Expériences in the development and

Application of Mathematical Models in

Hydrology and Water Resources in Latin
America (Proceedings of the Tegucigalpa
Hydromath Symposium, September 1983).
fAHSPubl.No. 152.
A REVIEW OF RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING
David R. Dawdy
Consulting Hydrologist
Visiting Professor of Civil Engineering,
The University of Mississippi
Introduction Matematical modeling of the rainfall-runoff pro_
cess has a long history. However, progress was slow prior to about
the last half century. The decade of the 1930's saw an outburst of
activity which laid the groundwork for most of the present develop-
ments. Hydrology advanced on all fronts during the 1930's. The con_
cept of physical hydrology was introduced and led to an understanding
of the physics of the hydrologie cycle. The tools developed during
the 1930's to solve practical problems were tailored to costs in
terms of time, money, and manpower, and they did not reflect the
level of understanding at that time Hydrology reached a point as a
result of the advances of the 1930's where the ability to state the
problem far exceeded the ability to solve it.
The Second World War brought a halt to the attention paid to the.
advencement of hydrology. However, the war led to the development
of digital computers. That was a tool with which to solve the pro-
blems previously unsolvable.The constraint inhydrology changed from
the inability to solve a problem to the inability to collect suffi-
cient and sufficiently accurate data to prove that a solution is co-
rrect or more nearly correct or less incorrect than other solutions.
This paper will try to trace the developments outlined above, pla_
ce them in perspective, and trace the history of how we arrived whe-
re we are today in hydrology. In addition, some suggestions will be
made about where we are, why we are there, and where we might be -
going.
The essence of hydrology is modeling. As a physical science,
hydrology is concerned with numbers quantitative numbers are desi-
red. A model is a mathematical statement of the response of a sys-
tem which takes system inputs and transforms them into system out-
puts. Even though the jargon is modern, the rational method for es-
timating peak runoff used data available in the middle of the 19th
century with a model based on physical principles time response of
the basin, rainfall intensity, and proportion of excess precipitation
were used to determine the peak rate of funoff.

Linear Systems and Mathematical Hydrology. The modern burst of

development in deterministic modeling of rainfall-runoff processes
dates from the 1930's, and the unit hydrograph concepts of Sherman
(1932). Although not stated in those terms at that time, Sherman
assumed that the runoff process was linear and time invariant, the
basic assumptions of linear systems analysis..

The essence of a system is that it interrelates two things the

inputs to and the outputs from the system. The system is a model
which determines a system function, a set of parameter values which
97
98, D. R. Dawdy

determine the response function, and a set of values for the state
variables, which in hydrology describe how wet or how dry the system
is. This model is an abstraction, a mathematical construct which,
we hope, acts somewhat similar to the way the real world does. It is
the modeler's conception of how the real world acts. The values of
the parameters of the model define a particular system. They deter-
mine how the model reacts to inputs when they are applied to a parti
cular basin. The state variables are measures on the system which
change in response to inputs.
A linear system is one which can be described by a linear
differential equation. The coefficients of the equation may be
constant, as in Darcy's law for saturated flow in porous media,
or they may be variable, as in Darcy's law for flow in unsaturated
media, or they may describe a probability density function in a
stochastic differential equation. If the coefficients are time
invariant, then superposition holds, which is the basic tool of
linear systems analysis. Superposition says that if an input is
doubled, the output also is doubled. Thus, superposition is the
property which places unit hydrograph theory in the realm of linear
systems analysis, and it is the property on which most-of linear
hydrologie modeling has been based.
Confusion introduced by models.- — A model is the choice of the
modeler. It is a conceptual abstraction. Parameters are a part of
the model, and they have no meaning outside the model. If the
modeler builds a physically based model, then the parameters are
abstractions which may approximate some physically meaningful quan-
tity. In hydrology, approximations often are quite gross. That
fact cannot be ignored by the model user. Much of the confusion in
hyldrology results from the attempt by the user to give a physical
explanation to a rule of thumb without supplying a rigorous mathema-
tical foundation.
An example in hydrology is the attempt to give physical meaning
to the time response of a basin. The concept of linear storage is
widely used and quite useful in hydrology. The assumption that
outflow from a reservoir varies linearly with storage:

S = KQ (1)

combined with an equation of continuity of mass :

I - Q = ds/dt (2)

leads to the relation:

I - Q =K dQ/dt (3)

to which the solution for no inflow is:

Qt = (^e-ft-toJ/K (4>

where Q is the outflow discharge, S is storage, I is inflow discharge,

 Review of Rainfall • Runoff Modeling. 99

t is time, t is the starting time, and K es a coefficient. K has the

dimensions of time, and it has a meaningful interpretation in terms of
its use in. the model. Time of concentration, lag time, and other such
terms lead only to confusion unless presented and interpreted in such
a mathematical framework.

Storage in not a discrete quantity in modeling a basin by use

of an instantaneous unit hydrograph (ITJH), so that the logic of
equations 1 to 4 cannot be directly interpreted in a physically
based manner. The linear storage concept in IUH modeling must account
for all the storage attenuation of the hydrograph in a basin. Thus,
the parameter K must account for dynamic storage as well as discrete
storage distributed over a basin. K has been related empirically to
size of basin, length of basin, and slope of the basin and/or the
main channel, but it has no true physical definition.
On the other hand, much of the confusion in hydraulics results
from the use of a rigorous mathematical formulation which is treated
as if it were the real world. For example, the dynamic equation
for one-dimensional, steady flow in open channels is

i I + V V + H = S 0 - Sf (5)
g t g X X

Where V = velocity With t u r b u l e n t f l u c t u a t i o n s

H = depth of w a t e r With t u r b u l e n t f l u c t u a t i o n s
S0= s l o p e of channel bottom an ' a v e r a g e ' s l o p e of a reach
Sf= f r i c t i o n slope a conceptual abstraction

The v a l u e f o r Sf i s d e r i v e d from a s o - c a l l e d ' f r i c t i o n f o r m u l a ' ,

such as Chezy, which i s ' t h e o r e t i c a l ' , or Manning, which i s ' e m p i r i -
c a l ' . The t h e o r e t i c i a n s c o n t i n u a l l y d e r i d e t h e e m p i r i c i s t s f o r using
t h e 'wrfflng' f r i c t i o n f o r m u l a / However, t h e two can be shown t o be
almost e q u i v a l e n t i f v a r i a t i o n i n r e l a t i v e roughness i s c o n s i d e r e d .
For example, i f we were t o assume t h a t we have a g r a v e l - b e d stream
w i t h a ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c g r a i n s i z e ' of 2 c e n t i m e t e r s and were t o
assume a depth of 1/2, 1, 2 , 5 , and 10 m e t e r s , t h e P r a n d t l e q u a t i o n
would give d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s f o r Chezy C as d e p t h i n c r e a s e d , because
r e l a t i v e roughness would change. On the o t h e r hand, Manning's n
would remain almost c o n s t a n t , because the v a l u e s of Manning's n
i n c l u d e changes of r e l a t i v e r o u g h n e s s . However one uses Equation 5 ,
i t e n t a i l s b l a c k magic i n t h e r e a l w o r l d , even though i t i s a
d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n . C o n s i d e r a b l e ' e n g i n e e r i n g judgment' e n t e r s
i n t o t h e choice of Sf, even w i t h the aid of t h e e x c e l l e n t work of
Barnes (1967) and o t h e r s i n t h e USGS, who have t r i e d t o r a t i o n a l i z e
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of r e s i s t a n c e to flow for use i n open channel flow
problems.

The instantaneous unit hydrograph.- With the foregoing as a

p r e l u d e , the IUH can be seen as a t o o l of l i n e a r systems analysis.
The IUH i s t h e i m p u l s e ; r e s p o n s e f u n c t i o n of a l i n e a r ,
t i m e - i n v a r i a n t s y s t e m . An i m p u l s e r e s p o n s e f u n c t i o n i s
t h e r e s p o n s e of a s y s t e m t o a u n i t o f i n p u t a p p l i e d
•\00 D.R. Dawdy

instantaneously in time a n abstract concept. Its mathematical

statement is the convolution integral
t
y(tl = J* hft-t)x(X)dt (.6)

where h(T) is the impulse response function and x(t) is the input.
Equation 11 can be used to derive Sherman's T-hour unit graph. In hy_
drology, h(t) is conventionally denoted u(o,t) for the unit hydrog-
raph of duration o, and u (T,t), then is 'the T-hour unit hydrograph,
so that.

u(.T,t) = f u(o,t-x) S(T-T)dX (71

where S (T- X) = J_ for c < T-T < T

T

= o otherwise.

Most of the theory of the instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH) is based

on the. concept of a linear storage resulting from a hypothetical line-
ar reservoir. As stated earlier:

I-Q = dS/dt Continuity (2)

S = KQ Linear Reservoir (1)

with the same notation as Equations 3 to 6,

which leads to;

I-Q = K dQ/dt (3)

for which the IUH is

uî( 0 t\ _ 11_ e" ( t -t ,)/K
-(t-t" c)/K single linear reservoir (8)
~
K~ (Clark and others)

u e -•((t
(0 t\ _ 1 tt --ttp Q e~ t --ttQ0 ) / K n equal linear
n
" j£ K
K K (n~-T) !
(n-1) cascaded reservoirs.
(Nash cascade) (9)
For the Nash cascade (Nash, 1958) the response function is a gamma
function. Although there are n "equal" reservoirs, n need not be
discrete, and the IUH may be a generalized gamma function. Nash has
shown that the parameters may be determined based on the gamma
function, and that nK is the first moment about the origin and nK
is the second moment about the origin.
 Review of Rainfall - Runoff Modeling. 101

Thus, t h e problem of l i n e a r s y n t h e s i s i n IUH a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s

the assumption of a r e a s o n a b l e model and the development of a method
t o e s t i m a t e the p a r a m e t e r v a l u e s for t h a t model. This g e n e r a l approach
l e a d s i n two major d i r e c t i o n s : the development of c o n c e p t u a l and of
b l a c k - b o x models.

The Conceptual IUH - Conceptual models came f i r s t , with the

g r e a t e s t amount of a c t i v i t y i n the 1 9 5 0 ' s . However, t h e work on
c o n c e p t u a l models s t a r t e d e a r l i e r . The Muskingum method for flood
r o u t i n g (McCarthy, 1938) i s i n the form of a l i n e a r s t o r a g e model.
Nash (1959) showed t h a t the Muskingum model r o u t e s flows through two
l i n e a r r e s e r v o i r s , the f i r s t with n e g a t i v e storage—which e x p l a i n s
the anomalous r e s u l t s of a d e c r e a s e i n flow o b t a i n e d a t the b e g i n n i n g
of a r o u t i n g i n many c a s e s .

An i n t e r e s t i n g approach t o channel r o u t i n g by l i n e a r a n a l y s i s
was developed by K a l i n i n and Milukov (1958). They developed the.
concept of a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e n g t h over which the r o u t i n g was a s i n g l e
l i n e a r r e s e r v o i r . The p a r a m e t e r s of the l e n g t h and the s t o r a g e were
r e l a t e d t o channel measurements. Once the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l e n g t h i s
determined, longer r e a c h e s , r o u t e d s e q u e n t i a l l y , develop a gamma
d i s t r i b u t i o n s i m i l a r t o a Nash cascade f o r b a s i n r o u t i n g . Thus, the
S o v i e t s were working on s i m i l a r problems and developing s o l u t i o n s
s i m i l a r to those described e a r l i e r during t h i s p e r i o d .

Most c o n c e p t u a l models of the IUH are based on the twin concepts

of l i n e a r s t o r a g e and l i n e a r c h a n n e l s . L i n e a r s t o r a g e was d e s c r i b e d
e a r l i e r (Equation 3 ) . A l i n e a r channel i s one which p a s s e s an i n p u t
hydrograph w i t h o u t a t t e n u a t i o n . The l i n e a r channel i s used t o develop
a t i m e - a r e a h i s t o g r a m (TAH) , which i s the outflow hydrograph from an
i n s t a n t a n e o u s r a i n f a l l - e x c e s s a p p l i e d uniformly over a b a s i n i f there
were no s t o r a g e a c t i n g to a t t e n u a t e the hydrograph. The s i m p l e s t
form of a TAH i s an i s o s c e l e s t r i a n g l e . An i s o s c e l e s t r i a n g l e routed
through a l i n e a r r e s e r v o i r with a s t o r a g e c o e f f i c i e n t on the o r d e r
of the time base of the t r i a n g l e y i e l d s a response function q u i t e
s i m i l a r t o the u s u a l runoff hydrograph and t o the gamma d i s t r i b u t i o n
of the Nash c a s c a d e . 0 ' K e l l y (1955) i n t r o d u c e d the i s o s c e l e s triangle
TAH. This e a r l y f o r m u l a t i o n has some p h y s i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Consider
t h a t overland flow g e n e r a t e s a response f u n c t i o n of uniform flow for
t i m e , T1, i n t o a main channel system with a time of t r a v e l of T2.
Thus, the response f u n c t i o n of each of t h e s e , t r e a t e d as l i n e a r
c h a n n e l s , i s a r e c t a n g u l a r p u l s e . The outflow TAH i s the c o n v o l u t i o n
of two r e c t a n g l e s . I f T1 = T2, the r e s u l t i s an i s o s c e l e s t r i a n g l e .
M i t c h e l l (1962) showed t h a t most small streams i n I l l i n o i s could be
modeled with such a TAH. However, he found t h a t some streams had a
f l a t - t o p p e d IUH, and r e q u i r e d t h e use of a t r a p e z o i d for a TAH. I f
T1 / T2, the c o n v o l u t i o n produces a t r a p e z o i d of base l e n g t h s T1 +
T2 and T1 - T2. Thus, once a g a i n , p h y s i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n may follow
empirical observation.
102 0. K. Dawdy

P e r h a p s t h e " b e s t " c o n c e p t u a l l i n e a r s t o r a g e model f o r r i v e r

b a s i n s i n t h a t d e v e l o p e d by C l a r k ( 1 9 4 5 ) . Clark divided the basin
i n t o s u b - b a s i n s by i s o c h r o n e s . The a r e a s b e t w e e n i s o c h r o n e s determi_
n e s a t i m e a r e a h i s t o g r a m (TAH). E x c e s s p r e c i p i t a t i o n on t h e b a s i n
i s r o u t e d t o t h e o u t f l o w p o i n t on t h e b a s i s o f t h e TAH and t h e n is
routed through a l i n e a r r e s e r v o i r . That model i s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e
s u r f a c e w a t e r r o u t i n g component of t h e S t a n f o r d Watershed Model
( C r a w f o r d and L i n s l e y , 1 9 6 2 ) , t h e U . S . G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y m o d e l by
Dawdy, L i c h t y , and Bergmann (1972) and i s a n a l t e r n a t i v e i n the
C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s HEC-1 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .

Conceptual models blossomed f o r t h i n the 1 9 5 0 ' s . A l l had a

common b a s e i n some form o f l i n e a r r e s e r v o i r r o u t i n g a n d i n t h e c o n -
c e p t of a l i n e a r , c h a n n e l . The l i n e a r c h a n n e l moves t h e precipita-
tion excess through the basin without a t t e n u a t i o n . The l i n e a r sto-
r a g e p r o v i d e s t h e means t o a t t e n u a t e t h e h y d r o g r a p h s o t h a t i t a s s u -
mes t h e t y p i c a l s h a p e ^ o f a d i s c h a r g e h y d r o g r a p h . The C l a r k TAH p r o -
v i d e s t h e means t o m o d e l b a s i n s f o r w h i c h t h e IUH h a s a complex s h a -
pe. The p a r a m e t e r s o f t h e c o n c e p t u a l IUH u s u a l l y a r e r e l a t e d t o phy_
s i c a l measures of the b a s i n . The t h e o r y was s u m m a r i z e d i n D o o g e ' s
e x c e l l e n t monograph ( 1 9 5 9 ) , b u t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n h a d fo_
llowed e m p i r i c a l development.

THE BLACK-BOX IUH

The 1960's saw an o u t b u r s t of i n t e r e s t i n b l a c k - b o x modeling of

the IUH. The s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s of l i n e a r r e s e r v o i r models l e d t o a
s e a r c h for a l t e r n a t i v e a n a l y s i s . Simple harmonic a n a l y s i s were
t r i e d by O'Donnell (1960). T r u n c a t i o n i n t h e harmonic a n a l y s i s cau-
sed problems o r r i n g i n g and smoothing. Chiang and Wiggert (1968)
p l a c e d harmonic a n a l y s i s for t h e IUH i n t h e framework of g e n e r a l
b l a c k - b o x a n a l y s i s as developed i n e l e c t r i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g .

Matrix i n v e r s i o n t e c h n i q u e s for the d e r i v a t i o n of the IUH were

i n t r o d u c e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y by Nash (1961) and by o t h e r s , such as the
TVA and Snyder. Each undoubtedly r e a l i z e d t h a t d i g i t a l computers o-
p e r a t e most e f f i c i e n t l y i n m a t r i x m u l t i p l i c a t i o n , and t h a t an IUHis a
l i n e a r matrix transformation. The r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t t h e IUH i s a l i -
n e a r m a t r i x t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s d i s c r e t e time has d i r e c t i m p l i c a t i o n s
i n c o n c e p t u a l IUH modeling, so t h a t c o n c e p t u a l models gained by a
s p i n - o f f from b l a c k - b o x modeling, p a r t i c u l a r l y from the works of
Nash and O'Donne 11. Not a l l models u t i l i z e t h i s p r i n c i p l e complete-
l y , and t h e i r r e s u l t i n g computer program i s made more complex and t i
me consuming than i s necessary.

Some b l a c k - b o x modelers gained knowledge from c o n c e p t u a l models

i n t h e development of methods for i n v e r s i o n . An example of t h i s
approach i s shown by Dooge (1965), who used Laguerre f u n c t i o n s for
the i n v e r s i o n of i n p u t - o u t p u t p a i r s t o develop the IUH. The r e s u l t -
ing IUH i s s i m i l a r t o the Nash cascade c o n c e p t u a l IUH.
 Review of Rainfall - Runoff Modeling. 103

F i n a l l y , b l a c k - b o x modeling moved i n t o the n o n l i n e a r domain,

with the work of Amorocho and Orlob (1961). They developed a method
t o i s o l a t e and model the n o n l i n e a r elements i n the response func-
t i o n . L a t e r , Amorocho and B r a n d s t e t t e r (1971) developed a g e n e r a l ,
n o n l i n e a r , - b l a c k - b o x i n v e r s i o n t e c h n i q u e . A c t u a l l y , b l a c k - b o x model
ing i m p l i e s a l i n e a r system. The n o n l i n e a r models might b e t t e r be
c a l l e d n o n - s t r u c t u r e i m i t a t i n g models, r a t h e r than b l a c k - b o x models.

Been shown t h a t i f a s e p a r a t e of s e t of e v e n t s n o t used i n the

f i t i s used t o t e s t the accuracy of the r e s u l t i n g models, c o n c e p t u a l
models perform b e t t e r than b l a c k - b o x models. The very constraints
which make the f i t f o r c o n c e p t u a l models worse are what a l s o cause
them t o p r e d i c t b e t t e r . There have been some a t t e m p t s to b u i l d cons
t r a i n t s i n t o b l a c k - b o x models i n o r d e r t o p r e d s i c t b e t t e r a t the e x "
pense of f i t t i n g w o r s e . An example i s E a g l e s o n ' s (1966) optimum re_a
l i z a b l e IUH. He used a l i n e a r programming format with a n o n - z e r o
c o n s t r a i n t on the o r d i n a t e s of the IUH.

A major drawback t o the use of b l a c k - b o x models i s t h a t they

cannot be used t o model a changing system. Because b l a c k - b o x models
are not concerned with the i n t e r n a l workings of the system they can-
n o t be modified e a s i l y to r e f l e c t t h e r e s u l t s of such changes. Many
i f n o t most uses of w a t e r s h e d models today a r e t o a s s e s s the effect
of p a s t o r p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e man-made changes on a w a t e r s h e d . Concep_
t u a l models are w e l l s u i t e d for such u s e s , because the p a r a m e t e r s i n
a c o n c e p t u a l model may be r e l a t e d t o p h y s i c a l p a r a m e t e r s of a b a s i n .

That need f o r t h e modeling of the e f f e c t s of man-made changes has

l e d t o developments i n two major d i r e c t i o n s . Both developments a r e
i n c o n c e p t u a l modeling. The f i r s t development i s i n t h e use of a
n o n l i n e a r r o u t i n g model based on the k i n e m a t i c wave e q u a t i o n s . The
second development i s t h e b u i l d i n g of d i s t r i b u t e d p a r a m e t e r models
t o r e p l a c e the lumped p a r a m e t e r models of c l a s s i c a l IUH t h e o r y .

COMPARISON OF BLACK-BOX AND CONCEPTUAL IUH

Black-box model development has tended t o move i n the d i r e c t i o n

of t h e use of t h e knowledge gained from the use of c o n c e p t u a l models
However, t o the e x t e n t t h a t b l a c k - b o x e s remain b l a c k , they are not
concerned with the i n n e r wdrkings of the system which they model.
Conceptual models a r e c o n s t r a i n e d so t h a t t h e i r shape w i l l "look
r i g h t " i n terms of r e a l world h y d r o g r a p h s .

As a r e s u l t of the lack of c o n s t r a i n t s i n t h e i r s t r u c t u r e ,
b l a c k - b o x models t e n d t o f i t a s e t of d a t a b e t t e r than do c o n c e p t u a l
models. I f a s i n g l e e v e n t i s used t o d e r i v e a b l a c k - b o x IUH, the da_
t a can be f i t p e r f e c t l y . Conceptual models w i l l , i n g e n e r a l , n o t
104 D.R. Dawdy

f i t even a single event p e r f e c t l y . If a s e t of events i s used with

l e a s t squares f i t t i n g to derive an IUH, black-box models, in general
w i l l f i t the data b e t t e r . However, i t has

Kinematic Wave Models

The kinematic wave (KW) i s one step away from the l i n e a r s t o r a -

ge assumption toward the use of a dynamic routing equation. I t has
long been known t h a t as storms increased in i n t e n s i t y over a basin,
the response time of the basin tended to decrease. Thus, the IUH
was not i d e n t i c a l for small and large storms. The kinematic wave
equation tends to overcome the shortcoming of the IUH.

The KW equation s t i l l i s based on the continuity assumption

Q = dS/dt
( 2 )
q
L~ ax at ( 10 )

in p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l terms, where q i s the l a t e r a l inflow,

9q/9x i s the outflow per unit with, and 9 y / 3 t i s the change in
depth with time, which i s equal to change in storage per unit width.
Equation 10 i s combined with the kinematic assumption.

Q= «A1" (11a)

q = (Xym (11b)

where <X a n d m a r e t h e KW p a r a m e t e r s . Equations 10 a n d 11 a r e combi_

ned t o y i e l d

mQ/y dj_ + dj_ = qL (12)

3x 9t

which i s used in place of the l i n e a r reservoir routing equation.

The appealing feature of Equation 12 i s that the KW parameters have

physical significance. For example, l e t us assume t h a t Manning's
equation applies over a reach of i n t e r e s t . Then
 Review of Rainfall - Runoff Modeling. 105

1/2
1.5 2/3 S
Q = —- AR (13)

where n i s Manning's c o e f f i c i e n t , R i s h y d r a u l i c r a d i u s , S i s s l o p e ,
and o u r " t h e o r e t i c a l a p p r o a c h " h a s a l r e a d y become e m p i r i c a l . I f the
w i d t h i s much g r e a t e r t h a n t h e d e p t h ,

R = A/(W + 2D) = A/W = D (14a)

' 2/3 s1/2

A
2 =¥ w2/3 (14b)

1/2
n W^/J (14c)

m = 5/3

and s i m i l a r e q u a t i o n s may be d e r i v e d for o t h e r shapes of c h a n n e l s .

Thus, (X i s a f u n c t i o n of p h y s i c a l measures of the r e a c h , a n d both a
and m are f u n c t i o n s of the shape of the channel c r o s s s e c t i o n and of
the f r i c t i o n law assumed (Manning's e q u a t i o n i n t h i s example).

The e q u a t i o n i s q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h e r e s u l t s of e a r l i e r a t t e m p t s
a t developing a n o n l i n e a r s t o r a g e e q u a t i o n . I f s t o r a g e i s assumed
d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o a power function of flow depth o r t o c r o s s - s e c -
t i o n a l a r e a , t h e two a r e i d e n t i c a l . However, t h e use of the KW equji
t i o n has taken a s t e p away from the h y d r o l o g i e assumptions of l i n e a r
and n o n l i n e a r s t o r a g e and toward h y d r a u l i c r o u t i n g .

A major advantage of KW r o u t i n g i s t h a t i t s p a r a m e t e r s r e l a t e
t o the p h y s i c a l world. I f t h a t p h y s i c a l world i s modified, the
e f f e c t on the r o u t i n g p a r a m e t e r s can be e s t i m a t e d , and r e s u l t i n g
changes i n t h e b a s i n response can be p r e d i c t e d . A major s h o r t - c o -
ming of KW r o u t i n g i s t h a t Equations 14 assume t h a t a unique, sin-
g l e - v a l u e d , simple s t a g e d i s c h a r g e r a t i n g a p p l i e s wherever the equa-
t i o n i s used. The k i n e m a t i c wave number can be used t o s c r e e n o u t
those cases where the equation does not apply because dynamic
e f f e c t s cause s t a g e and d i s c h a r g e t o be r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y on t h e
r i s i n g and the f a l l i n g limb of the hydrograph. A more s e r i o u s conse_
quence of the k i n e m a t i c assumption a r i s e s because Equations 13 and
14 apply b e s t a t c o n s t r i c t i o n s or c o n t r o l r e a c h e s . The added storage
106 D.R.Dawdy

resulting from minor expansions and contractions of the channel system

is not accounted for. This is particularly true of overbank flows
at higher stages. Although overbank flow can be modeled by an
iterative procedure involving multiple ratings, a single rating is
assumed throughout a reach of stream channel. Such a case seldom
occurs. Therefore, KW models tend to over correct for the nonlinea—
rity in the routing function, and higher peaks tend to be overestima
ted, with the time of response of the basin decreasing with discharge
more rapidly than occurs in the real world. One final major advan-
tage of KW models is that they are perfectly suited for use in
distributed parameter models. That fact may explain the widespread
acceptance and use of kinematic wave models.

Distributed Parameter Models

The l a t e s t t r e n d i n b a s i n response modeling i s t o use a d i s t r i -

b u t e d p a r a m e t e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the b a s i n . A t y p i c a l d i v i s i o n of a
b a s i n for d i s t r i b u t e d - p a r a m e t e r modeling i s shown i n Figure 1. F i r s t ,
the main channel system i s d e t a i l e d . Reaches are t h e n determined
which have s i m i l a r r o u t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s throughout t h e i r l e n g t h .
The o v e r l a n d flow and channel segments o u t l i n e d i n Figure 1A a r e
then d e s c r i b e d i n such a manner as t o develop the schematic diagram
shown i n Figure 1B.

The assignment of i n p u t p h y s i c a l d a t a t o the b a s i n d e f i n e s the

b a s i n response f u n c t i o n . Thus, t h e r e are s e v e r a l major advantages
which the d i s t r i b u t e d p a r a m e t e r model has over a lumped p a r a m e t e r
model such as an IUH. The f i r s t major advantage i s t h a t the
response function can be developed d i r e c t l y from the i n p u t p a r a -
meters i f an a p p r o p r i a t e model, such as KW, i s used. A t y p i c a l s e t
of i n p u t d a t a for a d i s t r i b u t e d p a r a m e t e r model i s shown i n Figure
2. A second major advantage i s t h a t nonuniform storms may be
a p p l i e d t o the b a s i n - t y p i c a l i s o h y e t a l s of mean annual r a i n f a l l are
shown i n Figure 1A, which may be used t o d i s t r i b u t e r a i n f a l l over
the b a s i n .

The t h i r d , and compelling, major advantage of d i s t r i b u -

t e d p a r a m e t e r models i s t h a t t h e change i n b a s i n response r e s u l t i n g
from man-made changes over p a r t of the b a s i n may be a s s e s s e d . Any
p a r t of the schematic i n Figure 1B may be modeled w i t h "before and
a f t e r " p r e d i c t i o n s by changing the s e t of p a r a m e t e r s for t h a t p a r t
of t h e b a s i n .

One major d i s a d v a n t a g e of d i s t r i b u t e d p a r a m e t e r models i s t h a t

they g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e more d a t a and much more computer time t o run
than do lumped-parameter models.
 Review of Rainfall - RunoffModeling. 107

27 -

A. STREAM CHANNEL NETWORK OF BASIN

\ / \ / \ /

V 7
i \
7
\
\ ;> /9 \ „ \V ,± \/ /3\

/ c-

\ ^ Y \
/ /
/
7\ ' \ /

B. DIVISION OF BASIN INTO STREAM CHANNEL

AND OVERFLOW SEGMENTS
!
FIGURE 1. TYPICAL SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF A BASIN FOR USE IN

DEVELOPING A DISTRIBUTED-PARAMETER RAINFALL-BUNOFF MODEL

As computers get larger and f a s t e r and cheaper t h a t disadvari

tage decreases in importance. With the advent of minicomputers in -
every office, i t may reassume importance. An important point to
consider i s t h a t proper programming can greatly reduce computing
time. Note in Figure 1B t h a t there are 34 overland flow sections
flowing into 20 channel reaches, but overland flow reaches are
numbered t o 7 (in the corners of the overland flow segments) and
channel reaches to 13. Thus 54 segments have been modeled as 20
segments. If segment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are sufficiently s i m i l a r , large
savings in computer time can r e s u l t . Even so, the canned bulk-para-
108 D. R. Da'wdy

ROUTING COMPONENT

INPUT DATA:

NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SEGMENTS IN BASIN

UPSTREAM SEGMENTS

LATERAL SEGMENTS

TYPE OF SEGMENTS

SLOPE OF SEGMENT

FLOW LENGTH OF SEGMENT

ROUGHNESS (CORRESPONDS TO MANNING'S N)

CHANNEL DIMENSIONS, PROPORTION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA

THIESSEN COEFFICIENT

RAINFALL EXCESS

OUTPUT :

STREAMFLOW HYDROGRAPH

Figure 2. Typical Set of Input Data Used To Define a Segment for A Distributee-Parameter Rainfall-Runoff
Model.

meter model you replace must be grossly inefficient to overcome its

natural advantage. However, some do manage.

Tank Models - Off on another track a separate development has

taken place in basin rainfall-funoff modeling. Sugawara (1961)
introduced the concept of a tank model. A single tank yields a linear
storage model such as equations 3 to 6. A series of tanks yields a
Nash cascade. Therefore, tank models are very much in the spirit
of linear systems analysis for IUH analysis. However tank models
have a major advantage and a major disadvantage in terms of mathe-
matical development. Interestingly, the advantage and the disadvan-
taga are the same - the model can be physically visualized. For the
empiricist and the engineer that is an advantage. For the theoretician
and the mathematician that is a disadvantage.

Each component of the hydrologie cycle for which there is a

 Review ofRainfall - Runoff Modeling. 109

l i n e a r approximation may be r e p r e s e n t e d by a tank model. The s e t of

t a n k s , each r e p r e s e n t i n g a l i n e a r s t o r a g e , may be arranged i n s e r i e s
o r i n p a r a l l e l . The p a r a m e t e r s for each tank may be e s t i m a t e d from
p h y s i c a l p a r a m e t e r s o r by o t h e r means a p p r o p r i a t e for the given
component. The i n p u t s and o u t p u t s f o r each t a n k are d e f i n e d and
V o i l a ! We have a tank model.

The c l o s e d form s o l u t i o n of the response function for some

c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of tank models can be d e r i v e d . Nash (1958) o b v i o u s l y
s o l v e d the case for a s e r i e s of n e q u a l t a n k s . Sugawara (1961) solved
many more complex c a s e s . In a d d i t i o n he d i s c u s s e d p i e c e w i s e l i n e a r
s o l u t i o n of k e r n e l s by use of complex geometry and m u l t i p l e outlet
t a n k s . Sugawara d i s c u s s e d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and e s t i m a t i o n of the
tank p a r a m e t e r s for d i f f e r e n t components. F i n a l l y , Sugawara p r e s e n -
t e d a s e m i - d i s t r i b u t e d r a i n f a l l - r u n o f f model development through the
use of lumped p a r a m e t e r tank modeling of s u b - b a s i n s .

A most i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t i n t h e mathematical development of tank

models i s t h a t most of the subsequent i n t e r e s t i n t h i s d e t e r m i n i s t i c
r a i n f a l l - r u n o f f model o u t s i d e Japan comes from s t o c h a s t i c hydrology.
A simple s e r i e s tank model w i t h a s i n g l e i n p u t of white n o i s e and
with a s i n g l e o u t p u t g e n e r a t e s an a u t o r e - g r e s s i v e - m o v i n g average
(ARMA) model. Moss and Dawdy (1973) showed t h a t a c o n c e p t u a l r a i n -
f a l l - r u n o f f model e q u i v a l e n t t o a s i n g l e tank developed an ARMA
(1,1) model for s t o c h a s t i c s i m u l a t i o n of monthly streamflow. Pegram
(1977) showed the mathematical e q u i v a l e n t of a Clark IUH formulation
and an ARMA model under c e r t a i n assumptions. Selvalingam (1977), a
s t u d e n t of S u g a w a r a ' s , showed t h e e x a c t e q u i v a l e n t of tank models
and ARMA models. The f a s t f r a c t i o n a l Gaussian n o i s e model (Mandelbrot,
1971) i s , of c o u r s e , a p a r a l l e l tank model, which should r e s u l t i n
summation of ARMA (1,1) models r a t h e r t h a n a summation of a u t o r e -
g r e s s i v e models. I n c i d e n t a l l y , s i m u l a t i o n of average flows ( d a i l y ,
weekly, or monthly) adds one dimension t o t h e moving average p o r t i o n
i n r e l a t i o n t o sampling a t d i s c r e t e i n t e r v a l s . Average flows a r e
d i s c r e t i z e d b u t not d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s , and. t h a t f a c t should be k e p t
i n mind when b u i l d i n g models f o r s t o c h a s t i c s i m u l a t i o n .

Thus, tank models seem t o be a t o o l f o r drawing t o g e t h e r

s t o c h a s t i c and d e t e r m i n i s t i c models, p h y s i c a l l y - b a s e d , s t r u c t u r e -
i m i t a t i n g and c o n c e p t u a l models, and e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l mode_
l e r s . A g e n e r a l monograph i s i n orden which draws t o g e t h e r the
work of Chiang and Wiggert (1968), Dooge (1959), Sugawara (1961), Moss
and Dawdy (1973), Pegram (1977), and Selvalingam (1977). That monograph
should become the c l a s s i c p a p e r which Dooge's p a p e r i s .

Today and Tomorrow — he t r e n d today i n r a i n f a l l - r u n o f f modeling

i s toward p h y s i c a l l y - b a s e d d i s t r i b u t e d - p a r a m e t e r models. However,
t h e r e i s a t r e n d a t the same time toward i n t r o d u c i n g t o o many b e l l s
and w h i s t l e s i n t o t h e models because the modeler o r h i s employer
"knows" t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r i s i m p o r t a n t , and, t h e r e f o r e , that
f a c t o r should be modeled.
110 D.R.Dawdy

The c o n c e p t u a l modelers have shown t h a t very simple models

perform as w e l l as much more complicated models i n d e r i v i n g t h e model
of the runoff component (IUH). They have shown e m p i r i c a l l y how some
of t h e e f f e c t s of man-made changes on the runoff hydrograph can be
e s t i m a t e d ( C a r t e r , 1961). However, t h e model of the s u r f a c e runoff
i s where t h e b e s t case can be made f o r p h y s i c a l modeling. The KW
model i s a good example. There are problems with KW modeling which
w i l l be mentioned l a t e r , b u t t h e p a r a m e t e r s are easy t o d e r i v e and
the e f f e c t s of man-made changes can be e s t i m a t e d .

The i n f i l t r a t i o n f u c t i o n i s much more d i f f i c u l t t o model, and

e r r o r s i n r a i n f a l l i n p u t d a t a t e n d t o be p a s s e d d i r e c t l y i n t o the
e s t i m a t i o n of p a r a m e t e r v a l u e s for i n f i l t r a t i o n (Dawdy and Bergmann,
1969). Yet t h e r e i s where modelers t e n d t o p r o l i f e r a t e in d e t a i l
of modeling. The e f f e c t s of man-made changes are assumed more than
p r o v e n , and seldom a r e modeling r e s u l t s s-ubjected t o s p l i t - s a m p l e
t e s t i n g o r o t h e r r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s . How does one e s t i m a t e parame—
t e r s for an i n f i l t r a t i o n model which c o n t a i n s s i x o r seven o r n s o i l
l a y e r s ? Perhaps the c o n c e p t u a l modelers s h o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e on the
modeling of i n f i l t r a t i o n so t h a t , e v e n t u a l l y , a s y n t h e s i s may r e s u l t
as i n s u r f a c e runoff modeling.

KW modeling s t i l l has problems, as mentioned. I n t r o d u c t i o n of

the n o n - l i n e a r i t y i n t o the model of the s u r f a c e w a t e r component has
o v e r - c o r r e c t e d t h e model. Flood v e l o c i t i e s a r e much too f a s t . The
unique r a t i n g curve assumption h o l d s f a i r l y w e l l because t h e r e e x i s t
i n most channels a s e r i e s of c o n t r o l l i n g r e a c h e s . However the KW
model assumes a p r i s m a t i c c h a n n e l , and i t t h e r e f o r e does n o t allow
for s t o r a g e a d e q u a t e l y . That problem cannot be s o l v e d by changing
t o dynamic r o u t i n g . I t i s the assumption concerning t h e p r i s m a t i c
channel which i s a t f a u l t . Modeling overbank flow i s n e c e s s a r y for
h i g h e r flows, b u t the assumptions of a p r i s m a t i c channel s t i l l h o l d s
and the b a s i c problem r e m a i n s . How can t h e a t t e n u a t i o n of flood
peak as a r e s u l t of i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n channel c r o s s s e c t i o n be i n t r o -
duced i n t o KW models?

More b a s i c a l l y , i s t h e Sugawara tank model a v a l i d s u b s t i t u t e

f o r KW models for modeling the s u r f a c e runoff component? Sugawara
p r e s e n t s p i e c e - w i s e l i n e a r models. The p a r a m e t e r s for h i s models
may have as much p h y s i c a l meaning a s t h o s e for KW models f o r l a r g e r
d i s c h a r g e s where overbank flow e x i s t s . I s t h e r e a s y n t h e s i s of KW
and l i n e a r s t o r a g e models which i s more p h y s i c a l l y meaningful than
e i t h e r alone?

D e t e r m i n i s t i c and s t o c h a s t i c models are drawing c l o s e r t o g e t h e r .

R e s u l t s concerning response f u n c t i o n s for tank models are d i r e c t l y
t r a n s f e r a b l e from one t o t h e o t h e r , as shown by Pegram (1977). Results
along t h e s e l i n e s have n o t been followed up a g g r e s s i v e l y . I f a
p h y s i c a l l y based s t o c h a s t i c model can be developed for which many
c l o s e d form s o l u t i o n s are known, s t o c h a s t i c modeling of streamflow
may take a s t e p forward toward wider acceptance and u s e .
 Review of Rainfall - Runoff Modeling. 111

In c o n c l u s i o n , I w i l l end on a p e s s i m i s t i c note and hope t o be

proven wrong. The tendency i s for models t o continue t o p r o l i f e r a t e
and t o become more complex. I p r e d i c t t h a t s u r f a c e w a t e r r o u t i n g
w i l l continue t o be fine tuned and i n f i l t r a t i o n modeling w i l l c o n t i -
nue t o r e c e i v e r e l a t i v e l y l e s s a t t e n t i o n . What a t t e n t i o n modeling
of i n f i l t r a t i o n does r e c e i v e w i l l be agency o r i e n t e d and w i l l tend
t o make i n f i l t r a t i o n models complex, d i s t r i b u t e d - p a r a m e t e r models
w i t h o u t i n t r o d u c i n g r i g o r o u s e r r o r a n a l y s i s t o t e s t whether complexi_
ty improves p r e d i c t i o n . Furthermore, the commonality which tank
models give t o s t o c h a s t i c and d e t e r m i n i s t i c modeling of streamflow
w i l l n o t be e f f i c i e n t l y e x p l o i t e d t o s o l v e some t o t h e as y e t unans-
wered r e s e a r c h problems i n s t o c h a s t i c modeling.

I s h a l l work hard the n e x t few y e a r s t o prove my p r e d i c t i o n s

wrong. I hope you do, a l s o .

REFERENCES

Amorocho, J . and B r a n d s t e t t e r , A., 1971. Determination of Nonlinear

Response Functions i n Rainfall-Runoff P r o c e s s e s , Water Res. Res. Vol 7,
No. 5, p p . 1087-1101

Amorocho, J . and O r l o b , G.T., 1961. Nonlinear Analysis of Hydrologie

Systems, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Water Res. Center Cont. No. 40.

Barnes, H.H., J r . , 1967. Roughness C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Natural

Elements, US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1849.

C a r t e r , R.W., 1961. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods i n Suburban

Areas, U. S. Geol Survey Prof. Paper 424-B, A r t i c l e 5, p p . B-9 t o
B- 1 1 .

Chiang, T.T. and-Wiggert, J . M . , 1968. Analysis of Hydrologie Sys-

tems, Bulletin 12, Water Resources Research Center, Virginia
Polytechnic I n s t i t u t e .

C l a r k , C O . , 1945. Storage and t h e Unit Hydrograph, Trans. ASCE,

Vol. 110, p p . 1419-1446.

C l a r k e , R . T . , 1973, Mathematical Models i n Hydrology, FAO, Rome,

Irrigation and Drainage Paper 19.

Crawford, N.H. and L i n s l e y , R.K., 1962. The S y n t h e s i s of continuous

Streamflow Hydrographs on a D i g i t a l Computer, Stanford University
Dept. Civ. Eng. Tech. Report No. 12.

Craw-Ford, N.H. and L i n s l e y , R.K. , 1966. D i g i t a l S i m u l a t i o n i n

Hydrology, Stanford Watershed Model IV, S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Dept.
Civ. Eng. Tech. Report No. 39.
112 D.R.Dawdy

Dawdy, D.R. and Bergmann, J . M . , 1969. E f f e c t of Rainfall V a r i a b i l i t y

on Streamflow S i m u l a t i o n , Water Res. Res, Vol. 5, No. 5, p p . 958-
966.

Dawdy, D.R. and K a l i n i n , G . P . , 1970. Mathematical Modeling i n

Hydrology, Report to Mid-Decade Conferencer of IHD, Bulletin of IASH.

Dawdy, D.R., L i c h t y , R.W. and Bergmann, J . M . , 1972. A R a i n f a l l -

Runoff S i m u l a t i o n Model for E s t i m a t i o n of Flood Peaks for Small
Drainage B a s i n s , USGS Prof. Paper 506-B,

Dawdy, D.R. and O'Donnell, Terence, 1965. Mathematical Models of

Catchment Behavior, Proc. usee, Vol. 9 1 , No. HY4, Paper 4410, p p .
123-127.

Dooge, J . C . I . , 1959. A General Theory of t h e Unit Hydrograph, Jour.

Geophys. Res. , Vol 64, No. 2, p p . 241-256.

Dooge, J . C . I . , 1965. A n a l y s i s of L i n e a r Systems by Means of Laguerre

F u n c t i o n s , Jour. SIAM Control, S e r . A, Vol. 2, No. 3, p p . 390-408

Eagleson, P . S . , Mejia, R. R. and March, F . , 1966. Computation of

Optimum R e a l i z a b l e Unit Hydrographs, Water Res. Res, Vol. 2, No. 4

Hydrologie Engineering C e n t e r , US Army Corps of E n g i n e e r s , 1970.

HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, Users Manual, Davis, C a l i f o r n i a .

K a l i n i n , G.P. and Milukov, P . I . , 1958. Aproximate C a l c u l a t i o n of

Unstable Movement of Streams (in R u s s i a ) , Trudy SIP, I s s u e 66,
Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad.

Mandelbrot, B . B . , 1971. A F a s t F r a c t i o n a l Gaussian Noise Generator,

Water Res. Res., Vol. 7, No. 3, p p . 5 43-55 3.

McCarthy, G . J . , 1938. The Unit Hydrograph and Flood Routing, paper

presented at a conference of North Atlantic Division, us Army Corps
of E n g i n e e r s .

Moss, M.E. and Dawdy, D.R., 1973. S t o c h a s t i c S i m u l a t i o n for Basins

with Short o r no Records of Streamflow, Proc. of IAHS Symp on Design
of Water Res. Projects with Inadequate Data, Madrid.

M i t c h e l l , W.M., 1962. E f f e c t of R e s e r v o i r Storage on Peak Flow, US

Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1580 - C.

Nash J . E . , 1958. The Form of the I n s t a n t a n e o u s Unit Hydrograph, Bull,

IAHS, Vol. 3, No. 45, p p . 114-121.

Nash, J . E . , 1959 A note on the Muskingum Flood-Routing Method,

Jour. Geophys. Res. Vol. 64.
 Review of Rainfall - Runoff Modeling. 113

Nash, J . E . , 1961. A L i n e a r Transformation of a Discharge Record,

Proceedings, Ninth Convention, IAHR, Vol. 3 , p p . 13-1 t o 2.

O'Donnell, Terence, 1960. I n s t a n t a n e o u s Unit Hydrograph D e r i v a t i o n

by Harmonic A n a l y s i s , IASH, Publ. No. 51, p p . 546-557.

O'Kelly, J . J . , 1955. The Employment of Unit Hydrographs t o "Determine

The Flows of I r i s h A r t e r i a l Drainage Channels, Jour. Inst. Civ.
Engrs:, Vol, 4, p p . 365-445.

Pegram, G.G.S, 1977. P h y s i c a l J u s t i f i c a t i o n of a Continuous Stream-

flow Model, Proc. Third Intl. Hydr. Sump., F t . C o l l i n s , Colorado.

Selvalingam, s . , 1977. ARMA and L i n e a r Tank Models, Proc. Third

Intl. Hydr. Sump. , F t . C o l l i n s , Colorado.

Sherman, L. K., 1932. Streamflow from R a i n f a l l by the Unit

Hydrograph Method, Engr. News-Record, Vol. 108, p p . 501-505.

Sugawara, M., 1961. On the A n a l y s i s of Runoff S t r u c t u r e about Seve-

r a l Japanese R i v e r s , Jap. Jour. Geophys. , Vol 2, No. 4, p p . 1-76.