Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br />f' <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />:j~ <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />'--. <br />"". <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />"'- <br />-~ <br /> <br />~,'1: <br />~. <br />~ <br />~.~ <br />I <br />- <br />it <br />~ <br />:if <br />.if <br />i <br />. <br />~. <br />... <br />.:z. <br /> <br />'~ <br />., <br />.a: <br /> <br /> <br />The unit hydrograph method generally had about half error for simulations of the Harvard Gulch watershed than for <br />simulations of the Surrey Downs watershed; this is attributed to its design for application in the Denver area~ DR3M <br />simulations of Harvard Gulch indicated an extended hydro graph recession compared to the observed recession; this <br />resulted in relatively large storm-volume error for some simulations. <br /> <br />Table 4. Error in simulated storm volumes in relation to observed storm volume [All values in percent]. <br /> <br />CUHP/ <br />SWMM <br /> <br />Storm <br /> <br />Harvard Gulch Watershed <br />1981/5/8 30 <br />1983/6/5 25 <br />1985/1/15 -12 <br />1985/7/19 63 <br />1987/6/9 -18 <br />1987/6/30 14 <br />11ean 17 <br />RMS 32 <br />S.D. 30 <br />Surrey Downs Watershed <br />1980/4/18 <br />'1980/8/17 <br />1981/6/30 <br />1981/9/20 <br />1981/12/1 <br />1981/1/15 <br />Mean <br />RMS <br />S.D. <br /> <br />2.0 <br /> <br />CUHP <br /> <br />29 <br />9~7 <br />50 <br />52 <br />-44 <br />-14 <br />14 <br />39 <br />38 <br /> <br />-32 <br />97 <br />61 <br />-15 <br />39 <br />50 <br />33 <br />55 <br />48 <br /> <br />DR3M <br /> <br />98 <br />100 <br />15 <br />120 <br />-13 <br />35 <br />60 <br />79 <br />55 <br /> <br />-5.2 <br />-9.4 <br />20 <br />19 <br />-10 <br />-20 <br />2.1 <br />15 <br />16 <br /> <br />HEC <br /> <br />39 <br />61 <br />190 <br />130 <br />3.5 <br />43 <br />78 <br />101 <br />70 <br /> <br />-54 <br />15.0 <br />70 <br />140 <br />240 <br />110 <br />III <br />142 <br />98 <br /> <br />STORM VOLUME <br />120 <br /> <br />ui <br />::; <br />::J <br />~ 1.5 <br />'Of- <br />>w <br />::Ew <br />CCLL <br />flw <br />~CC 1.0 <br />"'u <br />0< <br />~~ <br />< <br />..J <br />::J <br />::; <br />u; <br /> <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />. /<1 <br />+ / 0 <br />v / <br />~d" <br />v +<9~ / <br />+%c. <br />. / 4- <br />,%,c. <br />c. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />0.5 <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />60 <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />HSPF <br /> <br />-0.02 <br />1.3 <br />11 <br />26 <br />-30 <br />-2.7 <br />0.92 <br />17 <br />19 <br /> <br />21 <br />28 <br />-15 <br />-63 <br />26 <br />1.0 <br />,-0.14 <br />35 <br />35 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />PSRM <br /> <br />-6.3 <br />-13 <br />-53 <br />24 <br />-81 <br />-37 <br />-28 <br />44 <br />37 <br /> <br />-31 <br />-24 <br />-36 <br />-59 <br />-27 <br />58 <br />-20 <br />42 <br />40 <br /> <br />Cl <br /> <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br /> <br />SWMM <br /> <br />15 <br />37 <br />57 <br />81 <br />-14 <br />16 <br />32 <br />45 <br />34 <br /> <br />-32 <br />97 <br />61 <br />-15 <br />39 <br />50 <br />33 <br />16 <br />16 <br /> <br />TRZO <br /> <br />-72 <br />-96 <br />-100 <br />-57 <br />-100 <br />-97 <br />-87 <br />89 <br />18 <br /> <br />-82 <br />63 <br />-82 <br />-100 <br />69 <br />-3.5 <br />-23 <br />73 <br />76 <br /> <br />EXPLANATION <br />. CASC2D <br />+ CUHP <br />x CHUP/SWMM <br />o OR3M <br />~ HEC <br />o HSPF <br />t;. PSRM <br /><l SWMM <br />V TR20 <br /> <br />SURREY DOWNS <br />o 0 ~4 <br />1.0 1.5 2.0 <br />OBSERVED STORM VOLUME. IN ACRE-FEET <br />Figure 3.-$imulated versus observed storm volume at (A) Surrey Downs, WA and (8) Harvard Gulch, CO <br />for six storms [CASC2D results only available for one storm at Harvard Gulch, Locations shown in fig 1.] <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />0.5 <br /> <br />o<lx <ltl <br />~/B t; <br />$/. <br /> <br />+ <br />v v <br />HARVARD GULCH <br />1 0 120 <br /> <br />7-169 <br /> <br /><> <br />~ <br /> <br />