Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-10-15659-2013
https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-10-15659-2013
20 Dec 2013
 | 20 Dec 2013
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal HESS. A revision for further review has not been submitted.

Technical Note: A measure of watershed nonlinearity II: re-introducing an IFP inverse fractional power transform for streamflow recession analysis

J. Y. Ding

Abstract. This note illustrates, in the context of Brutsaert–Nieber (1977) model: −dQ/dt = aQb, the utility of a newly rediscovered inverse fractional power (IFP) transform of the flow rates. This method of streamflow recession analysis dates back a half-century. The IFP transform Δb on an operand Q is defined as Δb Q = 1/Qb-1. Brutsaert–Nieber model by IFP transform thus becomes: ΔbQ(t) = ΔbQ(0) + (b−1) at, if b ≠ 1. The IFP transformed recession curve appears as a straight line on a semi-IFP plot. The method has both the advantage of being independent of the size of computational time step, and the disadvantage of being depending on the parameter b value. This is used to calibrate the Brutsaert–Nieber recession flow model in which b is a slope (or shape) parameter, and a is an intercept (or a scale parameter). It is applied to four observed events on the Spoon River in Illinois (4237 km2). The results show that the IFP transform method gives a narrower range of parameter b values than the regression method in a recession plot. Theoretically, an IFP transformed recession curve for large watersheds falls between those performed by the reciprocal of the cubic root (RoCR) transform and the reciprocal of the square root (RoSR) one. In general, the forgotten IFP transform method merits a fresh look, especially for hillslopes and zero-order catchments, the building blocks of a watershed system. In particular, because of its origin in hillslope hydrology, the 1-parameter RoSR transform need be falsified or verified for application to headwater catchments.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
J. Y. Ding
 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
J. Y. Ding
J. Y. Ding

Viewed

Total article views: 2,110 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,432 579 99 2,110 123 115
  • HTML: 1,432
  • PDF: 579
  • XML: 99
  • Total: 2,110
  • BibTeX: 123
  • EndNote: 115
Views and downloads (calculated since 20 Dec 2013)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 20 Dec 2013)

Cited

Latest update: 13 Dec 2024