MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126817478 · doi:10.5194/hess-15-405-2011

A measure of watershed nonlinearity: interpreting a variable instantaneous unit hydrograph model on two vastly different sized watersheds

2011· article· en· W2126817478 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Y. Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersNational Taiwan UniversityUniversity of TorontoCERNMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsHydrographMathematicsNonlinear systemStatisticsApplied mathematicsHydrology (agriculture)GeologyFlood mythPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The linear unit hydrograph used in hydrologic design analysis and flood forecasting is known as the transfer function and the kernel function in time series analysis and systems theory, respectively. This paper reviews the use of an input-dependent or variable kernel in a linear convolution integral as a quasi-nonlinear approach to unify nonlinear overland flow, channel routing and catchment runoff processes. The conceptual model of a variable instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH) is characterized by a nonlinear storage-discharge relation, q = cNsN, where the storage exponent N is an index or degree of watershed nonlinearity, and the scale parameter c is a discharge coefficient. When the causative rainfall excess intensity of a unit hydrograph is known, parameters N and c can be determined directly from its shape factor, which is the product of the unit peak ordinate and the time to peak, an application of the statistical method of moments in its simplest form. The 2-parameter variable IUH model is calibrated by the shape factor method and verified by convolution integral using both the direct and inverse Bakhmeteff varied-flow functions on two watersheds of vastly different sizes, each having a family of four or five unit hydrographs as reported by the well-known Minshall (1960) paper and the seldom-quoted Childs (1958) one, both located in the US. For an 11-hectare catchment near Edwardsville in southern Illinois, calibration for four moderate storms shows an average N value of 1.79, which is 7% higher than the theoretical value of 1.67 by Manning friction law, while the heaviest storm, which is three to six times larger than the next two events in terms of the peak discharge and runoff volume, follows the Chezy law of 1.5. At the other end of scale, for the Naugatuck River at Thomaston in Connecticut having a drainage area of 186.2 km2, the average calibrated N value of 2.28 varies from 1.92 for a minor flood to 2.68 for a hurricane-induced flood, all of which lie between the theoretical value of 1.67 for turbulent overland flow and that of 3.0 for laminar overland flow. Based on analytical results from the small Edwardsville catchment, the 2-parameter variable IUH model is found to be defined by a quadruplet of parameters N, c, the storm duration or computational time step Δt, and the rainfall excess intensity i(0), and that it may be reduced to an 1-parameter one by defaulting the degree of nonlinearity N to 1.67 by Manning friction. For short, intense storms, the essence of the Childs – Minshall nonlinear unit hydrograph phenomenon is encapsulated in a peak flow equation having a single (scale) parameter c, and in which the impact of the rainfall excess intensity increases from the linear assumption by a power of 0.4. To illustrate key steps in generating the direct runoff hydrograph by convolution integral, short examples are given.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207