Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table 12. Continued. <br />Location Date td a b c a(bc b/td "'I <br />City, State M/D/Y min. min. in./hr. <br /> 8/29/63 165 1659.97 118.75 1.299 3.36 0.720 0.218 <br /> 3/4/64 286 2475.18 171.25 1.384 2.01 0.599 0.780 <br /> 4/13/64 217 114.69 30.20 1.066 3.03 0.139 0.135 <br /> 3/1/65 645 4998.24 505.00 1.511 0.411 0.783 0.543 <br /> 7/ 8/65 45 217.51 29.18 1.154 4.44 0.648 1.000 <br /> 5/24/66 345 311.88 111.87 1.141 1.43 0.324 0.265 <br /> 12/27/66 420 7639.31 430.00 1.562 0.59 1.024 0.382 <br />Uifayette, 7/ 5/43 63 89.62 10.20 1.060 7.64 0.162 0.3 56 <br />indiana 6/19/46 25 67.76 13.63 1.096 3.87 0.545 0.445 <br /> 6/ 7/47 68 220.22 37.50 1.163 3.26 0.551 0.347 <br /> 6/24/50 51 133.91 8.48 1.061 13.87 0.166 0.062 <br />P1acervi1le, 4/1/37 204 122.84 142.50 1.202 0.32 0.699 0.666 <br />California 12/4/42 200 80.11 58.59 1.065 1.05 0.293 0.856 <br /> 12/28/42 212 25.49 28.67 0.930 1.12 0.135 0.030 <br />Cohocton, 6/ 7/38 25 52.49 2.81 1.030 18.08 0.112 0.109 <br />New York 7/21/38 70 525.91 47.19 1.205 5.05 0.674 0.379 <br /> 9/12/38 62 274.99 52.73 1.213 2.24 0.850 0.413 <br /> 7/17/42 58 122.04 9.02 1.063 11.76 0.156 0.074 <br /> 7/18/42 80 356.27 38.52 1.149 5.36 0.482 0.564 <br /> 5/26/43 218 173.14 16.09 1.033 9.81 0.074 0.009 <br /> 5/26/43 180 105.24 25.00 1.003 4.18 0.139 0.705 <br /> 7/23/45 63 113.06 22.34 1.096 3.75 0.355 0.279 <br /> <br />somehow show slight variations from each other, even <br />under the same storm. The variations in the measured <br />hyetographs at different gages in a small watershed <br />under an identical storm are not surprisingly unusual, <br />considering extremely high turbulent air stream <br />always accompanying the rainstorm. Despite these <br />variations, however, most of the 'Y values so <br />computed, as listed in Table 13, are about equal for <br />the six gages under the same storm, except for very <br />few events. <br /> <br />An inspection of Table 13 reveals that <br />the "'I values for different storms vary almost <br />randomly. The present analysis thus fails to establish <br />any relationships among the storm parameters <br />investigated. <br /> <br />For illustration, typical hyetographs with their <br />best.fitted counterparts are plotted, as shown in Figs. <br />16 through 20. These hyetographs with the <br />corresponding storm parameters so computed will be <br /> <br />input into a mathematical model to compute surface <br />runoff from an urban highway watershed. The <br />best.fitted hyetographs developed herein are thus <br />essential to the verification of the mathematical <br />model that was formulated and reported in another <br />phase of the research project (Chen, 1975). <br /> <br />inadequacy of the present optimization tech. <br />nique for best fitting the parametric hyetograph <br />equations to the recorded hyetograph manifested <br />itself in some unsatisfactory results, as shown in Figs. <br />14, 17, 18, and 20. As mentioned previously, a <br />single.peak assumption, the limited number of data <br />points in analysis, and deficiency in an univariate <br />optimization method among many other drawbacks <br />in the present method may be attributed to such <br />failures. For lack of a better method presently <br />available in the determination of "'I value, the future <br />investigation should be focused on the development <br />of a new method to tackle with these deficiencies and <br />drawbacks. <br /> <br />33 <br />