Scales in Hydrology and Water Management I Echelles en hydrologie et gestion de l'eau

(IAHS Publ. 287. 2004)

97
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for
rainfall-runoff events: a new framework for
testing physical hypotheses
VI.IAY K. GUPTA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
gupt av(S>. ci res, col orado. edu
Abstract Key elements of a new physical theory are explained which predicts
statistical scaling in floods on nested sub-basins for individual rainfall-runoff
events. The theory combines physical processes with the geometty and
topology of channel network patterns and statistical variability. A discrepancy
between model predictions and empirically observed scaling relationships
provides a basis for testing physical assumptions without calibrating model
parameters. An idealized example is used to illustrate how model predictions
can be tested against empirical scaling relationships using topographic and
flood data sets for individual rainfall-runoff events from the Goodwin Creek
basin, Mississippi, USA. Three key problems are addressed here: (a) scale,
(b) linking observed space-time statistical variability with underlying physical
processes involving a large number of dynamic parameters, (c) the existence
of major gaps between data needs and data availability for testing the scaling
theory. Research on scaling in floods was instigated by the classic unsolved
problem of prediction in ungauged and poorly gauged basins.
Ke y wo r d s event - bas ed flood pr edi ct i on; spat i al var i abi l i t y; st at i st i cal s cal i ng; unga uge d bas i ns
Prvision de la scalance statistique des dbits de pointe des
vnements pluie-dbit: un nouveau cadre pour les tests d'hypothses
Rsum On prsente ici les lments fondamentaux d'une nouvelle thorie
physique prvoyant la scalance statistique des crues pour des vnements
pluie-dbit individuels dans des bassins embots. La thorie combine les
processus physiques avec la gomtrie et la topologie des types de rseau de
chenaux d'coulement et leur variabilit statistique. Une diffrence entre les
prvisions du modle et la scalance observe empiriquement fournit une base
pour tester les hypothses physiques utilises sans avoir caler les paramfres.
Nous nous sommes bass sur un exemple schmatique pour montrer comment
les prvisions du modle peuvent tre testes vis vis des relations de
scalance empiriques en utilisant les donnes topographiques et de dbits
d'vnements pluie-dbit individuels du bassin de la Goodwin Creek
(Mississipi, USA). Trois problmes fondamentaux sont abords ici: (a) les
chelles, (b) la liaison entre la variabilit statistique spatio-temporelle
observe et les processus physiques sous-jacents qui dpendent d'un grand
nombre de paramtres dynamiques, (c) l'existence d'un important hiatus entre
le besoin et la disponibilit des donnes ncessaires pour tester la thorie de
l'invariance d'chelle. Cette recherche sur la scalance des crues a t inspire
par le problme classique encore irrsolu de la prvision dans les bassins non
ou peu jaugs.
Mo t s cl efs s cal ance s t at i s t i que; pr vi s i on d' un v ne me nt de cr ue; var i abi l i t s pat i al e;
bas s i ns non j a ug s
98 Vijay K. Gupta
INTRODUCTION
Many practical problems need prediction of peak flows or floods at a wide range of
space and time scales in drainage basins. Practical interest in floods comes from a
variety of sources in addition to engineering design. For example, the variation of
flows in terms of their magnitude and frequency, or regime, is a primary factor that
controls channel form and process and the nature of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. It
causes stream channels and ecosystems to co-exist in a constant state of flux. More-
over, the formation of a channel network and its ecosystems are a direct result of the
culminated history of flow events and their future condition depends upon the
characteristic flow regime of a basin (Poff et al, 1997; Beschta et al., 2000; Wolman
& Miller, 1960). This paper explains some basic elements of a physical theory of
scaling in spatial flood statistics on nested channel networks that has been developing
since Gupta et al. (1996) published the first paper about it.
Results in Gupta et al. (1996) have been generalized in many directions on idealized
mean self-similar channel networks (Menabde et al., 2001; Menabde & Sivapalan,
2001 ; Troutman & Over, 2001). However, there is a pressing need to further generalize
and test the scaling theory of floods on real channel networks. Without this key step, it
will not be possible to apply this new theory to real world situations and substantially
advance the existing technology for flood prediction in poorly gauged and ungauged
basins. Such a generalization will need to incorporate the presence of natural spatial
variability in the topological, hydraulic and the hydrological properties of real channel
networks, and space-time variability of rainfall, soil moisture and runoff generation.
Moreover, nested networks with a large number of streamgauges are required for
testing the predictions of the scaling theory. Unfortunately, such basins are quite
limited in the USA and the rest of the world. These issues make the problem of
generalization of the scaling theory from idealized to real networks a major scientific
challenge. Fortunately, a large number of streamgauges and raingauges are available
on two experimental basins of the US Department of Agriculture (UDSA), the Walnut
Gulch basin (Arizona) and the Goodwin Creek basin (Mississippi). We are using these
two basins to develop and test the scaling theory of floods on real networks (Mantilla
et al., 2004; Fury & Gupta, 2004). In this paper, I use the topographic and the stream
flow data from the Goodwin Creek basin to illustrate some key elements of the scaling
theory of floods for individual rainfall-runoff events.
In its simplest form, statistical simple scaling connects two (joint) probability
distributions at any two arbitrary scales by a power law. For simplicity, let us take
drainage area as a spatial scale parameter. Equality in distributions implies that the
mean and higher-order finite moments of flood peaks, or the quantiles, can be
represented as power laws with respect to drainage area (Gupta & Waymire, 1998a,b).
Power laws describe similarity or similitude. For example, power laws have served as
the foundation for dimensional analysis and dynamic similitude in fluid mechanics
(Barenblatt, 1996, Chap. 1). Contemporary scientific literature dealing with
geometrical self-similarity and fractals is based in power laws (Barenblatt, 1996;
Mandelbrot, 1982). The concept of self-similarity and its generalizations are having a
great impact on hydrology (Sposito, 1998), geosciences (Turcotte, 1997), and other
sciences such as fluid mechanics (Barenblatt, 1996).
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events 99
Three types of empirical statistical scaling analyses for floods have been
published. The first considers scaling in observed peak flows for individual rainfall-
runoff events on nested channel networks (Ogden & Dawdy, 2003). The second
considers scaling in annual peak flow statistics on nested channel networks (Goodrich
et al., 1997), and the third considers scaling in annual peak flow statistics in un-nested
basins within a homogeneous region (Cathcart, 2001; Gupta & Dawdy, 1995; Smith,
1992). Analyses of peak flows for individual rainfall-runoff events on nested channel
networks provide a natural starting point for developing a physical understanding of
statistical scaling. In this paper, I have chosen to illustrate how channel network
geometry involving scaling in width function maxima enters into the scaling theory of
floods for individual rainfall-runoff events. Scaling in width function maxima is
illustrated here for the Goodwin Creek basin. It is empirically observed for many real
networks that have been analysed by Veitzer & Gupta (2001), who also found scaling
in the maxima of width functions for a new class of channel network models called
Random Self-Similar Networks (RSN) (Veitzer & Gupta, 2000). As illustrated here,
scaling in width function maxima provides a natural starting point for understanding
how space-time variable physical processes transform rainfall to floods that exhibit
statistical scaling on real networks.
The scaling theory of floods predicts empirically observed statistical scaling
parameters under a set of assumptions about physical processes and channel network
geometry. Prediction allows us to test different physical assumptions and hypotheses
within a rigorous mathematical framework without calibrating and fitting model
parameters. This is the main conceptual issue that I wish to illustrate in this paper
through a simple example. Klemes (1997) has thoughtfully discussed the issue of
testing a model using data for advancing physical understanding versus curve fitting a
model to data. Testability in scaling theory serves as a major point of departure of this
approach from a large number of hydrological models that are fitted to data; see Singh
(1995) for many examples of such hydrological models. Research on the scaling theory
of floods was instigated by the long-standing need to develop a fundamental physical
basis for purely statistical approaches to regionalization of floods in ungauged and
poorly gauged basins (Cathcart, 2001; Gupta et al., 1994; Smith, 1992). Almost all the
basins in the world are either ungauged or poorly gauged. A major long-term objective
of this theory is to provide a process-based predictive understanding of flood scaling
statistics in nested and un-nested ungauged basins ranging from the time scales of
individual events to seasonal, annual, inter-annual and longer time scales. Gupta &
Waymire (1998a) provided a self-contained exposition of the developments until 1996,
and Gupta (2004) published a brief review of further progress until recently. In
recognition of the global importance of the basic problem of prediction in ungauged
basins (PUB) to hydrological sciences and engineering, and to closely related sciences,
IAHS has launched a new decadal initiative on PUB (Sivapalan et al., 2003).
The scaling theory of floods addresses three key problems in river basin hydrology
that have been articulated to varying degrees in the literature: (a) the problem of scale;
(b) the problem of linking observed space-time statistical variability with underlying
physical processes at multiple scales. Following Gupta (2004), I discuss here how the
scaling theory tackles the problem of a very large number of dynamic parameters that
are needed to model spatially variable physical processes in rainfall-runoff relationships;
100 Vijay K. Gupta
and (c) the problem that major gaps exist between data needs and data availability for
developing and testing the scaling theory. The significance of these three problems
individually and collectively is not limited to floods but applies to many hydrological
variables, e.g. rainfall and vapotranspiration. Collectively, these three problems can
be regarded as a central challenge for hydrology. I will focus on explaining these key
issues through a simple example from the scaling theory of floods, and refer to the
published literature for many technical details of the theory (Ogden & Dawdy, 2003;
Menabde et al, 2001; Menabde & Sivapalan, 2001; Troutman & Over, 2001; Veitzer
& Gupta, 2001; Reggiani et al, 2001). This paper has the dual objective of providing a
clear road map for understanding a newly growing body of literature on the scaling
theory of floods (Gupta, 2004).
This paper is organized as follows. The next section begins with a spatially
discrete equation of mass balance at the hillslope-link scale in a basin, and the scale
issues that arise in representing physical processes in this equation. This is followed by
a brief discussion of the parametric complexity that ensues due to spatial variability of
the physical processes that transform rainfall to runoff. The next section explains some
elements of the scaling theory through an idealized example and illustrates how model
predictions can be tested against data. Our approach is based on predicting the empir-
ically observed spatial statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events.
Deviations between model predictions and empirical scaling relationships provide a
new framework for testing physical assumptions and hypotheses. However,
computation of empirical scaling relationships requires stream flow data at several
locations in a nested basin, which are rarely available in the USA or globally. I briefly
discuss our approach for solving this problem in a separate section. Scaling provides a
spatially distributed metric, based in similarity, for testing model predictions of peak
flows. It should be contrasted with the minimum mean square error between predicted
and observed flow hydrographs at a basin outlet, which represents a spatially inte-
grated metric that is widely used in calibrating rainfall-runoff models. I close with a
brief discussion of future research.
SCALE PROBLEMS IN FORMULATING A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF
FLOODS
The mathematical formulation begins with a discrete mass-balance or continuity
equation and uses the geomorphic decomposition of a drainage basin as a collection of
channel links and hillslopes as shown in Fig. 1. Shreve (1966) introduced the concept
of a link in his well-known theory of channel networks known as the random model.
Each link of a river network is surrounded by two hillslopes, one on each side of it,
which are shown in the same colour in Fig. 1. Precipitation on each hillslope produces
runoff into its adjoining link, and it involves the physical processes of infiltration,
vapotranspiration, and overland and subsurface flows. A channel network covers
spatial scales ranging from 10
2
m to 10
6
m (Dooge, 1988; Gupta & Waymire, 1998a),
and provides a natural partitioning of a landscape into hillslopes and links. The
mathematical formulation underlying the scaling theory for floods is based on this
partitioning. This theory is designed to understand statistical scaling in tenus of
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events 101
Fig. 1 A system of hillslopes and links for a drainage basin.
physical processes and network geometry across multiple spatial scales of a channel
network. Empirical evidence shows that breaks can appear in statistical scaling
relationships for annual peak flows in nested basins (Goodrich et al., 1997) as well as
in un-nested basins in homogeneous regions (Cathcart, 2001). Although, no breaks in
peak flow scaling have been observed in individual rainfall-runoff events (Ogden &
Dawdy, 2003), the theory provides a physical framework to understand scaling breaks
in floods (Gupta, 2004).
Following Gupta & Waymire (1998a), assume that stream flow in a network, T, is
observed in multiples of a characteristic time scale At at t = nAt, n = 0, 1,2... One can
think of At as the time it takes for water to flow through a link with some mean
velocity, v, i.e. At = //v. For simplicity, Gupta & Waymire (1998a) assumed that At was
the same for all the links. Many results were derived using this assumption for idealized
channel networks (Gupta et al., 1996; Menabde et al., 2001; Menabde & Sivapalan,
2001; Troutman & Over, 2001), but it is too restrictive for natural channel networks in
which both link lengths and link velocities vary amongst links. Therefore, following
Mantilla et al. (2004), we will take time to be continuous rather than discrete by letting
At >0 in the continuity equation given in Gupta & Waymire (1998a). Let q(e,t), a s t ,
t > 0 be a space-time field representing river discharge, or the volumetric flow per unit
time, at time t at the outlet of a link e. Each link, e represents the outlet of a sub
network draining into it. Let R(e,t)c(e) denote the volume of runoff into a link e from
adjacent hills at time t, where c(e) denotes the area of hills draining into the link e, and
R(e,t) is the runoff intensity measured in the units of length per unit time. Finally, let
102 Vijay K. Gupta
S(e,t) denote the total volume of runoff stored in a link e at time t, and let dS/dt denote
the rate of change of total volume at time t. The equation of continuity for a link
representing a control volume for the hillslope-link system can be written as:
The sum on the right hand side of Equation (1) consists of discharges from all
those links/that join link e at its top. The formulation of the continuity equation does
not assume the channel network is binary. However, it assumes that no loops are
present in the network.
The topology and geometry of a network enters explicitly into the solution of
Equation (1) through the summation term as illustrated below through an example. A
momentum balance equation is required for expressing the link storage, S(e,t), as a
function of discharge, q(e,t); see Reggiani et al. (2001) for a formal derivation of these
equations at the hillslope-link scale. The runoff intensity R{e,t) in Equation (1) can be
determined from a water balance equation for a hillslope draining into the link e. It
includes overland storage, saturated and unsaturated subsurface storage, precipitation,
vapotranspiration (ET) and runoff (Gupta & Waymire, 1998a). Spatial hydraulic-
geometric relationships are required for completing the mathematical formulation
(Menabde & Sivapalan, 2001; Mantilla et al, 2004).
The above formulation assumes that the integral dynamical equations governing
runoff generation from a hillslope and water transport through a link are available.
Both these scales are much larger than the laboratory scales that are typically of the
order of 0.1-1.0 m. Individual hydrological processes at the laboratory scale, e.g. flow
through saturated and unsaturated columns of a porous medium, are fairly well under-
stood. By contrast, the spatial scale for a single hillslope is of the order of 1-10
2
m at
which spatial variability becomes important, and new physical elements, e.g. hillslope
topography and vegetation, influence the process of runoff generation. The key scale
problem here is to spatially integrate laboratory-scale equations over a hillslope, and
use these integrated equations for specifying hillslope runoff, R(e,t) in Equation (1).
Some basic work has been published on deriving an aggregate behaviour of infiltration
on a spatially variable hillslope (Chen et al, 1994). Duffy (1996) has investigated an
integral representation of runoff-generation from a hillslope as a dynamic system.
However, much more basic theoretical and experimental work remains to be done on
this important problem.
Momentum equations of fluid mechanics for open-channel flows at the hydro-
dynamic scale are well established. They can be used as the starting point for obtaining
aggregate flow dynamics for a link. Reggiani et al. (2001) have developed a new
framework to write a link-based momentum balance equation, but specific model
assumptions are needed to complete the mathematical specification. For example, one
problem is to model spatially variable channel boundary roughness within a channel
link. Kean (2003) has investigated this problem for modelling boundary sheer stress
and flow field near the banks of streams. This type of a theoretical development is
required for deriving an average momentum balance equation for a link. In addition,
hydraulic-geometric relationships are needed to extend the momentum balance
equation to all the links in a network, because velocity, width, depth, slope, and
dS(e,t)
dt
q(e, t) +
q
(f, t) + R(e, t)c(e), es %,t > 0
(1)
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events 103
friction vary spatially over a channel network. For example, Ibbit et al. (1998) give a
unique set of field measured spatial hydraulic-geometric relationships on a channel
network in New Zealand that clearly exhibit power law relationships for the means but
stochastic variations around the means. A derivation of hydraulic-geometric relation-
ships from first principles involving a combination of deterministic and stochastic
elements remains a major open scale problem.
STATISTICAL SCALING AND DYNAMIC PARAMETRIC COMPLEXITY
DUE TO SPATIAL VARIABILITY
Spatial variability in physical parameters describing runoff-generation processes arises
due to differences in geometric, hydraulic and biophysical properties among individual
channel links and hillslopes in a drainage basin. The number of hillslopes and links
increases with the area of a drainage basin representing spatial scale. Therefore, the
number of different values that the physical parameters can take also increases with
scale. Gupta (2004) calls this the number of degrees of freedom (NDOF) to underscore
the idea that hydrological complexity in a river basin can be compared to the
complexity of a statistical-mechanical system that has a very large NDOF (Lienhard,
1964; Gupta & Waymire, 1983). To illustrate that the NDOF in our physical system is
very large, let us take the example from Gupta (2004). He considered an idealized
bucket-type representation of runoff-generation and transport processes for a single
hillslope-link system following Menabde & Sivapalan (2001, pp. 1003-1004). Four
physical parameters are required to specify runoff generation for each hillslope. These
are, the (j) index governing infiltration and Hortonian runoff generation, a characteristic
time scale, T
e
, governing vapotranspiration, a characteristic time scale, T
s
, governing
subsurface flow, and threshold soil-moisture storage, So. There are three parameters
governing link dynamics: the friction coefficient given by Chezy's resistance
coefficient, C; the link width, W; and link depth, D.
The values of the seven physical parameters vary spatially among hillslopes and
links throughout a basin. For illustration assume that a typical hillslope has an area of
0.05 km
2
. Therefore, a 1 lan
2
basin can be partitioned into 1/0.05 = 20 hillslopes and
10 links, because each link is drained by two hillslopes. The number of different
spatial values to the seven dynamic parameters is: (20 x 4) + (10 x 3) = 110.
Therefore, in a basin of 1 km
2
, NDOF =110. This simple calculation generalizes to an
arbitrary size basin of drainage area, A, and leads to the formula:
NDOF=UQA (2)
It shows that the NDOF increases linearly with the spatial scale of a basin, A. For
example, in a small-size basin of 100 km
2
, NDOF = 11 000, and in a medium-size
basin of 5000 km
2
, NDOF is about half a million.
In order to solve Equation (1) either analytically or numerically, statistical and
other simplifying assumptions are necessary to reduce the NDOF. Unfortunately,
assumptions regarding spatial variability of these seven parameters cannot be tested
directly against empirical observations because these physical parameters cannot be
measured across hundreds and thousands of hillslopes. Remote sensing can provide
104 Vijay K. Gupta
some of the spatially variable information, especially as it pertains to channel network
geometry, precipitation and ET. Still, most of the parametric information regarding the
processes of runoff generation and transport for spatially variable hillslopes and links
is not available. The simple calculation given in Equation (2) illustrates the funda-
mental difficulty that underlies distributed rainfall-runoff modelling due to dynamic
parametric complexity. In the absence of a theoretical framework, hydrologists and
engineers have routinely and widely used calibration of dynamic parameters to reduce
large NDOF. But calibration is an ad hoc approach and is unsuitable for developing a
foundational understanding of space-time rainfall-runoff relationships (Klemes, 1997;
Woolhiser, 1996). Statistical scaling provides a new theoretical framework to reduce
the large NDOF of dynamic parameters as explained below.
In contrast to the space-time complexity that physical processes exhibit at the
hillslope-link scale, empirical observations show that the aggregated behaviour of peak
flow statistics in rainfall-runoff events exhibits statistical scale invariance or scaling at
successively larger spatial scales of a drainage network (Ogden & Dawdy, 2003).
Scaling is an asymptotic property, which holds in the limit of large area. This result
was obtained analytically for the idealized Peano network model by Gupta et al.
(1996). Troutman & Over (2001) generalized it to the class of mean self-similar
networks. Menabde et al. (2001) considered attenuation in flow by taking dS/dt > 0 in
Equation (1) on a Peano network, and found using numerical calculations that scaling
holds asymptotically for large areas. Because scaling is an asymptotic property, the
scaling parameters must remain insensitive to many physical details of the system at
the hillslope-link scale. This is the key idea that allows us to reduce the large NDOF of
dynamic parameters in the present context. This situation is somewhat similar to the
Central Limit Theorem (CLT) of probability theory, in which the convergence of a
random sum to a normal distribution does not depend on all the details of the
individual probability distributions of the summands, but on only the common mean
and variance of individual summands. However, demonstration of asymptotic scaling
in peak flows on real channel networks under both idealized and realistic flow
conditions remains a very important open theoretical problem.
Spatial statistical scaling in peak flows refers to similitude or similarity across
multiple scales and is represented by log-log linear equations between the mean, or
higher order finite statistical moments, and the drainage area, which serves as the scale
parameter. The slopes and the intercepts of log-log linear relationships are called
scaling parameters. They represent integrated basin-scale behaviour. Scaling can be
defined in terms of quantiles instead of moments. This is particularly important for
extreme events whose probability distributions often exhibit "fat" tails, and a priori
one does not know the order above which the statistical moments are infinite. The
scaling of quantiles can be used to empirically estimate an upper bound for the order of
finite moments (Pavlopoulos & Gupta, 2003). Scaling parameters are analogous to
macroscopic laboratory-scale parameters, e.g. hydraulic conductivity, fluid viscosity
and density, in so far as they arise from microscopic statistical-dynamical equations
governing molecular motions with very large NDOF. The goal of the scaling theory of
floods on river networks is to derive scaling parameters from physical processes on
real channel networks, which is similar to the goal of deriving macroscopic parameters
from microscopic statistical physics.
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events 105
TESTS OF PHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS WITHIN A STATISTICAL SCALING
FRAMEWORK
Scaling theory predicts scaling parameters either numerically or analytically through
solutions of Equation (1). These predictions can be compared with empirical estimates
of the parameters for testing different physical hypotheses. Testability gives a new
framework for understanding the spatially variable physics of rainfall-runoff processes
as illustrated below through a concrete but idealized real world example. My main
objective is to demonstrate within the context of the scaling framework how predict-
ions based on a set of idealized assumptions can be tested against data. Falsification of
model predictions paves a way to formulating and testing new physical assumptions
that can capture more of the essential characteristics of real systems. Tests of model
predictions also provide a basis for conducting new experiments and observations. In
due course, a continual interaction among theory, data and modelling leads to new
scientific understanding, as illustrated by Klemes (1997, Fig. 1(a)). The reader should
contrast this iterative logic that is designed to provide a greater understanding of the
physical system, with the logic of improving the fit of a given model to data using
calibration of model parameters, which does not lead to an improved understanding of
the system (Klemes (1997, Fig. 1(b)).
Consider the solution of Equation (1) under three assumptions: (a) change in
storage in each link, dS/dt = 0; (b) runoff intensity per unit area into each link is given
by: R{e,t) = 1, t = 0 and R(e,t) = 0, t > 1 ; (c) hillslope areas draining into each link e are
the same, c(e) = 1. It should be noted that the second assumption is the same as one of
the key assumptions underlying the theory of IUH. Substituting these three
assumptions into Equation (1) gives:
f
The solution of Equation (3) under a further assumption that the velocity of flow on
the channel network, v, is constant in time and space is given by:
where W
e
{x), x > 0, is the local geomorphic width function of a network. It is defined
as the number of links at a flow distance x from the bottom of a link e representing the
outlet of a sub-basin draining into it (Gupta & Waymire, 1998a). It is a spatial general-
ization of the width function introduced by Kirkby (1984) and Lee & Delleur (1976),
which served as the basis for developing Gomorphologie IUH (GIUH) theory based
in the width function (Gupta & Waymire, 1983; Troutman & Karlinger, 1984; Gupta
& Mesa, 1988). The spatial field of floods over an arbitrary time interval at the bottom
of a link, e, is given by taking the maximum on both sides of Equation (4) over that
time interval:
Q{e) = maxq(e,t) = maxW
e
(vt) = Q(e), eex (5)
We will assume in the following example that the time interval in Equation (5)
corresponds to that of an individual rainfall-runoff event.
The local geomorphic width function of a natural channel network varies stochast-
ically from one link to the next due to spatial variability in the branching and the
q(e,t) = Y
i
q(f,t); t>0,e,fez
(3)
q(e,t) = W
e
(vt),t>0,e,f e %
(4)
106 Vijay K. Gupta
geometric structures of a network. Therefore, the maxima of the local width functions
and the peak flows in (5) represent spatial random fields. Troutman & Karlinger
(1984) were the first to consider the spatial dependence of width function for the
random model of channel networks. Spatial dependence of floods and width functions
is a fundamental aspect of the scaling theory of floods. It is quite different from the
GIUH theories and rainfall-runoff models in which space is fixed at a basin outlet
(Rodriguez-Iturbe & Rinaldo,1997). I will illustrate this key idea in the example given
below. The dependence of runoff on spatial scales of a channel network arises through
the indexing parameter, e, denoting a link. However, spatial scales for a channel
network are not unique and any one of several choices is possible. As a simple
example, consider the spatial scale given by the drainage area, Aie), draining into the
link e. Since each sub-basin draining into a link has a different area, it follows that the
field of peak flows, Q(e), and the runoff field, q(e,t), depends on the multiple spatial
scales of sub-basins within a basin. From here on we will denote the dependence of the
peak flow and maximum of the width function on drainage area and write, Q(e) =
Q(A(e)) = Q(A), and (e) = (A(e)) = (A). Therefore, Equation (5) can be rewritten
as:
Q(A) = Q(A),VA (6)
We computed width function maxima for the Goodwin Creek basin using a GIS
software called hidrosig. It has been developed by my research group to conduct state
of the art hydrological analyses and numerical simulations on a river basin after
partitioning it into hillslopes and links as shown in Fig. 1. The empirical estimation of
width function maxima needs an explanation of some key issues that arise in this
context. First, note that total drainage area, A(e), is the sum of all the hillslope areas
draining into a link e. Summing over all the hillslope areas, it follows that,
A(e) - c(2m{e) -1), where m(e) is the link magnitude representing the total number of
source links draining into the link e, (2m(e) -1) is total number of links and c is the
mean hillslope area (Shreve, 1967). From our previous assumption that hillslope areas
draining into each link, c(e) = 1, it follows that c = 1. Magnitude and drainage area
vary stochastically from one link to the other throughout a network. Therefore, they are
not always the most convenient scale parameters.
As an alternative, I consider another well-known scale parameter, known as the
Horton order, denoted by ((e), or simply co. Horton order varies from 1 to 4 on the
Goodwin Creek basin. We take all links of the same Horton order and compute the
mean magnitude, m , and the mean of the width function maxima,
0
(m), for these
links. Mean magnitude for a fixed order serves as the scale parameter in this
computation. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the empirical,
0
(m), and the
mean magnitude m. Each point represents a given Horton order, and the order
increases from 1 to 4 going from left to right. The log-log linearity holds well and a
regression equation fit to it can be written as:
log E[Q
0
(m)] = y log m + b (7)
The Goodwin Creek data gives an estimate of the slope, y = 0.46 as shown in Fig. 2.
Technical issues arise in estimating the scaling parameter, y, because regression is not
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events 107
1001
10
100 1000
Mean Magnitude (m)
Fig. 2 Scaling of mean width function maxima with respect to mean magnitude for
Goodwin Creek basin, Mississippi.
quite suitable for this purpose. Mantilla et al. (2004) have explained some of these
estimation issues. I use regression only for illustration. Equations (6) and (7) lead to
two theoretical predictions: (a) that peak flows exhibit statistical scaling, and (b) the
flood scaling exponent 8 is given by:
DATA NEEDS TO TEST DISTRIBUTED PHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS USING
SCALING PREDICTIONS
Empirical tests of model predictions described above require that observed streamflow
hydrographs are available for individual rainfall-runoff events at many spatial
locations on a channel network. This type of streamflow information at several
locations is rarely available to test predictions of scaling theory. Goodwin Creek basin
is an exception because it contains 14 streamflow gauges in a 21 lan
2
area. This
allowed us to test the two scaling predictions given above. Empirical observations of
peak flows for individual rainfall-runoff events on the Goodwin Creek basin have
shown that they exhibit spatial statistical scaling (Ogden & Dawdy, 2003). For
example, Fig. 3 shows a plot of observed peak flows against drainage areas at 14 stteam-
flow gauges on the Goodwin Creek basin for the rainfall-runoff event of 12 March
1986. A fitted regression equation can be interpreted as scaling in mean peak flows
conditioned on area and can be written as:
Here, the mean peak flow at some reference drainage area is denoted by a. Equation
(9) shows that log-log linearity, or a power law, holds between mean peak flows and
the drainage areas predicted by Equations (6) and (7). Figure 3 gives an empirical value
of the flood scaling exponent, 9 = 0.82. The standard regression analysis is used here
mainly for illustration. Interesting technical issues arise in estimating scaling exponent
without using regression that have been investigated elsewhere (Mantilla et ai, 2004).
G = y = 0.46
(8)
io
g
[e
0
(^)] = e i o g ^ + f
(9)
108 Vijay K. Gupta
100. 000
So 10. 000
1 1.000
2 0. 100
s
^ 0. 010
0. 001
0.1 1.0 10.0
Area
Fig. 3 Scaling of observed peak flows for the event of 12 March 1986, Goodwin Creek.
The observed value of the flood-scaling exponent does not agree with the predicted
value of 0. 46 given by Equation (8). This failure should not come as a big surprise to
the reader because the set of three physical assumptions used here for making this
prediction are highly idealized. Nonetheless, this example demonstrates how the
physical assumptions can be tested within the scaling framework.
I wish to make a major point regarding streamgauging with this example. Tests of
the scaling theory of floods in other basins in the USA and other countries will need
streamflow data at several locations on nested basins for individual rainfall-runoff
events. Such data sets are rarely available either in the USA or other countries because
streamflow measurements requiring the establishment of standard USGS gauging
stations are too expensive or impractical. Under these circumstances, emplacement of
pressure gauges at judiciously chosen field sites and conversion of the stage measure-
ments to discharge with a rating curve generated from an appropriately designed flow
model and ancillary models, is a viable and reasonably accurate choice. In order to be
useful for generating discharge-rating curves, a flow model must be able to treat
curved channels with irregular boundaries without employing any empirically adjusted
parameters. Consequently, the model must explicitly calculate the effective flow
resistance as a function of stage from measurements of: (a) the physical roughness of
the river bed, (b) the physical roughness of the channel banks, (c) the physical
characteristics of the bank vegetation, (d) the physical roughness of the flood plain,
and (e) the physical characteristics of the flood plain vegetation. We are currently
developing and verifying flow, sediment transport, and geomorphic adjustment models
for this purpose using the method of Kean ( 2 003 ) .
In the long run, simultaneous observations of space-time rainfall, streamflows, and
vapotranspiration will be needed within individual mesoscale river basins for
conducting scaling analyses of floods and other hydrological variables. Such data sets
are typically unavailable in the USA or the rest of the world. Substantial progress on
these scaling and other problems in mesoscale basins requires that new comprehensive
field programmes be undertaken in the next decade. A recent report to the National
Science Foundation, USA (http://cires.colorado.edu/hydrology) articulated this key
hydrological issue. This issue is also fundamental for developing and testing new
theories and models for PUB (Sivapalan et al, 2 003 ) .
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events 109
FUTURE RESEARCH
How do we relax some of the physical idealizations that led to predicting the flood
scaling exponent in Equation (8)? This is a big question that I will touch upon very
briefly. The empirical results given by Ogden & Dawdy (2003) show that the mean
flood scaling exponents for over 200 individual rainfall-runoff events vary between
0.9 and 0.6 with a mean of about 0.8. Therefore, the flood scaling exponents are
significantly larger than 0.46 predicted by the width function maxima. By contrast, the
simulation results given by Menabde & Sivapalan (2001) and Menabde et al. (2001)
for idealized mean self-similar channel networks showed that incorporation of more
realistic link dynamics than contained in our three assumptions here, produced a flood
scaling exponent that is below the value predicted by the scaling of the width function
maxima. What are the physical reasons that cause the empirical flood scaling exponent
to be larger than the width function scaling exponent on the Goodwin Creek and the
Walnut Gulch basins? How can we understand the physical basis of variability in the
flood scaling exponents in individual rainfall-runoff events? My current work at the
University of Colorado is investigating this issue by incorporating space-time variable
rainfall into this mathematical framework for testing flood scaling predictions for the
Goodwin Creek basin (Furey & Gupta, 2004). Likewise, event-based flood scaling
analyses on the Walnut Gulch basin, Arizona, is giving new physical insights into how
the spatially variable friction as a hydraulic-geometric variable affects the flood scaling
exponent (Mantilla et al, 2004).
Acknowledgements Some of the ideas in this paper were presented at a conference on
Water and Environment (Bhopal, India, 2003), and published in the conference proc-
eedings without peer reviews. V. P. Singh, the conference convener, kindly provided
comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Y. Alila, University of British Colombia,
Canada, sent me several key references, which were extremely useful, reviewed an
earlier draft of this paper and provided critical comments on it. Brent Troutman,
USGS, Lakewood, Colorado, provided comments on an earlier draft. S. Veitzer,
P. Furey, and Ricardo Mantilla, members of my research group gave many insightful
comments. Discussions with Jim Smith and Jason Kean, USGS, Boulder, Colorado, on
this research have been very fruitful. These comments helped me to clarify important
concepts and they resulted in a substantial improvement of this paper. I am grateful for
all their input. This research was supported by grants from NSF and NASA.
REFERENCES
Barenbl at t , G. I. ( 1996) Scaling, Self-Similarity and Intermediate Asymptotics. Cambr i dge Text s in Appl i ed Mat hemat i cs
14. Cambr i dge Uni versi t y Pr ess, Cambr i dge, UK.
Bescht a, R. L., Pyl es, M. R., Skaugset , A. E. & Surfleel, C. G. ( 2000) Peakfl ow r esponse to forest pract i ces in the west ern
Cascades of Or egon, USA. J. Hydrol. 233, 102- 120.
Cat hcart , .1. ( 2001) The effects of scal e and st orm severi t y on the linearity of wat er shed r esponse reveal ed t hrough t he
regi onal L- moment anal ysi s of annual peak flows. PhD Di ssert at i on, Uni versi t y of Bri t i sh Col ombi a, Vancouver ,
Canada.
Chen, Z. Q. , Govi ndaraj u, R. S. & Kavvas, M. L. ( 1994) Spatial aver agi ng of unsat urat ed flow equat i on under infiltration
condi t i ons over areal l y het er ogeneous condi t i ons, 1 and 2. Water Resour. Res. 30( 2) , 523- 535.
110 Vijay K. Gupta
Dooge, J. ( 1988) Hydr ol ogy in perspect i ve. Hydrologie Sci. J. 33, 61- 85.
Duffy, C. A. ( 1996) Two state i nt egral -bal ance model for soil moi st ur e and gr oundwat er dynami cs in compl ex terrain.
Water Rsout: Res: 32 ( 8) , 2 42 1- 2 43 4.
Furey, P. & Gupt a, V. K. ( 2004) Test s of physi cal hypot heses regardi ng rainfall and local wi dt h function for predi ct i ng
flood-scaling exponent on Goodwi n Cr eek basi n, Mi ssi ssi ppi , USA (prepri nt ).
Goodr i ch, D. , Lane, L. J. , Shi l l sl opei t o, R. M. , Miler, S. N. , Syed, K. H. & Wool hi ser, D. A. ( 1997) Li neari t y of basi n
r esponse as a function of scal e in a semi ari d wat er shed. Water Rsout: Res. 33( 12 ) , 2 951- 2 965.
Gupt a, V. K. ( 2004) Emer gence of statistical scal i ng in floods on channel net wor ks from compl ex runoff dynami cs. Chaos,
Solitom and Fractals 19, 3 57 - 3 65.
Gupt a, V. K. & Dawdy, D. R. ( 1995) Physical i nt erpret at i ons of regional vari at i ons in t he scal i ng exponent s of flood
quant i l es. Hydrol. Processes 9( 3/4) , 3 4 7 - 3 6 1 .
Gupt a, V. K. & Mesa, O. ( 1988) Runoff generat i on and hydrol ogi e response via channel net wor k geomor phol ogy: recent
progress and open pr obl ems. J. Hydrol. 10 2 , 3 - 2 8.
Gupt a, V. K. & Waymi r e, E. C. ( 1983) On t he formul at i on of an anal yt i cal appr oach to hydrol ogi e response and si mi l ari t y
at t he basi n scal e. J. Hydro/. 65, 95- 12 3 .
Gupt a, V. K. & Waymi r e, E. C. (1998a) Spatial vari abi l i t y and scal e i nvari ance in hydrol ogi e rgi onal i sat i on. In: Scale
Dependence and Scale Invariance in Hydrology (ed. by G. Sposi t o), 88- 13 5. Cambr i dge Uni versi t y Press,
Cambr i dge, UK.
Gupt a, V. K. & Waymi r e, E. C. ( 1998b) Some mat hemat i cal aspect s of rainfall, l andl br ms and floods. Stochastic Methods
in Hydrology: Rainfall, Landforms und Floods (ed. by O. E. Barndorff-Ni el sen, V. K. Gupt a, V. Per ez- Abr eu &
E. C. Waymi r e) , 12 9- 17 1. Advanced Seri es on Statistical Sci ences and Appl i ed Probabi l i t y, V7. Worl d Scientific,
Si ngapore, pp. 207.
Gupt a, V. K., Mesa, O. & Dawdy, D. R. ( 1994) Mul t i scal i ng t heory of flood peaks: regi onal quant i l e anal ysi s. Water
Rsout: Res. 30 ( 12), 3 405- 3 42 1.
Gupt a, V. K., Cast r o, S. & Over, T. M. ( 1996) On scalinsx exponent s of spatial peak flows from rainfall and river net work
geomet r y. J. Hydrol. 18 7 , 81- 104.
Ibbilt, R. P., McKer char , A. 1. & Duncan, M. .1. ( 1998) Taieri Ri ver data t o test channel net wor k and river basin
het erogenei t y concept s. Water Rsout: Res. 34 ( 8) , 2 085- 2 088.
Kean, J. ( 2003) Comput at i on of flow and boundar y sheer st ress near t he banks of st reams and ri vers. PhD Thesi s,
Uni versi t y of Col or ado, Boul der, Col or ado, USA.
Ki rkby, M. ( 1984) Test s of r andom net wor k model and its appl i cat i on to basin hydr ol ogy. In: River Networks (ed. by
R. S. Jarvi s & M. J. Wol denber g) , 3 55- 3 68. Benchmar k Papers in Geol ogy 80. Hut chi nson Ross, St roudsburg, PA
(Ori gi nal l y publ i shed in 1976).
Kl emes, V. ( 1997) Of carts and horses in hydrol ogi e model i ng. J. Hydrol. Engng 2,43-49.
Lee, M. T. & Delleur, J. W. ( 1976) A vari abl e source area model of t he rai nfal l -runoff pr ocess based on t he wat er shed
st ream net wor k. Water Rsout: Res. 12, 1029- 1035.
Li enhard, .1. II. ( 1964) A st at i st i cal -mechani cal predi ct i on of t he di mensi onl ess unit hydr ogr aph. J. Geophys. Res. 69( 24) ,
52 3 1- 52 3 8.
Mandel brot , B. (1982) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Freeman, San Franci sco, USA.
Mant i l l a, R., Gupt a, V. K. & Mesa, O. J. (2004) Test of physi cal hypot heses r egar di ng channel friction for predi ct i ng
fl ood-scal i ng exponent on Wal nut Gul ch Basi n, Ar i zona, USA. J. Hydrol. (under revi ew).
Menabde, M. , Vei t zer, S., Gupt a, V. K. & Si vapal an, M. ( 2001) Test s of peak flow scal i ng in si mul at ed sel f-si mi l ar river
net wor ks. Adv. Water Rsout: 2 4 , 991- 999.
Menabde, M. & Si vapal an, M. ( 2001) Li nki ng s pace- t i me variability of rainfall and runoff fields: a dynami c appr oach.
Adv. Water Rsout: 2 4 , 1001- 1014.
Ogden, F. & Dawdy, D. R. ( 2003) Peak di schar ge seal i ng in a smal l Hort oni an wat ershed. J. Hydrologie Engng 8 , 6 4 - 7 3 .
Pavl opoul os, II. & Gupt a, V. K. ( 2003) Scal e i nvari ance of regi onal wet and dry durat i ons of r ai nf i el ds: a di agnost i c st udy.
J. Geophys. Res. 10 8 ( D8) , 83 - 87 .
Pol l , N. L., Al l an, J. D. , Bai n. M. B. , Karr, J. R., Prest ergaard, L. , Ri cht er, B. D. , Spar ks, R. E. & St r ombcr g, J. C. (1997)
The nat ural flow regi me. Bioscience 4 7 , 769- 784.
Reggi ani , P., Si vapal an, M. , 1 l assani zadeh, S. M. & Gray, W. G. ( 2001) Coupl ed equat i ons for mass and moment um
bal ance in a st ream net wor k: t heoret i cal deri vat i on and comput at i onal exper i ment s. Proc Rov. Soc London A 4 57 ,
157- 189.
Rodr i guez- I t ur be, 1. & Ri nal do, A. ( 1997) Fractal River Basins. Cambr i dge Uni versi t y Press, Cambr i dge, UK.
Shreve, R. L. ( 1966) Statistical l aw of st ream number s. . / . Geol. 7 4 , 17- 37.
Shr eve, R. L. ( 1967) Infinite t opol ogi cal l y r andom channel net wor ks. J. Geol. 7 5, 178- 186.
Si ngh, V. P. ( 1995) Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology. Wat er Resour ces Publ i cat i ons, Hi ghl ands Ranch,
Col or ado, USA.
Si vapal an, M. , Takeuchi , K., Franks, S., Gupt a, V., Kar ambi r i , IL, Lakshmi , V. , Li ane, X., McDonnel l , .1., Mendi ondo, E.,
O' Connel l , P. , Oki , T., Pomer oy. .1., Schert zer. D. , Uhl enbr ook, S. & Zehe, E. ( 2003) I AHS decade on predi ct i ons in
ungauged basi ns ( PUB) , 2 003 - 2 012 : Shapi ng an exci t i ng future for the hydrol ogi e sci ences. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48(6),
857- 880.
Smi t h, ,1. ( 1992) Represent at i on of basi n scal e in flood peak di st ri but i ons. Water Rsout: Res. 28 ( 11 ), 2 993 - 2 999.
Prediction of statistical scaling in peak flows for rainfall-runoff events 111
Sposi t o, G. ( 1998) Scale Dependence and Scale Invariance In Hydrology. Cambr i dge Uni versi t y Press, Cambr i dge, UK.
Tr out man, B. & Karl i nger, M. ( 1984) On t he expect ed wi dt h function of t opol ogi cal l y r andom channel net wor ks. J. Appl.
Prob. 22, 836- 849.
Tr out man, B. & Over, T. ( 2001) Ri ver flow mass exponent s with fractal channel net wor ks and rainfall. Adv. Water Resour.
2 4 , 967- 989.
Turcot t e, D. ( 1997) Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics (2nd edit). Cambr i dge Uni versi t y Press, Cambr i dge,
UK.
Vei t zer, S. & Gupt a, V. K. ( 2001) Statistical self-similarity of wi dt h-funct i on maxi ma with i mpl i cat i ons for floods. Adv.
Water Resour. 2 4 , 955- 965.
Vei t zer, S. & Gupt a, V. ( 2000) Random sel f-si mi l ar river net wor ks and deri vat i ons of general i zed Hort on l aws in t erms of
statistical si mpl e scal i ng. Water Resour. Res. 36( 4) , 1033- 1048.
Wol man M. G. & Mi l l er, G. P. ( 1960) Magni t ude and frequency of forces in geomor phi c processes. J. Geol. 68, 54- 74.
Wool hi ser, D. A. ( 1996) Search for physi cal l y based runoff model a hvdrol ogi c El Dor ado? J. Hydrant Fngng ASCE
1 2 2 ( 9) , 122- 129.