VOL.

4, NO.

WATER

RESOURCES

RESEARCH

OCTOBER

1968

A Least-Squares
HydrographAnalysiso[ ComplexStorms
on SmallAgriculturalWatersheds
D.

E.

OVERTON

U.S. Department of AqricultureHydroqraph Laboratory, AqriculturalResearchService

Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Abstract. The feasibility of a least-squarestechnique developed by Snyder [1955] for
extracting unit hydrographs from complex st.ormswas investigated for application to small
agricultural watersheds.The procedure is the reverse of hydrograph synthesis.Rat.her than
summing unit hydrographsto synthesize a complex storm, the unit hydrograph was calculated. When summed,the unit hydrograph producedthe best fit to the storm hydrograph.
The feasibility of the technique was clearly shown on fo,ur of the five ARS watersheds in
the study. Large perturbations occurred in the calculated unit hydrographs on one of the
watersheds, but sensible results were obtained o.n the remaining four. The calculated unit
hydrographs varied from storm to storm as expected. The results of these analyses demonstrate the feasibility of the least-squarestechnique as a means of analyzing all storm hydrographs on small agricultural watersheds to detect the nonlinearity of the rainfall-runoff
process.(Key words: Hydrologic systems;unit hydrograph)

There

INTRODUCTION

Unit hydrograph techniqueshave proved a

valuable aid to hydrologistson predictive ventures. Classicalunit hydrograph analysis considersthe hydrologicresponseas a linear, timeinvariant system in which rainfall excess is
input and dischargeis output. In theory, a
drainage basin is a linear system if input is
related to output by a linear differentialequation. In practice,the watershedis a linear system if the unit hydrographis invariant in time
and in space. The principle of superposition
would apply, and the dischargehydrograph
Q(t) could be synthesizedby convolutingthe
product of the instantaneousunit hydrograph
U(o, t) and the supplyrate i() in the form

is a need to test these theoretical

ad-

vances objectively by operating on basic hydrologicdata in an attempt to define the precise nature of the variability of hydrologic
response.

Notable efforts to determineunit hydrograph

shapehave been made by Gray [19,61], Reich
[1962], and Brakensiek [1966]. These studies
involved fitting Pearson-typefunctionsto shortduration, single-peak storms on small agricultural watersheds. The results of the three studies showed that the assumed functions fitted

the observedhydrographsextremely well, but

no decisive technique could be developed to
predict the parametersin the fitted functions.
Little evidencehas been reported of successful synthesis of complex storms from derived
unit hydrographs. There is great need for sysQ(t) =
U(t - r)i(r) dr
(1) tematic analysis of all observed hydrographs
regardlessof storm duration or hydrograph
Much systemstheory has been advancedre- complexity.
cently concerningthe nature of hydrologicsysComplex hydrographsusually representmatems. Hydrologic systems are now generally jor storms and flooding conditions and are of
consideredto be inherently nonlinear,and wa- principal hydrologic concern. Techniques have
tershed response,therefore, is consideredtime been developed for objective and efficient
and/or spatially variant. If practitioners are analysisof all complexstorms. Snyder [1955]
to be placedin the positionof applyingtheo- displayed the utility of matrix operations in
retical advances,the variable responsefunc- unit hydrographanalysis.The matrix operations must be quantified for natural watersheds. tions provide for hydrograph analysis of ob955

956

). E. OVERTON

served storms by a finite convolutionof rainfall excessr, with a T-hour unit hydrograph
TUH. The matrix technique incorporates a
least-squares
bestfit procedure.
The procedurereported by Snyder therefore
is amenable to analysis of all storm hydrographs and provides for a 'best-fit' TUH that
may be used to solve for the instantaneous
unit hydrograph IUH, such as by an S-curve
technique [Nash, 1958]. If underlying hydrologic assumptionsare acceptable,the degreeof
fit of the convolutedTUH will provide much
information on the nature of the system. If
the fit is good,the system could be said to be
approximately linear. Recently, Newton and

A complex storm is defined herein as a

storm that was producedby a period of rainfall excessof duration greater than the defined
unit hydrographduration (T) derivedby Sherman [1932]. In unit hydrograph context, the
complexstorm can be viewed as a summation
of two or more unit hydrographs.The T-period
was determined as the smallest time interval
that would adequately represent the observed
storm hydrograph. If the rainfall excessintensities within the T-period are not reflectedin
the shape of the associatedstorm hydrograph,
it logically follows that the T-period could be
picked off the observed hydrograph as the
smallest time interval for hydrograph tabu-

Vinyard [1967] have shown considerablesuc-

lation.

cess in continuing application of the leastWith the ordinates of the unit hydrograph
squaresmethod to TVA watersheds.
U(T, t -- ) and the increments of rainfall
Another method of linear systems analysis excessr(t), the calculatedstorm dischargeQ(t)
was reported by O'Donnell [1960]. He utilized at the end of the first time interval T is
an orthogonal function (sine-cosine Fourier

series)
for fittingobserved
rainexcess-time
and discharge
hydrograph-time
data.The IUH

((T)= r(T)U(1)

(2)

andat t = 2T

was also expressedas a sine-cosineseries, but

the seriescoefficients
of the IUH weresolved

((2T) = r(T)U(2) q-r(2T)U(1)

(3)

explicitly
in termsof theseries
coefficients
of andfort = 3T
the rain excessand dischargehydrographs.

Muchhydrologic
information
is needed
on ((3T)= r(T)U(3)

small agricultural watershedsfor eventual de-

velopment
of hydrologic
design.
In thisreport,

q- r(2T)U(2) + r(3T)U(1)

(4)

a sample of complex storms from small agri-

cultural
watersheds
gaged
bytheAgricultural
andforthenthdischarge
Research Service [U.S.

Dept. Agr., 1963,

1965]
was
analyzed
toevaluate
thefeasibility
)(nT)
= r(T)U(nT)
q- ... q-r(nT)U(1)
(5)

of detecting
hydrologic
response
by theleast- Generalizing,
atanytimeiT willbe

squares techniques of Snyder [1955]. Storm

hydrographs from small agricultural water-

sheds
have
characteristically
steep
rises;
thereforeit is morerepresentative
to combine
the

(iT)= [r(jT)U(i
-- j + 1)] (6)
i

ideasof Snyder[1955]andO'Donnell
[1960], To insureadequaterepresentation
of the
representing
theunithydrograph
asa Fourier steeprisinghydrographs
of smallagricultural
series,
andto solvefortheseries
coefficients
by watersheds
of the Agricultural
Research
Serthe matrixinversion
least-squares
technique.vice,the unit hydrograph
wasrepresented
by
PROBLEM
FORMULATION

U(T, t)

As in the Snyder and O'I)onnell models,

theunithydrograph
wasintitially
considered= aoq- [akcos(kwt)q-bksin(kwt)]
(7)
to be linear,time-invariant
within a storm.
A group of storms was analyzed for each
watershed,and a best-fit unit hydrographwas

Since the ordinate of the unit hydrograph

at time zero will be zero, the cosineterms were

calculated for each. The TUH

deleted. It

was allowed to

be nonlinear from storm to storm.

was also assumed that seven sine

terms would adequately represent the unit

Complex Storms

hydrographshape.Then

9.57

In usualmatrix notation, equationset 17 becomes

U(T, t) =

[bksin(kwt)]

- /

(.

and B is the time base of the unit hydrograph.

B is calculated as

B--- LL

is the

time

(18)

Solutionis neededfor the vector [b[. The ele-

wherein

where

lB[. [bl - 10l

(8)

k=l

T(N-

1)

base of the

(10)
observed

ments of the vector b are then entered into

equation 8, and the ordinatesof the TUH may
be calculated.Equation set 18 is now to be converted to least-squares
form for solutionof lb[.
The basic least-squaressolvesfor the values
of the sine series coefficientsb that minimize
the squaresof the deviations of the observed
and computeddischarge.

stormhydrograph,and N is the numberof rain-

O/Ob

fall excessincrements.Then equations2 through

4 become

[Q(t)- )(t)]2 = 0

(19)

To get equation 19 in terms of the b-values,

O(T) --- r(T)[b sin (wT) q- ... q- b7sin(7wT)]

(11)

0(2T) = r(T)[b1 sin(2wT) q- ... q- b7sin(14wT)]

q- r(2T)[b sin (wT) q- ... q- b7sin (7wT)]

(12)

0(3T) --- r(T)[b sin(3wT) q- -.- q- b7sin(21wT)]

q- r(2T)[b sin (2wT) q- ... q- b7sin (14wT)]
- r(3T)[b sin (wT) + ...

(3)

+ b7sin (7wT)]

equation 15 is substitutedinto equation 19 to

and generalizing,equation 6 becomes

form

O(iT)= b r(jT)sin[(i -- j -t-'1)wT]q- .-.

O/Ob

{Q(t)- [bB(t)q- ...

+ (t)]}

..q- b r(jT)sin [7(i -- j q- 1)wT](14)

= o

(20)

Seven new equationsresult from differentiating

equation 20 partially with respectto each of

or

the seven b-values.

O(i') = (i)

+ (i')

+ ...

q- b7B7(iT)

(15)

where

(i)

r Bl()2

BI(t)B7(' 51

= () h [- + )]

( )

(t)(t)

...

()
B(t)Q(t)

If there are n positive ordinateson the observed hydrographs, then the observational

( t)Q(t)

matrix becomes
and in matrix notational

_B(nT) ...

form

(22)

ib

B7(nT)J

(21)

__
__

and the solution of the vector b is

Q(nT):
()

Ibl---IBB[ - IBm[

(23)

958

D.E.

DERIVATIONOF T-OUR UNIT I-IYDROGRAPI-IS

OVERTON

storms were selected from five research 1oca-

FROM SMALLAGRICULTURAL
WATERSI-IEDS tions at Danville, Vermont; Coshocton,Ohio;

Storm
records
published
bytheAgricultural
Hastings,
Nebraska;
Riesel,
Texas;andSafResearch
Service
[U.S.Dept.Agr.,1963,
1965,]ford,Arizona.
Thewatersheds
range
in size
wereselected
to investigate
thefeasibility
of from122to 579acres
andrepresent
a cross
deriving
T-hourunithydrographs.
Seventeen
section
ofthenational
datapopulation
ofsmall
watershedspublished by the Agricultural Research Service.

TABLE
1. Storms
Analyzed
byLeast-Squares
Fifteen
of thestorms
werecomplex.
Two
Unit Hydrograph Techniques
storms were observed 5-minute unit hydro-

-Index, RainfallExcess, graphsat the Safford,Arizona,location.To

Location Date in./hr

Coshocton,
Ohioa
w-10
122 acres
Safford, Ariz.b

4/25/61
9/23/45
6/12/57
1/21/59
7/28/61

0.40
0.94
2.64
0.09
3.52

8/07/61
W-1
8/03/59
519 acres
7/19/57
Danville, Vt. 11/28/59

1.70
*
*

in.

0.10

0.83
0.71
0.46
0.64
0.27
0.65
0.17
0.07
0.41

1.55
3.12
1.35
0.93
1.00
0.23
0.20
1.62

0.84
0.25
0.37
0.44
0.94
1.24
0.98
0.43

reducesomeof the variables

involved
in the

feasibility study, the following criteria were

set for

W-2
146 acres

Hastings,
Nebr. a
W-3
481 acres

5/15/60
8/11/61
4/22/57
5/02/57
6/15/57
Riesel, Texase 4/24/57
W-C
5/13/57
579 acres
7/16/57
' Coshocton ....
b Safford .......
Danville ......

10-minute UH
5-minute UH
1-hour
UH

a Hastings .....

10-minute

e Riesel ........

10-minute

storm

selection. Storms were selected

in which (1) Little or no baseflow occurred;

(2) Rainfall excess was nearly continuous,
i.e., storms were complex, not two separate
storms; (3) Watersheds had no major
furcation above the gagingstation; (4) Significant percentagesof rainfall became runoff.
To incorporate objectivity into the study,
the -index approach was used to determine
rainfall excess from rainfall. Although it is
well known that infiltration follows a decaytype relation, there exists no objective basis
for parameter evaluation in any of the existing infiltration equations.The calculated
index, rainfall excess,drainage area, and unit
hydrograph durations are shown in Table 1.
The selected storms sample the Northeast,
Midwest, Northern Plains, and the humid and
semiarid

UH

Southwest

United

States

An objective standard was needed to eval-

* Observed5-minuteunit hydrographs.

TABLE 2. Resultsof Analysis

Location
Coshocton
W-10
Safford
W-1

Danville
W-2

Hastings
W-3

Riesel
W-C

Storm

Efficiency

4/25/61

.68

.23

9/23/45
6/12/57
1/21/59
7/28/61
8/07/61

.87
.75
.11
.68
.82

1.09
.36
.23
.74
--.59

8/03/59
7/19/57

ba

b4

b5

b6

.26

.35

.28

.42

1.16
.21
.11
.34
.94

-.10
.02
--.05
--.10
--.92

.71
--.06
--.12
--.16
.66

-4.23
.03
.21
.00
--.35

3.25
.10
.03
.05
.13

-1.52
.06
--.02
--.03
--2.8

.02

.00

.00

.04

.11
23
-- 07
-- 08
-- 18
-- 01
-- 04
--.03

.15
.11
--.05
.04
--.23
.03
.01
.00

-.78

b7
.37

(5-minuteunit hydrograph)
(5-minuteunit hydrograph)

11/28/59

.52

.06

.06

.04

5/15/60
8/11/61
4/22/57
5/02/57
6/15/57
4/24/57
5/13/57
7/16/57

.74
.77
.76
.82
.65
.78
.75
.76

.65
1.32
.38
.50
.40
.44
.30
.17

.47
.95
.36
.37
.40
.20
.19
.10

.04
.26
.19
.02
.22
02
05
03

--.22
.06
.02
--.17
.05
--.01
--.04
--.02

--.15
.18
--.05
--.17
--.10
--.01
--.09
--.03

Complex Storms

959
RESULTS

i.o

-o 5

--I .o

40

80

120

160

2OO

24O

280

TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 1. Calculated unit hydrographs for

Coshoct,on

W-10.

OF

ANALYSIS

Table 2 shows the results of the analysis,

including the calculated sine series coefficients
and fitting efficiencies.The calculated TUH
for all stormsis shownin Figures I through 5.
The Coshoctonunit hydrographs are shown
in Figure 1. Severe oscillations resulted on
three of the four unit hydrographs.These results are rather illogical. Only one of the unit
hydrographs (June 12, 1957) had all positive
ordinates. However, this TUH does not have
classicalunit hydrograph shape.The calculated
TUH has three peaks. Hydrologistsordinarily
think in terms of the simplest shape for the
TUH. This shape would possessa single peak
skewed to the left. There appears to be no
order whatsoeverto the results of this analysis
on the Coshocton watershed. Further study

uatethe degreeof fit of the observed

hydro- of thesetechniques
on this watershed
is indigraphs. An efficiencytest was adopted and is
definedas

E- (So- Se)/So

cared.
The results from the Safford watershedare
much better, as shown in Figure 2. Although

(24) theTUHshape
varies
considerably,
all cal-

wherein So is the standard deviation of the observedhydrograph ordinatesand Se is the error

standard deviation. An efficiencyof unity signifies an excellentfit, and an efficiencyof zero
signifiesno fit at all. Efficiency is nearly linear
with degreeof fit and has this advantageover

eulated ordinates were positive and sensible

looking.
The Danville TUH is shown in Figure 3.
The TUH is acceptable,although it is humpy
and has negative ordinates on the recessive
side.

the correlationcoefficient,which is not linear

with degreeof fit.

The resultsof the analysisof the Hastings

storms, shown in Figure 4, are encouraging.

2.5

SAFFORD, ARIZONA
5-MINUTE

UNIT

W- I

519 ACRES

HYDROGRAPHS

-19 -57
2.0

.5
-59

8-7-61

20

40

I
60

80

100

120

140

TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 2. Calculated unit hydrographsfor Safford W-1.

160

960

D.E.

OVERTON

DANVILLE,
I HOUR

VT.

UNIT

W-2

HYDROGRAPH

NOV. ?_8, 1959

.15

--

TIME

(HOURS)

I0

II

12

Fig. 3. Clculated unit hydrographs for Danville W-2.

The calculated TUHs do vary considerably,

but they essentiallyadhere to traditional noticns of unit hydrographs.Some negative ordinates of minor importance appeared in the
early rises and late falls of the TUHs, and
HASTINGS,
NEBRASKA
W-3

20I I I I I

some perturbationsresulted on the late porticns of somerecessions.

The results from the Riesel watershedare
similar to those from the Saffordand Hastings
watersheds.Someperturbationsshowedup on
the late portionsof the recessions,
as was the
case with Hastings, shown in Figure 5.

IO-MINUTE
UNIT
HYDROGRAPH Examination

,.

of

the

efficiencies indicates

'good' but certainly not 'excellent'fits on all

five watersheds.Even though erratic TUHs
resultedin the Coshoctonanalysis,good fitting
efficienciesin synthesiswere obtained on three
of the four storms. The storm of June 21,

-0.5

iO

80

1210

19'5'9,was unacceptablewhere E -- 0.11. The

best synthesison all watershedswas the Coshocton storm of September 23, 1945, where
E ---- 0.87. When E approaches0.90, the fit
is deemed'very good.'The September23, 1945,
storm producedthe most violent oscillationsin

TIME
(MINUTES)
'60 200 240 the TUH, as notedin Figure1. An example
Fig.4. Calculated
unithydrographs
forHastingsof degree
of fit is shown
in Figure6. Thisis
W-3.

the Coshoetonstorm of April 25, 19'61. The

Complex Storms
0

961
J

R1ESEL TEXAS
IO-MINUTE

07'-

06

"

W-C
UNIT

HYDROGRAPHS

'-24
-57

0.4

0.3

02

/ //
O.I
0

20

/' '
40

60

.....""o,
'X"'-X X ''.............
.... 80

I00

120

140

IGO

180
200
220
TIME(MINUTES)

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

Fig. 5. C'alculted unit hydrographs for Riesel W-C.

0.68 efficiencyindicates a good fit but leaves

much to be desiredin the TUH.
There are several possiblesourcesof error,
which can be traced back to the underlying
assumptions.As mentioned, the -index assumptionhas the advantageof simplicity and
objectivity but could give erroneouspictures
of how rain excessoccurred,especiallyin early
stages of direct runoff development. The assumption of uniformity of rainfall occurrence
and rain excessdevelopment may also cause
significanterrors in the TUH. There is an inherent assumptionof a relation betweengaged
rainfall and actual rainfall which is a possible
source of error, as pointed out by Amorocho
E19'67].Since actual rainfall over a basin is
COSHOCTOIN
W-IO
i

indeterminate, the amount of error allocated

to this last assumptionis indefinite. Yet, since
theseare small watersheds,of lessthan I square
mile, the error causedby this assumptionmay
be small relative to the other assumptions.
Finally, the assumptionthat the TUH is linear
and time invariant my be incorrect. Since
the results from four of the watershedsare
good, the time-invariant TUH my be a good
first approximation for hydrograph synthesis
on small agricultural watersheds.
The watershedsunder study were initially
consideredto be linear, time-invariant systems.
The results of the analysis indicated that this
assumptionwas reasonablein analysisof individual complex storms. ]3ecauseof the variaI

April25t 1961

Efficiency
:0 68

08-

xObserved
--

0.4-

Calculated(fitted)

?/

/'/

",
xx
I

962

D.r.
I

OWRTON
SUMMARY

./-MAY
27,1948
X=475in/hr
3

APRIL
17,
1941
X=
I95
in/hr
I/1
OCT.
2,
194,
X=
15Z
,n/hr
0

20

40

60

80

I00

TIME FROM BEGINNING OF EXCESS RAINFALL,

120

140

rain

Fig. 7. Variability of the unit hydrographon

AND

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of deriving linear, time-invariant unit hydrographs from small agricultural watersheds from complex storms was
shown using the least-squares techniques of
Snyder [19'55]. The TUH was expressedas a
seven-term sine series to assure good representation of the steep rises characteristic of
hydrographs of small agricultural watersheds.
On four of the five watershedsstudied, the
derived unit hydrographs appeared sensible.
However, the TUH varied considerably from
storm to storm. 'Goodfits were obtainedupon
synthesisof the complex storm hydrographs

a smallagricultural
watershed(from Minshall). by summation
of the TUH.
The TUH was found to vary significantly

bilityof the T-hourunithydrograph,

or the fromstormto storm,but the variability
folresponse
function,
from stormto storm,the lowedthe general
relation
that stormlagtime
systems
cannot
besaidto belineartime-invari- is inverselyproportional
to averagerainfall
antbetween
storms.
excess
rate.Thissametyperelationwasused
in an attempt to explain the variability of the

Nonlinear
Approximation

well-known
Minshall
[1960]
hydrographs
by

Variability of the unit hydrographfrom

Overton[1967].Thisrelationis

storm to storm was documentedin the example

of Minshall[1960], Figure7, and expounded

Lag-

tz/pe

(27)

uponby Amorocho
[9,67].
An attempt
to Here./isthewatershed
lagmodulus
andexexplain
thevariability
of theMinshall
hydro- presses
theinteraction
of theinputpeand
graphs
wasmade
by Overton
[96.7].
It was Lag,which
istheresponse
ofthesystem.
Equashown
therethatthelagtimeforeach
storm tion25 thereby
denotes
nonlinearity
of the
wasrelated
to therainfall
excess
ratein the system
fromstormto storm.
Thisrelation
form
may suggest
a similarnonlinearity
within
Lag= ta/pe
(25) storms.
However,
it seems
thatthemathematical
finesse involved in a nonlinear approach is

where./is thewatershed
lagmodulus
in inches notwarranted
at thistimebecause
of thelack

andpe is theaverage
rainfall
excess
ratein of basicinformation
needed
for calculating
inches/hour.
Thissametypeof generality
was rainfallexcess.
noticed here. Figure 8 shows the relationship
of lag to average rain excessrate for the Hastings hydrographs. This relation follows the
same general form of equation 25.
The problem of nonlinearity centers upon
defining the IUH and TUH for convolution
with rain excess so that
'zo

Q(t) =

r(r) U[r(r), t-

r dr]

(26)

< IO _

and errbrs causedby the interaction between

the systemand systeminput may 'be damped

LAS

TIME

HASTINGS,

v.

SUPPLY

NEBRASKA

RATE

W$

out.
.7

The relation of equation 25 noting the varia-

.B

.9

1.0

I.I

( ( inches/ hour)

bilityof lagfromstormto stormmaysuggestFig.8. Storm

lagtimeasa function
of rainfall
a similar relationwithin storms.

excess
rate for I-Iastings
W-3.

Complex Storms

963

Acknowledgment. The author appreciat.esvery

Div., 93(HY5), 219-235, September 1967.
much the invaluable suggestionsand encourage- O'Donnell, T., Instantaneous unit hydrograph
ment provided by Professor Willard M. Snyder,
derivation by harmonic analysis, IASH 51,
Georgia Institute of Technology, throughout the

investigatio.nand preparation of the manuscript.

This paper is a contribution from the Soil and
Water Conservation Research Division, Agriculrural Research Service, U.S.
Department of
Agriculture Hydrograph Laboratory, Beltsville,
Maryland.
REfERENCeS

546-557, 1960.

Overton, D, E., Analytical simulation of watershed hydrographs from rainfall, Proc. Intern.
Hydrol. Symp., Fort Collins, Colo., 9-17, September6-8, 1967.
Reich, B. R., Design hydrographs from rainfall
for very small watersheds, Colorado State University, CER 60, BMR 52, 1962.
Sherman, L. K., Streamflow frommrainfall by the
unit graph method, Eng. News-Record, 103,

Amorocho,
J., Thenonlinear
prediction
problem 501-505,
1932.
in thestudyof therunoffcycle,WaterRe- Snyder,
W. M., Hydrograph
analysis
by method
sources
Res.,3(3),861-880,
1967.
of least-squares,
Proc.Am.Soc.CivilEngrs.,
Brakensiek,
D. L.,Automated
system
foranalysis 793,September
1955.
of runoff
hydrographs,
U. $. Dept.Agr.,Agr. U.S. Department
of Agriculture,
Agricultural
Res.$e.rv.,
41-120,
March
1966.
Research
Service,
Hydrologic
datafor experiGray,D. M., Synthetic
unit hydrographs
for mentalagricultural
watersheds
in the United
small
watersheds,
Proc.
Am.Soc.CivilEngrs., States,1956-1959,
compiled
by HaroldW.
J. Hydraulics
Div.,88(HY4),33-54,
July1961. Hobbs,
U. $. Dept.Agr.Misc.Publ.No.945,
Minshall,
N. E.,Predicting
storm
runoff
onsmall 672pp.,November
1963.
experimental
watersheds,
Proc.Am.$oc.Civil U.S. Department
of Agriculture,
Agricultural
Engrs.,
J.
Hydraulics
Div.,
86(HY8),
August
Research
Service,
Hydrologic
data
for experi1960.
Nash, J. E., Determining runoff from rainfall,
Proc. Inst. Civil Engrs. (London), 10, 163-184,
1958.

Newton, D. W., and J. W. inyard, Unit hydrographs from complex sto.rmsusing a large computer, Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., J. Hydraulics

mental agricultural watersheds in the United

States, 1960-1961, compiled by Harold

W.

Hobbs, U. $. Dept. Agr. Misc. Publ. No.. 994,

496 pp., May 1965.
(Manuscript received April 4, 1968;
revised May 20, 1968.)