Influence of Hydrological Geomorphological and Climatological

University of Wollongong Thesis Collections
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection

University of Wollongong
Year
Influence of hydrological,
geomorphological and climatological
characteristics of natural catchments on
lag parameters
Nanayakkara Dayananda Bodhinayake
University of Wollongong
Bodhinayake, Nanayakkara Dayananda, Influence of hydrological, geomorphological and

climatological characteristics of natural catchments on lag parameters, PhD thesis,
School of Civil, Mining and Environmental engineering, University of Wollongong, 2004.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/385
This paper is posted at Research Online.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/385
NOTE
This online version of the thesis may have different page formatting and pagination
from the paper copy held in the University of Wollongong Library.
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
COPYRIGHT WARNING
You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or
study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available
electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are
reminded of the following:
Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A
reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court
may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to
copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for
offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form.
INFLUENCE OF HYDROLOGICAL, GEOMORPHOLOGICAL AND

CLIMATOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF NATURAL CATCHMENTS ON
LAG PARAMETERS
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
FROM
THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
BY
NANAYAKKARA DAYANANDA BODHINAYAKE
BSc (Eng.) - University of Sri-Lanka
Post Grad. Dip. Hyd. Eng. - International Institute for Hydraulic Engineering,
Delft, The Netherlands
Adv. Dip. Tech. Ed. - University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Grad. Dip. Ed. - University of Technology Sydney, Australia
SCHOOL OF CIVIL, MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
2004
THESIS CERTIFICATION
I, Nanayakkara Dayananda Bodhinayake, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of
the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, in the School of Civil, Mining and
Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless
otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been submitted for
qualifications at any other academic institution.
N D Bodhinayake
August 2004.
iii
ABSTRACT
Catchment lag time is considered as a key factor in flood hydrograph modelling and design.
The extensive literature investigation of this study revealed that most of the lag time
equations that have been developed include various hydrological, geomorphological and
climatological characteristics of the catchment. However, different studies use different
combinations of these variables, and therefore, the appropriate context of the relation is not
known with confidence.
The intention of this research is to determine to what extent the above mentioned catchment
characteristics influence the lag parameter, which is directly related to the catchments lag
time.
In order to assess the influence of catchment characteristics on the lag parameter, reliable
and valid rainfall and flow data must be analysed.
Therefore, at the outset of this research, the reliability and validity of rainfall data of
seventeen rural catchments in Queensland, Australia, were examined. These catchments
belong to five river basins and they are, Mary, Haughton, Herbert, Don and Johnstone. A
total of 254 storm events on these catchments were analysed.
To compute the lag parameters of the catchments, the computer based Watershed Bounded
Network Model (WBNM) was selected due to its in-built non-linearity property as well as
other capabilities. These include the ability to model spatially varying rainfall, the
simplicity of data files and the requirement of a minimum amount of data. The constantslope method was adopted to separate the base flow from the recorded total hydrograph in
order to derive the ordinates of the surface runoff hydrograph, which is one of the essential
components for the input file of WBNM. The time variation of the rainfall was examined
by means of mass curves of rainfall and the spatial variability of the rainfall was studied
with the help of isohyetal plots. Thereafter the rainfall and flow data, as well as the physical
features of the catchments, were incorporated into WBNM to generate hydrographs for all
iv
254 storm events. The lag parameter was altered until WBNM generated a hydrograph that
closely resembled the recorded surface runoff hydrograph. This process was repeated for
each storm event to obtain its lag parameter value. From this method, lag parameter values
were derived for all 254 storm events on the seventeen catchments.
The next stage of the analysis involved testing to determine whether the lag parameter is
related to a range of hydrological, geomorphological and climatological variables.
To carry out the analysis the necessary hydrological characteristics were extracted from the
storm data. Other useful geomorphological and climatological characteristics were obtained
from AUSLIG maps and the Bureau of Meteorology.
If the lag relations built into WBNM are sufficient to account for those variables, then no
significant relation between the lag parameter and those variables should exist when the lag
parameter is plotted against each variable.
The lag parameter (C) versus a range of hydrological, geomorphological and climatological
characteristics of all seventeen catchments were plotted to examine their correlation. Two
tailed statistical t-tests were carried out for each plot to find out whether the gradients of
best-fit straight lines of those plots are significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance.
The results of this research have shown that there are no strong relationships between the
lag parameter (C) and the range of catchment characteristics selected for this study.
Therefore, the lag parameter can be considered as an independent factor applying to a wide
range of catchments. While this research was carried out for the WBNM model, its
essential findings, that the non-linearity power is near to 0.23, and that the dominant
variable influencing catchment lag time is the catchment area, also apply to other flood
hydrograph models.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to acknowledge the invaluable support, guidance and assistance contributed by
Associate Professor Michael John Boyd during the term of my candidature. I would also
like to thank Mr. Terry Malone of the Bureau of Meteorology, Brisbane, Australia, for
providing the rainfall and flow data of five river basins to carry out this research study. Last
but not least the encouragement and support given by my wife Chandrani and two sons
Dinusha and Buddhi as well as my mother (Leelanganee Weraniyagoda Bodhinayake) are
greatly appreciated.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Thesis Certification
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgement
Table of Contents
vi
List of Figures
List of Tables
xxi
Papers in preparation
xxiii
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON RELATIONS BETWEEN LAG TIME AND

HYDROLOGICAL, GEOMORPHOLOGICAL AND CLIMATOLOGICAL
CHARATERISTICS OF CATCHMENTS
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Rational Method
2.3 Tangent Method
16
2.4 The Time-Area Method
16
2.5 The Unit Hydrograph Theory
17
2.6 Linear and Non-linear Models
30
2.7
Studies with RORB Model
48
2.8
Summary of Lag Relations
64
3. DESCRIPTION OF CATCHMENTS
73
3.1 Gympie, Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Cooran and Kandanga catchments

of Mary River
3.2 Powerline and Mount Piccaninny catchments of Haughton River
74
86
3.3 Zattas, Nashs Crossing, Gleneagle and Silver Valley catchments of

Herbert River
3.4 Reeves, Mount Dangar, and Ida Creek catchments of Don River
88
92
3.5 Tung Oil, Nerada and Central Mill catchments of North and South
Johnstone Rivers
95
vii
4. SELECTION OF AVAILABLE RAINFALL AND STREAM FLOW DATA

4.1
Introduction
98
98
4.2 Rainfall data of Mary River Basin

4.2.1 Temporal Patterns of Rainfall
4.2.2
Spatial variation of Rainfall
98
104
4.3 Rainfall data of Haughton River Basin

110
4.3.2
114
4.4 Rainfall data of Herbert River Basin

120
4.4.2
125
4.5 Rainfall data of Don River Basin

131
4.5.2
135
4.6 Rainfall data of Johnstone River Basin
4.7
142
4.6.2
147
STREAMFLOW DATA OF MARY RIVER BASIN
155
4.8 STREAMFLOW DATA OF HAUGHTON RIVER BASIN
159
4.9 STREAMFLOW DATA OF HERBERT RIVER BASIN
161
4.10 STREAMFLOW DATA OF DON RIVER BASIN
163
4.11 STREAMFLOW DATA OF JOHNSTONE RIVER BASIN
165
5. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
5.1
167
Introduction
167
5.2 Mary River Basin
168
5.3 Haughton River Basin
189
5.4 Herbert River Basin
199
5.5 Don River Basin
205
5.6 North Johnstone River Basin
217
viii
6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAG PARAMETER AND HYDROLOGICAL

CHARACTERISTICS
246
6.1. Variation of Lag time with Discharge
246
6.2. Variation of Lag Parameter with Discharge
247
6.3. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Peak Discharge (Qp)
249
6.4. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Surface Runoff

Peak Discharge (Qs)
6.5. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Total Rainfall Depth (DT)
257
264
6.6 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Depth of Surface Runoff (DSRO) 271
6.7. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Average Intensity (Iav)
278
6.8. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Ratio of Time to Peak Intensity
and Duration of Excess Rainfall (TpI/DURex)
285
6.9. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Average Peak Intensity (AVPI) 292
6.10 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Ratio of Excess Depth and
Total Depth (Dex/DT) of Rainfall
298
6.11 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Ratio of Peak Intensity and
Average Intensity (Ip/Iav) of Rainfall
305
6.12 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Ratio of Rainfall Depths at
Centroids of Bottom and Top halves (DBC/DTC) of catchment
6.13 Summary of the findings of Chapter 6
312
320
7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAG PARAMETER AND

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL & CLIMATOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
323
7.1
323
Introduction
7.2 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Catchment Area (A)
324
7.3 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Equal Area Slope (Sc)
327
7.4 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Length of Main Stream (L) 331
7.5 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Catchment Shape Factor (A/L2) 334
7.6 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Main Stream Length to the
Centroid from Catchments Outlet (Lc)
337
7.7 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Ratio of Main Stream
Length to the Centroid from Outlet and Main Stream Length (Lc/L)
340
ix
7.8. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Number of Rain Days per
Year (No.RD/year)
345
7.9 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Mean Annual Rainfall
(ARMean)
348
7.10 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the 2-year ARI-72hr Rainfall
Intensity Pattern of AR&R (2I72) of catchment
351
7.11 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Mean Elevation of
Catchment (ELMean)
355
7.12 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Mean Elevation of the
Centroid of Catchment (ELCentroid)
358
7.13 Catchments with Large Lag Parameter Values
361
7.14 Summary of the findings of Chapter 7
367
8. CONCLUSION
371
REFERENCES
375
APPENDICES - in CD attached to thesis

A - AUSLIG map data related to land use, developed areas, topsoil & subsoil
properties and soil texture properties of four river basins (Haughton, Herbert,
Don and Johnstone)
B-
Rainfall and flow data of five basins (Mary, Haughton, Herbert, Don and
Johnstone)
C - Actual & estimated rating curves of twelve catchment outlets and base flow
separation & runoff hydrographs for selected storms of all seventeen
catchments
D - WBNM files of all 254 storm events
E-
Hyetographs, total hydrographs, surface runoff hydrographs and computer

generated hydrographs of all seventeen catchments of five basins (Mary,
Haughton, Herbert, Don and Johnstone)
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Description
Mary River and its contributing catchments
Stream elevations of Gympie catchment of Mary River
Stream elevations of Moy Pocket catchment of Mary River
Stream elevations of Bellbird catchment of Mary River
Stream elevations of Cooran catchment of Sixth Mile Creek
(Tributary of Mary River)
Stream elevations of Kandanga catchment of Kandanga Creek
Mary River at Gympie Land Use Classification
Mary River at Gympie Soil Texture of Topsoil
Mary River at Gympie Soil Texture of Subsoil
Mary River at Gympie Silt in Topsoil
Mary River at Gympie Silt in Subsoil
Mary River at Gympie Sand in Topsoil
Mary River at Gympie Sand in Subsoil
Haughton River and its contributing catchments
Stream elevations of Powerline catchment of Haughton River
Stream elevations of Mount Piccaninny catchment of Haughton River
Herbert River and its contributing catchments
Stream elevations of Silver Valley catchment of Herbert River
Stream elevations of Gleneagle catchment of Herbert River
Stream elevations of Nashs Crossing catchment of Herbert River
Stream elevations of Zattas catchment of Herbert River
Don River and its contributing catchments
Stream elevations of Reeves catchment of Don River
Stream elevations of Mount Dangar catchment of Don River
Stream elevations of Ida Creek catchment of Don River
North and South Johnstone Rivers and their contributing catchments
Stream elevations of Tung Oil catchment of North Johnstone River
Stream elevations of Nerada catchment of North Johnstone River
Stream elevations of Central Mill catchment of South Johnstone River
The figures 3.30 to 3.57 of remaining four basins are contained in
Appendix A of the CD
Location of Rainfall Stations for Mary River
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (April 1989)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (December 1991)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (February 1992)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (March 1992)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (February 1995)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (January 1996)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (April 1996)
Page
74
75
75
76
76
77
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
87
89
90
90
91
91
92
93
94
94
95
96
97
97
99
101
101
101
102
102
102
103
xi
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.41
4.42
4.43
4.44
4.45
4.46
4.47
4.48
4.49
4.50
4.51
4.52
4.53
4.54
4.55
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (March 1997)

Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (April 1989)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (December 1991)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (February 1992)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (March 1992)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (February 1995)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (January 1996)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (April 1996)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Mary River (March 1997)
Location of Rainfall Stations of Haughton River
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Haughton River (January 1994)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Haughton River (January 1996)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Haughton River (February 1997)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Haughton River (March 1997)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Haughton River (February 2000)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Haughton River (March 2000)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Haughton River (April 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Haughton River (January 1994)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (January 1996)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (February 1997)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (March 1997)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (February 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (March 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (April 2000)
Location of Rainfall Stations of Herbert River
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (January 1994)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (March 1996)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (March 1997)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (January 1998)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (December 1999)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (Early February 2000)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (Late February 2000)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - Herbert River (February 2001)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (January 1994)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (March 1996)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (March 1997)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (January 1998)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (December 1999)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (Early February 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (Late February 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Herbert River (February 2001)
Location of Rainfall stations of Don River
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (April 1989)
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (December 1990)
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (January 1991)
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (February 1991)
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (August 1998)
103
105
105
106
106
107
107
108
108
109
112
112
112
113
113
113
114
116
116
117
117
118
118
119
121
122
122
122
123
123
123
124
124
126
126
127
127
128
128
129
129
131
132
132
133
133
133
xii
4.56
4.57
4.58
4.59
4.60
4.61
4.62
4.63
4.64
4.65
4.66
4.67
4.68
4.69
4.70
4.71
4.72
4.73
4.74
4.75
4.76
4.77
4.78
4.79
4.80
4.81
4.82
4.83
4.84
4.85
4.86
4.87
4.88
4.89
4.90
4.91
4.92
4.93
4.94
4.95
4.96
4.97
4.98
4.99
4.100
4.101
4.102
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (January 1999)

Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (December 1999)
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (Early February 2000)
Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (Late February 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (April 1989)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (December 1990)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (January 1991)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (February 1991)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (August 1998)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (January 1999)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (December 1999)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (Early February 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - Don River (Late February 2000)
Locations of Rainfall stations of North and South Johnstone Rivers
Mass Curve of Rainfall - North & South Johnstone Rivers (March 1990)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - North & South Johnstone Rivers (January 1994)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - North & South Johnstone Rivers (December 1997)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - North & South Johnstone Rivers (January 1998)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - North & South Johnstone Rivers (December 1999)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - North & South Johnstone Rivers (February 2000)
Mass Curve of Rainfall - North & South Johnstone Rivers (April 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (March 1990)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (January 1994)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (December 1997)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (January 1998)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (December 1999)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (February 2000)
Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (April 2000)
Actual and Estimated rating curves for Mary River at Gympie
Total flood hydrograph for Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
Recession curve of Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
Base flow Separation of Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
Surface runoff hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
Actual and Estimated rating curves for Haughton River at Powerline
Recession curve of Haughton River at Powerline (February 1997)
Base flow separation of Haughton River at Powerline (February 1997)
Runoff hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (February 1997)
Actual and Estimated rating curves of Herbert River at Zattas
Recession curve of Herbert River at Zattas (December 1991)
Base flow separation of Herbert River at Zattas (December 1991)
Runoff hydrograph of Herbert River at Zattas (December 1991)
134
134
134
135
136
136
137
137
138
138
139
139
140
142
143
144
144
144
145
145
145
146
146
146
148
148
149
149
150
150
151
151
152
152
156
156
157
157
158
159
159
160
160
161
161
162
162
xiii
4.103
4.104
4.105
4.106
4.107
4.108
4.109
4.110
Actual and Estimated rating curves of Don River at Reeves

Recession curve of Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
Base flow separation of Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
Runoff hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
Actual and Estimated rating curves of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil
Recession curve of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (March 1996)
Base flow separation of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (March 1996)
Runoff hydrograph of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (March 1996)
The Figures 4.111 to 4.384 are contained in Appendix C of the CD
5.1
5.2
5.3
Sub-areas of Mary River at Gympie

178
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (April 1989)
180
Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Mary River at Gympie
(April 1989)
180
Hyetograph and Hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (December 1991)
181
(December 1991)
181
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (February 1992)
182
(February 1992)
182
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (March 1992)
183
(March 1992)
183
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
184
(February 1995)
184
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (January 1996)
185
(January 1996)
185
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (April 1996)
186
(April 1996)
186
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (March 1997)
187
(March 1997)
187
The Figures 5.18 to 5.85 are contained in part 1 of Appendix E of the CD
Schematic of Haughton River at Powerline
189
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (January 1994) 190
Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Haughton River at
Powerline (January 1994)
190
Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Haughton River at Powerline
(January 1996)
191
191
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (February 1997) 192
Powerline (February 1997)
192
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.86
5.87
5.88
5.89
5.90
5.91
5.92
163
163
164
164
165
165
166
166
xiv
5.93
5.94
5.95
5.96
5.97
5.98
5.99
5.100
5.101
5.102
5.121
5.122
5.123
5.124
5.125
5.126
5.127
5.128
5.129
5.176
5.177
5.178
5.179
5.180
5.181
5.182
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (March 1997) 193

Powerline (March 1997)
193
(August 1998)
194
Powerline (August 1998)
194
(February 2000)
195
195
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (March 2000) 196
Powerline (March 2000)
196
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (April 2000)
197
Powerline (April 2000)
197
Schematic of Herbert River at Zattas
199
Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Herbert River at Zattas
(February 1991)
200
Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Herbert River at Zattas
(February 1991)
200
(Early February 2000)
201
201
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Herbert River at Zattas (Late February 2000) 202
(Late February 2000)
202
(February 2001)
203
(February 2001)
203
Schematic of Don River at Reeves
205
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
206
Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Don River at Reeves
(April 1989)
206
Hyetograph and hydrograph and selected events of Don River at Reeves
(December 1990)
207
(December 1990)
207
Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (January 1991)
208
(January 1991)
208
xv
5.183 Hyetograph and hydrograph and selected events of Don River at Reeves
(February 1991)
209
5.184 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Don River at Reeves
(February 1991)
209
5.185 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (August 1998)
210
(August 1998)
210
5.187 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (January 1999)
211
(January 1999)
211
5.189 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (February 1999)
212
(February 1999)
212
5.191 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (December1999)
213
(December 1999)
213
5.193 Hyetograph and hydrograph and selected events of Don River at Reeves
214
214
5.195 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (Late February 2000)
215
215
5.231 Schematic of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil
217
5.232 Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of North Johnstone River at
Tung Oil (March 1990)
218
5.233 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of North Johnstone
River at Tung Oil (March 1990)
218
Tung Oil (January 1994)
219
River at Tung Oil (January 1994)
219
220
220
221
221
Tung Oil (December 1997)
222
River at Tung Oil (December 1997)
222
223
xvi

223
224
224
225
225
Tung Oil (February 2000)
226
River at Tung Oil (February 2000)
226
5.250 Hyetograph and hydrograph of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil
(April 2000)
227
River at Tung Oil (April 2000)
227
The Figures 5.252to 5.289 are contained in part 5 of Appendix E of the CD
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
6.21
6.22
6.23
6.24
6.25
6.26
6.27
Lag time versus Discharge for different values of z

Calibrated Lag Parameter (C) for different values of z
C versus QP of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus QP of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus QP of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus QP of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus QP of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus QP of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus QP of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus QP of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus QP of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus QP of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus QP of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus QP of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus QP of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus QP of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus QP of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus QP of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus QP of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus QP of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus QS of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus QS of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus QS of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus QS of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus QS of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus QS of Haughton River at Powerline (12 Values)
C versus QS of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
247
248
250
251
251
252
252
252
253
253
253
254
254
254
255
255
255
256
256
257
258
259
259
259
260
260
260
xvii
6.28
6.29
6.30
6.31
6.32
6.33
6.34
6.35
6.36
6.37
6.38
6.39
6.40
6.41
6.42
6.43
6.44
6.45
6.46
6.47
6.48
6.49
6.50
6.51
6.52
6.53
6.54
6.55
6.56
6.57
6.58
6.59
6.60
6.61
6.62
6.63
6.64
6.65
6.66
6.67
6.68
6.69
6.70
6.71
6.72
6.73
6.74
C versus QS of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)

C versus QS of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus QS of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus QS of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus QS of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus QS of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus QS of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus QS of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus QS of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus QS of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus QS of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus DT of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus DT of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus DT of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus DT of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus DT of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus DT of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus DT of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus DT of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus DT of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus DT of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus DT of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus DT of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus DT of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus DT of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus DT of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus DT of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus DT of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus DT of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus DT of all 17 catchments for 250 values
C versus DSRO of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus DSRO of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus DSRO of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus DSRO of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus DSRO of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus DSRO of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus DSRO of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus DSRO of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus DSRO of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus DSRO of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus DSRO of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus DSRO of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus DSRO of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
261
261
261
262
262
262
263
263
263
264
264
265
265
266
266
266
267
267
267
268
268
268
269
269
269
270
270
270
271
271
272
272
273
273
273
274
274
274
275
275
275
276
276
276
277
277
277
xviii
6.75
6.76
6.77
6.78
6.79
6.80
6.81
6.82
6.83
6.84
6.85
6.86
6.87
6.88
6.89
6.90
6.91
6.92
6.93
6.94
6.95
6.96
6.97
6.98
6.99
6.100
6.101
6.102
6.103
6.104
6.105
6.106
6.107
6.108
6.109
6.110
6.111
6.112
6.113
6.114
6.115
6.116
6.117
6.118
6.119
6.120
6.121
C versus DSRO of all 17 catchments for 254 values

C versus DSRO of all 17 catchments for 248 values
C versus Iav of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus Iav of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus Iav of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus Iav of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus Iav of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus Iav of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus Iav of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus Iav of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus Iav of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus Iav of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus Iav of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus Iav of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus Iav of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus Iav of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus Iav of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus Iav of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus Iav of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus Iav of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus (TPI/DURex) of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
278
278
279
279
280
280
280
281
281
281
282
282
282
283
283
283
284
284
284
285
286
286
286
287
287
287
288
288
288
289
289
289
290
290
290
291
291
291
292
293
293
293
294
294
294
295
295
xix
6.122
6.123
6.124
6.125
6.126
6.127
6.128
6.129
6.130
6.131
6.132
6.133
6.134
6.135
6.136
6.137
6.138
6.139
6.140
6.141
6.142
6.143
6.144
6.145
6.146
6.147
6.148
6.149
6.150
6.151
6.152
6.153
6.154
6.155
6.156
6.157
6.158
6.159
6.160
6.161
6.162
6.163
6.164
6.165
6.166
6.167
6.168
C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)

C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus (AvPI) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus (AvPI) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus (AvPI) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus (AvPI) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus (AvPI) of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus (Dex/DT) of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
C versus (IP/Iav) of all 17 catchments for 254 values
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
295
296
296
296
297
297
297
298
298
299
299
300
300
300
301
301
301
302
302
302
303
303
303
304
304
304
305
306
306
306
307
307
307
308
308
308
309
309
309
310
310
310
311
311
311
313
313
xx
6.169
6.170
6.171
6.172
6.173
6.174
6.175
6.176
6.177
6.178
6.179
6.180
6.181
6.182
6.183
6.184
6.185
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.20
7.21
7.22
7.23
7.24
7.25
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)

C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Don River at Mt.Dangar (10 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of all 17 catchments (254 values)
C versus (DBC/DTC) of 229 values (excluding C and DBC/DTC values
larger than 2.5)
314
314
314
315
315
315
316
316
316
317
317
317
318
318
318
319
C versus A of all seventeen catchments

C versus A of twelve catchments
C versus Sc of all seventeen catchments
C versus Sc of fifteen catchments
C versus Sc of fourteen catchments
C versus L of all seventeen catchments
C versus L of fifteen catchments
C versus (A/L2) of all seventeen catchments
C versus (A/L2) of fifteen catchments
C versus Lc of all seventeen catchments
C versus Lc of fifteen catchments
C versus (Lc/L) of all seventeen catchments
C versus (Lc/L) of fifteen catchments
C versus (Lc/L) of fourteen catchments
C versus (No.RD/yr) of all seventeen catchments
C versus (No.RD/yr) of fifteen catchments
C versus (ARMean) of all seventeen catchments
C versus (ARMean) of fifteen catchments
C versus (2I72) of all seventeen catchments
C versus (2I72) of fifteen catchments
C versus (2I72) of fourteen catchments
C versus (ELMean) of all seventeen catchments
C versus (ELMean) of fifteen catchments
C versus (ELCentroid) of all seventeen catchments
C versus (ELCentroid) of fifteen catchments
325
326
328
329
330
332
333
335
336
338
339
342
343
344
346
347
349
350
352
353
354
356
357
359
360
319
xxi
LIST OF TABLES
No.
2.1
2.2
Description
Page
Summary of equations of various researchers related to lag time

Summary of equations reduced to common forms of different physical and
hydrological characteristics of catchments
70
3.1
List of Catchments
73
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
Summary of Rainfall for Mary River

Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Mary Basin
Summary of Rainfall for Haughton River
Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Haughton Basin
Summary of Rainfall for Herbert River
Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Herbert Basin
Summary of Rainfall for Don River Basin
Assessment Summary of Temporal patterns of Rainfall Don Basin
Summary of Rainfall for North and South Johnstone Rivers
Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Johnstone Basin
5.1
5.2
Details of seventeen catchments selected for the study

170
Co-ordinates of centroids of sub-catchments of WBNM input file of
Mary River at Gympie
171
Sub-areas and lag parameter of WBNM input file of Mary River at
Gympie of 11th February 1995 Storm
172
Names of ten rainfall stations, co-ordinates and their respective rainfall depths
173
of WBNM input file of Mary River at Gympie of 11th February 1995 Storm
Sub-areas and their loss rates of WBNM input file of Mary River at Gympie
(11th February 1995 Storm)
177
Ordinates of surface runoff hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie of
11th February 1995 storm
178
Flow and runoff details and lag parameters of eight storms of Mary River at
Gympie
188
Flow and runoff details and lag parameters of eight storms of Haughton River at
Powerline
198
Flow and runoff details and lag parameters of four storms of Herbert River at
Zattas
204
Flow & runoff details and lag parameters of ten storms of Don River at Reeves 216
Flow & runoff details and lag parameters of ten storms of North Johnstone
River at Tung Oil
228
Summary of Storms of Mary River at Gympie
229
Summary of Storms of Mary River at Moy Pocket
230
Summary of Storms of Mary River at Bellbird
231
Summary of Storms of Sixth Mile Creek (Tributary of Mary River) at Cooran 232
Summary of Storms of Kandanga Creek (Tributary of Mary River) at Kandanga 233
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
67
99
103
111
114
121
124
135
143
147
xxii
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
Summary of Storms of Haughton River at Powerline

Summary of Storms of Haughton River at Mount Piccaninny
Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Zattas
Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing
Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Gleneagle
Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Silver Valley
Summary of Storms of Don River at Reeves
Summary of Storms of Don River at Mount Dangar
Summary of Storms of Don River at Ida Creek
Summary of Storms of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil
Summary of Storms of North Johnstone River at Nerada
Summary of Storms of South Johnstone River at Central Mill
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
6.1
6.2
6.3
t-test calculations of C versus Qp of Mary River at Gympie

t-test calculations of C versus QS of Mary River at Gympie
Signs of gradients and significance of plots of C versus Storm (Hydrological)
characteristics
250
258
t-test calculations for C versus A of all seventeen catchments

t-test calculations for C versus A of twelve catchments
t-test calculations for C versus Sc of all seventeen catchment
t-test calculations for C versus Sc of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus Sc of fourteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus L of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus L of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (A/L2) of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (A/L2) of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus Lc of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus Lc of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (Lc/L) of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (Lc/L) fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (Lc/L) fourteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (No. RD/yr) of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (No.RD/yr) of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (ARMean) of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (ARMean) of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (2I72) of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (2I72) of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (2I72) of fourteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (ELMean) of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (ELMean) of fifteen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (ELCentroid) of all seventeen catchments
t-test calculations for C versus (ELCentroid) of fifteen catchments
Statistical data of Mary River and the remaining basins selected
for this study
Summary of Soil properties of five Major basins
Physical characteristics and details of all seventeen catchments
325
326
328
329
330
332
333
335
336
338
339
342
343
344
346
347
349
350
352
353
354
356
357
359
360
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.20
7.21
7.22
7.23
7.24
7.25
7.26
7.27
7.28
322
361
366
370
xxiii
PAPERS IN PREPARATION:
(1)
Bodhinayake, N. D. and Boyd, M. J. WBNM Lag Parameters for

Queensland Rural Catchments, 30th Hydrology and Water Resources
Symposium, Institution of Engineers, Australia
(2)
Boyd, M. J. and Bodhinayake, N. D. WBNM Lag Parameters for Eastern

Australia, Australian Journal of Water Resources
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
The rainfall and runoff process is a key feature in the study of hydrology. In this process
rivers play a prominent role, since they are the primary means of transporting water
from the land into the ocean. Rainfall as the source of rivers was discovered for the first
time in the seventeenth century. In that period a French engineer, Mariotte, measured
the rainfall and stream flow in the river Seine and proved that the rainfall provides
sufficient amount of water to produce flow in the rivers. Since that time researchers, as
well as engineering practitioners have been interested in finding a valid, reliable and
accurate relationship between rainfall and runoff. In those studies the peak of the river
flow became an important factor.
Associated with these relationships has been the time delay between the beginning of
the rise of the flow due to excess rainfall and the peak flow (often expressed in terms of
the lag time) of rivers. This has been considered as a vital issue for flood mitigation in
rural and urban catchments. The lag time is intimately related to the prediction of the
storm rainfall-runoff process, since many models of this process use a lag time or lag
parameter. The majority of researchers have introduced a lag parameter (commonly
called a scaling factor) into their equations of lag time, which consist of the physical and
storm characteristics of catchments. Typical models which use lag time in this process
are RORB and WBNM and their respective lag time equations are:
tL = K A0.50 Q-0.25
0.57
tL = C A
-0.23
(1.1)
(1.2)
Where, tL is the lag time; K and C are lag parameters; A is the catchment area; and Q is
the discharge in the main channel of catchment.
This research investigates the effect of hydrological, geomorphological and
climatological characteristics of natural catchments (sizes range from 165km2 to 7292
km2) on the lag parameter. Rainfall and stream flow data for the last ten to fifteen years,
collected from the Bureau of Meteorology, Queensland, Australia, for seventeen
catchments are used for this study. These catchments are from five major river basins,
namely Mary, Haughton, Herbert, Don, and Johnstone.
Chapter 2 of this thesis reviews investigations carried out by various researchers from
different countries of the world related to lag time. It has been observed from the
equations derived by a majority of researchers, from the latter part of the 19th century
onwards, that the hydrological and geomorphological characteristics have a substantial
influence on lag time. It is important to note that the relationships related to lag time,
found by many of the researchers are non-linear. This means that the lag time varies
with the size of the flood.
Chapter 3 describes the physical properties of the five major river basins. These
physical properties cover the land use, developed areas, topsoil and subsoil properties,
climatic conditions and texture of soils of catchments. Most of this information is
available in the National Resource Atlas of Australia, which can be found from the
website http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/atlas_home.cfm. The other physical properties
such as the extent of mountainous terrains, valleys and elevations at various locations on
catchments are found from the information provided by the AUSLIG maps of Australia.
Chapter 4, the validity and the reliability of the rainfall data of 42 storms on five major
basins (shown in Tables 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7 and 4.9) are assessed by plotting the mass
curves for all rainfall stations, in order to investigate temporal patterns. To examine the
spatial variation of rainfall pattern within each basin, isohyets for all 42 storms are
plotted for all five basins. Stream gauge rating data are used to derive equations for
rating curves of all seventeen catchments. As described in the latter part of Chapter 4,
flood discharge hydrographs for all seventeen catchment outlets are then derived by
applying the rating curve equations to recorded river stage hydrographs.
In Chapter 5, the 42 storms are separated into individual bursts for analysis over the
seventeen catchments. A total of 254 bursts (events) have been extracted through this
process. The initial loss (the amount of rainfall which occurs before the beginning of
surface runoff) is calculated for each selected storm of each catchment by examining its
rainfall hyetograph and the resulting flood discharge hydrograph, which are plotted on
the same graph for easy reference. To calculate the ordinates of the surface runoff
hydrographs, the base flow is subtracted by means of semi-log plots of recession limbs
of the hydrographs.
All seventeen catchments are divided into their sub-catchments by examining their
stream flow and the surface contour patterns, which are demarcated in the AUSLIG
maps (scale 1:100000) of Australia. The objective of this activity is to make a
meaningful sequential flow network to allow runoff from the sub-catchment to flow to
the catchment outlet. The co-ordinates of the centroids of the sub-catchments and the
locations of the rainfall stations, of all seventeen catchments, are measured from these
maps.
The calculated and measured values of the storm and catchment features described in
the two previous paragraphs are used to derive the lag parameter for each storm event
by calibrating the WBNM computer model. This is described in Chapter 5.
Special attention is focussed on the reliability of equation 1.2, which is used for
calculating the lag time in the flood hydrograph model WBNM by plotting curves of the
lag parameter (C) with different exponents of discharge (Q) as well as different
exponents of the catchment area (A). This is illustrated in the early parts of Chapters 6
and 7.
With the intention of finding out whether the catchment area (A) and the discharge (Q)
are adequate to describe the lag time, or whether other hydrological, geomorphological
or climatological characteristics of the catchment should be considered in the equations
of lag time, a number of catchment characteristics are investigated, and their
relationship with the lag parameter C is tested. This is explained in Chapters 6 and 7.
Furthermore, visual investigations of plots of lag parameter versus catchment
characteristics (storm and physical), as well as two tailed statistical significance tests,
are carried out to determine whether the gradients of the best-fit straight lines of those
plots are significantly different from zero.
Carefully assessing all the results obtained from this study, appropriate conclusions are
made. Generally, the findings from the plots of lag parameter (C) versus the range of
storm and physical characteristics revealed that none of them are strongly related to lag
parameter. Therefore, the findings indicate that the lag time equation in WBNM is
satisfactory for flood prediction in this part of Australia.
Most previous studies of catchment lag time have only considered a limited number of
storm and catchment variables, and often used a limited set of data. This study used a
large number of storms and catchments, and systematically examined the effect of a
large number of storm variables, as well as a large number of catchment variables on the
lag parameter. Therefore, this investigation provides considerable confidence on the
relative effects of the various variables on the lag parameter.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW ON RELATIONS BETWEEN LAG TIME AND

HYDROLOGICAL, GEOMORPHOLOGICAL AND CLIMATOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF CATCHMENTS
2.1 Introduction
A thorough investigation of hydrological, geomorphological and climatological
characteristics of natural and urban catchments is necessary to make logical and
acceptable recommendations related to the rainfall and runoff process. One of the
factors that govern this process is the lag time. The lag time may be represented in many
ways and some of them are: the time of concentration, time to peak flow, base length of
a hydrograph, and as many researchers have considered, the distance from the centroid
of excess rainfall hyetograph to that of the resulting hydrograph of the outflow.
Objectives of this literature review are to find out:
what types of empirical, graphical and analytical methods have been developed
by various researchers to assess the lag time of catchments;
what types of relations between lag time and storm & physical characteristics of
catchments have been found;
to what extent these methods have been applied in different parts of the world;
and
the type of studies carried out by various researchers to verify the validity of the
methods adopted to estimate the lag time in different catchments.
The following methods and techniques have been developed by various researchers
from the beginning of the 20th Century to estimate the lag time of natural, semi-urban
and urban catchments in different parts of the world:
a) The Rational Method Lloyd-Davis (1906)
b) The Tangent Method Reid (1927) & Norris (1946)
c) The Time-area Method Ross (1921)
d) The Unit hydrograph Theory Sherman (1932)
(i) The S-curve Theory Sherman (1932)
(ii) The unit hydrograph as a percentage distribution of rainfall Bernard (1935)
(iii) The synthetic unit hydrograph Snyder (1938)
(iv) The instantaneous unit hydrograph Clark (1945)

(v) The unit hydrograph from complex or multi-period storms Linsley et al.,
(1946)
e) Linear and non-linear models, including
(i) Clarks linear model (1945)
(ii) Rockwoods non-linear model (1958)
(iii) Nashs linear model (1960)
(iv) Laurensons non-linear model (1964)
(v) Pedersens single linear reservoir model (1978)
(vi) RORB non-linear model Mein et al., (1974); Laurenson and Mein (1985)
(vii) RSWM or RAFTS non-linear model Goyen and Aitken (1976)
(viii) WBNM non-linear model Boyd, Pilgrim and Cordery (1979) and Boyd,
Rigby and Van Drie (2000)
The findings of the various studies, which are related to lag time in natural catchments,
carried out by a number of researchers are discussed in detail in the next part of this
chapter. All equations in this chapter have been expressed in metric units, for example L
(km), A (km2) and Sc (m/km). The list of references related to studies of various
researchers is shown at the end of this thesis.
The following common symbols are applicable to most of the equations derived by
various researchers described in this chapter:
A
Catchment area (km2).
CR
Coefficient of runoff.
IR
Rainfall intensity (mm/hr).
Inflow to channel (m3/sec).
Iex
Excess rainfall intensity (mm/hr).
Length of main stream (km).
Lca
Length to centroid from outlet of catchment (km).
Mannings coefficient of roughness.
no
Overland roughness coefficient.
OLS
Overland slope (m/km).
Qt
Outflow at timet(m3/sec).
Main stream flow (m3/sec).
Storage (m3).
Sc
Equal area slope of main stream (m/km).
tc
Time of concentration (hrs).
tL
Lag time (hrs).
The other symbols used in the equations are defined under each study described in this
chapter.
2.2 Rational Method
According to Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) 1997, (Institution of Engineers,
Australia) this method was introduced by T. J. Mulvaney in Ireland over 120 years ago.
Although a considerable amount of assumptions have been made in the process of the
development of this method, it became very popular due to its simplicity. This method
allows the calculation of peak discharge, by considering the physical and hydrologic
characteristics of rural and urban catchments. In this method the time of concentration is
assumed to be equal to the duration of the rainfall. The Rational Method formula is
given by:
Q = F CR IR A
(2.1)
Where, F is the unit conversion factor.

Using the Rational method, Kerby (1959) developed a nomograph to estimate the time
of concentration after investigating the charts produced by Hathaway in 1945. He
indicated in his paper that due to unavailability of a considerable amount of data, time
of concentration had to be guessed by engineers during that time.
By incorporating the slope of the main stream of catchment and considering overland
flow as a function of the product of n and L, Kerby, introduced the following
empirical formula to calculate the time of concentration:
tc = 3.03 n0.47 L0.47 Sc-0.23
(2.2)
Ragan and Duru (1972) used the Kinematic wave theory to develop a nomograph to
estimate the time of concentration. They pointed out that, although Kerby has not
considered the rainfall intensity in his nomograph, it has an influence on the time of
concentration. The influence of the rainfall intensity on time of concentration has also
been demonstrated from the overland flow experiments conducted by Corps of

Engineers (1954) and Izzard (1964), as mentioned by Ragan and Duru. They introduced
the following equation:
tc = 57.8 n0.6 IR-0.4 L0.6 Sc-0.3
(2.3)
Ragan and Duru evaluated their nomograph by comparing computed time of

concentration with those obtained experimentally by Izzard (1964) and Corps of
Engineers (1954). Although it is difficult to obtain a true time of concentration value
from experimental data, the study gave them satisfactory results.
The reliability and validity of the Rational Method as a statistical design procedure have
been verified with field data from 37 rural catchments (areas less than 250 km2 and
situated in Central and South Eastern NSW, Australia), by French et al., (1974). They
used the following formulae for their verification:
Name of Formula
Formula for time of concentration
Ramser-Kirpich
tc = 0.94 L0.77 Sc-0.385
(2.4)
Bransby Williams
tc = 0.97 L A-0.1 Sc-0.20
(2.5)
McIllwraith
tc = 0.62 F A0.5 + 0.7
(2.6)
Bell
Hoyt and Langbein
0.33
tc = 0.73 B A
(2.7)
0.40
tc = 0.68 B1 A
0.47
0.47
(2.8)
-0.23
Bruce and Clark
tc = 3.05 n
Friend
tc = 52.7(ch)-1.0(CR Fy K s)-0.15 L A-0.1 Sc-0.4
(2.10)
Distance/Velocity
tc = 0.278 L V-1.0
(2.11)
Sc
(2.9)
Where, F = Slope factor; B & B1 = Catchment cover factors; ch = Chezy coefficient;

Fy = Frequency factor; K = Rainfall factor and s = Shape factor.
French et al., indicated that, although the results of the study showed fairly poor
correlation between the estimated time of concentration and the time of rise of observed
hydrographs, the Rational Method can be used as a statistical design procedure.
The studies related to flood estimation in small rural catchments in NSW, Australia,
were carried out by Pilgrim and McDermott (1982), and suggested that the Rational
Method is very effective for rural catchments with areas less than 250km2. They devised
the following formula for time of concentration by studying 308 gauged rural
catchments in NSW, Queensland and Victoria and a majority of them are in the Eastern
NSW, Australia, as indicated in their paper:
tc = 0.76 A0.38
(2.12)
The above equation has been recommended for NSW catchments by AR&R (1989 and
1998).
The Rational Method was tested for small and rural catchments in the Southwest of
Western Australia by Flavell (1983). The available data was used to derive a design
procedure for estimating design floods for catchments up to 250 km2.
At the beginning of the study 36 Jarrah forest catchments were considered and later that
number was increased to 48. These catchments are covered with various types of
vegetation. The best formula recommended by Flavell (1983) for time of concentration
is:
tc = 2.31 A0.54
(2.13)
Furthermore, this is one of the equations recommended by the AR&R (1998) to estimate
the time of concentration particularly for the catchments in Western Australia.
Black et al., (1986) applied a Statistical Rational Method to verify its suitability for
catchments larger than 250km2. Their study confined to the following four phases:
(i)
Relationships of catchment characteristics;
(ii)
Flood frequency analysis;
(iii) Rainfall Intensity analysis; and

(iv) Runoff coefficient analysis.
They used 20 catchments (areas ranging from 3.05km2 to 940km2) in Australia and five
of them are in excess of 250km2, and also half of the catchments are above 100 km2.
The following relationships were found from the major catchment parameters and they
are similar to the relationships found by Gray (1961), Boyd (1978) and McDermott &
Pilgrim (1982):
L = 1.09 A0.67
(2.14)
Sc = 47.42 L-0.61
(2.15)
10
Sc = 47.80 A-0.42
(2.16)
The peak discharges were extracted for 2, 5, 10, 50 and 100 year ARIs, by fitting the
partial duration flood series with a log Pearson Type III distribution. With the intention
of calculating intensities for selected ARI values and durations (tc) by using the sixth
order polynomial equation recommended by the Australian Rainfall and Runoff
(1977) the following equations were derived to estimate the time of concentration:
tc = 0.487 A0.65
(2.17)
Tm = 1.00 A0.49
(2.18)
tc = 4.752 L0.56 Sc-1.0
(2.19)
In the process of deriving these equations the suitability of Bransby-Williams formula

as well as the relation of tc with the major catchment parameters were examined. After
re-examining these formulae, the following formula was suggested for Adelaide Hills:
tc = 0.50 A0.65
(2.20)
The runoff coefficients for all catchments, which were calculated by using the Rational
Method with flow data, have shown no significant increase with increasing recurrence
intervals. Therefore, there is no mathematical reason to make changes to the runoff
coefficients for increasing ARI values. Further investigations, related to the variation of
time of concentration with independent variables, revealed the following results:
tc = 0.95 A0.58 L-0.17
tc = 1.02 A
-0.113
Sc
-0.215
(2.21)
1.015
(2.22)
Although very high correlations between tc and catchment parameters A, L and Sc have
been observed, they recommended the equation (2.20) for the Adelaide Hills environs,
due to its simplicity. They also indicated that considerable caution is required in the
application of the 50 and 100 year ARI design data.
Papadakis and Kazan (1987) evaluated eleven empirical and theoretical equations
(derived by Kirpich, Izzard, Kerby/Hathaway, Carter, Eagleson, Kinematic Wave,
Morgali & Linsley, Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), SCS Curve Number, SCS
Velocity Chart, and the Singhs Kinematic Wave & Chezy formulae). They used these
equations to compute the time of concentration and then compared those equations with
the equations derived by them. They emphasised the importance of the main channel
discharge (related to the rainfall intensity and the storm duration for a given ARI)
11
especially for design purposes. They further indicated that the maximum discharge
occurs when the duration of rainfall is equal to the time of concentration.
In the first phase of their study they were involved in an extensive literature search,
which revealed that a larger amount of equations have been developed to compute the
time of concentration. Most of those equations share the following general formula:
tc = K La nob Sc-y Iex-z
(2.23)
where, K is a constant.
The data used for this study are:
The measured length (L) and the average slope (Sc) of flow path of 84 natural
catchments of USA as well as the roughness coefficient (no), excess rainfall
intensity (Iex) and time of concentration (tc) of those catchments obtained from the
US department of Agriculture;
The L, Sc and applied rainfall intensity and measured time of equilibrium obtained
from the tests carried out by Corps of Engineers from 1948 to 1952 at the Santa
Monica Municipal Airport for 162 small watersheds. In these 162 watersheds, 89
were involved with simulated concrete surfaces and the remaining 73 were
simulated with turf surfaces. The roughness coefficients of all surfaces were known;
The values of L, Sc, no, Iex and tc were found from 93 experimental watersheds
constructed at the Engineering Research Centre of Colorado State University; and
Another similar set of data is obtained from 36 laboratory tests carried out at the
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Papadakis and Kazan developed the following time of concentration equations:

tc = 0.25 no0.52 L0.50 Sc-0.31 Iex-0.38
tc = 0.16
no0.52
0.52
Sc
-0.35
Iex
(2.24)
-0.35
(2.25)
2
The data of 375 natural and simulated catchments (areas less than 2.02km ) specified
previously were used to compare the results obtained from these two equations as well
as the eleven equations developed by researchers and the research organisations
described earlier. Their findings revealed the following:
The exponents of L, Sc and Iex of equation (2.24) agree 20%, 25%, and 15%
with the respective parameters of the equations of Carter, Kinematic Wave, Morgali,
FAA and Kerby; Izzard, FAA, Kerby, Carter, Kinematic Wave, Morgali and Singh;
and Kinematic Wave, Morgali and Singh; and
12
The equation (2.24) has more general applicability compared to the Kinematic wave
equation (2.3) which is suitable to estimate time of concentration for very small
watersheds where surface flow dominates.
As indicated by Weeks (1991) in his paper, the following researchers have tested the
Rational Method for its accuracy on time of concentration and found satisfactory
results:
#
Pilgrim and Mc Dermott (1982) -
Over 300 catchments in NSW - areas less

than 250km2
Adams (1987)
Over 300 catchments in Victoria - no

limit on catchment size
Flavell et al., (1987)
48 catchments in Western Australia areas less than 250km2.
Titmarsh et al., (1989)
105
Agricultural
catchments
in
2
Queensland - areas less than 700km
Weeks used 47 rural catchments (areas ranging from 3km2 to 246km2) in Queensland to
assess the reliability of the Bransby-Williams and Pilgrim & McDermott formulae.
Bransby-Williams formula allows the investigation of the relationships of three
catchment characteristics, whereas the Pilgrim & McDermott formula is totally based on
the catchment area, and it is more appropriate for catchments in NSW and Victoria as
suggested by the Institution of Engineers, Australia. According to the findings of
Weeks, Pilgrim & McDermott formula always produces a smaller time of concentration
value than that of Bransby-Williams. Weeks recommended the Pilgrim & McDermott
formula for rural catchments with areas less than 250km2 to estimate design floods, and
that procedure adopted is simple, consistent and reasonably reliable he described.
Hughes (1993) carried out studies to estimate the travel time in mountain basins which
consist of high gradient stream channels flowing bank full with large gravel, cobbles
and random boulders. He used 42 catchments (areas less than 2.60 km2) in this study.
He emphasised that especially for large catchments (more than 2.6km2 according to his
assessment) the channel flow contributes significantly for travel time than the overland
13
flow. Hughes further stressed that although the high slopes of channels have the
capacity to generate turbulent flow, the river bed with large gravel, cobbles and random
boulders has the tendency to dissipate sufficient amount of kinetic energy to maintain
fairly uniform flow conditions in the channel. For those reasons he indicated that the
most suitable and accurate method that can be used to estimate travel time in large
catchments is the Mannings formula.
Considering the above indicated factors Hughes developed the following equation to
estimate travel time in mountain basins with high gradient (slopes 0.002) natural
channels lined with large gravel, cobbles and boulders:
Travel time of channel,
Tv = 0.41 L Sc0.1
(2.26)
In view of the above, when dealing with very complex flow conditions in natural high
gradient rock lined channels, in large catchments, the simple empirical relationship
given in equation (2.26) can be used to estimate channel travel time. Hughes concluded
that these estimated values were fairly accurate.
McCuen and Spiess (1995) assessed the Kinematic Wave Time of Concentration, with
the intention of predicting the travel times of sheet flow of catchments. The main
purpose of their study was to establish a justifiable criterion to limit the length of the
sheet flow in using the Kinematic Wave equation shown in (2.3).
Their investigations were based on the results of both a theoretical routing model and
empirical analyses of measured data, and the following sequential issues were
considered for their assessment:
(i)
Estimating sheet-flow travel times;
(ii)
Limits of applicability of kinematic wave equation (2.3);
(iii)
Routing model assessment;
(iv)
Empirical assessment;
(v)
Limits based on flow length; and
(vi)
Assessment of Mannings n.
14
The IR of kinematic wave equation is estimated from the intensity-duration-frequency

(IFD) curves, by assuming a tc value. These calculations have been done for a couple of
times until the assumed value of tc is equal to that of the calculated value. As indicated
by McCuen and Spiess, due to considerable number of errors encountered by
considering 0.5/[Dd (drainage density)], IRL and L (which can be described as
reciprocal, product and single parameters respectively) when assessing the limits of
applicability of Kinematic Wave equation, they selected the composite parameter
(nL/Sc0.5) since it incorporates the main properties of sheet flow. Furthermore, this
composite parameter can differentiate between different flow conditions, such as 30.5m
(100ft) flow length with a steep slope and a low Mannings n, as well as a flow length
of 30.5m with a flat slope and a high Mannings n, as explained by them.
The Routing Model Studies revealed that when the value of (nL/Sc0.5) is less than 80,
the relative detention-storage depth fell within the acceptable range.
The empirical assessment to determine suitable limit for kinematic wave equation was
based on 59 field and Laboratory experiments. Performance of the three parameters L,
IRL and (nL/Sc0.5) were statistically analysed to determine the most reasonable and
accurate limit for sheet flow and found that (nL/Sc0.5) as the best option. The tests based
on flow lengths revealed that using only L as the criterion is less accurate than using
(nL/Sc0.5), and its limit is found to be 100.
McCuen and Spiess produced curves for different n values by plotting length (L)
versus slope (Sc) and the maximum length applicable according to their study is about
152m (500 ft). They further insisted that the best criterion to assess the limiting value of
Kinematic Wave equation is (nL/Sc0.5), and that value should not exceed 100 when
finding the limiting length of the sheet flow.
Wong (1996) derived a time of concentration (tc) formula by means of the kinematic
wave equation for overland flow. In the development of the process of this formula he
considered the following physical and hydrological characteristics of the catchment:
cascade of planes;
roughness of surfaces;
15
different flow regimes;
different soil types;
infiltration rates resulting from different net intensities;
planes subject to different rainfall intensities; and
combining all these factors.
Considering only one plane and combining the most significant factors from the above
list, the following formula was suggested for time of concentration:
tc = 58.47 n0.6 L0.6 Sc-0.3 IR-0.4
(2.27)
Wong further indicated that the equation (2.27) is applicable to turbulent or near
turbulent flow regimes if Mannings roughness values are used for n and this formula is
consistent with the published formulae for a single plane.
Yang and Lee (1999) carried out studies to investigate the adequacy of the following
time of concentration equations frequently used in Taiwan:
Kirpichs
given in equation (2.4)
Kadoyas
tc = 0.017 CR A0.22 Iex-0.35
(2.28)
Rzihas
tc = 0.014 L 1.60 H-0.6
(2.29)
Where, H is the difference in elevation between highest point of watershed and that of
the outlet.
Taiwan Soil and Water Conservation Society (TSWCS)

tc = 79.06 A0.5 (OLS)-0.5
(2.30)
In addition to these equations they derived the following two theoretical equations,
using the kinematic wave theory, and adopting two conceptual models and they are:
(i)
Single Overland Plane Model
no Lt
t c = 0.23
0.5 0.67
(OLS) I R
0.6
= 0.23 no0.6 Lt0.6 (OLS)-0.30 IR-0.40
(2.31)
Where, Lt is the overland travel length.

(ii)
V-Shape Overland Plane Model, for Channel flow
t c = 9.25 10
W 2 IR n Lo L
2I R L o S C 0.5 W
0.6
= 9.25 102 n0.6 W0.4 Lo-0.4 L0.6 Sc-0.3 IR-0.40
Where, W is the width of channel of stream and Lo is the overland flow length.
(2.32)
16
A time of concentration equation for the V-Shape overland Plane Model (also known as
V-KW equation) was derived by combining the equations (2.31) and (2.32). Three
catchments (areas ranging from 0.114km2 to 0.344 km2) in Taiwan were used for their
investigations and the numerical results revealed the following:
For channel flow dominated watersheds, Kirpichs and Rzihas formulae are
suitable;
TSWCS equation is appropriate for practical application in Taiwan; and
The V-KW equation is capable of providing more realistic time of concentration,

since it considers watershed geomorphological parameters as well as rainfall
intensity.
2.3 Tangent Method
According to the investigations carried out by Nash (1958) various researchers have
discovered a number of inconsistencies in the Rational Method after applying it to
practical situations. Nash further indicated that the coefficient of runoff CR could
change considerably from time to time. In other words CR is assumed to vary with the
antecedent conditions of the catchment at the time of occurrence of the storm.
Furthermore, Reid (1927) and Norris (1946) put forward graphical methods to
overcome the inconsistencies related to the Rational Method, for example producing
greater discharge for a given frequency of rainfall for a part of a catchment rather than
the whole. This graphical method is called the Tangent Method. Moreover, the
discoveries of various researchers revealed that the physical characteristics of
catchments, in particular, the slope, main stream length to centroid, width of main
channel and total length of main stream, influence the lag time of the rainfall & runoff
process. For these reasons, more and more researchers were inclined to find solutions to
eliminate the shortcomings of the Rational Method.
2.4 The Time Area Method
The timearea method is basically a progressive algebraic analysis of rainfall from the
top of a catchment to its outlet, through its sub-areas demarcated by means of the
isochrones, to obtain the maximum flow. This method allows the elimination of one of
the assumptions of the Rational Method, and that is the rainfall is uniformly distributed
over the entire catchment for a given rainfall intensity. Ross (1921) became the first to
introduce a graphical method with time contours to divide the catchment into sub-areas
17
to overcome that problem. Hence he had used the Hawkens formula (2.33) to estimate
the rainfall Intensity (IR) for different time periods (t) by considering 0.5hr time
intervals for isochrones for the catchment.
IR = E t -0.5
(2.33)
The parameter E varies from region to region in Australia and for example, E for
Brisbane is found to be 88.
Hawken (1921) argued that the rainfall intensities of a catchment vary more or less
irregularly in actual practice. It is to say that, a short storm of high intensity may be
followed by a lull and succeeded again by a moderate intensity then a high intensity and
so on. Therefore, he was interested in developing a method to estimate the mean
maximum intensity of rainfall. Although Hawken used the Rosss time area method to
divide the catchment into sub-areas, he used his own equation to produce rectangular
hyperbolic intensity-duration curves. These curves and the extent of each sub-area
(expressed as a percentage of the total catchment) were considered to estimate the mean
maximum intensity (Im) for the entire catchment.
Hawken insisted the importance of always keeping the time intervals of isochrones as a
constant, throughout the catchment in the analysis, and introduced the following
formula to calculate the maximum outflow (QP):
QP = Im A
(2.34)
As described in his paper, Hawken believed that the nature and size of the sub-areas of
equal time depend on the slope, roughness and porosity of the catchment. Thus the
method he adopted allows the incorporation of the effects of these physical
characteristics of catchments into Im.
2.5 The Unit Hydrograph Theory
The unit hydrograph concept was introduced by Sherman (1932), as described by Nash
(1958) and Wilson (1969), in the United States and gradually came into use for design
flood analyses throughout the world. Although this linear method is replaced by runoff
routing method in Australia, it is still widely used in the United States and elsewhere.
The unit hydrographs can generally be derived, subject to some degree of error, for any
catchment for which a record of rainfall and stream flow is available, as explained by
18
Nash (1958) and Weeks & Stewart (1978). However, this theory became very popular
and useful, because it helped engineers to derive hydrographs for the following
situations:
(a)
Unit hydrographs for various durations;
(b)
Changing a long duration unitgraph to a shorter duration one,

(S-Curve method);
(c)
Unit hydrograph as a percentage distribution of rainfall (Bernard, 1935);
(d)
Synthetic unit hydrographs (Snyder, 1938);
(e)
Instantaneous unit hydrographs (Clark, 1945); and
(f)
Unit hydrographs for complex or multi period storms (Collins 1939 and
Linsley et al., 1943).
As described by Nash (1958) in his paper, experiments have been carried out by various
researchers, using the unit hydrograph theory to find out relations between the
characteristics of a catchment and its indicial response. The results can be summarised
in the following manner:
Bernard (1935) - Assumed that the peak flow (Qp) in inversely proportional to
time of concentration (tc),
i.e.
Qp
1
; and
tc
time of concentration (tc) is proportional to the length of longest channel of

catchment divided by the square root of the equal area slope of the main stream,
i.e.
tc
L
(Sc)
The above assumptions have been accepted by studying 6 catchments in USA

and their areas ranging from 1300 km2 to 15600 km2.
McCarthy (1935) - Selected 22, 6-hour unit hydrographs of catchments in USA

(areas ranging from 192 km2 to 1854 km2) for the study and found satisfactory
correlations between the catchment area, overland slope and stream pattern.
However, his findings were not published.
Snyder (1938) - Correlated the lag (tL), which is the time period between the
centre of the area of the effective rainfall diagram and the peak of the storm
runoff hydrograph, against LLca and found some consistency in the lag for all
cases considered. His equation is,
19
tL = 0.75(Cc)(LLca)0.3
(2.35)
In this equation the value of (Cc) varies from 1.8 to 2.2.
Linsley et al., (1958) - Found that the slope of a catchment reflects on the basin
lag from their investigations, and they recommended the following general
expression for basin lag (tp):
LL
t p = 2.60 (C t ) ca
Sc
(2.36)
Their studies revealed that the value of n is equal to 0.38 and the value of (Ct)
depends on the topographical features of the catchment, as shown below:
For Foothill drainage area
0.72;
For Mountain drainage area -
1.20; and
For Valley drainage area
0.35.
Taylor and Schwartz (1952) - Carried out studies for 22 catchments in USA
(areas ranging from 51.2 km2 to 4144 km2) and found the following
relationships:
Peak of flow
Qp
Shape of unit hydrograph
1
Sc
(LLca) 0.30
OKelly (1955) - obtained the instantaneous unit hydrograph by routing an

isosceles triangular inflow with the correct volume and the base length C (hrs),
through storage described by the equation, S = KQ.
The relations found for C and K are:
Base length (C) of hydrograph
= aScb and
Storage Factor (K) of Hydrograph
= cScd
Where, a, b, c and d are empirically derived constants. However, OKelly and

Farrell, 1957, insisted that not much evidence is available to find an acceptable
relationship between the catchment slope and base length of outflow
hydrograph.
Nash (1960) used 90 British catchments (areas ranging from 12.4 km2 to 2225 km2) for
his unit hydrograph study. He applied the method of moments to establish empirical
correlations between the characteristics of the catchment and the distance from the
centroid of excess rainfall to the centroid of the resulting hydrograph.
20
The equations devised by him are.

tL = 10.39 A0.3 (OLS)-0.3
(2.37)
tL = 8.11 L0.3 Sc-0.3
(2.38)
The storms used to derive the above formulae are areally uniform with shorter duration
as well as high intensity. Accurately gauged and continuously recorded catchments were
used in this study and he has omitted the catchments in which the outflow is controlled
by man-made features.
Gray (1961) carried out two different studies, one related to the interrelationships of
physical characteristics of catchments and the other is to produce synthetic hydrographs

from measurable topographic characteristics of un-gauged catchments. In the first study
he used 47 small catchments in USA, and 42 catchments for the second, (areas ranging
from 0.60 km2 to 84.5 km2 in all catchments). The relationships found from his studies
are:
(a)
From the first study,

L = 1.31 A0.57
(2.39)
0.96
Lca = 0.55 L
(2.40)
Lca = 0.71 A0.55
(2.41)
Sc = 21.5 L-0.662
(2.42)
Combining the equations (2.39) and (2.42) gave the following relationship:
Sc = 17.98 A-0.38
(2.43)
Gray has also pointed out that the catchments selected for this study vary with different
vegetative, soil, lithological, physiographic and climatic conditions. Furthermore, he
found that the slope of the main stream (Sc) is inversely proportional to the parameters
L, Lca and A, through a simple power equation, provided that the regional influence is
considered.
(b)
From the second study, he obtained several equations (for catchments in

different regions of the country) for period for rise (PR) of the flow
hydrographs. Gray also indicated that PR is approximately equal to tc, and tL
and that can be observed from the equation (2.47). The formulae devised for
various parts of the country are:
Nebraska Western Iowa:
PR = 0.17 L0.498 Sc-0.249
(2.44)
21
Central Iowa Missouri Illinois Wisconsin:
Ohio:
PR = 0.22 L0.562 Sc-0.281
(2.45)
PR = 0.27 L0.531 Sc-0.266
(2.46)
The relationship between PR and tL is,

tL = tc = 1.017 PR1.005
Where, is a dimensionless parameter.
(2.47)
Amorocho (1961) made constructive criticisms related to the unit hydrograph

procedure, and some of his comments are:
The principle of superposition in unit hydrograph theory does not work
effectively for every storm;
It is not possible to ascertain with any degree of assurance that a storm

pattern that caused a flood hydrograph is actually measured; and
It is a well-known fact that the unitgraphs derived from large floods usually
differ from those derived from minor floods.
By deriving unit hydrographs, on the basis of floods produced by short storms

(reasonably uniform) of different intensities, Amorocho produced the following
expressions to show a relationship between maximum flow (qmax) and time to peak (tP)
which is related to the lag time.
For unit response early in storm:

1.6
t p = 0.004 q max
(2.48)
For unit response late in storm:

1.26
t p = 0.013 q max
(2.49)
Morgan and Johnson (1962) carried out studies to determine the relative accuracy and
reliability of some of the synthetic methods proposed, particularly by, Snyder, Soil
Conservation Services (SCS), Common and Mitchell. The accuracy of the derived
unitgraphs has been evaluated by comparing the actual flood hydrographs with the
hydrographs produced from those methods.
They selected 12 catchments located in Illinois, USA, ranging in size from 26 km2 to
262km2. In addition to Snyders formulae these were tested for their accuracy:
SCS
PR = 0.21A V QP-1.0
(2.50)
Common
PR = 4.96 A QP-1
(2.51)
Mitchell
tL = 0.30 A0.74
(2.52)
22
Where, PR is the period of rise of flow; Qp is the peak discharge and V is the runoff
volume of the drainage area in millimetres.
Studies revealed that the term QP is the best indicator for the accuracy of each method,
because of the nature of the relationships used in various synthetic methods.
Wu (1963) carried out extensive studies to design hydrographs for small catchments in
Indiana, USA. The purpose of his study is to determine the relations between the shape
of hydrograph and some identifiable and readily obtainable watershed characteristics.
He indicated that the shape of the hydrograph depends on the time to peak (tp) and
storage coefficient (Kl). Those parameters depend upon the physical characteristics of
the catchment such the as the area (A), main stream length (L) and slope of main stream
(Sc). He has also discussed the influence of shape factor (f), and valley shape factor (v)
of catchments on tp and Kl.
Seventeen small watersheds distributed throughout the state of Indiana, were selected
for his study and their areas ranging from 7.5 km2 to 260 km2.
The Correlation Method was used to devise the following formulae:
For hydrograph parameter tp:

tp = 4.32 A1.085 L-1.233 Sc-0.668
(2.53)
For hydrograph parameter K1:

K1 = 21.7 A0.937 L-1.474 Sc-1.473
(2.54)
Due to poor correlation, terms (f) and (v) have been omitted by Wu. It is interesting to
note that the methodology developed in his study (to design a hydrograph) is semitheoretical and semi-empirical.
The synthetic hydrograph methods proposed by various overseas researchers (Snyder,
1938, Taylor and Schwartz, 1952, Eaton, 1954, Nash, 1960 and Wu, 1963) were tested
for their validity and reliability by Cordery (1968). He considered 12 rural catchments
in Eastern New South Wales, Australia, ranging areas from 0.05 km2 to 642 km2. The
purpose of his study was to devise formulae by correlating combined catchment
characteristics with the base length of the time-area diagrams.
23
The two formulae representing lag time proposed by Cordery are:

Base length (C) of time area diagram in hrs,
C = 23.03 n0.8 (LLca) 0.24 Sc-0.40
(2.55)
Catchment reservoir type storage (K) in hrs,

W
0.5Ln
+
K = 5.50
(OLS)
(Sc)
0.79
(2.56)
Where W is the average catchment width.

Cordery found from his studies that the stream roughness (n) has a significant effect on
the lag time, although most of the researchers have not incorporated that in their
equations.
After analysing hydrologic data from higher intensity, short term storms in very small
drainage areas using unit hydrograph theory, Viessman Jr (1968) insisted that the lag
time has a varying effect on characteristics of catchments. Furthermore, not much
correlation has been found between the lag time and the storm characteristics from his
study. Six gauged small catchments selected for his study, and they vary in area from
6.7m2 to 3865m2 and located in USA. The formula related to the lag time proposed by
Viessman jr, is:
K = 1.78 n0.66 L0.66 Sc-0.33
(2.57)
Where, K is the catchment reservoir type storage in hrs.

Bell and Kar (1969) pointed out that the time of concentration, rise time, lag time, and
time to equilibrium are essential features of a hydrograph and these time periods are
governed by the storm and catchment characteristics.
The studies related to the rise time (Tm) and lag time (tL) have been carried out by them
for 47 small catchments (less than 130 km2) located in many parts of USA and over 400
flood hydrographs were analysed.
The following equations were proposed by Kar:
For Humid and Subhumid Catchments less than 103 km2

Tm = 0.92 Lca0.47
(2.58)
For Arid and Semiarid Catchments less than 103 km2

Tm = 3.20 L-0.14 Sc-0.6
(2.59)
24
tL = 10.25 M L0.77 Sc-0.39
(2.60)
As explained in their paper, Bell and Kar have attempted to obtain correlations of M
with several catchment characteristics, such as the slope, drainage density, catchment
shape, vegetation cover, and precipitation factor. Only vegetation cover group showed
strong relationship and different values proposed for M for different conditions are:
Vegetation Cover group
Mean M
Forest and good Woodland
2.05
Good pasture and poor to fair woodland.
1.50
Crops and poor to fair pasture.
1.15
Very poor pasture and desert vegetation
0.60
However, they concluded that no completely satisfactory method can be recommended

to estimate any of those characteristic time periods by using physical factors of
catchments. Furthermore, the existing formulae have failed to address some of the major
factors, such as the roughness and magnitude of flood flows, as explained in their paper.
Askew (1970) has carried out extensive studies related to lag time of natural
catchments. His views are very much similar to the comments made by Bell and Kar, as
explained earlier.
Askew has described the lag time as an important hydrologic characteristic of the
rainfall and runoff process. He further indicated that the analysis of hydrologic records
is not possible without the lag time.
His findings on lag time are based on 5 natural catchments in NSW Australia, and their
areas ranging from 0.4 km2 to 90 km2. The intention of his studies was to investigate the
non-linearity response of catchment systems.
Askew emphasised the fact that the non-linearity of a catchment is clearly demonstrated
by variation in lag time, and this variation in lag is highly correlated with the flood
magnitude. He further indicated that the absolute magnitude of lag time is related to the
catchment area (A) and overland slope (OLS).
25
Although Laurensons equation for storage delay time was available to relate lag time,
Askew (1970) derived new lag-discharge equations for all rural catchments selected for
his study. By observing the initial rise of direct runoff he separated the base flow for all
single and multiple hydrographs. After measuring the time lag between the centre of
mass of excess rainfall to centre of mass of direct runoff for all 240 storms, various
characteristics of the areal and temporal distribution of excess rainfall were studied and
the following equations were derived for lag time:
0.23
t L = 2.12 A 0.57 q wm
(2.61)
0.23
t L = 4.83 A 0.54 (OLS) 0.16 q wm
(2.62)
0.23
t L = 8.57 L0.80 (OLS) 0.33 q wm
(2.63)
Where qwm is the weighted mean discharge.

As described in Askews paper intercorrelations were found for 5 characteristics (tL, A,
qwm, OLS and L) excluding the Mannings Coefficient. Most of the relations are very
similar to those given in Grays paper in 1961. Although the variation of lag time with
A, L and A/L2 could not be regarded as statistically very significant, some correlation
was found, Askew further explained.
Rastogi and Jones Jr (1971) carried out investigations to find out the behaviour of
small drainage basins, by introducing unit hydrograph theory. Furthermore, various

attempts have been made by them to promote and extend this theory to produce
instantaneous unit hydrographs as well as synthetic unit hydrographs for ungauged
catchments.
The following relations were developed from hydrologic characteristics of six small
catchments in USA with areas ranging from 0.023 km2 to 0.554 km2. It was found from
the study that in all catchments, as the excess rainfall intensity increases, the time to the
peak decreases. That is because the increase in peak rate of flow is more than the
increase in excess rainfall intensity.
Log tL = 2.328 + 0.1logD + 0.184logIex 0.108logD (log Iex)
(2.64)
Where, D is the duration of excess rainfall.

The results of this study showed that the base or time duration of a direct runoff
hydrograph increased with an increase in rainfall excess intensity.
26
Cordery and Webb (1974) introduced a simple design method to derive synthetic
hydrographs for ungauged catchments in Eastern NSW. As indicated in their paper this
method is purely for design purposes and it is based on the general approach of the
Clark Johnstone synthetic unit hydrograph procedure. Furthermore, it is a storage
routing model, in which two unit hydrograph parameters C and K have been
introduced. The parameter C represents the base length of the time-area diagram and
the storage delay time of the catchment is related to the K value. Moreover, both
parameters represent the lag time of the rainfallrunoff process and the following
relations have been found by Cordery and Webb after examining 21 catchments up to
250 km2, in the eastern NSW, Australia.
L
C = 2.90
SC
0.41
= 2.90 L0.41 Sc-0.41
K = 0.66 L0.57
(2.65)
(2.66)
In 1976, Pilgrim used Tracer measurements of a small natural catchment known as

Research Creek with an area of 250 km2. He obtained direct results for outflow
hydrographs by adopting tracer injection technique and applying it to seven points of
the watershed. Pilgrim further indicated that such results are not possible to find from
conventional rainfall and runoff records.
His intention was to examine relationships of travel time (which is corresponding to the
watershed lag) and average velocity with discharge. He strongly believed that, very little
direct and quantitative information was available at that time. This information is
related to the values and variations of travel times of actual flood runoff for use in
research work related to hydrograph analyses.
The following relationship was developed:
(2.67)
Tcm = 0.83qp-0.492
Where, Tcm is the time from injection to the centre of mass of the outflow hydrograph
and qp is the peak discharge.
Baron et al., (1980) carried out extensive studies to review and investigate the
following:
(i)
The processes and factors affecting the relationships between hydrological

characteristics of small and large catchments;
27
(ii)
To develop methodologies that can be applied to investigate those relationships;

and
(iii) To assess the possibility of transferring the results of small to large catchments.
The contents of their study may be categorised into the following four parts:
Effects of area on catchment runoff;
Annual rainfall-runoff relation;
Effects of area on flood hydrographs; and
Effects on catchment due to storm losses.
They used 52 catchments ranging in size from 0.05 km2 to 15043 km2, from NSW,
Queensland and Tasmania. Since the volume of water collected on the surface of a
catchment for unit depth of excess runoff, represents the unit hydrograph, they insisted
that the parameters of the unit hydrograph perfectly correlated with the catchment
characteristics such as, the slope, surface roughness and shape.
The relationships between catchment characteristics and unit hydrograph parameters
proposed by Cordery and Webb and the AR&R (1977) were tested for their reliability,
by Baron et al., and found the following results:
Cordery and Webb (1974)
AR&R (1977)
Baron et al., (1980)
Equations (2.65) and (2.66)
C = 1.50
Sc
K = 0.08 L1.05
L
C = 3.00
Sc
C = 1.70
Sc
K = 0.70 L0.57
(2.72)
0.31
(2.73)
K = 1.00 L
0.58
= 1.50 L0.58 Sc-0.29
(2.68)
(2.69)
0.40
= 3.00 L0.40 Sc-0.40
(2.70)
0.50
= 1.70 L0.50 Sc-0.25
(2.71)
Results revealed that the base flow length (C) of the hydrograph is slightly better related
to (L/Sc) than (L/Sc 0.5), and therefore, it is suggested that the equation (2.70) be used.
Baron et al., further indicated that the estimated K (storage delay time of catchment)
values from equation (2.72) are only 6% different from those obtained from the
28
equation (2.66). Therefore, the equation (2.72) is a better option to consider, they
emphasised.
The relationships of C and K of equations (2.70) and (2.72) have shown high correlation
coefficients (> 0.92) and not much of scatter of data has found in the plot. They
revealed from their other parts of the study that the strength of these relationships has
improved due to the selection of L and Sc instead the catchment area (A), as the flood
response directly proportional to those two factors.
It is interesting to note that Cordery et al., (1981) have made a joint study to assess the
validity of the use of small catchment research results for the large basins. They carried
out studies related to 52 catchments in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania in
Australia, ranging their sizes from 0.05 km2 to 15000 km2. Some of the findings from
their study are:
(i)
Rainfall losses increase with the size of the catchment;
(ii)
Rainfall-runoff and loss-area relations vary from region to region;
(iii)
Transferring of data between regions is not valid;
(iv)
Unit hydrograph parameters C and K vary consistently with the size of

catchment;
(v)
The continuing loss rate is practically a constant for all storms on a

catchment; and
(vi)
Initial loss increases as the catchment size increases.
Out of all the relationships between catchment characteristics, the relationships given in
equations (2.65) and (2.66) found to be valid and reliable. The findings of Baron et al.,
1980, have supported these relationships as indicated by Cordery et al., in their paper.
Boyd (1978) carried out studies related to regional flood frequency data for NSW
streams. The intention of his study was to relate flood estimates to hydrologic and
topographic variables of NSW Catchments. Boyd used log Pearson Type 3 flood
frequency distribution and fitted to the annual maximum flood series (q1.11 to q100) and
found the following relations:
q1.11 = 1.274 x 10 -8 A0.662 pe2.556
q2
q5
-7
0.689
-7
0.730
= 3.609 x 10 A
= 6.396 x 10 A
(2.74)
pe
2.276
(2.75)
pe
2.282
(2.76)
29
q10
= 5.711 x 10 -7 A0.758 pe2.331
(2.77)
q25
= 3.880 x 10 -7 A0.792 pe2.416
(2.78)
q50
= 2.928 x 10 -7 A0.814 pe2.473
(2.79)
-7
(2.80)
0.835
q100 = 2.011 x 10 A
pe
2.537
Where, q1.11 to q100 are peak flows for different return periods and Pe is the depth of
rainfall excess (mm).
As described by Boyd, 79 catchments were used for the study and 28 of them are
located inland and the remainder is in the coastward of the Great Dividing Range.
Catchment sizes vary from 9.0 to 22,500 km2 and nearly 40 years of data was available
for the study. Boyd also indicated that the catchment slope was found to be least
significant in the regressions and that was omitted in the estimation of flood
frequencies.
The following relationships were found for physical catchment characteristics:
L = 1.813 A0.53
(2.81)
Sc = 51.07 A-0.32
(2.82)
Although the stream length is strongly correlated with the catchment area, the stream
slope is less strongly correlated with the Area. Furthermore, relationships given in
equations (2.81) and (2.82) agree with those found by Hack (1959), Gray (1961),
Mueller (1973), and Boyd (1976).
Boughton and Collings (1982) carried out studies similar to those done by Boyd in
1978, related to regional variations in flood frequency characteristics.

The purpose of their study was to compare the calculated peak flows (for 2 year & 100
year ARI), with the flows estimated from the original data and also to assess the order
of accuracy of the results. They also compared their regression equations with those of
Boyd (1978). Four independent variables similar to what Boyd selected were chosen by
Boughton and Collings to make the comparison easy. Although Boyd used median
annual rainfall in his study, mean annual rainfall was used by them.
The 52 catchments in Queensland were used for the study and their sizes range from
31 km2 to 132100 km2. The main difference between the Queensland and NSW results
is in the values of the coefficients in the regression equations as shown here,
30
QLD
q100 = 0.54 A0.565 pe0.911
(2.83)
NSW
q100 = 2.011 x 10 -7 A0.835 pe2.537
(2.84)
QLD
q2
= 7.047 x 10 -5 A0.580 pe1.583
(2.85)
q2
-7
(2.86)
NSW
= 3.609 x 10
0.689
pe2.276
Where, pe is the depth of rainfall excess (mm)

It is important to note that both NSW and Queensland catchments have shown very little
correlation with the length and slope as described by all these researchers.
2.6 Linear and Non-linear Models
Various researchers have proposed linear and non-linear models to overcome

difficulties related to unit hydrograph theory, for example limitations in estimating
design floods for catchments with spatially varying rainfall.
Modelling is the process of representing the real system so that it can be used to solve
problems, being in an office or laboratory. Physical or scale models can be built in a
laboratory whereas a mathematical model is generally in the form of a computer
program (eg. RORB, WBNM, etc.,). Mathematical models attempt to simulate what
actually occurs in the real world, by introducing equations to describe the various
processes.
In this section, the studies done by various researchers pertaining to modelling are
discussed in detail.
Clark (1945) developed a linear model to calculate unit hydrographs by using flood
routing techniques. As explained in his paper the purpose of his study was to clarify the
inherent relationship between unit hydrograph and the method of flood routing. He has
used four concepts to develop his model and they can be illustrated from the following
equations:
(i)
Inflow (I), outflow (Q) and storage (S) relationship,

dS
=I - Q
dt
(ii)
(2.87)
Storage (S) as a non-linear function of stream flow (Q),

S = K Qm
(2.88)
31
Where, K is the basin storage coefficient related to the lag time and m is a positive
exponent.
(iii) Main stream storage (S) as weighted average value of the inflow (I) and outflow
(Q),
S = x I + (1-x) Q
(2.89)
Where, x is a coefficient which varies from 0.0 to 1.0.

(iv) Storage (S) as a linear function of stream flow (Q),
S =kQ
(2.90)
Where, k is a parameter related to the travel time in the reach.

The intention of his study was to modify the runoff hydrograph by incorporating the
effects of valley storage of the basin. This was done with the help of the above
equations. In his method he suggested to alter the shape of the hydrograph to provide a
sharper and earlier peaked unit hydrograph for high rates of runoff. The base length of
the hydrograph was estimated by means of the number of intervals of the time-contour
(isochrones) map of the catchment.
Four drainage basins in USA, Appomattox River at Petersburg (3458 km2), James River
at Richmond (3546 km2), Smith River at Bassetts (686 km2) and Meherrin River at
Emporia (1943 km2) were selected and Muskingum method of flood routing was
adopted to derive the unit hydrographs. As indicated in his paper the number of
advantages in his model is considerably more than its disadvantages.
Kull and Feldman (1998) carried out investigations to find out the possibility of
introducing spatially distributed runoff onto the Clarks Unitgraph method which
consists of three parts, and they are, time of concentration (tc); the storage attenuation
coefficient k; and time area histogram.
They further indicated that the Clarks Model (presently known as new generation
ModClark) became the driving force to generate different techniques to produce flood
hydrographs by various researchers, during past 50 years. The ModClark is a
methodology, and it has been developed by incorporating spatially distributed rainfall
data and it has the capacity to produce suitable unit hydrographs to satisfy catchments
with varying rainfall patterns. Furthermore, these capabilities were embedded into the
32
ModClark by using the advanced computer techniques and GIS facilities, as described
by Kull and Feldman.
Calibrating the ModClark by means of the data of two basins, Salt River at lock and
Dams 22 & 24 and Missouri at Mark Twain Lake (with drainage areas of 7304km2 and
6048km2 respectively, in USA), the following equation is derived for time of
concentration:
t c = 8.29 ( 1 + 0.03 I imp )
1.28
SC
0.28
= 8.29 (1 + 0.03Iimp)-1.28 A0.28 Sc-0.28
(2.91)
Where, Iimp is the index of impervious cover.

Rookwood (1958) developed a non-linear model for stream-flow routing specifically
for the Columbia Basin in USA, for a digital computer. In his model he routed excess
rainfall through the sub-areas of the catchment to synthesise stream-flow up to the
outlet.
In his paper he discussed the following three types of storage delays:
(i)
Delays within the tributaries of the main stream channel;
(ii)
Delays due to flows into the lakes of the catchment; and
(iii)
Delays due to main channel storages.
He used the general storage equation (2.88) for his routing method and considered the
storage as a nonlinear function of outflow, and the lag time is incorporated to that
function. The variation of storage time with outflow is considered by Rockwood, as one
of the important features of the routing method for the basin and channel storage. He
further explained that the time of travel of flood waves through channels may vary with
discharge according to channel conditions.
He assumed that the storage time is inversely proportional to a power function of the
outflow at time t and the following equation was developed. To obtain such a
relationship he made use of the ability of the computer program to vary the storage time
with discharge.
Ts = K Qt-0.2
(2.92)
33
Where, Ts is the storage time; K is the basin storage coefficient; and Qt is the outflow at
time t.
It has been observed from his studies related to Ts and Qt on Kootenay Lake, which is
one of the major lakes in the Columbia Basin of USA that the storage time decreases
markedly with increasing discharge.
Nashs linear model was described in the earlier section under unit hydrograph theory.
In his model the excess rainfall is routed through a series of equal linear storages. As
explained by Macrae and Turner (1971); Boyd (1975&1976), the parameters K (basin
storage coefficient) and N (parameter related to K and lag time) of the model have been
found to vary from flood to flood on a given catchment. Furthermore, the hydrographs
produced by the model do not totally match with the observed hydrographs, as
described in AR&R 1998.
A reasonably satisfactory catchment storage non-linear model, based on a very general
runoff-routing procedure, was developed by Laurenson (1964) to convert rainfall
excess to surface runoff. He used this procedure to examine the lag time. In his study he
selected the time-area diagram with isochrones to develop relations of storm and
catchment characteristics. He carried out an in-depth literature survey related to runoff
routing before developing his model.
The development and testing of the runoff routing procedure were carried out using the
data of the South Creek catchment (with an area of 90.7 km2) near Sydney, NSW. The
model equation developed is:
tL = 24.5qm-0.27
(2.93)
Where, qm is the mean discharge at outlet.

Pedersen (1978) introduced a Single Linear Reservoir Model (SLRM), and Pedersen et
al., (1980) tested this model by relating the model parameter k with watershed
characteristics as well as the intensity of effective rainfall.
For this investigation, Pedersen et al. selected the data from an experimental program
conducted by the Los Angeles District, US Army Corps of Engineers and also the data
34
of three catchments (areas ranging from 0.34 km2 to 6 km2) from the engineering
literature and the US Geological Survey.
SLRM is based on the concept that a watershed behaves as a reservoir in which storage
S is linearly related to outflow Q as given in the equation (2.90). Pedersen used the
kinematic wave theory to derive the equation (2.94) to estimate the value of k.
k = 28.9 (L n) 0.6 IR-0.4 Sc-0.3
(2.94)
Pedersen et al., indicated that the value of k has shown to be equal to the lag time (tL).
The results of the study also indicated the following:
The effect on the calculated peak flow of underestimating or overestimating k is

dependent on the distribution of effective rainfall.
For a high intensity short duration storm, the effect of k can be quite critical.
Variation in k had little effect on a longer duration and less intense storm.
They also indicated that sufficient evidence exists to establish the variability of k ( tL)
with rainfall characteristics, although traditional hydrograph theory believes that storm
characteristics have no influence on time lag (tL).
Mein et al., (1974) developed a simple non-linear model for flood estimation. In their
model the catchment is divided into number of sub-catchments (approximately equal in

size) designated to the major tributaries. A single parameter k (related to the travel
time in the main stream) was evaluated in the study by fitting the recorded data of four
catchments located in Victoria, Australia, into the following nonlinear storage formula.
Three of these catchments are situated at the Thomson River Basin and the other is at
the Yarra River Basin and their areas ranging from 339 km2 to 2300 km2.
S = k Qm
(2.95)
5
Parameter related to travel time (k) = 6.64 10 n
0.6
0.4
L Sc
-0.3
(2.96)
Where W is the width of the main channel.

In their paper Mein et al., noted that the uncertainties that often arise in flood
estimation, as a result of different unit hydrographs being derived from different floods,
can be eliminated by using this model.
35
From the beginning of early sixties Laurenson engaged in studies individually as well
as with other researchers, related to runoff routing methods and developed the runoff
routing computer program RORB (Mein, Laurenon and McMahon 1974; Laurenson and
Mein 1983).
In this model the storage is treated as a mathematical function that simulates the delay
and attenuation of the hydrograph. The storage function is represented as indicated in
equation (2.95), and its m value is between 0.6 and 1.0. Furthermore, the catchment is
divided into sub-areas (generally between 10 and 20) along the watershed boundaries.
The rainfall excess at each upstream subarea is assumed to be in inflow hydrograph at
the node of each subarea. All these hydrographs are routed downstream through the
conceptual storage to the next node. At the next node, further rainfall may be added to
another subarea, and the hydrograph is built up while moving downstream.
The parameter k is related to the conceptual storage, and it is formed as the product of
two factors:
Where,
k = kr kc
kr =
(2.97)
relative delay time, calculated for each particular reach; and
kc = model parameter, applying to all storages in the catchment. This

is also related to the lag time.
It has been found that kc is a function of the catchment area and therefore, the general
formula for kc may be given as:
kc = a Ax
(2.98)
Where, x < 1.0, and a = scaling parameter which governs the lag time.
The respective general equations in RORB for kc and lag time (tL) are:
kc = 2.2 A0.50
and
0.50
tL = 2.2 A
(2.99)
-0.25
(2.100)
In addition to RORB, another model recommended by the AR&R, is the Regional

Stormwater Model (RSWM) or RAFTS, jointly developed by Willing and Partners
Pty Ltd., and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (Goyen and Aitken 1976;
Black and Codner 1979). As for RORB, in RAFTS the catchment is divided into subcatchments.
36
RSWM has the capacity to separate the impervious and pervious portions of a given
sub-catchment and to route hydrographs of all sub-catchments to obtain the flow at the
outlet. The selection and graphical presentation of isochrones for each sub-catchment is
similar to that of RORB. The spacing of the isochrones in each sub-catchment is based
on the assumption that flow travel time is directly proportional to (L/Sc0.5) as described
by Laurenson, 1964.
The Storage-discharge relation shown in equation (2.95) is used in RAFTS and k is
given by:
k=BQ
(2.101)
Where = -0.285 which gives a power of 0.715 for Q in the equation (2.95). A
coefficient related to storage (B) is estimated by using the following equation, and it is
developed by Aitken (1975):
B = 0.285 A0.52 (1+U)-1.97 Sc-.0.50
(2.102)
Where, U is the fraction of catchment urbanised.

In addition to the other capabilities, RSWM has the following abilities,
Allows to introduce the infiltration, wetting and redistribution of rainfall, factors

into a given catchment (application of these factors were tested by Boyd and
Goodspeed 1979; Black and Aitken 1977 and found satisfactory results).
Estimates the rainfall excess and runoff frequency curves, by using the deterministic
loss model embedded into it.
Reed et al., (1975) carried out a study related to variable lag time in the rainfall-runoff
process. They introduced an additional parameter to the cascading reservoir model of

that process and a semi-empirical relationship between lag time and storage is
incorporated.
They mentioned that the studies done by Minshall (1960) and Rastogi & Jones (1969)
have demonstrated that the lag time is related to intensity of rainfall excess. Reed et al.,
used the catchment (area of 19km2) of the Ray River at Grendon Underwood in
Australia to find out the parameters a and b of the following equation, related to
variation in lag:
tL=aqmb
(2.103)
37
and found these relationships,

for linear variation:
tL = 13.38 qm
(2.104)
for non-linear variation:
tL = 7.12 qm-0.87
(2.105)
Where, qm is the mean total discharge.

Equation (2.105) revealed that the variation in lag is much more non-linear than the
non-linearity suggested by Laurenson (1964) and Askew (1970). They also insisted that
the parameter b, in particular, is related to the physical factors of the catchment and has
the capacity to produce some effect on the variable lag.
Weeks and Stewart (1978) calibrated and tested the Clark-Johnstone Method (1949),
and the Runoff Routing Model of Mein, Laurenson and McMahon (1974), to estimate
the model parameters for Western Australia and Queensland catchments. They used
physical characteristics of 27 ungauged catchments (6 from Western Australia and 21
from Queensland) and their areas ranging from 41km2 to 2331km2. Trial and error
method was introduced to reproduce recorded hydrographs, and found the following
formulae:
Clark-Johnstone Method parameters (K and C):
WA
K = 3.90 L0.71
L
C = 1.70
SC
QLD
(2.106)
0.94
K = 0.09 L1.03
L
C = 0.96
SC
= 1.70 L0.94 Sc-0.47
(2.107)
(2.108)
0.69
= 0.96 L0.69 Sc-0.35
(2.109)
Mein, Laurenson and McMahon Model parameters (k and m):
WA
QLD
k = 0.89 A0.91
(2.110)
m = 0.89 A-0.03
(2.111)
k = 0.69 A0.63 (m = 0.73)
(2.112)
Although the Clark-Johnstone Method is based on the runoff routing concept, the
disadvantages over the Runoff Routing Model were illustrated by Weeks and Stewart in
the following manner:
38
Model allows areal non-uniformity of rainfall and losses whereas the

Method only considers uniformity;
Model considers non-linearity behaviour of catchments, however, the

Method only accepts linearity;
although the Model has the capacity to derive hydrographs at various

points of the mainstream, the Method could only be used to calculate
hydrographs at gauging stations; and
Method could not produce post-construction hydrographs, whereas the

Model has that capacity.
However, both methodologies could produce satisfactory results, the Model showed
better results, especially when the recorded peak discharges varied over a large range.
They further described that although some of the regional formulae displayed
similarities, there is a danger of using the formula assigned for one region to another.
Boyd (1978) carried out a study to overcome the difficulties related to synthetic
hydrograph method. For example the synthetic hydrograph is not capable of specifying
the relationships between the watershed hydrology and geomorphology of catchments.
His study is based on storage-routing modelling and the purpose of the study was to find
out relations between lag times, stream order and network magnitude for basins within a
larger watershed. He extended the studies by testing the model with stream networks for
a given channel magnitude.
Boyd has explained the advantages of studying lag time of catchments and has also
indicated the important features of lag time in his paper in this manner:
(i)
The lag is the time between the centroid of excess rainfall pattern and the
resulting runoff hydrograph;
(ii)
The lag time enables us to assess the travel time to peak, time of
concentration, peak discharge or mean discharge;
(iii)
The lag time is precisely equal to the time parameter K of the following
equation, which describes the response of a storage element;
dq
i - q = K
dt
(2.113)
39
Where, i is the inflow to storage at time t; q is the outflow from storage at

time t; and K is the lag time of the storage element of catchment.
(iv)
The lag time is reasonably stable for a given drainage basin although it
changes slightly due to non-linear effects; and
(v)
The lag time can be measured easily and may be calculated from recorded
rainfall and stream flow data.
His study consists of four nested drainage basins in NSW Australia, and the catchment
areas vary from 0.39 km2 to 39.8 km2. The following equations have been developed for
the linear variation in lag:
For all NSW basins,
KB = 2.51 A0.38
(2.114)
0.38
(2.115)
KI = 1.50 A
Where, KB and KI are parameters related to lag time.

Boyd also demonstrated that these models are able to reproduce variations of lag time
which are observed on actual watersheds.
Boyd et al., (1979) developed a non-linear storage routing model known as Watershed
Bounded Network Modelling (WBNM) to estimate the runoff hydrograph from rainfall
excess. Although it is similar to RORB model there are considerable differences.
The continuing improvement of WBNM by various researchers in association with
Boyd (Boyd, Bates, Pilgrim and Cordery 1987; Boyd, Rigby and Van Drie 1996; Rigby,
Boyd and Van Drie 1999 and Boyd, Rigby, Van Drie and Schymitzek 2000) allowed the
inclusion of more and more features into the model.
WBNM has been included in the 1987 and 1998 publications of the Australian Rainfall
and Runoff (AR&R) of the Institution of Engineers, Australia, as well as the Water
Resources Publications, LLC, USA. This model uses runoff routing procedures to
calculate hydrographs, and it consists of storage elements which represents the subareas of the catchment. These sub-areas (stream and ordered) are connected
systematically to make a meaningful stream network. This networking procedure has
the capacity to handle the spatial variations in rainfall, losses and land use. This means
40
that, WBNM considers the storage characteristics and the storage delay time for each
subarea of the catchment separately, in addition to its geomorphological relations.
Furthermore, this model calculates hydrographs for each sub-area and combines these
hydrographs systematically and progressively, to obtain the hydrograph at the outlet of
the catchment. In WBNM the storage function for each sub-area is represented by:
For continuity,
IQ=
dS
dt
For storage-discharge relation, S = 3600 KQ
(2.116)
(2.117)
Moreover, the non-linear response of the catchment has been introduced into the model.
The non-linear behaviour, of the stream and overland flows of catchments, has been
considered in Mannings equation and the Kinematic wave equation respectively.
Therefore, the flow rate Q is incorporated into the model, because that allows the model
to recognise the continually varying flow velocities and lag time at every stage of the
flood, as described by Boyd et al., (1987).
The following equations adopted in WBNM are similar to the findings of Askew
(1970); and they are:
Transformation of excess rainfall to runoff,

KB = C A0.57 Q-0.23
(2.118)
Transmission of upstream runoff through stream channel

KI = 0.6 C A0.57 Q-0.23
(2.119)
Where, KB and KI are parameters related to lag time.

This model has been tested with 10 catchments with areas ranging from 0.39 km2 to 251
km2 in eastern NSW of Australia and found very satisfactory results.
The mean value of C (known as the lag parameter) is very close to 1.68 and it is
somewhat lower than the coefficient of the equation derived by Askew (1970), shown in
the equation (2.61). Furthermore, Boyd (1979) indicated in his paper that he found
improved results after comparing WBNM with Nash (1960) and Laurenson (1964)
model techniques as well as unit hydrograph theory.
41
WBNM is an event model not a continuous model and it has only one parameter C to
evaluate to calculate lag time for natural catchments. WBNM is easier to apply than
RORB (Sobinoff 1983), because only sub-catchment areas have to be measured.
Furthermore, the studies revealed that two models RORB and WBNM basically come
out with similar results. (e.g. Bates and Pilgrim 1983, and Boyd 1983).
As indicated in the Australian Rainfall and Runoff Volume I (1998) and Water
Resources Publications, LLC, USA, WBNM is a comprehensive flood hydrograph
model and suitable for natural, urban and part-urban catchments. WBNM also has the
capacity to produce detailed results of all calculations to its output file.
Bates and Pilgrim (1982) investigated the storage-discharge relations for river reaches
and the runoff routing models.

The purpose of their investigation was to examine the performance of the power
functions which describe the channel response. Since the majority of the storage of most
catchments depends on their channel systems, as explained in their paper, they
considered both runoff and flood routing techniques. They insisted that a constant value
of m in equation (2.95) does not satisfy the real behaviour of rivers, especially when
the overbank or the floodplain flows are reached in the main stream. One of the major
issues of their study is to re-examine the catchment lag relations developed by Askew
(1968). They used the same catchment used by Askew for their analysis with 34 storm
events and found the following relationship:
tL = 15.4 qwm-0.236
(2.120)
Where, qwm is the weighted mean discharge.

As described by Bates and Pilgrim, although, Askew (1968) used smaller discharges in
his study; his formula gave good results for large discharges as well.
Bates and Pilgrim (1983) introduced two distinct simple models for non-linear runoff
routing and they are:

(i)
Piecewise-Linear Model (PLM); and
(ii)
Quasi-Linear Model (QLM)
42
These two models as well as RORB and WBMN models were tested by means of storm
events of five catchments in Australia and their areas vary from 0.39km2 to 89.6km2.
Considering the following five characteristics, they developed an equation for lag time
(tL) by means of the PLM:
Catchment area (A);
Rainfall excess (Pe);
Duration of rainfall excess (De);
Antecedent catchment wetness; and
Spatial distribution of rainfall excess.
Since the last two factors did not contribute significantly to the relationship, the
following formula was introduced for the lag time:
tL = 3.17 A0.46 Pe-0.32 De0.17
(2.121)
For the QLM lag time found to be:

tL = K(Q) + T(Q)
(2.122)
Where, K (Q) and T (Q) are the storage delay and translation component of catchment
lag respectively.
They suggested further testing of the models due to the following reasons:
(i)
All models tested namely PLM, QLM, RORB and WBMN failed to show
that any one approach is significantly better than the other;
(ii)
All models were able to reproduce a range of recorded hydrographs and the
non-linearity of response over this range with reasonable accuracy;
(iii)
PLMs response at high discharges conforms better with the results of

several investigations of flood response than those of power function type
models.
McMahon and Muller (1983) calibrated the Non-linear Runoff Routing (NLRR)
model described in the section 8.6 of the Australian Rainfall & Runoff (1977).
Purpose of their calibration exercise was to model the peak flood discharges, and also to
match them with the observed values.
43
It is important to consider the following three sources, when assessing the true pattern
of the excess rainfall by the user of the model:
(i)
the estimate of baseflow, which determines the quantity of surface

runoff;
(ii)
the rainfall losses; and
(iii)
the degree to which the rainfall measured at the stations (within or near
the catchment boundary) from the true rainfall, which represents the
storm conditions over the entire catchment.
Furthermore, it is also important to see that the amount of excess rainfall resulting from
the third source can be quite large. That is, sometimes more runoff is measured than the
actual rainfall could supply.
McMahon and Muller have found the optimum values of m and k (parameters of
equation of 2.95) for all sized storms by selecting the intersecting point of the plots of m
vs k, as explained in their paper. They used a hypothetical mathematical catchment as
well as the results found by Weeks for k and m values from his study, to carry out their
studies.
The results revealed that the use of indifference curve or interaction curve techniques
for calibration of NLRR model is very satisfactory. However, some limitations of this
procedure are found, for example m and k values found for smaller floods may not be
suitable for large floods. In view of the above, they further explained that sensitivity
analysis is necessary to select appropriate m and k values for a given flood.
Sriwongsitanon et al., (1998) carried out studies to improve the storage-discharge
relationships for river reaches and runoff-routing models. Furthermore, they reviewed
the different regional values proposed by various researchers (Laurenson 1962; Askew
1968; Laurenson & Mein 1981; and Bates & Pilgrim 1983) for m and k of the storagedischarge equation (2.95), and suggested further investigations into the non-linear
procedure which is currently used for runoff routing with certain degree of uncertainty.
They claimed the constructive criticisms put forward by a number of researchers (Beven
1979; Brady & Johnson 1981; and Bates & Pilgrim 1983) related to the above issues.
44
Although Wong & Laurenson (1983); and Yu & Ford (1993), have attempted to
improve the storage-discharge relationship, the results of their studies were unable to
fulfil that requirement as indicated by Sriwongsitanon et al., in their paper. They further
indicated that even though the hydrologic runoff-routing technique currently in use is a
simple approach to flood estimation, it could not address the following natural
phenomena:
compound channel behaviour in floods;
performance of channels with flat slopes due to flood waves;
different propagations of flow in floodplain and the main channels; and
effects due to backwater formation in streams
As described by Sriwongsitanon et al., the studies carried out by Myers; Wormleaton;

Knight & Demetriou; and Baird & Ervine, revealed that the boundary shear stress
around the channel periphery is much smaller compared to that made by the channelfloodplain interface. Therefore, the ratio of the width of channel floodplain to that of
main channel is a vital parameter in the analysis of flows in compound channels.
Moreover, major portion of the storage is contributed by the channel system in most of
the catchments.
The following equation was proposed by Sriwongsitanon et al., for river reach and that
relation changes as the river cross-section changes:
S = So + k ' L R Q
1
b
(2.123)
Where So is the threshold storage; k' is related to the exponent (1/b) and it is equal to m;
and LR is the reach length between two adjacent cross-sections.
They selected the Herbert River Basin in Queensland, Australia, with a catchment area
of 9400m2 for their study as well as the river reach between Abergowrie and Ingham.
As the first step, they re-derived the Clark model parameters and obtained the following
results
and
their
coefficients
are
C = 0.28
SC
K = 0.77 L0.57
different
to
those
of
Clark:
0.40
(2.124)
(2.125)
45
Secondly, four measured flood hydrographs in the 1970 to 1990 period were compared
with the calculated hydrographs and a satisfactory agreement between them was found.
Finally storage-discharge relationship between two adjacent cross-sections was
investigated. The results revealed the following:
geometric characteristics of the channel cross-sections are related to the

flood hydrograph characteristics;
discharge and storage within the reach are related to the cross-sectional area
of the downstream end of the reach; and
the above indicated relationships tend to change as the ratio between width
and depth of flow of channel, changes.
In view of the above factors, the following conclusions were made by Sriwongsitanon et
al.,
storage-discharge relationship used in the runoff-routing models depend on

the cross-sectional properties of the flow than the magnitude of flood flows;
and
considerable influence on the exponent of the storage-discharge relationship

is evident when the overbank flow commences.
Therefore, they emphasised that using the same m (=0.8) for both small and large flood
events to calibrate runoff routing models is questionable.
Zhang and Cordery (1999a) carried out studies to analyse the storage-discharge
relationship given in the equation (2.95), to check whether the relationship is linear or
non-linear.
The proposals made by various researchers (Bates & Pilgrim 1983; Wong Laurenson
1984; Bates & Pilgrim 1986; Wong 1989; Yu & Ford 1993; and Sriwongsitanon et al.,
1998a & b) to demonstrate the calibration problem associated with the non-linear
storage-discharge relationship were highlighted by Zhang and Cordery in their paper.
They further indicated that the estimation of the optimum parameter value of k through
(using the values of kc and m) trial and error process is questionable.
46
Quoting the findings of Pilgrim (1986), that the runoff process is non-linear with low
flows and linear with high flows, they insisted that finding meaningful answers to the
following important questions, especially with regard to the practical application of
runoff-routing models, is the main objective of their study:
Would it be possible to identify the real storage-discharge relationships

by using the trial and error procedure?
Whether the non-linear routing approaches are suitable for design

purposes?
What is the physical significance of k or kc in the power function?
With the intention of identifying the storage-discharge relationship, they selected the
recession cure of the flood hydrograph by using the continuity equation. They also
insisted that the input rainfall is zero during the recession. Furthermore, a best-fit
function was fitted onto the points of the recession curve and they regard that as the true
storage-discharge relation of the catchment. Thus the parameters m and k were
estimated.
Since different storm events produce different functions for recession curves, the
necessity of fitting an appropriate power function, linear function or exponential
function for each event has been emphasised by them.
The method explained above was tested on large flood events of six catchments in
NSW, Australia, and their areas ranging from 40km2 to 261km2, and good quality long
period of data was used. However, extrapolated rating curves were used to obtain high
discharge values. Their results revealed the following:
for all selected catchments m is between 0.9 and 1.61, except for South
Creek catchments, for the non-linear high flow fit;
the values of k obtained from global linear regression are quite different
from the non-linear high flow piecewise regression;
The results obtained from the 5 floods of the Hacking River Catchment illustrated the
following:
47
k values vary quite considerably from event to event and found that they
decrease as the peak discharge increases;
m values vary from 0.66 to 1.23 with a mean value of 1.06 and they are
outside the range suggested by Laurenson & Mein (1995).
Zhang and Cordery suggested that a linear routing approach may be more appropriate
when estimating large floods. Furthermore, they stated that it is necessary to analyse the
recession curves of large events by fitting different functions to select the best-fit
function and then it could be used to estimate floods.
Zhang and Cordery (1999b) investigated the travel time and storage-discharge
relations (shown in equation 2.88) for flood estimation by means of a newly introduced
volume law. This law has the capacity to illustrate the nature of storage distribution to
estimate the parameters K and ki, which is the storage delay time for the ith subcatchment.
Since there is no significant lateral flow into the river reach, the time difference between
upstream and downstream flood peaks has been considered as K in their study, although
a number of other methods, such as speed-discharge analysis, from measured data etc.,
are available to estimate the K value. The data of Brushy Creek, Texas, USA, and
Wanshuri River, Hunan, China, found from studies done by Singh, V. P. (1988) and
Zhang, Y. L. and Lin, S. Y. were used to find out the relations between travel time (K)
and Discharge (Q).
In their second part of the investigation they introduced the volume law to the time
invariant system and tested South Creek and Eastern Creek in NSW, Australia, using
the Piecewise Linear Model (PLM) and WBNM model. A single value of K is adopted
for the selected six events.
The results from the two parts of the investigations revealed the following:
(i)
For low discharges variation in K is quite significant, and for high flows K
gave a constant value, for both Brushy and Wanshuri River flows.
48
(ii)
The hydrographs produced by PLM and WBNM showed over-estimated

rising limb with that of observed hydrograph. However, PLM made a
complete match with the falling limb.
In view of the above findings Zhang and Cordery concluded the following;
For large floods constant travel time K is more appropriate;
The ki of subcatchments can be interpolated by means of K;
The linear time invariant system could be used to achieve storage routing;
and
There is no need to incorporate any trial and error procedure.
2.7 Studies with RORB Model.

Morris (1982) carried out extensive studies to estimate runoff routing model parameters
for ungauged catchments. He used results from 86 catchments in all six states of
Australia, to calibrate the RORB model. The value of m (shown in equation 2.95) was
kept as a constant and kc (shown in equation 2.97) was related to catchment area, for
each case. The catchment areas used in Victoria, vary from 20 to 1924 km2, and areas in
the other regions have not been indicated in his paper. The general formula applicable to
Australian catchments, found from his study is:
kc = 2.00 A0.48 , m = 0.75
(2.126)
Victoria
kc = 1.37 A0.59 , m = 0.75 (16 catchments)
(2.127)
Tasmania
kc = 4.86 A0.32 , m = 0.75 (17 catchments)
(2.128)
Western Australia kc = 2.48 A0.47 , m = 0.80 (24 catchments)
(2.129)
kc = 0.35 A0.71 , m = 0.75 (25 catchments)
(2.130)
The regional formulae are,
Queensland
Morris recommended the equation (2.130) for all Queensland catchments. Hence for
catchments less than 2000km2 the equation is:
kc = 0.15 A0.85 , m = 0.75
(2.131)
He indicated that there were insufficient data in the remaining states to derive formulae
for kc. Morris considered, m = 0.75 to be the best value for ungauged catchments.
49
According to his findings it is interesting to note that the equation (2.126) has been
derived by using 86 data pairs and the value of exponent is very close to 0.5. He further
indicated that his findings are consistent with the results obtained by Askew (1970), and
Laurenson et al., (1978). Therefore, the value of 0.5 as the exponent of A can be
regarded as a correct value, Morris emphasised.
Flavell et al., (1983) engaged in studies to estimate the model parameters of the runoff
routing method of flood estimation (Mein, Laurenson and McMahon 1974) for
ungauged rural catchments.
The purpose of the study was to develop regional formulae by using the data related to
catchment characteristics in the four regions of Australia and the estimated kc parameter
values of the model. These values were obtained from stream flow and pluviograph
data, using the AR&R fitting procedure.
They published results for 52 gauged catchments with areas ranging from 5.46 km2 to
6526 km2 throughout the state of Western Australia (WA). They divided the state into
four regions and developed formulae for each region. In all cases m was set at 0.8 and
kc was related to the physical characteristics of catchments, and they are, the length of
main stream, catchment area, and slope. They found the following relations:
South West
kc = 1.45 L0.93
(2.132)
0.55
(2.133)
kc = 1.61 A
Wheat-belt
North West
Kimberley
kc = 3.00 L0.71 Sc-0.76
(2.134)
kc = 3.26 A0.43 Sc-0.72
(2.135)
kc = 0.46 L0.92
(2.136)
kc = 0.58 A0.51
(2.137)
kc = 0.34 A0.64
(2.138)
1.12
(2.139)
kc = 0.27 L
They compared these relations with those proposed by Weeks et al., (1979) for
Queensland catchments and Morris (1982) for other regions of Australia. As described
by Flavell et al., very similar relationships were found for all regions except for
Tasmania, which does not appear to fit the general trend.
50
The relationships between kc and L for the four regions of WA shown in the above
equations were plotted by Flavell et al., to compare the results. Similar results were
found for Wheat-belt, North West and Kimberley regions and the following equations
were found after combining the results of those three regions:
kc = 1.06 L0.87 Sc-0.46
kc = 1.79 A
0.46
Sc
-0.52
(2.140)
(2.141)
Furthermore, the plot of kc versus L of the three regions revealed that 30% of the kc
values are in the lowest confidence category. After removing that 30% of the data by
means of the regression analysis the following equation was found:
kc=1.26L0.83Sc-0.48
(2.142)
They indicated that the equation (2.142) is very similar to the equation (2.140).
The similarities and the differences of the three major runoff routing models RORB,
RSWM (RAFTS) and WBNM were examined by Sobinoff et al., (1983). Furthermore,
the relationships between runoff routing parameter and the physical characteristics of
Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong catchments were explored and compared with the
relationships given in the models.
They selected 26 rural catchments (areas ranging from 0.09 km2 to 4560 km2) and the
following relationships were found for RORB model:
kc = 1.09 A0.45
(2.143)
kc = 0.73 L0.79
(2.144)
kc = 2.38 L0.62 Sc-0.31
(2.145)
As described by Sobinoff et al., in their paper the relationships obtained from the three
models are fairly inconsistent. However, the most suitable and easy to apply model for
rural catchments is WBNM, they further insisted.
Hairsine et al., (1983) evaluated the runoff routing parameters of the RORB model for
small agricultural catchments to obtain regional parameters. The purpose of their study
was to support the soil conservation schemes implemented by the private and the
government organizations, to construct expensive drainage works on various catchments
totally or partially.
51
They used four gauged agricultural catchments ranging in size from 2.5km2 to 50km2
with eight flood events. They indicated in their paper that the natural behaviour of these
catchments (nested in the large catchment of Eastern Downs of Queensland, Australia)
are disturbed in modeling by altering their lengths, slopes, stream patterns due to subdivision.
The relationship for kc of RORB model proposed by Weeks (1980) and Morris (1981),
has been tested by this study and proposed the following equations:
kc = 0.80 A0.62
Hairsine et al.,
Weeks, Morris and Hairsine et al.,

kc = 0.68 A0.61
(2.146)
(2.147)
The results revealed that the RORB model can be applied to small agricultural
catchments and equation (2.146) is more appropriate for them. Furthermore, the
equation (2.147) shows a better relationship for Queensland catchments.
Netchaef et al., (1985) calibrated the RORB model by using 8 catchments in the Pilbara
Region in North Western Australia and their sizes ranging from 70km2 to 4456km2.
Almost all of these catchments are relatively flat with an average slope less than 1%.
Furthermore, due to the unavailability of data for these catchments, flood data from
nearby catchments were used for the calibration and that was done in two phases:
(i)
calibrated RORB by using data of various regional catchments; and
(ii)
correlated the recorded peak flows on the regional catchments to the

catchment characteristics such as area, slope, etc.,
The results obtained from their study were compared with the results obtained by
Flavell (1983) and Lipp (1983). Although the results found to be compatible, they
indicated that more information related to this region is required. Thus light rains tend
to make flooding in flat areas, and therefore, it is difficult to model with RORB in those
circumstances.
Weeks (1986) applied the runoff routing model RORB to Queensland catchments to
obtain model parameters for ungauged catchments. He selected 94 catchments (areas
52
ranging from 2.5 km2 to 16400 km2) from various parts of Queensland, Australia, for
his study. Out of 94 catchments only 86 were used, due to the unsuitability of eight
catchments, for the regional studies. The most suitable equation for the parameter kc of
RORB was found to be:
kc = 0.88 A0.53
(2.148)
As suggested by Weeks equation (2.148) is very close to,

kc = 1.00 A0.50
(2.149)
Weeks carried out two tests to improve the accuracy of this formula. First is to find out
whether there is a considerable variation in kc for various regions. Second is to find out
whether the stream slope has any significant effect on kc. Weeks further indicated that,
no regional differences were found for kc and the area of the catchment is more effective
than the slope on kc.
McMahon and Muller (1986) assessed the application of the peak flow Parameter
Indifference Curve (PIC) technique with un-gauged catchments.

They insisted the importance of finding a proper value for m rather using a value
between 0.7 and 0.8. They also examined the studies done by Weeks (1980); Morris
(1982); and Flavell et al., (1983) related to lag time parameter kc of the NLRR model,
described in AR&R (1977). McMahon and Muller (1986), found m values by plotting
the indifference curves for the various storm events and extended their work by plotting
k/dc versus m to investigate the sensitivity of peak flow to model parameter values.
They used 36 storm events of ten catchments (sizes are ranging from 37.3km2 to 1639
km2) in Queensland, Australia, to carry out indifference curve analyses at gauging
stations on rivers and streams along the Eastern coast of Queensland. The results
revealed that the PIC approach, in the calibration of NLRR model for un-gauged
catchments, enables to assign satisfactory model parameter values for un-gauged
catchments in Queensland.
Hansen et al., (1986) carried out studies to improve the existing expressions,
combining kc value of RORB model with the physical and hydrological characteristics
of catchments. They used the data of 40 ungauged Victorian catchments in Australia
and their sizes ranging from 20km2 to 3910km2.
53
In addition to (L/Sc0.5) and (dav/L) the following characteristics of the catchment were
considered for their studies:
(i)
Catchment area (A),
(ii)
Mainstream length (L),
(iii) Mainstream slope (Sc),

(iv) Mean annual rainfall (R), and
(v)
Average flow distance (dav),
They found the following relationships:
Whole Victoria,
k c = 9.58 10
S C
kc = 1.30A0.52
(2.150)
kc = 3.00 10-6 L0.95 R1.18
(2.151)
0.38
R 1.46 S C0.50 = 9.58 10-6 L0.38 R1.46 Sc-0.69
Region Mean annual rainfall > 800mm

kc = 2.57 A0.45
(2.153)
kc = 1.40 L0.88
(2.154)
L
k c = 2.11
S C
(2.152)
0.45
= 2.11 L0.45 Sc-0.225
(2.155)
Region Mean annual rainfall < 800mm

kc = 0.49 A0.65
0.74
kc = 0.09 L
L
k c = 0.12
S C
(2.156)
Sc
-0.49
(2.157)
0.80
= 0.12 L0.80 Sc-0.40
(2.158)
The following practical considerations have been highlighted by them:
a standard value of m = 0.8 applies to all catchments;
measurement of catchment characteristics, A and R, must be consistent with

the method, adopted by them; and
the relationship only validly apply within the catchment localities and the
parameters used to derive them.
54
Wong (1989) carried out studies related to non-linearity in catchment flood response
and examined the basic assumptions in various runoff routing models, especially
involved with the power function as shown in equation (2.95).
He used three catchments for his study, two from Victoria and one from Western
Australia with sizes of 460, 4720 and 550 km2 respectively. Mannings equation,
rearranged into the form given below was applied to estimate the flow,
S = L A = L n0.6 (Sf)-0.3 P0.4 Q0.6
(2.159)
Where, L is the length of reach; A is the flow area; Sf friction slope; P is the wetted
perimeter.
The power function lag time relationship considered was:
tL = aQb
(2.160)
Where, a = m k and b = (m-1).

In his paper he described the general concept behind modelling of storage effects in
catchments and the role of the storage- discharge relationships in runoff routing models,
especially in the RORB model.
From his investigations he found that the lag time to peak flow showed a fair degree of
scatter in the plots. Fitting a power function to five storm events gave a low degree of
non-linearity with a poor correlation. Wong argued that the functional form of the
equation (2.95) is inadequate to represent the nonlinear behaviour of the flood runoff
process, especially for higher floods. Hence he proposed a new S-Q relation consisting
of two primary functions to represent in-bank and out-bank flow conditions with a
transition. He stressed that neither the power nor the linear function is suitable for the
entire range of discharges investigated in his study. The power function that he found
for lag time is given by:
tL = 15.4 Q-0.07
(2.161)
Various researchers have carried out a number of investigations to calculate parameters

acceptable to catchments located in different regions of Australia for lag time in runoff
routing models.
55
Yu and Ford (1989) argued that the regional relationships developed for kc in RORB
model are misleading since kc is proportional to dav, which is the distance from the
catchment outlet to its centroid. They also indicated that the network layout of the
catchment for routing could have a bearing on the storage discharge relationship.
Although they mentioned the three models, RORB, WBNM and RSWM (RAFTS), in
their investigations they discussed the RORB model in detail because of its common
use.
With the intention of using a regional relationship for un-gauged catchments, a great
deal of information related to kc (parameter of RORB model usually expressed as a
power function of catchment area) from 15 catchments throughout Australia was
collected by Yu and Ford. They devised the following relationship between dav and
catchment area after examining 31 catchments in Queensland and 30 in Victoria
(Australia):
dav = 0.78 A0.58
(2.162)
This equation is similar to the relationship found by Langbein et al., (1947) and Gray
(1961) by studying 47 and 340 catchments respectively in USA and they are:
dav = 0.85 A0.57 and
dav = 0.63 A
0.50
(2.163)
(2.164)
Yu and Ford also defined a relationship between kc and dav and it is:
kc
d av
(2.165)
Where k* is the parameter of the power function which relates to the cross-sectional
area of the natural stream channel.
They further indicated that the lag time is proportional to dav and that could be seen
from the following relations developed by all researchers mentioned above:
Lag time (tL) 0.78 A0.58
0.85 A0.57 and
0.63 A0.55
56
Yu and Ford insisted the importance of recognising and minimising the effect of
network layout by selecting the appropriate amount of sub-catchments. They have also
mentioned about the studies done by Boyd in 1985, to check the influence on runoff
routing modelling due to sub-division of catchment in their paper. The findings of Boyd
have been taken into consideration to make their comments.
Dyer et al., (1993) investigated the reliability of RORB model, in the estimation of the
total hydrograph, by introducing the base flow into the model. They strongly
recommended the inclusion of the base flow component into the routing process in the
model, especially for streams where base flow forms a significant part of large events.
Although the parameter kr of RORB model (shown in equation 2.97) allows the
inclusion of the base flow, it does not consider the lag time of base flow component to
transfer its full effectiveness into the process to obtain reliable flows. Hence the peak of
the calculated total hydrograph would be less than that of the real hydrograph for a
given storm. These errors lead to incorrect and invalid kr values, as described by Dyer et
al.,
Despite the fact that, there is no absolutely accurate method available to introduce base
flow into the RORB model runoff routing procedure, RORB model can be used, but
with caution due to the inherent problems associated with it, they further expressed.
Bates et al., (1993) carried out in-depth studies to examine the nonlinear behaviour of
the flood runoff process by means of the model parameters of RORB model and NLFIT
program suite. As mentioned by them, most of these models rely on the assumption that
the power function (m) of the storage (S)discharge (Q) relation represents the
relationship between a measure of travel time and discharge. This is to say that the
degree of nonlinearity is incorporated into the model by assigning a value for the model
parameter m of the equation (2.95).
The methods adopted and equations produced by Leopold and Maddock (1953);
Laurenson (1964); Askew (1970); and Pilgrim (1966, 1976, 1977 and 1982) related to
spatial scales namely, the points, river reach, and catchment, were investigated.
57
Those equations are:

Formula of Leopold and Maddock,
Width of water surface
Mean depth of channel
Mean Velocity
w = a Qb
(2.166)
(2.167)
(2.168)
d=cQ
v=gQ
Where, Q = discharge of channel and a, b, c, f, g, and h are parameters.

Formula of Laurenson,
Variation in lag
tL=24.5Q-0.27
(2.169)
Equations of Askew and Pilgrim are (2.61) and (2.67)

respectively.
Subsequently a case study, involving rainfall runoff data from five Australian
catchments (three from Western Australia and two from NSW, and their areas ranging
from 24.9 km2 to 114 km2), was conducted using the RORB model and NLFIT program
suite to examine the following:
the variation of model parameter estimates with increasing event size;
the variation of the parameter estimates and their standard deviations between
storm events; and
the utility of approaches to the flood estimation.
As described by Bates et al., the RORB model consists of a rainfall excess part and a
catchment storage part which routs the computed rainfall excess hyetograph to produce
a surface runoff hydrograph. The value of m in equation (2.95) was kept at 0.8 in their
first trial run. Furthermore, a constant loss rate for NSW catchments and a constant
runoff coefficient for the Western Australian catchments were considered in their
analysis.
The results revealed that the model parameter estimates vary widely between storms.
They indicated that the use of calibrated runoff routing models to collect further
information pertaining to nonlinearity of flood runoff is questionable. These findings are
similar to that found by Wong in 1989.
58
The reliability and validity of model predictions on nonlinearity rely mainly on the
floods that consist of both channel bank and overbank flows. Therefore, the parameter
estimates obtained from model calibration are subject to considerable uncertainty as
explained by Bates, et al., in their paper.
Chapman (1993) further examined the work done by Bates et al., 1993, by comparing
his results with theirs for Eastern Creek catchment in NSW, Australia.
He put forward his own nonlinear model by introducing an additional processing stage,
just before the catchment discharge stage, named as Common unitgraph derived from
streamflow data sets compared to RORB model. Furthermore, the Distributed
nonlinear routing-linked storages of RORB model was replaced with a stage named as
Lumped nonlinear routing Single Storage in his model. He believed that this
replacement would enable researchers to illuminate the nature of nonlinearities in the
rainfall runoff process.
Although Bates et al., divided the April 1963 event of the Eastern Creek catchment into
three separate parts, Chapman treated it as a continuous event in his both studies related
to runoff hydrograph and baseflow analyses. The value of m was found to be 0.47 for
his model whereas the value obtained by Bates et al., from their study is 0.75, and
Chapman considered this difference as a major issue. Furthermore, he insisted that his
model has the capacity to relate the hydrological processes with the nonlinear storage,
which is representing the processes of detention storage and overland or shallow
subsurface flow to a stream channel. More importantly, as emphasised by Chapman, the
common unitgraph of his model effectively identifies all the linear system elements in
the rainfall runoff process, and also it concentrates on the nonlinearity as well.
Moreover, in his previous publications, he described the importance of inserting the
nonlinear storage between the loss model and the common unitgraph stage. The purpose
of this insertion is to prevent the production of erroneous unitgraphs, such as longer
duration unitgraphs with shorter peaks as described by Chapman.
59
Although the actual runoff hydrograph of the January 1962 storm event match closely
with that produced by his model, the April 1963 three peaked runoff hydrograph had not
performed well. The reason given by him for this difference is the baseflow separation
technique used for multi-peak hydrograph analysis.
The aim of the work done by Dyer et al., (1995) was to improve the accuracy of
regional prediction equations for the RORB model parameter kc. This improvement is
based on the catchment similarity with respect to the parameter for which the prediction
equations are to be determined.
The data in the form of prepared RORB model data files were obtained for a total of 72
catchments located in the East coast of the Australian Mainland, Tasmania, the Adelaide
hills, and the South West of Western Australia.
Moreover, the catchments have been formed into groups, which are considered to be
similar with respect to the representation of the catchment using the RORB model. The
grouping of the catchments involved the following three stages:
(i)
Determination of the relevant catchment parameters with which to assess

catchment similarity;
(ii)
Use of cluster analysis to determine the initial groups of catchments;
(iii)
Refine the groups found in (ii) using the Andrews curves.
A new parameter for the RORB model has been introduced to replace kc with c1 which
is defined by the following equation:
c1 =
kc
d av
(2.170)
In their analysis two RORB catchment models were developed and the first one has
used L/S1/2 as the predictor of time delay while the second used L to determine dav in
km, and the length of the reaches modelled in RORB model. These can then be used to
determine the group to which the catchment belongs. From this analysis it is possible to
predict c1(08) and hence kc(08) and they are the values of
respectively.
c1 and kc for m = 0.8
60
The research revealed that a greater accuracy can be obtained in the prediction of the
empirical parameter kc for the RORB model. The parameter c1 is a more fundamental
parameter than kc but can be readily related to the parameter kc by the factor dav. Yu and
Ford (1989) suggested similar relationship according to their equation (2.165).
Moreover, initial loss-proportional, loss model was found to be a more accurate
representation of the observed hydrograph in this analysis.
The prediction equations of the RORB model parameter c1 are based on groups of
catchments that are considered to be hydrologically similar with respect to the RORB
model, as distinct to previous methods that imposed artificial geographic limitations.
Although the validation of these prediction equations for catchments is not considered
in this study, Dyer et al., urged that the regions underrepresented in this study would
give even greater confidence in the application of these equations as a general method
of estimating the RORB model parameter kc.
The effect of catchment sub-division on runoff routing models has been investigated by
Boyd (1985). According to his paper the runoff routing models, Clark (1945);
Rockwood (1958); Nash (1960); and Laurenson (1964), for flood hydrograph synthesis,
and the runoff routing models (which represent the catchment stream water and subareas) RORB (Mein, Laurenson and McMahon 1974; Laurenson and Mein 1983),
RSWM or RAFT (Goyen and Aitken 1976) and WBNM (Boyd, Pilgrim and Cordery
1979 a & b) have been considered for his investigations.
The linear runoff-routing models were evaluated by using the equations developed by
Nash (1960) and they express the terms such as the distance from the centroid of excess
rainfall hyetograph to the centroid of the outflow hydrograph (u1) and the variance (u2).
Those variables are given in the following equations respectively
u1 =
u(t).t.dt
0
u(t) dt
0
(2.171)
61
u(t)(t - u )
1
u2 =
dt
(2.172)
u(t) dt
0
Here u1 represents the lag time (tL) between rainfall and the outflow.
The properties of runoff routing models were studied by using the first order linear
equation which represents the linear reservoir and it is given by:
k
d
[q(t)] + q (t) = i(t)
dt
(2.173)
Where, k is equal to the lag time (tL) between inflow and outflow.
The lag time is then related to the catchment area, by reducing all equations developed
by various researchers to a common form of:
Lag time (tL) = C AX
(2.174)
Where, C is the lag parameter.

The catchment main stream slope (Sc) has been kept as a separate independent variable
in his study due to its poor correlation. According to the findings from nearly 60
catchments in Australia with areas ranging from 0.2 km2 to 2200 km2, Boyd, suggested
the following:
(a)
For linear models the lag parameter has the form of:
K=CAx
(b)
(2.175)
For non-linear models the lag parameter has the form of:
K = C A0.57 q-0.23
(2.176)
It is revealed that there is an impact on lag parameter as the number of sub-areas (Z)
increases. However, the number of sub-areas depends on the size of the catchment
considered for the analysis. The minimum value of Z varies from 4, 7 and 15 for
catchment areas 0.1, 10 and 1000 km2 respectively. If the value of Z is below its
maximum value, then the outflow hydrograph properties could vary significantly.
However, if the number of sub-areas in a catchment is fairly large then the model
response approaches the case of pure translation in the outflow hydrograph, as described
by Boyd, in his paper.
62
The estimated peak runoff was utilised to carry out risk-based assessment in small
catchments by Jenkins et al., (2002). One of the intentions of their study was to
formulate a methodology that has the capacity to include the natural phenomenon of the
catchment in the rainfall runoff process.
The statistically based Rational Method and deterministically based models such as
RORB, WBNM, and RAFTS (HECI) were examined, as their methods towards the peak
flow estimation of the runoff routing process. The intention of this examination is to
select either the method or one of the models as the methodology for their study.
However, due to a number of short comings in the Rational Method and the limitations
in the Models, Jenkins et al., selected a more appropriate, as they defined, Statistical
Modelling Approach (incorporated an advanced storm pattern) as their methodology for
the study. In addition to the following capabilities, this methodology complies with the
complex nature of the hydrologic process existent in the catchment during storm events:
The statistical Modelling Approach (SMA) procedure is much simpler and

the peak runoff produced by SMA for a specific ARI is similar to that made
by the deterministic approach for storm temporal patterns.
A statistical model for catchment response can be utilized with SMA and it
uses a single simulation to produce peak runoff for any point in the
catchment.
Jenkins et al., selected a storm pattern of type class 2 (known as a fully advanced storm
pattern) for their methodology, and this pattern was defined by Pilgrim and Cordery
(1975) which is similar to the Chicago Storm Pattern proposed by Keifer and Chu
(1975). This pattern considers the following three most important characteristics:
(i)
the volume of water falling within the maximum period;
(ii)
the amount of antecedent rainfall; and
(iii)
the location of the peak rainfall intensity on the hyetograph.
Jenkins et al., indicated that this fully advanced storm pattern has the capacity to
represent the intensity versus duration characteristics of the statistically based IFD data.
Moreover, the surface infiltration, depression storage, surface detention and surface
63
runoff properties have been considered in the formulation of the advanced storm pattern
as described by Keifer and Chu in their paper.
The WBNM model was adopted with fully advanced storm pattern by Jenkins et al., in
their study. They further explained that the WBNM is similar in computational work, to
other network based runoff routing models such as RORB and RAFTS.
They applied their methodology to two hypothetical catchments as trial tests and
extended their assessment by using 47 catchments (areas ranging from 4km2 to 249km2)
in Queensland, Australia, to determine the actual flood frequency characteristics at
stream gauging stations.
The WBNM model was calibrated in the following manner:
minimum lag parameter C value for 100 year ARI case;
maximum C value for 1 year ARI case;
keeping C constant for all ARIs by varying the proportional loss.
The results indicated the following:
significant variation in C with the variation of ARI of storms;
low proportional loss rates were shown by storms with a large ARI which
means that storms have been preceded by some rainfalls which made the
catchment fairly wet.
Similar results were found by McDermott and Pilgrim (1982) and Weeks (1991) when
they used frequency factors to show that the increasing ARI tends to increase the runoff
coefficients as explained by Jenkins et al., in their paper.
Some of the advantages of the methodology they used in their study are described in the
following manner:
The network based WBNM model is capable of producing results to

illustrate the variation of accurately estimated peak runoff and ARI, with
little computational work;
By introducing the fully advanced storm pattern, the WBNM model allows
the prediction of the peak runoff at all gauging stations throughout the
catchment.
64
Since the annual exceedence probability (or ARI) governs the level of risk in any
engineering practice, an effective assessment of that risk would not be possible without
the assistance of an advanced storm pattern. Therefore, the rainfall-runoff models which
are capable of predicting the deterministic processes taking place in catchments during
storm events, could not produce satisfactory results for risk assessment without
incorporating advanced storm patterns into the models, they further described.
2.8 Summary of Lag Relations
The foregoing findings revealed that a considerable number of rainfall variables, basin
physiographic characteristics, hydrographic factors and linear and non-linear model
parameters have been selected in various investigations conducted by the researchers.
The factors that have been used in most studies of lag time are:
Rainfall Intensity (average and excess),
Duration of rainfall,
The rise time of the outflow hydrograph,
Peak flow of the main stream,
Catchment area,
Slope of the main stream,
Main stream length,
Length to the centroid of catchment,
Shape factor of catchment,
Roughness of the main stream (Mannings coefficient).
The equations found from the literature review are summarised in Table 2.1. Wherever
possible these equations are reduced to common forms of physical and hydrological
characteristics of catchments by using the relationships found by Gray (1961), shown in
Equations 2.39 to 2.43. For example Equation 2.145 (found kc of RORB by Sobinoff et
al., 1983) expresses kc in terms of L and Sc,
kc = 2.38 L0.62 Sc-0.31
Using equation 2.39 to replace L yields:
kc = 2.38 (1.31 A0.57)0.62 Sc-0.31
kc = 2.81 A0.35 Sc-0.31
65
As shown in equation 2.43, Sc is also related to A, and therefore, the above equation can
be further reduced to contain A only, and it is:
kc = 2.81 A0.35 (17.98 A-0.38)-0.31
kc = 1.15 A0.47
The physical characteristics of the catchment, such as L, Sc and Lca, of all the equations
described in this chapter are reduced to a common form of catchment area A as
indicated in column 5 of Table 2.1.
Table 2.2 provides a similar summary, where the equations are reduced to consist only
of A (column 2), or A & Sc (column 3) or Q (column 4) or A, Q & IR (column 5).
The majority of the findings have revealed that the lag time is directly proportional to a
power function of the catchment area (A). Although the value of that exponent varies
from 0.15 to 1.08, most of the values are between 0.32 and 0.75. The mean and median
values of all the exponents of A shown in column 2 of Table 2.2 are 0.53 and 0.50
respectively. This median value fully agrees with the suggested value of 0.50 by Morris
in 1982, after calibrating the RORB model. The mean value of the findings is also very
close to 0.50. The mean and median values (0.53 and 0.50) are also very close to the
exponent adopted in WBNM (0.57).
The results of some of the studies of the researchers have shown that the lag time is
inversely proportional to a power function of the slope of the main stream (Sc) and the
main channel outflow (Q) as shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 2.2 respectively.
The mean and median values of the exponents of Sc of 48 equations shown in column 3
of Table 2.2 are -0.39 and -0.33 respectively. The range of these exponents is between 0.10 and -1.47. Except for the one value (-1.47) the other exponents are between -0.10
and -0.76.
The mean and median values of the exponents of Q of 18 equations shown in column 4
of Table 2.2 are -0.54 and -0.26 respectively. The range of these exponents is between
-0.07 and -1.60. It is important to note that thirteen values of these exponents are
between -0.07 and -0.87 (which implies a lower reduction rate in lag time as Q
66
increases), whereas the remaining five values are equal or less than -1.0 (which
indicates abrupt reduction in lag time for smaller Q values and a very low reduction rate
in lag time for larger Q values). The median value of -0.26 of the exponent of Q found
from the literature review is very close to the values suggested in the RORB model and
Askew (1970) and they are -0.25 (m = 0.75) and -0.23 respectively. The median value
(-0.26) is also very close to the value adopted in WBNM (-0.23).
Furthermore, a considerable number of studies has indicated that the rainfall intensity,
mean annual rainfall intensity, duration of rainfall, duration of rainfall excess, porosity
of soil, etc., of catchments are also influencing the lag time.
In view of the above, the intention of this research is to calculate lag parameters for
natural catchments and also to find out to what extent the hydrological,
geomorphological and climatological characteristics of catchments could influence the
lag parameter. Seventeen gauged natural catchments of Queensland, Australia, with
rainfall and flow data for 254 storm events, which have occurred during the past ten to
fifteen years, have been selected for the study. The analysis of data is done by means of
the WBNM computer program due to the following reasons:
(a)
WBNM is very suitable for natural catchments (Sobinoff et at., 1983);
(b)
It is an event model;
(c)
It is easy to use because only one parameter C has to be evaluated;
(d)
Geomorphological characteristics of catchments have been embedded into the

model;
(e)
Spatial variability of land use, infiltration and rainfall have been considered in
the model; and
(f)
Four rainfall loss methods are available in the program and it is user friendly.
67
Table 2.1 - Summary of equations of various researchers related to lag time
Source
Catchment size Number of

2
range (km ) Catchments
Developed equation (metric units)

Lag time = (Other factors) Lw Ax Scy Qz
Rockwood (1958)
Ts = K Qt
Kerby (1959)
tc = 3.03 L n Sc
Nash (1960)
12.4 - 2225
90
-0.2
-0.23
Gray (1961)
0.6 - 84.5
47
0.3
-0.3
USA
0.41
UK
tL = 4.37A
-0.33
Sc
tL = 8.11 L
0.47 0.36
tc = 1.77 n A
tL = 10.39 A (OLS)
0.29
UK
tL = 3.39 A
tp = 0.004 qmax-1.6
USA
tp = 0.013 qmax
USA
0.57
L = 1.31 A
USA
Lca = 0.55 L0.96
USA
0.55
USA
-0.662
USA
-1..26
Lca = 0.71 A
SC = 21.5 L
1.005
0.6 - 84.5
42
USA
tL = tc = 1.017 PR
Gray (1961)
Country
USA
0.47 0.47
0.3
Amorocho (1961)
Reduced equation
x
Lag time = (Other factors)A
PR = 0.17 L
0.498 -0.249
Sc
tL = 0.09
1.005 0.38
USA
PR = 0.22 L0.562Sc-0.281
tL = 0.09 1.005A0.43
USA
1.005 0.41
USA
0.34
USA
0.531 -0.266
Sc
PR = 0.27 L
tL = 0.14
Morgan and Johnson (1962) Tested the equations of three

researchers and SCS
Snyder
tL = 0.75(Cc)(LLca)
tL = 0.73 Cc A
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
-1.0
PR = 0.21A V QP
PR = 0.21 V QP A
USA
-1
PR = 4.96 A QP
-1 1.0
PR = 4.96 QP A
USA
tL = 0.30 A0.74
tL = 0.30 A0.74
USA
0.64
USA
0.3
Common
12
26 - 262
Mitchell
-1.0 1.0
1.085 -1.233
Wu (1963)
7.5 - 260
17
Laurenson (1964)
90.7
Cordery (1968)
0.05 - 642
12
Viessman Jr. (1968)
-6
-6
6.7x10 - 3865x10
tp = 4.32 A
-0.668
Sc
0.937 -1.474
K1 = 21.7 A
tp = 0.45 A
-1.473
0.66
Sc
tL = 24.5qm-0.27
C = 23.03 (LLca)
K = 5.5
< 130
47
0.24
W
( OLS
0.66 0.66
tL = 1.78 n L
-0.40 0.8
Sc
0.8 0.42
( Sc )
0 . 5 Ln
tL = 0.82 n0.66 A0.50
0.59
Sc
tL = 4.90 MA
-0.23
tL = 4.83 A0.54 (OLS)-0.16 qwm-0.23

0.80
USA
-0.23 0.57
-0.33
tL = 8.57 L (OLS)
Ragan & Duru (1972)
USA
Tm = 0.54 A
tL = 2.12 A qwm
0.4 - 90
USA
0.15
Tm = 3.20 L-0.14 Sc-0.6

-0.39
USA
0.26
Tm = 0.78 A
0.57
Australia
Tm = 0.92 Lca
0.77
Australia
C= 7.12 n A
0 . 79
-0.33
Sc
tL = 10.25 ML
Askew (1970)
Australia
0.47
Bell and Kar (1969)
USA
k1 = 0.21 A
-0.23
tL = 2.12 qwm A
Australia
tL = 3.0 qwm-0.23 A0.60
Australia
-0.23 0.58
qwm
tL = 4.10 qwm
tc = 57.8 L0.6 n0.6 IR-0.4 Sc-0.3
Australia
tc = 28.6 n0.6 IR-0.4 A0.46
USA
French et al., (1974) - Tested the

equations of seven researchers
Ramser-Kirpich
0.77
-0.385
tc = 0.38 A
-0.20
Sc
tc = 0.71 A
tc = 0.97 L A
McIllwraith
Bell
Sc
-0.1
tc = 0.94 L
Bransby-Williams
37
Hoyt and Langbein
tc = 0.62 FA + 0.7
tc = 0.73 B A
0.40
tc = 0.68 B1 A
Friend
tc = 52.7(ch) (CR Fy K s)
0.47 0.47
-0.23
Sc
-1.0
0.40
USA
-0.1
-0.4
L A Sc
USA
-1
-0.15 0.62
tc =21.7(ch) (CR Fy K s)
0.39
C = 0.99 A
< 250
21
Mein et al., (1974)
339 - 2300
k = 6.64 x10 n W
tL = 13.38 qm
0.32
0.6
0.4
-0.3
L Sc
5 0.6
USA
Australia
K = 0.77 A
0.57
K = 0.66 L
-0.87
USA
tc = 1.78 n A
-0.15
Cordery & Webb (1974)
tL = 7.12 qm
USA
0.33
0.47 0.36
C = 2.90 L0.41 Sc-0.41

5
0.5
tc = 0.68 B1 A
tc = 3.05 n
19
USA
0.33
tc = 0.73 B A
Bruce and Clark
Reed et al., (1975)
USA
0.75
0.5
tc = 0.62 FA + 0.7
< 250
0.59
Australia
0.4 0.68
Australia
Australia
Australia
k = 3.66 x 10 n W A
68
Table 2.1 - Summary of equations of various researchers related to lag time (Contd.,)
Catchment size

w x y z
Lag time = (Other factors) L A Sc Q
range (km2)
Number of
Catchments
Pilgrim (1976)
250
Tcm = 0.83qp
Pedersen et al., (1978)
0.34 - 6.00
tL = 28.9 (L n) IR Sc
Source
Reduced equation
x
Lag time = (Other factors)A
Country
Australia
-0.492
-0.4
0.6
-0.3
0.6 -0.4 0.46
tL = 14.28 n IR A
USA
Weeks and Stewart (1978 ) Tested two models of five

researchers
0.71
K = 3.90 L
0.94
C =1.70 L
Clark-Johnstone
27
K = 0.09 L
0.69
C = 0.96 L
Australia
0.59
Australia
0.53
Australia
0.91
Australia
K = 0.12 A
-0.35
C = 0.42 A
Sc
0.91
k = 0.89 A
0.63
k = 0.69 A
k = 0.89 A
Mein, Laurenson & McMahon
Australia
C = 0.56 A
1.03
41 - 2331
0.40
0.71
K = 4.72 A
-0.47
Sc
Australia
0.63
k = 0.69 A
0.53
Boyd (1978)
Boyd (1978)
9 - 22500
0.39 - 39.8
79
4
L = 1.813 A
-0.32
SC = 51.07 A
0.38
KB = 2.51A
0.38
KI = 1.5 A
Boyd (1979)
0.39 - 251
10
Australia
Australia
0.38
KI = 1.50 A
0.57
Australia
0.38
KB = 2.51 A
-0.23
KB = C A
0.5
Australia
-0.23 0.57
KB = C Q
-0.23
-0.23
KI = 0.6 C A Q
Australia
KI = 0.6 C Q
0.50
Australia
Baron et al., (1980) - Tested the

equations of five researchers and
the AR&R
-0.41
0.41
K = 0.66 L
0.58
AR&R
-0.29
52
Baron, Cordery and Pilgrim
0.57
K = 0.82 A
0.31
K = 1.10 A
0.18
K = 1.00 L
tL = 15.4 qwm
Linsley et el.,(1982)
tp = 2.59 CC (LLca)
0.38
-0.15
SC
0.38
tc = 0.76A
kc = 2.00 A
kc = 1.37 A
0.32
kc = 4.86 A
0.47
kc = 2.48 A
0.71
kc = 0.35 A
0.85
kc = 0.15 A
kc = 2.48 A
kc = 0.15 A
0.50
Bates and Pilgrim (1983)
0.39 - 89.60
Hairsine et al., (1983)
2.5 - 50
Flavell (1983)
< 250
48
0.50
tL = 2.2 A
52
-0.25
Australia
0.32
Australia
0.47
Australia
0.71
Australia
0.85
Australia
-0.25
0.46
tL = 3.17 A
-0.32
Pe
tL = 2.2 Q
0.17
De
Australia
-0.32
kc = 0.80A
0.61
kc = 0.68A
0.54
tc = 2.31A
kc = 0.68A
tc = 2.31 A
Australia
0.54
Australia
0.55
kc =1.61 A
0.55
-0.76
kc = 0.40 A
-0.72
kc = 0.41 A
0.43
Sc
kc = 3.26 A
Australia
Australia
0.69
Australia
0.70
Australia
0.52
Australia
0.51
Australia
0.92
kc = 0.58 A
0.51
kc = 0.58 A
kc = 0.46 L
Australia
Australia
0.53
Sc
Australia
0.61
kc = 1.86 A
0.71
0.17 0.46
De A
0.62
0.93
kc = 3.00 L
0.50
tL = 3.17 Pe
0.62
kc = 0.80A
kc = 0.58 A
Australia
0.59
kc = 2.2 A
kc = 1.61 A
5.46 - 6526
0.48
0.50
kc = 2.2 A
kc = 1.45 L
Flavell (1983)
USA
Australia
0.59
kc = 0.35 A
Laurenson and Mein (1983)
0.48
0.48
kc = 4.86 A
Australia
0.38
tp = 0.63 A
tc = 0.76 A
kc = 1.37 A
86
Australia
-0.236
kc = 2.00 A
20 - 1924
Australia
C = 0.94 A
Sc
Morris (1982)
Australia
0.32
-0.25
0.50
308
Australia
0.38
C = 1.05 A
K = 0.70 L
< 250
0.38
-0.40
Sc
Bates and Pilgrim(1982)
Pilgrim & McDermott (1982)
Australia
K = 0.12 A
0.40
C = 1.70 L
Australia
0.60
K = 0.08 L
C = 3.00 L
Australia
0.44
C = 0.76 A
Sc
1.05
0.05 - 15043
Australia
0.32
K = 0.77 A
0.57
C = 1.50 L
0.39
C = 0.99 A
C = 2.90 L Sc
Cordery and Webb
69
Table 2.1 - Summary of equations of various researchers related to lag time (Contd.,)
Source
Catchment size Number of

range (km2) Catchments

Lag time = (Other factors) Lw Ax Scy Qz
0.64
kc = 0.34 A
1.12
kc = 0.37 A
0.64
kc = 0.34 A
kc = 0.27 L
Flavell (1983) - (Contd.,)
5.46 - 6526
52
0.09 - 4560
26
94
Australia
kc = 0.40 A
0.83
-0.48
kc = 0.39 A
-0.32 0.50
Kc = 2.2 A Q
Kc = 2.2 Q
0.45
Australia
0.45
Australia
0.47
Australia
kc = 1.09 A
0.79
kc = 0.90 A
kc = 0.73 L
-0.31
Australia
0.45
0.62
2.5 - 16400
Australia
0.66
-0.52
kc = 1.15 A
kc = 2.38 L Sc
Weeks (1986)
Australia
0.66
0.46
kc = 1.09 A
Sobinoff et al. (1983)
Australia
kc = 0.35 A
0.50 -0.32
Australia
0.67
-0.46
kc = 1.26 L Sc
0.53
0.53
kc = 0.88 A
Australia
kc = 0.88 A
Australia
-0.61
Australia
-0.42
0.67
L = 1.09 A
Sc = 47.42 L
Sc = 47.80 A
0.65
tc = 0.487 A
Black et al., (1986)
3.05 - 940
20
0.49
Tm = 1.00 A
-0.215 1.015
Sc L
0.52
-0.69
0.45
kc = 2.57 A
0.88
kc = 1.78 A
kc = 1.40 L
-0.225
kc = 2.11 L Sc
0.65
Australia
0.50
Australia
0.34
Australia
0.65
Australia
0.61
Australia
0.74
-0.49
kc = 0.79 A
0.80
-0.40
kc = 0.74 A
0.61
kc = 0.12 L Sc
0.52 0.50
Sc
0.52 0.52
Sc
tc = 0.25 no
tc = 0.16 no
-0.31
Iex
-0.35
Iex
Australia
0.52
Iex
0.52
Iex
-0.38
tc = 0.12 no
-0.35
tc = 0.07 no
-0.38 0.41
-0.35
-0.07
0.58
tL 0.78 A
0.57
tL 0.85 A
0.50
tL 0.63 A
tL 0.85 A
tL 0.63 A
0.1
USA
tL=15.4 Q
tL 0.78 A
15
0.45
kc = 0.49 A
kc = 0.09 L Sc
Australia
0.48
kc = 5.88 A
kc = 0.49 A
Yu &Ford (1989)
Australia
-4 1.46
kc= 1.70 x 10 R A
kc = 2.57 A
0.45
-6 1.18 0.54
kc = 3.88 x 10 R A
-6 0.38 1.46
kc = 9.58 x 10 L R Sc
Australia
kc = 1.30 A
kc = 3.00 x 10 L R
460,550 and 4720
Australia
tc = 0.71A
-6 0.95 1.18
Wong (1989)
Australia
0.55
tc = 0.91A
kc = 1.30 A
375
Australia
0.48
0.58 -0.17
0.52
< 2.02
Australia
tc = 0.50 A
-0.113
Papadakis &Kazan (1987)
Australia
0.65
0.65
tc = 0.95 A L
40
0.49
0.70
tc = 0.31 A
tc = 0.50 A
20 - 3910
Australia
Tm = 1.00 A
-1.0
Sc
tc = 4.752 L
tc = 1.02 A
Australia
0.65
tc = 0.487 A
0.56
Hansen et al., (1986)
Country
0.64
0.87
kc = 1.06 L Sc
kc = 1.79 A Sc
Laurenson (1983)
Reduced equation
Lag time = (Other factors)Ax
0.43
USA
Australia
0.58
Australia
0.57
Australia
0.50
Australia
0.53
Hughes (1993)
< 2.60
42
Wong (1996)
tc = 58.47 n L Sc IR
Kull and Feldman (1998)
6048 and 7304
tc = 8.29 [1 + (0.03)Iimp]
Tv = 0.41 L Sc
USA
Tv = 0.72 A
0.6 0.6
-0.3
-0.4
-1.28
0.6
-0.4 0.45
Singapore
tc = 23.0 n IR A
0.28
-0.28
-1.28
A Sc
tc = 3.69 [1 + (0.03)Iimp]
0.39
USA
Yang and Lee (1999) - Tested the

the TSWCS
0.77
Kirpich
0.22
Kadoya
Rziha
Yang and Lee
TSWCS
-0.385
0.59
tc = 0.94 L Sc
tc = 0.017 CR A
0.114 - 0.344
tc = 0.014 L
-0.35 0.22
tc = 0.017 CR Iex
1.60 -0.6
tc = 0.02 H
0.4
-0.4 0.6
-0.5
tc = 79.06 A (OLS)
Taiwan
0.6 -0.40 0.45
tc = 0.11 no IR
-0.3
-0.40
tc = 9.25 10 n W Lo L Sc IR
0.5
Taiwan
-0.60 0.91
0.6 0.6
-0.30 -0.40
tc =0.23 no Lt (OLS) IR
2 0.6
USA
tc = 0.38 A
-0.35
Iex
2 0.6
0.4 -0.40 1.08
tc = 5.08x10 n W IR
0.69
tc = 18.64 A
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
70
Table 2.2 - Summary of equations reduced to common forms of different physical and
hydrological characteristics of catchments
Source
Lag time Ax
Lag time Ax Scy
Lag time Qz
Lag time Ax Qz IR
Rockwood (1958)
Qt-0.2
Kerby (1959)
A0.36
A 0.27 Sc-0.23
A0.41
A0.3 (OLS)-0.3
A 0.17 Sc-0.33
qmax-1.6
qmax-1.26
A0.38
A 0.28 Sc-0.25
A0.43
A 0.32 Sc-0.28
A0.41
A 0.30 Sc-0.27
Morgan and Johnson (1962) Tested the equations of three

researchers and SCS
Snyder
A 0.34
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
A1.0
QP-1.0
A QP-1.0
Common
A1.0
QP-1.0
A QP-1.0
Mitchell
A0.74
A0.64
A0.38 Sc-0.67
A0.66
A0.10 Sc-1.47
qm-0.27
A0.42
A0.27 Sc-0.40
Nash (1960)
0.29
A
Amorocho (1961)
Gray (1961)
Gray (1961)
Wu (1963)
Laurenson (1964)
Cordery (1968)
Viessman Jr. (1968)
Bell and Kar (1969)
A0.50
A0.38 Sc-0.33
A0.26
A0.15
A0.09 Sc-0.60
A0.59
A0.44 Sc-0.39
qwm-0.23
A0.57qwm-0.23
A0.54 qwm-0.23
A0.57
Askew (1970)
Ragan & Duru (1972)
A0.60
A0.54 (OLS)-0.16
qwm-0.23
A0.58
A0.46 (OLS)-0.33
qwm-0.23
A0.46
A0.34 Sc-0.30
French et al., (1974) - Tested the

equations of seven researchers
Ramser-Kirpich
A0.59
A0.44 Sc-0.39
Bransby-Williams
A0.75
A0.47 Sc-0.20
McIllwraith
A0.5
Bell
A0.33
Hoyt and Langbein
A0.40
Bruce and Clark
A0.36
A0.27 Sc-0.23
Friend
A0.62
A0.47 Sc-0.4
A0.39
A0.23 Sc-0.41
A0.32
A0.68
A0.57 Sc-0.30
qm
Cordery & Webb (1974)

Mein et al., (1974)
Reed et al., (1975)
qm-0.87
71
hydrological characteristics of catchments (Contd.,)
Source
Lag time Ax
Pilgrim (1976)
Pedersen et al., (1978)
A0.46
Lag time Ax Scy
Lag time Qz
qp-0.492
0.34
Sc-0.30
Lag time Ax Qz IR
Weeks and Stewart (1978 ) - Tested

two models of five researchers
Clark-Johnstone
Mein, Laurenson & McMahon

Boyd (1978)
Boyd (1978)
Boyd (1979)
A0.40
A0.71
A0.54 Sc-0.47
A0.59
A0.53
A0.39 Sc-0.35
A0.91
A0.63
A0.38
A0.38
A0.57
Q-0.23
A0.50
Q-0.23
A0.39
A0.23 Sc-0.41
A0.32
A0.44
A0.33 Sc-0.29
A0.38
A0.23 Sc-0.40
0.38
A0.29 Sc-0.25
Baron et al., (1980) - Tested the

the AR&R
Cordery and Webb
AR&R
0.60
Baron, Cordery and Pilgrim
A0.32
A0.18
qwm-0.236
Linsley et el.,(1982)
A0.48
A0.43 Sc-0.15
Pilgrim & McDermott (1982)
A0.38
A0.48
A0.59
A0.32
A0.47
A0.71
A0.85
A0.50
A0.50
Q-0.25
A0.50 Q-0.25
A0.46
A0.46 Pe-0.32 De0.17
0.62
A0.61
A0.54
A0.53
A0.55
A0.69
A0.40 Sc-0.76
A0.70
A0.43 Sc-0.72
A0.52
A0.51
Morris (1982)
Laurenson and Mein (1983)

Hairsine et al., (1983)
Flavell (1983)
Flavell (1983)
72
hydrological characteristics of catchments (Contd.,)
Source
Lag time Ax
A
Lag time A Sc
0.67
0.50
Sc
-0.46
0.46
-0.52
Sc
0.47
Sc
-0.48
0.66
0.66
A
Laurenson (1983)
0.45
0.45
0.47
A
Weeks (1986)
Black et al., (1986)
0.50
0.65
0.49
0.70
0.48
0.55
0.48
0.45
0.50
0.34
-0.22
Sc
-0.69
0.22
Sc
-0.23
0.26
Sc
-0.49
-0.40
-0.31
-0.35
0.42
Sc
0.46
Sc
0.29
Sc
0.30
Sc
A
A
0.41
0.43
0.61
0.65
0.61
0.47
Sc
0.54
-0.10
0.32
0.52
-0.07
0.58
A
Yu & Ford (1989)
Wong (1989)
-0.32
0.53
0.65
Papadakis & Kazan (1987)
-0.31
Sc
0.35
Hansen et al., (1986)
0.50
A
Sobinoff et al. (1983)
Lag time Ax Qz IR
0.64
A
A
Lag time Qz
0.64
A
Flavell (1983) - (Contd.,)
0.57
0.50
0.53
A
A
Hughes (1993)
Wong (1996)
Kull and Feldman (1998)
0.45
0.39
0.34
Sc
-0.30
0.28
Sc
-0.28
0.44
Sc
-0.39
A
A
-0.32
Iimp
-1.28
0.28
Yang and Lee (1999) - Tested the

the TSWCS
Kirpich
Kadoya
Rziha
Yang and Lee
TSWCS
0.59
0.22
0.91
0.45
1.08
0.69
0.34
0.5
-0.30
Sc
A (OLS)
-0.5
0.22
-0.35
Iex
CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION OF CATCHMENTS
73
3.
DESCRIPTION OF CATCHMENTS
Seventeen rural catchments from five coastal river basins in Queensland (specified in
Table 3.1) have been selected for this study. Details of the physical properties of these
catchments appear in the following sections.
Table 3.1 List of Catchments
River or Creek
of Catchment
Mary River
Mary River
Mary River
Six Mile Creek
Tributary of
Mary River
Kandanga Creek
Tributary of
Mary River
Haughton River
Haughton River
Herbert River
Herbert River
Herbert River
Herbert River
Don River
Don River
Don River
North Johnstone
River
North Johnstone
River
South Johnstone
River
Gauging Station
National
Station
Number
Area of
Catchment
(km2)
Gympie
Moy Pocket
Bellbird
Cooran
138900
138111
138110
138107
2920
830
480
165
longitude
152o 39 18
152o 44 59
152o 41 59
152o 49 23
latitude
26o 11 23
26o 32 00
26o 38 00
26o 19 24
Kandanga
138113
176
152o 41 03
26o 23 16
Powerline
Mount
Piccaninny
Zattas
Nashs Crossing
119003
119005
1735
1140
147o 06 33
146o 57 29
19o 38 05
19o 46 27
7292
6842
145o 49 43
145o 46 18
18o 27 09
18o 24 48
Gleneagle
Silver Valley
Reeves
Mount Dangar
Ida Creek
Tung Oil
116905
Not
available
116004
116014
121003
121903
121902
112004
5370
586
1010
808
620
930
145o 19 53
145o 18 00
148o 08 35
148o 07 14
148o 07 01
145o 55 59
18o 11 37
17o 38 00
20o 09 05
20o 13 17
20o 17 28
17o 33 00
Nerada
112905
808
145o 50 44
17o 3158
Central Mill
112903
390
145o 59 00
17o 3659
Location of Gauging Stations
Information related to land use, developed areas, topsoil & subsoil properties, climatic
conditions, and texture of soils of most of the catchments in Australia can be obtained
from the Natural Resource Atlas of Australia and are available at the website
http://audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/atlas_home.cfm. As an example some of the information
obtained from the website for the Gympie catchment of the Mary River basin is shown
in the Figures 3.7 to 3.13. Similar information for the major catchments (Powerline,
Zattas, Reeves, and Tung Oil) of the four remaining River basins (Haughton, Herbert,
Don, and Johnstone) is contained in Appendix A of the CD.
74
3.1 Gympie, Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Cooran and Kandanga Catchments of Mary
River
Mary River catchment at Gympie shown in Figure 3.1 covers nearly 2920 km2, which
includes Six Mile and Kandanga Creeks, and is situated in the South-East coastal region
of Queensland.
Gympie
Cooran
Kandanga
Moypocket
Bellbird
Figure 3.1 Mary River and its contributing catchments
75
700
600
Elevation (m)
500
400
300
Profile of main stream
200
Equal area slope line
100
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Length (m)
Figure 3.2 - Stream elevations of Gympie catchment of Mary River
700
600
Elevation (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Length (m)
Figure 3.3 - Stream elevations of Moy Pocket catchment of Mary River
76
700
600
Elevation (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Length (m)
Figure 3.4 - Stream elevations of Bellbird catchment of Mary River
160
140
120
Elevation (m)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Length (m)
Figure 3.5 - Stream elevations of Cooran catchment of Sixth Mile Creek

77
800
700
600
Elevation (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
Length (m)
Figure 3.6 - Stream elevations of Kandanga catchment of Kandanga Creek

Out of the seventeen catchments selected for this study, Gympie has the lowest equal
area stream slope, 0.09%. The natural profile and the equal area slope line of the main
stream are shown in Figure 3.2. The equal area slopes of the other catchments of
Gympie, namely Cooran, Moy Pocket, Bellbird, and Kandanga are 0.12%, 0.22%,
0.48% and 0.51% respectively.
The Mary River begins in the Conondale Ranges at the Southern end of the catchment,
at an altitude of about 600m above mean sea level. The river falls some 400m in the first
8km, and the grade of that part of the river is approximately 6%.
At the head of the river the mountains are rather high (600m). The valleys are also steep
in this area and the river flows through deep gullies. In the upper region of the
catchment the valley plain is very narrow. As the river levels out, the valleys become
flatter and the mountainous terrains are with a gentle slope.
78
From the Figures 3.7 to 3.13 the following can be seen:
Open forests cover nearly 40% of the catchment, and that includes forestry. The
remaining part is covered with vegetation and national parks. Grassland, isolated
trees, sparse woodlands and closed forests, each cover between 10 to 15% of the
Gympie catchment. A significant part of the catchment has been cleared of its
natural vegetation due to grazing as well as agricultural needs and this has led to
advanced erosion in some areas.
The topsoil layer of the Gympie catchment is covered with clay and clay loams.
Although sand and sandy loams patches are found in some parts of the catchment in
its subsoil, most of the area is covered with light clay loams and loam. Therefore,
the amount of water is not enough to sustain any irrigation needs. However, ground
water is available in the alluvial plains. As a result of years of erosion and
degradation, in conjunction with the flooding, much of the river system in the lower
areas of the Gympie catchment has a considerable amount of silt deposits.
Mary River catchment at Gympie is sub-tropical with the Southern region being moist
sub-tropical and the Northern region being dry sub-tropical. At Maleny the rainfall is
around 2000mm and the mean monthly rainfall exceeds the evaporation. The Western
parts of the catchment receive only about 880mm and the evaporation rate exceeds the
mean monthly rainfall, therefore, this area relies on irrigation for the growing of crops.
Because the area is sub-tropical the majority of the annual rainfall occurs during
summer months, but there are still substantial falls throughout the year.
79
26.092
E 152.271
Please see print copy for Figure 3.7
Figure 3.7 Mary River at Gympie Land Use Classification
80
S 25.977
E 152.119
Figure 3.8 Mary River at Gympie Soil Texture of Topsoil
Figure 3.9 Mary River at Gympie Soil Texture of Subsoil
82
S 25.848
E 151.906
83
Figure 3.10 Mary River at Gympie Silt in Topsoil
S 25.848
E 151.906
84
Figure 3.11 Mary River at Gympie Silt in Subsoil
S 25.848
E 151.906
85
Figure 3.12 Mary River at Gympie Sand in Topsoil
S 25.953
E 151.911
86
Figure 3.13 Mary River at Gympie Sand in Subsoil
3.2 Powerline and Mount Piccaninny Catchments of Haughton River
87
Haughton River catchment at Powerline as shown in Figure 3.14 covers 1735 km2 and
its major tributaries are Reid River and Major Creek. Comparing with other catchments
selected for this study, Haughton River Basin is fairly small in size.
Powerline
Mt. Piccaninny
Figure 3.14 Haughton River and its contributing catchments

The South-East part of the Powerline catchment is covered with rain forests, and the
majority of the remainder is full of scattered vegetation, with some medium vegetation.
The majority of the catchment is used for livestock grazing and the Haughton River
basin has a mountainous terrain.
88
700
600
Elevation (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Length (m)
Figure 3.15 - Stream elevations of Powerline catchment of Haughton River
700
600
Elevation (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Length (m)
Figure 3.16 - Stream elevations of Mount Piccaninny catchment of Haughton River

The Training Centre of the Defence Department covers a significant part of the
Powerline catchment and is situated in the North-Western part of the catchment. The
sealed road runs across both catchments and they are very much circular in shape.
89
Although sand patches are found in some parts of the Haughton River basin, the
majority of its topsoil and subsoil layers are covered with light clay loams and loam as
shown in Figures 3.31 and 3.32 of Appendix A. Therefore, soil moisture in the topsoil
and subsoil is fairly low.
The first half of the main stream of the Powerline catchment is nearly ten times steeper
than that of the other half and their respective average slopes are approximately 1.26%
and 0.123%. This variation in slope allows the sedimentation in the bottom part of the
catchment and soil erosion at the top.
Out of the two catchments selected for the analysis from the Haughton River catchment,
Mount Piccaninny has the highest equal area stream slope, and that is about 0.38%. The
slope of the Powerline catchment is about 0.26%.
3.3
Zattas, Nashs Crossing, Gleneagle, and Silver Valley Catchments of

Herbert River
The Zattas catchment shown in Figure 3.17 is situated in the tropical coast to the NorthWest of Ingham and has an area of 7292 km2. It is the largest catchment selected for this
study. Major flooding usually takes place during the wet season from January to March
and minor flooding occurs in April and December.
Overall there is not much human activity in the Herbert River basin apart from logging,
livestock, and tourism. The Herbert River flows through valleys and many gorges and
some are covered with national parks and numerous unsealed roads. Natural vegetation
dominates the catchment and some parts are covered with dense rain forests and the
others are in medium rain forests. Low lying areas such as Abergowrie are utilised for
cane sugar cultivation. Some waterfalls are present in the catchment due to the steep
rocky outcrops and gullies. However, there are no large water bodies present.
As shown in Figure 3.38 of Appendix A, the Western part of the upstream of the Zattas
catchment is covered with sandy loam and sand in its topsoil layer. The other parts are
covered with clay loams and loam. Although there are some loam patches present in the
upstream of the Zattas catchment, the remainder is covered with sandy loam as shown
90
in Figure 3.39 of Appendix A. Therefore, the water absorption in the Zattas catchment
is fairly moderate and it has low moisture in its topsoil and subsoil layers.
A considerable fall of 520m in 92km (average slope of 0.57%) in the downstream
region of the catchment can be observed from Figure 3.21. The average slope in the
upstream region just before that fall is about 0.35%. These topographical features lead
to sedimentation in the upper middle part of the catchment and soil erosion in the lower
part, this occurs to a considerable extent.
Silver Valley
Gleneagle
Nashs Crossing
Zattas
Figure 3.17 - Herbert River and its contributing catchments
91
1100
1000
900
800
Elevation (m)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Length (m)
Figure 3.18 - Stream elevations of Silver Valley catchment of Herbert River
1100
1000
900
800
Elevation (m)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Length (m)
Figure 3.19 - Stream elevations of Gleneagle catchment of Herbert River
92
1100
1000
900
800
Elevation (m)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
25000
50000
75000
100000
125000
150000
175000
200000
225000
Length (m)
Figure 3.20 - Stream elevations of Nashs Crossing catchment of Herbert River
1100
1000
900
800
Elevation (m)
700
600
500
400
300

200
100
0
0
25000
50000
75000
100000
125000
150000
175000
200000
225000
250000
Length (m)
Figure 3.21- Stream elevations of Zattas catchment of Herbert River
93
3.4 Reeves, Mount Dangar and Ida Creek Catchments of Don River
Total draining area of Don River basin at Reeves as shown in Figure 3.22 is 1010km2
and it is located in the tropical coast to the South of Bowen.
Reeves
Mt. Dangar
Ida Creek
Figure 3.22 Don River and its contributing catchments
94
The entire Reeves catchment is covered with light clay loams and loam in its topsoil (as
shown in Figure 3.45 of Appendix A), apart from an area near the upstream of the
mainstream, which is covered with sand. The subsoil layer of the whole catchment is
covered with sandy loam (as shown in Figure 3.46 of Appendix A), apart from an area
near the upstream of the mainstream, which is covered with sand. Therefore, the subsoil
layer of the catchment allows the water to percolate fairly quickly.
Since eighty percent of the catchment is covered with medium rain forests and the
remainder with scattered forests, not much human activity is present other than
livestock grazing. Apart from minor roads running through these catchments, not much
development can be seen.
Although the equal area stream slope of Reeves catchment is about 0.33%, the total fall
is about 530m for a stream length of 66.7km. As shown in Figure 3.23 the river falls
about 320m in the first 7km of the upstream area and the grade of that part is
approximately 4.5%. This steep slope contributes erosion in the upstream part of the
catchment. The approximate average slope of the remaining part, with a length of 60km,
of the Reeves catchment is 0.35%.
600
500
Elevation (m)
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Length (m)
Figure 3.23 - Stream elevations of Reeves catchment of Don River
95
600
500
Elevation (m)
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Length (m)
Figure 3.24 - Stream elevations of Mount Dangar catchment of Don River
600
500
Elevation (m)
400
300
200
100
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Length (m)
Figure 3.25 - Stream elevations of Ida Creek catchment of Don River
96
3.5 Tung Oil, Nerada and Central Mill Catchments of North and South
Johnstone Rivers
The combined area of North and South Johnstone River basins at the Tung Oil and
Central Mill as shown in Figure 3.26 is 1320km2. These rivers rise in the tablelands of
the North tropical coast and flow through steep narrow gorges to their outlets.
The middle parts of the catchments are mostly covered with natural forest and a
significant part of the upstream of the Tung Oil catchment is used for livestock grazing.
However, the upstream part of the Tung Oil catchment and downstream parts of both
catchments (Tung Oil and Central Mill) are mainly utilised for dry agriculture. The
majority of the downstream area of Central Mill catchment is rainforest.
Nerada
Tung Oil
Central Mill
Figure 3.26 North and South Johnstone Rivers and their contributing catchments
Both Tung Oil and Central Mill catchments are covered with clay and clay loams in
their topsoil as shown in Figure 3.53 of Appendix A. The subsoil layers of the extreme
97
upstream parts of both catchments are covered with loam, and the remainder is with
sandy loam, as shown in Figure 3.54 of Appendix A.
The equal area slope of the Tung Oil catchment is 0.76% and that of its sub-catchment,
Nerada, is 0.87%. According to the profile of the main stream shown in Figure 3.27, the
Tung Oil catchment illustrates fairly low slopes at the very top as well as at its very
bottom parts and they are 0.46% and 0.24% respectively.
Although the low slope in the upstream region of the Tung Oil catchment has shown a
considerable amount of sedimentation, it gradually reduces due to erosion as the flow
approaches downstream of the catchment. A sudden drop of 580m within a length of
39.6km in the middle part of the catchment contributes this erosion.
800
700
Elevation (m)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
Length (m)
Figure 3.27 - Stream elevations of Tung Oil catchment of North Johnstone River
Although the average slopes of the very top and bottom parts of the Central Mill
catchment are 2.2% and 0.34%, its latter part of the main stream profile, shown in
Figure 3.29, is very similar to that of the Tung Oil catchment. The equal area slopes of
Central Mill and Tung Oil catchments are 0.88% and 0.76% respectively, and these
values are very close to each other. Therefore, very similar behaviour patterns such as
98
turbulent flow and soil erosion can be found from both catchments especially in their
downstream flow regions.
800
700
600
Elevation (m)
500
400
300

200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Length (m)
Figure 3.28 - Stream elevations of Nerada catchment of North Johnstone River

1000
900
800
Elevation (m)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Length (m)
Figure 3.29 - Stream elevations of Central Mill catchment of South Johnstone River
CHAPTER 4
SELECTION OF AVAILABLE
RAINFALL AND STREAM FLOW
DATA
98
4.
SELECTION OF AVAILABLE RAINFALL AND STREAMFLOW DATA
4.1 Introduction
The first part of this chapter explains the methods used to check the accuracy and
consistency of rainfall and streamflow data. The rainfall and flow data (supplied by the
Queensland Bureau of Meteorology) are contained in Appendix B of the CD. As a first
step the validity of the rainfall data has been assessed by means of rainfall mass curves
and isohyets of the total rainfall depths. This assessment covers the examination of the
similarities as well as the differences of rainfall mass curves at different rainfall stations
resulting from all available storms on the catchments. The advantages of graphical
examination using diagrams and maps are highlighted in this assessment.
Secondly, the methods used to produce surface runoff hydrographs, from the stage
hydrographs and rating tables of catchments are discussed. The step by step analysis,
which was employed to obtain the surface runoff hydrographs, is described in detail in
section 4.7 of this chapter.
Since all seventeen catchments selected for this study are confined to five large river
basins as mentioned in the previous chapter, the discussions in this chapter are also
focused on those five river basins.
4.2 RAINFALL DATA OF MARY RIVER BASIN
Table 4.1 shows the total rainfall depths recorded for eight storms at ten stations (shown
in Figure 4.1) of the Mary River basin. Although the rainfall data for all ten stations are
not available for every storm, as shown in Table 4.1, the stations with data cover the
Mary River basin fairly well. The maximum and minimum total rainfall depths recorded
are 746 mm (Mapleton station in February 1992) and 27 mm (Maleny station in March
1997) respectively.
99
Gympie
Cooran
5
Kandanga
Pomona
Cooroy
Imbil
Kenilworth
Jimna
7
8
Mapleton
Maleny
10
Figure 4.1 Location of Rainfall Stations for Mary River
Table 4.1- Summary of Rainfall for Mary River

No
1
2
3
Name of Rainfall
Station
Gympie
Cooran
Pomona
Number
7389
7368
7105
Longitude
'
''
'
''
'
''
'
''
26 25 14
'
''
26 23 16
'
''
26 27 33
'
''
26 35 10
'
''
26 38 28
'
''
26 38 56
'
''
26 45 17
152 39 18
152 49 23
152 51 10
Cooroy
7104
152 54 36
Kandanga
7106
152 41 03
Imbil
7107
152 40 45
Kenilworth
7103
152 43 57
Mapleton
6447
152 51 53
Jimna
7360
152 27 34
10
Maleny
7101
152 51 12
Elevation
in metres
Latitude
Dates of eight storms and their total rainfall depths (mm)

Apr-89
Dec-91
50
112
70
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
100
241
151
Feb-92
Mar-92
Feb-95
Jan-96
Apr-96
Mar-97
612
232
303
151
130
115
Not
available
Not
available
443
124
163
Not
available
611
237
501
136
196
297
'
''
'
''
'
''
'
''
100
208
216
731
248
603
106
204
312
'
''
75
161
180
620
151
374
149
138
247
'
''
80
Not
available
222
571
171
312
117
142
227
'
''
200
320
327
486
175
224
94
162
182
'
''
300
385
351
746
306
564
98
Not
available
236
'
''
480
223
207
302
198
161
80
103
85
'
''
320
383
486
745
395
498
130
416
27
26 11 33
26 19 24
26 21 59
100
Plots of rainfall mass curves for the eight storms at all ten stations are shown in Figures
4.2 to 4.9. Each figure has been studied to determine the variability of temporal patterns
of storms. For example, for the April 1989 storm, the total storm duration (Figure 4.2) is
48hrs. Considering periods within this 48hrs, Figure 4.2 indicates that:
(a)
The rainfall depth variations, in the first period of 24hrs at many rainfall stations,
are fairly moderate with an approximate average rate of 2mm/hr, except for the
stations Mapleton and Maleny (both lie almost on the same line), which have a
rate of rainfall of approximately 6.7mm/hr;
(b)
In the next 11hrs (24 to 35hrs) the rainfall rates increased consistently for most of
the stations. This means that the previous average rate of 2mm/hr has increased to
10mm/hr. However, the three stations namely Kenilworth, Mapleton and Maleny
have reported fairly high rates and those rates are approximately 22.7mm/hr for
Kenilworth and 13.6/mm/hr for both Mapleton and Maleny;
(c)
During the next 13hrs (35 to 48hrs) Cooroy, Mapleton and Maleny stations have
shown considerable increments in their rates of rainfall and they are approximately
6.2mm/hr, 4.6mm/hr and 4.6mm/hr respectively; and
(d)
During the next 24 hrs (48 to 72hrs) zero rainfall was recorded at all stations.
The rainfall mass curves (Figures 4.2 to 4.9) at all stations have been examined and
compared in order to check their consistencies. In Table 4.2 consistent rainfall temporal
patterns are marked with a tick and inconsistent patterns marked with a cross. For
example, in the first 24 hour period Mapleton and Maleny are given crosses, and in the
next 11 hour period Kenilworth, Mapleton and Maleny are given crosses as well. It
should be noted that the temporal patterns at these stations are not necessarily incorrect,
only that they are somewhat different to the temporal patterns at the other stations.
While the total rainfall depths varied at different stations, the temporal patterns are
reasonably consistent with one another in almost all of the eight storms.
As a further check on the data, the spatial variation of rainfall has been examined.
101
Mass curve of Rainfall

Cumulative Rainfall (mm)
450
Gymp i e
400
Po mo na
350
Cooroy
300
250
Kand ang a
200
Kenil wo r t h
150
M ap l et o n
100
Ji mna
50
M aleny
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.2 - Mary River -April 1989

Mass Curve of Rainfall
500
Po mo na
450
400
C o o ro y
350
Kand ang a
300
I mb i l
250
Keni lwo r t h
200
150
M ap l et o n
100
Ji mna
50
M al eny
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.3 - Mary River - December 1991

800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Gymp i e
Po mo na
C o o ro y
Kand ang a
I mb i l
Keni lwo r t h
M ap let o n
Ji mna
M al eny
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.4 - Mary River - February 1992
102

450
Gymp i e
400
Po mo na
350
Cooroy
300
Kand ang a
250
imb il
200
Kenil wo r t h
150
M ap l et o n
100
Ji mna
50
M aleny
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.5 - Mary River - March 1992

650
600
Gymp ie
C o o r an
550
500
Po mo na
450
C o o ro y
400
350
300
250
Kand ang a
I mb i l
Keni lwo r t h
200
150
M ap l et o n
Ji mna
100
50
M al eny
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.6 - Mary River - February 1995

160
Gymp i e
140
C o o r an
120
Po mo na
100
Cooroy
Kand ang a
80
Imb il
60
Kenil wo r t h
40
M ap l et o n
Ji mna
20
M aleny
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.7 Mary River January 1996
103
350
Gymp i e
300
C o o r an
250
Po mo na
C o o ro y
200
Kand ang a
150
I mb i l
Keni lw o r t h
100
Jimna
50
M al eny
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.8 - Mary River - April 1996

320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Gymp ie
Po mo na
C o o ro y
Kand ang a
I mb i l
Keni lwo r t h
M ap l et o n
Ji mna
M al eny
0
10
15
20
25
30
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.9 - Mary River - March 1997

Table 4.2 - Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Mary Basin
Dates of eight storms
No
Apr-89
Name of Rainfall
Station
Dec-91
Feb-92
Mar-92
Feb-95
Jan-96
Apr-96
Mar-97
41 to 72 hrs
15 to 27 hrs
Time periods of storms selected for the analysis

0 to 72 hrs
34 to 47 hrs
18 to 144 hrs
71 to 92 hrs
16 to 52 hrs
10 to 49 hrs
24 11 13 24 27
6
6
8
38 12 65 29 21 18
7
6
21 28
9
5
18
9
19
3
42
5
13 12 13 14
6
3
hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs
Gympie
Cooran
Pomona
Cooroy
Kandanga
not available
not available
not available
not available
Imbil
Kenilworth
Mapleton
Jimna
Maleny
10
not available
not available
not available
not available
104
4.2.2 Spatial variation of Rainfall

In the next few pages, maps of isohyets (Figures 4.10 to 4.17) for the eight storms
(summarised in Table 4.1) are shown. The intentions of this mapping are to determine
whether there are any similarities or differences in the spatial variation of total rainfall
depths for each storm, and to find out the effect of spatial variation of rainfall on lag
parameter.
April 1989 - Rainfall depth increases from the bottom to the top of the catchment,
gradually from 150mm to 350 mm, as shown in Figure 4.10. The variation in rainfall
depths is steadily decreasing from the top to bottom.
December 1991 - Rainfall depth decreases steadily in the top half of the catchment,
from 400mm to 200 mm as shown in Figure 4.11. The average rainfall depth of the
bottom half of the catchment is about 165mm.
February 1992 - Rainfall depth increases gradually from the Southwest to the Northeast
of the catchment, from 300mm to 600mm as shown in Figure 4.12. However, a narrow
area on the eastern edge of the catchment maintains a rainfall depth close to 700mm.
The region close to the outlet has an approximate average rainfall depth of 614mm.
March 1992 - Rainfall depth decreases gradually from the top to the centre of the
catchment. The direction of this variation is from the Southeast to the Northwest. The
magnitude of this variation is from 375mm to 175 mm. However, there is very little
variation in rainfall depth in the Western part of the catchment as shown in Figure 4.13.
An average rainfall depth of 187mm may be considered for that part of the catchment.
February 1995 - Rainfall depth increases from the West of catchment to the East. This
increase is from 200mm to 500mm. The spacing of the isohyets gradually decreases as
the rainfall depths progress towards the Eastern part of catchment, as shown in Figure
4.14. Thus a consistent rainfall depth pattern persists within the entire catchment.
105
150
1
112
200
241
5 161
150
3
4
208
250
300
320
7
9
200
223
350
385
383 10
250
300
350
Figure 4.10 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (April 1989)
5
6
180
200
151
3
4 216
222
300
200
7 327
8
9 207
351
400
486 10
300
400
Figure 4.11 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (December 1991)
106
612
1
600
500
611
5 620
400
486
9
300
731
746
8
302
400
700
4
571
6
300
745
10
500
700
600
Figure 4.12 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (February 1992)
225
175
232
175
151 5
237
248 4
171
6
275
175 7
198 9
306
325
375
225
275
325
10
375
395
Figure 4.13 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (March 1992)
107
3001
400
303
200
2
443
312
224
161
501
4
603
500
374
500
7
8
564
498
10
200
400
Figure 4.14 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (February 1995)
150
140
1
151
130
130
140
130
124
2
130
120
136 3
148
5
120
6 117
110
94
100
90
80
90 100
106
98
100
110
130 10
110
120
Figure 4.15 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (January 1996)
108
150
130
2
163
138
196
200
204
4
142
250
162
300
103 9
10
350
400
416
Figure 4.16 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (April 1996)
1 115
200
250
100 150
247
227
182
9
85
297
300
4
312
300
250
7
8
10
27
236
200
150
100
Figure 4.17 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Mary River (March 1997)
109
January 1996 - The isohyets of Figure 4.15 show an evenly developing pattern of
rainfall depths throughout the catchment. However, the top part of the catchment
indicates a slight increase in rainfall depth. The middle part of the catchment indicates a
fairly steady variation in rainfall depth ranging from 100mm to 130mm.
April 1996 - The rainfall depth decreases gradually from 400mm to 150mm from the
top to the centre of the catchment. The direction of this variation is from the Southeast
to the Northwest. Rainfall is fairly uniform beyond the centre towards the Northwest
region of the catchment, which covers its outlet as well. The approximate average
rainfall depth in that region is 126mm.
March 1997 - Rainfall depth decreases from 300m to 100mm from the East to the West
of the catchment and that variation is fairly steady as shown in Figure 4.17. However,
an area extending from the Western boundary to the Southern boundary of the
catchment, maintains an approximate average rainfall depth of 56mm.
The maps of the isohyets for eight storms have demonstrated some similarities in their
patterns and they are grouped in the following manner:
The maps of the isohyets of the February 1992 & 1995 and March 1997 storms have
shown some similarities in their rainfall depth variation patterns. Those variations are
from the East to the West of the catchment. Moreover, the rainfall depths vary from
700mm to 300mm, 500mm to 200mm and 300mm to 100mm respectively in these three
storms.
The spatial variation patterns of rainfall related to the April 1989, December 1991,
March 1992 and April 1996 storms are fairly consistent particularly in the Southeast
region of the catchment as shown in Figures 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, and 4.16.
The remaining maps have shown no similarities with each other.
110
Overall, the isohyetal maps show that the total rainfall depths at various stations are
consistent. For the March 1997 storm, the mass curve of Figure 4.9 indicates that the
total depth at Maleny is considerably lower than that at the other stations. However, the
isohyets of Figure 4.17 show that the total depth at Maleny is not inconsistent with the
spatial variation across the catchment. Therefore, the Maleny rainfall depth was
included in the analysis.
Moreover, for the March 1997 storm, Table 4.2 shows some inconsistency in Cooroy
and Mapleton rainfall patterns. In contrast Figure 4.17 shows no inconsistency in its
isohyets, therefore the rainfall depths of Cooroy and Mapleton stations are included in
the analysis.
After examination of all mass curves and isohyets for all storms, it was considered that
no stations are sufficiently inconsistent to require deletion. Therefore, the data from all
rainfall stations are included in the analysis.
A similar analysis to Mary River was carried out for the four remaining river basins.
Summary figures and tables were prepared, and after examining these it was decided to
include rainfall stations of all river basins in the analysis.
4.3
RAINFALL DATA OF HAUGHTON RIVER BASIN

Table 4.3 shows the total rainfall depths recorded for seven storms at eleven stations
(shown in Figure 4.18) of the Haughton River basin. Although rainfall data is not
available for some of the stations shown in Table 4.3, the localities of the remaining
stations cover the Haughton River basin quite well. The highest total rainfall depth is
370mm (for the March 1997 storm) at Brabons station. The lowest is 3mm at Mingela
station for the February 1997 storm.
The plots of rainfall mass curves of seven storms at eleven stations of the Haughton
River basin are shown in Figures 4.19 to 4.25. After examining the temporal patterns of
111
the rainfall of seven storms at eleven stations of the Haughton River basin, their
findings are tabulated in Table 4.4.
Cormacks
7
Brabons
Giru
McDonalds
6
Nettlefield
Woodstock
5
Upper Reid
Powerline
Cameron Hill
10
Mt Piccaninny
Mingela
11
Figure 4.18 Location of Rainfall Stations of Haughton River
Table 4.3 Summary of Rainfall for Haughton River
No
Name of Rainfall
Station
Number
Longitude
Giru
6330
147 06 38
Powerline
6335
147 06 33
Mt.Piccaninny
6320
'
''
19 30 50
'
''
19 38 05
'
''
146 57 29
Cameron Hills
6300
146 51 31
Woodstock
6315
146 50 21
115
181
60
120
118
169
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
141
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
200
276
207
108
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
19 46 27
''
19 26 15
'
''
19 35 10
'
''
19 28 42
'
''
'
''
146 37 50
6305
266
195
'
2805
Mingela
195
228
Brabons
6310
121
150
Upper Reid
158
204
19 30 48
146 46 43
11
109
19 36 12
2810
10
20
''
''
Nettlefield
146 40 04
146 37 52
Not
available
''
''
146 50 48
213
'
'
2825
Apr-00
Not
available
'
'
Cormacks
Mar-00
Not
available
Feb-00
Mar-97
Not
available
20
19 44 44
146 50 51
Feb-97
Not
available
''
''
2820
Jan-96
Not
available
'
'
Mc Donalds
Jan-94
0
Dates of seven storms and their total rainfall

depths(mm)
Elevation
in metres
Latitude
'
''
327
'
''
60
'
''
44
'
''
40
'
''
80
'
''
80
'
''
'
''
19 43 55
19 52 50
94
214
39
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
140
83
149
17
166
184
185
284
280
110
64
158
99
140
113
275
172
197
370
112
220
200
Po wer l i ne
180
160
M t . Pi ccani nny
140
120
W o o d st o ck
100
80
U p p er R ei d
60
40
M ing el a
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.19 Haughton River January 1994

220
Po wer l ine
200
180
160
M t . Pi ccani nny
140
120
W o o d st o ck
100
80
U p p er R ei d
60
40
M ing el a
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.20 - Haughton River January 1996

240
Po w er l i ne
220
200
180
M t . Pi ccani nny
160
140
W o o d st o ck
120
100
80
U p p er R eid
60
40
M ing el a
20
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.21- Haughton River February 1997
113

400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Gir u
Po wer l ine
M t . Pi ccani nny
C amer o n Hil l s
W o o d st o ck
M cD o nal d s
C o r macks
N et t l ef ield
B r ab o na
U p p er R ei d
M ing el a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.22 - Haughton River March 1997

150
Po wer li ne
100
M t .Pi ccaninny
W o o d st o ck
50
M i ng ela
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.23 - Haughton River February 2000

220
Po wer l i ne
200
180
160
M t . Pi ccani nny
140
120
W o o d st o ck
100
80
U p p er R ei d
60
40
M ing el a
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.24 - Haughton River March 2000
65
114
300
275
250
Po w er l i ne
225
200
M t . Pi ccani nny
175
150
W o o d st o ck
125
100
U p p er R eid
75
50
M ing el a
25
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.25 - Haughton River April 2000
Table 4.4 - Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Haughton Basin

Dates of seven storms
No
Jan-94
Name of Rainfall
Station
Feb-97
Jan-96
Mar-97
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00

44 to 58hrs
27
hrs
07
hrs
21
hrs
31
hrs
Not available
Giru
Powerline
Mt.Piccaninny
Cameron Hills
Not available
20
hrs
12
hrs
11
hrs
Not available
09
hrs
04
hrs
41 to 59hrs
11
hrs
41
hrs
Not available
Not available
49 to 70hrs
02
hrs
42
hrs
04
hrs
Not available
Not available
Not available
Cormacks
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Nettlefield
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Brabona
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
unreliable
11
Upper Reid
Mingela
11
hrs
Not available
Not available
13
hrs
Not available
07
hrs
Not available
09
hrs
16
hrs
Not available
06
hrs
Not available
10
hrs
Not available
10
25
hrs
Woodstock
65
hrs
Mc Donalds
23 to 40hrs
80 to 106hrs
06
hrs
03
hrs
Not available
Not available
07
hrs
07
hrs
Not available
13 to 27hrs
37 to 70hrs
03
hrs
Not available
As shown in Table 4.3, out of the eleven rainfall stations, data is only available for five
stations except for the March 1997 storm which has data for all stations. Although there
are some inconsistencies in the temporal patterns at some stations, overall, the rainfall
patterns are fairly consistent.
In the next few pages, the maps of isohyets for seven storms (summarised in Table 4.3)
of the Haughton River basin are shown in Figures 4.26 to 4.32. The spatial variation of
115
rainfall for each storm has been studied and compared in order to check their similarities
and differences.
January 1994 - Rainfall depth increases from 100mm to 200mm from the Northwest to
Southeast of the catchment. The rainfall depth variation in the middle part of the
catchment is fairly consistent as shown in Figure 4.26. A reasonable rainfall depth
variation has not been observed in the remaining parts of the catchment. An average
rainfall depth of 87mm may be considered for those parts of the catchment.
January 1996 - The rainfall depth increases from the Southwest to the Northeast of the
catchment and that direction of variation is perpendicular to the direction of streamflow.
Although the depths are increasing from 100mm to 200mm, the rainfall has been
distributed fairly well to cover the entire catchment as shown in Figure 4.27.
February 1997 - Out of all the storms selected, this storm has produced fairly low
rainfall depths in the catchment. They increase from 50mm to 200mm from the
Northwest to the Southeast of the catchment. The distances between the isohyets are
almost even and they indicate a steady variation in the rainfall depths at the lower part
of the catchment. The top half of the catchment shows an approximate average depth of
about 10.5mm according to Figure 4.28.
March 1997 - A gradual reduction in rainfall depths from 350mm to 175mm can be seen
in the top part of the catchment down to its mid area. A consistent rainfall pattern (with
an approximate average value of 150mm) has been maintained in the mid part of the
catchment. An increment of 45mm (150mm to 195mm) from the centre to the bottom
part of the catchment can be observed in Figure 4.29.
February 2000 - Rainfall depth increases from 100mm to 250mm from the South to the
North of the catchment. The direction of this variation is perpendicular to the direction
of the mainstream flow of the catchment. The distances between isohyets are almost
equal and that produces a steadily varying rainfall depth pattern over the entire
catchment as shown in Figure 4.30.
116
100
94
109
2
125
10
150
83
204
175
200
200
100
11
110
125
150
175
Figure 4.26 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (January 1994)
200
200
150
175
214
175
10
158
149
3
150
125
100
11
64
100
150
125
Figure 4.27 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (January 1996)
117
50
39
100
121
10
17
228
200
3
200
11
3
50
100
150
Figure 4.28 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (February 1997)
7
350
172
9
370
225
6 275
325
300
197
275
1
213
200
200
5
2
195
250
225
166
200
4
141
10
175
158
3
195
11
150
150 175
Figure 4.29 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (March 1997)
118
200
276
266 2
250
250
200
10 184
150
120
150
3
11
100
99 100
Figure 4.30 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (February 2000)
175
200
5
150
125
115
2
207
200
10
185
118
175
3
150
11
140
125
Figure 4.31 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (March 2000)
119
150
125
275
250
225
5
125
150
175
200
175
2
108
181
10
175
169
3
284
275
250
225
200
175
113
150
11
150
125
Figure 4.32 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Haughton River (April 2000)

March 2000 - Rainfall depth increases from 125mm to 200mm from the Southeast to the
Northwest of the catchment. A steady increase of rainfall depths can be seen in the
middle part of the catchment as shown in Figure 4.31. The remaining parts (top and an
area close to the eastern boundary) of the catchment have maintained fairly constant
rainfall depths and their average values may be considered as 185mm and 118mm
respectively.
April 2000 - Rainfall depth decreases gradually (from 275mm to 175mm) from the
West to the East and this variation progresses down to the middle part of the catchment.
The rainfall depth at the outlet is close to 175mm as shown in Figure 4.32. However,
there is no significant rainfall depth variation in the remaining parts of the catchment.
Some similarities have been found from the figures of isohyets and those similarities
can described in the following manner:
120
Maps of both January 1994 and February 1997 storms of the catchment have shown an
increase in rainfall depths from the Northwest to the Southeast. A steady rainfall depth
variation has also been noticed in the lower part of the catchment for these storms.
Additionally the upstream end of the catchment has maintained a fairly constant rainfall
depth as shown in Figures 4.26 and 4.28.
For the January 1996 storm the rainfall depth increases from the Southwest to the
Northeast of the catchment. For the February 2000 storm that variation is from the
South to the North. A steady rainfall depth variation can be seen in the middle part of
catchment in both storms as shown in Figures 4.27 and 4.30. The remaining maps of
isohyets have shown no similarities in their rainfall patterns.
4.4
RAINFALL DATA OF HERBERT RIVER BASIN

Table 4.5 shows the total rainfall depths recorded for eight storms at eleven stations
(shown in Figure 4.33) of the Herbert River basin. Although data for all storms is not
available for all eleven stations, the locations of stations with data are able to cover the
Herbert River basin fairly well. The maximum and minimum total rainfall depths are
777mm and 33mm at Revenshoe and Upper Rudd Creek stations respectively for March
1996 storm.
Since two rainfall stations (Zattas and Nashs Crossing) are at close proximities to each
other (shown in Figure 4.33) and the latter has rainfall data for six out of eight storms
(Table 4.5), the Zattas station is excluded for this assessment as shown in Table 4.6.
Plots of the rainfall mass curves for eight storms at ten stations of the Herbert River
basin are shown in Figures 4.34 to 4.41. After studying the variability of mass curves of
rainfall for eight storms (for the selected number of time periods) the findings are
tabulated in Table 4.6.
121
Herberton
10
11
Silver Valley
7
McKell Road
Revenshoe
Mt. Garnet
Upper Rudd Creek
Kirrama
Gleneagle
2
Wallaman 3
Nashs Crossing
1 Zattas
Figure 4.33 Location of Rainfall Stations of Herbert River
Table 4.5 Summary of Rainfall for Herbert River
No
Name of Rainfall
Station
Zattas
Number
6034
Longitude
'
''
'
''
18 24 48
'
''
18 27 44
145 49 43
Nash's Crossing
6015
145 46 18
Wallaman
6000
145 44 15
4
5
Kirrama
Gleneagle
6060
6052
40
'
''
680
'
''
18 02 29
'
''
17 42 23
'
''
17 38 00
145 19 53
6063
144 52 06
145 08 42
7183
145 18 00
11
''
''
6066
'
''
'
''
'
''
760
'
''
660
'
''
18 11 37
'
''
17 35 33
'
''
17 26 43
'
''
17 22 43
145 31 43
McKell Road
2520
145 30 29
Herberton
6072
145 22 44
30
18 08 43
6069
Revenshoe
'
''
Mt. Garnet
18 27 09
'
Upper Rudd Creek
10
''
'
Silver valley
'
145 36 32
Elevation in
metres
Latitude
'
''
'
''
'
''
580
560
640
1100
1000
900
Dates of eight storms and their total rainfall depths (mm)

Early Feb- Late Feb00
00
Feb-01
Jan-94
Mar-96
Mar-97
Jan-98
Dec-99
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
726
165
490
747
311
392
622
194
524
623
315
285
488
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
313
346
81
129
168
209
153
107
265
98
33
138
206
138
64
290
101
39
167
82
101
80
235
134
Not
available
207
89
175
127
239
Not
available
299
Not
available
Not
available
52
73
237
Not
available
777
438
296
176
368
427
174
232
331
Not
available
139
262
466
256
Not
available
121
272
119
126
134
407
214
122

300
275
250
W all aman
225
200
G leneag l e
175
150
125
Sil ver V al l ey
100
75
50
25
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.34 - Herbert River January 1994

200
W all aman
Kir r ama
150
G leneag l e
U p p er R ud d
100
M t . Gar net
R evensho e
50
M cKel l R o ad
Her b er t o n
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.35 - Herbert River March 1996
450
N ash' s C r o ssi ng
400
Ki r r ama
350
Gleneag l e
300
U p p er R ud d
250
M t . Gar net
200
Si lver vall ey
150
R evensho e
100
M cKell R o ad
50
Her b er t o n
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.36 - Herbert River March 1997
123
500
450
N ash' s C r o ssing
400
Gl eneag le
350
U p p er R ud d
300
M t . Gar net
250
200
Si l ver V al ley
150
100
R evensho e
50
Her b er t o n
0
0
10
15
20
25 30
35 40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.37 - Herbert River January 1998

200
180
Kir r ama
160
140
Gleneag l e
120
U p p er R ud d
100
M t . Gar net
80
Sil ver vall ey
60
R evensho e
40
M cKel l R o ad
20
Her b er t o n
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.38 - Herbert River December 1999

550
500
450
Gleneag l e
400
U p p er R ud d
350
300
M t . Gar net
250
200
R evensho e
150
M cKel l R o ad
100
50
Her b er t o n
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200 220 240 260 280
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.39 - Herbert River Early February 2000
124
400
N ash' s C ro ssing
350
Gleneag l e
300
U p p er R ud d
250
M t . Gar net
200
150
R evensho e
100
M cKell R o ad
50
Her b ert o n
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.40 - Herbert River Late February 2000

325
300
N ash' s C r o ssing
275
250
Ki r rama
225
200
175
R evensho e
150
125
M cKel l R o ad
100
75
50
Herb ert o n
25
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110
120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.41 - Herbert River February 2001
Table 4.6 - Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Herbert Basin
Dates of eight storms

No
Jan-94
Name of Rainfall
Station
Mar-96
33 to 52hrs
15
hrs
10
hrs
49 to 69hrs
02
hrs
24
hrs
Not available
Nash's Crossing
Wallaman
25
hrs
09
hrs
38 to 66hrs
11
hrs
Not available
33 to 83hrs
16
hrs
25
hrs
19
hrs
62
hrs
04
hrs
80
hrs
35
hrs
103
hrs
13
hrs
43
hrs
17
hrs
48
hrs
77
hrs
82
hrs
25
hrs
33
hrs
31
hrs
Not available
Not available
Mt. Garnet
Not available
Revenshoe
McKell Road
10
Herberton
Not available
Not available
Not available
47 to 171hrs
09
hrs
Not available
78 to 185hrs
23
hrs
Upper Rudd Creek
66 to 231hrs
35
hrs
Not available
62 to 110hrs
08
hrs
Kirrama
Silver valley
Feb-01
18
hrs
Glenagle
Late Feb-00
14
hrs
Early Feb-00
26
hrs
Dec-99
Jan-98
Time periods selected for the analysis

25
hrs
Mar-97
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Unreliable
Unreliable
Unreliable
Not available
Not available
125

In the next few pages, maps of isohyets for eight storms (summarised in Table 4.5) of
the Herbert River basin are shown (Figures 4.42 to 4.49). The spatial variation of
rainfall for each storm has been studied and compared in order to check their similarities
and differences.
January 1994 - Rainfall depth increases from the middle of the catchment (from the
West to the East) towards its outlet from 75 mm to 275 mm. In this variation a steady
rate of change can be observed. The left half of the catchment has shown a reasonably
uniform rainfall depth pattern with an average value of 52mm as shown in Figure 4.42.
March 1996 - A steady increase in rainfall depths in the right half of the catchment from
100 mm to 700 mm can be observed from Figure 4.43, and that variation begins from
the middle of the catchment. Fairly uniform rainfall depth is present in the left half of
the catchment with an approximate average value of 36mm.
March 1997 - Rainfall depth varies from 150 mm to 250 mm in the left half of the
catchment. The direction of this variation is from the Southwest to the Northeast. In the
other part of the catchment the rainfall depth increases from 300mm to 350mm from the
West to the East as shown in Figure 4.44. A very small area on the eastern edge of the
catchment has shown a higher rainfall depth.
January 1998 - Rainfall depth increases gradually from the Northwest to the outlet of
the catchment. This variation is from 100 mm to 600 mm. It is a reasonably steady
increase especially from the mid part of the catchment to its outlet, as shown in Figure
4.45. Fairly high rainfall depths are found at the bottom of the catchment.
December 1999 - There is no definite pattern of rainfall depth variation in the catchment
for this storm. However, an increase in rainfall depths towards the top and the bottom
parts of the catchment from its mid area can be observed in Figure 4.46. The rainfall is
well distributed within the catchment and therefore, an average depth of 150mm may be
considered for this storm.
126
150
125
100
10
75
174
8
52
175
200
225
250
275
81
75
100 125
150
285
Figure 4.42 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - January 1994

121
100
11
200
300
400
777
700
600
7
39
500
6
33
5
100
313
129
200
300
400
488
Figure 4.43 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - March 1996
127
272
11
250
300
331
10 350
400
207
200
150
438
167
400
6
138
150
346
168
200
300
250
2
350 392
Figure 4.44 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - March 1997
150
119
100
100
200
11
296
8 89
9 300
82
7
150
200
400
206
500
209
300
400
622
600
500
2
1
726
600
Figure 4.45 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - January 1998
128
126
10
11
150
139
125
8
7
175
176
175
175
150
101
125
125
100
138
4 73
100
125
153
150
150
175
194
2
165
1
175
Figure 4.46 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - December 1999
100
134
11
200
10
262
300
7 127
368
80
400
64
500
107
150
250
350
450 524
490
550
Figure 4.47 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - Early February 2000
129
300
250
400 407
350
11
239
250
235
10
466
427
7
450
6
290
550
5
265
300
400 500
623 650
2 1 747
600
Figure 4.48 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - Late February 2000
200
214 250
11
256
10
150
299
9
134
6
101
4
100
98
100
300
237
150 200
2
250
315
311
300
Figure 4.49 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Herbert River - February 2001
130
Early February 2000 - Rainfall depth increases from 100 mm to 500 mm from the
middle of the catchment towards its bottom part from the West to the East. Although the
rate of rainfall variation is fairly steady, some uniformity in the rainfall depths can be
seen on the left half of catchment with an approximate value of 72mm as shown in
Figure 4.47.
Late February 2000 - Rainfall depth increases from the Northwest to the bottom of the
catchment from 250 mm to 600 mm. A steady variation begins from the middle of the
catchment as shown in Figure 4.48. Although higher rainfall depths are present at the
bottom of the catchment, the left part has shown some uniformity with an approximate
average value of 265mm.
February 2001 - A gradual increase in rainfall depth from the West to the East of the
catchment can be seen in the Figure 4.49. The extreme left part of the catchment shows
some uniformity in its rainfall depths with an approximate value of 111mm. Similarly
the area close to the outlet has an average depth of 300mm.
The maps of isohyets of eight storms have illustrated some similarities in their patterns
and they may be grouped in the following manner:
The maps of January 1994, January 1998 and early & late February 2000 storms have
shown gradual increase in their rainfall depths from the middle to the bottom of the
catchment. Moreover, a uniform rainfall depth pattern persists in the left part of the
catchment.
The maps of isohyets of March 1996, March 1997 and February 2001 have shown
somewhat steady increase in rainfall depths from the middle of the catchment to its
Eastern side. The remaining parts have reported uniformity in their rainfall depths. The
map dated December 1999 has shown no definite pattern, however, the rainfall depths
are distributed fairly evenly to a considerable extent over the catchment.
131
4.5
RAINFALL DATA OF DON RIVER BASIN

Table 4.7 shows the total rainfall depths recorded for nine storms at eight stations as
shown in Figure 4.50 of the Don River basin. Although some data is not available for
Mount Dangar, Ida Creek, Roma Peak and Emu Creek stations for April 1989,
December 1990, January 1991, and February 1991 storms respectively (shown in Table
4.7), all the stations with data have contributed to cover the Don River basin very well.
According to Table 4.7 the highest rainfall depth is 1158mm, and it was found at the
Reeves station in December 1990. The lowest rainfall depth is 30mm, which was found
at the Upper Don station in January 1999.
2
3
Reeves
Mt Dangar
Moss Vale
Ida Creek
Roma Peak
Boundary Creek
Emu Creek
Upper Don
Figure 4.50 Location of Rainfall stations of Don River
132
Table 4.7 Summary of Rainfall for Don River Basin
No
Number
Reeves
2630
148008'35''
20009'05''
20013'17''
120
20014'22''
80
Longitude
Mt.Dangar
2625
148007'14''
Moss Vale
2600
148001'52''
Ida Creek
2620
148 07 01
'
''
'
''
20 18 34
'
''
20 25 12
'
''
'
''
Roma Peak
2615
148 13 01
Boundary Creek
2610
148 06 35
Emu Creek
2640
Upper Don
2605
Latitude
Elevation
in metres
Name of Rainfall
Station
Jan-91
Feb-91
Aug-98
Jan-99
Dec-99
Feb-00
Early
Feb-00
Late
187
1158
184
575
144
102
135
263
62
Not
available
792
145
297
121
98
148
192
45
231
552
183
412
155
77
123
156
38
Not
available
Not
available
63
127
135
122
145
195
57
323
902
Not
available
474
118
246
122
232
103
546
184
469
188
45
131
268
64
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
99
98
138
312
83
607
184
430
62
30
76
284
84
'
''
80
'
''
120
'
''
160
'
''
200
Not
available
Not
available
190
434
20 24 47
0
148 12 39
Dec-90
20 17 28
148 13 42
40
Dates of nine storms and their total rainfall depths (mm)

Apr-89
''
20 31'19
The plots of rainfall mass curves of nine storms at eight stations of the Don River basin
are shown in Figures 4.51 to 4.59. The findings of the curves are tabulated in the Table
4.8.
Rainfall Mass Curve
450
400
R eeves
350
300
M o ss vale
250
200
R o ma Peak
150
100
U p p er D o n
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.51 Don River April 1989

Rainfall Mass Curve
500
R eeves
450
400
M t . D ang ar
350
300
M o ss val e
250
R o ma Peak
200
150
B o und ary C r eek
100
50
U p p er D o n
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Tim e(hrs)
Figure 4.52 Don River December 1990
133
Rainfall Mass Curve

200
R eeves
180
160
M t . D ang ar
140
120
M o ss V ale
100
Id a C reek
80
60
B o und ar y C r eek
40
20
U p p er D o n
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.53 Don River January 1991

Rainfall Mass Curve
500
R eeves
450
400
M t . D ang ar
350
300
Id a C reek
250
R o ma Peak
200
150
B o und ary C r eek
100
50
U p p er D o n
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.54 Don River February 1991

Rainfall Mass Curve
180
R eeves
160
M t . D ang ar
140
120
M o ss val e
100
Id a C reek
80
R o ma Peak
60
B o und ary C r eek
40
Emu C r eek
20
U p p er D o n
0
0
10
12
14
16
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.55 Don River August 1998
134
Rainfall Mass Curve

260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
R eeves
M t . D ang ar
M o ss V ale
Id a C reek
R o ma Peak
B o und ary C r eek
Emu C r eek
U p p er D o n
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Tim e(hrs)
Figure 4.56 Don River January 1999

Rainfall Mass Curve
140
R eeves
120
M t . D ang ar
100
M o ss V al e
I d a cr eek
80
R o ma Peak
60
B o und ary C r eek
40
Emu C reek
20
U p p er D o n
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.57 Don River December 1999

Rainfall Mass Curve
250
R eeves
225
200
M t . D ang ar
175
M o ss V ale
150
Id a creek
125
R o ma Peak
100
75
B o und ar y C reek
50
Emu C r eek
25
U p p er D o n
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.58 Don River Early February 2000
135
Rainfall Mass Curve

110
R eeves
100
90
M t . D ang ar
80
M o ss V ale
70
60
Id a C reek
50
R o ma Peak
40
B o und ar y C r eek
30
Emu C r eek
20
10
U p p er D o n
0
0
10
15
20
25 30
35 40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.59 Don River Late February 2000
Table 4.8 Assessment Summary of Temporal patterns of Rainfall Don Basin

Dates of nine storms
No
Apr-89
Name of Rainfall
Station
Dec-90
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
Moss Vale
Feb-91
Aug-98
Jan-99
Dec-99
Early Feb-00
Late Feb-00

45 to 73 hrs
Jan-91
25 to 50 hrs
34 to 55 hrs
11 to 54 hrs
29 to 35 hrs
26 to 43 hrs
21 to 26 hrs
42 to 52 hrs
53 to 78 hrs
25
hrs
20
hrs
10
hrs
18
hrs
09
hrs
06
hrs
10
hrs
25
hrs
24
hrs
06
hrs
15
hrs
10
hrs
18
hrs
08
hrs
08
hrs
22
hrs
11
hrs
07
hrs
11
hrs
08
hrs
11
hrs
04
hrs
17
hrs
11
hrs
06
hrs
07
hrs
05
hrs
08
hrs
14
hrs
11
hrs
06
hrs
21
hrs
25
hrs
28
hrs
13
hrs
Not available
Not available
Ida Creek
Roma Peak
Boundary Creek
Not available
Emu Creek
Not available
Upper Don
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
12
hrs

In the next few pages, maps of isohyets for nine storms (summarised in Table 4.7) of the
Don River basin are shown (Figures 4.60 to 4.68). The spatial variation of rainfall for
each storm has been studied and compared in order to check their similarities and
differences.
April 1989 - Rainfall depth decreases from 400mm to 200mm from the top to the
bottom of the catchment and that variation is somewhat along the main stream of the
catchment. The isohyets divide the catchment into fairly equal sections and this pattern
of isohyets indicates a steady variation in rainfall depths as shown in Figure 4.60.
136
200
187
200
250
231 3
300
323 5
350
250
300
400
350
8 434
400
Figure 4.60 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (April 1989)
550
900 1
850
800
1158
750
700
600650 2
792
3 552
5
902
900
850
6
800
546
750
8
607
550
600
700
650
Figure 4.61 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (December 1990)
137
184 1
145
2
183
3
63
4
75
100
184
6
125
150
175
184
8
Figure 4.62 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (January 1991)
550
575
450
550
412
3
127
474
450
250
469
6
350
450
430
8
450
Figure 4.63 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (February 1991)
138
1
144
121
150
155
125
3
135
118
175
188
6
99
7
100
62
150
125 100
75
175
75
Figure 4.64 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (August 1998)

1
100
102
77
98
122
150
200
4
246
5
200
50
150
45
6
98
100
7
50
30
Figure 4.65 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (January 1999)
139
130
135
130
148
2
3
140
123
122
145
138
7
131
130
76
8
130
120
120
100 110
110
Figure 4.66 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (December 1999)
250
225
200
175
156
263
1
192
3
4
195
175
5
232
200
300
6
225
250
275
7
312
268
300
250
284 8
275
Figure 4.67 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (Early February 2000)
140
60
40
3
1
62
50
80
2
45
38
70
4
57
90
100
5
103
40
100
50
64 6
90
7
83
60
70
8
84
80
Figure 4.68 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) Don River (Late February 2000)
December 1990 - Rainfall depth increases from the Southwest to the Northeast of the
catchment from 550mm to 900mm. A consistent rainfall depth variation can be
observed in the mid area of the catchment to a considerable extent as shown in Figure
4.61.
January 1991 - Rainfall depth decreases from 175mm to 75mm from the boundary of
the catchment towards its mid area. A fairly large area running along the boundary of
the catchment (except for the region close to the outlet) maintains an approximate
average rainfall depth of 184mm as shown in Figure 4.62.
February 1991 - Except for most of the areas close to the boundary of the catchment, the
rainfall depth decreases from 400mm to 150mm from the outer edges of the middle part
of the catchment towards its centre as shown in Figure 4.63. The approximate average
rainfall depth near the outlet is about 550mm and that of the other areas close to the
boundary is about 475mm.
141
August 1998 - Rainfall depth increases from the Southwest to the Northeast in the area
close to the outlet of the catchment. The rainfall depth variation in the remaining part of
the catchment is from the West to the East. This variation is from 175mm to 125mm as
shown in Figure 4.64.
January 1999 - Rainfall depth increases from the Southwest to the Northeast of the
catchment from 50mm to 200mm. The bottom part of the catchment maintains an
approximate average rainfall depth of 125mm, whereas the top part is about 35mm as
shown in Figure 4.65.
December 1999 - There is no definite pattern of rainfall depth variation, especially in
the area close to the outlet of the catchment. The upstream part shows a rather slight
increase in its rainfall depth variation and it is from 100mm to 120mm. There is not
much of a difference in the average rainfall depths near the outlet and the Western part
of the catchment. Average rainfall depths of 140mm and 136mm may be considered for
these parts respectively.
Early February 2000 - Rainfall depth increases from the West to the East from 175mm
to 225mm in the top half of the catchment, except for the area close to the outlet. The
rainfall depth variation of the other half of the catchment is from the Northwest to the
Southeast and it is from 250mm to 300mm as shown in Figure 4.67.
Late February 2000 - Rainfall depth increases from the West to the East of the top half
of the catchment from 40mm to 100mm. The direction of rainfall depth variation in the
bottom half of the catchment is from the Northwest to the Southeast. The spacing
between isohyets in the downstream region close to outlet is fairly smaller than that of
the other parts of the catchment.
The patterns of isohyets of January and February 1991 storms are very similar to each
other. In both of these storms the rainfall depth decreases from the boundary of the
catchment towards its mid area. The rainfall depths increase from the Southwest to the
Northeast in the bottom part of the catchment as shown in Figures 4.61 and 4.65. Maps
142
of isohyets of early and late February 2000 storms have shown that the rainfall depth
increases from the Northwest to the Southeast especially in the bottom part of the
catchment. All the remaining maps of isohyets (April 1989, August 1998, and
December 1999) have shown no similarities.
4.6
RAINFALL DATA OF NORTH JOHNSTONE RIVER BASIN

Table 4.9 shows the total rainfall depths recorded for ten storms at fifteen stations
shown in Figure 4.69 of the North Johnstone River basin. Although the data is not
available for a few stations at this basin, a sufficient amount of data is available to cover
the basin as shown in Table 4.9. The maximum and minimum total depths reported are
1032mm (Topaz station in March 1999) and 41mm (Malanda station in 1997).
Malanda
The Boulders
13
McKell Road
15
Topaz
Millaa Millaa
Nerada
11
Bartle View
Revenshoe
Greenhaven
12
14
Corsis
Crawfords
Sutties Creek
10
Mena Vale
Tung Oil
Central Mill
Figure 4.69 Locations of Rainfall stations of North and South Johnstone Rivers
143
Table 4.9 Summary of Rainfall for North and South Johnstone Rivers
No
1
Name of Rainfall
Station
Number
Tung oil
2565
145055'59''
17033'00''
Longitude
Elevation in
metres
Latitude
Dates of ten storms and their total rainfall depths (mm)

Mar-90
Jan-94
Mar-96
Mar-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Mar-99
Dec-99
Feb-00
Apr-00
40
394
575
485
412
571
563
752
438
399
325
17036'59''
20
343
132
Not
available
389
536
637
674
344
474
295
417
710
679
371
625
606
782
Not
available
Not
available
344
Not
available
Not
available
272
518
484
Not
available
596
271
905
427
445
388
Central Mill
2555
145059'00''
Corsis
2550
145053'59''
17036'00''
100
The Boulders
7344
145052'00''
17021'00''
80
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
573
634
403
628
645
5
6
7
2545
145 53 11
17 40 57
240
498
Nerada
2560
145050'44''
17031'58''
60
473
594
Not
available
400
566
674
Crawfords
2540
145048'00''
17037'02''
340
561
694
589
396
319
Not
available
649
354
449
85
145 43 49
''
17 28 15
660
494
412
572
622
239
449
1032
237
451
348
Mena Vale
'
''
'
''
Topaz
2515
Bartle View
2530
145042'52''
17032'48''
560
513
434
567
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
843
218
443
279
17040'49''
680
443
318
412
345
138
486
368
263
327
135
17031'09''
'
''
10
Sutties Creek
2535
145039'37''
11
Millaa Millaa
2500
145036'29''
'
840
329
221
303
370
91
Not
available
607
188
347
134
145 35 56
''
17 35 20
920
450
249
389
449
73
375
490
103
25
119
96
12
Greenhaven
2525
13
Malanda
2510
145035'29''
17021'39"
720
359
206
212
284
41
180
605
155
207
17035'33''
1100
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
416
45
Not
available
Not
available
298
65
17026'43''
1000
233
172
167
328
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
421
137
207
58
'
''
14
Revenshoe
6069
145031'43''
15
McKell Road
2520
145030'29''
'
The plots of rainfall mass curves of ten storms for fifteen rainfall stations of the North
Johnstone River basin are shown in Figures 4.70 to 4.79. The findings of the curves are
tabulated in Table 4.10.
600
T ung Oi l
550
N er ad a
500
450
C r awf o r d s
400
T o p az
350
B ar t le V i ew
300
250
M i ll aa M i ll aa
200
Gr eenhaven
150
M al and a
100
50
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Tim e (hrs)
100
110
120
130
140
150
Figure 4.70 North and South Johnstone Rivers March 1990
144

300
T ung O il
250
N er ad a
C r awf o r d s
200
T o p az
B ar t l e V iew
150
M i l laa M il laa
100
Gr eenhaven
M aland a
50
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tim e (hrs)
50
55
60
65
70
75
Figure 4.71 North and South Johnstone Rivers January 1994

550
500
T ung Oi l
450
C r awf o r d s
400
T o p az
350
300
B ar t le V i ew
250
M i ll aa M i ll aa
200
Gr eenhaven
150
M al and a
100
50
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Tim e (hrs)

650
600
550
500
450
400
350
T ung Oi l
N er ad a
C r awf o r d s
T o p az
300
250
200
M i ll aa M i l laa
Gr eenhaven
150
100
M aland a
50
0
M cKel l R o ad
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Tim e (hrs)
145
350
T ung Oi l
300
N er ad a
250
C r awf o r d s
200
T o p az
150
M i ll aa M i ll aa
Gr eenhaven
100
M al and a
50
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.74 North and South Johnstone Rivers December 1997

700
650
T ung Oil
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
C ent r al M i ll
C o r si s
M ena V al e
N er ad a
250
200
150
100
50
0
T o p az
Gr eenhaven
M al and a
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.75 North and South Johnstone Rivers January 1998

1100
T ung Oi l
1000
900
N er ad a
800
C r awf o r d s
700
T o p az
600
B ar t l e V i ew
500
400
M il l aa M i ll aa
300
Gr eenhaven
200
M al and a
100
M cKell R o ad
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Tim e (hrs)
146

400
T ung O il
350
N er ad a
300
C rawf o r d s
250
T o p az
200
B ar t l e V iew
M i l laa M il laa
150
Greenhaven
100
M aland a
50
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.77 North and South Johnstone Rivers December 1999

125
T ung Oi l
N er ad a
100
C r aw f o r d s
T o p az
75
B ar t l e V iew
50
M i l laa M i l laa
G r eenhaven
25
M aland a
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.78 North and South Johnstone Rivers February 2000

400
T ung O il
350
N er ad a
300
C r awf o r d s
250
T o p az
200
B ar t l e V iew
M i l laa M il laa
150
Gr eenhaven
100
M aland a
50
M cKel l R o ad
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Tim e (hrs)
Figure 4.79 North and South Johnstone Rivers April 2000
147
Table 4.10 Assessment Summary of Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Johnstone Basin

Dates of ten storms
No
Mar-90
Name of Rainfall
Station
Jan-94
Tung oil
Central Mill
Mar-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Mar-99
Feb-00
Dec-99
Apr-00

24 to144 hrs
Mar-96
43 to 72 hrs
22 to 60 hrs
25 to 49 hrs
14 to 21 hrs
21 to 69 hrs
08 to141 hrs
29 to 58 hrs
17 to 29 hrs
61
hrs
30
hrs
19
hrs
30
hrs
16
hrs
09
hrs
17
hrs
17
hrs
11
hrs
27
hrs
05
hrs
15
hrs
10
hrs
18
hrs
06
hrs
08
hrs
04
hrs
06
hrs
03
hrs
20
hrs
22
hrs
18
hrs
09
hrs
40
hrs
45
hrs
50
hrs
06
hrs
28
hrs
08
hrs
17
hrs
05
hrs
14
hrs
05
hrs
04
hrs
06
hrs
12
hrs
06
hrs
10
hrs
02
hrs
Not selected
Not selected
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not available
Corsis
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not available
Not available
Mena Vale
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not selected
Not available
Not available
Not selected
Nerada
Not available
Crawfords
Topaz
Bartle View
Millaa Millaa
10
Greenhaven
11
Malanda
12
McKell Road
15 to 30 hrs
34
hrs
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not selected
Not available

In the next few pages, maps of isohyets (Figures 4.80 to 4.89) for ten storms (shown in
Table 4.10) of North and South Johnstone River basins are shown.
March 1990 - Rainfall depth increases gradually from the Northwest to the Southeast of
the catchment down to its centre from 250mm to 450mm. The rainfall depth variation
from the centre of the catchment to its outlet is rather uneven. The part of the mid area
close to the outlet of the catchment maintains a rainfall depth close to 525mm.
However, that value reduces to 400mm at the outlet of the catchment as shown in Figure
4.80.
January 1994 - Rainfall depth gradually increases from 200 mm to 500 mm from the
Northwest to the Southeast. However, that variation does not exist in the area close to
the outlet as shown in Figure 4.81. Thus the bottom part of the catchment close to the
outlet maintains an approximate average rainfall depth of 650mm.
148
400
350
359
300
13
450
250
15
233
494
450
250
400
329
300
350
473
513
11
500
450
394
417
561
12
400
450
343
400
550
498 450
443
10
Figure 4.80 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) North & South Johnstone Rivers (March 1990)
200
206
300
13
400
172
200
500
412
15
8
221
11
434
594
249
1
694 700
12
7
300
575
318
10
400
500
600
710
132
600
5 573
Figure 4.81 Rainfall Isohyets (mm) North & South Johnstone Rivers (January 1994)
149
300
200
212
13
400
167
500
15
200
303
500
11
300
572
567
389
12
589
3
400
412
10
600 5
500
679
485
500
600
634
400
300
284
300
13
500
328
600
15
622
600
500
370
11
400
400
14
449
416
12
400
7
10
412
400
389
371
396
345
5
403
150
100
41
13
200
15
239
8
91
300
400
11
45
14
500
566
6
73
571
1
12
625
3
319
7
100
138
536
500 600 600

400
300
10
200
Figure 4.84- Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (December1997)
200
200
300
180
13
400
449
500
600
8
300
6
375
700
674
1
606
3
12
400
10
500
486
600
563
700
2
637
645
5
Figure 4.85 - Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (January 1998)
151
600
500
700
605
13
800
900
1000
1000
8
1032
421
15
607
11
800
905
843
490
900
752
12
782
649
700
674
368
10
500
600
Figure 4.86 - Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (March 1999)
150
200
250
272
4
155
13
350
137
15
400
237
188
6
218
11
103
14
300
354
12
150
200
250
427
1
438
344
7
263
10
300
350
Figure 4.87-Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (December 1999)
152
400
300
207
518
4
13
207
15
347
11
443
445
399
100
298
14
300
451
200
400
400
12 25
7
449
474
500
596
327
10
400
Figure 4.88 - Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (February 2000)
100
200
96
13
484
400
58
300
15
8
11
14
134
388
279
325
119
65
400
348
12
1
344
3
85
100
100
135
10
200
300
295
2
271
Figure 4.89 - Rainfall Isohyets (mm) - North & South Johnstone Rivers (April 2000)
153
March 1996 - Rainfall depth gradually increases from 200 mm to 500 mm from the
Northwest to the Southeast down to the mid area of the catchment. The rainfall depths
of the remaining part of the catchment have shown no real pattern according to Figure
4.82. However, the approximate average depth of 550mm may be considered for the
bottom part of the catchment.
March 1997 - Rainfall depth decreases from 600mm to 400mm from the North to the
South of the catchment. This variation covers a considerable part of the catchment as
shown in Figure 4.83. Although the upstream half of the catchment shows no real
pattern, an approximate average rainfall depth of 400mm may be considered for that
part.
December 1997 - Rainfall depth increases from 100 mm to 500 mm in the middle part
of the catchment from the West to the East as shown in Figure 4.84. However, a
noticeable rainfall depth variation is not present in the extreme left and the bottom parts
of the catchment. Approximate average rainfall depths of 62mm and 572mm may be
considered for these parts respectively.
January 1998 - Rainfall depth increases from 200mm to 700mm from the top to the
bottom of the catchment. The direction of this variation is very close to the direction of
the main stream flow as shown in Figure 4.85. Furthermore, the pattern of rainfall is
fairly consistent throughout the catchment.
March 1999 - Rainfall depth increases from 500 mm to 1000 mm from the Southwest
to the Northeast of the catchment and the isohyets are somewhat semi-circular in shape
as shown in Figure 4.86. A fairly consistent variation over the entire catchment can be
seen from Figure 4.86. Approximate average rainfall depths of 736mm and 513mm may
be considered for the areas close to the outlet and the top of the catchment respectively.
December 1999 - In the middle part of the catchment the rainfall depth variation is
from 200mm to 350mm. This variation is from the West to the East of the catchment as
shown in Figure 4.87. An approximate average rainfall depth of 146mm may be
154
considered for the top part of the catchment while a depth of 390mm may be considered
for the bottom part.
February 2000 - No definite pattern of rainfall depth variation exists, especially in the
extreme top and bottom parts of the catchment. However, there is a variation in rainfall
depths (400mm to 200mm) in the middle part of the catchment as shown in Figure 4.88.
This variation terminates at the lower upstream part of the catchment. An approximate
rainfall depth of 100mm may be considered for that part of the catchment.
April 2000 - Rainfall depth gradually increases from 100mm to 300mm in the top half
of catchment from the West to the East. Although the rainfall depth increases from the
West to the East in the downstream part of the catchment, this increase is fairly
inconsistent. The reason for this is that the left portion of the downstream half of
catchment maintains an approximate average rainfall depth of 100mm as shown in
Figure 4.89.
The maps of isohyets of January 1994, March 1996 and December 1999 storms have
shown an increase in their rainfall depths from the Northwest to the Southeast of the
catchment and those increments lead up to the middle part of the catchment. The bottom
part of the catchment shows a fairly uniformly distributed rainfall depth pattern in all
three cases.
The maps of isohyets of December 1997 and January 1998 storms have indicated an
increase in rainfall depths from the top to the bottom of the catchment. This variation is
fairly consistent in the mid part of the catchment for both storms as shown in Figures
4.84 and 4.85.
The maps of isohyets of March 1999 and April 2000 storms have shown an increase in
rainfall depths from the West to the East of the catchment. However, that variation
terminates at the mid part of the catchment. Thereafter the rainfall depth variation
becomes fairly inconsistent.
155
The remaining maps of March 1990, March 1997 and February 2000 (shown in Figures
4.80, 4.83 and 4.88) have demonstrated no similarities in their patterns of isohyets.
4.7
STREAMFLOW DATA OF MARY RIVER BASIN
Streamflow data is collected from the Bureau of Meteorology of Queensland for the
seventeen catchments of the five large drainage basins. This data is available as stage
hydrographs as well as rating tables for each catchment. This section describes the
methods used to convert this data to streamflow hydrographs, and to separate surface
runoff from the underlying baseflow.
The ordinates of the surface runoff hydrographs of the seventeen catchments for various
storms have been calculated from the data provided by the Bureau of Meteorology, by
means of the following steps:
(i)
Plot the rating curves of river discharge (m3/s) versus stage (m);
(ii)
Introduce polynomials to fit the stage-discharge curves. Use several polynomials

to cover various portions of the curves if it is difficult to fit a single polynomial to
cover all points on the curve; and
(iii) Use the equations of the polynomials derived in step (ii) to calculate the ordinates
of the total flood hydrographs (m3/s) from the stage hydrographs.
The next task is to separate the surface runoff hydrograph from the total hydrograph.
The steps in this procedure are:
(i)
Plot the semi-log curve of the recession part of the total flood hydrograph versus
time, to find out the time at which the surface runoff terminates; and
(v)
Calculate the ordinates of the surface runoff flood hydrograph by separating the
baseflow from the ordinates of the total flood hydrograph.
Figures 4.90 to 4.93 illustrate the procedures for Mary River at Gympie:
(a)
The points of Figure 4.90 indicate the relationship of recorded flow versus stage of
stream flow;
(b)
Two fifth order polynomials (for stage intervals of 0.03 to 10.9m and 10.9m to
26.7m) have very closely fitted the points; and
156
(c)
The ordinates of the total rainfall flood hydrograph for the February 1995 storm
shown in Figure 4.91 have been calculated and plotted by using the equations of
polynomials in Figure 4.90.
14000
12000
Actual points on rating curve

Fitted polynomial
y = -0.0153x 5 + 1.3903x 4 - 47.635x 3 + 811.26x 2 - 6694x + 21832
(for 10.9m to 26.7m stages)
Flow (m /s)
10000
8000
6000
4000
y = 0.0077x 5 - 0.14x 4 + 0.0649x 3 + 13.528x 2 - 4.9579x - 1.2765
(for 0.03 to 10.9m stages)
2000
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Stage (m)
Figure 4.90 Actual and Estimated rating curves for Mary River at Gympie
1200
1100
1000
900
800
600
Flow (m /s)
700
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.91 Total flood hydrograph for Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
157
(d)
The hydrograph recession is plotted on the semi-log scale with time on the linear
scale, as shown in Figure 4.92
Flow (m3/s)
1000
End of surface runoff

100
10
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
142
144
146
148
150
152
154
156
158
160
162
164
166
168
170
172
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.92 Recession curve for Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
1200
1100
1000
900
700
Flow (m /s)
800
600
500
Surface runoff
400
300
End of Surface runoff
200
100
Start of Rise of Hydrograph

Base flow
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.93 Base flow Separation for Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
158
(e)
A straight line, as shown in Figure 4.93, is used to separate the base flow from the
total flow hydrograph. The resulting surface runoff hydrograph is shown on Figure
4.94.
1200
1100
1000
900
800
600
Flow (m /s)
700
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.94 Surface runoff hydrograph for Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
Subsequently the rating curves, recession curves and total flood hydrographs are plotted
for all storms selected for the remaining sixteen catchments, and the surface runoff
hydrographs were derived by separating the base flow.
Note that for some of the storms, the plots of hydrograph recession do not clearly
indicate the points, at which the surface runoff ends. For those cases the surface runoff
termination points are found, based on the examination of all recession hydrographs for
the catchments.
Typical results for the main drainage basins namely Haughton River at Powerline,
Herbert River at Zattas, Don River at Reeves and North Johnstone River at Tung Oil are
shown in the following pages. The actual and estimated rating curves (Figures 4.111 to
4.122) for the remaining catchments are contained in part 1 of Appendix C of the CD
and the baseflow separation and surface runoff hydrographs (Figures 4.123 to 4.384) of
all seventeen catchments are in part 2.
159
4.8
STREAMFLOW DATA OF HAUGHTON RIVER BASIN
5500
5000

Fitted polynomial
4500
4000
y = 124.67x 3 - 3681.5x 2 + 36807x - 121970
Flow (m 3/s)
3500
3000
2500
2000
y = 1.6458x 4 - 41.245x 3 + 402.2x 2 - 1502.2x + 2182.9

1500
1000
y = -0.3123x 5 + 4.4347x 4 - 24.546x 3 + 88.52x 2 - 70.573x + 12.477

500
0
0
10
11
12
13
Stage (m)
Figure 4.95 Actual and Estimated rating curves for Haughton River at Powerline
Flow (m /s)
1000
100
10
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.96 Recession curve for Haughton River at Powerline (February 1997)
160
1200
1100
1000
900
Flow (m3/s)
800
700
600
500
Surface Runoff
400
300
200

Start of Rise of Hydrograph
100
Base flow
0
0
10 12 14
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.97 Base flow separation for Haughton River at Powerline (February 1997)
1200
1100
1000
900
Flow (m3/s)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10 12 14
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.98 Runoff hydrograph for Haughton River at Powerline (February 1997)
161
4.9
STREAMFLOW DATA OF HERBERT RIVER BASIN
4500
4000

Fitted polynomial
3500
Flow (m 3/s)
3000
y = 1.7688x4 - 32.756x3 + 217.69x2 - 277.18x + 442.41
(for 1.9 to 9.7m stages)
2500
2000
1500
1000
y = -394.5x4 + 1346x3 - 1320.4x2 + 618.98x + 3E-09

(for 0 to 1.9m stages)
500
0
0
10
Stage (m)
Figure 4.99 Actual and Estimated rating curves for Herbert River at Zattas
10000
Flow (m /s)
100
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.100 Recession curve for Herbert River at Zattas (December 1991)
162
5000
4500
4000
Flow (m /s)
3500
3000
2500
2000
Start of rise of
hydrograph
1500
Surface runoff
1000
Base flow
500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.101 Base flow separation for Herbert River at Zattas (December 1991)
3500
3000
Flow (m /s)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.102 Runoff hydrograph for Herbert River at Zattas (December 1991)
163
4.10
STREAMFLOW DATA OF DON RIVER BASIN
14000
10000
y = 473.33x3 - 11630x2 + 96197x - 263800

Flow or Discharge (m /s)
12000

Fitted polynomial
8000
6000
4000
y = 3E-11x3 - 5E-10x2 + 800x - 2600

2000
y = -10.517x4 + 161.41x3 - 729.23x2 + 1398x - 962.08
0
0
10
11
12
Stage or depth (m)
Figure 4.103 Actual and Estimated rating curves for Don River at Reeves
10000
Flow (m3/s)
1000

100
10
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.104 Recession curve for Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
80
164
2750
2500
2250
Flow (m3/s)
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
Start of rise of hydrograph
250
Surface runoff
Base flow
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.105 Base flow separation for Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
2750
2500
2250
1750
Flow (m /s)
2000
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.106 Runoff hydrograph for Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
100
165
4.11
STREAMFLOW DATA OF JOHNSTONE RIVER BASIN
5500
5000

Fitted polynomial
4500
4000
y = 0.1x - 4.2917x + 73.417x - 567.21x + 2436x - 4032

Flow (m 3/s)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
3
y = 0.5292x - 6.4716x + 23.722x + 13.244x - 15.046x + 0.0032

500
0
0
10
11
12
Stage(m)
Figure 4.107- Actual and Estimated rating curves for North Johnstone River at Tung Oil
1000
Flow (m /s)
100
10
24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.108 - Recession curve for North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (March 1996)
166
1200
1100
1000
900
700
Flow (m /s)
800
600
500
400
300
Surface runoff
Start of rise of
hydrograph
200
100
Base flow
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.109- Base flow separation for North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (March 1996)
1100
1000
900
700
Flow (m /s)
800
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.110 - Runoff hydrograph for North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (March 1996)
Summary of rainfall and stream flow data of all 254 storm events of seventeen
catchments is shown in Tables 5.12 to 5.28 of Chapter 5.
CHAPTER 5
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
167
5. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the method of analysis of data is discussed in detail and the results are
illustrated graphically. The intention of the analysis is to derive the lag parameters and
continuing losses for the selected storms that occurred during the past ten to fifteen
years in the selected catchments. The lag parameters have been derived by calibrating
the WBNM (Watershed Bounded Network Model) computer program (developed by
Boyd et al., 2003) using the reliable hydrological data. The assessment of the reliability
of data has already been discussed in the previous chapter.
All seventeen catchments described in the previous chapters are considered for the
analysis. The most important information required to run WBNM successfully are:
rainfall data, ordinates of runoff hydrographs, areas of sub-catchments, sequence of
flow path through sub-catchments, and the co-ordinates of centroids of sub-catchments
as well as the rainfall gauging stations. The ordinates of the runoff hydrographs have
been calculated using the methods described in the previous chapter.
In the first part of the analysis, the initial losses of storms of all seventeen catchments
are separated from their hyetographs by comparing them with their resulting
hydrographs. These losses are illustrated as shaded areas in figures of this chapter,
which consist of hyetographs (the hyetographs of the rainfall station closest to the outlet
of the catchment are shown for illustration purposes) and hydrographs at outlets.
In the second part, the continuing loss rate of the WBNM program is adjusted until the
excess rainfall depths match the recorded surface runoff depths. Thereafter, the lag
parameter is adjusted until the calculated and recorded hydrographs match. The plotted
hydrographs are visually inspected, with most emphasis being placed on matching the
peak discharge.
After analysing the data successfully by means of the WBNM as explained in the two
previous paragraphs, the lag parameters of all seventeen catchments and their respective
continuing losses for various storms have been obtained from the WBNM output files.
168
5.2 Mary River Basin.

The boundaries of the Gympie catchment as well as its sub-catchments have been
demarcated on the AUSLIG map (with a scale of 1:100000), as demonstrated in Figure
5.1. These are transferred onto tracing paper. The tracing paper was placed on a grid
containing 4mm x 4mm squares (each square represents 16ha for maps with scales of
1:100000) and the areas of sub-catchments have been calculated by counting the
number of squares contained in each sub-catchment.
28
Outlet at Gympie
27
29
26
23
21
22
15
20
18
19
24
17
11
9
16
14
10
25
13
5
6
4
12
Figure 5.1- Sub-areas of Mary River at Gympie

The total catchment area of Gympie was calculated by adding the values of sub-areas
together and that value of 292020ha was found to be very close to the value 292000ha
169
indicated in the Catalogue of Stream Gauging Information Australia-1990, published

by the Australian Water Resources Council. Moreover, the values of the catchment
areas were further checked by measuring them with a Planimeter. Therefore, it is
revealed that the grid paper method has a high standard of accuracy and reliability.
This method is adopted to calculate the areas of all seventeen catchments (shown in
Table 5.1) and these values are found to be very close to the respective values given in
the catalogue.
The Eastern and Northern co-ordinates of the centroids of sub-areas as well as the
locations of the rainfall stations of the Gympie catchment have been found from the coordinate system given in the AUSLIG maps.
As shown in Figures 5.2, 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14 and 5.16, the initial loss of
various storms have been estimated. In this estimation process the patterns of the
rainfall hyetographs were compared with their respective resulting total hydrographs to
find out the time at which the flow begins to increase. This total time elapsed, between
the start of the storm and at the time the flow begins to rise, is used to obtain the initial
loss of storms.
The input file of WBNM is prepared by means of the rainfall, flow and topographical
data of a given catchment. Some vital parts of the truncated input file of the 11th
February 1995 storm of Mary River at Gympie are shown in Tables 5.2 to 5.6.
Subsequently the input file is used with WBNM for analysis. One of the purposes of
this analysis is to find out the lag parameters related to all 254 storm events of all
seventeen catchments. Since the storms with multiple events produce more than one lag
parameter, this analysis had to be repeated several times to obtain the lag parameters.
Considering one event at a time and examining the information provided by each output
file of WBNM and making necessary adjustments to its respective input file in each
submission, suitable lag parameters were obtained for all storm events, after satisfying
the following conditions:
The value of continuous loss rate for every sub-area of the catchment is set to the
same value;
170
The depth of excess rainfall (derived by subtracting the continuing loss rate) is
equal to the depth of surface runoff in the recorded hydrograph after separation of
baseflow;
The peak flows of the recorded surface hydrograph and the WBNM generated
hydrograph, are equal to each other; and
The ordinates of the WBNM generated hydrograph should match the ordinates of
the actual runoff hydrograph (as illustrated in Figures 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.11, 5.13,
5.15 and 5.17 of Mary River at Gympie where the hydrographs with broken lines
are produced by WBNM ).
The input and output files of WBNM used for this analysis provide useful information
for this research study and therefore, this information is tabulated for each catchment.
For example the information applicable to the Mary River at Gympie is tabulated in
Table 5.7. The input and output files of WBNM, relating to all seventeen catchments
(for selected storms), are contained in Appendix D of the CD.
The foregoing procedure has been adopted to obtain lag parameters and other features
of storm events for the remaining sixteen catchments also considered for this study. The
hyetographs, total hydrographs, surface runoff hydrographs and the WBNM computer
generated hydrographs of the five major river basins are illustrated in the next part of
this chapter. The essential information is summarised in the seventeen tables (Tables
5.12 to 5.28) shown in the last part of this chapter.
Table 5.1- Details of seventeen catchments selected for the study
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Catchment
Name
Total Area
(ha)
Number of
subareas
Number of
Rain Gauges
Gympie
Moy Pocket
Bellbird
Cooran
Kandanga
Powerline
Mt. Piccanniny
292020
83023
47920
16432
17568
173456
113893
58624
537016
684152
729200
101032
80784
62008
92936
80792
38976
29
34
32
37
25
119
84
10
6
4
4
3
5
6
5
8
8
8
6
7
5
9
8
7
Silver Valley
Gleneagle
Nash's Crossing
Zattas
Reeves
Mt. Dangar
Ida Creek
Tung Oil
Nerada
Central Mill
15
91
119
140
96
77
53
56
46
46
171
Table 5.2 - Co-ordinates of centroids of sub-catchments of WBNM input file of

Mary River at Gympie
#####START_TOPOLOGY_BLOCK##########|###########|###########|###########|
No. of sub catchments = 29

Eastern Co-ordinate
Northern Co-ordinate
Flow paths
SUB1
47.30
70.38
-1.00
-1.00 SUB3
SUB2
47.70
70.44
-1.00
-1.00 SUB3
SUB3
47.60
70.48
-1.00
-1.00 SUB5
SUB4
46.00
70.54
-1.00
-1.00 SUB5
SUB5
47.35
70.55
-1.00
-1.00 SUB7
SUB6
48.42
70.47
-1.00
-1.00 SUB7
SUB7
47.55
70.64
-1.00
-1.00 SUB9
SUB8
48.30
70.70
-1.00
-1.00 SUB9
SUB9
47.25
70.74
-1.00
-1.00 SUB11
SUB10
48.22
70.76
-1.00
-1.00 SUB11
SUB11
47.58
70.78
-1.00
-1.00 SUB15
SUB12
44.75
70.58
-1.00
-1.00 SUB14
SUB13
44.34
70.71
-1.00
-1.00 SUB14
SUB14
46.40
70.68
-1.00
-1.00 SUB15
SUB15
47.50
70.81
-1.00
-1.00 SUB17
SUB16
48.20
70.81
-1.00
-1.00 SUB17
SUB17
47.22
70.84
-1.00
-1.00 SUB21
SUB18
44.52
70.78
-1.00
-1.00 SUB20
SUB19
45.55
70.75
-1.00
-1.00 SUB20
SUB20
46.35
70.79
-1.00
-1.00 SUB21
SUB21
47.50
70.86
-1.00
-1.00 SUB23
SUB22
45.80
70.84
-1.00
-1.00 SUB23
SUB23
47.10
70.94
-1.00
-1.00 SUB27
SUB24
49.20
70.79
-1.00
-1.00 SUB26
SUB25
48.68
70.84
-1.00
-1.00 SUB26
SUB26
48.00
70.93
-1.00
-1.00 SUB27
SUB27
46.58
70.96
-1.00
-1.00 SUB29
SUB28
47.12
71.80
-1.00
-1.00 SUB29
SUB29
46.65
71.20
-1.00
-1.00 SINK
#####END_TOPOLOGY_BLOCK############|###########|###########|###########|
172
Table 5.3 - Sub-areas and lag parameter of WBNM input file of Mary River at
Gympie of 11th February 1995 Storm
#####START_SURFACES_BLOCK##########|###########|###########|###########|
0.77
Sub area (ha)
Lag Parameter
-99.90
SUB1
12874.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB2
4082.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB3
13502.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB4
18526.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB5
4239.05
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB6
20724.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB7
12717.05
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB8
13816.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB9
2512.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB10
2826.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB11
1099.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB12
30301.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB13
14601.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB14
28417.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB15
3454.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB16
6123.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB17
942.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB18
13816.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB19
942.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB20
10833.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB21
3768.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB22
14915.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB23
5181.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB24
12717.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB25
1884.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB26
15386.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB27
4396.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB28
16799.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
SUB29
628.00
0.00
2.77
0.25
#####END_SURFACES_BLOCK############|###########|###########|###########|
173
Table 5.4 - Names of ten rainfall stations, co-ordinates and their respective rainfall
depths of WBNM input file of Mary River at Gympie of 11th February
1995 Storm
#####START_STORM_BLOCK#############|###########|###########|###########|
1
#####START_STORM#1
This rainfall has been recorded
60.00
60.00
#####START_RECORDED_RAIN
11/2/95
09:00
22 60.00
MM/PERIOD
10
Gympie
46.65 70.28
6.74
5.23
2.73
2.73
4.34
6.3
6.3
5.59
4.66
4.66
3.76
4.61
4.61
4.08
3.37
3.37
2.98
2.51
0.95
0.4
0
0
Cooran
48.22 70.87
10.4
7.68
3.4
3.4
6.24
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.69
9.26
8.18
9.88
9.88
12.72
16.5
16.5
9.22
174
0.63(Contd.,)
0.08
0
0
0
Mapleton
48.75 70.57
10.18
6.87
7.42
7.02
5.71
7.85
5
5.57
13.1
17.36
14.4
24.34
25.83
22.79
21.37
44.17
11.13
6.49
5.56
9.95
4.4
0
Maleny
48.50 70.41
5.11
4.69
3.8
3.8
3.59
3.32
3.32
6.39
10.8
10.8
11.68
12.77
12.77
14.82
17.97
17.97
14.23
9.56
9.56
9.96
10.53
10.39
Kenilworth
47.30 70.58
2.57
2.57
2.05
2.01
2.72
175
3.63(Contd.,)
3.63
4.08
4.73
4.73
5.25
5.89
5.89
5.58
5.09
5.09
3.71
1.98
1.98
1.34
0.42
0.41
Cooroy
49.15 70.79
12.76
10.3
4.87
4.87
7.94
11.87
11.87
12.81
14.19
14.19
16.91
20.31
20.31
22.98
27.12
27.12
16.73
3.63
3.63
2.66
1.26
1.22
Pomona
48.50 70.84
10.53
8.76
4.86
4.86
7.77
11.55
11.55
11.52
11.49
11.49
12.15
12.97
12.97
13.8
19.32
19.32
11.43
176
1.32(Contd.,)
1.32
0.79
0
0
Kandanga
46.78 70.91
9.9
7.35
1.74
1.74
3.23
5.16
5.16
5.28
6.05
6.05
5.29
3.74
3.74
4.39
5.42
5.42
3.62
1.32
1.32
0.78
0
0
Imbil
46.95 70.73
6.51
4.74
2.04
2.04
2.78
3.65
3.65
3.73
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
4.21
4.71
4.71
3
0.99
0.99
0.55
0
0
Jimna
44.70 70.49
1.21
1.24
1.47
1.47
1.51
177
1.58(Contd.,)
1.58
1.89
3.19
3.19
3.17
3.13
3.13
2.95
2.13
2.13
1.71
0.97
0.97
0.83
0.44
0.44
#####END_RECORDED_RAIN#####END_RECORDED_RAIN
Table 5.5 Sub-areas and their loss rates of WBNM input file of Mary River at
Gympie (11th February 1995 Storm)
#####START_LOSS_RATES
SUB1
0.00
2.807
SUB2
0.00
2.807
SUB3
0.00
2.807
SUB4
0.00
2.807
SUB5
0.00
2.807
SUB6
0.00
2.807
SUB7
0.00
2.807
SUB8
0.00
2.807
SUB9
0.00
2.807
SUB10
0.00
2.807
SUB11
0.00
2.807
SUB12
0.00
2.807
SUB13
0.00
2.807
SUB14
0.00
2.807
SUB15
0.00
2.807
SUB16
0.00
2.807
SUB17
0.00
2.807
SUB18
0.00
2.807
SUB19
0.00
2.807
SUB20
0.00
2.807
SUB21
0.00
2.807
SUB22
0.00
2.807
SUB23
0.00
2.807
SUB24
0.00
2.807
SUB25
0.00
2.807
SUB26
0.00
2.807
SUB27
0.00
2.807
SUB28
0.00
2.807
SUB29
0.00
2.807
#####END_LOSS_RATES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
178
Table 5.6 Ordinates of surface runoff hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie of

11th February 1995 storm
#####START_RECORDED_HYDROGRAPHS
1
#####START_RECORDED_HYDROGRAPH#1
SUB29
BOTTOM
87
60.00
DISCHARGE
0.00
9.81
24.83
42.64
63.98
89.69
118.31
149.42
184.27
221.89
261.13
302.59
344.17
387.46
428.43
466.85
504.48
540.24
573.10
605.92
637.68
667.40
696.03
720.70
744.42
785.00
821.26
854.78
889.17
922.56
952.91
981.99
1009.73
1031.76
1054.21
1072.73
1084.88
1097.18
1105.11
1106.30
1109.77
1108.71
1103.12
1095.31
1087.53
1073.14
1058.89
1042.61
1022.24
179
1000.07(Contd.,)
976.19
950.69
923.66
895.21
863.53
832.52
800.32
763.46
729.11
696.82
673.91
650.91
626.86
598.89
570.83
539.80
505.80
471.78
436.82
400.02
363.38
327.94
292.83
258.14
225.82
196.76
167.41
141.32
117.57
95.27
75.22
57.32
40.00
26.82
16.76
6.96
0.00
#####END_RECORDED_HYDROGRAPH#1
180
25
4500
4000
20
Hyetograph
3500
Total Hydrograph
Flow (m /s)
15
2500
2000
10
1500
No Initial
Loss
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.2 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (April 1989)
4500
Recorded Surface Runoff
---- WBNM
4000
3500
2500
Recorded and WBNM

Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
3000
2000
1500
1000
500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.3 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Mary River at
Gympie (April 1989)
Rainfall (mm)
3000
181
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.4 - Hyetograph and Hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (December 1991)
800
---- WBNM
700
600
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.5 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Mary River at
Gympie (December 1991)
160
182
Total Hydrograph
Hyetograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.6 - Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (February 1992)
7000
---- WBNM
6000
5000
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Time (hrs)
Gympie (February 1992)
180
183
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Figure 5.8 - Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (March 1992)
2500
---- WBNM
2250
2000
1750
Flow (m3/s)
1500
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Time (hrs)
Gympie (March 1992)
150
184
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.10 - Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (February 1995)
1200
---- WBNM
1000
Flow (m /s)
800
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
Time (hrs)
Gympie (February 1995)
185
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Figure 5.12 - Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (January 1996)
800
---- WBNM
700
600
Flow (m3/s)
500
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.13 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Mary River at
Gympie (January 1996)
186
Total Hydrograph
Hyetograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.14 - Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (April 1996)
600
---- WBNM
500
Flow(m /s)
400
300
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
200
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Time (hrs)
Gympie (April 1996)
187
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Figure 5.16 - Hyetograph and hydrograph of Mary River at Gympie (March 1997)
800
---- WBNM
700
600
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Time (hrs)
Gympie (March 1997)
188
The Figures 5.18 to 5.85 of Mary River at Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Cooran and Kandanga
catchments are contained in part 1 of Appendix E of the CD.
Figure 5.7 - Flow and runoff details and lag parameters of eight storms of Mary River
at Gympie
Date of
Storm
Peak
Discharge
Total
(m3/s)
Peak
Discharge
Surface
Runoff
(m3/s)
Surface
Runoff
Depth
(mm)
Surface
Runoff
Duration
(hrs)
Lag
Parameter
(C)
Apr-89
4087
3613
164
71
2.75
Dec-91
731
696
39.8
14
2.63
Feb-92
6212
5862
310
127
3.20
Mar-92
2379
2327
132
37
2.89
Feb-95
1154
1110
62.4
22
2.77
Jan-96
666
628
31.3
40
1.94
Apr-96
568
538
26.3
32
1.84
Mar-97
713
695
32.4
13
2.36
Number of
Events
Selected
189
5.3 Haughton River Basin.
43
46
45
42
44
53
57
58
59
63
61
62
65
64
54
60
68
67
66
48
50
52
56
47
49
51
55
20
27
54
21
22
29
28
34
69
71
74
73
72
31
30
35
39
70
77
76
75
32
33
36
40
41
78
84
85
80
82
83
86
23
24
25
37
38
26
17
79
88
19
18
16
89
13
14
10
11
90
115
15
93
87
12
118
119
103
102
116
Outlet of Powerline
94
117
92
11
101
81
91
95
98
100
99
107
112
114
96
97
105
108
110
111
113
104
106
109
Figure 5.86 - Schematic of Haughton River at Powerline
190
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.87 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (January

1994)
800
---- WBNM
700
600
Flow (m /s)
500
400
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
300
200
100
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.88 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Haughton River
at Powerline (January 1994)
191
2
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
1
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.89 Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Haughton River at

800
---- WBNM
700
600
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Flow (m /s)
500
400
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
Peak (1)
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Time (hrs)
at Powerline (January 1996)
192
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.91 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (February

1997)
1200
---- WBNM
1000
Flow (m /s)
800
600
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Time (hrs)
at Powerline (February 1997)
193
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.93 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (March

1997)
3000
---- WBNM
2500
Flow (m /s)
2000
1500
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Time (hrs)
at Powerline (March 1997)
194
Hyetograph
2
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.95 - Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Haughton River at

Powerline (August 1998)
---- WBNM
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
Figure 5.96 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Haughton River
at Powerline (August 1998)
195
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.97 Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Haughton River at

1400
---- WBNM
1200
800
Flow (m /s)
1000
600
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
400
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Time (hrs)
at Powerline (February 2000)
196
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.99 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (March

2000)
2000
1800
---- WBNM
1600
1400
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.100 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Haughton River
at Powerline (March 2000)
197
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.101 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (April

2000)
3500
---- WBNM
3000
2000
Flow (m /s)
2500
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
1500
1000
500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Time (hrs)
at Powerline (April 2000)
198
The Figures 5.103 to 5.120 of Haughton River at Mount Piccaninny catchment are
contained in part 2 of Appendix E of the CD.
Table 5.8 - Flow and runoff details and lag parameters of eight storms of Haughton
River at Powerline
Date of
Storm
Selected
Number of
Peaks from
Each Storm
Peak
Discharge
Total
3
(m /s)
Peak
Discharge
Surface
Runoff
(m3/s)
Surface
Runoff
Depth
(mm)
Surface
Runoff
Duration
(hrs)
Lag
Parameter
Jan-94
Peak - 1
718
688
21.5
8.00
1.71
Jan-96
Number of
Events
Selected
Peak - 1
449
338
9.45
7.50
0.95
Peak - 2
728
618
36.3
30.0
1.77
Feb-97
Peak - 1
1094
1054
32.1
13.5
1.92
Mar-97
Peak - 1
2529
2336
80.3
26.0
1.41
Aug-98
7
8
Feb-00
9
10
Peak - 1
267
258
11.2
6.00
1.81
Peak - 2
2064
1907
59.9
14.0
1.39
Peak - 1
1265
1178
50.2
16.5
1.84
Peak - 2
615
258
8.06
7.50
1.58
Peak - 3
594
434
15.9
6.00
1.30
11
Mar-00
Peak - 1
1941
1860
70.5
17.5
1.69
12
Apr-00
Peak - 1
3031
2878
92.9
20.5
1.44
199
5.4
Herbert River Basin.
28
29
47
43
32
33
52
49
51
53
67
66
44
68
34
35
39
58
65
63
59
61
60
57
54
55
56
72
71
46
73
81
87
89
91
92
79
80
85
86
88
90
94
77
78
74
76
45
70
36
27
40
38
62
69
26
37
64
42
25
21
23
24
14
50
41
30
31
48
22
11
15
13
12
10
20
19
18
17
93
83
84
95
82
96
97
98
99
100
101
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
75
16
126
127
125
124
130
129
128
123
102
103
1
131
Outlet of Zattas
140
132
135
136
139
133
134
137
138
122
121
120
119
117
115
114
118
116
112
113
Figure 5.121 - Schematic of Herbert River at Zattas
200
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
1
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.122 - Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Herbert River at Zattas
(February 1991)
---- WBNM
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Figure 5.123 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Herbert River at
Zattas (February 1991)
201
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.124 - Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Herbert River at Zattas
---- WBNM
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Figure 5.125 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Herbert River at
Zattas (Early February 2000)
202
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.126 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Herbert River at Zattas (Late February
2000)
---- WBNM
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Figure 5.127 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Herbert River at
Zattas (Late February 2000)
203
2
Hyetograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Total Hydrograph
Figure 5.128 Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of Herbert River at Zattas
(February 2001)
---- WBNM
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Figure 5.129 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Herbert River at
Zattas (February 2001)
204
The Figures 5.130 to 5.175 of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing, Gleneagle and Silver
Valley catchments are contained in part 3 of Appendix E of the CD.
Table 5.9 - Flow and runoff details and lag parameters of four storms of Herbert River
at Zattas
Number of
Events
Selected
Date of
Storm
Selected
Number of
Peaks from
Each Storm
Peak
Discharge
Total
(m3/s)
Peak
Discharge
Surface
Runoff
3
(m /s)
Surface
Runoff
Depth
(mm)
Surface
Runoff
Duration
(hrs)
Lag
Parameter
(C)
Feb-91
Peak - 1
4540
3398
37.3
20.0
1.08
Peak - 2
1836
792
6.91
55.0
1.02
Peak - 1
1296
1068
20.7
26.0
1.29
2
3
Early Feb-00
Peak - 2
889
407
10.2
34.0
1.09
Late Feb-00
Peak - 1
1866
1103
29.9
52.0
1.88
Feb-01
Peak - 1
721
388
7.66
9.0
1.08
Peak - 2
1132
576
10.1
9.0
1.04
205
5.5 Don River Basin.
18
17
19
20
21
22
23
26
25
16
37
36
34
35
27
49
39
38
41
40
42
50
48
45
43
47
46
44
24
32
51
31
33
52
56
54
55
75
14
15
12
13
28
30
29
58
60
76
59
61
74
71
72
73
63
68
64
65
67
9
57
11
10
77
53
70
69
6
62
5
2
78
66
96
80
83
85
86
89
95
79
82
84
87
88
94
90
92
81
Figure 5.176 - Schematic of Don River at Reeves
Outlet of Reeves
93
91
206
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.177 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (April 1989)
3000
---- WBNM
2500
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.178 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Don River at
Reeves (April 1989)
100
207
Hyetograph
1
3
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
4
Figure 5.179 Hyetograph and hydrograph and selected events of Don River at Reeves
(December 1990)
2500
---- WBNM
2250
2000
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
1750
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
Flow (m /s)
1500
1250
1000
750
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (4)
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
500
250
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Time (hrs)
Reeves (December 1990)
208
Hyetograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Total Hydrograph
Figure 5.181 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (January 1991)
2000
---- WBNM
1750
1250
Flow (m /s)
1500
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
1000
750
500
250
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Time (hrs)
Reeves (January 1991)
209
Hyetograph
2
4
3
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Total Hydrograph
(February 1991)
4000
---- WBNM
3500
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
3000
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (4)
Flow (m /s)
2500
2000
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
1500
1000
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (5)
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time (hrs)
Reeves (February 1991)
100
210
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.185 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (August 1998)
400
---- WBNM
350
300
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time (hrs)
Reeves (August 1998)
211
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.187 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (January 1999)
300
---- WBNM
250
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Time (hrs)
Reeves (January 1999)
75
212
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.189 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (February 1999)
800
---- WBNM
700
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
500
Flow (m /s)
600
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Time (hrs)
Reeves (February 1999)
80
213
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.191 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (December 1999)
900
---- WBNM
800
700
Flow (m /s)
600
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Time (hrs)
Reeves (December 1999)
214
Hyetograph
3
2
Total Hydrograph
4
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
1200
---- WBNM
1000
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Flow (m /s)
800
600
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (4)
400
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Time (hrs)
Reeves (Early February 2000)
215
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.195 Hyetograph and hydrograph of Don River at Reeves (Late February
2000)
800
---- WBNM
700
600
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Flow (m /s)
500
400
300
200
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.196 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of Don River at Reeves
216
The Figures 5.197 to 5.230 of Don River at Mount Dangar and Ida Creek catchments
are contained in part 4 of Appendix E of the CD.
Table 5.10 - Flow & runoff details and lag parameters of ten storms of Don River at
Reeves
Date of
Storm
Selected
Number of
Peaks from
Each Storm
Peak
Discharge
Total
(m3/s)
Peak
Discharge
Surface
Runoff
3
(m /s)
Surface
Runoff
Depth
(mm)
Surface
Runoff
Duration
(hrs)
Lag
Parameter
(C)
Apr-89
Peak - 1
2528
2403
52.7
20.0
0.80
Dec-90
Peak - 1
2440
2376
85.6
10.5
1.13
Number of
Events
Selected
Peak - 2
600
459
10.1
3.50
0.60
Peak - 3
1800
1800
82.8
18.5
0.81
Peak - 4
600
363
8.36
8.50
0.73
Jan-91
Peak - 1
1800
1734
72.5
21.5
1.04
Feb-91
Peak - 1
1306
1199
24.6
8.00
0.66
Peak - 2
3480
3405
137
13.0
1.44
Peak - 3
2448
712
12.1
3.50
0.49
10
Peak - 4
2680
2251
67.8
10.5
0.75
11
Peak - 5
1400
831
15.3
6.00
0.62
12
Aug-98
Peak - 1
362
354
9.38
6.50
0.90
13
Jan-99
Peak - 1
281
272
7.64
17.0
1.22
14
Feb-99
Peak - 1
760
678
12.5
5.75
0.71
15
Dec-99
Peak - 1
887
836
20.1
5.50
0.78
16
Early Feb-00
Peak - 1
166
153
5.84
3.00
0.83
17
Peak - 2
864
773
18.4
8.50
0.65
18
Peak - 3
1057
947
19.7
5.00
0.68
19
Peak - 4
570
517
10.6
5.00
0.88
Peak - 1
782
703
17.2
8.00
0.70
20
Late Feb-00
217
5.6 North Johnstone River Basin.
33
35
36
37
38
40
26
28
39
41
24
27
34
25
30
32
31
42
29
43
45
44
46
47
23
22
20
16
21
49
19
12
50
18
17
11
10
15
14
51
13
54
52
53
55
56
Outlet of Tung Oil
Figure 5.231 Schematic of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil
48
218
4
Total Hydrograph
Hyetograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
1
2
3
Figure 5.232 Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of North Johnstone River at
2000

1800
---- WBNM
1600
Flow (m /s)
1400
1200
1000
800
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (4)
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
600
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
400
200
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.233 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of North Johnstone
219
Total Hydrograph
2
Hyetograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
1
4000
---- WBNM
3500
Recoded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
3000
Flow (m /s)
2500
2000
1500
1000
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (hrs)
220
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
3000
---- WBNM
2750
2500
2250
1750
Recorded &
WBNM
Hydrographs
(Peak2)
Flow (m /s)
2000
1500
1250
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
(Peak3)
1000
Recorded &
WBNM
Hydrographs
(Peak1)
750
500
250
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Time (hrs)
221
Hyetograph
3
1
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
4000
WBNM
3500
3000
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
(Peak 2)
Flow (m /s)
2500
2000
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
(Peak 1)
1500
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
(Peak 3)
1000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Time (hrs)
222
1
Hyetograph
2
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
1200
---- WBNM
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
Peak (1)
1000
Flow (m /s)
800
600
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
Peak (2)
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Time (hrs)
223
2
3
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
1
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
2500
2250
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
2000
1750
Flow (m /s)
---- WBNM
1500
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
1250
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
1000
750
500
250
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Time (hrs)
224
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Total Hydrograph
Hyetograph
6
4 5
3
2
4000
---- WBNM
3500
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (6)
3000
Flow (m /s)
2500
2000
Recorded
Recorded &WBNM
&WBNM Hydrographs
Hydrographs Peak (4)
Peak (3)
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
1500
1000
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (5)
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Time (hrs)
Figure 5.245 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of North Johnstone
225
Hyetograph
3
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
6 Total Hydrograph
5
1
2
Figure 5.246 - Hyetograph, hydrograph and selected events of North Johnstone River at
---- WBNM
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (4)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (5)
Recorded and
WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (6)
Figure 5.247 - Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of North Johnstone
226
2 Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Hyetograph
3
4
Tung Oil (February 2000)
1400
---- WBNM
1200
Recorded & WBNM

Hydrographs
Peak (2)
Flow (m /s)
1000
800
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (1)
600
400
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (3)
Recorded
&WBNM
Hydrographs
Peak (4)
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Time (hrs)
River at Tung Oil (February 2000)
227
Hyetograph
Total Hydrograph
Initial Loss
(Shaded)
Figure 5.250 Hyetograph and hydrograph of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (April
2000)
3000
2750
---- WBNM
2500
2250
1750
Flow (m /s)
2000
Recorded &WBNM
Hydrographs
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Time (hrs)
River at Tung Oil (April 2000)
The Figures 5.252 to 5.289 of North & South Johnstone Rivers at Nerada and Central
Mill catchments respectively are contained in part 5 of Appendix E of the CD.
228
Table 5.11 Flow & runoff details and lag parameters of ten storms of North Johnstone
River at Tung Oil
Number of
Events
Selected
1
Date of
Storm
Selected
Number of
Peaks from
Each Storm
Peak
Discharge
Total
3
(m /s)
Peak
Discharge
Surface
Runoff
3
(m /s)
Surface
Runoff
Depth
(mm)
Surface
Runoff
Duration
(hrs)
Lag
Parameter
(C)
Mar-90
Peak - 1
685
639
38.9
5.50
1.38
Peak - 2
741
322
8.28
8.50
0.56
Peak - 3
530
373
11.9
6.00
0.77
Peak - 4
2093
1897
86
37.5
1.33
Jan-94
6
7
Mar-96
8
9
10
Mar-97
Peak - 1
889
826
41.0
15.0
1.49
Peak - 2
3910
3551
85.9
8.50
0.74
Peak - 1
1141
1012
39.5
21.0
1.04
Peak - 2
1767
1197
34.2
6.50
0.63
Peak - 3
2753
1763
35.4
3.00
0.56
Peak - 1
1104
1002
28.8
7.00
1.20
11
Peak - 2
836
384
9.61
3.50
0.61
12
Peak - 3
1913
1725
83.2
10.5
1.11
Peak - 1
3454
2642
87.6
7.00
0.81
Peak - 2
2212
1218
22.1
4.00
0.55
Peak - 1
1010
858
41.1
15.5
0.99
16
Peak - 2
2240
1957
88.3
23.5
1.47
17
Peak - 3
1913
1231
38.2
9.50
0.82
13
Dec-97
14
15
18
Jan-98
Peak - 1
1277
1146
63.0
22.0
1.25
19
Mar-99
Peak - 2
1196
817
56.1
11.0
1.57
20
Peak - 3
1376
801
49.9
6.00
1.38
21
Peak - 4
1743
1033
37.9
9.50
0.78
22
Peak - 5
1714
596
17.1
2.50
0.75
23
Peak - 6
3727
3202
110
14.0
0.99
Peak - 1
394
331
9.92
17.5
0.62
25
Peak - 2
282
114
4.63
6.00
0.72
26
Peak - 3
486
272
9.68
5.00
0.81
27
Peak - 4
1222
897
25.3
10.0
0.76
28
Peak - 5
426
284
14.2
3.50
1.18
Peak - 6
462
230
7.86
4.50
0.70
Peak - 1
775
694
23.4
11.5
0.88
31
Peak - 2
1217
1078
60.3
10.0
1.23
32
Peak - 3
916
354
12.3
7.50
0.67
24
Dec-99
29
30
Feb-00
33
34
Apr-00
Peak - 4
775
319
11.6
5.50
0.65
Peak - 1
2587
2403
70.8
15.5
0.64
Table 5.12 - Summary of Storms of Mary River at Gympie
229
Table 5.13 - Summary of Storms of Mary River at Moy Pocket
230
Table 5.14 - Summary of Storms of Mary River at Bellbird
231
Table 5.15 - Summary of Storms of Sixth Mile Creek (Tributary of Mary River) at Cooran
232
Table 5.16 - Summary of Storms of Kandanga Creek (Tributary of Mary River) at Kandanga
233
Table 5.17 - Summary of Storms of Haughton River at Powerline
234
Table 5.18 - Summary of Storms of Haughton River at Mount Piccaninny
235
Table 5.22 - Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Zattas
236
Table 5.21 - Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing
237
Table 5.20 - Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Gleneagle
238
Table 5.19 - Summary of Storms of Herbert River at Silver Valley
239
Table 5.23 - Summary of Storms of Don River at Reeves
240
Table 5.24 - Summary of Storms of Don River at Mount Dangar
241
Table 5.25 - Summary of Storms of Don River at Ida Creek
242
Table 5.26 - Summary of Storms of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil
243
Table 5.27 - Summary of Storms of North Johnstone River at Nerada
244
Table 5.28 - Summary of Storms of South Johnstone River at Central Mill
245
CHAPTER 6
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LAG PARAMETER
AND
HYDROLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
246
6.
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
HYDROLOGICAL
LAG
PARAMETER
AND
CHARACTERISTICS.
6.1 Variation of Lag Time with Discharge

In many situations, large floods in rural catchments demonstrate smaller lag times and
small floods produce larger lag times. This non-linear behaviour is therefore, a very
common phenomenon in rural catchments. The size of the flood can be expressed in
several ways, for example, as the total rainfall depth, the excess depth, the rainfall
intensity and the maximum flood discharge.
Eighteen out of the forty six studies shown in Table 2.1 have demonstrated that the lag
time is inversely proportional to the discharge. This non-linear relationship of flow on
catchments can be expressed as:
Lag time (tL) = C Q-z
(6.1)
Where, C is a scaling factor.

The majority of the values of z shown in Table 2.2 are between 0.07 and 0.87, and five
of the values are greater than or equal to 1.0, with a maximum of 1.60. The calculated
mean and median values of z, of the eighteen values, are 0.54 and 0.26 respectively.
To demonstrate the effect of the non-linear exponent z on lag time, the curves shown
in Figure 6.1 were calculated using equation 6.1, with C = 1.7. It is important to note
that when z = 0 (linear response), the lag time is constant for all discharges. When the
behaviour of the catchment is non-linear (z becomes greater than zero), the lag time
decreases as the discharge (Q) increases. This variation becomes significantly higher
when the catchment is more non-linear, and this is, when the z value is equal or greater
than 0.5.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the following:
The shape of the curves, when z = 0.23 and 0.26, show a significant decrease in
lag time with increasing discharge. Since the median value of z in Table 2.2 is
0.26, this variation reflects the behaviour of most of the natural catchments;
247
As the z value gets closer to zero, the shape of the curve becomes more horizontal.
For example, when z = 0.01 the variation of lag time is almost negligible. Note
that such variation does not signify the behaviour of most of natural catchments;
and
Although there is a considerable variation in lag time for the lower discharges
(between 5 and 50m3/s), for higher discharges (Q > 50m3/s) the variation of lag
time is relatively small.
As described in Chapter 2, equation (2.176) has been used in the development of

WBNM by Boyd et al., 1978, and that equation demonstrates the non-linearity of the
rainfall and runoff process with a z value of 0.23, which is very close to the median
value z = 0.26, found from the studies described in the literature review.
1.8
Q-0.00
Q-0.01
1.6
Lag Time (tL) - hrs
1.4
Q-0.07
1.2
1
0.8
Q-0.23
Q-0.26
0.6
0.4
Q-0.54
Q-0.87
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100 105 110
Discharge (Q) - m3/s
Figure 6.1- Lag time versus Discharge for different values of z

6.2 Variation of Lag Parameter with Discharge
Equations similar to 6.1 have been adopted in many studies, as described in Chapter 2.
For example, the following equation is used in WBNM:
Lag time (tL) = C A0.57 Q-0.23
(6.2)
248
Consider the case where WBNM is calibrated using a set of recorded flood data which
satisfy the nonlinear relation in equation 6.1 with z = 0.23. Since in both situations the
same exponent of 0.23 applied for nonlinearity, the same lag parameter (C) would apply
to all calibrated events. Therefore, the plot of lag parameter (C) versus discharge (Q)
would be a straight horizontal line. If however, the model used a value other than 0.23
for nonlinearity, and was calibrated on this recorded data, then the calculated value of
Lag parameter (C) could vary considerably with discharge.
8
Q-0.54
Lag Parameter (C)
Q-0.26
Q-0.23
Q-0.07
Q-0.01
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Discharge (Q) - m /s
Figure 6.2 Calibrated Lag Parameter (C) for different values of z

Figure 6.2 shows how the lag parameter (C) would have to vary to maintain the correct
value of the lag time (tL) if the recorded flood data had a nonlinearity exponent of 0.23,
and the model had a range of values which are greater or less than 0.23 (for example,
0.54 and 0.07 respectively).
For various values of the nonlinearity exponent, the WBNM model would have
produced different relationships for lag parameter (C) and discharge (Q) and these
variations can be described in the following manner:
If the model adopted a nonlinearity exponent of 0.23, the same lag parameter
applies to all discharges;
249
If the model nonlinearity exponent is less than 0.23 (for example 0.07, that means
the model is not sufficiently nonlinear) the calibrated lag parameter must decrease
as Q increases; and
If the model nonlinearity exponent is greater than 0.23 (for example 0.54, which
means the model is too nonlinear) the calibrated lag parameter must increase as Q
increases.
Furthermore, Figure 6.2 illustrates the following:
For all discharges the lag parameter is a constant, when z = 0.23;
As the discharge increases the lag parameter decreases gradually for values of z
less than 0.23, for example z = 0.07;
As the discharge increases the lag parameter increases very rapidly for values of z
greater than 0.23, for example z = 0.54; and
For larger discharges, exceptionally high lag parameters were observed from the
calculations especially when z > 0.50.
Therefore, a plot of calibrated lag parameter (C) against discharge (Q) is a good test to
assess whether the model has the correct value of nonlinearity.
6.3 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Peak Discharge (QP)
Figures 6.3 to 6.19 show the lag parameter (C) derived in Chapter 5, plotted against the
peak discharge of the total flood hydrograph (Qp).
Those figures illustrate the following:
For all seventeen catchments the points show a significant amount of scatter;
For the six catchments Gympie, Cooran, Mt. Piccaninny, Nashs crossing, Reeves
and Ida Creek, the best-fit straight lines have positive gradients;
For eight of the catchments, namely Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Kandanga, Powerline,
Silver Valley, Tung Oil, Nerada and Central Mill, the best-fit straight lines have
negative gradients; and
Horizontal lines with zero gradients have been noticed in the plots of Zattas,
Gleneagle and Mt.Dangar catchments.
250
For all seventeen catchments, two tailed significance t-tests have been carried out and it
is found that, except for Mary River at Gympie (shown in Figure 6.3), the gradients of
the best-fit straight lines are not significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance. Therefore, the variation between lag parameter and peak discharge of these
sixteen catchments can be treated as being horizontal. Summary statistics of the t-tests
and the equations of the best-fit straight lines are shown in Figures 6.3 to 6.19. Table 6.3
at the end of this chapter summarises these results.
Table 6.1 t-test calculations of C versus Qp of Mary River at Gympie

Peak Discharge
Lag
(Qp)
Parameter (C)
(Y)
(X)
No.
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
2.89
4087
2.75
16700381.29
7.563
11238.178
731
2.63
534287.90
6.917
1922.399
2.32
6212
3.20
38588322.80
10.240
19878.240
3.25
2379
2.89
5657357.39
8.352
6873.923
2.60
1154
2.77
1332177.64
7.673
3197.134
2.39
666
1.94
443236.38
3.764
1291.574
2.31
568
1.84
322714.89
3.386
1045.267
2.29
713
2.36
508083.84
5.570
1682.208
2.32
Total
16508.87
20.38
64086562.13
53.4632
47128.922
20.38
Intercept of straight line (a) =
2.198790441
r =
0.554746301
Slope of straight line (b) =
1.68980E-04
Standard error of estimate (Se) =
0.338620671
Correlation coefficient (r) =
0.74481293
Estimated (t) =
2.734
3.5
3.0
y = 0.000169x + 2.1988
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.45
1.0
tCal = 2.73
0.5
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
Peak of Total Recorded Hydrograph (Qp) m /s
Figure 6.3 C versus QP of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)

The catchments belonging to the same basin have shown no consistent variation in the
gradients of their best-fit straight lines. For example, Mary River at Gympie and Cooran
251
have shown positive gradients whereas Moy Pocket, Bellbird and Kandanga have
demonstrated negative gradients in their plots of C versus Qp as shown in Table 6.3.
This indicates that overall there is no trend for the lag parameter to vary (either
increasing for all cases or decreasing for all cases) as Qp varies. Note that the calculated
two tailed t- statistic (for example -0.72 in Figure 6.4) should lie in the range -2.31 to
+2.31. For simplicity throughout this thesis the plus (+) or minus (-) sign has been
omitted from the t0.975 statistic.
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
y = -0.000074x + 1.7177
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -0.72
0.4
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
Figure 6.4 C versus QP of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = -0.00024x + 1.3204
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.31
0.4
tCal = -1.12
0.2
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
Figure 6.5 C versus QP of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
252
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = 0.001x + 2.6547
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.62
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Figure 6.6 C versus QP of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.00056x + 1.5814
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = -0.39
0.4
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure 6.7 C versus QP of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = -0.000033x + 1.6097
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
tCal = -0.34
0.4
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
Figure 6.8 C versus QP of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
253
1.8
1.6
y = 0.00019x + 0.9222
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = 1.80
0.2
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 6.9 C versus QP of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
y = 0.00000044x + 1.2107
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.57
0.4
tCal = 0.004
0.2
0.0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Figure 6.10 C versus QP of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
y = 0.000064x + 0.9974
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = 0.75
0.2
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Figure 6.11 C versus QP of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
254
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.000011x + 2.014
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.36
0.8
tCal = 0.08
0.4
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Figure 6.12 C versus QP of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)

3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
1.6
y = -0.000398x + 1.7375
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = -1.56
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Figure 6.13 C versus QP of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
y = 0.00007x + 0.7251
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.10
0.4
tCal = 1.30
0.2
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Figure 6.14 C versus QP of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
255
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
y = 0.000016x + 0.7031
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
0.2
tCal = 0.18
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
Figure 6.15 C versus QP of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
y = 0.0001x + 0.679
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
0.2
tCal = 0.99
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 6.16 C versus QP of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
1.8
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = -0.00002x + 0.96
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.04
tCal = -0.35
0.2
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
Figure 6.17 C versus QP of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
256
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
1.2
y = -0.000049x + 1.1977
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = -0.39
0.0
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
Figure 6.18 C versus QP of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
1.2
y = -0.00016x + 1.5278
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
tCal = -1.14
0.4
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
Figure 6.19 C versus QP of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
Moreover, after investigating the plots for seventeen catchments individually, all 254
values of C and Qp were plotted in Figure 6.20, and it has been observed that the best-fit
straight line is very close to horizontal. This finding further indicates that there is no real
trend for C to vary as QP varies. Therefore, all these results indicate that, on average
WBNM is correctly modelling the nonlinearity which is observed in real catchments.
257
4.0
3.5
Lag Parameter (C)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
y = -0.000014x + 1.2967
1.0
t0.975 = 1.96
0.5
tCal = -0.33
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
Peak of Total Recorded Hydrograph (Qp) m /s)
Figure 6.20 C versus QP of all 17 catchments for 254 values

The correlation between lag parameter (C) and various other storm characteristics of the
17 catchments have been examined and their results are discussed in detail in the
following sections of this chapter. As discussed previously the calculated and
statistically obtained t-test values are shown on each plot.
6.4 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Surface Runoff Peak
Discharge (QS).
Figures 6.21 to 6.37 show the lag parameter (C) derived in Chapter 5, plotted against the
peak discharge of the surface runoff hydrograph (QS), which show the following:
The plots of seven catchments, Gympie, Cooran, Mt Piccaninny, Nashs Crossing,

Reeves, Ida Creek and Tung Oil have shown positive gradients;
The plots of six catchments, Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Kandanga, Silver valley,
Nerada and Central Mill have indicated negative slopes;
Approximately horizontal lines have been found for the best-fit lines of four plots
of catchments namely Powerline, Zattas, Gleneagle and Mt. Dangar catchments;
The gradients of the best-fit straight lines of the plots of Gympie and Reeves
catchments are significantly different from zero according to the two tailed t-test
258
results. The other 15 catchments do not have gradients significantly different from
zero; and
The best fit line of the plot containing all 254 values, as shown in Figure 6.38, is
very close to a horizontal line.
It is important to note that the first two decimal places of the equations of all plots are
equal to zero, and they demonstrate that the lag parameter varies only very slightly as
Qs varies. Therefore, the above indicated findings revealed that there is no significant
variation in the lag parameter (C) with QS.
Table 6.2 t-test calculations of C versus QS of Mary River at Gympie
No.
Peak
Discharge(QS)
(X)
1
2
3
Calculated
Lag
Parameter(C)
Lag
Parameter(C)
(Y)
X2
3613
2.75
13050951.01
7.563
9934.678
2.86
696
2.63
485084.39
6.917
1831.742
2.32
5862
3.20
34363981.93
10.240
18758.656
3.27
2327
2.89
5414882.46
8.352
6725.001
2.62
1110
2.77
1231589.45
7.673
3074.063
2.40
628
1.94
394032.40
3.764
1217.777
2.31
538
1.84
289831.49
3.386
990.582
2.29
695
2.36
482385.81
5.570
1639.114
2.32
Total
15468.55
20.38
55712738.94
53.4632
44171.614
20.38
Y2
XY
2.190397949
r =
0.569598645
1.84685E-04
0.33292508
0.754717593
Estimated (t) =
2.818
3.5
3.0
y = 0.000185x + 2.1904
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.45
tCal = 2.82
0.5
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
Peak of Surface Runoff Hydrograph (QS) m /s
Figure 6.21 C versus QS of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
259
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.000072x + 1.7108
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -0.65
0.4
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
Figure 6.22 C versus QS of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = -0.00027x + 1.327
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -1.25
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Peak of Surface Runoff Hydrograph (QS) m3/s
Figure 6.23 C versus QS of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = 0.0011x + 2.6496
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
1.0
tCal = 0.63
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Figure 6.24 C versus QS of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
260
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
1.2
y = -0.0005x + 1.5703
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = -0.34
0.4
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Peak of Surface Runoff Hydrograph (QS) m3/s
Figure 6.25 C versus QS of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
y = -0.000022x + 1.5924
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
0.4
tCal = -0.22
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
Figure 6.26 C versus QS of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
1.8
1.6
y = 0.00018x + 0.9471
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = 1.61
0.2
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 6.27 C versus QS of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
261
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
y = 0.0000036x + 1.2074
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.57
0.4
tCal = 0.03
0.2
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Figure 6.28 C versus QS of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
y = 0.00006x + 1.0245
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
0.6
tCal = 0.70
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Figure 6.29 C versus QS of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.000035x + 1.9904
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
t0.975 = 0.23
0.4
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Figure 6.30 C versus QS of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
262
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = -0.0002x + 1.6268
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = -0.63
0.4
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
Figure 6.31 C versus QS of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = 0.00013x + 0.6719
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.10
0.4
tCal = 2.48
0.2
0.0
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
Figure 6.32 C versus QS of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
y =0.000018x + 0.7021
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.20
0.2
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
Figure 6.33 C versus QS of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
263
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
y = 0.0001x + 0.6844
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 0.95
0.2
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Figure 6.34 C versus QS of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
y = 0.000028x + 0.8998
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.04
0.4
tCal = 0.44
0.2
0.0
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
3750
Figure 6.35 C versus QS of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.000082x + 1.2155
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = -0.55
0.0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
Figure 6.36 C versus QS of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
264
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
1.2
y = -0.00018x + 1.5128
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
0.4
tCal = -1.08
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Figure 6.37 C versus QS of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
y = 0.000027x + 1.2583
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 1.96
tCal = 0.57
0.5
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
Figure 6.38 C versus QS of all 17 catchments for 254 values

6.5 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Total Rainfall Depth (DT).
Figures 6.39 to 6.55 show the lag parameter (C), derived in Chapter 5, plotted against
the total rainfall depth (DT), which represents the size of the storm for various storms,
and the results can be summarised as follows:
All plots have demonstrated a considerable amount of scatter;
Apart from Bellbird and Central Mill, all the remaining 15 catchments have shown
positive gradients in their best-fit straight lines;
Two tailed t-test results have revealed that the gradients of the best-fit straight
lines of the plots of Mary River at Gympie, Don River at Reeves and North
Johnstone River at Ida Creek & Tung Oil are different from zero at 5% level of
significance;
265
It is important to note that the first two decimal places of the equations of the bestfit straight lines of all plots are zero; and
A positive gradient has been shown in the best-fit line of the plot in Figure 6.56
containing all 254 points. According to the results its gradient is significantly
different from zero at 5% level of significance for a two tailed statistical t-test.
However, most of the points are clustered onto the left side of Figure 6.56 and
very few points are scattered around the right side of it.
Therefore, this relationship is further assessed by plotting Figure 6.57 by using 250
values, which are clustered as shown in Figure 6.56. The best-fit straight line of the plot
containing 250 values has shown results similar to that in Figure 6.56, and the gradient
of straight line of figure 6.57 is significantly different from zero as in the previous case.
However, all the plots of catchments do not support a relationship between lag
parameter C and DT.
3.5
3.0
y = 0.0024x + 2.164
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.45
1.0
tCal = 2.69
0.5
0.0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Total Rainfall Depth (DT) mm
Figure 6.39 C versus DT of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)

2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.0003x + 1.5814
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.32
0.4
0.0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Figure 6.40 C versus DT of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
266
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = -0.000057x + 1.1613
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.31
0.4
tCal = -0.04
0.2
0.0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Figure 6.41 C versus DT of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = 0.0013x + 2.6337
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.72
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Figure 6.42 C versus DT of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0017x + 1.3711
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = 0.73
0.4
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Figure 6.43 C versus DT of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
267
2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.001x + 1.505
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
tCal = 0.45
0.4
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Figure 6.44 C versus DT of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
y = 0.003x + 0.9088
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = 2.09
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 6.45 C versus DT of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)

2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
y = 0.0081x + 0.8607
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.57
0.4
tCal = 1.89
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 6.46 C versus DT of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
268
2.0
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0023x + 0.9907
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = 0.97
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Figure 6.47 C versus DT of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.0027x + 1.8613
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.36
0.8
tCal = 0.73
0.4
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Figure 6.48 C versus DT of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.0025x + 1.4084
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = 0.89
0.4
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 6.49 C versus DT of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
269
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
y = 0.0029x + 0.6448
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 3.15
0.2
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Figure 6.50 C versus DT of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
0.8
y = 0.0019x + 0.6167
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 1.75
0.2
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Figure 6.51 C versus DT of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0028x + 0.6055
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.10
0.4
tCal = 2.67
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Figure 6.52 C versus DT of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
270
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0037x + 0.6787
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.04
0.4
tCal = 3.39
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Figure 6.53 C versus DT of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
y = 0.0029x + 0.9053
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = 1.54
0.0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Figure 6.54 C versus DT of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
y = -0.0002x + 1.4211
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
tCal = -0.16
0.4
0.0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Figure 6.55 C versus DT of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
271
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = 0.0041x + 0.9488
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 1.96
1.0
tCal = 8.78
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Figure 6.56 C versus DT of all 17 catchments for 254 values
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
2.5
y = 0.0041x + 0.9452
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 1.96
0.5
tCal = 6.59
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
Figure 6.57 C versus DT of all 17 catchments for 250 values

6.6 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Depth of Surface Runoff
(DSRO).
Figures 6.58 to 6.74 show the lag parameter (C) plotted against the depth of surface
runoff (DSRO) for various storms and those figures show the following:
The majority of the plots have positive gradients in their best fit straight lines
and only one plot (Mary River at Bellbird) demonstrates a negative gradient;
Significance tests have indicated that the gradients of the best-fit straight lines of
the plots of the five catchments Gympie, Mt. Piccaninny, Reeves, Ida Creek and
Tung Oil are significantly different from zero at 5% level for two tailed tests;
272
The points of the plot containing 254 values (Figure 6.75) are scattered and most
of them are clustered around the left side of the plot, and these points are clearly
within the range of 0 to 175 mm for surface runoff depth; and
Although the gradients of the best-fit straight lines of Figure 6.75 (containing
254 values) and Figure 6.76 (only with 248 values clustered in the left side of
Figure 6.75) are significantly different from zero according to their t-test results,
the individual plots (as in the previous section) are not showing any consistency
in the variation of lag parameter C with DSRO.
Therefore, the above findings have shown that there is no real variation in lag parameter
(C) with depth of surface runoff (DSRO) of rainfall.
3.5
3.0
y = 0.0037x + 2.1804
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.45
tCal = 3.03
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Depth of Surface Runoff (DSRO) mm
Figure 6.58 C versus DSRO of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0003x + 1.605
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.31
0.8
tCal = 0.20
0.4
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
Figure 6.59 C versus DSRO of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
273
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = -0.0006x + 1.1924
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.31
0.4
tCal = -0.28
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Figure 6.60 C versus DSRO of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)

4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = 0.0022x + 2.6173
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.77
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure 6.61 C versus DSRO of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)

2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0004x + 1.4944
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = 0.06
0.4
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 6.62 C versus DSRO of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
274
2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0002x + 1.5606
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
0.4
tCal = 0.06
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 6.63 C versus DSRO of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
y = 0.0057x + 0.9041
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = 2.42
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 6.64 C versus DSRO of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
2.0
1.8
1.6
y = 0.0131x + 0.9821
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.57
tCal = 1.33
0.4
0.2
0.0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Figure 6.65 C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
275
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
1.2
y = 0.0106x + 0.921
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = 1.91
0.2
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 6.66 C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.0029x + 1.9343
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.36
0.8
tCal = 0.60
0.4
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Figure 6.67 C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = -0.000077x + 1.5588
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = -0.02
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Figure 6.68 C versus DSRO of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
276
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0041x + 0.6811
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 3.49
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Figure 6.69 C versus DSRO of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
0.8
y = 0.0026x + 0.6539
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
0.2
tCal = 1.09
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 6.70 C versus DSRO of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
y = 0.0048x + 0.6031
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.10
0.4
tCal = 2.77
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Figure 6.71 C versus DSRO of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
277
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = 0.0049x + 0.7348
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.04
tCal = 2.94
0.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Figure 6.72 C versus DSRO of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.0052x + 0.8731
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = 1.92
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Figure 6.73 C versus DSRO of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
y = 0.0006x + 1.3484
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
tCal = 0.37
0.4
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
Figure 6.74 C versus DSRO of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
278
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = 0.0059x + 1.0001
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 1.96
1.0
tCal = 8.42
0.5
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure 6.75 C versus DSRO of all 17 catchments for 254 values
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
2.5
y = 0.0052x + 1.0154
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 1.96
1.0
tCal = 5.58
0.5
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Figure 6.76 C versus DSRO of all 17 catchments for 248 values

6.7 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Average Intensity (Iav).
Figures 6.77 to 6.93 show the plots of lag parameter (C) versus average intensity (Iav)
for seventeen catchments. These plots illustrate the following:
The plots of Gympie, Moy Pocket, Cooran, Mt. Piccaninny, Nashs Crossing,
Silver Valley, Reeves, Ida Creek and Nerada catchments from different basins
show positive gradients;
The gradients of the plots of Bellbird, Kandanga, Zattas and Gleneagle catchments
are negative;
Four plots out of the seventeen have shown straight horizontal lines for their bestfit lines with almost zero gradients;
279
The two tailed hypothesis test results showed that the gradients of the best-fit
straight lines of only two catchments (Mary River at Gympie and Don River at
Reeves) are significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance; and
The best-fit line of the plot containing all 254 values, shown in Figure 6.94, is
very close to a horizontal line and also the gradient of that line is not significantly
different from zero according to the t-test results.
The foregoing findings revealed that there is no real trend for the lag parameter (C) to
vary as Iav varies.
3.5
3.0
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
y = 0.3917x + 1.6617
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.45
tCal = 3.45
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Average Intensity (Iav) mm/hr
Figure 6.77 C versus Iav of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.021x + 1.568
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.50
0.4
0.0
0
Figure 6.78 C versus Iav of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
280
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = -0.0361x + 1.2812
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -1.14
0.2
0.0
0
10
Figure 6.79 C versus Iav of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
4.5
4.0
3.5
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0527x + 2.6592
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
1.0
tCal = 1.21
0.5
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 6.80 C versus Iav of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
1.2
y = -0.1267x + 1.7301
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = -1.19
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 6.81 C versus Iav of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
281
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.0016x + 1.5596
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
tCal = 0.04
0.4
0.0
1
10
Figure 6.82 C versus Iav of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)

1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
y = 0.0642x + 0.90
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = 1.53
0.2
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
Figure 6.83 C versus Iav of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
y = -0.0816x + 1.2771
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.57
tCal = -0.35
0.2
0.0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Figure 6.84 C versus Iav of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
282
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
y = 0.1961x + 0.8906
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = 1.97
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Figure 6.85 C versus Iav of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
y = -0.0783x + 2.1446
2.0
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.36
0.8
tCal = -1.16
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
Figure 6.86 C versus Iav of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.0305x + 1.5046
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = 0.39
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
Figure 6.87 C versus Iav of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
283
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0472x + 0.6615
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.10
0.4
tCal = 2.48
0.2
0.0
0
10
11
Figure 6.88 C versus Iav of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
y = 0.0019x + 0.7115
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
0.2
tCal = 0.06
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 6.89 C versus Iav of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
y = 0.0203x + 0.6881
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 0.83
0.2
0.0
0
10
11
Figure 6.90 C versus Iav of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
284
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
y = 0.0081x + 0.8948
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.04
0.2
tCal = 0.46
0.0
0
10
11
12
13
Figure 6.91 C versus Iav of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.0167x + 1.0573
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = 0.52
0.0
10
11
Figure 6.92 C versus Iav of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
1.2
y = 0.0038x + 1.3725
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
tCal = 0.17
0.4
0.0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 6.93 C versus Iav of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
285
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
y = 0.0143x + 1.2357
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 1.96
tCal = 1.03
0.5
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 6.94 C versus Iav of all 17 catchments for 254 values

6.8 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Ratio of Time to Peak Intensity
and Excess Duration (TPI/DURex)
Figures 6.95 to 6.111 show the lag parameter (C), plotted against the ratio of time to
peak intensity and excess rainfall duration (TPI/DURex). This measure indicates whether
the storm is peaking early or late. The figures illustrate the following:
The plots of nine catchments (Gympie, Moy Pocket, Cooran, Silver Valley,
Reeves, Mt.Dangar, Tung Oil, Nerada and Central Mill) have illustrated positive
gradients in their best-fit straight lines;
Seven catchments (Bellbird, Kandanga, Powerline, Mt. Piccaninny, Nashs

Crossing, Gleneagle and Ida Creek) have shown negative gradients in their best-fit
straight lines;
The best-fit straight line of the plot of Zattas catchment is almost horizontal;
The two-tailed significance test revealed that the gradient of the best-fit straight
line of the plot of Mary River at Kandanga is the only one significantly different
from zero at 5% level of significance; and
The best-fit straight line of the plot containing all 254 values of all seventeen
catchments, shown in Figure 6.112, is very close to a horizontal line and its
gradient is not significantly different from zero according to the t-test results.
286
Overall the Figures (6.95 to 6.112) suggest that there is no significant variation of the
lag parameter (C) with the ratio of time to peak intensity and excess duration
(TPI/DURex).
3.5
3.0
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
y = 0.1935x + 2.4987
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.45
tCal = 0.15
0.5
0.0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Ratio of Time to Peak Intensity and Excess Duration (TPI/DURex)
Figure 6.95 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.2371x + 1.5658
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.31
0.4
0.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Figure 6.96 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = -0.2206x + 1.2277
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -0.49
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.97 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
287
4.5
4.0
y = 2.2872x + 2.1764
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
1.0
tCal = 1.70
0.5
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 6.98 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -1.0224x + 1.8673
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = -2.39
0.4
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Figure 6.99 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.2644x + 1.6528
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
0.4
tCal = -0.51
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 6.100 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
288
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = -0.175x + 1.1521
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = -0.44
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.101 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
2.0
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = -0.0329x + 1.2227
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.57
tCal = -0.05
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 6.102 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
1.2
y = -0.5233x + 1.352
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = -0.97
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.103 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
289
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
y = -0.8864x + 2.3345
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = -1.03
0.4
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 6.104 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)

3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.5977x + 1.3496
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = 0.84
0.4
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 6.105 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = 0.2928x + 0.7231
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 0.98
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.106 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
290
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
0.8
y = 0.163x + 0.666
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
0.2
tCal = 0.66
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.107 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
0.8
y = -0.4218x + 0.8707
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
0.2
tCal = -1.52
0.0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
Figure 6.108 C versus (TPI/DURex) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = 0.1095x + 0.8848
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.04
0.4
tCal = 0.35
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.109 C versus (TPI/DURex) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
291
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.1829x + 1.0698
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = 0.41
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 6.110 C versus (TPI/DURex) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.1069x + 1.352
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
0.4
tCal = 0.25
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 6.111 C versus (TPI/DURex) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21
values)
4.5
4.0
t0.975 = 1.96
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
tCal = -1.11
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
y = -0.2323x + 1.3649
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Figure 6.112 C versus (TPI/DURex) of all 17 catchments for 254 values
292
6.9 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Average Peak Intensity (AVPI)
Figures 6.113 to 6.129 show the lag parameter (C) plotted against the average peak
intensity (AvPI). Average peak intensity is calculated by averaging the rainfall intensity
over the main burst of the storm, considering all the rainfall stations designated for each
catchment. The following can be observed from the figures:
Out of the seventeen plots, eleven have shown positive gradients in their best-fit
lines as shown in Figures 6.113, 6.116, 6.118 to 6.120, 6.121, 6.123, 6.124 and
6.126 to 6.128;
The best-fit straight lines of five plots (Figures 6.114, 6.115, 6.117, 6.122, and
6.129) contain negative gradients;
The gradients of the best-fit straight lines of the three plots shown in Figures
6.118, 6.123 and 6.124 are significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance for a two tailed test; and
Although the best-fit straight line of the plot containing all 254 values, shown in
Figure 6.130 is with a negative gradient, its value is very close to zero. The t-test
results show that the gradient of the best-fit line of the plot in Figure 6.130 is
significantly different from zero. However, the individual plots of the seventeen
catchments do not fully support this trend.
Therefore, the above findings do not demonstrate any significant variation of the lag
parameter (C) with average peak intensity (AvPI).
3.5
3.0
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
y = 0.262x + 1.7611
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.45
tCal = 2.06
0.5
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Average Peak Intensity (AvPI) mm/hr
Figure 6.113 C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
293
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.0791x + 1.8665
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -1.18
0.4
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Figure 6.114 C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
1.8
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
y = -0.0672x + 1.3842
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -1.68
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
Figure 6.115 C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
4.5
4.0
y = 0.2246x + 1.9953
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
1.0
tCal = 1.42
0.5
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
Figure 6.116 C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
294
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.1473x + 1.8593
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = -1.96
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
Figure 6.117 C versus (AvPI) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.0595x + 1.2302
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
tCal = 2.37
0.4
0.0
1
10
11
Figure 6.118 C versus (AvPI) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)

1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
y = 0.0196x + 0.9608
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = 0.96
0.2
0.0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 6.119 C versus (AvPI) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
295
2.0
1.8
1.6
y = 0.0435x + 1.1013
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.57
0.4
tCal = 0.38
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Figure 6.120 C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
y = 0.0646x + 0.933
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = 1.04
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Figure 6.121 C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
y = -0.0836x + 2.2544
2.0
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.36
0.8
tCal = -0.69
0.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 6.122 C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
296
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
y = 0.1662x + 1.0846
2.0
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.13
0.8
tCal = 2.52
0.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Figure 6.123 C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
1.6
1.4
y = 0.0442x + 0.5105
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.10
0.4
tCal = 3.06
0.2
0.0
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 6.124 C versus (AvPI) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
0.8
y = 0.0006x + 0.7126
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
0.2
tCal = 0.03
0.0
3
10
11
12
Figure 6.125 C versus (AvPI) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
297
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
y = 0.0156x + 0.6442
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 0.98
0.2
0.0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 6.126 C versus (AvPI) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0268x + 0.762
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.04
0.4
tCal = 0.92
0.2
0.0
2
10
11
Figure 6.127 C versus (AvPI) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.0462x + 0.8339
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = 1.00
0.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Figure 6.128 C versus (AvPI) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
298
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.0391x + 1.7032
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
tCal = -1.61
0.4
0.0
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Figure 6.129 C versus (AvPI) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
4.5
4.0
3.5
Lag Parameter (C)
t0.975 = 1.96
3.0
tCal = -3.10
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
y = -0.0402x + 1.4917
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Figure 6.130 C versus (AvPI) of all 17 catchments for 254 values

6.10 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Ratio of Excess Depth and
Total Depth (Dex/DT) of Rainfall.
Figures 6.131 to 6.147 show the lag parameter (C) derived in Chapter 5, plotted against
the ratio of excess depth and total depth (Dex/DT) of rainfall for all seventeen
catchments. This ratio reflects the proportion of the storm rainfall which becomes
runoff, and hence it is a measure of the rainfall loss relative to the total storm depth.
These plots illustrate the following:
Plots of the seven catchments shown in Figures 6.131, 6.134, 6.139 and 6.144 to
6.147 indicated positive gradients in their best-fit lines;
Best-fit lines with negative gradients have been found for the seven catchments
shown in Figures 6.133, 6.135, 6.136, 6.138, 6.140, 6.141 and 6.143;
299
The gradients of the best-fit straight lines of plots shown in Figures 6.131, 6.135
and 6.136 (Mary River at Gympie and Kandanga and Haughton River at
Powerline) are significantly different from zero in their two tailed t-tests; and
The majority of the points in Figure 6.148 for all seventeen catchments containing
254 values illustrate an evenly distributed pattern. The best-fit line of this plot is
horizontal and its gradient is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance according to the t-test results.
Therefore, the foregoing findings indicate that there is no real trend for the lag
parameter to vary as (Dex/DT) varies.
3.5
3.0
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
y = 3.229x + 0.7054
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.45
tCal = 3.58
0.5
0.0
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
Ratio of Excess Depth and Total Depth (Dex/DT)
Figure 6.131 C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.0053x + 1.6327
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -0.01
0.4
0.0
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Figure 6.132 C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
300
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = -0.1735x + 1.2502
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.31
0.4
tCal = -0.41
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.133 C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = 0.5461x + 2.5981
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
1.0
tCal = 0.35
0.5
0.0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Figure 6.134 C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -1.413x + 2.206
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
0.4
tCal = -2.56
0.0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Figure 6.135 C versus (Dex/DT) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
301
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.962x + 2.1779
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
tCal = -2.71
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.136 C versus (Dex/DT) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)

1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0232x + 1.0708
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.14
tCal = 0.08
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.137 C versus (Dex/DT) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
y = -0.1111x + 1.2613
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.57
0.4
tCal = -0.20
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.138 C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
302
2.0
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = 0.4481x + 0.8787
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = 1.34
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.139 C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = -0.2306x + 2.1584
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.36
0.8
tCal = -0.44
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.140 C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = -0.8062x + 2.0466
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
0.4
tCal = -1.87
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 6.141 C versus (Dex/DT) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
303
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0392x + 0.7997
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 0.20
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.142 C versus (Dex/DT) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
0.8
0.6
y = -0.0722x + 0.7491
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -0.33
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.143 C versus (Dex/DT) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
0.8
y = 0.1669x + 0.6546
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 0.81
0.2
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 6.144 C versus (Dex/DT) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
304
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
y = 0.1816x + 0.8225
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.04
tCal = 0.83
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Figure 6.145 C versus (Dex/DT) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.3514x + 0.9131
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = 0.71
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 6.146 C versus (Dex/DT) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
y = 0.2657x + 1.2231
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
0.4
tCal = 0.81
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 6.147 C versus (Dex/DT) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
305
4.5
4.0
t0.975 = 1.96
3.5
Lag Parameter (C)
tCal = 0.55
3.0
2.5
y = 0.0898x + 1.2306
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Figure 6.148 C versus (Dex/DT) of all 17 catchments for 254 values

6.11 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Ratio of Peak Intensity and
Average Intensity (IP/Iav) of Rainfall.
Figures 6.149 to 6.165 show the lag parameter (C), plotted against the ratio of peak
intensity and average intensity (Ip/Iav). This measures the effect of the sharpness of the
peak of storm rainfall. The findings from the figures can be summarised as:
Plots of five catchments Bellbird, Kandanga, Powerline, Reeves and Mt.Dangar

have shown positive gradients in their best-fit straight lines;
Plots of nine catchments Gympie, Mt. Piccaninny, Zattas, Nashs Crossing,

Gleneagle, Ida Creek, Tung Oil, Nerada and Central Mill have shown negative
gradients in their best-fit straight lines;
The majority of the equations of the plots show zero gradients up to their first
decimal place;
The best-fit lines of the plots of three catchments (Moy Pocket, Cooran and Silver
Valley) are nearly horizontal; and
Although Figure 6.166 shows a negative gradient in its best-fit straight line, most
of the points are clustered towards the left side of the plot. It is also important to
note that a small amount of scattered points are distributed along a horizontal
band. The t-test results revealed that the gradient of the best-fit line of Figure
6.166 is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance.
In view of the above indicated findings, there is no significant trend for the lag
parameter to vary as (Ip/Iav) varies.
306
3.5
3.0
y = -0.4022x + 3.1557
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.45
0.5
tCal = -1.57
0.0
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
Ratio of Peak Intensity and Average Intensity (Ip/Iav)
Figure 6.149 C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
2.4
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0014x + 1.6252
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.08
0.4
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Figure 6.150 C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
y = 0.048x + 1.0562
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.31
0.4
tCal = 2.27
0.2
0.0
0
10
11
12
Figure 6.151 C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)
307
4.5
4.0
3.5
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.0245x + 2.8862
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
1.0
tCal = 0.07
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Figure 6.152 C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.1383x + 1.2888
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = 0.80
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Figure 6.153 C versus (IP/Iav) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = 0.1013x + 1.4112
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.23
tCal = 1.71
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Figure 6.154 C versus (IP/Iav) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
308
1.8
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter
1.2
1.0
y = -0.0239x + 1.1464
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.14
0.4
tCal = -0.52
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Figure 6.155 C versus (IP/Iav) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
y = -0.0068x + 1.2497
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.57
0.4
tCal = -0.32
0.2
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Figure 6.156 C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
1.6
1.4
1.2
y = -0.0387x + 1.2342
1.0
0.8
0.6
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = -1.62
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 6.157 C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
309
3.2
2.8
2.4
Lag Parameter
y = -0.0032x + 2.0466
2.0
1.6
1.2
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = -0.18
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
Figure 6.158 C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)
3.2
2.8
Lag Parameter (C)
2.4
2.0
y = 0.0024x + 1.5482
1.6
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = 0.06
0.4
0.0
0
10
11
12
13
Figure 6.159 C versus (IP/Iav) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = 0.0195x + 0.7529
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
0.2
tCal = 1.66
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Figure 6.160 C versus (IP/Iav) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
310
1.2
Lag Parameter (C)
1.0
y = 0.0104x + 0.6523
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 1.74
0.2
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure 6.161 C versus (IP/Iav) of Don River at Mt. Dangar (10 values)
1.6
1.4
Lag Parameter (C)
1.2
1.0
y = -0.0044x + 0.7689
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.10
0.2
tCal = -0.40
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 6.162 C versus (IP/Iav) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
1.8
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
1.2
1.0
y = -0.0489x + 1.0356
0.8
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.04
tCal = -1.42
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Figure 6.163 C versus (IP/Iav) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
311
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
1.2
y = -0.1263x + 1.3491
0.8
t0.975 = 2.07
0.4
tCal = -1.16
0.0
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
Figure 6.164 C versus (IP/Iav) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.4
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.6
y = -0.0794x + 1.5594
1.2
0.8
t0.975 = 2.09
t0.975 = -1.56
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Figure 6.165 C versus (IP/Iav) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21 values)
4.5
4.0
t0.975 = 1.96
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
tCal = -1.32
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
y = -0.0135x + 1.3214
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure 6.166 C versus (IP/Iav) of all 17 catchments for 254 values
312
6.12 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Ratio of Rainfall Depths at
Centroids of Bottom and Top halves (DBC/DTC) of catchment.
Figures 6.167 to 6.183 show the lag parameter (C), plotted against the ratio of rainfall
depths at the centroids of the bottom and top halves (DBC/DTC) of the seventeen
catchments. This ratio measures the effect of the spatial variation of rainfall depths on
lag parameter.
It could be expected that spatially varying rainfall, where heavier rain occurs in the
bottom part of the catchment and lighter rain in the top half, would lead to a more rapid
rise in hydrograph and higher peak discharge, and this could result in lower lag
parameters for these types of storms. However, WBNM does allow for spatial variation
in rainfall (as mentioned in Chapter 2) and if it is properly accounted for, there may be
no trend for lag parameter C to vary with spatial variations.
In this part of the study, each catchment is divided into two halves to represent its
upstream and downstream segments. The rainfall depths at the centroids of these
segments have been obtained from the isohyets of all storms, as shown in Chapter 4.
From Figures 6.167 to 6.183, the following have been observed:
Plots of seven catchments, Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Kandanga, Powerline, Zattas,

Silver Valley and Reeves have shown positive gradients in their best-fit straight
lines;
Plots of the remaining ten catchments Gympie, Cooran, Mt. Piccaninny, Nashs
Crossing, Gleneagle, Mt.Dangar, Ida Creek, Tung Oil, Nerada and Central Mill
have shown negative gradients in their best-fit straight lines; and
Only two plots (Bellbird and Central Mill) have shown that the gradients of the
best-fit lines are significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance of the
two tailed t-test.
Although Figure 6.184 (plotted with all 254 values of the seventeen catchments) shows
a negative gradient in its best-fit straight line, that gradient is not significantly different
from zero at 5% level of significance of the two tailed test.
313
The relationship between C and (DBC/DTC) is investigated further by eliminating the

values of C and DBC/DTC greater than 2.5, of Figure 6.184 and plotting it in Figure
6.185. Figure 6.185 has shown that the negative gradient of its best-fit straight line is
also not significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance from the two tailed
t-test results.
Therefore, all the above mentioned results have illustrated that no significant trend
exists for the lag parameter to vary as (DBC/DTC) varies.
3.5
Lag Parameter (C)
3.0
y = -0.1136x + 2.7055
2.5
2.0
t0.975 = 2.45
tCal = -0.33
1.5
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
Ratio of Rainfall Depths at the Centroids of Bottom and Top halves of Catchment (DBC/DTC)
Figure 6.167 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Gympie (8 values)
2.2
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
1.8
y = 0.022x + 1.6018
1.6
1.4
1.2
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 0.36
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Figure 6.168 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Moy Pocket (10 values)
314
1.80
1.60
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.2109x + 0.8994
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = 2.66
0.60
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.0
Figure 6.169 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)

4.5
4.0
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
y = -0.793x + 3.7205
2.5
2.0
1.5
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -0.51
1.0
0.5
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
1.15
1.25
1.35
Figure 6.170 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Cooran (10 values)

2.25
2.00
Lag Parameter (C)
1.75
1.50
y = 0.1084x + 1.3803
1.25
1.00
t0.975 = 2.36
tCal = 0.54
0.75
0.50
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Figure 6.171 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Kandanga (9 values)
315
2.0
1.8
Lag Parameter (C)
y = 0.1302x + 1.3695
1.6
1.4
1.2
t0.975 = 2.23
tCal = 1.39
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Figure 6.172 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Haughton River at Powerline (12 values)
1.75
Lag Parameter (C)
1.50
1.25
1.00
y = -0.1577x + 1.2678
0.75
t0.975 = 2.14
0.50
tCal = -2.05
0.25
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Figure 6.173 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Haughton River at Mt. Piccaninny (16 values)
2.00
Lag Parameter (C)
1.80
1.60
1.40
y = 0.0304x + 1.1443
1.20
1.00
t0.975 = 2.57
tCal = 0.26
0.80
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.0
Figure 6.174 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)
316
2.00
1.75
Lag Parameter (C)
1.50
1.25
y = -0.2155x + 1.3395
1.00
0.75
t0.975 = 2.13
0.50
tCal = -0.74
0.25
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
Figure 6.175 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Nashs Crossing (17 values)
3.00
2.75
Lag Parameter (C)
2.50
2.25
y = -1.7558x + 3.1312
2.00
1.75
1.50
t0.975 = 2.36
1.25
tCal = -1.83
1.00
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
Figure 6.176 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)

3.0
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
y = 0.2827x + 1.3147
1.5
1.0
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = 0.36
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Figure 6.177 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Herbert River at Silver Valley (17 values)
317
1.50
Lag Parameter (C)
1.25
1.00
y = 0.1132x + 0.7177
0.75
0.50
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = 1.11
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
Figure 6.178 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Don River at Reeves (20 values)
1.1
1.0
Lag Parameter (C)
0.9
0.8
y = -0.0188x + 0.738
0.7
0.6
t0.975 = 2.31
tCal = -0.16
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Figure 6.179 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Don River at Mt.Dangar (10 values)

1.60
1.40
t0.975 = 2.10
tCal = -1.66
Lag Parameter (C)
1.20
1.00
0.80
y = -0.2182x + 0.9979
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
Ratio of Rainfall Depths at the Centroids of Bottom and Top halves of Catchment (D BC/DTC)
Figure 6.180 C versus (DBC/DTC) of Don River at Ida Creek (20 values)
318
2.00
1.75
Lag Parameter (C)
1.50
1.25
y = -0.0145x + 0.9562
1.00
0.75
0.50
t0.975 = 2.04
0.25
tCal = -0.21
0.00
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 6.181 C versus (DBC/DTC) of North Johnstone River at Tung Oil (34 values)
2.25
2.00
t0.975 = 2.07
tCal = -0.55
Lag Parameter (C)
1.75
1.50
1.25
y = -0.1899x + 1.4617
1.00
0.75
0.50
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
Ratio of Rainfall Depths at the Centroids of Bottom and Top halves of Catchment (D BC/DTC)
Figure 6.182 C versus (DBC/DTC) of North Johnstone River at Nerada (24 values)
2.2
2.0
t0.975 = 2.09
tCal = -2.35
Lag Parameter (C)
1.8
1.6
1.4
y = -0.4218x + 2.0665
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Figure 6.183 - C versus (DBC/DTC) of South Johnstone River at Central Mill (21
values)
319
4.5
4.0
t0.975 = 1.96
tCal = -1.49
Lag Parameter (C)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
y = -0.0814x + 1.3897
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Figure 6.184 C versus (DBC/DTC) of all 17 catchments (254 values)
2.5
t0.975 = 1.96
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
tCal = -1.87
1.5
y = -0.1171x + 1.3059
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.25
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.25
2.75
Figure 6.185 - C versus (DBC/DTC) of 229 values (excluding C and DBC/DTC values
larger than 2.5)
320
6.13 Summary of the findings of Chapter 6.

As explained previously the intention of this chapter is to investigate the relationship
between lag parameter (C) and storm (hydrological) characteristics.
The description of storm characteristics, shown in Columns 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17,
18 and 19 of Tables 5.12 to 5.28 of Chapter 5, are shown in the first row of Table 6.3.
The abbreviations designated for the storm characteristics are given in the second row
of Table 6.3. The remaining rows show the findings of the relationships between the lag
parameter and the storm characteristics of all seventeen catchments. The best-fit straight
lines that have a positive gradient are given a positive sign (+), while negative sign ()
is given for a negative gradient, and a zero sign (0) for a zero gradient. If the gradient of
the straight line is significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance for a two
tailed t-test, then that result is shown with an (s) in Table 6.3.
Since the catchments discharge has been considered as one of the key variables in the
lag time equation in WBNM as well as in the other computer based hydrological
models, the initial investigation of this study was mainly directed towards the peak
flows of recorded hydrographs (Qp) as well as the surface runoff hydrographs (QS) to
examine their variation with the lag parameter (C). Thereafter this study was extended
to examine the relationship between the lag parameter (C) and the following storm
characteristics:
Total Rainfall Depth (DT);
Depth of Surface Runoff (DSRO);
Average Intensity of Rainfall (Iav);
Ratio of Time to Peak Intensity and Excess Duration (TPI/DURex);
Average Peak Intensity (AvPI);
Ratio of Excess Depth and Total Depth of Rainfall (Dex/DT);
Ratio of Peak Intensity and Average Intensity (Ip/Iav); and
Ratio of Rainfall Depths at Centroids of Bottom and Top halves (DBC/DTC) of

catchment.
321
Some of the attributes in this list are directly related to the rainfall patterns of storms of
catchments while the others are related indirectly. Moreover, these items cover a
significant amount of storm characteristics.
The results of the investigations relating to Qp and QS have revealed that there is no
sufficient amount of evidence to suggest that the lag parameter (C) varies with Qp and
QS. Therefore, the findings described in sections 6.3 and 6.4 of this chapter support the
validity of WBNM to model the nonlinear behaviour of natural catchments.
Apart from the total depth (DT) and the depth of surface runoff (DSRO), the storm
characteristics selected for this study have clearly shown from the results discussed in
sections 6.7 to 6.12, that there is no real trend in variation with the lag parameter (C).
Although the trends are not very strong for DT and DSRO, the results in sections 6.5 and
6.6 show some evidence that the lag parameter is larger for larger rainfall depths. This
scenario may suggest that WBNM is perhaps not modelling nonlinearity as well as it
could. Furthermore, this could imply that WBNM is too nonlinear for very large floods
and they could possibly be modeled with linear models.
While the lag parameter increases with DT and DSRO (particularly for larger floods) the
same data shows no trend with discharge. It is important to note that the discharge is
represented by QP and QS, and also that the discharge is directly proportional to DT and
DSRO. There are thus some contradictions in the results, in that the lag parameter C
varies with rainfall depths (DT and DSRO) but not with discharge (QP and QS) even
though QP and QS are themselves dependent on DT and DSRO.
Overall, while the lag parameter does appear to increase with DT and DSRO (most of the
gradients of the best-fit straight lines of the plots in sections 6.5 and 6.6 are positive), a
similar variation could not be found with QP and QS, and consequently WBNM can be
considered to model nonlinearity satisfactorily.
Table 6.3 Signs of gradients and significance of plots of C versus Storm (Hydrological) characteristics
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Catchment
322
s
+
Ratio of Peak
Intensity and
Average
Intensity
+
x
x
x
Ratio of
Rainfall Depths
at Centroids of
Bottom and
Top halves of
catchment
Ratio of Time
Peak of Total Peak of
Ratio of
Total Rainfall Depth of Average to Peak Average Peak
Excess Depth
Depth Surface Runoff Intensity Intensity and Intensity
Hydrograph Hydrograph
and Total
(mm)
(mm)
(mm/hr) Excess (mm/hr)
3
3
Depth
(m /s)
(m /s)
Duration
s
0
x
+
x
-
DBC/DTC
+
x
x
x
Ip/Iav
s
+
x
+
x
0
x
Dex/DT
+
x
0
x
0
x
+
AvPI
s
x
+
x
0
s
-
TPI/DURex
+
x
x
+
x
+
x
Iav
Gympie
x
+
x
+
x
+
DSRO
Moy Pocket
x
x
+
x
+
DT
Bellbird
+
x
0
x
+
x
QS
Cooran
x
+
x
+
x
Qp
Kandanga
x
0
x
+
11
Powerline
+
x
+
x
17
Mt. Piccaninny
0
x
0
x
16
Zattas
+
x
-
15
Nash's Crossing
0
x
+
13
Gleneagle
x
Silver Valley
+
Reeves
0
Mt.Dangar
19
Ida Creek
18
Tung Oil
Columns Selected from

Tables 5.12 to 5.28 of
Chapter 5
Nerada
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Central Mill
Most dominant sign
CHAPTER 7
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LAG PARAMETER
AND
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL
AND
CLIMATOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
323
7.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAG PARAMETER AND

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL AND CLIMATOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS.
7.1 Introduction
Generally catchments with larger areas produce larger lag times and those with smaller
areas demonstrate smaller lag times. Therefore, the catchment area (A) is considered to
be one of the key physical (geomorphological) characteristics which could influence the
lag time. Some of the other physical characteristics of catchments that may control the
lag time are, slope and length of main stream, distance to centroid from outlet of
catchment along the main stream, elevation at centroid and catchment shape.
The majority of the studies carried out by various researchers described in Chapter 2,
have developed relations in which the lag time is directly proportional to the catchment
area (A), and the length of the main stream (L), and also inversely proportional to the
slope of the main stream (Sc). These relationships can be combined and expressed in a
common equation:
Lag time (tL) = C LW AX Sc-Y
(7.1)
Several studies have also included a measure of the size of the flood in a nonlinear
relation of the form:
Lag time (tL) = C LW AX Sc-Y Q-Z
(7.2)
As shown in equation (2.176) in Chapter 2, WBNM has adopted the following formula
for lag time:
Lag time (tL) = C A0.57 Q-0.23
(7.3)
Where C is the scaling factor known as the lag parameter. WBNM therefore, calculates
the lag time using catchment size only, disregarding the other physical factors. A key
question therefore, is whether the area (A) alone is sufficient to describe the lag time, or
whether the other physical characteristics of a catchment should be considered.
The equations relating to lag time devised by various researchers as indicated in Table
2.1, have been transferred to a common form of the catchment area (A) as described in
Chapter 2, and shown in Table 2.2. The mean and median values of the exponent x of A
of the equations of Table 2.2 are found to be 0.53 and 0.50 respectively, and they are
close to the value of 0.57 adopted in WBNM.
324
One of the objectives of this chapter is to assess the validity and the reliability of
equation (7.3). This assessment can be carried out by studying the variation of the lag
parameter with a range of physical characteristics of catchments. The average values of
the lag parameters of all seventeen catchments, as well as the list of geomorphological
and climatological characteristics shown at the end of this chapter in Table 7.28 are
selected for this study, and the results are discussed in detail. The significance t-tests
were carried out separately for all the plots shown in this chapter and their results are
tabulated and shown under each figure.
7.2
Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Catchment Area (A).
Figure 7.1 illustrates the plot of lag parameter (C) versus catchment area (A) for all
seventeen catchments selected for this study. The following features were found:
The catchments cover a wide range of areas (A);
Results of twelve catchments are clustered together, while the remaining five are
scattered. Four catchments (Gympie, Zattas, Nashs Crossing and Gleneagle), out
of those five, have considerably larger areas;
Except for Gympie, Cooran and Gleneagle, the remaining fourteen catchments
have reasonably similar lag parameter values;
The gradient of the best-fit straight line is almost equal to zero; and
The results of the two tailed t-test shown in Table 7.1 reveals that the gradient is
not significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance.
To make the analysis more meaningful the twelve catchments within the clustered area
of Figure 7.1 were examined further by plotting the values of C and A of those
catchments as shown in Figure 7.2:
Points of all twelve catchments show a significant amount of scatter;
The gradient of the best-fit straight line is slightly less than that of the plot
containing all seventeen catchments as shown in Figure 7.1; and
The results of the two tailed test, shown in Table 7.2, show that the gradient is not
significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance.
The above findings demonstrate that there is no clear trend for the lag parameter (C) to
vary as catchment area (A) varies. This indicates that the exponent of area (A), x = 0.57
325
in equation 7.3, is quite satisfactory for these catchments. The remainder of this chapter
examines any possible relationship between C and a range of catchment physical
characteristics.
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
Gleneagle
2.0
Moy Pocket
Silver Valley
Kandanga
1.5
1.0
y = 0.000000102x + 1.3949
Powerline
Central Mill
Nerada
Bellbird
Mt.Piccaninny
Tung OIl
Ida Creek
Zattas
Nash's Crossing
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = 0.15
0.0
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
Catchment Area (A) - ha
Figure 7.1 C versus A of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.1 t-test calculations for C versus A of all seventeen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Catchment
Area (A) in ha
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
XY
Gympie
292020
2.55
85275680400.00
6.5025
744651
1.42
Moy Pocket
83023
1.63
6892818529.00
2.6569
135327.49
1.40
Bellbird
47920
1.16
2296326400.00
1.3456
55587.2
1.40
Cooran
16432
2.92
270010624.00
8.5264
47981.44
1.40
Kandanga
17568
1.51
308634624.00
2.2801
26527.68
1.40
Powerline
173456
1.56
30086983936.00
2.4336
270591.36
1.41
Mt. Piccaninny
113893
1.08
12971501556.25
1.1664
123003.9
1.41
Silver Valley
58624
1.56
3436773376.00
2.4336
91453.44
1.40
1.45
Gleneagle
537016
2.03
288386184256.00
4.1209
1090142.48
10
Nash's Crossing
684152
1.08
468063959104.00
1.1664
738884.16
1.46
11
Zattas
729200
1.21
531732640000.00
1.4641
882332
1.47
12
Reeves
101032
0.82
10207465024.00
0.6724
82846.24
1.41
13
Mt.Dangar
80784
0.72
6526054656.00
0.5184
58164.48
1.40
14
Ida Creek
62008
0.75
3844992064.00
0.5625
46506
1.40
15
Tung Oil
92936
0.93
8637100096.00
0.8649
86430.48
1.40
16
Nerada
80792
1.14
6527347264.00
1.2996
92102.88
1.40
17
Central Mill
38976
1.39
1519128576.00
1.9321
54176.64
1.40
Total
3209831.50
24.04
1466983600485.25
39.9464
4626708.87
24.04
1.394899169
1.01785E-07
0.038714406
Estimated (t) =
2
r =
0.001498805
0.629396132
0.150
326
1.8
Moy Pocket
1.6
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
Powerline
Silver Valley
Kandanga
Central Mill
y = -0.00000037x + 1.2168
1.2
Bellbird
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Tung Oil
0.8
Ida Creek
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.23
0.2
tCal = -0.14
0.0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
Catchment Area (A) - ha
Figure 7.2 C versus A of twelve catchments
Table 7.2 t-test calculations for C versus A of twelve catchments
No
Catchment Name
Catchment
Area (A) in ha
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
83023
1.63
6892818529.00
2.6569
135327.49
1.19
Bellbird
47920
1.16
2296326400.00
1.3456
55587.2
1.20
Kandanga
17568
1.51
308634624.00
2.2801
26527.68
1.21
Powerline
173456
1.56
30086983936.00
2.4336
270591.36
1.15
Mt. Piccaninny
113893
1.08
12971501556.25
1.1664
123003.9
1.17
Silver Valley
58624
1.56
3436773376.00
2.4336
91453.44
1.20
Reeves
101032
0.82
10207465024.00
0.6724
82846.24
1.18
Mt.Dangar
80784
0.72
6526054656.00
0.5184
58164.48
1.19
Ida Creek
62008
0.75
3844992064.00
0.5625
46506
1.19
10
Tung Oil
92936
0.93
8637100096.00
0.8649
86430.48
1.18
11
Nerada
80792
1.14
6527347264.00
1.2996
92102.88
1.19
12
Central Mill
38976
1.39
1519128576.00
1.9321
54176.64
1.20
Total
951011.50
14.25
93255126101.25
18.1661
1122717.79
14.25
1.21678006
r =
0.001962287
-3.69460E-07
0.352389482
-0.044297714
Estimated (t) =
-0.140
327
7.3 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Equal Area Slope (Sc)
Figure 7.3 shows the plot of the lag parameter (C) versus the equal area slope of the
main stream (Sc) for all seventeen catchments and it illustrates the following:
All points are fairly scattered in the plot;
The best-fit straight line shows a negative gradient of 0.1341;
Except for points of Gympie, Cooran and Gleneagle catchments, others are inside
a horizontal thick band of the plot as shown in Figure 7.3; and
The results of the statistical analysis of a two tailed t-test shown in Table 7.3 have
indicated that the gradient is significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance.
It is worth noting that Gympie, Cooran, and to a lesser extent, Gleneagle, have larger C
values, and flatter stream slopes. This could indicate a relation between C and Sc.
However, to test the possibility that Gympie and Cooran are outliers, the analysis was
repeated, omitting these two catchments. Figure 7.4 for those fifteen catchments show
that:
All points are significantly scattered;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is negative, the value of the gradient
in the equation of the straight line shown in Figure 7.4 is close to zero; and
The results of the two tailed t-test, shown in Table 7.4, show that the gradient in
Figure 7.4 is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance.
The plot of Figure 7.5 is made by eliminating catchments with lag parameters greater
than 2.0 (Gympie, Cooran and Gleneagle) and that plot, containing fourteen catchments,
illustrates the following:
The points are scattered and they cover the plot area reasonably well;
The best-fit straight line is horizontal and the gradient is very close to zero; and
The results of the statistical analysis of the two tailed t-test shown in Table 7.5
indicate that the gradient in Figure 7.5 is not significantly different from zero at
5% level of significance.
The foregoing findings indicate that there is a trend for the lag parameter (C) to
decrease as the equal area slope of the main stream of the catchment (Sc) increases, but
328
this result is dependent on the large C values for two of the catchments (Gympie and
Cooran).
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
Gleneagle
2.0
y = -0.1341x + 1.9882
Moy Pocket
Powerline
1.5
Kandanga
Zattas
Central Mill
Bellbird
Nash's Crossing
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Silver Valley
Nerada
Tung Oil
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
Ida Creek
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = -2.36
0.0
0
Equal Area Slope of main Stream of Catchment (Sc) - m/km
Figure 7.3 C versus Sc of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.3 t-test calculations for C versus Sc of all seventeen catchment
No
Catchment Name
Equal area Slope of

Main Stream (Sc)
(m/km)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
1.87
Gympie
0.90
2.55
0.81
6.5025
2.295
Moy Pocket
2.20
1.63
4.84
2.6569
3.586
1.69
Bellbird
4.80
1.16
23.04
1.3456
5.568
1.34
Cooran
1.20
2.92
1.44
8.5264
3.504
1.83
Kandanga
5.10
1.51
26.01
2.2801
7.701
1.30
Powerline
2.50
1.56
6.25
2.4336
3.9
1.65
Mt. Piccaninny
3.80
1.08
14.44
1.1664
4.104
1.48
Silver Valley
5.80
1.56
33.64
2.4336
9.048
1.21
Gleneagle
2.00
2.03
4.00
4.1209
4.06
1.72
10
Nash's Crossing
4.30
1.08
18.49
1.1664
4.644
1.41
11
Zattas
4.00
1.21
16.00
1.4641
4.84
1.45
12
Reeves
3.30
0.82
10.89
0.6724
2.706
1.55
13
Mt.Dangar
3.50
0.72
12.25
0.5184
2.52
1.52
14
Ida Creek
4.30
0.75
18.49
0.5625
3.225
1.41
15
Tung Oil
7.60
0.93
57.76
0.8649
7.068
0.97
16
Nerada
8.70
1.14
75.69
1.2996
9.918
0.82
17
Central Mill
8.80
1.39
77.44
1.9321
12.232
0.81
Total
72.80
401.48
39.9464
90.9190
24.04
24.04
1.988222799
r2 =
0.270981228
-1.34063E-01
0.537797935
-0.520558574
Estimated (t) =
-2.361
329
2.5
Gleneagle
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
Moy Pocket
1.5
Powerline
Kandanga
Silver Valley
Central Mill
y = -0.0365x + 1.4099
Zattas
Nerada
Bellbird
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Reeves
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal =-0.79
0.0
1
Equal Area Slope of Main Stream of Catchment (Sc) - m/km
Figure 7.4 C versus Sc of fifteen catchments
Table 7.4 t-test calculations for C versus Sc of fifteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Equal area Slope of

Main Stream (Sc)
(m/km)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
XY
Moy Pocket
2.20
1.63
4.84
2.6569
3.586
1.33
Bellbird
4.80
1.16
23.04
1.3456
5.568
1.23
Kandanga
5.10
1.51
26.01
2.2801
7.701
1.22
Powerline
2.50
1.56
6.25
2.4336
3.9
1.32
Mt. Piccaninny
3.80
1.08
14.44
1.1664
4.104
1.27
1.20
Silver Valley
5.80
1.56
33.64
2.4336
9.048
Gleneagle
2.00
2.03
4.00
4.1209
4.06
1.34
Nash's Crossing
4.30
1.08
18.49
1.1664
4.644
1.25
Zattas
4.00
1.21
16.00
1.4641
4.84
1.26
10
Reeves
3.30
0.82
10.89
0.6724
2.706
1.29
11
Mt.Dangar
3.50
0.72
12.25
0.5184
2.52
1.28
12
Ida Creek
4.30
0.75
18.49
0.5625
3.225
1.25
13
Tung Oil
7.60
0.93
57.76
0.8649
7.068
1.13
14
Nerada
8.70
1.14
75.69
1.2996
9.918
1.09
15
Central Mill
8.80
1.39
77.44
1.9321
12.232
1.09
Total
70.70
18.57
399.23
24.9175
85.12
18.57
1.409872217
r =
0.04552
-3.64651E-02
0.37622
-0.213356179
Estimated (t) =
-0.787
330
1.8
Moy Pocket
1.6
Powerline
Kandanga
Silver Valley
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
Central Mill
y = -0.0018x + 1.1902
Zattas
1.2
Bellbird
Nash's Crossing
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Nerada
Tung Oil
Reeves
0.8
Mt.Dangar
Ida Creek
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.18
0.2
tCal =-0.04
0.0
2
Equal Area Slope of Main Stream of Catchment (Sc) - m/km
Figure 7.5 C versus Sc of fourteen catchments
Table 7.5 t-test calculations for C versus Sc of fourteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Equal area Slope of

Main Stream (Sc)
(m/km)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
2.2
1.63
4.84
2.6569
3.586
1.19
Bellbird
4.8
1.16
23.04
1.3456
5.568
1.18
1.18
Kandanga
5.1
1.51
26.01
2.2801
7.701
Powerline
2.5
1.56
6.25
2.4336
3.9
1.19
Mt. Piccaninny
3.8
1.08
14.44
1.1664
4.104
1.18
Silver Valley
5.8
1.56
33.64
2.4336
9.048
1.18
Nash's Crossing
4.3
1.08
18.49
1.1664
4.644
1.18
Zattas
4.0
1.21
16.00
1.4641
4.84
1.18
Reeves
3.3
0.82
10.89
0.6724
2.706
1.18
10
Mt.Dangar
3.5
0.72
12.25
0.5184
2.52
1.18
11
Ida Creek
4.3
0.75
18.49
0.5625
3.225
1.18
12
Tung Oil
7.6
0.93
57.76
0.8649
7.068
1.18
13
Nerada
8.7
1.14
75.69
1.2996
9.918
1.17
14
Central Mill
8.8
1.39
77.44
1.9321
12.232
1.17
Total
68.70
16.54
395.23
20.7966
81.06
16.54
1.190223102
r =
0.00015
-1.79219E-03
0.32347
-0.012191339
Estimated (t) =
-0.042
331
7.4 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Length of Main Stream (L).
The plot of the lag parameter (C) versus the length of main stream of the catchment (L)
for all seventeen catchments shown in Figure 7.6 indicates the following:
Points are scattered but the majority of them are in the left side of the plot;
The best-fit straight line is almost horizontal and its gradient, shown in the
equation in Figure 7.6, is found to be equal to zero up to its 3rd decimal place; and
The results of the two tailed significance test shown in Table 7.6 have indicated
that the gradient of the best-fit straight line is not significantly different from zero
at 5% level of significance.
With the intention of studying the relationship between the lag parameter (C) and the
main stream length (L) of the fifteen catchments by omitting two catchments with larger
C values (Gympie and Cooran), Figure 7.7 was plotted. The findings from Figure 7.7
can be summarised as:
The points are scattered and once again most of the points are in the left part of the
plot;
The gradient of the best-fit straight line is equal to zero up to its 3rd decimal place;
and
The results of the two tailed t-test indicated in Table 7.7 clearly show that the
gradient of the best-fit straight line on Figure 7.7 is not significantly different from
zero at 5% level of significance.
The general trend would be to have a higher lag time for a long stream and a smaller lag
time for a shorter stream and that concept has been illustrated to a certain extent by the
plot in Figure 7.7 with a positive slope. However, not much support has been found
from the other results, shown in the Figure 7.6 as well as Table 7.6, to agree with that
concept.
Therefore, it is not possible to accept that the lag parameter (C) would increase as the
length of the main stream (L) increases. This result indicates that the effect of stream
length (L), which is highly correlated with A, is properly accounted for in equation 7.3.
332
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
Gleneagle
2.0
Moy Pocket
Silver Valley
Kandanga
1.5
y = -0.0002x + 1.4277
Powerline
Central Mill
Bellbird
1.0
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
Ida Creek
Zattas
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = -0.05
0.0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Length of Main Stream of Catchment (L) - km
Figure 7.6 C versus L of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.6 t-test calculations for C versus L of all seventeen catchments

Catchment Name
Length of Main
Stream (L)
(km)
(X)
Gympie
Moy Pocket
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
131.10
2.55
17187.21
69.05
1.63
4767.90
Bellbird
46.35
1.16
Cooran
31.60
2.92
No
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
6.5025
334.305
1.41
2.6569
112.5515
1.42
2148.32
1.3456
53.766
1.42
998.56
8.5264
92.272
1.42
Kandanga
52.45
1.51
2751.00
2.2801
79.1995
1.42
Powerline
94.50
1.56
8930.25
2.4336
147.42
1.41
Mt. Piccaninny
68.10
1.08
4637.61
1.1664
73.548
1.42
Silver Valley
55.80
1.56
3113.64
2.4336
87.048
1.42
Gleneagle
127.90
2.03
16358.41
4.1209
259.637
1.41
10
Nash's Crossing
214.40
1.08
45967.36
1.1664
231.552
1.40
11
Zattas
225.90
1.21
51030.81
1.4641
273.339
1.39
12
Reeves
66.70
0.82
4448.89
0.6724
54.694
1.42
13
Mt.Dangar
55.60
0.72
3091.36
0.5184
40.032
1.42
14
Ida Creek
46.30
0.75
2143.69
0.5625
34.725
1.42
15
Tung Oil
85.80
0.93
7361.64
0.8649
79.794
1.41
16
Nerada
73.20
1.14
5358.24
1.2996
83.448
1.42
17
Central Mill
78.20
1.39
6115.24
1.9321
108.698
1.42
Total
1522.95
24.04
186410.14
39.9464
2146.029
24.04
1.427743729
r2 =
0.000194286
-1.52102E-04
0.629807143
-0.013938644
Estimated (t) =
-0.054
333
2.5
Gleneagle
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
Moy Pocket
Silver Valley
1.5
Kandanga
Zattas
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
Bellbird
1.0
Ida Creek
y = 0.00079x + 1.1663
Powerline
Central Mill
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal = 0.44
0.0
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Length of Main Stream of Catchment (L) - km
Figure 7.7 C versus L of fifteen catchments
Table 7.7 t-test calculations for C versus L of fifteen catchments

Length of Main
Stream (L)
(km)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
Moy Pocket
69.05
1.63
4767.90
2.6569
112.5515
1.22
Bellbird
46.35
1.16
2148.32
1.3456
53.766
1.20
Kandanga
52.45
1.51
2751.00
2.2801
79.1995
1.21
Powerline
94.50
1.56
8930.25
2.4336
147.42
1.24
Mt. Piccaninny
68.10
1.08
4637.61
1.1664
73.548
1.22
Silver Valley
55.80
1.56
3113.64
2.4336
87.048
1.21
Gleneagle
127.90
2.03
16358.41
4.1209
259.637
1.27
Nash's Crossing
214.40
1.08
45967.36
1.1664
231.552
1.34
Zattas
225.90
1.21
51030.81
1.4641
273.339
1.34
10
Reeves
66.70
0.82
4448.89
0.6724
54.694
1.22
11
Mt.Dangar
55.60
0.72
3091.36
0.5184
40.032
1.21
12
Ida Creek
46.30
0.75
2143.69
0.5625
34.725
1.20
13
Tung Oil
85.80
0.93
7361.64
0.8649
79.794
1.23
14
Nerada
73.20
1.14
5358.24
1.2996
83.448
1.22
15
Central Mill
78.20
1.39
6115.24
1.9321
108.698
1.23
Total
1360.25
18.57
168224.37
24.9175
1719.452
18.57
No
Catchment Name
1
2
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
XY
1.166333222
r =
0.014537468
7.90297E-04
0.382282023
0.120571422
Estimated (t) =
0.438
334
7.5 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Catchment Shape Factor
(A/L2).
As described in Chapter 2, a reasonable number of researchers have considered A, L
and a combination of A & L in their studies. The ratio of A and L2 represents the
catchment shape factor. A low shape factor indicates that the catchment is long and
narrow, whereas a high shape factor is for catchments that are rounded in shape.
Therefore, it could be expected that lag times would be larger for long narrow
catchments, so that the lag parameter C might increase as the shape factor of a
catchment decreases.
Figure 7.8 shows the plot of lag parameter (C) versus the catchment shape factor (A/L2)
for all seventeen values and the following information was found from the plot:
Although the points are scattered, except for Gympie and Cooran catchments
which demonstrate larger C values, the remaining points are situated within a
horizontal band in which C varies from 0.72 to 2.03 as shown in Figure 7.8;
The gradient of the best-fit straight line is just above unity with a negative slope;
and
The results of the two tailed t-test shown in Table 7.8 have indicated that the
gradient is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance.
To assess the behaviour of (A/L2) with C for fifteen catchments, excluding Gympie and
Cooran, the Figure 7.9 was plotted and the following was found from it:
The points are scattered and their positions are along a thick horizontal band;
The gradient of the equation of the best-fit straight line is close to zero and it is
almost horizontal; and
The gradient of that straight line is not significantly different from zero at 5%
level of significance according to the results of a two tailed t-test as shown in
Table 7.9.
While there is a slight trend for C to increase as the shape factor decreases, as might be
expected, these findings revealed that the trend is not significant. Therefore, there is no
substantial evidence to prove that the lag parameter (C) varies as the shape factor (A/L2)
varies.
335
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
Gleneagle
2.0
Moy Pocket
Powerline
Silver Valley
Kandanga
1.5
y = -1.0669x + 1.6126
Central Mill
Zattas
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
1.0
Bellbird
Mt.Piccaninny
Tung Oil
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
Ida Creek
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = -0.49
0.0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
2
Rato of Catchment Area and Second Power of Length of Main Stream (A/L )
Figure 7.8 C versus (A/L2) of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.8 t-test calculations for C versus (A/L2) of all seventeen catchments
Catchment Name
Rato of
Catchment Area
and Second
Power of Length
of Main Stream
(A/L2)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Gympie
0.17
2.55
0.03
6.5025
0.433258801
1.43
Moy Pocket
0.17
1.63
0.03
2.6569
0.283830238
1.43
Bellbird
0.22
1.16
0.05
1.3456
0.258746999
1.37
Cooran
0.16
2.92
0.03
8.5264
0.480506329
1.44
Kandanga
0.06
1.51
0.00
2.2801
0.096429138
1.54
Powerline
0.19
1.56
0.04
2.4336
0.303005358
1.41
Mt. Piccaninny
0.25
1.08
0.06
1.1664
0.265231229
1.35
Silver Valley
0.19
1.56
0.04
2.4336
0.293718734
1.41
Gleneagle
0.33
2.03
0.11
4.1209
0.666411026
1.26
10
Nash's Crossing
0.15
1.08
0.02
1.1664
0.160741048
1.45
11
Zattas
0.14
1.21
0.02
1.4641
0.172901821
1.46
12
Reeves
0.23
0.82
0.05
0.6724
0.186217776
1.37
13
Mt.Dangar
0.26
0.72
0.07
0.5184
0.188151752
1.33
14
Ida Creek
0.29
0.75
0.08
0.5625
0.216943681
1.30
15
Tung Oil
0.13
0.93
0.02
0.8649
0.117406556
1.48
16
Nerada
0.15
1.14
0.02
1.2996
0.171890173
1.45
17
Central Mill
0.06
1.39
0.00
1.9321
0.088592827
1.54
Total
3.16
24.04
0.67
39.9464
4.384
24.04
No
1.612570642
r2 =
0.015693504
-1.06693E+00
0.624906368
-0.125273716
Estimated (t) =
-0.489
336
2.5
Gleneagle
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
Moy Pocket
Kandanga
1.5
Silver Valley
Powerline
Central Mill
y = -0.3735x + 1.3084
Zattas
Nerada
Bellbird
Nash's Crossing
1.0
Tung Oil
Mt.Piccaninny
Reeves
Mt.Dangar
Ida Creek
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal = -0.28
0.0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
2
Rato of Catchment Area and Second Power of Length of Main Stream (A/L )
Figure 7.9 C versus (A/L2) of fifteen catchments
Table 7.9 t-test calculations for C versus (A/L2) of fifteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Rato of
Catchment Area
and Second
Power of Length
of Main Stream
(A/L2)
(X)
Moy Pocket
0.17
1.63
0.03
2.6569
0.283830238
Bellbird
0.22
1.16
0.05
1.3456
0.258746999
1.23
Kandanga
0.06
1.51
0.00
2.2801
0.096429138
1.28
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
1.24
Powerline
0.19
1.56
0.04
2.4336
0.303005358
1.24
Mt. Piccaninny
0.25
1.08
0.06
1.1664
0.265231229
1.22
Silver Valley
0.19
1.56
0.04
2.4336
0.293718734
1.24
Gleneagle
0.33
2.03
0.11
4.1209
0.666411026
1.19
Nash's Crossing
0.15
1.08
0.02
1.1664
0.160741048
1.25
Zattas
0.14
1.21
0.02
1.4641
0.172901821
1.26
10
Reeves
0.23
0.82
0.05
0.6724
0.186217776
1.22
11
Mt.Dangar
0.26
0.72
0.07
0.5184
0.188151752
1.21
12
Ida Creek
0.29
0.75
0.08
0.5625
0.216943681
1.20
13
Tung Oil
0.13
0.93
0.02
0.8649
0.117406556
1.26
14
Nerada
0.15
1.14
0.02
1.2996
0.171890173
1.25
15
Central Mill
0.06
1.39
0.00
1.9321
0.088592827
1.28
Total
2.83
18.57
0.61
24.9175
3.470
18.57
1.308410443
r2 =
0.005878453
-3.73518E-01
0.383957859
-0.076671068
Estimated (t) =
-0.277
337
7.6 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Main Stream Length to the
Centroid from the Catchments Outlet (Lc).
As described in Chapter 2, some researchers have used the value of Lc as one of the
variables in their studies of lag time. Therefore, Lc was selected for this study to
investigate its influence on the lag parameter.
Figure 7.10 shows the plot of lag parameter (C) versus the main stream length to the
centroid from the catchments outlet (Lc) for all seventeen values and the findings from
Figure 7.10 can be illustrated in the following manner:
The equation of the best-fit straight line indicates a negative slope and the value of
the gradient is equal to zero up to its 3rd decimal place; and
The gradient of the best-fit line in Figure 7.10 is not significantly different from
zero at 5% level of significance according to the t-test results shown in Table 7.10.
With the intention of analysing the relationship between the lag parameter (C) and the
main stream length to the centroid from the catchments outlet (Lc) for the fifteen
catchments (disregarding two catchments with larger C values, Gympie and Cooran) the
Figure 7.11 was plotted and the following were found:
The points are scattered and however, most of the points are in the left part of plot;
The gradient of the equation of the best-fit straight line is equal to zero up to its 3rd
decimal place as in the previous case; and
The results of the two tailed t-test indicated in Table 7.11 clearly show that the
gradient of the straight line in Figure 7.11 is not significantly different from zero
The best-fit straight line in Figure 7.11 consisting of a slightly positive slope shows that
the larger the Lc the higher the lag time and the shorter the Lc the shorter the lag time.
This relationship agrees with the behaviour of natural catchments. However, the two
tailed significance test results shown in Table 7.11 have clearly shown that the gradient
of the best-fit line is not significantly different from zero and also the value of that
gradient is equal to zero up to its 3rd decimal place. According to the findings from
Figure 7.11, there is not enough evidence to insist that the lag parameter (C) increases
as the length of the main stream (Lc) increases.
338
Figure 7.10 C versus Lc of all seventeen catchments
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
Gleneagle
Moy Pocket
Silver Valley
Kandanga
1.5
y = -0.0006x + 1.4408
Powerline
Central Mill
Bellbird
1.0
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
Reeves
Ida Creek
Zattas
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Mt.Dangar
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = -0.14
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Main Stream Length to the Centroid of Catchment from Outlet (Lc) - km
Table 7.10 t-test calculations for C versus Lc of all seventeen catchments
No
Main Stream Length to

the Centroid of
Catchment Name Catchment from Outlet
(LC)
(km)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Gympie
59.50
2.55
3540.25
6.5025
151.725
1.41
Moy Pocket
37.40
1.63
1398.76
2.6569
60.962
1.42
Bellbird
16.20
1.16
262.44
1.3456
18.792
1.43
Cooran
18.40
2.92
338.56
8.5264
53.728
1.43
Kandanga
21.70
1.51
470.89
2.2801
32.767
1.43
Powerline
43.70
1.56
1909.69
2.4336
68.172
1.42
Mt. Piccaninny
27.40
1.08
750.76
1.1664
29.592
1.42
Silver Valley
22.70
1.56
515.29
2.4336
35.412
1.43
Gleneagle
65.70
2.03
4316.49
4.1209
133.371
1.40
10
Nash's Crossing
133.10
1.08
17715.61
1.1664
143.748
1.36
11
Zattas
139.50
1.21
19460.25
1.4641
168.795
1.36
12
Reeves
31.80
0.82
1011.24
0.6724
26.076
1.42
13
Mt.Dangar
24.80
0.72
615.04
0.5184
17.856
1.43
14
Ida Creek
21.30
0.75
453.69
0.5625
15.975
1.43
15
Tung Oil
44.50
0.93
1980.25
0.8649
41.385
1.41
16
Nerada
33.80
1.14
1142.44
1.2996
38.532
1.42
17
Central Mill
37.10
1.39
1376.41
1.9321
51.569
1.42
Total
778.60
24.04
57258.06
39.9464
1088.457
24.04
1.440783551
r2 =
0.001230291
-5.82225E-04
0.629480754
-0.035075511
Estimated (t) =
-0.136
339
2.5
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
Gleneagle
Silver Valley
1.5
Kandanga
Moy Pocket
Powerline
y = 0.00075x + 1.2028
Central Mill
Zattas
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
Bellbird
1.0
Tung Oil
Reeves
Ida Creek
Nash's Crossing
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal = 0.28
0.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Main Stream Length to the Centroid of Catchment from Outlet (Lc) - km
Figure 7.11 C versus Lc of fifteen catchments
Table 7.11 t-test calculations for C versus Lc of fifteen catchments
No
Main Stream Length to

the Centroid of
Catchment Name Catchment from Outlet
(km)
(LC)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
1.23
Moy Pocket
37.40
1.63
1398.76
2.6569
60.962
Bellbird
16.20
1.16
262.44
1.3456
18.792
1.22
Kandanga
21.70
1.51
470.89
2.2801
32.767
1.22
Powerline
43.70
1.56
1909.69
2.4336
68.172
1.24
Mt. Piccaninny
27.40
1.08
750.76
1.1664
29.592
1.22
Silver Valley
22.70
1.56
515.29
2.4336
35.412
1.22
Gleneagle
65.70
2.03
4316.49
4.1209
133.371
1.25
Nash's Crossing
133.10
1.08
17715.61
1.1664
143.748
1.30
Zattas
139.50
1.21
19460.25
1.4641
168.795
1.31
10
Reeves
31.80
0.82
1011.24
0.6724
26.076
1.23
11
Mt.Dangar
24.80
0.72
615.04
0.5184
17.856
1.22
12
Ida Creek
21.30
0.75
453.69
0.5625
15.975
1.22
13
Tung Oil
44.50
0.93
1980.25
0.8649
41.385
1.24
14
Nerada
33.80
1.14
1142.44
1.2996
38.532
1.23
15
Central Mill
37.10
1.39
1376.41
1.9321
51.569
1.23
Total
700.70
18.57
53379.25
24.9175
883.004
18.57
1.202847382
r =
0.006064907
7.52518E-04
0.38392185
0.077877516
Estimated (t) =
0.282
340
7.7 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Ratio of Main Stream
Length to Centroid and Main Stream Length (Lc/L).
The shape of the catchment is represented by the ratio of (Lc/L). It means that for a
larger (Lc/L) most of the catchments area is located near the headwaters. It could be
expected that catchments with large (Lc/L) will have a larger lag parameter C.
Figure 7.12 shows the plot of lag parameter (C) versus the ratio of main stream length to
centroid and main stream length (Lc/L) and the following were observed from it:
All points are scattered significantly;
The best-fit straight line shows a positive gradient with a value of 1.6213;
It is interesting to note that the majority of the points in Figure 7.12 are within a
horizontal band except for the points of Gympie and Cooran catchments; and
The results of the two tailed t-test shown in Table 7.12 have indicated that the
gradient of the best-fit straight line is not significantly different from zero at 5%
level of significance.
To test the effect of (Lc/L) on C for fifteen catchments (excluding two catchments
Cooran and Gympie with larger C values) Figure 7.13 was plotted and it illustrates the
following:
All the points are scattered and distributed within the plot area quite well;
Except for the Gleneagle catchment, all the other points are located on a horizontal
band;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is positive its gradient is much less
than that in Figure 7.12 and is closer to zero; and
Once again the gradient of the best-fit line is not significantly different from zero
The plot in Figure 7.14 is made by eliminating the catchment with a lag parameter of
2.03 (Gleneagle) and the findings from it are listed below:
The points are distributed well enough to cover the entire plot area;
The best-fit straight line is close to a horizontal line and its gradient is -0.16. This
value shows a considerable reduction in the gradient compared to the value
obtained for all seventeen catchments in Figure 7.12; and
341
Even for this plot, the gradient of the best-fit line is not significantly different from
zero at 5% level of significance, according to the two tailed t-test results shown in
Table 7.14.
For all seventeen catchments, there is a slight trend for C to increase as (Lc/L) increases,
as expected. However, the result depends on the inclusion of the Gympie and Cooran
catchments and the gradient of the fitted straight line is not significantly different from
zero. This lack of significance is confined when Gympie and Cooran are omitted from
the analysis.
The foregoing findings indicate that there is no real trend for the lag parameter (C) to
vary as (Lc/L) varies.
342
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
Gleneagle
Moy Pocket
Silver Valley
1.5
y = 1.6213x + 0.6319
Powerline
Kandanga
Central Mill
Zattas
Nerada
Bellbird
1.0
Nash's Crossing
Mt.Piccaninny
Reeves
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
Tung Oil
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = 0.79
0.0
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Ratio of Main Stream Length to the Centroid and Main Stream Length (Lc/L)
Figure 7.12 C versus (Lc/L) of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.12 t-test calculations for C versus (Lc/L) of all seventeen catchments
No
Ratio of Main
Stream Length to
the Centroid and
Catchment Name
Main Stream
Length (Lc/L)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Gympie
0.45
2.55
0.21
6.5025
1.157322654
1.37
Moy Pocket
0.54
1.63
0.29
2.6569
0.882867487
1.51
Bellbird
0.35
1.16
0.12
1.3456
0.405436893
1.20
Cooran
0.58
2.92
0.34
8.5264
1.700253165
1.58
Kandanga
0.41
1.51
0.17
2.2801
0.624728313
1.30
Powerline
0.46
1.56
0.21
2.4336
0.721396825
1.38
Mt. Piccaninny
0.40
1.08
0.16
1.1664
0.434537445
1.28
Silver Valley
0.41
1.56
0.17
2.4336
0.634623656
1.29
Gleneagle
0.51
2.03
0.26
4.1209
1.042775606
1.46
10
Nash's Crossing
0.62
1.08
0.39
1.1664
0.670466418
1.64
11
Zattas
0.62
1.21
0.38
1.4641
0.747211155
1.63
12
Reeves
0.48
0.82
0.23
0.6724
0.390944528
1.40
13
Mt.Dangar
0.45
0.72
0.20
0.5184
0.321151079
1.36
14
Ida Creek
0.46
0.75
0.21
0.5625
0.345032397
1.38
15
Tung Oil
0.52
0.93
0.27
0.8649
0.482342657
1.47
16
Nerada
0.46
1.14
0.21
1.2996
0.526393443
1.38
17
Central Mill
0.47
1.39
0.23
1.9321
0.659450128
1.40
Total
8.20
24.04
4.05
39.9464
11.747
24.04
0.631864616
r2 =
0.040303706
1.62129E+00
0.617044782
0.200757829
Estimated (t) =
0.794
343
2.3
Gleneagle
2.0
Lag Parameter (C)
1.8
Silver Valley
1.5
Kandanga
Moy Pocket
Powerline
y = 0.2204x + 1.1327
Central Mill
1.3
Bellbird
1.0
Zattas
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Reeves
0.8
Mt.Dangar
Ida Creek
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
0.3
tCal = 0.16
0.0
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
Figure 7.13 C versus (Lc/L) of fifteen catchments
Table 7.13 t-test calculations for C versus (Lc/L) fifteen catchments
No
Ratio of Main
Stream Length to
the Centroid and
Catchment Name
Main Stream
Length (Lc/L)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
0.54
1.63
0.29
2.6569
0.882867487
1.25
Bellbird
0.35
1.16
0.12
1.3456
0.405436893
1.21
Kandanga
0.41
1.51
0.17
2.2801
0.624728313
1.22
Powerline
0.46
1.56
0.21
2.4336
0.721396825
1.23
Mt. Piccaninny
0.40
1.08
0.16
1.1664
0.434537445
1.22
Silver Valley
0.41
1.56
0.17
2.4336
0.634623656
1.22
Gleneagle
0.51
2.03
0.26
4.1209
1.042775606
1.25
Nash's Crossing
0.62
1.08
0.39
1.1664
0.670466418
1.27
Zattas
0.62
1.21
0.38
1.4641
0.747211155
1.27
10
Reeves
0.48
0.82
0.23
0.6724
0.390944528
1.24
11
Mt.Dangar
0.45
0.72
0.20
0.5184
0.321151079
1.23
12
Ida Creek
0.46
0.75
0.21
0.5625
0.345032397
1.23
13
Tung Oil
0.52
0.93
0.27
0.8649
0.482342657
1.25
14
Nerada
0.46
1.14
0.21
1.2996
0.526393443
1.23
15
Central Mill
0.47
1.39
0.23
1.9321
0.659450128
1.24
Total
7.17
18.57
3.50
24.9175
8.889
18.57
1.132725347
r =
0.002018284
2.20358E-01
0.384702589
0.04492532
Estimated (t) =
0.162
344
1.8
Moy Pocket
Silver Valley
1.5
Kandanga
Powerline
Lag Parameter (C)
Central Mill
y = -0.163x + 1.2589
1.3
Bellbird
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Nerada
Zattas
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Reeves
0.8
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.18
0.3
tCal = -0.14
0.0
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
Figure 7.14 C versus (Lc/L) of fourteen catchments
Table 7.14 t-test calculations for C versus (Lc/L) fourteen catchments
No
Ratio of Main
Stream Length to
the Centroid and
Catchment Name
Main Stream
Length (Lc/L)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
0.54
1.63
0.29
2.6569
0.882867487
1.17
Bellbird
0.35
1.16
0.12
1.3456
0.405436893
1.20
Kandanga
0.41
1.51
0.17
2.2801
0.624728313
1.19
Powerline
0.46
1.56
0.21
2.4336
0.721396825
1.18
Mt. Piccaninny
0.40
1.08
0.16
1.1664
0.434537445
1.19
Silver Valley
0.41
1.56
0.17
2.4336
0.634623656
1.19
Nash's Crossing
0.62
1.08
0.39
1.1664
0.670466418
1.16
Zattas
0.62
1.21
0.38
1.4641
0.747211155
1.16
Reeves
0.48
0.82
0.23
0.6724
0.390944528
1.18
10
Mt.Dangar
0.45
0.72
0.20
0.5184
0.321151079
1.19
11
Ida Creek
0.46
0.75
0.21
0.5625
0.345032397
1.18
12
Tung Oil
0.52
0.93
0.27
0.8649
0.482342657
1.17
13
Nerada
0.46
1.14
0.21
1.2996
0.526393443
1.18
14
Central Mill
0.47
1.39
0.23
1.9321
0.659450128
1.18
Total
6.65
16.54
3.24
20.7966
7.847
16.54
1.258904921
r =
0.001667045
-1.63047E-01
0.323223091
-0.040829464
Estimated (t) =
-0.142
345
7.8 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Number of Rain Days per
Year (No. RD/Year).
The real effect of the climate of the catchment on the lag parameter is not possible to be
measured directly. However, the climate of the catchment might be expected to have an
effect on the lag parameter. For example, a wetter climate could lead to greater
vegetation growth, possibly reducing flow velocities and increasing lag times.
Conversely, the wetter soil might lead to more rapid runoff and that could cause smaller
lag times. Several measures of climate have been used in this study, as described in the
following sections.
The Figure 7.15 shows the plot of lag parameter (C) versus the number of rain days per
year (No.RD/Year of all seventeen catchments and the finding of the plot can be
described in the following manner:
The plot demonstrates considerable scatter;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is positive, the value of its gradient
as shown in the equation of Figure 7.15, is almost zero; and
The significant t-test results of Table 7.15 demonstrate that the gradient of the
best-fit straight line is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance.
To find out the effect of the number of rain days per year (No.RD/year) on the lag
parameter of the fifteen catchments other than Gympie and Cooran which show higher
C values, the Figure 7.16 was plotted and its findings can be summarised as:
The points are very well scattered and cover the entire plot area;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is negative, the value of the gradient
is almost zero, as in the previous case, as shown in Figure 7.16; and
The values of the significant two tailed t-test results shown in Table 7.16 reveal
Therefore, all the above described findings revealed that there is no real trend for lag
parameter (C) to vary as the number of rain days per year (No.RD/Year) varies.
346
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
Gleneagle
y = 0.0011x + 1.2963
Moy Pocket
Powerline
1.5
Silver Valley
Kandanga
Zattas
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Reeves
Central Mill
Bellbird
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = 0.33
0.0
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Number of Rain Days per Year (No.RD/Year)
Figure 7.15 C versus (No.RD/yr) of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.15 t-test calculations for C versus (No. RD/yr) of all seventeen catchments
Catchment Name
Number of Rain
Days per Year
(No.RD/Year)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
Gympie
117
2.55
13689.00
Moy Pocket
118
1.63
13924.00
Bellbird
116
1.16
Cooran
129
No
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
6.5025
298.35
1.42
2.6569
192.34
1.43
13456.00
1.3456
134.56
1.42
2.92
16641.00
8.5264
376.68
1.44
Kandanga
100
1.51
10000.00
2.2801
151.00
1.41
Powerline
62
1.56
3844.00
2.4336
96.72
1.36
Mt. Piccaninny
76
1.08
5776.00
1.1664
82.08
1.38
Silver Valley
65
1.56
4225.00
2.4336
101.4
1.37
Gleneagle
70
2.03
4900.00
4.1209
142.1
1.37
10
Nash's Crossing
114
1.08
12996.00
1.1664
123.12
1.42
11
Zattas
114
1.21
12996.00
1.4641
137.94
1.42
12
Reeves
43
0.82
1849.00
0.6724
35.26
1.34
13
Mt.Dangar
68
0.72
4624.00
0.5184
48.96
1.37
14
Ida Creek
68
0.75
4624.00
0.5625
51.00
1.37
15
Tung Oil
183
0.93
33489.00
0.8649
170.19
1.50
16
Nerada
209
1.14
43681.00
1.2996
238.26
1.52
17
Central Mill
183
1.39
33489.00
1.9321
254.37
1.50
Total
1835.00
24.04
234203.00
39.9464
2634.330
24.04
1.296338107
r2 =
0.007228595
1.09115E-03
0.627587673
0.085021143
Estimated (t) =
0.330
347
2.5
Gleneagle
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
Moy Pocket
Powerline
1.5
Silver Valley
Kandanga
Central Mill
y = -0.0002x + 1.2615
Zattas
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Reeves
Bellbird
Nash's Crossing
Nerada
Tung Oil
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal = -0.11
0.0
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Number of Rain Days per Year (No.RD/Year)
Figure 7.16 C versus (No.RD/yr) of fifteen catchments
Table 7.16 t-test calculations for C versus (No.RD/yr) of fifteen catchments

No
Catchment Name
Number of Rain
Days per Year
(No.RD/Year)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
118
1.63
13924.00
2.6569
192.34
1.24
Bellbird
116
1.16
13456.00
1.3456
134.56
1.24
Kandanga
100
1.51
10000.00
2.2801
151.00
1.24
Powerline
62
1.56
3844.00
2.4336
96.72
1.25
Mt. Piccaninny
76
1.08
5776.00
1.1664
82.08
1.24
Silver Valley
65
1.56
4225.00
2.4336
101.4
1.25
1.25
Gleneagle
70
2.03
4900.00
4.1209
142.1
Nash's Crossing
114
1.08
12996.00
1.1664
123.12
1.24
Zattas
114
1.21
12996.00
1.4641
137.94
1.24
10
Reeves
43
0.82
1849.00
0.6724
35.26
1.25
11
Mt.Dangar
68
0.72
4624.00
0.5184
48.96
1.25
12
Ida Creek
68
0.75
4624.00
0.5625
51.00
1.25
13
Tung Oil
183
0.93
33489.00
0.8649
170.19
1.22
14
Nerada
209
1.14
43681.00
1.2996
238.26
1.22
15
Central Mill
183
1.39
33489.00
1.9321
254.37
1.22
Total
1589.00
18.57
203873.00
24.9175
1959.300
18.57
1.261490452
r2 =
0.000906618
-2.21747E-04
0.384916793
-0.030110092
Estimated (t) =
-0.109
348
7.9 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Mean Annual Rainfall
(ARMean).
Since the amount of rainfall depends on many factors of a catchment, such as its
location, topographical features, temperature, etc., the mean annual rainfall can be
treated as a unique characteristic, which is purely designated to a particular catchment
area. Therefore, mean annual rainfall has been considered as a physical characteristic of
catchments and it is selected in this study.
Figure 7.17 shows the plot of lag parameter (C) versus the mean annual rainfall
(ARMean) for all seventeen catchments and its findings can be summarised as follows:
Although the points are fairly scattered, the two points for Gympie and Cooran
catchments are well away from the remaining points because they contain larger
lag parameters;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is negative, the value of its gradient,
as shown in the equation of Figure 7.17, is equal to zero up to its 4th decimal
place; and
According to the two tailed t-test results shown in Table 7.17 the gradient of the
significance.
The behaviour of the fifteen catchments (disregarding Gympie and Cooran) is examined
by plotting Figure 7.18 and its findings are:
The points are very well scattered to cover most parts of the plot area;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is negative as in the previous case,
the value of the gradient is equal to zero up to its 4th decimal place as well; and
The results of the two tailed t-test revealed that the gradient of the best-fit straight
line is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of significance.
Therefore, all the findings from the plots of Figures 7.17 and 7.18 as well as the Tables
7.17 and 7.18 explicitly describe that there is no real variation of the lag parameter with
variation of the mean annual rainfall.
349
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
1.5
Gleneagle
y = -0.000088x + 1.5554
Moy Pocket
Powerline
Kandanga
Silver Valley
Bellbird
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Central Mill
Zattas
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Reeves
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = -0.61
0.0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
4800
Mean Annual Rainfall (ARMean) - mm
Figure 7.17 C versus (ARMean) of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.17 t-test calculations for C versus (ARMean) of all seventeen catchments
Catchment Name
Mean Annual
Rainfall (ARMean)
(mm)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
Gympie
1132
2.55
1282329.76
6.5025
2887.62
1.46
Moy Pocket
1359
1.63
1847696.49
2.6569
2215.659
1.44
Bellbird
1240
1.16
1538344.09
1.3456
1438.748
1.45
Cooran
1354
2.92
1831962.25
8.5264
3952.22
1.44
Kandanga
1186
1.51
1406121.64
2.2801
1790.56
1.45
Powerline
1173
1.56
1375459.84
2.4336
1829.568
1.45
Mt. Piccaninny
877
1.08
769479.84
1.1664
947.376
1.48
Silver Valley
875
1.56
765800.01
2.4336
1365.156
1.48
No
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
XY
Gleneagle
823
2.03
677822.89
4.1209
1671.299
1.48
10
Nash's Crossing
1842
1.08
3392227.24
1.1664
1989.144
1.39
11
Zattas
1842
1.21
3392227.24
1.4641
2228.578
1.39
12
Reeves
812
0.82
659993.76
0.6724
666.168
1.48
13
Mt.Dangar
862
0.72
743733.76
0.5184
620.928
1.48
14
Ida Creek
862
0.75
743733.76
0.5625
646.80
1.48
15
Tung Oil
3326
0.93
11061610.81
0.8649
3093.087
1.26
16
Nerada
4518
1.14
20410516.84
1.2996
5150.292
1.16
17
Central Mill
3326
1.39
11061610.81
1.9321
4623.001
1.26
Total
27410.10
24.04
62960671.03
39.9464
37116.202
24.04
1.555448265
r =
0.024228378
-8.76546E-05
0.622191203
-0.155654675
Estimated (t) =
-0.610
350
2.5
Gleneagle
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
Powerline
Silver Valley
1.5
Moy Pocket
Kandanga
Central Mill
Zattas
Mt.Piccaninny
Bellbird
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
1.0
y = -0.000032x + 1.2903
Tung Oil
Reeves
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal = -0.35
0.0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
4800
Mean Annual Rainfall (ARMean) - mm
Figure 7.18 C versus (ARMean) of fifteen catchments
Table 7.18 t-test calculations for C versus (ARMean) of fifteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Mean Annual
Rainfall (ARMean)
(mm)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
1359
1.63
1847696.49
2.6569
2215.659
1.25
Bellbird
1240
1.16
1538344.09
1.3456
1438.748
1.25
Kandanga
1186
1.51
1406121.64
2.2801
1790.56
1.25
Powerline
1173
1.56
1375459.84
2.4336
1829.568
1.25
Mt. Piccaninny
877
1.08
769479.84
1.1664
947.376
1.26
Silver Valley
875
1.56
765800.01
2.4336
1365.156
1.26
Gleneagle
823
2.03
677822.89
4.1209
1671.299
1.26
Nash's Crossing
1842
1.08
3392227.24
1.1664
1989.144
1.23
Zattas
1842
1.21
3392227.24
1.4641
2228.578
1.23
10
Reeves
812
0.82
659993.76
0.6724
666.168
1.26
11
Mt.Dangar
862
0.72
743733.76
0.5184
620.928
1.26
12
Ida Creek
862
0.75
743733.76
0.5625
646.80
1.26
13
Tung Oil
3326
0.93
11061610.81
0.8649
3093.087
1.19
14
Nerada
4518
1.14
20410516.84
1.2996
5150.292
1.15
15
Central Mill
3326
1.39
11061610.81
1.9321
4623.001
1.19
Total
24924.20
18.57
59846379.02
24.9175
30276.362
18.57
1.290267775
r2 =
0.009460399
-3.14560E-05
0.38326551
-0.097264585
Estimated (t) =
-0.352
351
7.10 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the 2Year-72hour Rainfall
Intensity Pattern of AR&R (2I72).
As described in the previous section, the 2year-ARI, 72-hour rainfall intensity pattern
can be treated as a physical characteristic confined to a particular catchment according
to the Australian Rainfall and Runoff publication. Figure 7.19 shows the plot of lag
parameter (C) versus the 2year-72hour rainfall intensity pattern of AR&R (2I72) and it
illustrates the following:
All points are scattered significantly. Apart from the points of Gympie and
Cooran, the positions of the other catchments are distributed within a horizontal
band of the plot area;
The best-fit straight line has shown a negative gradient with a value of 0.1106 as
shown in Figure 7.19 and it is reasonably greater than zero; and
The results of a two-tailed t-test, shown in Table 7.19 indicated that the gradient of
the best-fit straight line is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance.
To test the effect of (2I72) on C for fifteen catchments, whose points are within a
horizontal band, Figure 7.20 was plotted and its findings are listed as:
All the points are scattered and distributed within the plot area fairly well. Apart
from Gleneagle catchment, other points are located on a horizontal band;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is negative its gradient is much less
than that shown in Figure 7.19 and also it is very close to zero; and
The results of the two tailed t-test, shown in Table 7.20, indicate that the gradient
of the best-fit straight line is not significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance.
The plot in Figure 7.21 was made by eliminating the Gleneagle catchment in Figure
7.20 to study the behaviour of the remaining catchments and its findings can be given
as:
The points are distributed fairly well to cover the entire plot area;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is negative, its value is much less
than the values for other two cases; and
352
Once again the gradient of the best-fit straight is not significantly different from
zero at 5% level of significance, according to the t-test results shown in Table
7.21.
The discussions related to the findings from Figures and Tables 7.19, 7.20 and 7.21
have indicated that there is no real trend for the lag parameter (C) to vary as (2I72)
varies.
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
2.0
Gleneagle
Silver Valley
1.5
Moy Pocket
Powerline
y = -0.1106x + 1.8391
Kandanga
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Central Mill
Zattas
Bellbird
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Reeves
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
t0.975 = 2.13
0.5
tCal = -1.16
0.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
2 year 72 Hour Rainfall Intensity Pattern of AR&R ( I72hr) - mm/hr
Figure 7.19 C versus (2I72) of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.19 t-test calculations for C versus (2I72) of all seventeen catchments
No
Catchment Name
2 year 72 Hour
Rainfall Intensity
Pattern of AR&R
(2I72hr)
(mm/hr)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Gympie
2.88
2.55
8.29
6.5025
7.344
1.52
Moy Pocket
3.00
1.63
9.00
2.6569
4.89
1.51
Bellbird
3.00
1.16
9.00
1.3456
3.48
1.51
Cooran
3.38
2.92
11.42
8.5264
9.8696
1.47
Kandanga
2.70
1.51
7.29
2.2801
4.08
1.54
Powerline
3.38
1.56
11.42
2.4336
5.2728
1.47
Mt. Piccaninny
2.88
1.08
8.29
1.1664
3.1104
1.52
Silver Valley
2.45
1.56
6.00
2.4336
3.822
1.57
Gleneagle
2.30
2.03
5.29
4.1209
4.669
1.58
10
Nash's Crossing
4.25
1.08
18.06
1.1664
4.59
1.37
1.34
11
Zattas
4.55
1.21
20.70
1.4641
5.5055
12
Reeves
3.00
0.82
9.00
0.6724
2.46
1.51
13
Mt.Dangar
3.38
0.72
11.42
0.5184
2.4336
1.47
14
Ida Creek
3.45
0.75
11.90
0.5625
2.59
1.46
15
Tung Oil
6.70
0.93
44.89
0.8649
6.231
1.10
16
Nerada
7.50
1.14
56.25
1.2996
8.55
1.01
17
Central Mill
6.55
1.39
42.90
1.9321
9.1045
1.11
Total
65.35
24.04
291.15
39.9464
87.997
24.04
1.839100749
r2 =
0.082031865
-1.10554E-01
0.603480967
-0.286412055
Estimated (t) =
-1.158
353
2.3
Gleneagle
2.0
1.8
Moy Pocket
Powerline
Lag Parameter (C)
Silver Valley
1.5
Kandanga
Central Mill
Zattas
1.3
Bellbird
Tung Oil
Reeves
0.8
Mt.Dangar
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
y = -0.0613x + 1.4795
Ida Creek
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
0.3
tCal = -1.03
0.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Figure 7.20 C versus (2I72) of fifteen catchments
Table 7.20 t-test calculations for C versus (2I72) of fifteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
2 year 72 Hour
Rainfall Intensity
Pattern of AR&R
2
( I72hr)
(mm/hr)
(X)
Moy Pocket
3.00
1.63
9.00
2.6569
4.89
Bellbird
3.00
1.16
9.00
1.3456
3.48
1.30
Kandanga
2.70
1.51
7.29
2.2801
4.077
1.31
1.27
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
1.30
Powerline
3.38
1.56
11.42
2.4336
5.2728
Mt. Piccaninny
2.88
1.08
8.29
1.1664
3.1104
1.30
Silver Valley
2.45
1.56
6.00
2.4336
3.822
1.33
Gleneagle
2.30
2.03
5.29
4.1209
4.669
1.34
Nash's Crossing
4.25
1.08
18.06
1.1664
4.59
1.22
1.20
Zattas
4.55
1.21
20.70
1.4641
5.5055
10
Reeves
3.00
0.82
9.00
0.6724
2.46
1.30
11
Mt.Dangar
3.38
0.72
11.42
0.5184
2.4336
1.27
12
Ida Creek
3.45
0.75
11.90
0.5625
2.5875
1.27
13
Tung Oil
6.70
0.93
44.89
0.8649
6.231
1.07
14
Nerada
7.50
1.14
56.25
1.2996
8.55
1.02
15
Central Mill
6.55
1.39
42.90
1.9321
9.1045
1.08
Total
59.09
18.57
271.44
24.9175
70.783
18.57
1.479504749
r =
0.075370655
-6.13060E-02
0.370294834
-0.274537166
Estimated (t) =
-1.029
354
1.8
1.6
Moy Pocket
Silver Valley
Powerline
Kandanga
Central Mill
Lag Parameter (C)
1.4
Zattas
1.2
y = -0.0274x + 1.2924
Bellbird
Mt.Piccaninny
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
1.0
Tung OIl
Reeves
0.8
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.6
0.4
t0.975 = 2.18
0.2
tCal = -0.51
0.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Figure 7.21 C versus (2I72) of fourteen catchments
Table 7.21 t-test calculations for C versus (2I72) of fourteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
2 year 72 Hour
Rainfall Intensity
Pattern of AR&R
(2I72hr)
(mm/hr)
(X)
Moy Pocket
3.00
1.63
9.00
2.6569
4.89
Bellbird
3.00
1.16
9.00
1.3456
3.48
1.21
Kandanga
2.70
1.51
7.29
2.2801
4.077
1.22
Powerline
3.38
1.56
11.42
2.4336
5.2728
1.20
Mt. Piccaninny
2.88
1.08
8.29
1.1664
3.1104
1.21
Silver Valley
2.45
1.56
6.00
2.4336
3.822
1.23
Nash's Crossing
4.25
1.08
18.06
1.1664
4.59
1.18
Zattas
4.55
1.21
20.70
1.4641
5.5055
1.17
Reeves
3.00
0.82
9.00
0.6724
2.46
1.21
10
Mt.Dangar
3.38
0.72
11.42
0.5184
2.4336
1.20
11
Ida Creek
3.45
0.75
11.90
0.5625
2.5875
1.20
12
Tung Oil
6.70
0.93
44.89
0.8649
6.231
1.11
13
Nerada
7.50
1.14
56.25
1.2996
8.55
1.09
14
Central Mill
6.55
1.39
42.90
1.9321
9.1045
1.11
Total
56.79
16.54
266.15
20.7966
66.114
16.54
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
1.21
1.292418929
r2 =
0.021331735
-2.73616E-02
0.320023911
-0.146053878
Estimated (t) =
-0.511
355
7.11 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Mean Elevation (ElMean).
The elevations at different positions as well as the mean elevation of catchments vary
from catchment to catchment. In this section the effect of the mean elevation (mean of
the highest and lowest elevations) on lag parameter has been assessed for the seventeen
catchments selected in this study.
Figure 7.22 illustrates the plot of lag parameter (C) versus the mean elevation (ElMean) of
seventeen catchments and its findings are discussed as follows:
The points are fairly scattered. However, the points of Gympie and Cooran are
away from the other points due to their high C values;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is negative, its equation in Figure
7.22 clearly demonstrates that the gradient is equal to zero up to its 3rd decimal
place; and
It has been noticed from the results of the two tailed t-test that the gradient of the
significance.
To find out the effect of the mean elevation on lag parameter for the fifteen catchments
neglecting Gympie and Cooran, Figure 7.23 was plotted and its findings are given
below:
The points illustrate a significant amount of scatter although most of the points are
on the left side of the plot;
Although the slope of the best-fit straight line is positive, its gradient is equal to
zero up to its 2nd decimal place; and
The results of the two tailed t-test, shown in Table 7.23, show that the gradient of
the best-fit straight line is significantly different from zero at 5% level of
significance.
Although the gradient of the second plot shows a significant deviation from zero, the
other findings do not support a real trend for the lag parameter (C) to vary as the mean
elevation of catchments vary.
356
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
Gleneagle
2.0
Moy Pocket
Powerline
1.5
Kandanga
Bellbird
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Reeves
Silver Valley
Central Mill
Zattas
y = -0.0002x + 1.5078
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = -0.25
0.0
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
Mean Elevation of Catchment (ELMean) - m
Figure 7.22 C versus (ELMean) of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.22 t-test calculations for C versus (ELMean) of all seventeen catchments
Catchment Name
Mean Elevation of
Catchment
(ELMean)
(m)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
Gympie
325
2.55
105625.00
Moy Pocket
340
1.63
115600.00
Bellbird
350
1.16
Cooran
105
Kandanga
383
Powerline
Mt. Piccaninny
Silver Valley
No
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
6.5025
828.75
1.43
2.6569
554.2
1.43
122500.00
1.3456
406
1.43
2.92
11025.00
8.5264
306.6
1.48
1.51
146306.25
2.2801
577.575
1.42
329
1.56
108241.00
2.4336
513.24
1.43
345
1.08
119025.00
1.1664
372.6
1.43
820
1.56
672400.00
2.4336
1279.2
1.32
1.33
Gleneagle
778
2.03
605284.00
4.1209
1579.34
10
Nash's Crossing
520
1.08
270400.00
1.1664
561.6
1.39
11
Zattas
512
1.21
262144.00
1.4641
619.52
1.39
12
Reeves
295
0.82
87025.00
0.6724
241.9
1.44
13
Mt.Dangar
310
0.72
96100.00
0.5184
223.2
1.44
1.44
14
Ida Creek
318
0.75
101124.00
0.5625
238.5
15
Tung Oil
390
0.93
152100.00
0.8649
362.7
1.42
16
Nerada
400
1.14
160000.00
1.2996
456
1.42
17
Central Mill
475
1.39
225625.00
1.9321
660.25
1.40
Total
6994.50
24.04
3360524.25
39.9464
9781.175
24.04
1.507768992
r2 =
0.004202407
-2.27618E-04
0.628543459
-0.064825972
Estimated (t) =
-0.252
357
2.5
Gleneagle
Lag Parameter (C)
2.0
Moy Pocket
Powerline
1.5
Silver Valley
Kandanga
Central Mill
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
y = 0.0014x + 0.6259
Zattas
Bellbird
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Reeves
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal = 2.80
0.0
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
Mean Elevation of Catchment (ELMean) - m
Figure 7.23 C versus (ELMean) of fifteen catchments
Table 7.23 t-test calculations for C versus (ELMean) of fifteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Mean Elevation of
Catchment
(ELMean)
(m)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
340
1.63
115600.00
2.6569
554.2
1.10
Bellbird
350
1.16
122500.00
1.3456
406
1.12
Kandanga
383
1.51
146306.25
2.2801
577.575
1.16
Powerline
329
1.56
108241.00
2.4336
513.24
1.09
Mt. Piccaninny
345
1.08
119025.00
1.1664
372.6
1.11
Silver Valley
820
1.56
672400.00
2.4336
1279.2
1.77
Gleneagle
778
2.03
605284.00
4.1209
1579.34
1.71
Nash's Crossing
520
1.08
270400.00
1.1664
561.6
1.35
1.34
Zattas
512
1.21
262144.00
1.4641
619.52
10
Reeves
295
0.82
87025.00
0.6724
241.9
1.04
11
Mt.Dangar
310
0.72
96100.00
0.5184
223.2
1.06
12
Ida Creek
318
0.75
101124.00
0.5625
238.5
1.07
13
Tung Oil
390
0.93
152100.00
0.8649
362.7
1.17
14
Nerada
400
1.14
160000.00
1.2996
456
1.19
15
Central Mill
475
1.39
225625.00
1.9321
660.25
1.29
Total
6564.50
18.57
3243874.25
24.9175
8645.825
18.57
0.625865729
r2 =
0.376539824
1.39874E-03
0.304066221
0.613628409
Estimated (t) =
2.802
358
7.12 Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and the Elevation of the Centroid
(ElCentroid).
The topography of a catchment could be represented by the elevation of its centroid.
Therefore, the study of the relationship between the lag parameter and the elevation of
the centroid of a catchment enables the assessment of the influence of the topography on
the lag parameter. Thus the elevation of the centroid is considered for this study.
The plot of lag parameter (C) versus the elevation of the centroid of the catchment
(ElCentroid) is shown in Figure 7.24 and it demonstrates the following:
A fair amount of scatter can be observed from the plot;
The best-fit straight line of the plot in Figure 7.24 has a negative slope, but the
value of the gradient is equal to zero up to its 4th decimal place; and
The statistical analysis results from the two tailed significance test indicate that the
gradient of the best-fit straight line is not significantly different from zero at 5%
level of significance as shown in Table 7.24.
Neglecting the two catchments (Gympie and Cooran) from the plot shown in Figure
7.24, Figure 7.25 is made for the remaining fifteen catchments, and the findings from it
can be described in the following manner:
The points of the plot are scattered;
Although the best-fit straight line indicates a positive slope, the gradient of the
equation in Figure 7.25 is almost zero; and
It has been noticed from the results of the two tailed t-test shown in Table 7.25
As in Section 7.11, it is clear that the lag parameter (C) does not vary considerably as
the elevation of centroid of the catchment (ElCentroid) varies, according to the findings
described above.
359
3.0
Cooran
Gympie
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
Gleneagle
2.0
Moy Pocket
Kandanga
Powerline
1.5
Zattas
Bellbird
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Reeves
Silver Valley
Central Mill
y = -0.000081x + 1.4377
Nerada
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.13
tCal = -0.12
0.0
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
Elevation at Centroid of Catchment (ELCentroid) - m
Figure 7.24 C versus (ELCentroid) of all seventeen catchments
Table 7.24 t-test calculations for C versus (ELCentroid) of all seventeen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Elevation at
Centroid of
Catchment
(ELCentroid)
(m)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
X2
Y2
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
1.43
Gympie
78
2.55
6084.00
6.5025
198.9
Moy Pocket
100
1.63
10000.00
2.6569
163
1.43
Bellbird
140
1.16
19600.00
1.3456
162.4
1.43
Cooran
118
2.92
13924.00
8.5264
344.56
1.43
Kandanga
160
1.51
25600.00
2.2801
241.6
1.42
1.43
Powerline
80
1.56
6400.00
2.4336
124.8
Mt. Piccaninny
150
1.08
22500.00
1.1664
162
1.43
Silver Valley
838
1.56
702244.00
2.4336
1307.28
1.37
1.39
Gleneagle
630
2.03
396900.00
4.1209
1278.9
10
Nash's Crossing
550
1.08
302500.00
1.1664
594
1.39
11
Zattas
440
1.21
193600.00
1.4641
532.4
1.40
12
Reeves
115
0.82
13225.00
0.6724
94.3
1.43
13
Mt.Dangar
130
0.72
16900.00
0.5184
93.6
1.43
14
Ida Creek
150
0.75
22500.00
0.5625
112.5
1.43
15
Tung Oil
300
0.93
90000.00
0.8649
279
1.41
16
Nerada
440
1.14
193600.00
1.2996
501.6
1.40
17
Central Mill
500
1.39
250000.00
1.9321
695
Total
4919.00
24.04
2285577.00
39.9464
6885.840
1.40
24.04
1.437676871
r =
0.000960525
-8.14204E-05
0.629565759
-0.030992331
Estimated (t) =
-0.120
360
3.0
Lag Parameter (C)
2.5
Gleneagle
2.0
Moy Pocket
1.5
Silver Valley
Central Mill
Kandanga
Powerline
Bellbird
y = 0.0006x + 1.0377
Zattas
Nerada
Mt.Piccaninny
1.0
Reeves
Nash's Crossing
Tung Oil
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
0.5
t0.975 = 2.16
tCal = 1.59
0.0
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
Elevation at Centroid of Catchment (ELCentroid) - m
Figure 7.25 C versus (ELCentroid) of fifteen catchments
Table 7.25 t-test calculations for C versus (ELCentroid) of fifteen catchments
No
Catchment Name
Elevation at
Centroid of
Catchment
(ELCentroid)
(m)
(X)
Lag
Parameter (C)
(Y)
XY
Calculated
Lag
Parameter (C)
Moy Pocket
100
1.63
10000.00
2.6569
163
1.10
Bellbird
140
1.16
19600.00
1.3456
162.4
1.13
Kandanga
160
1.51
25600.00
2.2801
241.6
1.14
Powerline
80
1.56
6400.00
2.4336
124.8
1.09
Mt. Piccaninny
150
1.08
22500.00
1.1664
162
1.13
Silver Valley
838
1.56
702244.00
2.4336
1307.28
1.57
Gleneagle
630
2.03
396900.00
4.1209
1278.9
1.44
Nash's Crossing
550
1.08
302500.00
1.1664
594
1.39
Zattas
440
1.21
193600.00
1.4641
532.4
1.32
10
Reeves
115
0.82
13225.00
0.6724
94.3
1.11
11
Mt.Dangar
130
0.72
16900.00
0.5184
93.6
1.12
12
Ida Creek
150
0.75
22500.00
0.5625
112.5
1.13
13
Tung Oil
300
0.93
90000.00
0.8649
279
1.23
14
Nerada
440
1.14
193600.00
1.2996
501.6
1.32
15
Central Mill
500
1.39
250000.00
1.9321
695
1.36
Total
4723.00
2265569.00
24.9175
6342.380
18.57
18.57
1.037660092
r =
0.163472003
6.36269E-04
0.352211926
0.404316712
Estimated (t) =
1.594
361
7.13
Catchments with large Lag Parameter Values
Two catchments of Mary River basin, Gympie and Cooran, have demonstrated
considerable influence on the results of this study due to their large lag parameter
values. Therefore, it is useful to examine some possible reasons as to why they produce
such large lag parameter values.
It was first decided to carry out hypothesis tests to examine the difference of the mean
lag parameters, of 8 storm events of Gympie versus the remaining 15 catchments
(excluding Cooran) and 10 storm events of Cooran versus the remaining 15 catchments
(excluding Gympie). However, the small number of lag parameter values (< 30) in both
catchments did not permit hypothesis z-tests to be carried out.
Therefore, the whole Mary River basin (with 47 lag parameter values) consisting of five
catchments, Gympie, Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Cooran, and Kandanga, versus the
remaining 12 catchments (with 207 lag parameter values) were considered for
hypothesis testing. The mean and standard deviation values of 47 and 207 respectively
are shown in Table 7.26. The testing procedure is described in the next two pages.
Table 7.26 - Statistical data of Mary River and the remaining basins selected for this
study
Mary River Basin
Remaining four River Basins

(Haughton, Herbert, Don and
Johnstone)
Number of lag parameter values = 47 (nx)
Number of lag parameter values = 207 (ny)
Mean of lag parameter values = 1.937 ( x )
Mean of lag parameter values = 1.133 ( y )
Standard deviation of lag parameter values
Standard deviation of lag parameter values
= 0.832 (Sx)
= 0.458 (Sy)
362
From the theory of statistics, the equation applicable for testing the hypothesis about the
equality of the means of two independent populations (with more than 30 values) is
given by Gosling (1995) as:
z=
x-y
2
x
s 2y
(7.4)
s
+
nx ny
By substituting the values in Table 7.26 into equation (7.4), the z statistic can be found
and is equal to:
1.937 - 1.133
(0.832)2 + (0.458)2
47
= 6.41
207
Since the z-statistic 6.41 > 1.96 (z0.95 of chart), this result indicates that the difference of
the means of the lag parameter values of Mary River basin (containing the catchments
Gympie and Cooran) and the remaining four basins (containing 12 catchments) is
significantly different from zero.
In an attempt to determine reasons for these large values a range of physical properties
of Gympie and Cooran catchments have been investigated. Some of the findings are:
Catchment Size or Catchment area (A)
While the Cooran catchment bears the smallest area (164 km2) out of all catchments,
Gympie (2920km2) is in the mid range of the rest of the fifteen catchments as shown
in Table 5.1 of Chapter 5. Therefore, the Gympie and Cooran are not greatly
different in size compared to the remaining catchments.
Equal Area Slope of Main Stream (Sc)
As shown in Table 7.3 of this chapter, out of all seventeen catchments Gympie and
Cooran have the two smallest values of Sc, 0.9(m/km) and 1.2(m/km) respectively.
The range of Sc values for the remaining catchments is between 2.0(m/km) and
8.8(m/km). These values clearly show that the Sc values of Gympie and Cooran
catchments are lower than the Sc values of the remaining fifteen catchments. Apart
from the very extreme upstream region, the Gympie catchment demonstrates a flat
363
bed slope in its main stream as shown in Figure 3.2 of Chapter 3. Although the
equal area slope of the main stream of the Cooran catchment is 1.2, which is larger
than that of Gympie, it demonstrates a fairly flat bed slope throughout the entire
length of its main stream as shown in Figure 3.5 of Chapter 3.
Catchment Shape Factor (A/L2)
The (A/L2) values of Gympie and Cooran catchments are 0.17 and 0.16 respectively
as shown in Table 7.8. The range of (A/L2) values for the remaining fifteen
catchments is between 0.06 and 0.33. Both values for Gympie and Cooran are well
within that range. Therefore, Gympie and Cooran catchments are not showing
considerable differences in their (A/L2) values compared to the remaining
catchments.
Catchment Shape (Lc/L)
The range of this ratio for fifteen catchments (excluding Gympie and Cooran) is
between 0.35 and 0.62 as shown in Table 7.12. The values of (Lc/L) of Gympie and
Cooran are 0.45 and 0.58 respectively. They are at the mid range of the values of the
remaining 15 catchments. Therefore, the values of Gympie and Cooran are not
indicating substantial difference in their shapes compared to the other fifteen
catchments.
Stream Profile
As shown in Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of Chapter 3, the three catchments of Mary
River basin, Gympie, Moy Pocket and Bellbird, demonstrate fairly similar shapes
for their stream profiles. These profiles illustrate sharp falls in the far upstream parts
of the catchments. Considerably flat slopes can be observed for Cooran, Silver
Valley and Gleneagle catchments as shown in Figures 3.5, 3.18 and 3.19. The
stream profiles for Powerline and Mount Piccaninny catchments (shown in Figures
3.15 and 3.16) illustrate reduction in levels at fairly regular intervals along the entire
length of their streams. Profiles somewhat similar to Powerline and Mount
Piccaninny can be observed from Reeves, Mount Dangar and Ida Creek catchments
(shown in figures 3.23, 3.24 and 3.25), although sharp changes can be seen at only
two positions of their profiles. The upstream part of the stream profile for Kandanga
catchment (shown in Figure 3.6) demonstrates a steep slope and the downstream
364
part with a gradually declining slope. The other remaining catchments, Nashs
Crossing, Zattas, Tung Oil, Nerada and Central Mill (shown in Figures 3.20, 3.21
and 3.27 to 3.29 of Chapter 3) are showing irregular shapes in their profiles.
Therefore, these findings have indicated that the shapes of the main stream profiles
of Gympie and Cooran have not shown noticeable differences when compared with
the remaining fifteen catchments.
Soil Type
Three different types of properties of soil (texture, percentage of silt and sand in
topsoil and subsoil layers) of five river basins (Mary, Haughton, Herbert, Don and
Johnstone) have been investigated and the findings are compiled in Chapter 3 and
Appendix A of the CD. The information provided by the Australian Natural Land
and Water Resources audit, is used to carry out this investigation. A summary of the
findings is shown in Table 7.27.
The majority of the Mary River basin is covered with clay and clay loam, in its
topsoil layer. Similar soil texture in topsoil has been demonstrated by the four
remaining basins although, some parts of the three basins, Haughton, Herbert and
Don, have shown sandy patches.
The majority of the subsoil layers of the Mary and Haughton River basins are
covered with light clay loam and loam. Almost all parts of the subsoil layers of the
remaining three basins consist of sandy loam, apart from the extreme upstream part
of the Johnstone basin, which is covered with loam.
The percentage of silt in the topsoil of all five basins is similar to each other, and
that is between 0 and 40%. The percentage of silt in the subsoil layer in most parts
of all five basins is between 0 and 20%.
The percentage of sand in the topsoil varies from 20 to 60% in all five basins apart
from some small parts of Haughton and Johnstone River basins. The percentage of
sand in most parts of the subsoil layers of Mary and Haughton River basins varies
from 20 to 60%. This variation in the percentage of sand in the remaining three
basins is 0 to 20% in some parts and 20 to 40% in the other.
365
The studies relating to soil properties of five basins (shown in Table 7.27) have revealed
that the Mary River basin (containing Gympie and Cooran catchments) has not shown a
considerable difference in its soil properties compared with the other four remaining
basins.
Therefore, according to the findings of Section 7.13, it is not possible to indicate with
confidence that the physical properties investigated in this section, other than the equal
area slope, may have contributed to large lag parameter values for Gympie and Cooran
catchments.
Table 7.27 Summary of Soil properties of five Major basins
Basin
Topsoil
Soil Texture
Subsoil
Subsoil
Percentage of Silt in Soil

Topsoil
Subsoil
Percentage of Sand in Soil

Topsoil
Very small areas near the

Northern boundary of the
basin have 20 to 40%. The
remainder of the basin has
0 to 20%.
Although sand and sandy

Although the data is not
Although the data is not
The majority of the basin is loam patches are found in The majority of the basin has
Nearly 40% of the basin has
available for some parts of the
available for about 30% of the
20 to 60%. The remainder has
Mary River covered with clay and clay some parts of the basin, most 20 to 40%.The remainder has
basin, the majority of the
basin, the other 60% has
loam.
of the basin is covered with 0 to 20%
0 to 20%
basin has 0 to 20%.
20 to 60%.
light clay loam and loam.
Although a small portion near
Although sand patches are
The majority of the area has
the Southern boundary of the
found in some parts of the
0 to 20%.The areas close to
basin is covered with sand,
Haughton River basin, all the other parts of the
the Northern and South
the remaining parts are
basin are covered with light
Eastern boundaries of the
covered with light clay loam
clay loam and loam.
basin have 20 to 40%.
and loam.
Most of the downstream

Although the extreme
middle area of the basin has The majority of the basin has upstream part of the basin has
20 to 40%. All the other areas 20 to 60%.
20 to 40%, the majority of the
have 0 to 20%.
basin has 0 to 20%.
At some areas near the

Very small parts of the basin
Northern and Southern
upstream have 20 to 60%.
boundaries of the basin have
The remainder has
0 to 20%. Other parts have
0 to 20%.
20 to 60%.
Although the Western part of

Some loam patches are
the basin is covered with
Although some parts of the
present in the upstream part
sandy loam and sand, the
Western region of the basin
of the basin.The remaining
Herbert River
remainder of the basin is
have 20 to 40%, the majority
parts of the basin are covered
covered with clay loam and
of the basin has 0 to 20%.
in sandy loam.
loam.
The entire basin is covered The entire basin is covered

with light clay loam and loam, with sandy loam, apart from The middle part of the basin
Some parts near the middle of The middle part of the basin
The entire basin has 0 to
Don River apart from an area near the an area near the upstream of has 20 to 40%. The remainder
the basin have 20 to 60%. has 20 to 40%. The remainder
20%.
upstream of the mainstream, the mainstream, which is has 0 to 20%.
Other parts have 20 to 40% has 0 to 20%.
which is covered with sand. covered with sand.
Although some parts close to
Although some parts close to
The extreme upstream part of
Nearly half of the basin has the Northern and Southern Some parts of the basin the Northern and Southern
The entire basin is covered the basin is covered with loam
0 to 20% and the other half boundaries of the basin have upstream have 20 to 40%. boundaries of the basin have
Johnstone River
with clay and clay loam. and the remainder is covered
has 20 to 40%.
20 to 40%, the majority of the The remainder has 0 to 20%. 0 to 20%, majority of the basin
with sandy loam.
basin has 0 to 20%.
has 20 to 40%.
366
367
7.14 Summary of the Findings of Chapter 7
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the relationship between lag parameter (C)
and the geomorphological and climatological characteristics of catchments. The details
of physical characteristics and the mean values of lag parameters for each catchment are
summarised in Table 7.28 at the end of this chapter.
The catchment area (A) is often adopted as the first major element of the lag time
formula (as shown in equation 7.3) of WBNM, as well as in other hydrological models
developed by the majority of researchers described in Chapter 2 and indicated in Table
2.1. Therefore, the catchment area has been selected as the first physical characteristic
to examine its relationship with lag parameter (in all seventeen catchments) in this
study.
In addition to the catchment area (A), the relationship between lag parameter and the
following ten physical (geomorphological) and climatological characteristics have also
been investigated individually in this study as explained in the previous sections:
Equal Area Slope of Main Stream of Catchment (Sc);
Length of Main Stream of Catchment (L);
Ratio of Catchment Area and the Second Power of Length of Main Stream (A/L2);
Main Stream Length to the Centroid from Catchments Outlet (Lc);
Ratio of Main Stream Length to Centroid and Main Stream Length (Lc/L);
Number of Rain Days per Year (No.RD/Year);
Mean Annual Rainfall (ARMean);
2Year-72Hour Rainfall Intensity Pattern of AR&R (2I72);
Mean Elevation of Catchment (ElMean);
Elevation of the Centroid of Catchment (ElCentroid); and
Many of these physical characteristics have been used by various researchers in their lag
time equations as described in Chapter 2, for example Sc, L and Lc. Therefore, the
effectiveness of such relationships has been assessed with all seventeen catchments in
this study. Some items in the above list are directly related to the catchment physical
characteristics, whereas the others (climatic) are indirectly related to them.
368
The results of the lag parameter versus equal area slope have shown that C decreases as
Sc increases. However, this result is dependent on the two catchments, Gympie and
Cooran, which have larger C values. A range of physical properties of these two
catchments were investigated to find out the reasons for high lag parameter values and
the findings are described in Section 7.13 of this chapter. However, apart from slope,
the findings of this investigation do not indicate any reasons for these two catchments to
have large lag parameter values.
Although the t-test showed that the effect of slope (Sc) is significant (Figure 7.3), the
calculated t static (-2.36) only just exceeds the tabulated value (-2.13). Additionally,
there is considerable scatter in the plot, with the r2 value (Table 7.3) being as low as
0.27. Therefore, there is no really strong evidence to indicate that slope has a strong
effect on the lag parameter.
The values of all seventeen catchments have shown that there is no real trend for the lag
parameter to vary with the catchment area. Furthermore, the similarities of plots of lag
parameter versus catchment area (A) and L as well as Lc have highlighted that both L
and Lc are well represented by the catchment area. The relationships developed by Gray
(L = 1.31 A0.57 and Lc = 0.71 A0.55 as described in Chapter 2) illustrate the strong
correlation between L, Lc and A.
A slight trend with A/L2 and Lc/L can be observed from the plots, but no significant
variations are there to accept that trend.
The plots of lag parameter versus No.RD/year, ARMean and 2I72 have shown some
similarities. The general trend of larger travel time and higher lag parameters, for high
rainfall areas with more vegetation growth and possibly lower flow velocities, are not
shown from these plots. Moreover, sometimes increasing and sometimes deceasing lag
parameters have been found from the plots.
Although plots of ELMean and ELCentroid have shown similarities, the gradients of their
best-fit straight lines are inconsistent (negative in some plots and positive in others).
Therefore, this inconsistency is not supporting a real trend between the elevations and
the lag parameter.
369
Therefore, there is no adequate amount of evidence to introduce any other physical

characteristics into the lag time equation of WBNM other than catchment area (A) and
the main channel discharge (Q), according to the results found from the investigations
carried out in relation to lag parameter and the geomorphological and climatological
characteristics discussed in this chapter. The results further illustrate that WBNM is
modelling the behaviour of natural catchments satisfactorily.
Table 7.28 Physical characteristics and details of all seventeen catchments
10
11
12
13
14
15
370
13
12
11
10
Ida Creek
Mt.Dangar
Reeves
Silver Valley
Gleneagle
Nash's Crossing
Zattas
Mt. Piccaninny
Powerline
Kandanga
Cooran
Bellbird
Moy Pocket
Gympie
34
20
10
20
17
17
16
12
10
10
10
NS
1.14
0.93
0.75
0.72
0.82
1.56
2.03
1.08
1.21
1.08
1.56
1.51
2.92
1.16
1.63
2.55
CMean
38976
80792
92936
62008
80784
101032
58624
537016
684152
729200
113893
173456
17568
16432
47920
83023
292020
8.8
8.7
7.6
4.3
3.5
3.3
5.8
2.0
4.3
4.0
3.8
2.5
5.1
1.2
4.8
2.2
0.9
SC
78.20
73.20
85.80
46.30
55.60
66.70
55.80
127.90
214.40
225.90
68.10
94.50
52.45
31.60
46.35
69.05
131.10
0.06
0.15
0.13
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.19
0.33
0.15
0.14
0.25
0.19
0.06
0.16
0.22
0.17
0.17
A/L2
37.1
33.8
44.5
21.3
24.8
31.8
22.7
65.7
133.1
139.5
27.4
43.7
21.7
18.4
16.2
37.4
59.5
LC
0.474
0.462
0.519
0.460
0.446
0.477
0.407
0.514
0.621
0.618
0.402
0.462
0.414
0.582
0.350
0.542
0.454
LC/L
183
209
183
68
68
43
65
70
114
114
76
62
100
129
116
118
117
RD/Year
3325.9
4517.8
3325.9
862.4
862.4
812.4
875.1
823.3
1841.8
1841.8
877.2
1172.8
1185.8
1353.5
1240.3
1359.3
1132.4
ARMean
6.55
7.50
6.70
3.45
3.38
3.00
2.45
2.30
4.25
4.55
2.88
3.38
2.70
3.38
3.00
3.00
2.88
I72
475
400
390
318
310
295
820
778
520
512
345
329
383
105
350
340
325
ELMean
500
440
300
150
130
115
838
630
550
440
150
80
160
118
140
100
78
ELCentroid
2Yr 72hr
Mean Elevation at
Rainfall
Elevation of Centroid of
Intensity
Catchment Catchment
AR&R
(m)
(m)
(mm/hr)
14
Tung Oil
24
1.39
Ratio of
Length to Number of Mean Annual
Centroid and Rain days per Rainfall
Length of year
(mm)
Main Stream
15
Nerada
21
Ratio of
Equal Area
Length to
Length of Catchment
Slope of Main
Centroid of
Main Stream Area and 2nd
Stream of
Catchment
of Catchment power of
Catchment
from Outlet
(km) Length of
(m/km)
(km)
Main Stream
16
Central Mill
24.04
Number of
Storms
Catchment
Average of
Area
Selected for
Lag Parameter
No. Catchment Name Each
(ha)
Catchment
17
254
1.41
Total Number of Storms =
Average of all lag parameters =
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
371
8.
CONCLUSION
The objective of this study has been to investigate whether the lag parameter of runoff
routing models is affected by the hydrological, geomorphological and climatological
characteristics of natural catchments. The lag parameter is generally incorporated into
the lag time equations adopted in computer models. For example RORB and WBNM
models use equations 1.1 and 1.2 respectively. Selection of the lag parameter enables
the prediction of catchment lag time, which is an indicator of flow travel time of rural
catchments. This then allows prediction of flood hydrographs from storm rainfall, using
runoff routing models. This valuable information can be used for emergency services as
well as design of hydraulic structures such as dams, culverts and bridges. Thus the
prediction of floods by means of computer models would be much improved if default
lag parameter values can be designated for each catchment or for a particular region.
The extensive literature review described in Chapter 2, has demonstrated that the lag
time is directly proportional to the catchment size (A) and inversely proportional to the
peak flow (Qp) of the main stream, according to most of the lag time equations
developed by various researchers. Some of the other characteristics highlighted in their
equations are slope of main stream (Sc), length of main stream (L), main stream length
from outlet to the centroid (Lc) and rainfall intensity (I) of catchments.
While catchment area A and flow peak Qp appear in many of the published lag relations,
the other catchment and storm characteristics are generally less significant.
It is advantageous therefore, to use a runoff routing model which has a minimum
number of catchment characteristics with a relatively simple relation. In view of the
foregoing reasons, the Watershed Bounded Network Model (WBNM) was selected due
to its inherent capabilities, outlined in the latter part of section 2.8 of Chapter 2, to
estimate lag parameter values of seventeen gauged catchments for 254 storm events.
WBNM was calibrated using recorded rainfall and stream flow data, and the accuracy of
the results was then assessed, as explained in the next paragraph.
372
As described in Chapter 5, all seventeen catchments were delineated on topographical

maps. Thereafter these catchments were divided into a number of subcatchments
according to their size. The areas and coordinates of centroids of these subcatchments,
as well as rainfall stations assigned for each catchment were inserted into the data file of
the program. The constant-slope method was adopted to separate the baseflow to obtain
surface runoff hydrographs from recorded total hydrographs, and that surface runoff
flow data was also included in the data file of the program. Following this, several
simulations using WBNM were carried out for each storm event by adjusting the
continuing loss rate and lag parameter values until the computer generated hydrograph
matched the recorded surface runoff hydrograph.
The lag parameters of all storm events were compared with hydrological characteristics
(listed in section 6.13 of Chapter 6), geomorphological and climatological
characteristics (listed in section 7.14 of Chapter 7) of all seventeen catchments. In this
comparison the validity of the lag time equation of WBNM (equation 1.2) was assessed
by examining the plots of lag parameter versus peak discharge of total runoff (Qp), peak
discharge of surface runoff (Qs) and catchment size (A). This examination included
statistical t-test analyses to ascertain whether the relationships were statistically
significant or not.
The plots of lag parameter versus catchment area and peak flow were examined using
statistical t-test of the gradients of best-fit straight lines. The results of these
investigations revealed that there is no significant variation of lag parameter with
catchment area A or peak flow Q. This indicates that the lag relation built into WBNM
(equation 1.2) properly accounts for these variables.
Of the other hydrological variables tested, only two, the total rainfall depth in the storm
and the depth of surface runoff, showed a significant variation of C. All the other
hydrological variables were found to be not significant.
The plots in sections 6.5 and 6.6 do show that the lag parameter is higher for storms
with large rainfall depths. This could indicate that the lag parameter depends on the size
of the storm. However, this result is not supported by plots of C versus peak discharge
Qp (section 6.3) and Qs (section 6.4), which show no relation between C and the size of
373
the flood. Therefore, this contradiction in the results indicates that there is no strong
evidence for any trend for the lag parameter to vary with either size of storm or its
runoff.
The geomorphological and climatological characteristics listed in section 7.14 of
Chapter 7 represent the equal area slope of main stream, length of mainstream,
broadness or narrowness, length of main stream from the outlet to the centroid,
distribution of area either towards the headwater or outlet, degree of wetness of subsoil
during the year, distribution of rainfall over the year, intensity-frequency-distribution of
rainfall, mean sea level of topography and the elevation at the centroid of catchments.
The plots of lag parameter (C) versus length of main stream (L) as well as the length of
main stream from outlet to centroid (Lca) of seventeen catchments have demonstrated
results similar to the plots of lag parameter (C) versus catchment area (A). That is,
parameter C does not vary with these variables. This can be expected since the stream
lengths are strongly related to catchment area (Gray, 1961).
Although the equal area slope (Sc) has demonstrated some effect on the lag parameter,
that trend is mainly due to two catchments (Gympie and Cooran) which have larger lag
parameters and flatter slopes. However, a similar trend has not been observed from the
results of the remaining fifteen catchments with moderate lag parameter values.
Moreover, fairly low correlation between C and Sc (r2 = 0.27) is found from the results
in Table 7.3, and also this relationship is only just significant according to the calculated
t static and the tabulated values shown in Figure 7.3.
The other geomorphological and climatological characteristics selected for this research
(L, Lca, A/L2, Lca/L, No.RD/year, ARmean, 2I72, ElMean and ElCentroid) have shown no
meaningful relationships, indicating that those do not have a strong effect on the value
of C.
All the findings of this study have clearly demonstrated that there is no strong evidence
to include characteristics other than catchment area and stream discharge into the lag
time equation of WBNM. Therefore, WBNM has been found to model the behaviour of
natural catchments effectively and efficiently. The mean lag parameter value found for
374
Queensland catchments from this study is near to 1.40, somewhat less than the default
value of 1.70 suggested in the model for New South Wales.
Although this study has shown that the lag parameter C is generally independent of the
hydrological, geomorphological and climatological variables of catchments, some
variables such as total rainfall depth (DT), surface runoff depth (DSRO), slope (Sc), length
of main stream (L) and ratio of main stream length to centroid and main stream length
(Lc/L) and the mean elevation (ElMean) have been shown, in some instances, to be
weakly related to lag parameter C. Therefore, further research on those variables may be
worthwhile to determine whether such relations actually do exist.
REFERENCES
375
REFERENCES
1. Alexander, G.N. (1972) Effect of Catchment Area on Flood Magnitude. Jour.
Hydrol., Vol. 16, pp.225-239.
2. Amorocho, J. (1961) Predicting Storm Runoff on Small Experimental Watershed.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proc. ASCE., Vol. 87, No.HY2, pp.185-191.
3. Askew, A.J. (1970) Derivation of Formulae for Variable Lag Time. Jour. Hydrol.,
Vol. 10, pp.225-242.
4. Askew, A.J. (1970) Variation in Lag Time for Natural Catchments. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proc. ASCE., Vol. 96, No.HY2, pp.317-329.
5. Bates, B.C. and Pilgrim, D.H. (1982) Investigation of Storage-Discharge Relations
for River Reaches and Runoff Routing Models. Hydrology and Water Resources
Symposium, Melbourne. I.E. Aust. National Conference, Publ.82/3, pp. 120-126.
6. Bates, B.C, and Pilgrim, D.H. (1983) Simple Model for Nonlinear Runoff Routing.
Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Hobart. I.E. Aust. National
Conference, Publ.83/13, pp. 141-147.
7. Bates, B.C., Summer, N.R. and Boyd, M.J. (1993) Nonlinearity of Flood Runoff:
What Can Be Gleaned From Calibrated Runoff Routing Models? Civ.
Engg.Trans.Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol. CE35, No.2, pp.151-164.
8. Baron, B.C., Pilgrim, D.H. and Cordery, I. (1980) Hydrological relationships
between small and large catchments. Dept. of Nat. Develop. and Energy, Aust.
Water Res. Council Tech. paper No.54.
9. Bell, F.C. and Kar, O.M.S. (1969) Characteristics Response Times in Design Flood
Estimation. Jour. Hydrol., Vol. 8, pp.173-196.
10. Black, R.E. and Clifford, P.J. (1977) A Runoff Prediction Method for Western
Australian Catchments Part1, Civ. Engg.Trans.Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol. CE19, No.2,
pp.196-203.
11. Black, R.E., Pivovaroff, J.M, Maguire, J.C. and MacDonald, P.M. (1986) The
Statistical Rational Method Applied to Adelaide Catchments. Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, Griffith University, Brisbane. I.E. Aust. National
12. Boughton, W.C. and Collings, A.S. (1982) Regional Variations in Flood Frequency
Characteristics in Queensland. Civ. Engg.Trans., Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol.CE24,
pp.127-134.
13. Boughton, W.C. (1986) Hydrograph Analysis as a Basis for RainfallRunoff
Modelling. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Griffith University,
Brisbane. I.E. Aust. National Conference, Publ.86/13, pp. 79-83.
376
14. Boyd, M.J. (1978) A storage routing model relating drainage basin hydrology and
geomorphology. Water Resour. Res., Vol. 14, No.5, pp.921-928.
15. Boyd, M.J. (1978a) Regional Flood Frequency Data for NSW Streams. Civ.
Eng.Trans.I.E.Aust., Vol. CE 20, No.1, pp.88-95.
16. Boyd, M.J. (1978b) A Storage Routing Model Resisting Drainage Basin Hydrology
and Geomorphology. Water Resour. Res., Vol. 14, No.5, pp.921-928.
17. Boyd, M.J., Pilgrim, D.H. and Cordery, I. (1979a) A Storage Routing Model Based
on Catchment Geomorphology. Jour. Hydrol., Vol. 42, pp.209-230.
18. Boyd, M.J. (1985) Effect of catchment sub-division on runoff routing models. Instn.
Eng. Aust., Civ. Engrs. Trans., Vol. CE 27, No.4, pp.403-410.
19. Boyd, M.J., Bates, B. C., Pilgrim, D.H. and Cordery, I. (1987a) WBNM: a general
runoff routing model. 4th National Local Govt Engg Conference. Inst Engrs Aust.,
Batl Conf. Publ. No. 87/9, pp. 137-141.
20. Boyd, M.J., Bates, B. C., Pilgrim, D.H. and Cordery, I. (1987b) WBNM: a general
runoff routing model Programs and user manual. Univ. of New South Wales.
Water Res. Lab. Report No. 170.
21. Boyd, M.J. and Bufill, M.C., (1989) Determining runoff routing model parameters
without rainfall data. Jour. Hydrol., Vol. 108, pp.281-294.
22. Boyd, M.J., Rigby, E.H. and Van Drie, R. (1996) WBNM a comprehensive flood
model for natural and urban catchments. 7th International Conference on Urban
Storm Drainage, Hannover Germany, pp.329-334.
23. Boyd, M.J., Rigby, T, Drie, R.V. and Schymitzek, I. (2002) Mathematics Models of
Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications, Ch.8, Water Resources Publications,
LLC, ISBN1887201351.
24. Chapman, T.G. (1993) Nonlinearity of Flood Runoff: What Can Be Gleaned From
Calibrated Runoff Models? Aust., Civ. Engg. Trans., Vol. CE35, No.2, pp.151-164.
25. Chow, V.T. (1959) Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
26. Chowdhury, M.S.K. and Bell, F.C. (1980) New Routing Model for continuous
runoff Simulation, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE., Vol. 106, No.HY4,
pp.489-500.
27. Clark, C.O. (1945) Storage and the unit hydrograph. Proc. Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
Vol. 69, pp.1333-1360.
28. Cordery, I. (1968) Synthetic unit graphs for Small Catchments in Eastern New
South Wales. Civ. Engg.Trans., Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol. CE 10, pp.47-57.
377
29. Cordery, I. and Webb, S.N. (1974) Flood Estimating in Eastern NSW A Design
Method. Civ. Eng.Trans.I.E.Aust., Vol. CE16, No.1, pp.87-93.
30. Cordery, I., Pilgrim, D.H. and Baron, B.C. (1981) Validity of use of small
catchment research results for large basins. Civil Eng. Trans., Inst Engrs Aust., Vol.
CE23, No.2, pp.131-137.
31. Dyer, B.G., Nathan, R.J., McMahon, T.A. and ONeil, I.C. (1993) A Cautionary
Note on the Modelling of Baseflow in RORB. Civ. Engg.Trans., Vol. CE35, No.4,
pp.337-340.
32. Dyer, B.G., Nathan, R.J., McMahon, T.A. and ONeil, I.C. (1995) Prediction
Equations for RORB Parameter kc Based on Catchment Charateristics. Australian
Journal of Water Resources., Vol. 1, No.1, pp29-38.
33. French, R., Pilgrim, D.H. and Laurenson, E.M. (1974). Experimental examination of
the Rational Method for small rural catchments. Civ. Eng. Trans. Inst. Engrs. Aust.,
Vol. CE16, No.2, 95-102.
34. Flavell, D.J. (1983) The Rational Method applied to small rural catchments in the
South West of Western Australia. Civ. Engg. Trans., Inst. Engrs. Aust., Vol. CE25,
pp. 121-127.
35. Flavell, D.J., Belstead, B.S, Chivers, B. and Walker, M.C. (1983) Runoff Routing
Model Parameters for Catchments in Western Australia. Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, Hobart, IE Aust. National Conference, Publ.83/13, pp. 2227.
36. Gray, D. M.. (1961) Interrelationships of watershed characteristics. Jour. Geophys.
Res., Vol. 66, pp.1215-1223.
37. Gray, D.M. (1961) Synthetic unit Hydrographs for Small Watersheds. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Proc. ASCE., Vol. 87, No.HY4, pp.33-53.
38. Gosling, J. (1995) Introductory Statistics - A Comprehensive Self-paced Step-by
step Statistics Course for Tertiary Students, Pascal Press.
39. Hairsine, P.B., Ciesiolka, C.A.A, Marshall, J.P. and Smith, R.J. (1983) Runoff
Routing Parameter Evaluation for Small Agricultural Catchments. Hydrology and
Water Resources Symposium, Hobart. I.E. Aust. National Conference, Publ.83/13,
pp. 33-37.
40. Hansen, W.R., Reed, G.A. and Weinmann, P.E. (1986) Runoff Routing Parameters
for Victorian Catchments. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Griffith
University, Brisbane. I.E. Aust. National Conference, Publ.86/13, pp. 192-197.
41. Hawken, W.H. (1921) An Analysis of Maximum Runoff and Rainfall Intensity.
Trans. Instn Engrs Aust., Vol. 2, pp. 193-215.
378
42. Hughes, W. (1993) Travel time in mountain basins. Symposium on Engineering

Hydrology, San Francisco. ASCE Conference, Publ. Pp. 192-197.
43. Jenkins, G. A., Goonetilleke, A. and Black, R.G. (2002) Estimating Peak Runoff for
Risk-Assessment in Small Catchments. I.E.Aust. Australian Journal of Water
Resources., Vol. 5, No.2, pp.177-193.
44. Keifer, C.L. and Chu, H.H.(1957) Synthetic Storm pattern for drainage design. Jour.
Hydraulics Division, ASCE, HY4: 1332-1-25.
45. Kerby, W.S. (1959) Times of Concentration for Overland flow. Civil Engineering,
Vol. 29, No.3, p.60.
46. Klaassen, B. and Pilgrim, D.H. (1975) Hydrograph Recession Constants for New
South Wales Streams. Civ. Engg.Trans., Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol.CE17, pp.43-49.
47. Kull, D.W. and Feldman, A. D. (1998) Evolution of Clarks Unit Graph Method to
Spatially Distributed Runoff. Journal of Hydrologic Eng., Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 9-19.
48. Laurenson, E.M. and Pilgrim, D.H. (1963) Loss Rates for Australian Catchments
and their Significance. Jour. Inst. Eng. Aust., Vol. 35, No., 1-2, pp.9-24.
49. Laurenson, E.M. (1964) A catchment storage model for runoff routing. Jour.
Hydrol., Vol. 2, pp.141-163.
50. Laurenson, E.M. and Mein, R.G. (1985) RORB-Version 3 Runoff routing program
User Manual Second Edition, Revised March 1985. Dept. of Civil Eng. Monash
University.
51. Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A. and Paulhus, J.L.H. (1975) Hydrology for Engineers.
3rd Ed. New York, McGraw-Hill.
52. Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A. and Paulus, J.L.H. (1982), Applied Hydrology,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
53. McCuen, R.H. and Spiess, J. M. (1995) Assessment of Kinematic Wave Time of
Concentration. Journal of Hydraulic Eng., Proc. ASCE., Vol. 121, No.3, pp.256266.
54. McMahon, G.M. and Muller, D.K. (1983) Calibration Strategies for Non-linear
Runoff-routing Models. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Hobart. I.E.
Aust. National Conference, Publ.83/13, pp. 129-134.
55. McMahon, G.M. and Muller, D.K. (1986) The Statistical Rational Method Applied
to Adelaide Catchments. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Griffith
University, Brisbane. I.E. Aust. National Conference, Publ.86/13, pp. 186-191.
56. Mein, R.G., Laurenson, E.M. and McMahon, T.A. (1964) Simple nonlinear model
for flood estimation. Jour. Hydrol., Vol. 2, pp.141-163.
379
57. Morgan, P.E. and Johnson, S.M. (1962) Analysis of Synthetic Unit-graph Methods.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proc. ASCE., Vol. 88, No.HY5, pp.199-220.
58. Morris, W.A. (1982) Runoff Routing Model Parameter Evaluation for Ungauged
Catchments. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Melbourne. I.E. Aust.
National Conference, Publ.82/3, pp. 110-114.
59. Nash, J.E. (1958) Determining Runoff from Rainfall. Proc. I.C.E., Vol. 10, pp.163184.
60. Nash, J.E. (1960) A Unit Hydrograph Study with Particular Reference to British
Catchments. Proc. I.C.E., Vol. 17, pp.249-282.
61. Netchaef, P., Wood, B. and Franklin, R. (1985) RORB Parameters for Beat Fit
Catchments in Pilbara Region. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium,
Sydney. I.E. Aust. National Conference, Publ.85/2, pp. 53-57.
62. Overton, D.E. (1970) Route or Convolute? Water Resour. Res., Vol. 6, No.1, pp.4352.
63. Papadakis, C. N. and Kazan, M.N. (1987) Time of Concentration in Small Rural
Watersheds. Engineering Hydrology Symposium, Williamsburg, VA. ASCE
National Conference, Publ. pp. 633-638.
64. Pedersen, J.T., Peters, J.C. and Helweg, O.J. (1980) Hydrographs by Single Linear
Reservoir Model. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proc. ASCE., Vol. 106,
No.HY5, pp.837-851.
65. Pilgrim, D.H. and Cordery, I. (1975) Rainfall temporal patterns for design floods.
Jour. Hydraulics Davison, ASCE, Vol. 101, HY4: 91-95.
66. Pilgrim, D.H. (1976) Travel Times and Nonlinearity of Flood Runoff from Tracer
measurements on a Small Watershed. Water Resour. Res., Vol. 12, No.3, pp.487496.
67. Pilgrim, D.H. (1977) Isochrones of Travel Time and Distribution of Flood Storage
from a Tracer Study on a Small Watershed. Water Resour. Res., Vol. 13, No.3,
1977, pp.587-595
68. Pilgrim, D.H. (1982) Characteristics of Nonlinearity and Spatial Variations of Flood
Runoff form Two Tracing Studies. Civ. Engg.Trans., Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol.CE24,
pp.121-126.
69. Pilgrim, D.H. and McDermott, G.E. (1982) Design floods for small rural catchments
in eastern New South Wales. Civ. Engg. Trans., Inst. Engrs. Aust., Vol. CE24, pp.
226-234.
70. Ragan, R.M. and Duro. J.O (1972) Kinematic wave nomograph for times of
concentration. Proc.ASCE., Vol. 98, No.HY10, pp.1765-1771.
380
71. Rastogi, R.A. and Jones, B.A. (1971) Non-linear response of a small drainage basin
model. Jour. Hydrol., Vol. 14, pp.29-42.
72. Reed, D.W., Johnson, P. and Firth, J.M (1975) A Non-Linear Rainfall-Runoff
Model. Providing for variable lag time. Jour. Hydrol., Vol. 25, pp.295-305.
73. Rockwood, D.M. (1958) Columbia Basin Streamflow Routing by Computer. Proc.
ASCE., Vol. 84, No.WW5, paper No. 1874.
74. Ross, C.N. (1921) The calculation of flood discharges by the use of a time contour
plan. Trans. Instn. Engrs. Aust., Vol. 2, p.85.
75. Seelye, E.E.(1968) Design-Data Book for Civil Engineers. Vol.1, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, N.Y., pp. 01-18.
76. Sobinoff, P., Pola, J.P. and OLoughlin, G.G. (1983) Runoff Routing Parameters
for the Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong Region. Hydrol. and Water Resour. Symp.,
Hobart, IE Aust. Nat. Conf. Publ. 83/13, pp.22-27.
77. Sriwongsitanon, N., Cordery, I. and Ball, J.E. (1998b) Improvement of StorageDischarge relationships for River Reaches and Runoff Routing Models. Australian
Journal of Water Resources., Vol. 2, No.2, pp77-88.
78. Stewart, B.J. (1983) The Effects of Storages on Runoff Routing parameters.
Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Hobart. I.E. Aust. National
79. The Institution of Engineers, Australia Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1977), Flood
Analysis and Design, Canberra.
80. The Institution of Engineers, Australia Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1989), A
Guide to Flood Estimation, 2 Volumes, Canberra.
81. The Institution of Engineers, Australia Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1998), A
Guide to Flood Estimation, 2 Volumes, ISBN1858256886.
82. Viessman, Jr.W. (1968) Runoff Estimation for very Small Drainage Areas. Water
Resour. Res., Vol. 4, No.1, pp.87-93.
83. Weeks, W.D. and Stewart, B.J. (1978) Linear and Non-Linear Runoff Routing for
ungauged Catchments. Hydrology Symposium, Canberra, I.E. Aust., National
Conference publication No.78/9, pp. 124-128.
84. Weeks, W.D. (1986) Flood Estimation by Runoff Routing Model Applications in
Queensland. Civ. Engg. Trans. Inst. Engrs. Aust., Vol. CE28, No.2, pp.159-165.
85. Weeks, W.D. and Boughton, W.C. (1987) A Simple ARMA Hydrologic Model for
Ungauged Catchments in Queensland. Civ. Engg.Trans., Inst.Engrs.Aust.,
Vol.CE29, No.2, pp.85-94.
381
86. Weeks, W.D. (1991) Design Floods for Small Rural Catchments in Queensland.
Civ. Engg. Trans., Inst. Engrs. Aust., Vol. CE33, pp.249-260.
87. Wilson, E.M. (1969) Engineering Hydrology. 4th Ed. London, MacMillan.
88. Wong, T.H.F. and Laurenson, E.M. (1983) Wave Speed-Discharge Relations in
Natural Catchments. Water Resour. Res., Vol. 19, No.3, pp.701-706.
89. Wong, T.H.F. (1989) Nonlinearity in Catchment Flood Response. Civ. Engg.Trans.,
Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol. CE31, pp.30-37.
90. Wong, T.S.W. (1996) Time of Concentration and Peak Discharge Formulas for
Planes in Series. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Proc.A.S.C.E.,
Vol. 122, No.4, pp.256-258.
91. Wu, I.P. (1963) Design Hydrographs for Small Watersheds on Indiana.
Proc.A.S.C.E., Vol. 89, No.HY6, pp.35-66.
92. Yu, B. and Ford, B.R. (1989) Salt-Consistency in Runoff Routing Models. Civ.
Engg.Trans., Inst.Engrs.Aust., Vol. CE31, pp.47-52.
93. Yang, M.S. and Lee, K.T. (1999) The Evaluation of Time of Concentration
Equations in Taiwan. 25th Hydrology & Water Resources Symposium, Brisbane,
I.E. Aust., 2nd International Conference on Water Resources & Environment
Research, Vol. 1, pp. 483-488.
94. Zhang, S. and Cordery, I. (1999a) The Catchment Storage-discharge Relationship:
Non-Linear or Linear? Australian Journal of Water Resources., Vol. 3, No.1,
pp.155-165.
95. Zang, S. and Cordery, I. (1999b) Travel time and Storage-discharge relations for
flood estimation. 25th Hydrology & Water Resources Symposium, Brisbane, I.E.
Aust., 2nd International Conference on Water Resources & Environment Research,
Vol. 1, pp. 483-488.

Influence of Hydrological Geomorphological and Climatological

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of Hydrological Geomorphological and Climatological

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Wollongong Thesis Collections

University of Wollongong Thesis Collection

Bodhinayake, Nanayakkara Dayananda, Influence of hydrological, geomorphological and

INFLUENCE OF HYDROLOGICAL, GEOMORPHOLOGICAL AND

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE

SCHOOL OF CIVIL, MINING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON RELATIONS BETWEEN LAG TIME AND

2.3 Tangent Method

2.4 The Time-Area Method

2.5 The Unit Hydrograph Theory

2.6 Linear and Non-linear Models

Studies with RORB Model

Summary of Lag Relations

3.1 Gympie, Moy Pocket, Bellbird, Cooran and Kandanga catchments

3.3 Zattas, Nashs Crossing, Gleneagle and Silver Valley catchments of

4. SELECTION OF AVAILABLE RAINFALL AND STREAM FLOW DATA

4.2 Rainfall data of Mary River Basin

Spatial variation of Rainfall

4.3 Rainfall data of Haughton River Basin

Spatial variation of Rainfall

4.4 Rainfall data of Herbert River Basin

Spatial variation of Rainfall

4.5 Rainfall data of Don River Basin

Spatial variation of Rainfall

4.6 Rainfall data of Johnstone River Basin

4.6.1 Temporal Patterns of Rainfall

Spatial variation of Rainfall

STREAMFLOW DATA OF MARY RIVER BASIN

4.8 STREAMFLOW DATA OF HAUGHTON RIVER BASIN

4.9 STREAMFLOW DATA OF HERBERT RIVER BASIN

4.10 STREAMFLOW DATA OF DON RIVER BASIN

4.11 STREAMFLOW DATA OF JOHNSTONE RIVER BASIN

5.2 Mary River Basin

5.3 Haughton River Basin

5.4 Herbert River Basin

5.5 Don River Basin

5.6 North Johnstone River Basin

6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAG PARAMETER AND HYDROLOGICAL

6.1. Variation of Lag time with Discharge

6.2. Variation of Lag Parameter with Discharge

6.4. Relationship between Lag Parameter (C) and Surface Runoff

7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAG PARAMETER AND

7.13 Catchments with Large Lag Parameter Values

7.14 Summary of the findings of Chapter 7

APPENDICES - in CD attached to thesis

Hyetographs, total hydrographs, surface runoff hydrographs and computer

Mass Curve of Rainfall - Mary River (March 1997)

Mass Curve of Rainfall -Don River (January 1999)

Actual and Estimated rating curves of Don River at Reeves

Sub-areas of Mary River at Gympie

Hyetograph and hydrograph of Haughton River at Powerline (March 1997) 193

5.243 Surface runoff and computer generated hydrographs of North Johnstone

Lag time versus Discharge for different values of z

C versus QS of Herbert River at Zattas (7 values)

C versus DSRO of all 17 catchments for 254 values

C versus (AvPI) of Herbert River at Gleneagle (9 values)

C versus (DBC/DTC) of Mary River at Bellbird (10 values)

C versus A of all seventeen catchments

Summary of equations of various researchers related to lag time

Summary of Rainfall for Mary River

Details of seventeen catchments selected for the study

Summary of Storms of Haughton River at Powerline

t-test calculations of C versus Qp of Mary River at Gympie

t-test calculations for C versus A of all seventeen catchments