Premium
Establishing Stage‐Discharge Relationships in Multiple‐Channelled, Ephemeral Rivers: a Case Study of the Diamantina River, Australia
Author(s) -
BULLARD JOANNA E.,
MCTAINSH GRANT H.,
MARTIN PAUL
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
geographical research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.695
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1745-5871
pISSN - 1745-5863
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00457.x
Subject(s) - rating curve , stage (stratigraphy) , surface runoff , hydrology (agriculture) , drainage basin , flood myth , ephemeral key , flow (mathematics) , runoff curve number , environmental science , streamflow , geology , geography , geomorphology , mathematics , geotechnical engineering , geometry , sediment , cartography , archaeology , ecology , paleontology , algorithm , biology
The method for deriving a stage‐discharge relationship has a significant impact on the shape of the river's rating curve. We compare rating curves for a single gauging station on a mutiple‐channelled river in Australia compiled using three different methods – the Urban Runoff and Basin Systems (URBS) rainfall‐runoff model, an empirically‐based velocity‐area method, and the predictive Hydrologic Engineering Centre‐River Analysis System (HEC‐RAS) computer model. The rainfall‐runoff model was found to predict lower discharges for stage heights over 3.5 m than both the empirically‐based velocity‐area method and the HEC‐RAS model. The empirically‐based velocity‐area model predicts similar discharges to the rainfall‐runoff model for stage heights less than 3 m but much higher discharges for larger flood events. The HEC‐RAS model predicts higher discharges than both other rating curves at all stage heights probably due to under‐estimation of the impact of surface roughness on flow velocity. The three models are discussed with particular reference to their use on multiple‐channelled rivers.