HysteresisinRiverDischarge

RatingCurves

Histersisenlascurvasde
gastoenros(caudal/calado)

Madrid,March25,2013

MarianMusteandKyutaeLee
IIHRHydroscience&Engineering
TheUniversityofIowa,U.S.A.
ConventionalDischargeRatingCurves

RatingCurves(RC):Practicalsolutionstocontinuouslyprovidestreamdischarge

Option1:stagedischarge (mostoften)
Oneratingcurve
Requirescontinuousstagemeasurement(pressuresensors,radar,ultrasonic,etc)

Option2:indexvelocity (emergingwiththeadventofacousticandimagebased
instruments)
Onetothreeratingcurves(Kennedy,1984)
Requirescontinuousstage&velocitymeasurements

Option3:slopearea (rarelyusedforcontinuous,mostlyforRCextrapolation)
Noratingcurves(synthetic)
Requirescrosssectionandfreesurfaceslopemeasurements
Option1:StagedischargeRatingCurves
1. Directdischargemeasurementsoverawiderangeofflows
2. BuildtheRC
3. ConvertmeasuredstagesindischargesusingRC

Underlying
Step1 Step2 assumption:
SteadyFlow

Step3

USGS05454200Coralville,Iowa,7yearsofrecords

RCderivedmeasurements(125,865)

directmeasurements(237)
Option2:IndexvelocityRatingCurves
1. DirectmeasurementsforVindex,Q,h,andA Step 2: Stage-Area Rating (h A)

2. BuildstageareaRC
3. BuildvelocityindexRC
4. ComputeinstantaneousdischargesasQ=V*A

Step1

WMO(2011)

Step 3: Index Velocity Rating (Vindex V)

1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60

Vmean
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.50 -0.200.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

-0.40
V(index)

Step 4: Q=V*A
 Option3:SlopeareaRatingCurves
1. Surveycrosssection
2. Surveyfreesurfaceslope(HGL)
3. ComputeinstantaneousdischargesusingManningeqn.

Step2

Step1 1 23 12
Step3 SIunits
Whatishysteresis?
Dependenceofasystemnotonlyofthepresentstatebutalsoof itspast
(Wikipedia)

Example:Loadingandunloadingarubberband
HysteresisindischargeRCs
ConventionalassumptionforOptions1,2,and3:STEADYFLOW
STATICRCs(onetoonerelationship)
Calibrationmeasurementscanberandomlyacquiredovertheflowrange

However,stormrunoffconveyedtostreamspropagatesasUNSTEADYTRANSITORYFLOWS
HYSTERESISinRC(dynamic,loopedcurve)
Calibrationmeasurementsneedtobesampledcommensuratewiththeeventtimescale

Acceleratedflow(phaseI)Deceleratedflow (PhaseII)

Steady(normal)

Focus:
Stagedischarge(h Q)RCs

AdaptedfromGraf&Qu(2004)
SampleHysteresisinStageDischargeRC
Measurementswithappropriateprotocolsenabletocapturehysteresis

0.8
h=10% 886

885.5 h=26%
885

0.7
Q=18% 884.5
Q=27%
H(m)

884

Stage (ft)
0.6 883.5

883

882.5
0.5
882

881.5
0.4
0.40 0.55 0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.45 1.60 881
Source: Budi Gunawan, 2008 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
3
Q(m /s) Discharge (cfs)

Smallstreams:Blackwater(UK);Gunawan(2010) Mediumstreams:Chattahoochee(USA);FayeandCherry(1980)

h=13%

Q=41%

h=14%

Largerivers:MississippiRiver(USA);Fread(1973) Largerivers:Yantze(China);Herschy(2009)
 Hysteresissensitivityfactors
706

Mostimportantfactorsinwell
705
developedhysteresis:
Gagesetting 704

Eventintensityandduration

Stage (ft)
703

702

40
Bed Slope = 0.0001
12000 701 Bed Slope = 0.001
35

10000 C3 (Tp=24hr,Tb=24hr) 30
Bed Slope = 0.01
C6 (Tp=24hr,Tb=12hr)
Discharge Q (ft3 /t)

8000 25
C7 (Tp=24hr,Tb=72hr)
Depth (ft)

20 700
6000
C3 (Tp=24hr,Tb=24hr) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
15
4000
C6 (Tp=24hr,Tb=12hr) Discharge (cfs)
10 C7 (Tp=24hr,Tb=72hr)
2000 5

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 110
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Discharge Q (ft3/t)
Time (hr)

70
25000

20000 C3 (peak = 10000)

60

50
Needfordiagnosticprotocols
Discharge Q (ft3 /t)

C8 (peak = 20000)
(currentlyunderdevelopment)
Depth (ft)

15000 40

30
C3 (peak = 10000)
10000
20 C8 (peak = 20000)
5000
10

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Dischrage Q (ft3/t)
Time (hr)
Howtocapturehysteresis?

A) Directdischargemeasurements(usingeventbased,hightemporalfrequencysamplingprotocols)
EXPENSIVE,NOPROTOCOLS,INCREASINGLYTESTED

B)Analyticalinvestigationusingsimplifiedapproaches(1D)
INEXPENSIVE,MANYPROTOCOLS,SCARSELYVALIDATED

C)Numericalmodelingusingphysicallybasedmodeling(2D,3D)
EXPENSIVE,MANYMOELS,SCARSELYVALIDATED
Howtocapturehysteresis?

A)Directdischargemeasurements (usingeventbased,hightemporalfrequencysamplingprotocols)

B)Analyticalinvestigationusingsimplifiedapproaches

C)Numericalmodelingusingphysicallybasedmodeling
Hysteresis:Directmeasurements
Ourattemptstocapturehysteresis(201113)
MeasurementSite:ClearCreek,Oxford,IA(USGS05454220)
Howtocapturehysteresis?

A)Directdischargemeasurements

B)Analyticalinvestigationusingsimplifiedapproaches(1Dcorrectionsformulae)

C)Numericalmodelingusingphysicallybasedmodeling
Hysteresiscorrectionmethods
Abundantchoices,fewvalidationsorrecommendationsforimplementation
Method Data required Flood Routing

1 Jones Qo, B, So,(y/t), (Qo/z) Kinematic

approximation

1 1 2 Henderson Qo, So,(y/t), (y/x) Parabolic

0 1 approximation

0 0 0 3 Di Silvio Qb, Qp, A, So, Fr, R, Tr, Tf, Ap, Rp, Triangular
Am, (C/A) approximation
4 Fread So, A, B, ,(B/y), (z/t), Parabolic
(U/t), Qp, Qb, Tr, hp, hb, Am, approximation

5 Marchi Qs, B, So, A, ,(B/y), (A/t) Kinematic

Qn normalflow approximation
kinematicwave:terma 6 Faye & K, A, y(tt), yt, R, Ut, (Qo/z), So, Kinematic
U(tt), n approximation
diffusionwave:termsa andb Cherry
fulldynamicwave:termsa,b,andc
7 Fenton Qs, A, K, U, So, Qo, B, (Qo/z), Kinematic
(y/t), (2y/t2), (3y/t3) approximation

8 Perumal Qs, B, So, (Qo/z), (y/t), Fr, P, Approximate

(R/y), (A/y), (2y/t2) convection diffusion

Ouroption:Fread(1975) 9 Boyer Plots of Qm vs. z, z/t Kinematic

approximation
fulldynamicwave 10 Lewis Qm, z/t, Plots of Qm vs. z, J Kinematic
stagemeasurementsatonestation approximation
11 Wiggins Plots of R vs. Vm, , n, Classification No convective and
of bed surface, z/t, Qm local acceleration
term
12 Peterson- z/t, BFGS algorithm and its Kinematic
parameters approximation
Overleir
 Freadsformula
Fread(1973&1975)

1. Inputs:Hydraulicdepth,width,bedslope,Manningsroughness,rateofchangesof
depth(dh/dt),initialdischarge(randomlyselected),timestepforoutput

1. Output:loopedratingcurve
 Freadsformula

ModifiedFreadmethodforsmallstreamchannels(iterativesolution)

Energyslope,Sf

Waveceleritycoefficient,K

Implementationcasestudies
Case1 Oneevent,ClearCreek,USGS05454220Oxford,Iowa(USA)
Case2 Oneevent,EbroRiver(Spain)
Case3 Multipleevents,ClearCreek,USGS05454220Oxford,Iowa(USA)
Freadsformulaimplementationcase1:oneevent
USGS05454220,OxfordIowa(processeddata) 700
4
Evaluation of Saint-Vernant equation

Steady-state
Fread (1975)
600 Points

500
5

Discharge (cfs)
3
400

300
6

200 2

100
14-Apr-2012 15-Apr-2012 16-Apr-2012 17-Apr-2012 18-Apr-2012
Time Series
Stage-discharge rating curve comparisons
Evaluation of the uncertainty in Prediction of Q
706
12

10
705

Relative uncertainty in prediction of Q (%)

8

704
6
Stage (ft)

703 4

2
702
0

701 -2
Modified Fread RC
USGS Steady RC -4
14-Apr-2012 15-Apr-2012 16-Apr-2012 17-Apr-2012 17-Apr-2012 18-Apr-2012
700
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Time
Discharge (cfs)

ModifiedFreadvs. USGSsteadyRC 4%to10.5%

Freadsformulaimplementationcase2:oneevent
Ascostation,EbroRiver,Spain(Ferrer,Moreno,Sanchez,2013)

Evaluation of Saint-Vernant equation

1200
Steady-state
1100

1000
Modified Fread
ADCP Artificialfloodeventforvegetation
900
removal(June2012)
Discharge (cms)

800

700
Notalltheneededdataavailable
600

500

400
Stage-discharge rating curve comparisons
300 5.5

200
20-Jun-2012 20-Jun-2012 20-Jun-2012 20-Jun-2012 21-Jun-2012 5
Time Series

4.5

Stage (m)
3.5

2.5
Steady RC
2 Modified Fread
ADCP

1.5
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Discharge (cms)
Freadsformulaimplementationcase3:eventseries
USGS05454220,OxfordIowa(provisionaldata similarwiththeinfoavailableduringfloods)

E v e n t 1 E v e n t 2 E v e n t 3

Seriesofrainfallsonfrozenground(goodcasesforhysteresis)
(February March,2013)
Freadsformulaimplementationcase3:event
series
Event3:mostviolentrainfall(March10,2013)

712.00

710.67ft(2,340cfsat11:30am,Mar10)
710.00
709.18ft (1,330cfs at 5:15pm, Mar 10)

708.00

705.63ft(667cfsat10:00am,Mar11)
706.00

704.00

702.00

700.22ft(66cfsat10:00am,Mar12)
700.00

698.00

696.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
Freadsformulaimplementationcase3:event
series
USGS05454220,OxfordIowa(provisionaldata) 3500
USGS Hydrograph
Event3:mostviolentrainfalloftheseries 3000
Modified Fread
Points
(March10,2013)
2500
Overbankflow

Discharge (cfs)
2000
4 5
1500
2
710 1000
5 6
709 1 3
4 500

708
3 0
09-Mar-2013 10-Mar-2013 11-Mar-2013 11-Mar-2013 12-Mar-2013
707 Time Series
6
2
706
Stage (ft)

705
1
704

703

702 USGS Steady RC

Modified Fread
701 Points

700
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Discharge (cfs)
Freadsformulaimplementationcase3:event
series
Event1 Event2 Event3

USGS05454220,OxfordIowa
(provisionaldata)

Stage-discharge rating curve comparisons

710

H=706.5ft0.5ft(5%)
708 Q=800cfs100cfs(12.5%)

706
Uncertaintyboundsduetounsteadyflows
Stage (ft)

704

702

Event1
Event1 on
on Feb
Feb 7-9,
7-9, 2013
2013
Event1 on Feb 7-9, 2013
700 Event2 on Feb 10-12, 2013
USGS
Event2 on Steady RC 2013
Feb 10-12,
Event3 on Mar 9-12, 2013
USGS Steady RC
USGS Steady
USGS Steady RC
RC
698
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Discharge (cfs)
Howtocapturehysteresis?

A)Directdischargemeasurements

B)Analyticalinvestigationusingsimplifiedapproaches

C)Numericalmodelingusingphysicallybasedmodeling(2D,3D)
Hysteresis:numericalsimulations
ClearCreekwatershedincludingUSGS05454220ClearCreek,Oxford,Iowa

HECHMSmodel HECRASmodel
Watersheddescription
Size:approximately103mi2
Landuse:farmlandcombinedurbanareas(Oxford,Tiffin,Coralville,andIowaCity)
Lengthofmodeledreach:24.1km(HECRAS)and4.3km(HECHMS)
Hysteresis:numericalsimulations
HECHMS modelsetup
ValidationsforalternativeHECHMS
simulations

a)peakweightedRMS
errorfunction

HECHMSmodelsetup
6subbasins,3subreaches,4junctions
HECHMSmodelcomponents
Basinmodel,meteorologicmodel,control b)percenterrorvolume
specifications,andtimeseriesdata
Hysteresis:numericalsimulations
HECRAS modelsetup
Riversystem

Boundaryconditions
S1:Dischargehydrographs Geometrysetup
S4:Normaldepth(frictionslope:0.00075) Reachlength:24.1km
Crosssections:192(approx130minterval)
Monitoringlocations Bridges:10
S2:USGS05454220OxfordClearCreek Roughnesscoefficient:0.035(inbank),
S3:USGS05454500CoralvilleClearCreek LCD(floodplain)
Obstructions(buildings) included
Hysteresis:numericalsimulations
HECRASresults
b) a)
River: Clear_Cr Reach: Clear_Cr RS: 24131.31
3.5 River: Clear_Cr Reach: Clear_Cr RS: 24131.31

Scenario2:typicalevent 3.0
Legend

Flow Scenario1:largeevent 70

60
Legend

Flow
2.5

December04,2011, (June02,2008) 50

Flow (m3/s)
2.0

Flow (m3/s)
40

Qpeak_S1 =68m3
1.5

Qpeak_S2 =3.2m3 1.0

0.5
30

20

10
0.0
24 0006 00 12 0018 0024 00 0600 12 00 1800 24 0006 0012 00 1800
03 De c20 11 04 Dec20 11 05 Dec20 11 0
2400 0600 1200 1800 2400 0600 1200 1800
Date 03Jun2008 04Jun2008
Date
Input hydrograph at S1
Input hydrograph at S1

Plan: 15 River: Clear_Cr Reach: Clear_Cr RS: 19839.50 Plan: 1 River: Clear_Cr Reach: Clear_Cr RS: 19839.50
214.5 217.0
Legend Legend
214.4 216.5
RC RC
Stage (m )

214.3

S tag e (m )
216.0
214.2
215.5
214.1
215.0
214.0
214.5
213.9
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 214.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Flow(m3/s)
Flow(m3/s)
Max thickness: about 1cm at S2
Plan: 15 River: Clear_Cr Reach: Clear_Cr RS: 1600.056
Max thickness: about 10cm at S2
Plan: 1 River: Clear_Cr Reach: Clear_Cr RS: 1600.056
199.0
Legend 201.0
Legend
198.9
RC 200.5
RC
S tag e (m )

Stage (m )
198.8
200.0
198.7 199.5
198.6 199.0

198.5 198.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Flow(m3/s) Flow(m3/s)

Max thickness: about 4cm at S3 Max thickness: about 15cm at S3

Hysteresis:numericalsimulations
HECRAS:Sensitivityanalysis

Peak
discharge
timing Summaryoftheresults
% wrt depth % wrt depth
S1 (m) S2 (m)
changes changes
2008 Large event 0.1 4.0% 0.15 6.9%
Input hydrograph at S1 2011 Typical event 0.01 2.2% 0.04 10.3%
Peak discharge 0.06 3.8% 0.09 7.1%
(low to high) 0.1 4.7% 0.14 8.0%
Duration 0.07 3.3% 0.14 8.0%
(high to low) 0.18 9.7% 0.18 10.8%
Peak timing 0.03 1.9% 0.06 4.8%
(slow to fast) 0.13 8.4% 0.15 12.0%

Eventdurationandpeakdischargetiming
Simulated RCs at S1 mostimportantparameters(maxerror:12%)

Simulated RCs at S2
 Hysteresispracticalimplications

Forhigh,unsteadyflowsRCuncertaintiesareconsiderableincreased.
Thetopcontributinguncertaintiesare:
measurementuncertainty
extrapolationoftherating
changeincrosssection(overbankflow)
neglectingthehysteresiseffect

Hysteresisinduceduncertaintyisgenerallysmall
Importantforstreamreachesonmildslopes,underchannelcontrol,andmajor
stormevents(duringfloodswhenRCaccuracyismostimportant)
Selectedhysteresisinduceduncertaintyestimates:
2ftdifferencefromRCinChatttahoocheandOhioRivers(Petersen Overleyer,2006)
5ftdifferencefromRCinMississippiRiver(Fread,1975)
ThesedifferencesaretypicallylowerthenthesteadyRCreading (occur
ontherisinglimb) importantforfloodintervention
 Howcanbehysteresisusedinpracticalapplications?

Uncertaintyestimatorforsteady Predictorforactualdischargeduring
RCsduringstorms stormsusingsteadyRCasbasis
(basedonpreviousdatarecords) (basedonaninitialsteadyRCdata)
Stage

Stage
Howcanbehysteresisusedinpracticalapplications?
Measurementsandmodelsembeddedinanintegratedsystem
foruncertaintyassessmentand/orforecasting
hQ RCSlopeareaRC

Tentativeresearch
Howcanbehysteresisusedinpracticalapplications?
Floods

Betterplanningduringfloodsbypredictingmoreaccurate
floodstagesandtheirtiming!
Questions?