TWO-PARAMETER GAMMA DISTRIBUTION AND LOG NORMAL DISTRIBUTION FOR DERIVATION OF SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH
Main Article Content
Abstract
Most available methods for unit hydrographs (SUH) derivation involve manual, subjective fitting of
a hydrograph through a few data points. The use of probability distributions for the derivation of synthetic
hydrographs had received much attention because of its similarity with unit hydrograph properties. In this
paper, the use of two flexible probability distributions is presented. For each distribution the unknown
parameters were derived in terms of the time to peak(tp), and the peak discharge(Qp). A simple Matlab
program is prepared for calculating these parameters and their validity was checked using comparison
with field data. Application to field data shows that the gamma and lognormal distributions had fit well.
Article Details
How to Cite
Publication Dates
References
• Aron, G., White, E.L., (1982). Fitting a gamma-distribution over a synthetic unit-hydrograph. Water Resources
Bulletin 18, 95–98.
• Bhunya, P. K., Mishra, S. K. and Berndtsson, R., (2003). Simplified of synthetic unit hydrograph. J. Hydrol. Eng. ASCE 8 (4), 226–230.
• Bhunya, P. K., Mishra, S. K., Ojha, C. S. P. and Berndtsson, R., (2004). Parameter estimation of Betadistribution
for unit hydrograph derivation. J. Hydrol. Eng. ASCE 9 (4), 325–332.
• Bhunya, P.K., Berndtsson, R., and Ojha, C.S.P., 2007. Suitability of Gamma, Chi-square, Weibull, and beta
distributions as synthetic unit hydrographs. Journal of Hydrology 334, 28–38.
• Chow, V. T., 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. Mc Graw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York.
• Croley II, T.E., (1980). Gamma synthetic hydrographs. J. Hydrol. 47,Distributions, vol. 1 Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
• Dooge, J.C.I., (1959). A general theo Geophys. Res. 64 (2), 241–256.ry of the unit hydrograph. J.
• Espey, W. H. Jr. and Winslow, D. E. (1974). ‘‘Urban flood frequency characteristics.’’ J. Hydraul. Div., 100(2), 279–293.
• Gray, D. M. (1961). ‘‘Synthetic hydrographs for small drainage areas.’’ J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 87(4), 33–54.
• Johnson, N.L., Kotz, S., (1970a), firsted. Continuous Univariate Mgmt., Alexandria Univ., Egypt, 104– 110.
• Nash, J. E. (1960). ‘‘A unit hydrograph study with particular reference to British catchnets.’’ Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng.,
London, 17, 249–282.
• Nash, J.E., (1959). Synthetic determination of unit hydrograph parameters. J. Geophys. Res. 64 (1), 111– 115.
• Salas, (2006) .Notes on Unit Hydrographs, Colorado State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
• Saralees Nadarajah, (2007). Probabilty models for unit hydrograph derivation. Journal of Hydrology 334, 185–189.
• Singh, S. K. (1998). ‘‘Reconstructing a synthetic unit hydrograph into a Gamma distribution.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on
Integrated Water Resour. Mgmt., Alexandria Univ., Egypt, 104–110.
• Singh, S. K. (2000). ‘‘Transmuting synthetic unit hydrographs into gamma distribution.’’ J. Hydrologic Eng., 5(4), 380–385.
• Singh, V. P. (1988). Hydrologic systems: Rainfall-runoff modeling, Vol. 1, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.• Viessman, W. Jr., Lewis, G. L., and Knapp, J. W. (2007). Introduction toHydrology, 5rd Ed.,
• Yue, S., Taha, B.M.J., Bobee, B., Legendre, P., and Bruneau, P., (2002). Approach for describing statistical
properties of flood hydrograph. J. Hydrol. Eng. ASCE 7 (2), 147–153.
• Soil Conservation Service _SCS_. (1972). SCS national engineering handbook, Section 4: Hydrology, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Washington, D.C.