Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s11269-008-9388-8
M. M. Ahmad · A. R. Ghumman
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan
e-mail: mmasood567@yahoo.com
A. R. Ghumman
e-mail: abdulrazzaq@uettaxila.edu.pk
S. Ahmad (B)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, NV, USA
e-mail: sajjad.ahmad@unlv.edu
M.M. Ahmad et al.
Nomenclature
1 Introduction
The idea of Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (IUH) was first introduced by Clark
(Clark 1945). In IUH unit rainfall excess is applied uniformly to the entire catchment
momentarily. Being independent of time, a unique hydrograph is obtained for
the catchment (Noorbaksh 2005). To derive IUH, the Clark model requires two
parameters: time of concentration Tc and coefficient of storage R. The definition of
time of concentration in Clark model is somewhat different than that used elsewhere
in hydrology. Clark’s Tc is time of travel required by last drop of rainfall excess at the
hydraulically most remote point in the catchment to reach the channel network, in
Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
contrast to the outlet that is used elsewhere (Straub et al. 2000). For linear system and
purely translation flow both definitions are equivalent. The Clark model interprets
hydrologic response into two separate functions, the translation and attenuation.
The translation flow is taken care of by time area diagram where as attenuation is
produced due to channel storage (Schulz 1976).
The Clark Unit Hydrograph (CUH) is essentially a synthetic unit hydrograph
(Ponce 1989). It is very effective tool for simulating rainfall–runoff, especially in
the catchments having unusual shapes with large length to width ratios and complex
geomorphology (Sabol 1988). However, CUH could not gain much popularity due
to difficulty in estimating Clark model parameters. Various researchers have tried to
correlate Clark’s model parameters with physical characteristics of catchment and
channel system. Jawed (1973) described that R is equal to discharge at point of
inflection on observed hydrograph divided by the slope at that point. Although this
procedure is simple, it requires an observed hydrograph with well defined point of
inflection which is usually not the case. The identification of inflection point on the
recession limb of the observed hydrographs is an approximate procedure. Further
more, each hydrograph varies in shape, therefore different R values will be obtained
from different hydrographs and often the simulated hydrographs, based on average
value of storage coefficient R, do not fit well with the observed hydrographs. Sabol
(1988) presented a procedure for finding R from observed hydrograph recession
limb analysis. It, however, requires averaging of different values of R for different
rainfall–runoff events. Wilson (1990) proposed a similar method of finding R but
it again required representative flood hydrograph, whereas shape of hydrograph
almost always varies in every flood event and consequently a unique value of R
representing unique instantaneous unit hydrograph is difficult to achieve. Melching
and Marquard (1996) presented empirical equations for estimating Tc and R. These
equations require estimation of representative channel and overland slopes and are
region specific. Straub et al. (2000) presented a procedure for developing empirical
relationship for estimating R based on regional analysis for small catchments in
Illinois USA and identified limitations of using these equations to mid-sized or
large catchments with different physiographic characteristics. Kumar et al. (2004)
demonstrated that peak of geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH)
is very sensitive to dynamic velocity and length of highest order stream, which in turn
affects the estimated Clark model parameters. The method requires velocity data
that may not be available for the catchment of interest. Sahoo et al. (2006) estimated
Tc and R by equating GIUH peak to that of Clark model. This procedure results in
large diversity in Tc and R values. Also, peak of GIUH depends on representative
dynamic velocity, the estimation of which requires a parallel relationship between
observed peak discharge or intensity of rainfall excess and flow velocity.
We present a method for estimating CIUH parameters Tc and R from rainfall
and peak discharge observations. The proposed method overcomes the catchment
size limitations. A single parameter i.e., lumped storage coefficient R takes care
of the dynamics of the rainfall–runoff process and the need for velocity estimation
is eliminated. The velocity is accounted for by the time of concentration in terms
of slope variation at sub-catchment level. Time of concentration is derived from
geomorphology of the catchment, whereas storage coefficient is determined using
optimization approach. The criterion adopted in proposed method is to find ‘R’ and
‘Tc ’ which results in the best fit between peak discharges of observed and simulated
M.M. Ahmad et al.
DSRH. Design of hydraulic structures and flood protection structures need mainly
the peak flood values but the complete hydrograph is required in many cases such as
for water resources planning and reservoir operations. The method we present can
also handle cases where complete hydrograph is required.
We present four different objective functions for estimation of CIUH parameters.
The objective function based on the least sum of the square of difference between
observed and simulated hydrograph ordinates has long been applied for hydrologic
modeling, however the current study applies the least sum of squares objective
function in a novel way by relating it to slope of a linear regression best fit line
drawn between observed and simulated peak discharge values. A classical approach
is applied in a novel and simplified way to find pair of Clark’s model parameters.
Remaining paper is organized as follows. First, theoretical background on Clark’s
instantaneous unit hydrograph model, time area diagram, optimization of para-
meters, and evaluation of model performance is provided. This is followed by
description of study area. Then method is explained, and results are presented.
Finally, results are discussed and conclusions are drawn.
2 Theoretical Background
Where i index varying from 1 to N, and N is number of ordinates of the time area
diagram
RE uniformly distributed rainfall excess (ordinates of time–area diagram in units
of km2 multiplied by a constant for unit conversion)
A unit hydrograph for finite time interval T can be found by lagging IUH equal to
time T and averaging the IUH ordinates for time period T.
To apply CIUH concept it is necessary to develop time area diagram for the
catchment. The time area diagram shows the relationship between travel time of
runoff to the catchment outlet and area of the catchment contributing towards
surface runoff generation. Therefore the only independent variable in time area
diagram is the travel time, which is time of concentration of the runoff to the
Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
catchment outlet. It depends on the velocity of flow of runoff over the land surface.
The time area diagram only does not fully define the phenomena of rainfall–runoff
as runoff generated is diffused by the undulating land topology and similar other
factors. The storage coefficients R of the catchment takes care of such effects.
In order to find time of concentration and thus developing time area diagram,
travel time from the most remote point on the hydrologic boundary of each sub-basin
is required which can be found using classical Kirpich formula given as (Kirpich 1940)
(Tc ) j = 0.06628 L0.77
j S0.385
j (2)
Where (Tc ) j is time of concentration in hours for jth sub-basin, j is index varying
from 1 to M and M is number of identified sub-basins. L j is length of stream of jth
sub basin in km and S j is representative land slope of sub-basin j.
Clark model is used to simulate runoff when its various parameters are known. The
parameter optimization is the inverse of this. It consists of determining the best
values of parameters that produce results close to the observed values of discharge
hydrograph. The goal of optimization is to minimize a scalar quantity known as
objective function or error. The objective function/error may be defined in several
ways. The following four objective functions are adopted in this study.
NE Qpo Qps − Qpo Qps
Objective Function (F1 ) = 2 2 (3)
NE Qpo − Qpo
Where NE is number of calibration events, Qpo is observed peak discharge and Qps
is computed peak discharge. The desired value of objective function being the slope
of linear regression line is unity which shows all discharges equi-positioned around
the line with least distance between straight line and observed and computed values
of peak discharge.
2
Qpo − Qps
Objective Function (F2 ) = 2 (4)
Qpo
M.M. Ahmad et al.
3. Based on the method of least squares i.e. minimizing the sum of squares
of deviations between observed and computed values of runoff hydrograph.
Mathematically, this objective function is expressed as:
j=n 2
Qoj − Qcj
Objective Function (F3 ) = 2 (5)
j=1 Qoj
Where Qoj is observed value of jth ordinate of direct runoff hydrograph, Qcj is
simulated value of jth ordinate of direct runoff hydrograph. j is an index varying
from 1 to n, n being number of hydrograph ordinates of observed hydrograph.
4. This objective function defined by Lee et al. (1972) and adopted by Al-Wagdany
and Rao (1997) takes consideration of both peak discharge Q p and time to peak
T p and is defined as follows:
2
12
E
i=N
Qpo(i) − Qps(i) Tpo(i) −Tps(i) 2
Objective function (F4 ) = + (6)
i=1
Qps(i) Tps(i)
The model efficiency and peak weighted root mean square error are selected to test
the performance of the model as proposed by Nash and Sutcliffe (1970) and USACE
Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS (1998).
⎡ ⎤
Q
i=N
⎢ (Qoi − Qci ) ⎥
2
⎢ i=1 ⎥
η = ⎢1 − ⎥ × 100 (7)
⎣ Q
i=N 2 ⎦
Qoi − Q̄o
i=1
NQ
12
1 Qoi + Q̄o
Z= (Qoi − Qci )2 (8)
NQ 1 2 Q̄o
3 Study Area
Pakistan, like other developing countries, depends heavily on its water resources
both for agriculture and power. Arid/semi arid regions in the country come across
with storms only for a very short time during monsoon and winter periods. We
Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
4 Method
Detailed topographic and soil maps are not available for Kaha catchment as the area
is scarcely populated and difficult to access. However, presence of satellite imageries
of the area has made possible to map the soil cover, aspect, and topographical details.
The satellite imageries were obtained by Hanson et al. (1995) from the French-
Swedish SPOT satellite. The slope map developed by Hanson et al. (1995) at 1:
125,000 scale from the SPOT stereo 15 imageries using ORTHOMAX software
are used to estimate the average land slope. Data processing of the catchment
is done using ArcGIS. Using the Digital Elevation Model of the catchment each
stream length and area draining in respective stream is measured. A total of 326
sub-catchments are identified by delineation of the catchment as shown in Fig. 1b.
M.M. Ahmad et al.
(a)
(b)
Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
Fig. 1 a Geographic location of Kaha catchment, Pakistan. b Drainage pattern in Kaha catchment,
Pakistan
The catchment area is determined as 5598 km2 . The total length of streams is
1711 km. The drainage density (stream lengths per unit area of catchment) of the
catchment is 300 m/km2 . The length of longest stream is 171 km.
Two model equations for computation of time of concentration were applied prior
to making decision that which model will be best applicable to study catchment
and subsequent development of time area diagram. First, the flow regimes were
broken into overland, shallow concentrated, and channel flows. The kinematic wave
model was applied to overland flow. This resulted in flow velocities at the catchment
outlet not high enough to justify carrying of large sized boulder stones present at
the catchment outlet. On the other hand, Kirpich equation yielded high velocities at
catchment outlet ranging from 1.9 m/s to 2.75 m/s. This was found applicable due to
the fact that big boulders transported by the streams are present in large quantities
at the downstream of the catchment outlet. The kirpich equation has been used by
various researchers for development of time area diagram (Sahoo et al. 2006; Sarangi
et al. 2006; Kumar et al. 2002; Jain et al. 2000). We also found that Kirpich equation
was able to adequately describe the flow process in the Kaha catchment.
Time of concentration (Tc ) for each sub-catchment was computed using Eq. 2. The
Tc ’s for each sub-catchment were summed up to get total time of travel from each
sub-catchmnet to the catchment outlet. The sub-catchments were grouped for each
hour of travel times and respective sub-basin areas were summed to get isochronal
areas. Isochrones are lines delineating catchment area into sub areas so that all rain
falling instantaneously on particular sub-area has the same time of travel to the
catchment outlet. This procedure eliminated the necessity of plotting isochrones on
the plan of catchment. The developed time area diagram is shown in Fig. 2. The base
length of the time area diagram gives the time of concentration of the catchment.
A polynomial function was determined by regression that best described the time
area relationship. This function has dependent variable as isochrone area and
independent variable as time of concentration. The function was plotted for various
values of time of concentration as shown in Fig. 3. This shows how the distribution
of runoff contributing areas changes with change in time of concentration of the
catchment. It indirectly defines the translation hydrograph with choice of time of
concentration of the model. The base length of time area diagram is a single value of
time of concentration, which is subsequently unchanged in rest of the analysis.
The ordinates of the time area diagram were normalized. The area ordinates
were divided by area of the catchment and time ordinates by the maximum time
of concentration estimated. The cumulative normalized ordinates were plotted as
shown in Fig. 4. A synthetic function is defined in USACE HEC-HMS (1998) for de-
1.5
velopment of time area diagram as A Ac = 1.414 t Tc for t ≤ Tc /2 and A Ac =
1.5
1 − 1.414 1 − t Tc for t ≥ Tc /2. For comparison synthetic function derived by
USACE HEC-HMS (1998) is also shown in Fig. 4. The time area relationship of the
catchment under study lies below the synthetic HEC-HMS relation showing slower
M.M. Ahmad et al.
400
300
200
100
-
- 5 10 15 20 25
Time of Concentration (Tc ) in hours
variation in Tc 500
400
300
200
100
-
0 5 10 15 20 25
Tc (Hours)
15 16 18 19 20 23
21 17 22 24 25
Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
A/Ac
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-
- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
t/Tc
Poly. (Time Area Relation for Kaha Watershed)
Poly. (HEC-HMS Synthetic time-area relation)
of record. This data was analyzed to obtain maximum daily rainfall corresponding
to annual peak discharge. Fifteen largest flood events were selected for this study.
The total rainfall depth, obtained by isohyetal method, was converted to excess
rainfall by subtracting the losses. Three approaches of loss separation i.e. Curve
Number Approach, Percentage Runoff Approach and Constant Loss Approach were
considered (for details on these approaches see Linsley et al. 1982). It was noted that
1% error in selection of curve number could vary flood peak discharge by 10%. The
constant loss approach is less realistic as abstractions do not remain constant during
storm duration. The percentage runoff approach has certain advantage over other
methods and proved to be relatively reliable and simple to use. In this approach, the
ratio of the net rainfall to the gross rainfall is expressed as a constant and is used for
estimation of excess rainfall. Determination of excess rainfall is required to define
dynamic model inputs. The dynamic input is time-distributed excess rainfall whereas
output is direct runoff hydrograph.
Considering the four objective functions used in this study and decision tree given
by NAG (NAG 1985) a combination of second and first order gradient techniques
(Gauss Newton and modified Newton method Gill et al. 1981) were found suitable to
be used for the present study. Subroutine E04FCF from the NAG Library, based on
Downhill Simplex method (Press et al. 1986), for automatic optimization of the para-
meters of the Clark model was selected. This method is suitable for multidimensional
minimization and requires only function evaluation not derivatives. In this method
search is terminated when the error between the observed and simulated values of
runoff is minimized. Different steps involved in estimating R are shown in a flow
chart in Fig. 5.
Model was calibrated using 10 randomly selected flood events (E1–E10) and vali-
dated on remaining five independent flood events (E11–E15). A sensitivity analysis
was performed to evaluate the impact of selection of objective functions on value
M.M. Ahmad et al.
The objective function F1 plotted against Tc and R is shown in Fig. 6. The X-axis
intersects the Y-axis (objective function) at value of unity, the desired value of
objective function. The objective function lines intersect X-axis at Tc = 25 h and
R = 24 h, respectively. The slope of F1 line shows that it converges rapidly for
same range of R values as compared to Tc values, indicating that F1 and therefore
DSRH is more sensitive to R than Tc . The objective functions F1, F3, and F4 for
Tc of 25 h are plotted against R in Fig. 7. A unique value of R corresponding to
minimum value of each objective function can be determined from Fig. 7. The values
of R corresponding to four different objective functions are shown in Table 1. The
suitability of a particular objective function depends upon type of application and
data availability. If estimates are required for design of hydraulic structures and flood
Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
1.05
Objective Function
1.00
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
0.95
0.90
Tc & R (Hours)
F1 vs Tc F1 vs R
protection schemes then objective function based on peak flood values (F1, F2, and
F4) will be suitable. In case of water resources planning and reservoir operations the
information on entire hydrograph is required so the objective function based on the
entire hydrograph (F3) should be selected.
The objective function F1 gives R value of 24 h (column 2 in Table 1), whereas the
event based objective function F2 gives different values of R as shown in column
3 of Table 1. These values of R vary by −11% to +10% from those computed
using objective function F1. The objective function F3 gives average R value of
19.81 h (column 4 of Table 1). This value differs by 17% from R value obtained
from objective function F1. The objective function F4 yielded R of 23.24 h being 3%
less than the value of R obtained using objective function F1.
0.6
0.4
0.2
-
15 20 25 30
R (Hours)
F4 F3 F1
M.M. Ahmad et al.
Table 1 Value of R (storage coefficient) obtained from four different objective functions
Event Storage coefficient
number Based on minimizing Based on minimizing Based on
difference between sum of square errors minimizing ERR
observed and simulated between observed (Lee et al. 1972)
peak discharges and simulated
DSRH ordinates
All events FI Single event based F2 Single event based F3 All events F4
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
1 24.00 21.68 19.53 23.24
2 22.14 18.57
3 21.74 18.63
4 25.04 20.70
5 23.23 19.98
6 26.55 20.29
7 23.87 21.64
8 20.83 18.78
9 24.30 21.03
10 21.28 18.91
Mean value 23.07 19.81
9 97 7 0 0 5 98 7 −3 0 5 98 7 −13 0 5 98 7 −3 0 5
10 97 −3 7 0 6 97 −3 5 0 6 98 −3 −4 0 5 97 −3 5 0 6
11 Validation 96 5 2 0 5 97 5 −1 0 5 98 5 −10 0 5 97 5 0 0 5
12 97 5 2 0 5 97 5 −1 0 5 98 5 −11 0 5 97 5 −1 0 5
13 96 8 −1 0 5 97 8 −4 0 5 97 8 −14 0 6 97 8 −4 0 5
14 97 13 −6 0 5 97 13 −9 0 5 97 13 −19 0 6 97 13 −9 0 5
15 97 8 1 0 5 98 8 −2 0 5 98 8 −12 0 5 98 8 −2 0 5
M.M. Ahmad et al.
1000
2000
800
Flow (m3/s)
Flow (m3/s)
1500
600
400 1000
200 500
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hour) Time (hour)
Event 1 (Observed) Event 1 (Computed) Event 3 (Observed) Event 3 (Computed)
Event 4 (Observed) Event 4 (Computed) Event 8 (Observed) Event 8 (Computed)
Event 9 (Observed) Event 9 (Computed)
(a) (b)
3500
3000 3000
2500 2500
Flow (m3/s)
Flow (m3/s)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hour) Time (hour)
Event 5 (Observed) Event 5 (Computed) Event 2 (Observed) Event 2 (Computed)
Event 7 (Observed) Event 7 (Computed) Event 6 (Observed) Event 6 (Computed)
Event 10 (Observed) Event 10 (Computed)
(c) (d)
Fig. 8 a to d Observed vs computed DSRH for calibration (events E1 to E10). a Computed vs
observed DSRH for event 1 and 4. b Computed vs observed DSRH for events 3, 8 and 9. c Computed
vs observed DSRH for events 5, 7 and 10. d Computed vs observed DSRH for events 2 and 6
Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
of the catchment inherited in Clark’s model. The recession limb has more time base
as actually observed in hill torrents. The recession limb might have better fit for
catchments having perennial flows at the outlet. Since Clark’s model is event based
and base flow contribution is not accounted for in R, the recession limb is under
estimated.
The optimum pair of Clark IUH Model parameters (Tc , R) determined as (25, 24)
in units of hours were used to compute, DSRH for validation (events 11 to 15).
Instantaneous unit hydrograph was derived by Clark’s method and convolution of
the same was done with excess rain hyetograph to get the direct surface runoff
hydrograph (DSRH). The resultant DSRH is plotted (events E11 to E15) as shown
in Fig. 9a–c. The events with lowest peak were plotted separately (Fig. 9a, c) whereas
moderate events were grouped together as shown by Fig. 9b. The performance of
model during validation was comparable to that during calibration. Figure 9a–c show
that the peak discharge, time to peak and time base of the observed and computed
hydrographs match well, however the falling limb of hydrograph is under estimated.
There is 13% error in runoff volume computed from DSRH developed from Clark
IUH model (Table 2). As rainfall–runoff is a complex process and single pair of
2000
1500 2000
Flow (m3/s)
Flow (m3/s)
1000 1500
1000
500
500
0 0
0 10 2030 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hour) Time (hour)
Event 12 (Observed) Event 12 (Computed) Event 11 (Observed) Event 11 (Computed)
Event 13 (Observed) Event 13 (Computed)
Event 14 (Observed) Event 14 (Computed)
(a) (b)
1400
1200
1000
Flow (m3/s)
800
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hour)
Event 15 (Observed) Event 15(Computed)
(c)
Fig. 9 a to c Observed vs computed DSRH for validation (events E11 to E15). a Computed vs
observed DSRH for event 12. b Computed vs observed DSRH for event 11, 13 and 14. c Computed
vs observed DSRH for event 15
M.M. Ahmad et al.
(Tc , R) does not fully define complex geophysical characteristics of the catchment,
certain deviations are always there. For solution to practical problems the model has
produced reasonable results.
6 Conclusions
• It is not always necessary to develop regional equations for estimating Clark IUH
model parameters. These can be determined from rainfall–runoff observations
for a particular catchment and depend on the length of data record used for
determination of these parameters. To get stable values of R, longer rainfall–
runoff records are preferable. Value of Tc depends on the shape of the Time
Area Diagram which is developed by calculating travel time to the catchment
outlet using empirical model.
• For limited data the objective function based on peak values of discharge gives
better results as compared to the objective function based on the complete
hydrograph.
• It is found that hydrologic response of the catchment is closely related to the ratio
[R/(R + Tc )]. For large catchments, [R/(R + Tc )] ratio is around 0.5 showing
runoff diffusion and translation flow effects play equal role in slow hydrologic
response i.e., long time base of the DSRH.
• DSRH shape is more sensitive to R value than that of Tc showing that runoff
diffusion phenomenon is dominant as compared to translation flow effects when
evaluating hydrologic response of catchments of large size.
• Clark’s unit hydrograph generally under estimates recession side of hydrograph
resulting in errors in runoff volume.
• DSRH derived from Clark IUH model gives acceptable accuracy and model
parameters can be easily updated as additional rainfall–runoff data becomes
available. However, updating of the parameters is possible only for gauged
catchments.
References
Al-Wagdany AS, Rao AR (1997) Estimation of the velocity parameter of the geomorphologic in-
stantaneous unit hydrograph. J Water Resour Manage 11(1):1–16. doi:10.1023/A:1007923906214
Blueman AG (2003) Elementary statistics. Mc Graw Hill, New York
Clark CO (1945) Storage and the unit hydrograph. Trans ASCE 110:1419–1446
Gill PE, Murray W, Wright MH (1981) Practical optimization. Academic, London
Hanson G, Hashmi MA VBB VIAK, Sweeden (1995) Conservation and development of land and
water resources of upper Kaha hill torrent catchment. Report No. NES/4804
Jain SK, Singh RD, Sethi SM (2000) Design flood estimation using GIS supported GIUH approach.
Water Resour Manage 14:369–376. doi:10.1023/A:1011147623014
Jawed K (1973) Comparison of methods of deriving unit hydrographs. Colorado State University MS
Thesis
Kirpich ZP (1940) Time of concentration of small agricultural catchments. Civ Eng 10(6):362–365
Kumar R, Chaterjee C, Lohani AK, Kumar S, Singh RD (2002) Sensitivity analysis of GIUH based
Clark model for a catchment. Water Resour Manage 16:263–278. doi:10.1023/A:1021920717410
Kumar R, Chaterrjee C, Singh RD, Lohani AK, Kumar S (2004) GIUH based Clark and Nash models
for runoff estimation for an ungauged basin and their uncertainty analysis. Int J River Manage
2(4):281–290
Lee MT, Blank D, Delleur JW (1972) A program for estimating runoff from Indiana watershed, Part
II. Assembly of hydrologic and geomorphologic data for small watersheds in Indiana, Tech. Rep.
N0. 23. Purdue University Water Resources Research Center, Lafayette
Linsley RK, Kohler MA, Paulhus JLH (1982) Hydrology for engineers, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New
York
Melching CS, Marquard JS (1996) Equations for estimating synthetic unit hydrograph parameter
values for small catchments in Lake County, Illinois, USGS, Rep. 96–474, 49p
NAG (1985) NAG FORTRAN Library. Numerical Analysis Group, London
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part-I: a discussion
of principles. J Hydrol (Amst) 10(3):282–290. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
Noorbaksh ME (2005) Estimation of instantaneous unit hydrograph with Clark’s method using GIS
technique. J Appl Sci 5(3):445–458
Ponce VM (1989) Engineering hydrology principles and practices. Prin. Hall, NJ
Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1986) Minimization or maximization of
functions. Numerical Recipes, the art of scientific computing, pp 274–334
Sabol GV (1988) Clark unit hydrograph and R-parameter estimation. J Hydraulic Engg, ASCE,
114(1):103–111
Sahoo B, Chatterjee C, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R, Kumar R (2006) Flood estimation by GIUH-
based Clark and nash models. J Hydrol Eng 11(6):515–525. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699
(2006)11:6(515)
Sarangi A, Madramootoo CA, Enright P (2006) Evaluation of three unit hydrograph models to
predict the surface runoff from a Canadian watershed. Water Resour Manage 21:1127–1143.
doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9072-9
Schulz EF (1976) Problems in applied hydrology. Water Resource Publication, Fort Collins
Straub TD, Melching CS, Kocher KE (2000) Equations for estimating Clark unit hydrograph pa-
rameters for small rural catchments in Illinois, Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4184
USGS
USACE Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS (1998) Technical Reference Manual. (www.hec.
usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms)
Wilson EM (1990) Engineering Hydrol. Macmillan, London, pp 149–152
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and rea