BEGIN

Rainfall-Runoff Models
Excess Precipitation or
Runoff Volume Models
May be:
Physically Based
Empirical
Descriptive
Conceptual
Generally Lumped
Etc
May not only estimate excess precipitation
hence, we will refer to them as rainfall-runoff
models..

The Basic Process.
Excess Precip.
Model
Excess Precip.
Excess Precip.
Runoff
Hydrograph
Runoff
Hydrograph
Stream and/or
Reservoir
Routing
Downstream
Hydrograph
Basin Routing
UHG Methods
Necessary for a
single basin
Focus on
Excess
Precipitation
Goal of Rainfall-Runoff
Models
The fate of the falling precipitation
is:
modeled in order to account for
the destiny of the precipitation that
falls and the potential of the
precipitation to affect the the
runoff hydrograph.
losses include interception,
evapotranspiration, storage,
infiltration, percolation, and finally
- runoff.
Lets look at the fate of the
precipitation..
Interception...........
First, the falling precipitation may
be intercepted by the vegetation in an
area.
It is typically either distributed as
runoff or evaporated back to the
atmosphere.
The leafy matter may also be a form
of interception.
Canopy(or lack of)
Leafy Matter also intercepts...
Very thick ground litter layers can hold as much as 0.5 inches!
Interceptionthe point
The point of the interception is that the
precipitation is temporarily stored before
the next process begins.
The intercepted/stored precipitation may
not reach the ground to contribute to
runoff.
Interception may be referred to as an
abstraction and is accounted for as initial
abstraction in some models.
This is also true for snowfall which may
sublimate and leave the watershed!
Infiltration...........
Precipitation reaching the ground may
infiltrate.
This is the process of moving from the
atmosphere into the soil.
Infiltration may be regarded as either a
rate or a total. For example: the soil can
infiltrate 1.2 inches/hour. Alternatively, we
could say the soil has a total infiltration
capacity of 3 inches.
Note that in both cases the units are
Length or length per time!
Infiltration, cont...........
Infiltration is nearly impossible to measure
directly - as we would disturb the sample in
doing so.
We can infer infiltration in a variety of
ways (to be discussed at a later point).
The exact point at which the atmosphere
ends and the soil beings is very difficult to
define and generally we are not concerned
with this fine detail!
In other words, we mostly want to know
how much of the precipitation actually
enters the soil.
Percolation.....
Once the water infiltrates into the ground, the
downward movement of water through the soil
profile may begin.
Percolation.....
The percolating water may move as
a saturated front - under the
influence of gravity
Percolation.....
Or, it may move as unsaturated
flow mostly due to capillary
forces.
Percolation.the point
The vertical percolation of the water into
various levels or zones allows for storage
in the subsurface these zones will be
very important in the SAC-SMA model.
This stored subsurface water is held and
released as either evaporation,
transpiration, or as streamflow eventually
reaching the watershed outlet.
Evaporation....
Is the movement of water from the liquid state
to the vapor state - allowing transport to the
atmosphere.
Occurs from any wet surface or open body of
water.
Soil can have water evaporate from within, as
can leafy matter, living leaves and plants, etc..
The water evaporates from a storage location....
Transpiration....
The process of water moving from the soil via
the plants internal moisture supply system.
This is a type of evaporative process.
The water moves through the stomates, tiny
openings in the leaves (mostly on the
underside), that allow the passage of oxygen,
carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases.
Evapotranspiration....
The terms transpiration and evaporation are
often combined in the form :

EVAPOTRANSPI RATI ON
Storage....
Storage occurs at several locations in the
hydrologic cycle and varies in both space and
time - spatially and temporally.
Water can be stored in:
- The unsaturated portion of the soil
- The saturated portion (below the water table)
- On the soil or surface - snow/snowpack,
puddles, ponds, lakes, wetlands.
- Rivers and stream channels - even though
they are generally in motion!
Storage....
Water in storage can still be involved in a
process.
i.e. :
Water in a puddle may be evaporating.....
The hydrologic cycle represented as a
series of storage units & processes....
RO P T E =
-
Channel
Storage
Depression
Storage
Ground Water
Storage
Detention
Storage
Retention
Storage
Vegetation
Storage
Is I > f?
yes
no
Surface
runoff
Channel
runoff
Is
retention
full?
yes
no
Surface
runoff
B
a
s
e

F
l
o
w

S
t
o
r
m

F
l
o
w

Is I > f? Is I > f?
Storage....
The thought process.......
Channel
Storage
Depression
Storage
Ground Water
Storage
Detention
Storage
Retention
Storage
Vegetation
Storage
RO P T E
-
=
yes
Surface
runoff
Channel
runoff
no
yes
no
B
a
s
e

F
l
o
w

Is
retention
full?
Surface
runoff
S
t
o
r
m

F
l
o
w

P RO
Storage....
Things to consider:
We looked at these as independent processes!
We looked at the processes as discrete time
steps!
What were the initial conditions before the
storm? What effects would initial conditions
have?

These are the issues that a continuous
rainfall-runoff model must consider
The Units
The units are very important
Storage is a volume (L
3
) and flow is
a volume per time (L
3
/T) .
We often think of these volume units
in terms of length only!
This implies a uniform depth or value
throughout the watershed.
Examples of Length Units for
Storage
The watershed can infiltrate 75mm of
water a length
The lower zone of the soil can hold
60mm...
The initial abstraction for the watershed is
10mm
The reservoir can hold 2.5 inches of
runoff
These all imply uniformity over the
watershed
The Rainfall-Runoff
Modeling Process
simplistic methods such as a constant
loss method may be used.
A constant loss approach assumes
that the soil can constantly infiltrate the
same amount of precipitation throughout
the storm event. The obvious
weaknesses are the neglecting of spatial
variability, temporal variability, and
recovery potential.
Other methods include exponential
decays (the infiltration rate decays
exponentially), empirical methods, and
physically based methods.
There are also combinations of these
methods.
Initial Abstractions
Initial Abstraction - It is generally
assumed that the initial abstractions must
be satisfied before any direct storm
runoff may begin. The initial abstraction
is often thought of as a lumped sum
(depth). Viessman (1968) found that 0.1
inches was reasonable for small urban
watersheds.

Would forested & rural watersheds be
more or less?
Rural watersheds would probably
have a higher initial abstraction.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
now the NRCS uses a percentage of
the ultimate infiltration holding
capacity of the soil - i.e. 20% of the
maximum soil retention capacity.
Some Rainfall-Runoff Models
Phi-Index
Horton Equation
SCS Curve
Number
SAC-SMA
Constant Infiltration Rate
A constant infiltration rate is the most simple of the
methods. It is often referred to as a phi-index or |-index.
In some modeling situations it is used in a conservative
mode.
The saturated soil conductivity may be used for the
infiltration rate.
The obvious weakness is the inability to model changes in
infiltration rate.
The phi-index may also be estimated from individual storm
events by looking at the runoff hydrograph.
Hydrograph Breakdown
0.0000
100.0000
200.0000
300.0000
400.0000
500.0000
600.0000
700.0000
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
1
6
0
0
0
.
3
2
0
0
0
.
4
8
0
0
0
.
6
4
0
0
0
.
8
0
0
0
0
.
9
6
0
0
1
.
1
2
0
0
1
.
2
8
0
0
1
.
4
4
0
0
1
.
6
0
0
0
1
.
7
6
0
0
1
.
9
2
0
0
2
.
0
8
0
0
2
.
2
4
0
0
2
.
4
0
0
0
2
.
5
6
0
0
2
.
7
2
0
0
2
.
8
8
0
0
3
.
0
4
0
0
3
.
2
0
0
0
3
.
3
6
0
0
3
.
5
2
0
0
3
.
6
8
0
0
Baseflow
Surface
Response
Hydrograph Breakdown
0.0000
100.0000
200.0000
300.0000
400.0000
500.0000
600.0000
700.0000
0.0000 0.5000 1.0000 1.5000 2.0000 2.5000 3.0000 3.5000 4.0000
Total
Hydrograph
Surface
Response
Baseflow
Derive phi-index
sample watershed = 450 mi
2

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 8
1
6
2
4
3
2
4
0
4
8
5
6
6
4
7
2
8
0
8
8
9
6
1
0
4
1
1
2
1
2
0
1
2
8
Time (hrs.)
F
l
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Separation of Baseflow
... generally accepted that the inflection point on the
recession limb of a hydrograph is the result of a
change in the controlling physical processes of the
excess precipitation flowing to the basin outlet.
In this example, baseflow is considered to be a
straight line connecting that point at which the
hydrograph begins to rise rapidly and the inflection
point on the recession side of the hydrograph.
the inflection point may be found by plotting the
hydrograph in semi-log fashion with flow being plotted
on the log scale and noting the time at which the
recession side fits a straight line.
Semi-log Plot
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
2
9
3
4
3
9
4
4
4
9
5
4
5
9
6
4
6
9
7
4
7
9
8
4
8
9
9
4
9
9
1
0
4
1
0
9
1
1
4
1
1
9
1
2
4
1
2
9
1
3
4
Time (hrs.)
F
l
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Recession side of hydrograph
becomes linear at approximately hour
64.
Hydrograph & Baseflow
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
07
1
4
2
1
2
8
3
5
4
2
4
9
5
6
6
3
7
0
7
7
8
4
9
1
9
8
1
0
5
1
1
2
1
1
9
1
2
6
1
3
3
Time (hrs.)
F
l
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Separate Baseflow
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 7
1
4
2
1
2
8
3
5
4
2
4
9
5
6
6
3
7
0
7
7
8
4
9
1
9
8
1
0
5
1
1
2
1
1
9
1
2
6
1
3
3
Time (hrs.)
F
l
o
w

(
c
f
s
)
Sample Calculations
In the present example (hourly time step), the flows are
summed and then multiplied by 3600 seconds to
determine the volume of runoff in cubic feet. If desired,
this value may then be converted to acre-feet by
dividing by 43,560 square feet per acre.
The depth of direct runoff in feet is found by dividing the
total volume of excess precipitation (now in acre-feet)
by the watershed area (450 mi2 converted to 288,000
acres).
In this example, the volume of excess precipitation or
direct runoff for storm #1 was determined to be 39,692
acre-feet.
The depth of direct runoff is found to be 0.1378 feet
after dividing by the watershed area of 288,000 acres.
Finally, the depth of direct runoff in inches is 0.1378 x
12 = 1.65 inches.
Summing Flows
Continuous process
represented with
discrete time steps
Estimating Excess Precip.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Time (hrs.)
P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)

Uniform loss rate of
0.2 inches per hour.
1.65 inches of
excess
precipitation
Phi-Index Summary
The phi-index for this storm was 0.2
inches per hour.
This is a uniform loss rate.
If the precipitation stops for a time period,
the infiltration will still be 0.2 inches per
hour when the precipitation starts again.
Regardless of this weakness, this is still
very powerful information to have
regarding the response of a watershed.
Exponential Decay - Horton
This is purely a mathematical function - of the following form:
kt
)e
c
f
o
(f
c
f
i
f

+ =
f
i
= infiltration capacity at time, t
f
c
= final infiltration capacity
f
o
= initial infiltration capacity
f
o
f
c
Effect of f
o
or f
c

Horton
Effect of K
Horton
0
1
2
Horton
Assumes that precipitation supply is
greater than infiltration rate.
There are now 2 parameters to
estimate or calibrate for a watershed!!
f
o
& k
Horton
Horton Issues with
Continuous Simulation
Again, if it stops raining how does
the soil recover in a Horton model?
i.e.
Stopped raining for a
short period how does
the soil recover?
Soil Conservation Service is an empirical
method of estimating EXCESS
PRECIPITATION
We can imply that precipitation minus excess
precipitation = infiltration/retention :
P - P
e
= F
SCS Curve Number
SCS (NRCS)
Runoff Curve Number
The basic relationships used to develop the curve number
runoff prediction technique are described here as
background for subsequent discussion. The technique
originates with the assumption that the following
relationship describes the water balance of a storm event.
where F is the actual retention on the
watershed, Q is the actual direct storm
runoff, S is the potential maximum retention,
and P is the potential maximum runoff
P
Q
S
F
=
Modifications
P
e
= P - I
a
Effective precipitation equals total
precipitation minus initial
abstraction
We will use effective precipitation in
place of precipitation
More Modifications
At this point in the development, SCS
redefines S to be the potential maximum
retention
SCS also defines I
a
in terms of S as : I
a
=
0.2S
A little substituting gives the familiar SCS
rainfall-runoff equation:
0.8S) + (P
) 0.2S - (P
= Q
2
Estimating S
The difficult part of applying this method to a
watershed is the estimation of the watersheds
potential maximum retention, S.
SCS developed the concept of the dimensionless
curve number, CN, to aid in the estimation of S.
CN is related to S as follows :
10 -
CN
1000
= S
CN ranges from 1 to 100 (not really!)
Determine CN
The Soil Conservation Service has classified over 8,500 soil
series into four hydrologic groups according to their
infiltration characteristics, and the proper group is
determined for the soil series found.
The hydrologic groups have been designated as A, B, C, and
D.
Group A is composed of soils considered to have a low
runoff potential. These soils have a high infiltration rate
even when thoroughly wetted.
Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate when
thoroughly wetted,
while group C soils are those which have slow infiltration
rates when thoroughly wetted.
Group D soils are those which are considered to have a
high potential for runoff, since they have very slow
infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted (SCS, 1972).
Determine CN, cont.
Once the hydrologic soil group has been determined,
the curve number of the site is determined by cross-
referencing land use and hydrologic condition to the
soil group - SAMPLE
Land use and treatment Hydrologic soil group
or Hydrologic
practice condition A B C D


Fallow
Straight row ---- 77 86 91 94
Row Crops
Straight row Poor 72 81 88 91
Straight row Good 67 78 85 89
Contoured Poor 70 79 84 88
Initial Conditions

5-day antecedent rainfall, inches
Antecedent moisture

Dormant Season Growing Season


I Less than 0.5 Less than 1.4

II 0.5 to 1.1 1.4 to 2.1

III Over 1.1 Over 2.1



Adjust CNs
CN for AMC II Corresponding CNs
AMC I AMC III
100 100 100
95 87 98
90 78 96
85 70 94
80 63 91
75 57 88
70 51 85
65 45 82
60 40 78
55 35 74
50 31 70
Sample Application
The curve number is assumed to be 70.
The cumulative runoff (c) is calculated from the
cumulative precipitation (b), using equation (4).
The potential maximum storage, S, is calculated to be S =
(1000/70) - 10 = 4.286 inches.
Using 20% as the initial abstraction percentage yields 0.2 x
4.286 = 0.8572 inches and will require that at least 0.8572
inches of precipitation must accrue before runoff may
begin.
Computations


Time
(hours)
(a)

Cumulative
Precipitation
(inches)
(b)

Cumulative
Runoff
(inches)
(c)

Incremental
Precipitatio
n
(inches)
(d)

Incremental
Runoff
(inches)
(e)


Infltration
(inches)
(f)

0

0

0













1

0.005

0.995

1

1

0.005













2

0.709

1.291

2

3

0.714













2

1.326

0.674

3

5

2.04













2

1.58

0.42

4

7

3.62







Problems
The initial abstraction (I
a
) consists of interception,
depression storage, and infiltration that occurs prior
to runoff.
It is not easy to estimate the initial abstraction for a
particular storm event.
SCS felt that there should be a connection between I
a

versus S, and they attempted to develop the
relationship by plotting I
a
versus S for a large
number of events on small experimental watersheds.
- Quite a SCATTER - not very successful.
These rainfall-runoff models have varied in
complexity but would have difficulty in modeling a
continuous event, as they all lack the ability to allow
the soil zones to recover when the precipitation
stops.. This leads us to model systems that are
intended for continuous simulation with updating
abilities.
SAC-SMA
The Sacramento Soil Moisture
Accounting Model (SAC-SMA) is a
conceptual model of soil moisture
accounting that uses empiricism and
lumped coefficients to attempt to
mimic the physical constraints of water
movement in a natural system.
Sacramento Soil Moisture
Accounting Model
Sacramento Model Structure
E T Demand
Impervious
Area
E T
E T
E T
E T
Precipitation Input
Px
Pervious Area
E T
Impervious Area
Tension Water
UZTW Free Water
UZFW
Percolation
Zperc. Rexp
1-PFREE PFREE
Free Water
Tension Water P S
LZTW LZFP LZFS

RSERV
Primary
Baseflow
Direct Runoff
Surface
Runoff
Interflow
Supplemental
Base flow
Side Subsurface
Discharge
LZSK
LZPK
Upper Zone
Lower Zone
EXCESS
UZK
RIVA
PCTIM
ADIMP
Total
Channel
Inflow
Distribution
Function
Streamflow
Total
Baseflow
Hydrograph Decomposition
Supplemental Baseflow
Primary Baseflow
Interflow
Surface Runoff
Impervious and
Direct Runoff
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

Time
Sacramento Soil Moisture
Components
Impervious and Direct Runoff
Surface Runoff
Interflow
Supplemental Baseflow
Primary Baseflow
SAC-SMA Model
Evaporation
Precipitation
Upper
Zone
Lower
Zone
Pervious Impervious
Initial Soil-moisture Parameter
Estimates By Hydrograph Analysis
Parameters for which good estimates generally can be obtained
LZPK - minimum baseflow recession
recession rate K
r
=
t / 1
1
2
Q
Q
|
.
|

\
|
LZPK = 1.0 - K
r
Things to consider
- Ground melt in winter
- Riparian vegetation ET in summer
- Extended supplemental recessions
- Reservoirs - diversions
- Variable primary recession
Initial Soil-moisture Parameter
Estimates By Hydrograph Analysis
(continued)
LZSK - Supplemental baseflow recession (always >
LZPK)
Flow that typically persists anywhere from 15 days to 3 or
4 months
recession rate K
r
=
t / 1
1
2
Q
Q
|
.
|

\
|
LZSK = 1.0 - K
r
Things to consider
- Combination of supplemental and primary is not a straight line on semi-log
plot
- Better (but not necessary) to replot with primary subtracted
Initial Soil Moisture Parameters
Estimates by Hydrograph Analysis
(continued)
PCTIM - minimum impervious area
Only storm runoff that occurs when UZTWC not full
Use small rise in summer following a week or more of dry weather
PCTIM = Runoff Volume/(Rain + Melt)
Things to consider
- Use a number of events, take average of ones with the smallest PCTIM
- Be aware of approximate magnitude of ET-demand
- Derive in conjunction with UZTWM
Initial Soil Moisture Estimates by
Hydrograph Analysis (continued)
Methods
- Extension of recession
- Examination of semi-log plot (Search through semi-log plot and try to approximate
the highest level of primary baseflow runoff that occurs. This is Q
x
.)
LZFPM = Q
x
/LZPK
Things to consider
- This is a minimal estimate because LZFPC probably never equals LZFPM. Fills to 60 to 90+
percent capacity. Lowest percentage usually associated with most permeable soils.
- Further recharge normally occurs after Q
x
.
LZFPM - lower zone free water capacity
Multiyear Statistical Output
MULTIYEAR STATISTICAL SUMMARY
STAT-QME AREA (SQKM) = 2826.5 WATER YEARS 1965 TO 1972
Monthly Simulated
mean (cmsd)
Observed
mean (cmsd)
Percent
bias
Monthly bias
(SIM-OBS)
(mm)
Maximum error
(SIM-OBS)
(cmsd)
Percent
average
absolute error
Percent
daily
rms error
Max monthly
volume error
(mm)
Percent avg
abs monthly
vol error
Percent monthly
vol rms vol
RMS error
October 2.058 2.883 -28.61 -0.782 -86.957 44.09 238.04 -4.315 34.72 64.47
November 1.521 1.853 -17.92 -0.305 -30.655 45.6 138.3 -1.564 19.33 34.1
December 4.763 3.906 21.95 0.812 -122.272 69.81 254.32 7.349 49.21 80.93
January 1.501 0.78 92.34 0.683 26.376 118.49 433.66 3.162 99.92 183.88
February 5.416 3.672 47.51 1.493 85.814 75.87 271.45 4.519 48.36 76.41
March 4.021 2.856 40.8 1.104 55.495 51.71 210.83 6.953 42.72 97.84
April 0.485 0.57 -14.95 -0.078 2.349 28.32 59.54 -0.238 18.76 23.87
May 0.411 0.445 -7.64 -0.032 1.431 31.11 44.53 -0.228 21.25 28.06
June 1.184 0.804 47.27 0.349 -25.129 101.07 349.7 2.303 70.03 123.04
July 11.926 10.463 13.98 1.386 88.298 69.64 128.66 7.116 29.62 39.7
August 12.941 18.146 -28.68 -4.932 -59.106 48.29 73.02 -10.723 28.68 33.49
September 5.769 5.371 7.41 0.365 -72.167 82.52 184.48 -6.814 59.86 79.77
YEAR AVG 4.32 4.307 0.29 0.063 -122.272 60.97 184.85 -10.723 37.28 68.78
Daily rms error
(cmsd)
Daily average
abs error (cmsd)
Average abs monthly
vol error (mm)
Monthly volume
rms error (mm)
Correlation
Coefficient
daily flows
Line of best fit
Obs = a + b*sim
a b
7.962 2.626 1.494 2.757 0.7801 .5786 .8632
Flow interval
Number
of cases
Simulated
mean (cmsd)
Observed
mean (cmsd)
Percent bias Bias
(sim-obs) (mm)
Maximum
error (cmsd)
Percent
avg abs error
Percent
rms error
.00 - 1.05 1769 0.715 0.541 32.23 0.0053 18.388 61.3 169.65
1.05 - 3.27 306 3.989 1.889 111.12 0.0642 48.455 152.89 356.34
3.27 - 10.47 281 7.971 5.953 33.91 0.0617 85.814 85.97 164.95
10.47 - 32.71 182 17.549 18.621 -5.76 -0.0328 88.298 58.77 80.97
32.71 - 104.68 75 39.368 52.609 -25.17 -0.4048 -72.167 42.46 51.8
104.68 - 327.14 4 108.221 182.5 -40.7 -2.2705 -122.272 40.7 44.5
327.14 and above No Cases
Multiyear Statistical Output
(continued)
25 Largest Daily Error Values in CMSD
Month Day Year Observed Simulated Error
(sim-obs)
Percent error Percent total
sq deviation
Percent
reduction of
daily rms if
error equal
zero
December 16 1967 235 112.728 -122.272 -52.03 9.01 4.61
July 9 1968 31.2 119.498 88.298 283.01 4.7 2.38
October 29 1971 212 125.043 -86.957 -41.02 4.56 2.31
February 13 1968 7.15 92.964 85.814 1200.2 4.44 2.24
September 3 1965 89.4 17.233 -72.167 -80.72 3.14 1.58
August 2 1968 100 40.894 -59.106 -59.11 2.11 1.06
July 10 1968 36.9 94.346 57.446 155.68 1.99 1
March 3 1968 48.5 103.995 55.495 114.42 1.86 0.93
August 18 1966 75.2 23.887 -51.313 -68.24 1.59 0.8
December 31 1965 2.4 50.855 48.455 2018.95 1.42 0.71
July 29 1971 57.9 9.707 -48.193 -83.23 1.4 0.7
September 12 1969 7.5 55.563 48.063 640.83 1.39 0.7
July 28 1971 54.4 6.91 -47.49 -87.3 1.36 0.68
February 11 1968 1.92 49.141 47.221 2459.42 1.34 0.67
February 15 1968 148 101.437 -46.563 -31.46 1.31 0.66
August 4 1967 13 57.378 44.378 341.37 1.19 0.6
July 19 1968 58.6 14.454 -44.146 -75.33 1.17 0.59
September 6 1970 8.65 51.856 43.206 499.49 1.13 0.56
August 24 1967 45.7 2.933 -42.767 -93.58 1.1 0.55
August 12 1966 43.2 85.601 42.401 98.15 1.08 0.54
September 13 1969 10.2 51.597 41.397 405.85 1.03 0.52
February 14 1968 135 93.678 -41.322 -30.61 1.03 0.52
December 15 1967 21.9 62.726 40.826 186.42 1 0.5
July 16 1968 50.7 10.025 -40.675 -80.23 1 0.5
July 22 1971 58.8 19.387 -39.413 -67.03 0.94 0.47
12 Largest Monthly Volume Errors in mm
Month Year Observed Simulated Error
(sim-obs)
Percent error Percent total sq
deviation
Percent reduction of
monthly rms if error
equal zero
August 1966 33.065 22.342 -10.723 -32.43 17.6 9.23
August 1971 19.947 12.537 -7.41 -37.15 8.4 4.29
December 1965 6.42 13.769 7.349 114.48 8.27 4.22
July 1969 2.814 9.93 7.116 252.9 7.75 3.95
March 1968 16.044 22.997 6.953 43.34 7.4 3.77
September 1965 10.579 3.764 -6.814 -64.42 7.11 3.62
September 1970 5.504 11.959 6.455 117.29 6.38 3.24
July 1971 10.31 4.882 -5.427 -52.64 4.51 2.28
August 1970 14.02 8.596 -5.424 -38.69 4.5 2.28
July 1967 10.182 15.148 4.966 48.78 3.78 1.91
February 1968 15.468 19.987 4.519 29.21 3.13 1.57
October 1971 13.153 8.838 -4.315 -32.81 2.85 1.44
END
Rainfall-Runoff Models