US Army Corps

of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center

Flood Hydrograph and Peak

Flow Frequency Analysis

March 1979

Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

TP-62

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of Defense, Executive
Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

2. REPORT TYPE

March 1979

Technical Paper

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Flood Hydrograph and Peak Flow Frequency Analysis

5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Arlen D. Feldman

5e. TASK NUMBER

5F. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

US Army Corps of Engineers

Institute for Water Resources
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)
609 Second Street
Davis, CA 95616-4687

TP-62

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Presented at Engineering Foundation Conference on Improved Hydrologic Forecasting and also published in their
proceedings, Asilomar, California, March 1979.
14. ABSTRACT

Several methods for estimating flood hydrographs and flood peaks of various frequencies are discussed. The methods
include frequency analysis of historical streamflows, statistical equations, empirical formulas, single event watershed
models, and continuous watershed models. Methods for computing modified frequency curves due to changing watershed
conditions and water management activities are described.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

flood hydrology, flood frequency, peak discharge, regional methods, design storms, continuous simulation, math model,
river basin hydrology
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
a. REPORT
b. ABSTRACT

c. THIS PAGE

17. LIMITATION
OF
ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER
OF
PAGES

28

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

Flood Hydrograph and Peak

Flow Frequency Analysis

March 1979

US Army Corps of Engineers

Institute for Water Resources
Hydrologic Engineering Center
609 Second Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 756-1104
(530) 756-8250 FAX
www.hec.usace.army.mil

TP-62

Papers in this series have resulted from technical activities of the Hydrologic
Engineering Center. Versions of some of these have been published in
technical journals or in conference proceedings. The purpose of this series is to
make the information available for use in the Center's training program and for
distribution with the Corps of Engineers.

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of

the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or
promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official
endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

Flood Hydrograph and Peak Flow Frequency Analysis

Arlen D. Feldman*

The accurate prediction of streamflows i s essential t o the planning

of our water resource systems. This paper addresses the practical s t a t e of-the-art of techniques t o predict flood peaks and t h e i r associated
frequency of occurrence; and techniques f o r predicting c r i t i c a l flood
hydrographs ( o r s e r i e s of hydrographs) and t h e i r frequencies of occurrence. S t a t i s t i c a l relationships, empirical equations, and watershed
models will be investigated as means f o r predicting the peak discharges
and flood hydrographs .
Peak discharge information i s required t o determine the appropriate
s i z e of water conveyance systems such as natural channels, diversion
canals, storm drains, bridge openings, e t c . The frkquency of the peak
discharges i s necessary t o determine how often the conveyance' system capacity i s exceeded. C r i t e r i a for s i z i n g conveyance
systems are derived from socio-economic responses to the inconveniences
associated with the exceedence of system conveyance capacities and the
cost of providing those systems.
Flood control studies usually base flood damages on peak discharges
as representati ve of damage due to several associated flood problems.
I t i s especially convenient t o be able t o express flood damages in terms
of discharge (stage), however, other factors such as flow velocities and
duration of flooding may need t o be considered separately. Flood control
measures may take the form of increasing the capacity of conveyance
systems o r regulating the flood waters through storage, diversions, o r
local control measures. Flood damage reduction measures include these
items plus nonstructaral measures such as flood proofing s t r u c t u r e s , e t c .
The tradeoff between conveyance capacity and storage i n a flood cont r o l system i s a c l a s s i c consideration. This analysis i s appropriate
f o r small urban drainage systems (storm and combined sanitary) up t o the
1 arge r i ver/reservoi r networks. Many techniques have been devel oped,
tested, and implemented f o r s i z i n g these systems. In general, the l a r g e r
o r more complex the drainage system becomes, the more the analysis
s h i f t s from predicting peaks t o predicting the whole hydrograph. The
"Flood Hydrograph and Peak Flow Frequency Analysis", Arlen D. Feldman,
Chief, Research Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Hydrologic
Engineering Center, Davis, Cali forni a. Presented a t Enaineering Foundation
Conference on Improved Hydrologic Forecasting, Asilomar, California,
March 1979.

techniques addressed in t h i s paper are separated i n t ~the following

catagories :
Frequency analysis of historical streamflows
S t a t i s t i c a l equati ons
Empi r i c a l formul ae
Single e v e n t watershed models
Continuous watershed models
The single event watershed models are f u r t h e r broken down into techniques using hypothetical storms and h i s t o r i c a l storms. Continuous
watershed models are discussed in terms of relatively simple models and
a l s o the more complex ccunplete s o i l moisture accounting models. In one
of the proposed methods of analysis, a simple continuous model i s used
t o screen the historical rainfall-runoff record t o determine important
individual events which are then simulated i n more detail with a single
event model. A distinction will also be made between techniques which
predict peak flows from urban and nonurban areas. Much emphasis has
been placed on urban runoff in recent years and several techniques have
been developed t o meet those needs ( 1 ) .
The s t a t i s t i c a l equations and empirical formulae are best
used t o predict peak flow r a t e s f o r small areas, less than 50 mi2. When
analyzing larger areas, the storage and routing e f f e c t s i n the basin
usually require the use of a watershed model f o r adequate definition of
the hydrograph.
Peak Flow Estimation Techniques.--Peak flows may be estimated
d i r e c t l y as functions of h i s t o r i c a l streamflow records o r s t a t i s t i c a l /
empirical relationships. The peak flow techniques referred to in t h i s
paper are those t e ~ h n i q u e swhich predict only the peak flow - not
including the whole hydrograph. The techniques which predict the whole
hydrograph o r s e r i e s of hydrographs also compute a peak flow but they
will be discussed in the Watershed Modeling sections. The peak flow
techniques are functions of rain fa1 1 i n t e n s i t y o r runoff frequency and
various geographic characteris t i c s of the basin. Usually the annual
peak flow frequency curve i s derived e i t h e r d i r e c t l y from an equation
o r by estimating a s e r i e s of flood peaks which are then analyzed with
standard frequency techniques.
Frequency Analysis o f Historical Streamflows. --Histori cal streamflow records may be used d i r e c t l y to estimate discharges a t
various frequencies. I f adequate streamflow records e x i s t and the
watershed has remained r e l a t i v e l y unchanged during the course of t h a t
record, then those observed s treamfl ows are probably the best indicator
of the potential flood responses of the watershed in i t s present condi tion. The Water Resource Counci 1 ' s guide1 ines (2) describe the
currently recommended techniques. Those guidelines describe the use
of the Pearson Type I11 d i s t r i b u t i o n and associated topics of high
and 1ow out1 i e r s , generalized skew, two-station comparisons, mixed
populations, confidence 1imits, flood estimates from precipitation data,
and equivalent accuracy f o r independent estimates f o r analysis of hist o r i c a l flood peaks.

I f i t i s desired t o predict the magnitude-frequency of streamflows

under some future watershed land use development o r regulated condition,
then the h i s t o r i c a l streamflow records cannot be used d i r e c t l y . In t h i s
case one must usual ly resort t o a watershed model. The same requirement
arises where long term historical streamflow records e x i s t b u t the
watershed has undergone signi f i c a n t changes during t h a t time. T h u s , a
nonstationary streamflow s e r i e s e x i s t s and cannot be used d i r e c t l y in
the frequency analysis. The nonstationary s e r i e s problem can also be
unraveled through the use of watershed models ( 3 ) .
I f a stationary s e r i e s of data i s available, b u t not a t the specific
locations of i n t e r e s t , then a regional frequency analysis may be undertaken (4). The regional analysis allows one t o t r a n s f e r the parameters
of the flood frequency distribution a t gaged locations t o other
locations of i n t e r e s t . This i s accomplished through relating frequency
parameters to geographic and meteorologic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are
known a t the gaged and ungaged locations.
Water Resource Counci 1 ' s Ungaged Areas F l m d Frequency Study. --The
Water Resaurces Counci 1 Hydrology Committee, work group f o r peak flow
frequency f o r ungaged areas, has recently begun a study of the following e i ght flood frequency estimation techniques.

S t a t i s t i c a l estimation of Qp
S t a t i s t i c a l estimation by moments
Index flood method
Transfer method
Empi ri cal equations
Single storm
Multiple discrete events
Continuous simulation
The f i r s t phase of the WRC study has just been completed f o r selected
watersheds i n the northwestern and central U.S. and they expect t o publish
a report in November 1979 (personal communication with John Miller,
National Weather Service). The methods reported in the p i l o t t e s t s are:
USGS Equations, FHWA, Reich, Snowmel t, Index Flood, Rational Formula,
TR55, (RPl49), TR55 (TC) , TR20, and HEC-1. They are encouraging the
widest possible review of t h i s work before going on with similar applications in the southwestern and southeastern U.S. A l a t e r phase of the
WRC studies will include urban areas.
Preliminary r e s u l t s of the WRC study show there t o be a f a i r amount
of variation within the application of the same method on the same
watershed by d i f f e r e n t participants. This was observed even with the
apparently s t r a i g h t forward methods such as the USGS S t a t e Equations
and FHWA where a l l t h a t i s needed i s drainage area and other simple
geographic location parameters. The r e s u l t s varied even more, as one
would expect, as more judgement/experience factors were required t o use
the methods such as SCS' TR-20 and The Corps of Engineers' HEC-1. The
above observations were made from a very preliminary review of the p i l o t
study raw data. The WRC Ungaged Watershed Group i s now in the process of
e d i t i n g and analyzing t h a t data and preparing t h e i r report.

S t a t i s t i c a l Flood Peak Estimation Techniques. - - S t a t i s t i c a l flood peak

estimation techniques predict instantaneous peak flows of prescti bed
frequencies through a regression analysis of. geographic variables affecting the flood runoff. An excellent discussion of drainage basin and
meteorologic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which can be used t o explain behavior of
streamflows i s given i n Thomas and Benson (21). They analyzed over
twenty characteristics and discuss the relative a f f e c t s of each. Drainage basin area and normal annual precipitation were among the most significant. Certainly some of the most widely available examples of these
techniques are the U .S. Geological Survey (USGS) "State Regression
Equations," ( 5 ) .
Patterson and Gamble ( 5 ) , developed relationships between drainage
area and mean annual flood in d i f f e r e n t hydrologic areas. The mean
annual flood i s reduced in proportion to the lake storage in the basin i f
applicable, and the peak flows f o r recurrence intervals from 1.1 t o 50
years may be determined from a graph of recurrence interval vs. r a t i o of
discharge t o mean annual flood as in figure 1.
A generalized procedure i s also used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ( 6 ) f o r small rural watersheds, generally l e s s than 100
square miles. In t h i s procedure the 10-year event i s determined as a
function of the drainage area, an iso-erodent factor, and a difference
in elevation in the watershed. Separate equations are given f o r each of
twenty four hydrophysiographic zones in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. A
fixed relationship i s given between the 2-year, 100-year peaks and the
10-year peak.
Other techniques use watershed runoff c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and precipitation i n t e n s i t i e s to predict the peak runoff rates. A time on concent r a t i o n and i n f i l t r a t i o n index may be determined d i r e c t l y from watershed
characteristics such as length and elevation change of main channel, s o i l
characteris t i c s , and 1and cover.
The x-minute r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y f o r
the desired frequency i s obtained from TP40 o r HYDRO-35 ( 7 ) . A peak
discharge per square mile may be derived from the time-of-concentration,
i n f i l t r a t i o n index, and peak 30-minute intensity. Adjustments can be
made f o r antecedent precipitation. This method i s subject t o the
standard criticisms of assuming the frequency of the runoff i s the same
as the r a i n f a l l .
Empirical Equations .--The most popular and long l a s t i n g of the
empirical equations i s the Rational formula ( 8 ) . Despite the many more
sophisticated methods available today, the rational formula i s s t i l l
popular because of i t s easy and economic use. The regression equations
previously discussed are simi l a r to t h i s except t h a t the coefficients
in the equations are determined by a minimum e r r o r s t a t i s t i c a l techniques. Application of the Rational method has even been inconsistent ( 3 7 ) .
Runoff vs, Rainfall Based Methods .--Many of the s t a t i s t i c a l estimationtechniques f o r peak flow are directly streamflow based and do not
go through the r a i n f a l l -to-runoff analysis. The flow estimates are
determined by anaiyzing streamf iows of known frequencies in a hydrologic
region and re1 ating them to basin characteristi cs, primarily drainage
area and sometimes general meteor01 ogi c measures such as average annual

Drainage Area m i 2

Ratio
of
Discharge
t0
Me an
Annual
Flood
I

1. I

Figure 1.

2
5
20 50
Recurrence I n t e r v a l

Area Regression Equation Method

100

precipitation. I t i s generally more d i f f i c u l t t o develop these relationships in urbanizing basins because of the nonhomogeneous nature of the
runoff series.

As urbanization occurs the r a i n f a l l runoff response function changes

and additional parameters must be brought i n t o the relationship to
explain that variation. Usually the percent of impervious area and
watershed conveyance factors a r e found t o be s u i t a b l e measures of urbanization ( 9 ) . Rainfall i s also brought into these relationships so t h a t
impact of changed precipitation loss r a t e s can be analyzed d i r e c t l y
instead of trying to r e f l e c t change only in the routing parameters.
There are two general classes of r a i n f a l l based flood prediction
methods: 1) runoff frequency i s assumed t o be the same as the r a i n f a l l
frequency, and 2 ) the runoff frequency is computed independently of the
r a i n f a l l frequency. The assumption t h a t runoff frequency equals rainfa1 1 frequency i s generally agreed t o be undesireable (10) h u t i s oftenthe requi red analysis. Preci pitimes used because i t simplifies
t a t i s n frequency analysis i s discussed i n a l a t e r section. Rainfall of
some frequency can be applied t o several d i f f e r e n t antecedent moisture
conditions in the same watershed and largely d i f f e r e n t runoff may r e s u l t .
As the frequency of the event becomes more rare, the runoff i s l e s s
affected by the antecedent moisture condition and the ensuing loss rates.
The single event models can be used on many h i s t o r i c events and then the
runoff peaks ranked and the frequencies determined by standard methods.
Continuaus simulation models take the final s t e p of analyzing the e n t i r e
precipitation runoff record maintaining consistency with respect t o soi 1
moisture storages. The continuous process modelers claim) t o have the
most real i s t i c basis f o r computing flood frequencies.
Watershed Modeling.--When i s i t necessai-y and/or desirable t o use a
watershed model instead of the simplified s t a t i s t i c a l and empirical
techniques? The watershed models are generally requi red when : an enti re
hydrograph i s desired; analyzing complex areas ; o r when the past
o r proposed future watershed response functions are changing. Watershed
models are parti cul a r l y desi rabl e when analyzing the e f f e c t of various
water management schemes.
Watershed models range widely i n complexi ty. Brandstetter (1 1,
compares many d i f f e r e n t models f o r urban storm runoff and many of these
models are equally good f o r nonurban cases. Some are nothing more than
simple empi r i cal equations within a subbasin network routing/combining
framework. Others perform a complex accounting of s o i l moisture and
water in various stages of runoff. The following discussion of watershed model ing looks a t the practi cal s t a t e - o f -the-art in single event
and continuous models and combinations thereof. The attendent preci p i tation analyses requi red with both techniques i s also discussed.
Hydrographs are necessary when storage projects (reservoirs of
d i f f e r e n t forms) are being investigated as flood control measures. A
frequency analysis of runoff can be made t o determine the expected
frequency of vari ous f'low biirations ( 4 ) . I f a certain f?cw-duraticr,
relationship i s desired f o r project design, i t can be determined
separately, as j u s t mentioned, and then the simulated hydrograph can be

balanced (1 1) t o conform to t h a t flood duration. Continuous event

simulation models are often preferred f o r storage analysis i f i t i s a
sequence of storms which cause the flood problem as opposed to one
large, single event.
Single Event Models.--A single event model i s one t h a t i s used
~ r i m a r i l vf o r individual-storm events, although i t may be of long
duration* and mu1 t i -peaked. Two factors usual iy constrain t h e i r use to
single events: the continuity of s o i l moisture (loss r a t e s ) i s not
simulated, and/or the model simulates in such d e t a i l and requires time
consuming~computationss o t h a t i t i s not economical t o run over long
periods. Many of the single event models can be used equally we1 l in
urban and nonurban areas but have usually been developed f o r a specific
purpose and then generalized t o meet more needs. Some of the most
widely used single event models are:
HEC-1: Flood Hydrograph Package (1 1 )
TR-20: Computer Pr~gramf o r Project
Formulation Hydrology (12 )
MITCAT: MIT Catchment Model (13)
USGS Rainfall-Runoff Simulator (14)
SWMM: Storm Water Management Model (15)
Many other models e x i s t and some contain more advanced representation
of various aspects of the precipitation-runoff process. Many comparisons
of such models have been made (1, 16). Few models are more comprehensi ve
and/or widely used than those above. These models are generally well
supported by government agencies o r private engineering consultants and
are continually being improved to meet new needs. The HEC-1 model, f o r
example, goes beyond the basic rain fa1 1/snowme1 t runoff simul ation process and has special options f o r computation of expected annual flood
damages, automati cal ly s i z i n g components of a flood control sys tem f o r
maximum net benefits, and simulation of dam overtopping and f a i l u r e per
the requirements of the National Dam Safety Inspection Program.
The current tendency in watershed model ing, both single event and
continuous, i s t o incorporate parameters with real i s t i c re1 ationships to
the physical process and t h a t can be determined d i r e c t l y from readily
avail able geographic data. Because of t h i s strong i n t e r e s t in re1 ating
watershed model parameters t o geographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the Soi 1
Conservation Service's (SCS) curve number technique has received much
increased i n t e r e s t and usage. The SCS curve number technique i s the
only one i n which both the precipitation loss r a t e and the water excessto- runoff transformation ( u n i t hydrograph) can be determined from readily
available geographic data. The data used are: 1and cover, hydrologic
s o i l type, average slope of the watershed, and length of the main water
course. Curve numbers have been recommended f o r various land cover hydrologic s o i l group combinations i n both urban and nonurban areas (17)
as shown i n Table 1. Calibration with observed r a i n f a l l runoff data i s
s t i 11 required. The curve number technique, a1 though a rather simp1 i s t i c

representation of the runoff process, appears to work well in many cases.

Further research i s being currently undertaken by the HEC and Espey,
Huston & Assoc. to t e s t the validity of the technique in urbanizing
watersheds.
Table 1.

Runoff Curve Numbers f o r

Selected Land Uses (from Table 2.2 (17))

Hydro1 ogi c Soi 1 Group
A
B
C
D
Land Use
Cultivated 1and
72
81
88
91
Pasture o r range land

68

79

86

89

Wood o r Forest land

25

55

70

77

Residential, 114 a c r e l o t s

61

75

83

87

Commercial (85% imperv. )

89

92

94

95

Industri a1 (72% imperv. )

81

88

91

93

Paved parking l o t s , roofs,

driveways, e t c .

98

98

98

98

A particularly i n t e r e s t i n g and powerful benefit of using geographical ly re1 ated watershed parameters i s t h a t of interconnecting watershed
models with geographi c information systems. This concept was used
in a project f o r Fairfax County, VA in which a geographic grid cell
information system was used as the basis f o r computation of watershed
model parameters (18). This study made use of the MITCAT watershed
model and parameters were estimated from a geographic data bank of land
use, etc.
The Hydrologic Engineering Center, (19), made a practical appl i cation of a geographic information system f o r automatically computing
hydrolag-i c and economi c parameters in the Oconee Ri ver Expanded Flood
Plain Information study, figure 2. This concept has been expanded i n t o
a comprehensive flood plain planning tool (20), and i s now being
implemented as a regular tool in Corps of Engineers' project investigation.
As single event models became more geographical l y based and capable
of e a s i l y predicting s t a r t i n g conditions, ( i n i t i a l values of model parameters), the l e s s necessary continuous watershed models would appear t o
be. With this capability, the single event model could be s t a r t e d before
every s i g n i f i c a n t event. S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the output peak flows
and volumes could be performed to make predictions f o r design purposes.
Using a single event model f o r many storm events and using the resulting
frequency curve, overcomes the common c r i t i c i s m of single event models t h a t runoff frequency equals rainfall frequency.

F i gure 2 .

Spati a1 Data Management and Hydrologi c Analysis System

Analysis o f Flood Control Measures and Land Use Changes.--The hydralogic engineer i s often asked to determine the impact of land use changes
o r flood control management measures on s p e c i f i c design floods and the
e n t i r e flow frequency curve. This can be accomplished with e i t h e r the
s i n g l e event o r continuous watershed model. Both methods require the
abi 1i ty t o change watershed parameters to r e f l e c t new watershed response
functions.
Watershed modelers use many d i f f e r e n t characteristics affecting the
runoff process with which to predict the parameters of the model. The
common procedure i s t o establish a relationship between the model parameters, say 1oss r a t e s , and runoff trans formations (uni t g r a ~ h
and kinematic wave), and basin characteristics. Basin characteristics
are discussed in re1 ation t o runoff production by Thomas and Benson (21).
Urbanization factors a r e included i f the basin has been o r i s being developed ( 9 ) .
For evaluating flood control management a1 t e r n a t i ves, the watershed
modelers simply r u n the model in the with and without project control
modes t o determine the impact of the project. In the continuous models,
one usually simulates the e n t i r e record with and without the modified
land use and/or flood control projects. The annual peak flows, f o r each
case, are subjected t o traditional frequency analysis and the modified
frequency curve i s obtained.
Single event models can be used t o develop a modified frequency
curve by simulating several storms, of varying magnitude, under each development condition (1 1 ). A base case frequency curve i s required and can
he delreloped by- any preferred method- -Usually a frequency curve i s
"adopted" which may be some specific curve o r combination of curves.
The frequency of the base case computed peak flow, f o r each storm magnitude, i s determined from the adopted frequency curve, figure 3 . The
same storm i s simulated again under the modified conditions and the
frequency of the runoff i s assumed t o be the same. The modified frequency curve i s determined as shown i n figure 3 . A potential fallacy
w i t h t h i s approach i s t h a t the storm runoff may change in frequency f o r
the modified watershed development. That i s , the ranking o f peaks flows
might change under the modified condition.
Precipitation Frequency Analysis. --Many studies have been made of
precipitation frequency and c r i t i c a l design events such as the probable
maximum preci p i t a t i on and various frequenc in tensi ty-durati on re1 a t i onships of the National Weather Service (NlJS (7). A recent analysis by
Marsalek (10) reviewed the Chicago and I l l i n o i s design storm methods
and compared them w i t h resul ts obtained from continuous simul ation.
Marsalek reinforced those common feelings about the p i t f a l l s of design
storms, a t l e a s t f o r the limited geographic area analyzed.

Nevertheless, design storms are a commonly used tool and must be

given serious consideration, especi a1 ly because of thei r economic
attractiveness. Several single event watershed modelers have developed
t h e i r own r a i n f a l l frequency analysis techniques ( 2 2 ) and link these
techniques di rectl w i t h t h e i r watershed models. These techniques as
we1 1 as the AWS ( 7 publications can be used effectively as long as the

Modified
curve

/
Discharge Q t 2

92
Q '1

Existing
Adopted
curve

fl
f2
Frequency ( f )
'i = peak d i s c h a r g e f o r design storm i
= frequency o f Qi from given curve
fi
Qti
= peak d i s c h a r g e from design storm i under modified
watershed c o n d i t i o n

Figure 3.

Modifying Frequency Curves

impact of the antecedent preci pi t a t i on assumptions are f u l l y real i zed.

A study by Yen (23) demonstrates the use of synthetic storms in designing projects for the Federal Highway Administration. One of the major
problems occurs when the particular sequence of precipitation events
causes the c r i t i c a l flood s i t u a t i o n as opposed t o the magnitude of any
one p a r t of the multiple events. This type of problem leads one t o
prefer the analysis found in the continuous models.
The use of continuous watershed models does not solve a1 1 of one's
rain fa1 1 analysis problems. Granted, i t i s the most comprehensi ve
analysis of the hydrology of the basin and much i s to be gained from
t h a t insight. These models have a major dependence upon the precipitation measured o r synthetical l y generated; and the precipitation data
are usually the l e a s t well known p a r t of the runoff process. The
d i f f i c u l t y comes in the spatial variation of precipitation; point
measurements are made and spati a1 averages are inferred.

The construction of a long-record precipitation s e r i e s i s a d i f f i c u l t task. As one goes back in time, the observation s t a t i o n s become
fewer, and one m u s t make more and more assumptions about the s p a t i a l
and temporal variation of the precipitation. The National Weather
Service maintains tape f i l e s of daily precipitation records since 1948
and shorter interval precipitation measurements f o r selected s t a t i o n s
and time periods. Before 1948, most precipitation data were not in
computer compatible format and t h u s , extensive preparation by the
analyst i s required. The Hydrologic Engineering Center estimated t h a t
approximately 4 t o 6 person-months of e f f o r t would be required t o
construct the precipitation record from 1900 to 1948 f o r a 130 mi2 basin
near Chicago, IL.
Continuous Watershed Models.--Most of today's highly sophisticated
continuous watershed models are deri ved from the Stanford Watershed
Model (24). Another model, developed a t about the same time, i s the
SSARR model of' the Corps of Engineers (25). The SSARR model does not
have a l l of the complexity of the Stanford derived models, but has been
shown t o be comparable in r e s u l t s wi t h the more comprehensi ve models (26) .
The Stanford Watershed Model has been elaborated upon a t several
universities: Kentucky (27) ; Texas (28) ; Ohio (20) ; and others. Notable
among these i s the Kentucky version, e n t i t l e d OPSET, where the parameters
of the model are derived automatically by an optimization routine. The
National Weather Service also used the Stanford Watershed-Model as the
basis f o r i t s NWSRFS model (30). The National Weather Service Sacramento
Model (31 ) has more comprehensive soi 1 moisture accounting a1 gori t h m s ,
but may be considered l e s s sophisticated in i t s runoff transformation via
l i n e a r unit graphs and the f a c t t h a t i t does not route stream flows in a
comp rehens i ve r i ve r sys tern.
One of the most highly developed vers,ions of the Stanford Watershed
Model e x i s t i n g today i s the Hydrocomp HSP Model (32). The HSP system
of programs incorporates the precipitation-runoff model as one piece of
an army o f study tools ranging from water quality simulation to unsteady
flow dam break flood routings. The technical analysis tools a l l link
together with a comprehensive data management sys tem whi ch arranges input
and saves output f o r further analysis.

Efficient data management in continuous watershed simulation models

i s an exceedingly important requirement. The HSP system i s probably the
most advanced and comprehensive i n t h i s regard. The continuous models
a r e frequently c r i t i c i z e d f o r t h e i r enormous appetite f o r data. In
f a c t , the cost of assembling the necessary data often negates the use
of these models in a l l but the most comprehensive studies which require
a we1 1 orchestrated analysis of competing interdiscipl inary uses of
water.
One of the simplest and most economical t o r u n continuous watershed
models is the STORM program (33). The model was originally developed
by Water Resource Engineers, Inc. i n connection w i t h stormwater runoff
i n the c i t y of San Francisco. The original model was e s s e n t i a l l y a long
term hyetograph analysis w i t h a simple rational formula type transformation to runoff. Long term, say 50 years o r more, of hourly precipitation data can e a s i l y be analyzed a t an affordable computer cost. The
original model was limited t o a single subbasin analysis b u t l a t e r
versions incorporate multibasin routing and combining.
The STORM program was studied by Brandstetter (1) and i t s characteri s t i c s can e a s i l y be compared w i t h other models in t h a t report. Another
comparison of several continuous and single event watershed models was
recently pub1 ished by the ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program
(16). While t h i s comparison was not an exhaustive t e s t i n g of the models,
i t does give good insight i n t o the r e l a t i v e performance, a t t r i b u t e s , and
d i f f i c u l t i e s one may find in these models. Another comparison of continuous models was made by Lumb (34).
The Hydrologic Engineering Center has undertaken a detailed analysis
of the HSP watershed model (35). The purpose of t h i s analysis was t o see
how well and p r a c t i c a l l y a comprehensive continuous simulation model
could be used in a standard Corps of Engineers flood frequency study.
The HSP model was chosen as a state-of-the-art model and applied to the
DuPage River Basin near Chicago, IL. This study drew several conclusions:
1) The model can produce reasonable r e s u l t s when properly calibrated.
Annual flood events, when analyzed together, exhibited characteri s t i c s simi 1a r t o recorded flows, a1 though individual years were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the observed.
2) The model can account f o r urbanization but more in theory than
was able t o be accomplished in practice. The application was begun
with f i v e land uses f o r runoff production, b u t t h i s was soon reduced t o two, nonurban and urban, together with an impervious area.
Without runoff data t o distinguish the urban and nonurban contributions t o runoff i t was furthermore not possible to make that land
use d i s t i n c t i o n . The final model was constituted of an urban/rural
mixture land use and an impervious area. The theory of the model
would lead one t o believe t h a t several d i f f e r e n t land use runoff
segments could be used b u t in the end only one could be r e a l i s t i cal ly used.

3) The model i s r e l a t i v e l y easy t o operate in terms of input

instructions, f i l e organization and manipulation.

screening model simulation f o r period of record

frequency
screening model results

time
single event i n detail

adjusted frequency
curve by (Qi. )
:9
function

frequency

Figure 4.

Hybrid Single Even t/Continuous Model Analysis

to each storm can be estimated from the continuous simulation r e s u l t s .

A s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the simple continuous model peak flows and the
detailed single event model's peak flows i s made and a regression
equation i s developed.
The regression equation
i s used t o determine a b e t t e r value for the other simple continuous model peak flows not
simulated i n d e t a i l . T h i s r e s u l t s i n an adjusted frequency curve based
on the detailed simulation of a few s i g n i f i c a n t flood events, figure 4.

Concl usions-.--There are

flood discharges/vol umes of
study and one's f a m i l i a r i t y
determine which approach i s

numerous techniques f o r predicting peak

prescribed frequencies. The budget of one's
with d i f f e r e n t analytical techniques usual ly
used.

S t a t i s t i c a l and empirical flood peak estimation techniques may

be good f o r small areas where r i v e r routing/storage e f f e c t s are not
significant. For larger watersheds and studies requiring analysis of
a1 ternati ve flood con trol/watershed management procedures, the watershed simulation model i s the best tool. The advantages and disadvantages of single event models with design storms and complex continuous
simulation models have been discussed. A hybrid approach using a simple
continuous model to identify s i g n i f i c a n t events and a single event model
to analyze those events in d e t a i l i s a promising method of analysis.
Watershed models are tending t o become more d i r e c t l y based on readily
measurable geographic parameters. The need f o r continuous accounting of
s o i l moisture conditions would appear t o be l e s s necessary as one becomes
b e t t e r able t o predict watershed model parameters from di rect geographic/
meteorologic measurements. With t h i s capabi 1i t y , single event models
theoretically could be e a s i l y s t a r t e d f o r any event i n question.
Geographic information systems and uti 1i t y programs t o compute automatical ly the watershed model parameters are a promising
techno1 ogy f o r comprehensive r i v e r basin studies. This technique i s
particularly powerful in analyzing many land use and watershed and flood
damage reducti on management a1 t e r n a t i ves .
I f one uses a subjective measure of flood severity, such as general
public inconvenience, then projects may be sized by methods which are
not dependent on a true estimate of a flood frequency. That i s , the
projects are designed by some consistent method, say design storms, and
the severity of the storms i s changed dependent upon the public's
reaction t o flooding inconvenience. This i s generally the case in urban
s t o m sewer design .
I f an objective estimate of expected economic damage i s to be the
design c r i t e r i um, then r e a l i s t i c flood frequencies must be computed.
Projects based on s p e c i f i c flood frequencies, say the 100-year flood of
the flood insurance s t u d i e s , would require consistent, b u t not necess a r i l y precise, estimates of flood frequenctes. In t h a t case, insurance premi ums could be adjusted, as actuari a1 experience indicates , t o
made the project viable. The landowners, however, would argue f o r the
use of a precise frequency.

References
1.

B r a n d s t e t t e r , A1 b i n , "Assessment o f Mathematical Models f o r Storm

and Combined Sewer Management," f o r Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency,
Techno1 ogy Series, EPA-600/2-76-175a, August 1976,

2.

Water Resources Council , "Guide1 i n e s f o r Determining Flood Flow

Frequency," B u l l e t i n 17A, Hydro1 ogy Committee, June 1977,

3.

Gundlach, David L, , "Adjustments o f Peak Discharge Rates f o r Urbani z a t i o n , " I r r i g a t i o n and Drainage Journal, American S o c i e t y of
C i v i l Engineers, Vol. 104, No, IR3, September 1978,

4.

Beard, Leo R., " S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n Hydrology," U.S, Army Corps

o f Engineers, Sacramento D i s t r i c t , January 1962.

5.

Patterson, James L, and C, R. Gamble, "Magnitude and Frequency o f

Floods i n the U n i t e d States, P a r t 5, Hudson Bay and Upper M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Basins ," U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1678,
Washington, D.C, 1968.

6.

T r e n t , R,E,, "FHWA Method f o r E s t i m a t i n g Peak Flow Rates o f Runoff

from Small Rural Watersheds ," Federal Highway A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Offices
o f Research and Devel opment , Envi ronmental Desi gn and C o n t r o l D i vi s i o n , Washington, D,C., 1978,

7.

U,S, Weather Bureau, " R a i n f a l l Frequency A t l a s o f t h e U n i t e d States,"

Dept. o f Commerce, Technical Paper No, 40, May 1961, and N a t i o n a l
Weather Service, " F i ve t o 60-Minute P r e c i p i t a t i o n Frequency f o r t h e
Eastern and C e n t r a l U n i t e d States," NOM Technical Memo NWS HYDRO-35,
S i l v e r Spring, MD, June 1977.

8.

Gregory, R.L., and C,E, Arnold, " R a t i o n a l Runoff Formulas," Transa c t i o n s , American S o c i e t y o f C i v i l Engineers, Vol. 96, 1932,

9.

Espey, W i l l i a m H. Jr,, Duke G, Altman, and Charles B. Graves, J r . ,

"Nornographs f o r Ten-Minute U n i t Hydrographs f o r Small Urban Watersheds," American S o c i e t y o f C i v i 1 Engineers Urban Water Resources
Research Program Technical Memo No, 32, New York, 1977,

10.

Marsalek, J i r i , "Research on t h e Design Storm Concept ," American

S o c i e t y o f C i v i 1 Engineers Urban Water Resources Research Program,
Technical Memo No. 33, New York, 1978,

11.

H y d r o l o g i c Engineering Center, "Flood Hydrograph Package, HEC-1,"

U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers, C a l i f o r n i a , 1973.

12.

Soi 1 Conservation Service, "Computer Program f o r P r o j e c t Formulation

Hydrology," Technical Release No. 20, U.S. Dept. o f A g r i c u l t u r e ,
Washington, D.C., 1965.

13.

Resource A n a l y s i s , I n c . , "MITCAT Catchment Simulat'on Model ,"

D e s c r i p t i o n and Users Manual, Version 6, Massachusetts, 1975.

14.

Dawdy, David R., Robert W, L i c h t y , and James M, Bergmann, "A Rainf a l l - R u n o f f S i m u l a t i o n Model f o r E s t i m a t i o n o f Flood Peaks f o r
Small Drainage Basins ," U,S, Geol o g i c a f Survey P r o f e s s i o n a l Paper
506-B, Washington, D,C, , 1972.

15.

Heaney, James P. and Wayne C, Huber, "Storm Water Management Model :

Refinements, Testing, and Decision-Making," U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a ,
1973,

16.

Abbott, Jesse W., " T e s t i n g of Several Runoff Models on an Urban

Watershed ," American S o c i e t y of C i v i l Engineers Urban Water Resources
Research Program Technical Memo NO, 34, New York, October 1978,

17,

S o i l Conservation Service, "Urban Hydrology f o r Small Watersheds ,"

Technical Release No. 55, U,S, Dept. of A g r i c u l t u r e , Washington, D,Cb,
January 1975.

18.

Michel, Henry L. and W i l l i a m P, Henry, "Flood C o n t r o l and Drainage

Planning i n t h e U r b a n i z i n g Zone: F a i r f a x Co, V i r g i n i a , " i n Urban
Runoff Q u a n t i t y and Qua1ity, E n g i n e e r i n g Foundation and American
S o c i e t y o f C i v i l Engineers, New York, 1474.
Hydro1o g i c Engineering Center, "Phase 1 Oconee Basin P i l o t Study,
T r a i l Creek Test," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, C a l i f o r n i a , 1975,
Davis, D a r r y l W. , "Comprehensive Flood P l a i n S t u d i e s Using S p a t i a1
Data Management Techniques ," Water Resources B u l l e t i n , Vol 14,
No. 3, June 1978.

Thomas, H. and M, Benson, " G e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f Streamflow Characteri s t i c s , " U,S, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No, 1975,
Washington, D.C., 1970.
Resource A n a l y s i s , I n c . , " R a i n f a l l A n a l y s i s and Generation Model
D e s c r i p t i o n and T h e o r e t i c a l Background ," Boston, MA, March 1975,
Yen, Ben Chie and Ven Te Chow, " F e a s i b i l i t y Study on Research of
Local Design Storms ," Prepared f o r Federal Highway A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
Report No. FHWA-RD-78-65, Washington, D,C, , November 1977.
Crawford, Norman H. and Ray K. L i n s l e y , " D i g i t a l S i m u l a t i o n i n
Hydrology: S t a n f o r d Watershed Model I V , " S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , C i v i l
E n g i n e e r i n g Technical Report No. 39, J u l y 1966,
Rockwood, David M. , "Streamfl ow S y n t h e s i s and R e s e r v o i r Regulation ,"
U,S, Army Engineer D i v i s i o n , N o r t h P a c i f i c , Technical B u l l e t i n No, 22,
January 1964,
World Meteor01 o g i c a l O r g a n i z a t i o n , " I n t e r c o m p a r i son of Conceptual
Models Used i n Operational H y d r o l o g i c a l F o r e c a s t i n g ,"Operational
Hydrology Report No, 7, WMO-No. 429, Geneva, 1975,

27.

James, L. Douglas, "An Eva1 u a t i o n of Re1a t i o n s h i p s Between Streamflow P a t t e r n s and Watershed C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Through t h e Use of
OPSET," Research Report No. 36, Mater Resources I n s t i t u t e , Univers i t y o f Kentucky, Lexington, 1970.

28.

Claborn, B.J., and W.L, Morre, "Numerical S i m u l a t i o n o f Watershed

Hydrology," Hydrol o g i c Engineering Laboratory, C i v i 1 Engineering
Dept, , U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, Technical Report HYD-14-7001, 1970,

29.

Ricca, V.T., "The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Version o f t h e S t a n f o r d

S t r e a m f l ow S i m u l a t i o n Model ," Water Resources Research Center,
Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.

30.

N a t i o n a l Weather Service, " N a t i o n a l Weather S e r v i c e R i v e r Forecast

Sys tern Forecast Procedures," NOAA f echn ic a l Memo, NWS HY DRO-14,
S i l v e r Spring, MD, 1972.

31.

Burnash, Robert J. C. , R. L a r r y F e r r a l and Richard McGui r e , " A Gene r a l i z e d Streamfl ow S i m u l a t i o n System," J o i n t Federal - S t a t e R i v e r
Forecast Center, Sacramento, CA 1973,

32.

Hydrocomp, I n c . , "Hydrocomp Simul a t i o n Programming Operations

Manual, F o u r t h E d i t i o n ,It Palo A1 t o , C a l i f o r n i a , January 1976,

33.

Hydrol o g i c E n g i n e e r i n g Center, "Storage, Treatment, O v e r f l ow, Runo f f Model, STORM," U,S, A r m y Corps s f Engineers, C a l i f o r n i a , 1976.

34.

Lumb, A1 an M. , "Comparison of t h e Georgia Tech, Kansas, Kentucky,

Stanford, and TVA Watershed Models i n Georgia," Georgia I n s t i t u t e
o f Technology, January 1976.

35.

Cermak, Robert J., "Continuous H y d r o l o g i c S i m u l a t i o n o f t h e West

Branch DuPage R i v e r Above West Chicago: An A p p l i c a t i o n o f Hydrocomp's HSP ," Hydrol o g i c Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps o f
Engineers, C a l i f o r n i a , D r a f t , November 1978.

36.

Peters, John C., "Techniques f o r Developing Frequency Curves i n

Urban Areas," L e c t u r e Notes, Hydro1o g i c Engi n e e r i ng Center, U. S.
Army Corps o f Engineers, C a l i f o r n i a 1978.

37.

A r d i s , Col b y V, , K. J. Dueker, and A.T. Lenz, "Storm Drainage

P r a c t i c e s o f T h i rty-Two C i t i e s ,It American S o c i e t y o f C i v i 1 Engi neers, J o u r n a l o f t h e H y d r a u l i c s D i v i s i o n , Vol 95, No. 1 , January
1969.

Technical Paper Series

TP-1
TP-2
TP-3
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-10
TP-11
TP-12
TP-13
TP-14
TP-15
TP-16
TP-17
TP-18
TP-19
TP-20
TP-21
TP-22
TP-23
TP-24
TP-25
TP-26
TP-27
TP-28
TP-29
TP-30
TP-31
TP-32
TP-33
TP-34
TP-35
TP-36
TP-37
TP-38

Use of Interrelated Records to Simulate Streamflow

Optimization Techniques for Hydrologic
Engineering
Methods of Determination of Safe Yield and
Compensation Water from Storage Reservoirs
Functional Evaluation of a Water Resources System
Streamflow Synthesis for Ungaged Rivers
Simulation of Daily Streamflow
Pilot Study for Storage Requirements for Low Flow
Augmentation
Worth of Streamflow Data for Project Design - A
Pilot Study
Economic Evaluation of Reservoir System
Accomplishments
Hydrologic Simulation in Water-Yield Analysis
Survey of Programs for Water Surface Profiles
Hypothetical Flood Computation for a Stream
System
Maximum Utilization of Scarce Data in Hydrologic
Design
Techniques for Evaluating Long-Tem Reservoir
Yields
Hydrostatistics - Principles of Application
A Hydrologic Water Resource System Modeling
Techniques
Hydrologic Engineering Techniques for Regional
Water Resources Planning
Estimating Monthly Streamflows Within a Region
Suspended Sediment Discharge in Streams
Computer Determination of Flow Through Bridges
An Approach to Reservoir Temperature Analysis
A Finite Difference Methods of Analyzing Liquid
Flow in Variably Saturated Porous Media
Uses of Simulation in River Basin Planning
Hydroelectric Power Analysis in Reservoir Systems
Status of Water Resource System Analysis
System Relationships for Panama Canal Water
Supply
System Analysis of the Panama Canal Water
Supply
Digital Simulation of an Existing Water Resources
System
Computer Application in Continuing Education
Drought Severity and Water Supply Dependability
Development of System Operation Rules for an
Existing System by Simulation
Alternative Approaches to Water Resources System
Simulation
System Simulation of Integrated Use of
Hydroelectric and Thermal Power Generation
Optimizing flood Control Allocation for a
Multipurpose Reservoir
Computer Models for Rainfall-Runoff and River
Hydraulic Analysis
Evaluation of Drought Effects at Lake Atitlan
Downstream Effects of the Levee Overtopping at
Wilkes-Barre, PA, During Tropical Storm Agnes
Water Quality Evaluation of Aquatic Systems

TP-39
TP-40
TP-41
TP-42
TP-43
TP-44
TP-45
TP-46
TP-47
TP-48
TP-49
TP-50
TP-51
TP-52
TP-53
TP-54
TP-55
TP-56

TP-57
TP-58
TP-59
TP-60
TP-61
TP-62
TP-63
TP-64
TP-65
TP-66

TP-67
TP-68
TP-69

A Method for Analyzing Effects of Dam Failures in

Design Studies
Storm Drainage and Urban Region Flood Control
Planning
HEC-5C, A Simulation Model for System
Formulation and Evaluation
Optimal Sizing of Urban Flood Control Systems
Hydrologic and Economic Simulation of Flood
Control Aspects of Water Resources Systems
Sizing Flood Control Reservoir Systems by System
Analysis
Techniques for Real-Time Operation of Flood
Control Reservoirs in the Merrimack River Basin
Spatial Data Analysis of Nonstructural Measures
Comprehensive Flood Plain Studies Using Spatial
Data Management Techniques
Direct Runoff Hydrograph Parameters Versus
Urbanization
Experience of HEC in Disseminating Information
on Hydrological Models
Effects of Dam Removal: An Approach to
Sedimentation
Design of Flood Control Improvements by Systems
Analysis: A Case Study
Potential Use of Digital Computer Ground Water
Models
Development of Generalized Free Surface Flow
Models Using Finite Element Techniques
Adjustment of Peak Discharge Rates for
Urbanization
The Development and Servicing of Spatial Data
Management Techniques in the Corps of Engineers
Experiences of the Hydrologic Engineering Center
in Maintaining Widely Used Hydrologic and Water
Resource Computer Models
Flood Damage Assessments Using Spatial Data
Management Techniques
A Model for Evaluating Runoff-Quality in
Metropolitan Master Planning
Testing of Several Runoff Models on an Urban
Watershed
Operational Simulation of a Reservoir System with
Pumped Storage
Technical Factors in Small Hydropower Planning
Flood Hydrograph and Peak Flow Frequency
Analysis
HEC Contribution to Reservoir System Operation
Determining Peak-Discharge Frequencies in an
Urbanizing Watershed: A Case Study
Feasibility Analysis in Small Hydropower Planning
Reservoir Storage Determination by Computer
Simulation of Flood Control and Conservation
Systems
Hydrologic Land Use Classification Using
LANDSAT
Interactive Nonstructural Flood-Control Planning
Critical Water Surface by Minimum Specific
Energy Using the Parabolic Method

TP-70
TP-71
TP-72

TP-73
TP-74
TP-75
TP-76
TP-77
TP-78
TP-79

TP-80
TP-81
TP-82
TP-83
TP-84
TP-85
TP-86
TP-87
TP-88
TP-89
TP-90
TP-91
TP-92
TP-93

TP-94
TP-95
TP-96
TP-97
TP-98

TP-99
TP-100
TP-101
TP-102
TP-103
TP-104

Corps of Engineers Experience with Automatic

Calibration of a Precipitation-Runoff Model
Determination of Land Use from Satellite Imagery
for Input to Hydrologic Models
Application of the Finite Element Method to
Vertically Stratified Hydrodynamic Flow and Water
Quality
Flood Mitigation Planning Using HEC-SAM
Hydrographs by Single Linear Reservoir Model
HEC Activities in Reservoir Analysis
Institutional Support of Water Resource Models
Investigation of Soil Conservation Service Urban
Hydrology Techniques
Potential for Increasing the Output of Existing
Hydroelectric Plants
Potential Energy and Capacity Gains from Flood
Control Storage Reallocation at Existing U.S.
Hydropower Reservoirs
Use of Non-Sequential Techniques in the Analysis
of Power Potential at Storage Projects
Data Management Systems of Water Resources
Planning
The New HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package
River and Reservoir Systems Water Quality
Modeling Capability
Generalized Real-Time Flood Control System
Model
Operation Policy Analysis: Sam Rayburn
Reservoir
Training the Practitioner: The Hydrologic
Engineering Center Program
Documentation Needs for Water Resources Models
Reservoir System Regulation for Water Quality
Control
A Software System to Aid in Making Real-Time
Water Control Decisions
Calibration, Verification and Application of a TwoDimensional Flow Model
HEC Software Development and Support
Hydrologic Engineering Center Planning Models
Flood Routing Through a Flat, Complex Flood
Plain Using a One-Dimensional Unsteady Flow
Computer Program
Dredged-Material Disposal Management Model
Infiltration and Soil Moisture Redistribution in
HEC-1
The Hydrologic Engineering Center Experience in
Nonstructural Planning
Prediction of the Effects of a Flood Control Project
on a Meandering Stream
Evolution in Computer Programs Causes Evolution
in Training Needs: The Hydrologic Engineering
Center Experience
Reservoir System Analysis for Water Quality
Probable Maximum Flood Estimation - Eastern
United States
Use of Computer Program HEC-5 for Water Supply
Analysis
Role of Calibration in the Application of HEC-6
Engineering and Economic Considerations in
Formulating
Modeling Water Resources Systems for Water
Quality

TP-105
TP-106
TP-107
TP-108
TP-109
TP-110
TP-111
TP-112
TP-113
TP-114
TP-115
TP-116
TP-117
TP-118
TP-119
TP-120
TP-121

TP-122
TP-123
TP-124
TP-125
TP-126
TP-127
TP-128
TP-129

TP-130
TP-131
TP-132

TP-133
TP-134
TP-135
TP-136
TP-137
TP-138
TP-139
TP-140
TP-141

Use of a Two-Dimensional Flow Model to Quantify

Aquatic Habitat
Flood-Runoff Forecasting with HEC-1F
Dredged-Material Disposal System Capacity
Expansion
Role of Small Computers in Two-Dimensional
Flow Modeling
One-Dimensional Model for Mud Flows
Subdivision Froude Number
HEC-5Q: System Water Quality Modeling
New Developments in HEC Programs for Flood
Control
Modeling and Managing Water Resource Systems
for Water Quality
Accuracy of Computer Water Surface Profiles Executive Summary
Application of Spatial-Data Management
Techniques in Corps Planning
The HEC's Activities in Watershed Modeling
HEC-1 and HEC-2 Applications on the
Microcomputer
Real-Time Snow Simulation Model for the
Monongahela River Basin
Multi-Purpose, Multi-Reservoir Simulation on a PC
Technology Transfer of Corps' Hydrologic Models
Development, Calibration and Application of
Runoff Forecasting Models for the Allegheny River
Basin
The Estimation of Rainfall for Flood Forecasting
Using Radar and Rain Gage Data
Developing and Managing a Comprehensive
Reservoir Analysis Model
Review of U.S. Army corps of Engineering
Involvement With Alluvial Fan Flooding Problems
An Integrated Software Package for Flood Damage
Analysis
The Value and Depreciation of Existing Facilities:
The Case of Reservoirs
Floodplain-Management Plan Enumeration
Two-Dimensional Floodplain Modeling
Status and New Capabilities of Computer Program
HEC-6: "Scour and Deposition in Rivers and
Reservoirs"
Estimating Sediment Delivery and Yield on
Alluvial Fans
Hydrologic Aspects of Flood Warning Preparedness Programs
Twenty-five Years of Developing, Distributing, and
Supporting Hydrologic Engineering Computer
Programs
Predicting Deposition Patterns in Small Basins
Annual Extreme Lake Elevations by Total
Probability Theorem
A Muskingum-Cunge Channel Flow Routing
Method for Drainage Networks
Prescriptive Reservoir System Analysis Model Missouri River System Application
A Generalized Simulation Model for Reservoir
System Analysis
The HEC NexGen Software Development Project
Issues for Applications Developers
HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles Program
HEC Models for Urban Hydrologic Analysis

TP-142
TP-143
TP-144
TP-145
TP-146
TP-147
TP-148
TP-149
TP-150
TP-151
TP-152

Systems Analysis Applications at the Hydrologic

Engineering Center
Runoff Prediction Uncertainty for Ungauged
Agricultural Watersheds
Review of GIS Applications in Hydrologic
Modeling
Application of Rainfall-Runoff Simulation for
Flood Forecasting
Application of the HEC Prescriptive Reservoir
Model in the Columbia River Systems
HEC River Analysis System (HEC-RAS)
HEC-6: Reservoir Sediment Control Applications
The Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS):
Design and Development Issues
The HEC Hydrologic Modeling System
Bridge Hydraulic Analysis with HEC-RAS
Use of Land Surface Erosion Techniques with
Stream Channel Sediment Models

TP-153
TP-154
TP-155
TP-156
TP-157
TP-158
TP-159
TP-160

TP-161

Risk-Based Analysis for Corps Flood Project

Studies - A Status Report
Modeling Water-Resource Systems for Water
Quality Management
Runoff simulation Using Radar Rainfall Data
Status of HEC Next Generation Software
Development
Unsteady Flow Model for Forecasting Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers
Corps Water Management System (CWMS)
Some History and Hydrology of the Panama Canal
Application of Risk-Based Analysis to Planning
Reservoir and Levee Flood Damage Reduction
Systems
Corps Water Management System - Capabilities
and Implementation Status