IRJET- A Review of Synthetic Hydrograph Methods for Design Storm

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2413
A Review of Synthetic Hydrograph Methods for Design Storm
Suraj Kalgonda Patil1, Tejaswini Nikhil Bhagwat2
1Ph.D. Student, Department of Studies in Civil Engineering, University B.D.T. College of Engineering,
Davangiri, Karnataka, India.
2Associate Professor, Department of Studies in Civil Engineering, University B.D.T. College of Engineering,
Davangiri, Karnataka, India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - The main aim of this paper is to determine the
suitable method of synthetic unit hydrograph for various
ungauged or data paucity watershed characteristics, where
each method specified in range of validity based on
characteristics parameter and will be presented in theform of
synthetic unit hydrograph methods. For this purpose, the
Synthetic unit hydrograph methods were first grouped into
four main classes, as follows: (1) Traditional methods; (2)
Conceptual methods; (3) probabilistic methods; and (4)
geomorphological methods. This evaluation is expected to be
helpful to academician and students to study the unit
hydrograph, modeling techniques and related processes in
ungauged or data paucity basins. Synthetic methodvalidation
is done by calculating the comparison parameters between
observation and synthetic unit hydrograph with the specified
acceptance value. Comparison parameters measure the
similarity of the unit hydrograph’s shape and the unit
hydrograph parameters of the peak discharge, peak time and
time base.
Key Words: Design Storm, Ungauged Basins, Unit
Hydrograph, Basin Characteristics, Hydrological
Characteristics, Time to peak, Synthetic unithydrographetc.
1. INTRODUCTION
Rainfall and runoff data are seldom adequate to determinea
unit hydrograph of a basin or watershed. Generally, stream
flow and rainfall data are not available for planning and
designing water management in River basins (Salami et al.,
2009). A runoff hydrograph isanexpressionofsurfacewater
discharge over time. It is a reflection of the watershed
characteristics which influence the relationship between
rainfall and the resulting hydrograph (Singh et al.
2014).River basins experiencing sub-humid to semi-arid
climate have high potential for surface runoff and moderate
potential for groundwater recharge (Mishra et al., 2014).
Water demand in such river basins is high in non-monsoon
period (Kumar et al., 2007). For efficient watermanagement
strategies schemeslikediversion,surfacewaterstoragesand
groundwater recharge are required (Khare et al., 2014).
Thus, design storms for rainfall intensities that are more
frequent in the agricultural dominant river basins are
considered to derive unit hydrographs.
The unit hydrograph concept proposed for estimating the
storm runoff hydrograph at the gauging site corresponding
to a rainfall hyetograph, is still a widely accepted and
admired tool in hydrologic analysis and synthesis. This was
one of the first tools available to hydrologic community to
determine the complete shape of the hydrographs rather
than the peak discharges only. Since the UH concept needed
the observed rainfall-runoff data at the gauging site for
hydrograph generation, the paucity of these data sparkled
the idea of synthetic unit hydrograph (SUH) concept. The
beginning of the synthetic unit hydrograph concept can be
traced back to the distribution graph proposed by to
synthesize the UH from watershed characteristics, rather
than the rainfall-runoff data (Mishra et al., 2014). The
following sections contract withthe methodsgroupedunder
these four classes and analytically review and discuss their
usefulness and restrictions, and their future submissions.
2. TRADITIONAL SUH METHODS
In traditional synthetic unit hydrograph development, some
degree of partiality is involved in fitting the points on the
SUH. In addition, concurrent modifications are also required
to ensure that the area under the SUH is unity equivalent to
unit rainfall-excess. The empirical equations encountered
have certain coefficients, which vary over a wide range.
However, despite their discrepancies, these methodsarestill
widely used in engineering problems; brief descriptions of
some are explained here.
2.1 Snyder method
Snyder (1938) was the first to develop empirical formulasto
derive SUH for a catchment area with insufficient data by
using the catchment characteristics of the basin
(Subramanya 2008). The main factor influencing the
accuracy of synthetic unit hydrograph is in determining the
watershed characteristics parameters so the synthetic unit
hydrograph is closed to the observation unit hydrograph. A
set of empirical relations among watershed characteristics,
such as area (Aw) (km2); length of main stream (L) (km);and
the distance from the watershed outlet to a point on the
main stream nearest to the centre of the area of the
watershed (Lc) (km) and the three basic parameters of the
UH, i.e. tp, the lag or time to peak (h), Qp, the peak discharge
rate (m3/s), and tb the base time (d), to describe the shape of
the UH. These relationships can be expressed as:
tp = Ct (L.Lc)n

Qp = 640 Cp A/tp
TB = 5 [(tp/11) + tp]
W50 = 2.14 (qp)–1.08
W75 = 1.22 (qp)–1.08
where tp (hours) is the time of lag to peak, Ct is a regional
constant representing watershedslopeandstorage effects,L
(kilometers) is the length of the main channel, Lc
(kilometers) is the length between the outlet andcentroid of
the watershed, the superscript “n” refers to the basin
constant used in the calculation of the basin lag tp (in
Snyder’s method, the value of n is taken as 0.3), Qp (cubic
meters per second) is the peak discharge of a UH, Cp is an
indication of the retention and storage capacity of the
watershed, A (square kilometers) is the drainage area, TB
(hours) is the base period, W50 and W75 (hours) are the
widths at 50 and 75%, respectively, of peak discharge of an
SUH, and qp (cubic meters per second per square kilometer)
is the peak discharge per unit catchment area (Subramanya
2008).
2.2 Mitchells method
By studying UHs for 58 Illinois watersheds ranging in area
from 10 to 3,090 mi2, Mitchell (1948) established an SUH
method based on the basin lag and the summation curve
according to three classifications: area less than 175 mi2,
area of 175 to 750 mi2, and area over 750 mi2. Mitchell’s
equation is given by (Thorvat and Patel 2016):
t = 2.80 tp
0.81
t = 1.05 A0.6
qs = And/0.03719
where t (hours) is the time lag between the centroid of
effective rainfall hyetograph and the centroid of the DRH, A
(square kilometers) is drainage area, qs (cubic meters)isthe
volume of surface runoff of 1 in. over the drainage area and
nd is the number of intervals per day.
2.3 Commons method
Commons (1942) established a dimensionless hydrograph
from a study of major flood hydrographs in Texas. The
parameters derived in this method are time unit (Tu) in
hours, volume (V) of 1 cm of runoff in cubic meters, and unit
discharge (Qu) in cubic meters per second as shown in Eq.
Tu = Tp/14
V = 23, 23, 200A
Qu = V/(1,196.5 Tu 3600)
The area under the curve being equal to 1,196.5 square
units, the peak discharge (Qp) is divided into 60 units
(Hoffmeister & Weisman 1977) as in Eq; the base period
(TB) is divided into 100 units as in Eq:
Qp = 60 Qu
TB = 100 Tu
2.4 SCS method
The SCS method (USDA 1957) utilizes the land use, soil type,
and hydrological and antecedent moisture conditions of the
catchment to estimate Qp and Tp; the SUH shape is then
determinedfromanaverage dimensionlesshydrograph,thus
avoiding any manual fitting (Bhunya et al. 2009). The SCS
dimensionless UH is assumed to be invariant (regardless of
catchment shape, size, and location), although such an
assumption may not be justified(Singh2000).Arelationship
between Qp and Tp is given by Eq 14:
Qp = 484 A Vq/Tp
where A is drainage area of the basin (square kilometers)
and Vq is the runoff volume (cubic meters) distributed
uniformly over the drainage basin.
2.5 Taylor and Schwarz method
The Taylor and Schwartz (TS) model was proposed by
Taylor and Schwarz (1952)forSUHderivationusingthedata
of 20 watersheds having drainage areas varying from 20 to
1600 mi2 (52–4144 km2). While deriving the SUH,themodel
specially considers the average slope of the main channel of
the watershed and the other watershed characteristics, i.e.
Aw, L and Lc similar to those in Snyder’s method.Theaverage
slope of the main channel is determined as:
Where Sc is the average slope of the main channel, Si is the
slope of the ith reach of the main channel and N is the total
number of reaches.
3. CONCEPTUAL SUH METHODS
This division deliberates the popular conceptual models of
Clark (1945) and Nash (1957) along with some recently
developed conceptual models used for SUH derivation. We
also explore some oftheconceptual modelsalreadyavailable
in the hydrological literature which have ample ability to be
transmuted into SUH, and thus require the attention of the
ungauged catchments researchcommunityfortheiranalysis.

3.1 Clark’s method
Clark’s method for developing an SUH involves the
application of an instantaneously applied unit (1 inch or 1
mm) of rainfall excess over a watershed and thereafter, the
precipitation is mathematically conveyed to the watershed
outlet through two components: a translation hydrograph
and a linear reservoir (LR) routing. For derivation of an IUH,
the Clark model uses two parameters: (a) time of
concentration (TC) in hours, and(b)storagecoefficient(K)in
hours of a single LR, in addition to the time–area diagram.
The governing equation of the Clark IUH model can be
expressed as:
Where Ui is the ith ordinate of the IUH and Ai the ith ordinate
of the time–area diagram; C1 and C2 are Clark’s routing
coefficients and can be computed by the following
expressions:
where Δt is the computational interval in hours. Finally, a UH
of desired duration (D) is derived using the equation:
where Ui is the ith ordinate of the UH of D-hour duration and
computational interval Δt hours; and N is the number of
computationalintervalsinD-hours,D/Δt. Althoughnotstated
as a purpose, Clark’s model was the first fully time-
distributed SUH technique. However,forungaugedbasins,TC
and K are difficult to estimate.
3.2 Nash IUH method
Nash (1957) developed a conceptual model based on a
cascade of ‘n’ equal LRs with equal storage coefficient ‘K’ for
derivation of the IUH for a natural watershed. Notably, in the
model formulation, an instantaneous unit depth of effective
rainfall is allowed into only the farthest (nth) reservoir in a
series (in the Nash model the reservoir closest to theoutletis
the first reservoir and the farthest in the series is the nth
reservoir) and is then routed through the remaining
reservoirs. The outflow of each reservoir servesastheinflow
into the next reservoir in the series as the flow moves
towards the outlet of the watershed. The outflow of the first
reservoir of the series, at the outlet of the watershed, is
considered to be the IUH for the watershed. The analytical
form of the model can be expressed as:
where q(t) is the depth of runoff per unit time per unit
effective rainfall. It is noteworthy that parameter ‘n’ is
dimensionless and ‘K’ has the unit of time. The area under
the curve defined by above equation is unity. Thus, the
rainfall-excess and direct surface runoff depths are equal to
unity. The parameters ‘n’ and ‘K’ are often referred to as the
shape and scale parameters of the Nash model, respectively,
which can be computed using the method of moments or
empirical equations available in the literature (Singh 2014,
Bhunya et al. 2003). To obtain the SUH, the parameters of
equation above are related to catchment characteristics.
However, in spite of its wider applicability, the Nash model
has been a topic of much discussion among the hydrological
community for its inherent discrepancies. a conceptual flaw
is that the instantaneous unit rainfall is input into only the
farthest reservoir from the outlet of the watershed; this is
equivalent to saying that for a given watershed, only the
farthest area from the outlet receives any rainfall, and that
this area receives the entire unit rainfall.
3.3 Dooge IUH method
Dooge (1959) used the concept of a LC and represented the
basin (system) by a series of LCs and LRs. The outflow from
the LC was represented by a time–area diagram which,
together with outflowfromtheprecedingsub-area,servesas
the inflow to the LR. The expression developed for the IUH
can be expressed as:
where S is the input volume taken as unity; T is the total
transmission time of the basin (=LC with L as the total
channel length of the basin and C the translation coefficient
for all LCs); i is the order of reservoirs equal to 1, 2, 3 …
counted downstream to the basin outlet; i(τ) is the function
of τ representing an integer equal to the ordernumberofthe
sub-area; Ki is the storage coefficient of the ith reservoir; D is
the differential operator (d/dt); δ(t – τ) is the Dirac-delta
function, where t is the elapsed time, τ is thetranslationtime
between the elements in the sub-area and the outlet; and
ω(τ/T) is the ordinate of a dimensionless time–area
diagram.
4. PROBABILISTIC METHODS
An application of probability distribution functions as SUH
has a long successful hydrological history. Due to similarity
in the shape of statistical distributions and a conventional
UH, several attempts have been made in the past to use their
probability density functions (pdfs) for derivation of the
SUH. In practice, two approaches are followed for deriving a
UH from recorded flood hydrographs and simultaneous
rainfall records. The first is a non-parametric approach

based on a discretization technique, i.e. determination of a
model at a finite number of discrete points. This includesthe
least-squaresmethod,matrixinversion,linearprogramming,
nonlinear programming and the transfer function method.
The second one is a parametric approach that fits some
prescriptive functional curves with a limited number of
parameters, and theseparametersareestimated bymeansof
optimization using an objective function or through any
suitable approach. For instance, Nash derived an IUH based
on the concept of ‘n’ LRs of equal storage coefficient and
showed that the IUH shape can be represented by a two-
parameter gamma distribution (2PGD). He derived the
parameters of the 2GPD by the method of moments using
observed hyetographs and hydrographs.The nonparametric
methods are believed to be moreaccuratebecausethey usea
larger number of points for UH derivation. Therefore, they
are widely used for UH derivation despite the disadvantage
that there are a large number ofcorrelatedparametersinthe
UH model, which makes the estimation problem ill-formed
and sometimes yields negative UH ordinates. Further, the
large number of parameters involved in thederivation ofthe
UH using these methods can lead to the problems of
computational instability, which restricts the practical
application of these techniques.
5. GEOMORPHOLOGIC METHODS
Presently hydrologists have found it more convenient to
couple the distribution function-based approach with the
classical GIUH approach for development of SUH models by
harvesting the geographic information systems (GISs) and
remote sensing (RS)technologies.Thissectiondealswith the
GIUH approach right from its origin to the most recent
developments and applications in hydrological sciences.
The geomorphological methods, pairing the principles of
hydrological systems with quantitative geomorphology,
were proposed to represent the IUH of a given basin,andare
popularly known as geomorphological instantaneous unit
hydrograph (GIUH) models. In this regard, several attempts
were made in the past to establish relationshipsbetweenthe
parameters of the models for ungauged catchments, and the
physically measurable watershed characteristics. Thus,
linking quantitative geomorphology with basinhydrological
characteristics can provide a simple way to understand the
hydrological behavior of different basins, particularly
ungauged ones. These characteristics relate to the physical
characteristics of the drainage basin as well as the drainage
network. The physical characteristics of the drainage basin
include drainage area, basin shape, ground slope and
centroid. Whereas in a drainage network, the important
channel characteristics include the number of channels of
different orders, their lengths and slopes. With the recent
development of GIS tools, it is now possible to determine
hydrological and watershed geomorphological parameters
using DEMs/digital terrain models (DTM).
Since so much of hydrology is linked to processesat
the Earth’s surface, the connection with the topographic,
computer-based methodology known as GIS was a
predictable step in the evolution of hydrological sciences. A
GIS links land cover data to topographic data and to other
information concerning processes and properties related to
geographic location. When applied to hydrologic systems,
non-topographic informationcanincludedescriptionofsoils,
land use, ground cover, groundwater conditions, as well as
man-made systems and their characteristics onor belowthe
land surface. The application of GIS in natural resources and
engineering can be traced back to 1980–1990, and since
then, continued efforts have been put into research and
development and exponential growth has occurred in GIS
applications in natural resources, particularly land and
water resources. The ArcGIS and Qgis softwarepackages are
commonly used to process DEMs to extract the hydrological
parameters or physical characteristics of a catchment and
can serve for GIUH model-based simulations. As discussed
above, one of the most important tasks of theoretical,aswell
as practical hydrology is to find the laws of runoff processes
in river basins. The difficulty of this task increases when
there is a lack of hydrological data. Where no hydrological
data are available at all, one of the possibilities is the
determination of the runoff hydrograph by means of a
relationship between characteristics of the quantitative
geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks
and the parameters of an IUH. In the last few years, theusual
cartographic representation of basin morphological
parameters has been gradually substituted by digital
representations in the form of DEM. The ease with which
such information can be processed has stimulated the
development of automatic procedures that alleviate the
burden of some typical hydrological pre elaborations (e.g.
drainage basin and sub-basin delineation, drainage path
calculation, drainage network extraction, basin and stream
ordering, geomorphological/morphometric parameters.
Based on these notable works, it can be concluded that the
recent exponential developments in RStechnologiesand GIS
facilities can be effectively utilized to address the lack of
hydrological data in data paucity basins. Consequently, the
hydrological models for data scarce basins should be able to
use these new kinds of methods.
6. APPROACHES WITH DIFFERENT METHODS
The basins where is data is insufficient or absent creates
major problem in hydrological research and SUH methods
are widely used for developing unit hydrographs for such
basins. In this study, the SUH methods/approachesavailable
in the literature, improved soft computing techniques/
algorithms, were thoroughly reviewed and summarized for
their capabilities and limitations. The modelswereclassified
into four groups: Traditional (or Empirical), Conceptual,
Probabilistic and Geomorphological methods. The pros and
cons of four classes of methods were summarized with
regard to their wider applications. Though the traditional
methods of Snyder and SCS are widely used for SUH
derivation, theyhaveseveral inconsistencies.Theconceptual
models of Nash and Clark define the standard shape of the

UH using the minimum number of parameters and have
witnessed numerous applications in hydrological studies,
including for the areas they were not originally intended to
solve. However, models such as Dooge IUH require further
exploration, given their enhanced efficacy and applicability.
With the development of GIUH methods it was possible to
compute salient parameters of an ungauged basin and toget
the complete SUH shape. These models have had many
applications in ungauged basins hydrology. The
developments in RS technologies to avail high resolution
DEMs and simultaneous advances in DEM processing
software and algorithms for extracting geomorphological
information has improved the practical applicabilityofthese
models manifold. Notably, these advances have facilitated
extraction of typical hydrological information. For deriving
the complete shape of UH for ungauged catchments can be
considered as a major part of hydrology in order to satisfy
the constraint of unit volume and depth.
7. CONCLUSION
In this review study, the SUH models widely used for flood
hydrograph modeling from ungauged basins were critically
reviewed and thoroughly summarized for their uses and
limitations. The reviewed SUH models were classified into
four groups as: (1) Traditional or empirical, (2) Conceptual,
(3) Probabilistic and(4)Geomorphological.Theapplicability
of each class of models in ungauged or data scarce basin
hydrology is considered. It is found that the traditional SUH
models have several inconsistencies associated with them;
however, these models are widely used for SUH derivation.
The strong mathematical and conceptual basis of
probabilistic SUH models and the models based on
geomorphological perception of a drainage basin,
successfully fill the technological gap for unit hydrograph
estimation from ungauged or data paucity catchments.
Therefore, the geomorphological classoftheSUHmodelscan
be thought of as the most useful and appealing approach for
while predicting runoff in ungauged or data paucity
catchments
REFERENCES
[1] Adejamo L.A & AdinaranK.A.,(2016),“Estimationof
Design Flood Hydrographs for Osun River at Iwo
Control Station in Osun State, Nigeria”, FUOYE
Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 1,
Issue 1, pp. 43-47.
[2] Adib A., Salarijaz M. & Najafpour K., (2010),
“Evaluation of Synthetic Outlet Runoff Assessment
Models”, J. Applied Science & Environment
Management, Vol. 14 No. 03, pp. 13-18.
[3] Bhunya P.K., Panda S.N. & Goel M.K., (2011),
“Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Methods: A Critical
Review”, Open Hydrology Journal, Vol.5, pp. 1-8.
[4] Hoffmeister G. & Weisman R.N., (1977), “Accuracy
of synthetic hydrographs derived from
representative basins”, Hydrological Sciences
Bulletin, pp. 222-297.
[5] Kumar R., Chatterjee C., Lohani A., Kumar S. & Singh
R., (2007), “Flood estimation for an ungauged
catchment using Geomorphological Instantaneous
Unit Hydrograph (GIUH) models”, Hydrological
Processes, pp.13-17
[6] Limanrea L.M., (2009), “The Limiting Physical
Parameters of Synthetic Unit Hydrograph”, World
Applied Sciences Journal,Vol.7,No.06,pp.802-804.
[7] Majidi A & Moradi M., (2012), “Evaluation of
Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SCS) and Rational
Methods in Peak Flow Estimation”, International
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol.1 No.5,pp.43-
47.
[8] Mishra N., Khare D., Gupta K.K. & Shukla R., (2014),
“Impact of Land Use Change on Groundwater ‐ A
Review”, Advances in Water Resource and
Protection (AWRP) Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 28-41.
[9] Mustafa S. & Yusuf M.I., (2012), A Textbook of
Hydrology and Water Resources, Revised Edition,
Topsmerit Page Publishing Co., Abuja, Nigeria.
[10] Ogunlela A.O., Adewale P.O. & Adamowski J.F.,
(2012), “Developing design storm hydrographs for
small tropical catchments with limited data”,
Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and
Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 356-365.
[11] Ramirez J.A. (2000), “Prediction and Modeling of
Flood Hydrology and Hydraulics”. Chapter 11 of
Inland Flood Hazards: Human,RiparianandAquatic
Communities. Edited by Ellen Wohl, Cambridge
University Press.
[12] Safarina B.A., Salim T.H. & Hadihardaja I.K.,(2011),
“Clusterization of Synthetic Unit Hydrograph
Methods Based on Watershed Characteristics”,
Vol.11, No.06, pp. 76-85.
[13] Salami A.W., Bilewu S.O. & Ayansola A.M., (2009),
“Evaluation of synthetic unit hydrograph methods
for the development of design storm hydrographs
for Rivers in South-West Nigeria”, Journal of
American Science, Vol. 5 No.(4), pp.23-32.
[14] Singh P.K., Mishra S.K. & Jain M.K., (2014), “A
review of the synthetic unit hydrograph: from the
empirical UH to advanced geomorphological
methods”, Hydrological Sciences Journal, Vol. 59,
No.2, pp.239-261.

[15] Subramanya K., (2008), “Engineering Hydrology”
3rd edition, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company,
New Delhi.
[16] Sule B.F. & Alabe S.A., (2013), “Application of
synthetic unit hydrograph methods to construct
storm hydrographs”, International Journal ofWater
Resources and Environmental Engineering,pp.540-
549.
[17] Thorvat A.R. & Patel J.N., (2016), “Synthetic Unit
Hydrograph Development for Ungauged Basins
Using Dimensional Analysis”, Journal of American
Water Works Association Vol. 108, No.03, pp. 145-
153.
[18] Zhao B., Tung Y.K., Yeh K.C. & Yang J.C., (1995),
“Statistical validation methods: application to unit
hydrographs”, Journal of Hydrology Engineering,
Vol.121, No.8, pp.121-618.
BIOGRAPHIES
Prof. Suraj Kalgonda Patil
working as an AssistantProfessor
in Department of Civil
Engineering Dr.J. J. Magdum
College of Engineering,
Jaysingpur Dist. Kolhapur,
Maharashtra, India. Presently
pursuing Ph.D. in Department of
Studies in Civil Engineering,
University B.D.T. College of
Engineering, Davangiri,
Karnataka, India.
Dr. Mrs. Tejaswini N. Bhagwat
working asanAssociateProfessor
in Department of Studies in Civil
Engineering, University BDT
College of Engineering,
Davangere, Karnataka, India.

IRJET- A Review of Synthetic Hydrograph Methods for Design Storm

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to IRJET- A Review of Synthetic Hydrograph Methods for Design Storm

More from IRJET Journal

Recently uploaded

IRJET- A Review of Synthetic Hydrograph Methods for Design Storm