Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of storm magnitude and watershed size on runoff nonlinearity

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The inherent nonlinear characteristics of the watershed runoff process related to storm magnitude and watershed size are discussed in detail in this study. The first type of nonlinearity is referred to rainfall-runoff dynamic process and the second type is with respect to a Power-law relation between peak discharge and upstream drainage area. The dynamic nonlinearity induced by storm magnitude was first demonstrated by inspecting rainfall-runoff records at three watersheds in Taiwan. Then the derivation of the watershed unit hydrograph (UH) using two linear hydrological models shows that the peak discharge and time to peak discharge that characterize the shape of UH vary event-to-event. Hence, the intention of deriving a unique and universal UH for all rainfall-runoff simulation cases is questionable. In contrast, the UHs by the other two adopted nonlinear hydrological models were responsive to rainfall intensity without relying on linear proportion principle, and are excellent in presenting dynamic nonlinearity. Based on the two-segment regression, the scaling nonlinearity between peak discharge and drainage area was investigated by analyzing the variation of Power-law exponent. The results demonstrate that the scaling nonlinearity is particularly significant for a watershed having larger area and subjecting to a small-size of storm. For three study watersheds, a large tributary that contributes relatively great drainage area or inflow is found to cause a transition break in scaling relationship and convert the scaling relationship from linearity to nonlinearity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander G N 1972 Effect of catchment area on flood magnitude; J. Hydrol. 16 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson M A 1962 Factors influencing the occurrence of floods in humid region of diverse terrain; US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1580-B, 64p.

  • Benson M A 1964 Factors influencing the occurrence of floods in the southwest; US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1580-B, p. 72.

  • Beven K 2001 Rainfall-runoff modelling: The primer; Wiley Chichester, pp. 46–47.

  • Blažková Š 1992 Empirical study of nonlinearity in direct runoff on a 100 km2 basin; Hydrol. Sci. J. 37 (4) 347–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S J and Singh V P 1986 Derivation of a new variable instantaneous unit hydrograph; J. Hydrol. 88 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow V T 1964 Handbook of Applied Hydrology; McGraw-Hill, New York , pp. 14–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding J Y 1974 Variable unit hydrograph; J. Hydrol. 22 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falcone J A 2011 GAGES-II: Geospatial attributes of gages for evaluating streamflow; http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/gagesII_Sept2011.xml.

  • Furey P R and Gupta V K 2005 Effects of excess rainfall on the temporal variability of observed peak-discharge power laws; Adv. Water Resour. 28 (11) 1240–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furey P R and Gupta V K 2007 Diagnosing peak-discharge Power laws observed in rainfall-runoff events in Goodwin Creek experimental watershed; Adv. Water Resour. 30 (11) 2387–2399. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.05.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich D C, Lane L J, Shillito R M and Miller S N 1997 Linearity of basin response as a function of scale in a semiarid watershed; Water Resour. Res. 33 (12) 2951–2965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray D M 1961 Interrelationships of watershed characteristics; J. Geophys. Res. 66 (4) 1215–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta V K and Dawdy D R 1995 Physical interpretations of regional variations in the scaling exponents of flood quantiles; Hydrol. Process. 9 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta V K and Waymire E. 1989 Statistical self-similarity in river networks parameterized by elevation; Water Resour. Res. 25 (3) 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta V K, Castro S L and Over T M 1996 On scaling exponents of spatial peak flows from rainfall and river network geometry; J. Hydrol. 187 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta V K, Mantilla R, Troutman B M and Dawdy D 2010 Generalizing a nonlinear geophysical flood theory to medium-size river networks; Geophys. Res. Lett. 37 L11402. doi:10.1029/2009GL041540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson F M and Wooding R A 1964 Overland flow and groundwater flow from a steady rainfall of finite duration; J. Geophys. Res. 69 (8) 1531–1540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton R E 1939 Analysis of runoff plot experiments with varying infiltration capacity; Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 20 693–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang H Q and Willgoose G 1993 Flood frequency relationships dependent on catchment area: An investigation of causal relationship; Paper presented at Towards the 21 st Century Engineering for Water Resources Conference Inst. of Eng.-Aust. Newcastle Australia.

  • Jakeman A J, Littlewood I G and Whitehead P G 1990 Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchments; J. Hydrol. 117 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jothityangkoon C and Sivapalan M 2001 Temporal scales of rainfall-runoff processes and spatial scaling of flood peak: Space-time connection through catchment water balance; Adv. Water Resour. 24 (9–10) 1015–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll C N, Rapant D F and Vogel R M 2014 Prediction of Hydrologic Statistics in Nested Watersheds across the United States; World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014: Water without Borders, pp. 2326–2335.

  • Lee K T 1998 Generating design hydrographs by DEM assisted geomorphic runoff simulation: A case study; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34 (2) 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee K T and Yen B C 1997 Geomorphology and kinematic-wave based hydrograph derivation; J. Hydrol. Eng. ASCE 123 (1) 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee K T, Chen N -C and Gartsman B I 2009 Impact of stream network structure on the transition break of peak flows; J. Hydrol. 367 283–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold L, Wolman M G and Miller J P 1964 Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology; W.H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantilla R, Gupta V K and Mesa O J 2006 Role of coupled flow dynamics and real network structures on Hortonian scaling of peak flows; J. Hydrol. 332 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mays L W and Coles S L 1980 Optimization of unit hydrograph determination; J. Hyd. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 106 (1) 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medhi H and Tripathi S 2015 On identifying relationships between the flood scaling exponent and basin attributes; Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 25 (7) 075405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menabde M, Veitzer S, Gupta V and Sivapalan M 2001 Tests of peak flow scaling in simulated self-similar river networks; Adv. Water Resour. 24 (9–10) 991–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesa O J and Gupta V K 1987 Main channel length-area relationship for channel networks; Water Resour. Res. 23 (11) 2119–2122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minshall N E 1960 Predicting storm runoff on small experimental watersheds; J. Hyd. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 127 (1) 625–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison J E and Smith J A 2001 Scaling properties of flood peaks; Extremes 4 (1) 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash J E 1957 The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph; IASH Publ. 3–4 (45) 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden F L and Dawdy D R 2003 Peak discharge scaling in small Hortonian watershed; J. Hydrol. Eng. 8 (2) 64–73. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2003)8:2(64).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paik K and Kumar P 2004 Hydraulic geometry and the nonlinearity of the network instantaneous response; Water Resour. Res. 40 W03602. doi:10.1029/2003WR002821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez J A 2000 Prediction and Modeling of Flood Hydrology and Hydraulics; In: Inland Flood Hazards: Human, Riparian and Aquatic Communities (ed.) Ellen Wohl, Cambridge University Press.

  • Robinson J S, Sivapalan M and Snell J D 1995 On the relative roles of hillslope processes, channel routing, and network geomorphology in the hydrologic response of natural catchments; Water Resour. Res. 31 (12) 3089–3101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Iturbe I and Valdes J B 1979 The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response; Water Resour. Res. 15 (6) 1409–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saco P M and Kumar P 2004 Kinematic dispersion effects of hillslope velocities; Water Resour. Res. 40 W01301. doi:10.1029/2003WR002024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman L K 1932 Stream-flow from rainfall by the unit-graph method; Eng. News Rec. 108 501–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh K P 1976 Unit hydrographs – a comparative study; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 12 (2) 381–392. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1976.tb02686.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivaplan M, Jothityangkoon C and Menabde C 2002 Linearity and nonlinearity of basin response as a function of scale: Discussion of alternative definitions; Water Resour. Res. 38(2), 10.1029/2001WR000482.

  • Strahler A N 1950 Equilibrium theory of erosional slopes approached by frequency distribution analysis; Am. J. Sci. 248 673–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szilagyi J 2007 Analysis of the nonlinearity in the hillslope runoff response to precipitation through numerical modeling; J. Hydrol. 337 391–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang C T, Gupta V K and Waymire E 1981 A geomorphologic synthesis of nonlinearity in surface runoff; Water Resour. Res. 17 (3) 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen B C and Lee K T 1997 Unit hydrograph derivation for ungaged watersheds by stream order laws; J. Hydrol. Eng. ASCE 2 (1) 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young P C 2001 Data-based mechanistic modelling and validation of rainfall-flow processes; In: Model Validation: Perspectives in Hydrological Science (eds) Anderson M G and Bates P D (Chichester: John Wiley), pp. 117–161.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C under grant 103-2811-M-019-007. Financial support provided by the National Science Council is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of River and Harbor Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan, 202, R.O.C.

    Kwan Tun Lee & Jen-Kuo Huang

  2. Taiwan Typhoon and Flood Research Institute, National Applied Research Lab., Taipei, 100, Taiwan, R.O.C.

    Kwan Tun Lee

Authors
  1. Kwan Tun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jen-Kuo Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jen-Kuo Huang.

Additional information

Corresponding editor: Shivam Tripathi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, K.T., Huang, JK. Influence of storm magnitude and watershed size on runoff nonlinearity. J Earth Syst Sci 125, 777–794 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-016-0700-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-016-0700-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation