adjusted data (C) 1
Station
477 60 338
Mean
discharge 2
(cfs)
1
2 3
3 3
4
5
6
7
9 3 _.
103
2,529
1,472
338
194
342
45.8
30.6
108
34.1
50.1
660
150
156
111
361
16 ____ 332
17 ____ 837
18 3 ___ 709
19 ____ 243
20 ____ 15.4
21 3 ___ 58.4
22 ____ 55.0
23 ____ 91.2
24 ____ 1,235
Ul*_____
2,506
2,846
917
224
532
44.4
37.2
184
35.9
51.9
601
121
166
113
283
238
779
372
190
31.6
18.3
28.1
54.1
1,238
2.07
2,318
1,667
296
221
405
53.4
38.5
146
21.5
14.5
618
149
190
99.6
417
228
696
97.9
196
28.9
36.2
29.7
45.9
1.303
1.76
2,722
1,198
346
225
454
63.8
35.2
148
30.3
27.3
472
130
129
96.6
318
253
512
42.3
161
35.4
14.3
21.9
69.8
1,362
2.73
2,515
1,904
520
223
464
53.9
37.0
159
29.2
31.2
547
133
162
103
240
662
171
182
32.0
22.9
26.6
56.4
1,301
1.92
1 Set Cis data for each storm event adjusted to average basin volume.
2 Average of the simulated peaks for the three stations.
3 Not a component of the objective function used in optimization.
4 Ul is the sum of squared log deviations between recorded and simulated
flood peaks.
B14 SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
EVAPORATION
Daily values of pan evaporation at Tanbark Flat
were obtained from the Pacific Southwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. The Tanbark Flat climatic station
is located in the San Dimas Experimental Forest
about 10 miles (16 km) east of the Santa Anita
Creek basin and is at an elevation of 2,800 feet
(850 m). The mean annual evaporation from a
standard [U.S.] Weather Bureau pan is in excess
of 60 inches (1.5 m).
DATASCREENING
The amount of rainfall data available for the
Santa Anita Creek basin was sufficient to investi-
gate the effects of variability of measured rainfall
upon simulation results. The record of several storm
events indicated a large spatial variation in total
storm rainfall over the basin, as indicated by the
deviation in percent of measured storm volume at
each site from the weighted mean for each storm.
Several storms also appeared to have a large spa-
tial variation in total storm rainfall over the basin,
as indicated by the deviation in percent of measured
storm volume at each site from the weighted mean
for each storm. Several storms also appeared to
have a large spatial variation in rainfall intensities
over the basin. On the basis of preliminary screen-
ing, six storms of the 24 available for analysis were
not used in fitting the parameters. However, these
peaks were simulated, and results are shown in the
scatter diagrams. Only one of the excluded storms
might have significantly changed the results. The
records for that storm show extremely high intensi-
ties for very short periods of time; the 15-minute
time interval used to define the rainfall records
appears to be inadequate for an accurate simula-
tion for that storm. The purpose of screening is to
eliminate storms with extreme errors in data input,
so as to minimize the effect of data errors on the
fitting process.
PARAMETER DEFINITION
Nine model parameter determinations were made
as a series of three fittings for each of the three
rainfall stations (stations 60, 338, 477). The first
in the series of three fittings was made by using the
data as recorded at the stations (set A). These
results are analogous to those for simulation stud-
ies for which a single recording rain gage is avail-
able in a basin, and for which there is no basis for
adjusting the record to obtain a better estimate of
the mean basin rainfall.
The second series of parameter determinations
was made for each station by adjusting the recorded
storm volumes by a constant station factor (set B).
These factors were computed in order to adjust the
mean annual depth at the station site to 29.5 inches
(computed for basin mean annual rainfall, as ex-
plained earlier). These results are analogous to
those for simulation studies for which a recording
gage is available in a basin, and supplementary data
are available to determine an average annual rain-
fall on the basin and at the gaged site.
The third fit was made to the data with the storm
volumes adjusted to a three-station Thiessen weighted
mean for each event (set C) that is, the mean
basin volume was distributed in time in accordance
with the rainfall-intensity pattern for each individ-
ual station. These results are analogous to those for
simulation studies for which a recording gage plus
several nonrecording rain gages are available in a
basin. Thus, a weighted mean basin rainfall for
each storm can be derived.
To summarize, the various rainfall intensities are
adjusted as follows:
Set
A
B
C
Adjustment
R
a
where RH is the measured intensity for period i at
station /; R^ is the adjusted intensity used in the
given simulation set; a. ; is an average adjustment,
which is the ratio of mean annual rainfall over the
basin to the mean annual rainfall measured at
station j; and & i; is the ratio of average rainfall
over the basin for storm i to that volume measured
for storm i at station j.
The results of the nine fittings are given in
table 6. In addition to parameter values the average
squares of deviations between logarithms of simu-
lated and observed peaks, UI, is given for each set
of parameters. Table 5 shows the values of the
simulated peaks for data-set C. Figure 9 shows
typical scatter diagrams for data-set A.
PARAMETER SENSITIVITY
The sensitivity of the goodness of fit criterion to
changes in parameter values is helpful in discussing
parameter importance and simulation results. An
expression of sensitivity of the error criterion to
given parameters can be obtained by performing
repeated simulations while incrementing the pa-
rameters, holding all other parameters to their fitted
value, and observing the change in value of the fit-
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B15
TABLE 6. Fitted parameter values
[Input series: A, rainfall data as recorded; B, rainfall volumes adjusted
by mean annual factors; C, rainfall volumes adjusted by mean storm
factors. Figures shown in parentheses are average errors, in percent]
Parameter
identifier 1
Input
series
Station
477 60 338
SWF
EGF .
KSAT
BMSM
EVC _
DRN .
A 21
B 20
C 20
7.5
6.7
5.6
.32
.31
.32
4.1
4.0
3.5
.52
.59
.74
.049
.045
.056
RR ___________.
KSW ___-__ _.
171, fit criteria 2
A 1.14
B 1.08
C .96
2.4
2.5
2.6
.097(32)
.100(32)
.115(35)
22
20
18
6.1
5.9
6.5
.32
.32
.32
3.4
3.4
3.5
.73
.71
.72
.058
.057
.059
1.00
1.01
2.8
2.7
2.8
.123(35)
.122(35)
.098(32)
11
16
17
4.4
5.5
6.1
.31
.25
.31
2.1
3.6
3.5
.52
.80
.74
.030
.043
.057
1.03
.90
.95
2.2
2.3
2.3
.440( )
.438 (__)
.153(40)
1 For explanation of parameter identifier codes, see p. B3-B5.
2 A component of the objective function used in optimization. 171 is
the average of squared log deviations between recorded and simulated flood
peaks.
ting criterion. This gives no measure of interaction
of the parameters but is a simple measure of how
critically the simulation results are dependent upon
the individual parameters. The results of this pro-
cedure as applied to data set C for station 60
(table 6) are shown graphically in figure 10. The
figure is a plot of criterion value versus the per-
cent change in parameter values. Applying this
procedure to the other data sets produced similar
relationships.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The results of the nine separate optimization runs
three for each of the three stations are sum-
marized in table 6. Shown are fitted parameter
values and the resulting goodness of fit, 71, which
is the peak-simulation part of the total fitting cri-
terion used. The representativeness of the rainfall
data is least for inputs A, and most for inputs C.
As the data for the three records became more
nearly similar to each other, the fitted parameter
values would be expected to converge to common
values for the three stations. As the data become
more representative, the accuracy of fitting shoijld
increase, and the UI values should decrease. The
effects of the various'components of error can be
seen by comparing the variability of parameter
values and the goodness of fit between stations for
a given input set.
PARAMETER VALUES
Prediction depends upon the fitted parameter
values for the model, as well as upon the data used
for the prediction period. The more stable the esti-
mated parameter values, the better the possibility
of relating the fitted values to measures of the
basin. Thus, variability of fitted parameters for the
nine optimization runs may give insight into the
degree to which model parameters are influenced by
data errors.
A wide range in fitted parameter values resulted
when the data were used as recorded (input series
A) at the three stations. None of the three sets of
parameters can be considered unlikely when viewed
individually; however, together the sets of values
illustrate a possible range, depending on the data
representativeness. In practical application, the
available data may consist of only one record, which
must be used without knowledge of its degree of
representativeness. The variability of fitted parame-
ter values, such as those for series A, will affect the
feasibility and accuracy of any regionalization of
parameter values.
Input series B contains both time-distribution and
total-volume errors but has been adjusted to reduce
the gaging bias resulting from errors in the esti-
mated mean annual precipitation over the basin.
The reduced range in parameter values, except for
KSAT and RR, indicates a better estimation than
was obtained in series A. The relative insensitivity
shown for KSAT in figure 10 is for the independ-
ent effect of KSAT in the first term of the Philip
infiltration equation. Accurate determination is not
possible and may not be important. The range of
RR values between series Aand B are about equal.
Values of RR greater than 1.0 reflect curve fitting
in the model, and result, in part, from the differ-
ences between rainfall measured at a given point
and average rainfall over the basin. No constraint
was placed on the value of RR for these optimiza-
tion runs.
Input series C has the same estimate for storm
volume at all stations for each storm. The only
variability is that introduced by the different time
distribution during a given storm, as recorded at
the three stations. All parameters have relatively
stable fitted values. The variation has been reduced
to within 10 percent for all parameters, with only
the infiltration parameters (SWF and RGF) and
the routing parameter (KSW) varying by more
than 5 percent. The overall correspondence of sta-
tion 477 to station 60 in series C is very close, espe-
B16 SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
1000
500
SECOND
8
K
111
Q.
Ill
111
^ 10
o
QD
D
" 5
z 1
.
, '
/ o
/
/.
.
0
*
/*
/
0
/
477
Spring Camp
1000
500
100
50
10

/
/
/
/

.
8
^/
/ '

/

0
/
338
Mount Wilson
} 50 100 500 1000 5000 "10 50 100 500 1000 500
EXPLANATION
i
o
en
Q 5000
*
25
Q.
LJ

E> 1000

en
500
100
50
10
10
Fitted peaks
60
Hoegees
Camp Ivy
Nonfitted peaks
5000
50 100 500 1000 5000
10
500 1000 5000
OBSERVED PEAK DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
FIGURE 9. Typical scatter diagrams for simulation results in the Santa Anita Creek basin. Results shown are for
optimum fits, using rainfall data without adjustment.
cially when the direct interaction of SWF and RGF
is considered.
FITTINGERRORS
The measure of goodness of fit, 171 (table 6), is
the average of the squared deviations between log-
arithms of computed and simulated peaks and is
analogous to a variance or the square of a standard
error.
Several components of error occur in the simula-
tion results. On the assumption that the errors are
independent, the results of a simulation run, stated
in terms of components of variance, can be repre-
sented as:
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS BIT
where Q is the variance of error in the computation
of discharge that results from measurement error,
from error in rating analysis, and from undefined
rating changes. M is the variance resulting from
the approximations used in the model that results
from the fact the physical laws are not exactly
known; where known, these laws may be approxi-
mated for convenience or speed in computation.
Both Q and M remain the same for all three sets
of data. R is the bias error resulting from the use
of incorrect mean annual rainfall values for the
basin. The purpose of the adjustments for data set
B was to minimize this bias as much as possible for
the given amount of data. This was accomplished,
as stated, by using all the data to estimate mean
basin rainfall and then adjusting each measured
station mean to the estimate of the basin mean.
V is error introduced owing to the fact that a point
measurement of volume for a given storm differs
from the mean basin volume for that storm. Adjust-
ments made to obtain input set C were intended to
minimize this error component. This was accom-
plished by using all data available to estimate mean
storm volume for each storm. T is error introduced
by the fact that point measurements of time vari-
ability of intensity during a storm differ, and any
point measurement differs from an "effective time
distribution" which best represents average condi-
tions over the basin for simulation purposes. Prob-
ably, the only way to minimize the component V
would be to use an input that varies over the basin.
C is the curve-fitting error introduced into the
model parameters by a fitting process. The parame-
ter values are perturbed from a global "best" set
of values in order to minimize the fitting criterion,
U, so that C is negative in sign. For use of the
model in prediction, the curve fitting adds to the
error. (See table 2.)
The fitted-error criteria of set Afor all three
stations are closely similar to those for set B, al-
though rainfall values for set Aare not adjusted to
mean basin conditions. The bias in the recorded
rainfall at each station was compensated for by the
curve-fitting ability of the model to adjust parame-
ter values. On the basis of these data, bias in
amount of recorded rainfall affects the resulting
fitted-parameter values, rather than the accuracy of
fit. Although the change in value of the fit criterion
was less than 1 percent, the parameter values for
station 338 changed so much that the parameter
values for set B have a maximum of 1.36 for the
2.5
2.0
1.5
D
-40 -20 0 20 40
CHANGE IN FITTED PARAMETERS, IN PERCENT
FIGURE 10. Typical response curves, showing sensi-
tivity of fitting criterion to percentage changes in
parameter values. Results are for station 60 time
distribution applied to Thiessen weighted storm-
rainfall volumes.
B18 SYNTHESIS INHYDROLOGY
ratio of highest to lowest value, the ratio for pa-
rameter EVC. For set A, five parameters (SWF,
RGF, BMSM, EVC, and DRN) had ratios greater
than 1.36. The fitted-parameter value for station
338 is one of the extreme values for each of those
five parameters in both sets Aand B. Thus, the
errors seem to be transferred from the data to
the parameters, as is particularly evident for sta-
tion 338.
Input set C contains variability among the three
inputs only in the time distribution of rainfall. The
goodness of fit for this set ranged from 0.098 for
station 60 to 0.153 for station 338. Converting the
range value of 0.055 to an average percentage error
for the peak discharges yields an estimated 23-
percent error in peak-discharge reproduction, in-
troduced by time variability alone. The fitted pa-
rameter for a basin having this degree of variation
in rainfall patterns also reflects the relative smooth-
ing action introduced by the model and, hopefully,
by the hydrology; nonetheless, an average error
of as much as 20 percent for simulated flood peaks
can be intrwiuced by the time-distribution error
alone. Considering only the two better, or seem-
ingly more representative gages, the difference in
fitted Ul values is 0.017, which gives an average
percentage error of 13 percent, introduced by time-
distribution error in a good record.
In set C, the most representative gage, in terms
of goodness of fit, was that closest to the center of
the basins; the least representative was that on the
perimeter and at the highest elevation of the basin.
Therefore, relative representativeness was found to
be about as expected.
Input set B contains both time-distribution er-
rors within a given storm and storm-volume errors.
The records were adjusted to minimize only the
station bias in relation to basin mean annual rain-
fall. The results of input set B runs indicate that
station 477 probably is the most representative
station for predicting storm volumes, just as results
of input set C runs indicate that station 60 prob-
ably is the most representative for time distribu-
tion of rainfall during a storm.
An estimate of the volume-error component for
station 60 should be, approximately, the sum of the
differences between the values of the objective func-
tions for the runs of input sets B and C for the two
stations. This follows from the fact that the B runs
contain both volume and time errors. Therefore,
other errors being constant,
F60 - V477 = C760 - #477 + 7* 477 - ^0 = 0.022
+ 0.017 = 0.039
yields an estimate for the volume-error component.
Thus, volume errors can introduce as much as 0.04
to Ul, which is on the order of 20 percent errors.
The compounding of the time-distribution errors of
station 477 and the storm-volume errors of station
60 would give a Ul value of 0.057, which leads to a
possible combined rainfall-data-error component on
the order of a 24-percent standard error.
EFFECT OF SCREENED DATA
All data used in fitting was screened for gross
flyers, or outliers. The fitted parameters will predict
within the indicated range of accuracy for other
data containing the same range of errors as in the
screened data. The screened data used for fitting
contain the usual range of errors normally intro-
duced. However, grossly inadequate or unrepresen-
tative data will produce outliers well beyond the
errors of the indicated prediction. If data are grossly
in error, modeling results using such data should
also be expected to be in error.
ACCURACY OF SIMULATIONFOR SANTAANITABASIN
In general, accuracy of simulation of flood peaks
for the 18 peaks used in the analysis was on the
order of a standard error of 32 to 35 percent. Errors
introduced by rainfall variability over the basin
were on the order of 24 percent. Assuming that data
errors and model errors were independent, other
sources of error are believed to have contributed
about the same amount to the total error. This fol-
lows from the fact that, with independence of
errors, variances should be additive. Therefore, the
variance contributed by data error (242 = 576) plus
that contributed by model approximations (M) is
equal to the total variance (342 = 1,156). To re-
duce errors of simulation on this basin, the rainfall
input must be refined by the use of information
from more than one gage or by some means of using
estimates of areal variability in the model other than
by the assumption of uniform-rainfall distribution,
as is assumed in the model.
BEETREE BASIN
GENERALPHYSIOGRAPHY
Beetree Creek drains an area of 5.41 square miles
(14 sq km) of rough terrain near Swannanoa, N.C.,
on the western slope of the Great Craggy Moun-
tains in the Blue Ridge province of the Appalachian
Highlands (Fenneman, 1938). Land and channel
slopes are steep, with elevations ranging from 2,700
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B19
feet (820 m) at the stream-gaging station to 5,600
feet (1,700 m) at the headwater-drainage divide.
The basin is approximately rectangular, having a
main channel length of about 3.2 miles (5.1 km)
and an average width of about 1.5 miles (2.4 km).
The index of channel slope, given by the ratio of fall
over the reach of channel from 0.1 to 0.85 of main
channel length, is 490 feet per mile (0.00928 ft per
ft). The predominant soil is mapped as "stony
rough land of Porters soil material" and described
as a gray-brown podzolic type derived from granite,
gneiss, and schist (Goldstone and others, 1954).
Practically all the land supports native forest, with
small areas of pasture at lower elevations.
PRECIPITATION
The Tennessee Valley Authority has operated a
recording rain gage since 1935 at the Beetree Dam,
4,000 feet (1,200 m) downstream from the stream-
gaging station. For the period 1935-59 the mean
annual precipitation was measured as 46.4 inches
(1.18 m) (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1961). In
1948 new equipment was installed for the recording
gage, and problems of calibration caused the instal-
lation of a nonrecording rain gage beside the record-
ing gage. In addition, a recording gage has been
maintained at various points in the upper area of
the basin, as indicated in figure 11.
Data for 40 flood events that occurred during the
period from April 1936, through October 1964 were
assembled by personnel of the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey from published records and copies of original
recording charts. Storm-period rainfall data were
compiled on the basis of 15-minute time intervals.
An analysis of annual rainfall data indicated that
an inconsistency occurred in the Beetree Creek dam
record in 1949. A review of the history of the rain
gage showed that a change in instrumentation was
made in July 1948, when the originally installed
Ferguson recording gage was replaced by a Univer-
sal recording gage. On the basis of this informa-
tion, 16 flood events prior to July 1948 were se-
lected for detailed study.
STREAMFLOW
The streamflow data used for fitting the model to
the Beetree Creek basin were those for the U.S.
Geological Survey gaging station near Swannanoa,
N.C. The site has been gaged since 1926. The mean
discharge during the period 1926-60 was 10.4 cfs
(0.29 m3 per sec) or 25 inches over the basin (0.64
m). The maximum flow of 1,370 cfs (39 m3 per
sec) occurred August 13, 1940. The peak discharges
during the periods selected for study ranged from
82 to 1,370 cfs (2.3 to 39 m3 per sec), as shown in
table 7.
TABLE 7. Storm-period data
Storm
No.
1
3
5
7
9 _
11
13
15______
2
4 _
6
8
10
12
14
16
Date
Sample
Apr. 4, 5, 1936 _
Nov. 14, 15, 1938 -
Aug. 17, 18, 1939
Aug. 29, 30, 1940_
Aug. 24, 25, 1941-
Mar. 8, 9, 1942
Sept. 20, 21, 1944
Oct. 5, 6, 1945____
Sample
Oct. 15, 16, 1936
Jan. 29, 30, 1938
Aug. 11, 13, 1940
Dec. 27, 28, 1940
Feb. 16, 17, 1942
Dec. 29, 30, 1942
Mar. 26, 27, 1945
Feb. 10, 11, 1946
Storm
rainfall
(in.)
A
2.08
2.29
2.49
7.36
1.22
1.27
1.42
2.22
> B
3.08
1.74
10.33
2.59
1.72
2.06
1.88
1.82
Peak
discharge
(cfs)
220
82
236
1,180
94
151
115
117
218
167
1,370
263
107
208
100
141
Surface
runoff
(in.)
0.66
12
.50
4.28
.15
.43
.09
.39
0.62
.43
4.42
.59
.26
.74
.28
.41
EVAPORATION
Daily values of pan evaporation were obtained
from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which main-
tains a climatic station 4,000 feet (1,200 m) down-
stream from the gaging station, at an elevation of
2,540 feet (770 m). The evaporation record has
been collected since 1935, and during the period
1935-59, the average annual pan evaporation was
39.9 inches (1.01m).
PARAMETER DEFINITION
To facilitate a split-sample comparison of the re-
sults of simulation, the screened test sample of 16
storms was divided into two sets of eight storm
events each. To achieve an approximate balance in
the range in magnitude of peak-discharge rates rep-
resented in each sample, the odd-numbered events
were selected to make up sample A, and the even-
numbered events were assigned to sample B. A
summary of the storm-period data appears in
table 7.
Three types of optimization were performed on
the pre-1948 flood events. First, sample A was used
for fitting, and optimum model parameters were
derived to predict the events of sample B. In the
second, sample B was used for fitting to produce a
set of optimum parameters used to predict sam-
ple A. In the third, all 16 events were used to de-
B20 SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
1934-48^ ^1948-50 ' -,
Beetree Gap
EXPLANATION
Streamflow, recording station
Rainfall, recording station
D
Evaporation gage
1 MILE
1 KILOMETER
268
Beetree Dam
(Established 1927)
FIGURE 11. Beetree Creek basin, above the stream-gaging station
near Swannanoa, N.C.
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B21
termine the best-fit parameters for the pre-1948
record.
In each optimization run, a 5-week period of daily
rainfall and pan evaporation was monitored, prior
to the first storm event, to reduce the effect of arbi-
trarily initializing storage values for SMS and BMS
(0 and BMSM, respectively). A similar lead-in pe-
riod was used for all basins and for all results
shown in this paper. In addition, initial optimiza-
tion runs for all three types were started with the
same set of initial-parameter values. These were
assigned on the basis of (1) assumptions about
average soil characteristics, (2) an estimate of the
ratio of potential evapotranspiration to pan evapo-
ration, and (3) the recession and timing charac-
teristics of observed flood hydrographs.
Results for the three optimization runs are given
in table 8. Both the optimum fitted-parameter values
TABLE 8. Results of fitting of model parameters to data
and of split-sample testing for Beetree Creek near
Swannanoa, N.C.
and the fitted-objective-function values are shown.
In addition, for each set of eight peaks used for
fitting, the remaining set of eight peaks is used as a
test sample, and the accuracy of prediction is shown.
An adjusted accuracy of prediction is also given, in
which the peak value most in error is removed from
the predicted set, to give some indication of the
effect of extreme errors on the fitting criterion.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
The response of the objective function during two
optimization runs is shown in figure 12. Figure 12A
shows the response with sample A as the control
used for estimation of parameters, and the corre-
sponding response for the test-sample B used for
2.0
1.5
10
EXPLANATION
Control-sample A
Test-sample B
o oo ooo o _
20 40 60 80
NUMBER OF TRIALS
RESPONSE OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTION DURING
OPTIMIZATION TO CONTROL-SAMPLE A
A
[Figures in parentheses are root mean square error presented
as average percentage]
Parameter
identifier *
SWF .. .
KSAT.(in.
KSW
EVC
BMSM
RGF
RR
US:
A
B
All
Optimum fitted-parameter value
- (in.)
per hr)_
____(hr)_
- (in.)
per hr)_
Test adjusted 3 _
Sample A
3.36
0.101
4.97
0.597
1.60
14.0
0.78
0.0050
0.069(27)
2 0.132
0.101(32)
0.079(28)
Sample B
4.26
0.097
6.24
0.541
1.67
8.15
0.81
0.0051
2 0.191
0.099(32)
2 0.145
0.098(32)
1 For explanation of parameter identifier codes, see p. B5;
of US, see p. B9.
2 Average error not computed.
8 Peak most in error is removed from the predicted set.
All storms
3.62
0.095
5.67
0.58
1.87
14.0
0.75
0.0048
0.074(27)
0.107(33)
0.090(30)
for explanation
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
EXPLANATION

Control-sample B
Test-sample A
20 40 60
NUMBER OF TRIALS
80
RESPONSE OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTION DURING
OPTIMIZATION TO CONTROL-SAMPLE B
B
FIGURE 12. Response of objective function during opti-
mization with the split sample for Beetree Creek basin.
The control sample in each response is included in the
optimization procedure, and the concurrent value of the
objective function for the test sample is shown for
comparison.
independent prediction of flood peaks. Similarly,
figure 12 B illustrates the results of optimization
with sample B used as the control. In both re-
sponses, the rate of improvement of the objective
function for the control samples decreased markedly,
B22 SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
with little progress achieved after about 30 trials,
when a plateau of best fit was noted. Rapid im-
provement of the objective function during the
early stage of fitting, followed by an extended period
of decreasing improvement, is a characteristic of
the optimization procedure. Figure 12A shows that
test-sample B is virtually unaffected by, and inde-
pendent of, parameter adjustments made to improve
the goodness-of-fit measured over control-sample A.
However, figure 12 B shows that the response of the
error criterion for test-sample A is strongly related
to that of control-sample B during the early stage
of optimization. Eventually, the response diverges,
becoming progressively worse after a near-optimum
solution has been achieved for the control sample.
The degradation of the error criterion measured
over test-sample A (fig. 12 B) can be attributed to
the influence of episodes of low magnitude that
produced highly variable simulated-flood runoff in
response to small changes in the parameters associ-
ated with antecedent-moisture accounting. However,
the variable response of these events does not appear
to bias the parameters generated from a control
sample in which they are included. For example,
the results of simulation for test-sample B, using
parameter values derived for control-sample A,
compare favorably with the results based on optimi-
zation. Furthermore, the results of simulation for
test-sample A are similar to those based on optimi-
zation, when the influence of those events is dis-
counted. With the exclusion of event 9, for instance,
the objective function for test-sample A would be
reduced by about 50 percent and would compare
favorably with a best-fit results of 0.069, illustrat-
ing the fact that an understanding of the distribu-
tion of error is important in evaluating the results
of optimization.
The simulated response from the split-sample fit-
ting and testing procedure is shown in figure 13.
Figure 13A is a scatter diagram of observed versus
simulated flood peaks based on optimization to sam-
ple A. Similarly, figure 13J? shows the observed
versus simulated peaks based on optimization to
sample B. Figure 13C shows the scatter of fit, using
all 16 events in the optimization. The distribution
of errors is related both to the approximations and
simplifications inherent in the hydrologic model and
to the errors in storm rainfall, known to vary con-
siderably throughout the area.
The analysis of objective-function response to
change in optimum-parameter values offers a means
of evaluating the significance of the optimum solu-
tion and illustrates interaction between individual
1000
100
EXPLANATION

Control-sample A
o
Test-sample B
100 1000
1000
100
EXPLANATION

Control-sample B
o
Test-sample A
100 1000
5
CO
1000
100
/
/
EXPLANATION
Control-sample, 16 pre-1948 events
/
/
/

^
/"

y/
*


x
/
/
/
/
7
/
/
7*^-^-
100 1000
OBSERVED PEAK DISCHARGE,IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
C
FIGURE 13. Scatter diagrams for simulation re-
sults in the Beetree Creek basin. In A and B,
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OP FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B23
the results are shown for the split-sample opti-
mization, in which the control sample used for
the optimization and the test sample are plotted
together for comparison. In C the results of opti-
mization, using all 16 events with no split-sample
testing, are shown.
parameters and groups of parameters. However,
the objective function will be importantly influenced
by the nature of the events over which it is com-
puted and may not reflect the overall significance
of model parameters. For example, figure 14 shows
the response of the objective function, at 5-percent
increments from the optimum value of the parame-
ter RR, for both control-samples A and B (RR =
0.78 and 0.81, respectively). The plots indicate that
optimization provided best-fit solutions for both
samples, in that the objective function would be
degraded by either positive or negative incrementa-
tions. However, the objective function computed
for sample B is much less sensitive to the parameter
RR than is that for sample A. The sensitivity of
Control-sample A

Control-sample B
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
PERCENT DEVIATION FROM OPTIMUM
FIGURE 14. Response of the objective function to changes
from the optimum value of parameter RR. Sample A
is much more sensitive to changes in RR, indicating
that antecedent-soil-moisture conditions are more im-
portant in the determination of flood volumes and
peaks for that sample.
RR for control-sample A results from the critical
nature of antecedent-soil-moisture conditions in de-
termining the peak of several of the smaller storms.
The sensitivity for sample A is highly related to
one event. Deletion of event No. 9 has little effect
for drier conditions (RR small), but brings control-
samples A and B into relative agreement for wetter
conditions (RR large). Apparently too high a value
of RR causes event 9 to be overestimated, and the
optimum value (0.780) is a result of reducing this
value sufficiently to estimate event 9 without re-
ducing the accuracy of estimation of other events.
Note that without event 9, a value of RR of 0.819
yields a lower error for the remaining eight events
than does the overall optimum value of 0.78.
The final optimization to determine best-fit pa-
rameters for the pre-1948 flood events produced an
objective function of 0.090. Results of the optimiza-
tion procedure are given in table 8 for several dif-
ferent test runs. With the sample of 16 events, the
model produces a fit very similar to that achieved
for the smaller control samples. For example, the
magnitude of errors in the optimum solution for all
storm events was only 8 percent greater than the
average of the objective functions for the control-
samples A and B.
Inspection of objective-function sensitivity for
each of the three control samples indicated a con-
sistent hierarchy of parameter influence. The pa-
rameters associated with the method of antecedent-
moisture accounting (RR, EVC, DRN) grossly con-
trolled the objective function. The Philip infiltration
parameters (SWF, KSAT) and the routing coeffi-
cient (KSW) were intermediate in importance. The
range factor (RGF) and field-capacity-moisture
storage (BMSM) had little influence on the objec-
tive function for the various control samples and
may be poorly identified.
A sufficient number of events is not the only re-
quirement to obtain a meaningful identification of
model parameters. Equally important is the need
for a wide range in both antecedent and storm-
period conditions. For example, if all the flood
events included in a control sample were associated
with similar antecedent conditions, then one or
more of the parameters may exert little influence
on the results of simulation and be poorly identi-
fied, and others may be "overdetermined." In addi-
tion, an interpretation of the hierarchy of parame-
ter sensitivity must be tempered by not only an
understanding of the limitations of the model and
its lack of equivalence to the physical system, but
also by careful evaluation of the characteristics of
B24
SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
the criterion used to express the sensitivity. The
response of low-magnitude events to small changes
in some parameter values prevents a straightfor-
ward assessment of model sensitivity and demon-
strates the need for development of alternative
measures of sensitivity.
The authors cannot overstress that in the split-
sample testing for this station, eight events were
used to determine eight model parameters. This
clearly places this study in the area of small-
sample theory. The relative consistency of results,
both in accuracy and in derived parameter values,
is therefore very encouraging. The various results
of split-sample testing indicate that the root-mean-
square error of prediction is about 30 percent for
these data, with, apparently, about one small storm
being grossly in error for each test.
LITTLE BEAVER BASIN
GENERALPHYSIOGRAPHY
The Little Beaver Creek drainage basin is a 6.41-
square-mile (16.6 sq km) area of the Gasconade
Hills in the Ozark Mountains, just west of Rolla, Mo.
The range in elevation is from 790 feet (240 m) at
the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station to 1,180
feet (360 m). The gently rolling hills are covered
with a stony porous soil. Rainfall in the southerly
facing basin is fairly evenly distributed throughout
the year, although the amounts are somewhat
greater in the summer than in the winter.
PRECIPITATION
The U.S. Geological Survey maintains a recording
rain gage the Rolla 3-W gage near the center
of the basin. (See fig. 15.) The record obtained
from that gage was used for simulation of rainfall
for the entire 1948-64 period of record. In addition,
a rain gage is maintained at the Missouri School of
Mines and Metallurgy, about 1 mile east of the east
boundary of the basin. The average annual rainfall
during the period 1948-64 was 36.7 inches (0.93 m).
Data for 29 flood events during the period 1948-
64 were reduced to rainfall intensities for 15-minute
intervals. These storms were split into a control
sample of 14 events during the period 1948-53 and
a test period of 15 events during the period 1954-64.
STREAMFLOW
The streamflow data used for fitting the model to
the Little Beaver Creek basin were those recorded
at the U.S. Geological Survey stream-gaging sta-
EXPLANATION
1 MILE
FIGURE 15. Little Beaver Creek basin, above the stream-
gaging station near Rolla, Mo.
tion near Rolla, Mo. The site has been gaged since
1948. The mean discharge for the period of record
1948-64 was 3.77 cfs (0.11 m3 per sec) or 11.1
inches (0.28 m) throughout the basin. The maxi-
mum flow of 7,420 cfs (210 m3 per sec) occurred
July 17, 1958. The annual peak discharges during
the period of study varied from 524 cfs (15 m3 per
sec) to 7,420 cfs (210 m3 per sec). However, indi-
vidual peaks selected for the present study were as
low as 200 cfs (5.8 m3 per sec).
EVAPORATION
Daily values of pan evaporation, obtained from
the U.S. Weather Bureau, were recorded at the pan
evaporation station at Lakeside, Mo., located about
45 miles west of the Little Beaver Creek basin and
at an elevation of 595 feet (181 m). The average pan
evaporation during the period 1948-64 was 53
inches (1.35 m).
PARAMETER DEFINITION
Three sets of model-parameter determinations
were made, using the control period 1948-53. The
results of these fittings plus two sets of starting
parameters are given in table 9. The first derivation
was of set 2 from the starting set 1. The accuracy
of fit of 0.065 gives a standard error of fit of about
25 percent. The value of RR of 0.98 seemed to be
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B25
TABLE 9. Results of fitting of model parameters to data for Little Beaver Creek
near Rolla, Mo., using the Rolla 3 -W rain gage
Parameter
indicator 1
SWF
KSAT _
KSW
EVC
BMSM
RGF
RR
DRN
[71 .
_ (in.) _
. _ __ (hr)
(in.)
(in. per hr)
Start
Setl
2.0
0.1
1.0
0.7
2.0
10.0
0.8
0.1
Optimum
Set 2
2.5
0.08
2 1.0
0.56
2.8
9.4
0.98
0.02
0.065
Set3
10.1
0.07
2 1.0
2 0.56
2.3
9.3
2 0.8
0.02
0.075
Start
Set 4
4.0
0.05
0.85
0.55
3.0
10.0
0.85
0.025
0.061
Optimum
Sets
4.1
0.047
0.84
0.52
2.4
11.7
2 0.85
0.022
0.055
i Test
(Set 5
parameters)
4.1
0.047
0.84
0.52
2.4
11.7
0.85
0.022
0.073
Standard error
25 27 25 23 27
1 For explanation of parameter identifier codes, see p. B3-B5; for I/I, see p. B9.
2 Parameter values held constant for the run indicated.
high and was believed to be too much of a curve-
fitting parameter. Therefore, set 3 was derived by
fixing the evaporation pan coefficient (EVC) at its
optimum value and the daily-rainfall-infiltration co-
efficient (RR) at 0.8. A lower limit for RR should
be 0.7, because the mean annual flow is about 30
percent of the mean annual rainfall. Therefore, 0.8
to 0.85 is a reasonable value. The accuracy of fit
for the parameters for set 3 is 0.075, or about 27
percent.
On the basis of hydrograph plots for the results
of set 3, the routing component was recomputed.
Both the time-area histrogram and the surface rout-
ing coefficient (KSW) were revised, and KSW was
included in the next optimization run. RR was held
fixed at 0.85. The fit of set 5 is 0.055, which yields
about a 23-percent accuracy. The test group of 15
floods during the period 1954-64 were then simu-
lated with set 5 parameter values. The accuracy.of
fit for the test-set was 0.073, which yields an esti-
mate of 27 percent for a standard error of pre-
diction.
A separate fitting for the Little Beaver Creek
basin was made to the Missouri School of Mines and
Metallurgy rain gage, which lies outside the basin.
The results of the fitting are given in table 10. A
comparison of rainfall volumes for the two gages
and of the simulated volumes and peaks is shown in
table 11.
TABLE 10. Results of fitting of model parameters to data for
Little Beaver Creek near Rolla, Mo., using the Missouri
School of Mines and Metallurgy rain gage
Parameter
indicator
Start
1
Optimum
2
SWF _______________________(in.)__ 4.0
KSAT ________________(in. per hr)__ .05
KSW ________________________(hr) __ .85
EVC ____________________ .55
BMSM ______________________(in.)__ 3.0
RGF ______________________________ 10.0
RR ________________________________ .85
DRN __________________(in. per hr) __ .025
[71 (13 events) ___________ 0.21
Standard error ___(percent) 46
[71 (9 events)___________ 0.121
Standard error ___(percent) 35
1.75
.063
.97
.39
2.2
8.0
1 .85
.038
0.19
44
0.099
31
1 Parameter value held fixed for the run.
TABLE 11. Comparison of estimates for flood volumes and peaks for Little Beaver Creek
by the use of the two rain gages
Measured
Date
6-17-48 __________
6-2-49 2 __________
7-22-49 ___________
10-11-49 _________
10-20-49 __ _____
1-13-50 ____
4-10-50 _____ -
5-19-50 ____ ____
5-26-50 _ __ _____
6-9-50 _________
6-22-51 ____ _
6-30-51 ____ __
4-23-53 _____
5-17-53 _ _________
Runoff
(in.)
_____ 0.12
____ _ 1.05
_____ .33
9 7fi
_ ____ .55
_ __ .64
24
._ __ _ 1.06
_ __ .25
.- __ 1.78
.-____ .31
. _ 1.64
____ .73
.15
Peak 1
(cfs)
376
1,228
1,199
3,121
1,142
1,348
811
1,575
742
4,177
848
2,079
2,054
416
Measured
RF
(in.)
1.17
2.59
1.21
4.26
1.33
1.03
.85
1.85
1.34
3.36
1.16
2.40
1.56
.56
Rolla 3-W
rain gage
Missouri School of Mines and
Metallurgy rain gage
Simulated
1
Runoff
(in.)
0.13
.82
.47
2.90
.79
.38
.37
.94
.43
1.73
.38
1.35
.74
.10
Peak 1
(cfs)
351
1,328
1,253
2,848
1,639
990
1,053
1,446
1,167
3,683
979
1,514
1,829
301
Measured
rainfall
(in.)
0.76
.89
.85
8 6.05
.95
1.10
.88
1.77
8 .48
8 2.01
1.08
2.67
8 2.66
.38
Simulated
Runoff
(in.)
0.21
.47
4.64
.54
.49
.52
.92
.15
1.33
.58
1.69
2.19
.11
Peak 1
(cfs)
545
1~247
3,589
1,321
1,124
1,392
1,145
406
2,461
1,338
2,218
5,380
308
1 Peak rates are surface-runoff rates only; base flow has been subtracted from the measured rate.
2 Not included in the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy optimization because the measured
storm runoff exceeded the measured rainfall.
8 Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy gage storm rainfall apparently grossly in error.
B26
SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
Two conclusions can be drawn from this second
fitting. First, the School of Mines gage is not an
adequately representative measure of rainfall on
the basin, even though it is just outside the basin.
The growth of trees in the vicinity of the gage
created an increasing amount of interference effects.
In 1956 the gage was moved 100 feet to the south
to correct the problems of measurement caused by
the trees. The accuracy of fit is 44 percent. Five
measured storm volumes are grossly different from
those measured for Rolla 3-W. One of the five was
excluded from the fitting, but the other four influ-
enced the fitting and probably caused the higher
value of KSW and reduced volumes of infiltration.
However, the School of Mines gage does given some
indication of the effect of variability of storm vol-
ume over the basin. For nine of the 14 storms, the
Rolla 3-W gage simulation overestimated peaks
when its measured storm volume exceeded that at
the School of Mines. This held true for seven of the
nine peaks above 1,000 cfs, and for nine of the 12
above 500 cfs. Therefore, although the School of
Mines gage alone gives much less accurate results
than those for Rolla 3-W, the two sets of results
used together could give a better estimate for flood-
peak simulation.
COMPARISONOF DERIVED PARAMETER
VALUES
The model is based, at least in part, upon a simu-
lation of the physical processes operating upon the
basin modeled. The parameter values derived should
therefore be related to the physical parameters in-
volved. However, the model is a bulk-parameter
model that is, it models all the infiltration in the
basin as if it were uniform over the basin. The
parameter values derived are in some way optimal
average values and can be, at best, indices to the
"true" parameters or to their distribution over the
basin.
If the model is to be used in regional studies, it
can serve either of two purposes: First, it can be
used to extend a record in time. For that use, the
most important consideration is the error of pre-
diction. For the three basins for which results are
presented in this study, a standard error of pre-
diction of about 30 to 35 percent was achieved. This
was found to be largely dependent upon the accu-
racy of rainfall measurement. In particular, the use
of a single rain gage to estimate rainfall variability
over the basin seems to introduce an error of about
20 to 25percent into the simulation. A decision must
be made as to whether the point rainfall data that
produce errors of this magnitude add information
to the record. Second, the model can be used in
regional studies by relating the derived parameter
values to physical characteristics measurable in the
basins which are simulated. The derived relations
could then be used to estimate parameter values for
ungaged sites. The accuracy of prediction in this
use would be a function both of the errors in rain-
fall input and of the errors in predicted values for
the model parameters. This accuracy of prediction
would be compared to the accuracy of flood-
frequency methods presently in use.
The derived parameter values for the three basins
used in this developmental study are shown in
table 12. All are reasonable values. However, there
TABLE 12. Summary of results of optimization
for the three study basins
Parameter
indicator
Basin
Santa Anita
Creek
Beetree
Creek
Little Beaver
Creek
SWF ________(in.)__
KSAT._ (in. per hr) __
KSW ________(hr)__
EVC
BMSM _______(in.)
RGF
RR
DRN _ (in. per hr)__
L ____________(mi) _
S _ (ft per ft)
L VS
1 (RO/RF)
20
.32
2.7
.73
3.5
6
1.0
.058
4.7
.12
13.5
.74
3.6
.1
5.7
.58
1.9
14
.75
.005
3.2
.00928
33.5
.46
4.1
.05
.84
.52
2.4
12
.85
.022
3.25
.0124
29.3
.7
are too few results to draw any general conclusions
at this time. Each parameter will be discussed as
to its relation among stations and the reasons for
variability. RR is a measure of percentage of in-
filtration for daily rainfall amounts for periods not
simulated in detail, either because rainfall amounts
are too small or because records are not accurate
enough to use for detailed simulation. Also shown
in table 12 are values of 1 minus the ratio of meas-
ured runoff to measured rainfall for each basin
during the study period. This sets a lower limit on
RR, and for each basin the fitted value exceeds this
lower limit. Actually, the lower limit should be
somewhat higher, because all base flow should be
subtracted from the runoff to derive the limiting
value. Beetree Creek basin has the highest base
flow; thus, the fitted value exceeding the limiting
value by a relatively large amount is consistent.
KSAT, SWF, and RGF determine the infiltration
equation during detailed storm simulation and,
therefore, should be discussed together. SWF de-
termines the soil-suction characteristics for wet con-
ditions, SWF multiplied by RGF determines them
SIMULATION MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF FLOOD PEAKS FOR SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS B27
for dry conditions, and KSAT represents the soil's
saturated permeability, or minimum infiltration
rate. The range of soil suction is from 4 to 50 inches
(10 to 125 cm) for both Beetree Creek and Little
Beaver Creek basins, and is from 20 to 120 inches
(50 to 300 cm) for Santa Anita Creek basin. Com-
parable experimental ranges for a sandy loam are
about 30 to 130 centimeters for Yolo sandy loam,
and 30 to 200 centimeters for Yolo silt loam (Col-
man and Bodman, 1944). Seemingly, the minimum
infiltration rates are anomalous for the measured
basins, in that 0.3 inches per hour seems to cor-
respond to a sandy loam rate, whereas 0.05 to 0.10
inches per hour seems to correspond to a rate for a
silt loam (Musgrave, 1055). Some attempts should
be made to relate the fitted values to ring infiltro-
meter or other data collected for study basins.
BMSM represents an effective maximum soil-
moisture retention, and the low values indicate shal-
low soils. Of the three study basins, Beetree Creek
basin appears to have the thinnest effective soil
mantle, and Santa Anita Creek basin, the least shal-
low. This agrees qualitatively with descriptions of
the geology and soils. DRN represents the drainage
rate from the saturated layer to the unsaturated
layer. This parameter is critical for determining the
antecedent conditions for some storms, but has no
effect on most storms. Therefore, it is probably
poorly defined for all basins. The derived values are
considerably less than KSAT in each basin (which
is as expected), but nothing can be said as to the
reasonableness of the values otherwise.
EVC should represent an effective average pan
coefficient for the basin. However, this meaning is
compounded by the fact that for each basin a cor-
rection also must be made to adjust the pan evapo-
ration to average basin conditions. For Little Beaver
Creek basin, the nearest pan evaporation record was
45 miles away; for Santa Anita Creek basin it was
10 miles away; for Beetree Creek basin the evapo-
ration record was nearby, but at a lower elevation.
All records are for U.S. Weather Bureau Class A
pans, for which the pan coefficient should range
from 0.6 to 0.8. EVC should be somewhat lower than
these values, if an altitude correction is involved.
Little or no altitude correction should be necessary
for Santa Anita Creek basin, as the pan is at an
elevation well above the lowest point in the ba^in.
Both of the other records are for sites at elevations
below the lowest point in the basin, and for Little
Beaver Creek basin, considerably lower. Therefore,
the derived values seem to be of the right order of
magnitude.
Neither the hydrograph recession rate (KSW)
nor the translation hydrograph ordinates enter di-
rectly into the fitting process, as both are derived
from the measured hydrograph shapes. The Little
Beaver basin has an unusually rapid recession.
Values of L/VS are shown, where L is the length
of the main channel, in miles, and S is the slope
of the basin, in feet per foot, for the reach from
10 percent to 85 percent of the distance from the
discharge gaging station to the point on the ridge
that represents the extension of the main channel
(Benson, 1962). Although L/VS values for Beetree
Creek and Little Beaver Creek basins are very
similar, the values of KSW differ by a ratio of 7.
Santa Anita Creek basin is consistent with Beetree
Creek basin in this regard, in that both L/VS and
KSW are about half the values for Beetree. The
reason for the anomalous value for Little Beaver
Creek basin is unknown, but it may be related to
the drainage pattern. Both Santa Anita Creek and
Beetree Creek basins are dendritic, whereas Little
Beaver Creek basin seems to be more palmate.
SOURCES OF ERROR AND THEIR IMPACT
The accuracy of fit for the three basins studied
was similar. An accuracy of about a 30-percent
standard error is obtainable. The detailed study for
Santa Anita Creek basin indicated that about a
20-percent standard error was attributable to rain-
fall sampling alone. If the rainfall errors are inde-
pendent of other modeling errors, then
RE2 + ME2 = TE2 ,
where RE is the modeling error resulting from
rainfall-input error, ME is other modeling error,
and TE is the total error of simulation. For the
Santa Anita Creek basin,
202 + ME2- = 302 ; ME2 = 500.
According to Eagleson (1967), if one rain gage
gives an error of 20 percent, then two properly
placed rain gages would give an error of about 15
percent. The use of the information from two gages
with the present model structure should thus result
in an error of
TE2 = 152 + 500 = 725,
or a standard error of 27 percent, rather than 30
percent.
The improvement of the structure of the model
can also lead to more accurate prediction. If the
B28
SYNTHESIS IN HYDROLOGY
model error were cut in half, the resulting standard
error would be
TE* = 202 + 250 = 650,
or a standard error of 25 percent. Thus, to achieve
any major improvement in the accuracy of simula-
tion, the improvement in both the model and the
accuracy of rainfall input must be simultaneous.
Model improvements alone will increase the accu-
racy of prediction, but there will be a limiting
accuracy which must be accepted if the constraint
of a single rain gage is to be maintained.
The marginal gains in accuracy which should be
expected from model improvement influence the
strategy for judging model improvements. Changes
should be accepted as improvements if they (1)
add to the simplicity of the model, (2) aid in the
regionalization of the parameter values, or (3)
gain accuracy. The search will continue for a better
model, but, to date, an imperfect model must be
accepted.
CONCLUSIONS
The development of the model demonstrates the
feasibility of rainfall-runoff simulation. Such simu-
lation is not new, so that such a demonstration of
feasibility is not unexpected. However, the con-
straints placed upon the model developed were that
a single rain gage be used for simulation on a basin.
This led to the development of a bulk-parameter
model. Thus, model parameter values are indices of
average conditions on the basin that only approxi-
mate real parameter values. Both the errors of rain-
fall input and the lack of model equivalence to the
physical prototype limit the prediction ability of
simulation. These two sources of error are of similar
order of magnitude for the basins studied; hence,
major gains in accuracy will depend upon simul-
taneous improvement in both. The limit of accuracy
of prediction of flood peaks by simulation with a
single rain gage seems to be on the order of about
25 percent, and this level of accuracy should be
understood to have resulted from the imposed con-
straint.
REFERENCES CITED
Benson, M. A., 1962, Factors influencing the occurrence of
floods in a humid region of diverse terrain: U.S,. Geol.
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1580-B, 64 p.
1964, Factors affecting the occurrence of floods in
the Southwest: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper
1580-D, 72 p.
Benson, M. A., and Matalas, N. C., 1967, Synthetic hydrol-
ogy based on regional statistical parameters: Water
Resources Research, v. 3, no. 4, p. 931-945.
Clark, C. 0., 1945, Storage and the unit hydrograph: Am.
Soc. Civil Engineers Trans., v. 110, p. 1419-1488.
Colman, E. A., and Bodman, G. B., 1944, Moisture and
energy conditions during downward entry of water into
moist and layered soils: Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc.,
v. 9, p. 3-11.
Crawford, N. H., and Linsley, R. K., 1966, Digital simula-
tion in hydrology: Stanford, Calif., Stanford Watershed
Model IV, Tech. Rept. 39, Civil Eng. Dept., Stanford
Univ., 210 p.
Dawdy, D. R., and O'Donnell, Terence, 1965, Mathematical
models of catchment behavior: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers
Proc., v. 91, no. HY 4, Paper 4410, p. 123-137.
Dooge, J. C. I., 1959, A general theory of the unit hydro-
graph: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 64, no. 2, p. 241-256.
Eagleson, P. S., 1967, Optimum density of rainfall networks:
Water Resources Research, v. 3, no. 4, p. 1021-1033.
Fenneman, N. M., 1938, Physiography of Eastern United
States: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 714 p.
Folse, J. A., 1929, A new method of estimating streamflow:
Carnegie Inst. Washington Rept. 400, 237 p.
Goldstone, E. F., and others, 1954, Soil survey of Buncombe
County, North Carolina: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Soil
Survey Ser. 1942, no. 6, 122 p.
Green, W. H., and Ampt, G. A., 1911, Studies on soil physics;
I, Flow of air and water through soils: Jour. Agr.
Research, v. 4, p. 1-24.
Horton, R. E., 1939, Approach toward a physical interpre-
tation of infiltration capacity: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.,
v. 5, p. 399-417.
Kraijenhoff Van De Leur, D. A., 1958, A study of non-
steady groundwater flow with special reference to a
reservoir-coefficient: Ingenieur, v. 70, no. 19, p. B87-
B94.
Matalas, N. C., and Gilroy, E. J., 1968, Some comments on
regionalization in hydrologic studies: Water Resources
Research, v. 4, no. 6, p. 1361-1369.
Musgrave, G. W., 1955, How much of the rain enters the
soil? , in Water: U.S. Dept. Agriculture Handb., p. 151-
159.
Philip, J. R., 1954, An infiltration equation with physical
significance: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., v. 77, p. 153-157.
Rosenbrock, H. H., 1960, An automatic method of finding
the greatest or least value of a function: Computer
Jour., v. 3, p. 175-184.
Sherman, L. K., 1932, Streamflow from rainfall by the unit
hydrograph method: Eng. News Record, v. 108, p. 501-
505.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1961, Evaporation in Tennessee
River Basin: Div. Water Control Planning, Hydraulic
Data Branch, Rept. 0-243-310-A, 49 p. [Supp. to "Pre-
cipitation in Tennessee River Basin."]
Theis, C. V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the
piezometric surface and the rate and duration of dis-
charge of a well using ground-water storage: Am. Geo-
phys. Union Trans., pt. 2, p. 519-524.
Wilde, D. J., 1964, Optimum-seeking methods: Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O - 489-368