Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 7 – uploaded by Sofia Marquez Rey

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
IG. 3.—Comparison of Computed and Observed Runoff Hydrographs for Elm “ork Watershed ,

Figure 7 IG. 3.—Comparison of Computed and Observed Runoff Hydrographs for Elm “ork Watershed ,

Related Figures (8)

The data consisted of several physical and hydrological parameters in- cluding area, length, watershed slope, channel slope, SCS curve num- ber, cumulative precipitation, surface runoff volume, peak rainfall ex- cess, weighted rainfall excess, average annual precipitation, and average annual. evaporation as independent variables and K and t, as dependent variables. The second recession constant (K;) was also considered in the study. K, was not found to be related to any of the independent vari- ables and was taken as being equal to three times the first recession constant for the remainder of the study. In contrast to Eq. 2, the SCS curve number was not found to be correlated to the time to peak of the unit hydrograph. The variables that were found to be statistically sig- nificant in developing a synthetic unit hydrograph for a watershed are listed in Table 1. The first section of Table 1 is made up of 31 observa- tions, which were used to statistically develop the prediction equations. The equations can be used to estimate the parameters needed to gen- erate the synthetic unit hydrographs. The second section of Table 1 con-
The data consisted of several physical and hydrological parameters in- cluding area, length, watershed slope, channel slope, SCS curve num- ber, cumulative precipitation, surface runoff volume, peak rainfall ex- cess, weighted rainfall excess, average annual precipitation, and average annual. evaporation as independent variables and K and t, as dependent variables. The second recession constant (K;) was also considered in the study. K, was not found to be related to any of the independent vari- ables and was taken as being equal to three times the first recession constant for the remainder of the study. In contrast to Eq. 2, the SCS curve number was not found to be correlated to the time to peak of the unit hydrograph. The variables that were found to be statistically sig- nificant in developing a synthetic unit hydrograph for a watershed are listed in Table 1. The first section of Table 1 is made up of 31 observa- tions, which were used to statistically develop the prediction equations. The equations can be used to estimate the parameters needed to gen- erate the synthetic unit hydrographs. The second section of Table 1 con-
FIG. 2.—Comparison of Computed and Observed Runoff Hydrographs for Riesel- Y Watershed
FIG. 2.—Comparison of Computed and Observed Runoff Hydrographs for Riesel- Y Watershed
FIG. 4.—-Comparison of Computed and Observed Runoff Hydrographs for Cosh- acton-95. Watershed
FIG. 4.—-Comparison of Computed and Observed Runoff Hydrographs for Cosh- acton-95. Watershed
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved