This study proposes a framework for developing a probabilistic lag time (PLT) equation by taking into account uncertainty factors, including the rainfall factor (i.e., the maximum rainfall intensity), the hydraulic factor (i.e., the roughness coefficient in the river), and the geometrical factors (the catchment area, the length, and the basin slope). The proposed PLT equation is established based on the lag time equation by means of the uncertainty and risk analysis, i.e., the advanced first-order and second-moment approach. Hourly rainfall data in the Bazhang River watershed are used in the model development and application. The results indicate that compared with observed lag times extracted from historical events, the observed ones are mostly located within the 95% confidence interval of the simulated lag times. In addition, the resulting underestimated risk from the PLT equation can reasonably represent the degree of the difference between the estimated lag time and observed lag time. Consequently, the proposed PLT equation not only estimates the lag time at specific locations along the river, but also provides a corresponding reliability.

## INTRODUCTION

In hydrological analysis and relevant applications (e.g., in flood early warning operation), lag time plays an important role in the hydrological process, such as the rainfall–runoff (RR) modeling (e.g., Snyder 1938; Gioia *et al.* 2008; Sudharsanan *et al.* 2010; Talei & Chua 2012; Munoz-Villers & McDonnell 2013; Alfieri *et al.* 2014). A number of definitions of lag time (e.g., Rao & Delleur 1974; Hall 1984; Yu *et al.* 2000; Talei & Chua 2012) are proposed in the literature. Hall (1984) summarized seven definitions of the lag time based on the time difference between the rainfall and the runoff of events. In general, lag time is defined as the time difference between centroids of the effective periods from a specific rainfall derived from in a hyetograph and time when peak discharge occurs. For example, as summarized in Table 1, the second lag time (t_{lag,2}) is defined as the distance in time between the centroid of the hyetograph and runoff hydrograph, while the third lag time (t_{lag,3}) is a time difference between the centroid of the hyetograph and the peak discharge. Among the seven definitions of lag time listed in Table 1, t_{lag,2} and t_{lag,3} are the most widely adopted (Talei & Chua 2012).

Lag time . | Definition . |
---|---|

t_{lag,1} | Difference in time from the initial rainfall to the centroid of runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,2} | Difference in time from the centroid of effective rainfall to the peak discharge |

t_{lag,3} | Difference in time from the centroid of the effective rainfall to the centroid of the runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,4} | Difference in time from centroid of the total rainfall to the centroid of the runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,5} | Difference in time from the initial rainfall to the peak discharge |

t_{lag,6} | Difference in time from the ending rainfall to the inverse point of runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,7} | Difference in time from the centroid of total rainfall to the peak discharge |

Lag time . | Definition . |
---|---|

t_{lag,1} | Difference in time from the initial rainfall to the centroid of runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,2} | Difference in time from the centroid of effective rainfall to the peak discharge |

t_{lag,3} | Difference in time from the centroid of the effective rainfall to the centroid of the runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,4} | Difference in time from centroid of the total rainfall to the centroid of the runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,5} | Difference in time from the initial rainfall to the peak discharge |

t_{lag,6} | Difference in time from the ending rainfall to the inverse point of runoff hydrograph |

t_{lag,7} | Difference in time from the centroid of total rainfall to the peak discharge |

In general, lag time reflects the runoff velocity and storage effect of a river length and slope from the upstream to the downstream points (Watt & Chow 1985; Leopold 1991; Thompson *et al.* 2004; Roussel *et al.* 2005; Loukas & Quick 2009). Using the lag time with the appropriate RR model, the resulting runoff characteristics (i.e., runoff volume, peak discharge, and time to the peak) are essential information for designing hydraulic structures, such as dikes and spillways. Talei & Chua (2012) evaluated the effect of the lag time on the performance of the data-driven RR modeling developed using adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system, and found that their proposed model which takes the lag time into account simulates the peak discharge better than models which do not consider the lag time. Therefore, the lag time should be an essential feature for estimating runoff from a catchment. In addition, the lag time can be applied in flood warning to qualify the flash flood response time (e.g., Marchi *et al.* 2010; Borga *et al.* 2014).

Numerous equations for estimating the lag time have been published (e.g., Rao & Delleur 1974; Hall 1984; Leopold 1991; Yu *et al.* 2000; Honarbakhsh *et al.* 2012; Talei & Chua 2012; Gericke & Smithers 2014). Most equations are derived using geographical features, such as the basin area, characteristic lengths (e.g., river length and width), and the basin slope. These lag time equations are mostly empirical. For example, Honarbakhsh *et al.* (2012) derived a power function of the lag time with the equivalent diameter of the watershed and river length. Loukas & Quick (2009) proposed a method for establishing the lag time equation by using the kinematic wave equation, and the resulting equation provides approximations of the basin lag calculated from the observed data than when estimated using empirical equations in the forested mountainous watershed.

Since the lag time equations widely used utilize watershed characteristics to estimate the lag time, it is a constant for a given watershed, and hence the equations can be treated as deterministic models. However, many investigations have indicated that the lag time should vary with the flow rate, rainfall factors, vegetation, land use, and associated factors (e.g., Diskin 1964; Askew 1970; Pilgrim 1976; Yu *et al.* 2000). For example, Diskin (1964) concluded that there are different estimated lag times in a watershed due to various rainfall events. Askew (1970) presented a non-linear relationship of the lag time with the average total discharge. Yu *et al.* (2000) indicated that the variation in the roughness coefficient in the river due to the surface treatment impacts on the lag time estimate. According to Loukas & Quick (2009), an error in the lag time would lead to errors in the estimation of peak discharge. Therefore, the variation and error in the lag time due to various geographical features, rainfall and the surface cover in the watershed should be taken into account when estimating lag time. In summary, the lag time should be a function of the geographical features of the watershed, the roughness coefficient on the river bed, and rainstorm events.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a relationship between the lag time and the watershed features (e.g., area, river length, and basin slope) and the rainfall events. Since the uncertainties exist in the flow rate due to the rainstorm events and roughness coefficient (e.g., Loukas & Quick 2009; Wu *et al.* 2011), the reliability of the results from the lag time equation derived should be affected, so that the estimated lag time also involves uncertainty. In order to evaluate the effect of the aforementioned uncertainty factors on the estimation of the lag time, the proposed lag time equation would incorporate with the uncertainty and risk analysis methods to derive a probabilistic equation (the probabilistic lag time (PLT) equation). The proposed PLT equation is not only expected to estimate the lag times at specific locations in a watershed, but also to provide the exceedance probability which is defined as the probability of the lag time greater than the estimate (i.e., underestimated risk).

## METHODOLOGY

### Model concept

The definitions listed in Table 1 are for a single-peak hydrograph, but observed hydrographs are commonly multi-peak particularly on larger watersheds. Thus, the centroids of the hyetograph and runoff hydrograph are only determined with great difficulty. To solve the above problem, this study adopts the definition of the lag time proposed by Yu *et al.* (2000), which regards the lag time as the time period between the maximum rainfall intensity and the peak discharge. However, in reality, observed discharges are calculated from the observed water levels through the stage–discharge rating curve. In this study, lag time is defined as the time difference between the maximum rainfall intensity and the peak water level without considering the hysteresis effect which leads to uncertainty in the estimated discharge (e.g., Di Baldassarre *et al.* 2012; Sikorska *et al.* 2013).

Empirical lag time equations are derived using observations, and hence they are influenced by the available record length and quality of the observed data. Moreover, the flow velocity in the river, which has a significant impact on the lag time, not only results from the basin slope and rainfall intensity, but also from the roughness coefficient of the channel. Thus, the rainfall intensity and roughness coefficient could influence the lag time. In order to quantify the above uncertainties in estimating the lag time in a watershed attributed to the above factors, this study develops a lag time equation by taking into account the geographical factors (i.e., watershed area, river length, and basin slope), rainfall factors and hydraulic factor (the roughness coefficient). Furthermore, the rainstorm can be characterized into three properties, including rainfall duration, depth, and storm pattern (temporal distribution of rainfall) (Wu *et al.* 2006). In summary, the proposed PLT equation integrates the rainfall factors, i.e., the rainfall characteristics (rainfall duration, depth, and storm pattern), the roughness coefficient of the channel and geographical factors, including the area, slope, and river length of the watershed. Thereby, in this study, the lag time equation would be a function of lag time with the rainfall, hydraulic as well as geographical factors, and it can be derived by means of the multivariate regression analysis.

Since the purpose of this study is to provide a stochastic method to estimate lag time and its exceedance probability, the uncertainty and risk analysis method is incorporated to quantify the reliability of the estimated lag time. When carrying out the uncertainty and risk analysis, the rainfall characteristics would be generated by using the Monte Carlo simulation method to produce the hyetograph. Then, the lag times estimated at various locations are obtained by the river routing model. Eventually, the PLT equation can be established using the estimated lag times at the specific locations associated with various hydraulic and geographical factors under simulated rainstorm events.

In summary, the proposed PLT equation involves two parts: one is the relationship of the lag time with the uncertainty factors, which primarily estimates the lag time using the known geographical, hydraulic, and rainfall factors. The other equation is the computation equation of the underestimated risk which quantifies the underestimated risk of the estimated lag time. The detailed concepts of the relevant methods used in the model development are detailed below.

### Simulation of rainfall characteristics

*et al.*2006). Of the three rainfall characteristics, the rainfall depth and duration can be calculated directly from observations recorded by the rain gauges in a watershed. The storm pattern is the distribution of rainfall during a certain period of time; it varies with the storm duration and the rainfall amount from one event to another, as well as the locations of the rain gauges. Wu

*et al.*(2006) proposed a dimensionless storm pattern which could be obtained by adjusting the rainfall depth and duration of a rainfall mass curve as (see Figure 2):in which is the dimensionless time;

*d*is the storm duration; is the dimensionless cumulative rainfall ordinate; is the incremental dimensionless rainfall amount;

*D*is the cumulative rainfall depth at time

_{t}*t*; and

*D*is the total rainfall depth. Accordingly, the dimensionless rainfall mass curve of a storm pattern shows the cumulative fraction of the storm depth ∈ [0, 1], over the dimensionless time ∈ [0, 1], and the corresponding dimensionless rainfall hyetograph represents the rainfall percentage increment at each time interval. Two special features of dimensionless rainstorm patterns must be observed: (1) summation of dimensionless rainfall (

_{d}*P*) must be equal to one:

_{τ}*P*

_{1/12}

*+*

*P*

_{2/12}

*+*

*…+*

*P*

_{12/12}= 1 as 0 ≤

*F*

_{1/12}≤

*F*

_{2/12}≤

*…*≤

*F*

_{12/12}= 1; and (2) dimensionless rainfall (

*F*

_{τ}) must be between zero and one: 0 ≤

*P*

_{τ}≤ 1 for τ = 1/12, 2/12, …, 12/12. Thereby, the dimensionless storm pattern can remove the effects of the rainfall duration and amount and only consider the temporal variation of the rainfall.

The rainfall characteristics, i.e., the rainfall depth, rainfall duration, and storm pattern, are inherently correlated and their probabilistic distributions are likely to be non-normal; namely, the rainfall characteristics are multivariate non-normal random variates (Wu *et al.* 2006). The generation of rainfall characteristics should preserve the respective marginal statistical properties and correlation relations. However, as it is difficult to establish their joint distribution, this study applies a stochastic model for generating rainfall characteristics developed by Wu *et al.* (2006). This stochastic model mainly applies the multivariate Monte Carlo simulation for the non-normal random variables developed by Chang *et al.* (1997).

### SOBEK river routing model

Using the estimated runoff hydrograph and tide level, the water level hydrographs at various cross sections of interest along the river can be calculated through the hydraulic routing. Many numerical models can be applied for the hydraulic routing, such as HEC-RAS (2006), SOBEK (WL Delft Hydraulic 2005), or MIKE 11 (Havno *et al.* 1995). The SOBEK model is a sophisticated one-dimensional open-channel dynamic flow and two-dimensional overland flow modeling system (named SOBEK model). It can be used to simulate problems in river management, flood protection, design of canals, irrigation systems, water quality, navigation, and dredging. This study uses the SOBEK model for the hydraulic simulation of the water level in the river network. It is well known that the hydraulic routing needs the geometric data of the channel section and the roughness coefficient in a watershed of interest.

*et al.*1973) is used to estimate runoff as boundary and lateral conditions. SAC-SMA is a deterministic, continuous, non-linear semi-distributed hydrologic model, containing two soil layers: an upper and a lower zone. Each layer includes the tension and free water storage, which interact to generate soil moisture states and five runoff components (Koren

*et al.*2000). Figure 4 shows the schematic representation of RR routing in the SAC-SMA model (Ajami

*et al.*2004). Since the SAC-SMA has 19 parameters, as presented in Table 2, it is difficult to calibrate the parameters optimally. Wu

*et al.*(2012) modified the genetic algorithm to develop a parameter-calibration method by considering the sensitivity of the SAC-SMA parameters. This parameter-calibration is named the

*GA_SA*method. In the GA_SA method, an objective function (

*F*) which computes the weighted mean square error, is used in the parameter calibration (Madsen 2000):where

_{obj}*n*is the runoff period;

_{f}*q*and

_{obs}(t)*q*are the observed and estimated discharge at time

_{est}(t)*t*; and is the mean of observed runoff volume. Consequently, this study utilizes the

*GA_SA*method associated with the weighted mean square error as the fitness function to calibrate the ten sensitive parameters of the SAC-SMA model for the study area.

Parameters . | Description . |
---|---|

UZTWM | Upper zone tension-water capacity (mm) |

UZFWM | Upper zone free-water capacity (mm) |

UZK | Upper zone recession coefficient |

PCTIM | Percent of impervious area |

ADIMP | Percent of additional impervious area |

SARVA | Fraction of segment covered by streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation |

ZPERC | Minimum percolation rate coefficient |

REXP | Percolation equation exponent |

LZTWM | Lower zone tension water capacity (mm) |

LZFSM | Lower zone supplementary free-water capacity (mm) |

LZFPM | Lower zone primary free-water capacity (mm) |

LZSK | Lower zone supplementary recession coefficient (mm) |

LZPK | Lower zone primary recession coefficient (mm) |

PFREE | Percentage percolating directly to lower zone free water |

SIDE | Ratio of deep recharge water going to channel baseflow |

RESERV | Percentage of lower zone free water not transferable to lower zone tension water |

SSOUT | Fixed rate of discharge lost from the total channel flow (mm/Δt) |

DF_L | Period of runoff distribution function |

DF_P | Maximum ratio of runoff distribution function |

Parameters . | Description . |
---|---|

UZTWM | Upper zone tension-water capacity (mm) |

UZFWM | Upper zone free-water capacity (mm) |

UZK | Upper zone recession coefficient |

PCTIM | Percent of impervious area |

ADIMP | Percent of additional impervious area |

SARVA | Fraction of segment covered by streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation |

ZPERC | Minimum percolation rate coefficient |

REXP | Percolation equation exponent |

LZTWM | Lower zone tension water capacity (mm) |

LZFSM | Lower zone supplementary free-water capacity (mm) |

LZFPM | Lower zone primary free-water capacity (mm) |

LZSK | Lower zone supplementary recession coefficient (mm) |

LZPK | Lower zone primary recession coefficient (mm) |

PFREE | Percentage percolating directly to lower zone free water |

SIDE | Ratio of deep recharge water going to channel baseflow |

RESERV | Percentage of lower zone free water not transferable to lower zone tension water |

SSOUT | Fixed rate of discharge lost from the total channel flow (mm/Δt) |

DF_L | Period of runoff distribution function |

DF_P | Maximum ratio of runoff distribution function |

### Risk quantification of estimated lag time

*Z*denotes the performance function; and denote the mean and standard deviation of

*Z*; represents the standard normal distribution; and is the reliability index. are calculated by the following equations:where stands for the failure points of the

*i*th uncertainty factor when the performance function is z = 0; and are the mean and standard deviation of the

*i*th uncertainty factor; denotes the lag time using the uncertainty factors’ failure points which lead to the equal to zero; is the sensitivity coefficient of the

*i*th uncertainty factor. In the case of the mean variance of and uncertainty factors being given, the probability of the lag time exceeding s specific value, , can be calculated. Figure 5 is a graphical illustration of the derived exceedance probability (i.e., underestimated risk) for the lag time.

### Model framework

## RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

### Study area and data

^{2}. In addition, the average slope of the river bed reaches 1/40. Within the Bazhang River watershed, there are two main branches: Chilan Creek and Touqian Creek. The average annual rainfall is approximately 2,277.4 mm, and the peak discharge in the rainy and dry seasons reaches 1,800 cm and 0.4 cm, respectively.

There are nine automatically recording rain gauges and six water level gauges in the Bazhang River watershed, as shown in Figure 7, and their detailed information can be referred to in Table 3.

No. . | Gauge . | Location . | Record period . | |
---|---|---|---|---|

X_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | Y_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | |||

RG1 | Xiao-Gong-Tian | 207,154 | 2,584,414 | 1967–present |

RG2 | Zhong-Bu | 200,981 | 2,591,267 | 1988–present |

RG3 | Nan-Jing | 187,180 | 2,590,024 | 1988–present |

RG4 | Tou-Dong | 209,468 | 2,589,336 | 1988–present |

RG5 | An-Nei | 173,530 | 2,581,217 | 1988–present |

RG6 | Jia-Yi | 191,213 | 2,599,557 | 1969–present |

RG7 | Nei-Bu | 205,488 | 2,598,140 | 1993–present |

RG8 | Dong-Hou-Liao | 173,163 | 2,585,418 | 1988–present |

RG9 | Guan-Zi-Ling | 198,753 | 2,581,219 | 1959–2008 |

No. . | Gauge . | Location . | Record period . | |
---|---|---|---|---|

X_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | Y_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | |||

RG1 | Xiao-Gong-Tian | 207,154 | 2,584,414 | 1967–present |

RG2 | Zhong-Bu | 200,981 | 2,591,267 | 1988–present |

RG3 | Nan-Jing | 187,180 | 2,590,024 | 1988–present |

RG4 | Tou-Dong | 209,468 | 2,589,336 | 1988–present |

RG5 | An-Nei | 173,530 | 2,581,217 | 1988–present |

RG6 | Jia-Yi | 191,213 | 2,599,557 | 1969–present |

RG7 | Nei-Bu | 205,488 | 2,598,140 | 1993–present |

RG8 | Dong-Hou-Liao | 173,163 | 2,585,418 | 1988–present |

RG9 | Guan-Zi-Ling | 198,753 | 2,581,219 | 1959–2008 |

In this study, the upstream area at each water level gauge is regarded as the gauged sub-basin, so that the average areal rainfall used in the estimation of runoff from the branches is calculated by means of the Thiessen polygon method with the observed data at rain gauges within the sub-basins. Table 4 lists the geographical characteristics of gauged sub-basins and associated rain gauges as well as their areal Thiessan's weights.

Gauged sub-basin . | Location . | Geomorphic characteristics . | Rain gauges . | Geomorphic characteristics . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

X_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | Y_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | Area (km^{2})
. | L (km) . | L_{ca} (km)
. | S . | |||

Chu-Kou | 209,787 | 2,592,898 | 80.47 | 17.49 | 8.86 | 0.068 | Tou-Dong | 1.00 |

Jun-Hui | 194,654 | 2,595,164 | 119.7 | 36.04 | 22.1 | 0.039 | Zhong-Bu | 0.14 |

Nei-Bu | 0.10 | |||||||

Jia-Yi | 0.04 | |||||||

Tou-Dong | 0.72 | |||||||

Tou-Qian-Qi | 175,633 | 2,583,667 | 26.59 | 17.32 | 9.73 | 0.029 | Guan-Zi-Ling | 1.00 |

Chang-Pan | 192,965.2 | 2,592,095 | 98.39 | 22.59 | 16.34 | 0.031 | Tou-Dong | 0.20 |

Xiao-Gong-Tian | 0.27 | |||||||

Zhong-Bu | 0.53 | |||||||

Ba-Zhang-Qi | 193,806 | 2,591,886 | 313.42 | 49.14 | 25.13 | 0.029 | Xiao-Gong-Tian | 0.08 |

Nei-Bu | 0.04 | |||||||

Guan-Zi-Ling | 0.06 | |||||||

Zhong-Bu | 0.30 | |||||||

Jia-Yi | 0.04 | |||||||

Nan-Jing | 0.13 | |||||||

Tou-Dong | 0.35 | |||||||

Qing-Shui-Gang | 176,501 | 2,583,447 | 421.73 | 64.98 | 36.19 | 0.022 | Xiao-Gong-Tian | 0.06 |

Nei-Bu | 0.03 | |||||||

Zhong-Bu | 0.22 | |||||||

Guan-Zi-Ling | 0.04 | |||||||

Jia-Yi | 0.05 | |||||||

Nan-Jing | 0.25 | |||||||

Dong-Hou-Liao | 0.03 | |||||||

An-Nei | 0.06 | |||||||

Tou-Dong | 0.26 |

Gauged sub-basin . | Location . | Geomorphic characteristics . | Rain gauges . | Geomorphic characteristics . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

X_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | Y_TWD97_TM2 (m) . | Area (km^{2})
. | L (km) . | L_{ca} (km)
. | S . | |||

Chu-Kou | 209,787 | 2,592,898 | 80.47 | 17.49 | 8.86 | 0.068 | Tou-Dong | 1.00 |

Jun-Hui | 194,654 | 2,595,164 | 119.7 | 36.04 | 22.1 | 0.039 | Zhong-Bu | 0.14 |

Nei-Bu | 0.10 | |||||||

Jia-Yi | 0.04 | |||||||

Tou-Dong | 0.72 | |||||||

Tou-Qian-Qi | 175,633 | 2,583,667 | 26.59 | 17.32 | 9.73 | 0.029 | Guan-Zi-Ling | 1.00 |

Chang-Pan | 192,965.2 | 2,592,095 | 98.39 | 22.59 | 16.34 | 0.031 | Tou-Dong | 0.20 |

Xiao-Gong-Tian | 0.27 | |||||||

Zhong-Bu | 0.53 | |||||||

Ba-Zhang-Qi | 193,806 | 2,591,886 | 313.42 | 49.14 | 25.13 | 0.029 | Xiao-Gong-Tian | 0.08 |

Nei-Bu | 0.04 | |||||||

Guan-Zi-Ling | 0.06 | |||||||

Zhong-Bu | 0.30 | |||||||

Jia-Yi | 0.04 | |||||||

Nan-Jing | 0.13 | |||||||

Tou-Dong | 0.35 | |||||||

Qing-Shui-Gang | 176,501 | 2,583,447 | 421.73 | 64.98 | 36.19 | 0.022 | Xiao-Gong-Tian | 0.06 |

Nei-Bu | 0.03 | |||||||

Zhong-Bu | 0.22 | |||||||

Guan-Zi-Ling | 0.04 | |||||||

Jia-Yi | 0.05 | |||||||

Nan-Jing | 0.25 | |||||||

Dong-Hou-Liao | 0.03 | |||||||

An-Nei | 0.06 | |||||||

Tou-Dong | 0.26 |

No. of event . | Rainstorm event . | Occurrence period . | Duration (hours) . | Areal average rainfall depth (mm) . | Areal average maximum rainfall intensity (mm/hr) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Morakot | 06-08-2009 14:00–11-08-2009 11:00 | 118 | 1,131.4 | 48.8 |

2 | Saola | 01-08-2012 14:00–03-08-2012 12:00 | 47 | 248 | 19.3 |

3 | Soulik | 12-07-2013 14:00–13-07-2013 17:00 | 27 | 186.2 | 20.1 |

4 | Trami | 21-08-2013 10:00–22-08-2013 21:00 | 36 | 388.9 | 55.8 |

5 | Kong-Rey | 27-08-2013 23:00–01-09-2013 12:00 | 110 | 732.6 | 47.7 |

No. of event . | Rainstorm event . | Occurrence period . | Duration (hours) . | Areal average rainfall depth (mm) . | Areal average maximum rainfall intensity (mm/hr) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Morakot | 06-08-2009 14:00–11-08-2009 11:00 | 118 | 1,131.4 | 48.8 |

2 | Saola | 01-08-2012 14:00–03-08-2012 12:00 | 47 | 248 | 19.3 |

3 | Soulik | 12-07-2013 14:00–13-07-2013 17:00 | 27 | 186.2 | 20.1 |

4 | Trami | 21-08-2013 10:00–22-08-2013 21:00 | 36 | 388.9 | 55.8 |

5 | Kong-Rey | 27-08-2013 23:00–01-09-2013 12:00 | 110 | 732.6 | 47.7 |

### Simulation of rainstorm events

Before developing the proposed PLT equation, the extract rainfall characteristics (rainfall duration, depth, and storm pattern) are extracted from the hyetographs of the five rainstorm events shown in Table 5, and the corresponding statistical properties are then calculated. For example, Table 6 contains the mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and correlation coefficients of the rainfall characteristics at the Zhong-Bu gauge (RG2), Tou-Dong gauge (RG4), An-Nei gauge (RG5), and Nei-Bu gauge (RG7). From Table 6, it is evident that, on average, the rainfall duration of a rainstorm event is approximately 68 hours (about 3 days) with a rainfall depth of 385 mm. This implies that 3-day rainstorm events frequently take place in the Bazhang River watershed. In addition, the standard deviation of the rainfall duration is approximately 38 hours with its coefficient of variation (CV) being about 0.6. In regard to the rainfall depth, its CV is approximately 0.3; this indicates that there is more significant variation in the rainfall duration than there is in the depth. Table 6 also presents the statistical properties among the rainfall characteristics. It can be seen that the correlation coefficient between the rainfall duration and depth approximately exceeds 0.9, and the correlation coefficients among dimensionless rainfalls range from −0.95 to 0.95. This definitely indicates that within a storm pattern, the dimensionless rainfall at a dimensionless time step is highly correlated with those at other dimension time steps.

Statistics . | . | Rainfall duration . | Rainfall depth . | Dimensionless rainfall amount . | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

P_{1/12}
. | P_{2/12}
. | P_{3/12}
. | P_{4/12}
. | P_{5/12}
. | P_{6/12}
. | P_{7/12}
. | P_{8/12}
. | P_{9/12}
. | P_{10/12}
. | P_{11/12}
. | P_{12/12}
. | ||||

(a) RG2 (Zhong-Bu gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 533.6 | 0.029 | 0.028 | 0.052 | 0.167 | 0.103 | 0.166 | 0.158 | 0.097 | 0.074 | 0.056 | 0.028 | 0.043 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 371.512 | 0.03 | 0.019 | 0.041 | 0.133 | 0.065 | 0.085 | 0.083 | 0.066 | 0.073 | 0.041 | 0.031 | 0.041 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | 0.615 | 0.808 | 1.068 | 0.175 | 0.222 | 0.293 | −0.453 | 0.838 | 0.406 | 0.426 | 0.172 | 0.499 | 0.391 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 1.714 | 2.304 | 2.58 | 1.412 | 1.339 | 2.439 | 1.676 | 2.304 | 1.748 | 1.222 | 1.754 | 1.372 | 1.183 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.972 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | −0.177 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | −0.481 | 0.681 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | −0.258 | 0.31 | 0.292 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | −0.161 | −0.114 | 0.605 | 0.11 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.326 | −0.083 | 0.049 | −0.903 | 0.197 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.723 | −0.151 | −0.047 | −0.633 | 0.318 | 0.831 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.256 | −0.679 | −0.521 | −0.638 | −0.214 | 0.302 | −0.064 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.458 | 0.462 | 0 | −0.109 | −0.717 | −0.103 | −0.53 | 0.248 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | 0.006 | −0.169 | −0.606 | 0.494 | −0.678 | −0.788 | −0.667 | 0.051 | 0.291 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | 0.076 | −0.564 | −0.838 | 0.183 | −0.598 | −0.555 | −0.48 | 0.411 | 0.137 | 0.899 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.038 | −0.522 | −0.823 | 0.058 | −0.684 | −0.472 | −0.523 | 0.544 | 0.32 | 0.861 | 0.975 | 1 | |||

RG4 (Toug-Dong gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 835.8 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.052 | 0.165 | 0.083 | 0.148 | 0.14 | 0.123 | 0.07 | 0.065 | 0.047 | 0.051 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 653.412 | 0.016 | 0.041 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.082 | 0.057 | 0.073 | 0.032 | 0.055 | 0.051 | 0.043 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | 1.118 | 1.068 | 0.715 | 0.201 | 0.354 | 0.396 | −0.485 | −0.318 | 0.396 | 0.296 | 0.258 | 0.502 | 0.418 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 2.669 | 2.277 | 1.973 | 1.637 | 1.349 | 2.326 | 1.851 | 1.203 | 1.85 | 2.007 | 1.672 | 1.371 | 1.286 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.904 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | 0.944 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | 0.443 | 0.698 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | 0.037 | −0.064 | 0.046 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | 0.935 | 0.964 | 0.651 | 0.086 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.316 | 0.476 | 0.359 | −0.853 | 0.388 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.237 | 0.292 | −0.009 | −0.929 | 0.203 | 0.925 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.745 | −0.615 | −0.256 | −0.51 | −0.59 | 0.333 | 0.37 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.833 | −0.689 | −0.208 | −0.453 | −0.82 | 0.071 | 0.11 | 0.708 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | −0.444 | −0.634 | −0.588 | 0.598 | −0.612 | −0.926 | −0.746 | −0.22 | 0.161 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | −0.535 | −0.717 | −0.802 | −0.008 | −0.797 | −0.508 | −0.208 | 0.078 | 0.488 | 0.794 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.513 | −0.751 | −0.899 | 0.192 | −0.748 | −0.648 | −0.327 | 0.05 | 0.296 | 0.865 | 0.949 | 1 | |||

(b) RG5 (An-Nei gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 355.7 | 0.019 | 0.025 | 0.041 | 0.188 | 0.107 | 0.146 | 0.233 | 0.133 | 0.04 | 0.121 | 0.018 | 0.017 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 206.736 | 0.014 | 0.03 | 0.033 | 0.103 | 0.067 | 0.07 | 0.125 | 0.07 | 0.048 | 0.049 | 0.016 | 0.015 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | −0.112 | 0 | 1.143 | 0.182 | 0.081 | −0.46 | 0.212 | 0.36 | 0.483 | 1.327 | 1.133 | 0.895 | 0.563 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 1.677 | 1 | 2.325 | 1.397 | 1.113 | 1.39 | 1.35 | 1.675 | 1.866 | 3.019 | 2.317 | 2.489 | 1.821 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.929 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | −0.033 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | −0.182 | 0.438 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | −0.221 | 0.497 | 0.043 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | 0.375 | −0.354 | 0.264 | 0.16 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.463 | −0.004 | 0.703 | −0.336 | 0.628 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.303 | −0.426 | −0.356 | −0.923 | −0.383 | 0.045 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.65 | −0.502 | −0.129 | −0.553 | −0.446 | −0.309 | 0.49 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.44 | −0.302 | −0.53 | −0.454 | −0.781 | −0.659 | 0.619 | 0.821 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | 0.002 | −0.05 | −0.738 | 0.639 | −0.034 | −0.738 | −0.361 | −0.276 | 0.073 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | −0.224 | 0.858 | 0.016 | 0.439 | −0.728 | −0.482 | −0.222 | −0.198 | 0.175 | 0.221 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.296 | 0.905 | 0.721 | 0.51 | −0.178 | 0.15 | −0.591 | −0.339 | −0.388 | −0.244 | 0.671 | 1 | |||

RG7 (Nei-Bu gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 634.1 | 0.024 | 0.035 | 0.042 | 0.175 | 0.105 | 0.146 | 0.169 | 0.114 | 0.069 | 0.061 | 0.031 | 0.03 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 375.854 | 0.038 | 0.028 | 0.035 | 0.144 | 0.062 | 0.088 | 0.08 | 0.099 | 0.056 | 0.051 | 0.035 | 0.029 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | 0.415 | 1.472 | 0.833 | −0.062 | 0.257 | −0.127 | −0.166 | 1.078 | 1.006 | 0.408 | 0.23 | 0.503 | 0.393 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 1.903 | 3.213 | 2.598 | 1.367 | 1.309 | 2.358 | 1.549 | 2.851 | 2.536 | 1.393 | 1.294 | 1.38 | 1.175 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.917 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | 0.016 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | 0.123 | 0.617 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | −0.336 | 0.545 | −0.026 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | 0.097 | 0.21 | 0.658 | 0.263 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.56 | −0.112 | 0.578 | −0.779 | 0.291 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.92 | 0.072 | 0.25 | −0.567 | −0.072 | 0.728 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.41 | −0.756 | −0.455 | −0.636 | −0.512 | 0.087 | −0.222 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.612 | 0.071 | −0.232 | −0.117 | −0.745 | −0.304 | −0.322 | 0.552 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | −0.434 | −0.47 | −0.938 | 0.252 | −0.603 | −0.786 | −0.551 | 0.435 | 0.383 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | −0.36 | −0.647 | −0.933 | 0.183 | −0.422 | −0.678 | −0.537 | 0.46 | 0.161 | 0.958 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.467 | −0.684 | −0.913 | 0.071 | −0.503 | −0.629 | −0.572 | 0.615 | 0.32 | 0.955 | 0.979 | 1 |

Statistics . | . | Rainfall duration . | Rainfall depth . | Dimensionless rainfall amount . | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

P_{1/12}
. | P_{2/12}
. | P_{3/12}
. | P_{4/12}
. | P_{5/12}
. | P_{6/12}
. | P_{7/12}
. | P_{8/12}
. | P_{9/12}
. | P_{10/12}
. | P_{11/12}
. | P_{12/12}
. | ||||

(a) RG2 (Zhong-Bu gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 533.6 | 0.029 | 0.028 | 0.052 | 0.167 | 0.103 | 0.166 | 0.158 | 0.097 | 0.074 | 0.056 | 0.028 | 0.043 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 371.512 | 0.03 | 0.019 | 0.041 | 0.133 | 0.065 | 0.085 | 0.083 | 0.066 | 0.073 | 0.041 | 0.031 | 0.041 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | 0.615 | 0.808 | 1.068 | 0.175 | 0.222 | 0.293 | −0.453 | 0.838 | 0.406 | 0.426 | 0.172 | 0.499 | 0.391 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 1.714 | 2.304 | 2.58 | 1.412 | 1.339 | 2.439 | 1.676 | 2.304 | 1.748 | 1.222 | 1.754 | 1.372 | 1.183 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.972 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | −0.177 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | −0.481 | 0.681 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | −0.258 | 0.31 | 0.292 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | −0.161 | −0.114 | 0.605 | 0.11 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.326 | −0.083 | 0.049 | −0.903 | 0.197 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.723 | −0.151 | −0.047 | −0.633 | 0.318 | 0.831 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.256 | −0.679 | −0.521 | −0.638 | −0.214 | 0.302 | −0.064 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.458 | 0.462 | 0 | −0.109 | −0.717 | −0.103 | −0.53 | 0.248 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | 0.006 | −0.169 | −0.606 | 0.494 | −0.678 | −0.788 | −0.667 | 0.051 | 0.291 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | 0.076 | −0.564 | −0.838 | 0.183 | −0.598 | −0.555 | −0.48 | 0.411 | 0.137 | 0.899 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.038 | −0.522 | −0.823 | 0.058 | −0.684 | −0.472 | −0.523 | 0.544 | 0.32 | 0.861 | 0.975 | 1 | |||

RG4 (Toug-Dong gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 835.8 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.052 | 0.165 | 0.083 | 0.148 | 0.14 | 0.123 | 0.07 | 0.065 | 0.047 | 0.051 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 653.412 | 0.016 | 0.041 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.082 | 0.057 | 0.073 | 0.032 | 0.055 | 0.051 | 0.043 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | 1.118 | 1.068 | 0.715 | 0.201 | 0.354 | 0.396 | −0.485 | −0.318 | 0.396 | 0.296 | 0.258 | 0.502 | 0.418 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 2.669 | 2.277 | 1.973 | 1.637 | 1.349 | 2.326 | 1.851 | 1.203 | 1.85 | 2.007 | 1.672 | 1.371 | 1.286 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.904 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | 0.944 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | 0.443 | 0.698 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | 0.037 | −0.064 | 0.046 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | 0.935 | 0.964 | 0.651 | 0.086 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.316 | 0.476 | 0.359 | −0.853 | 0.388 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.237 | 0.292 | −0.009 | −0.929 | 0.203 | 0.925 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.745 | −0.615 | −0.256 | −0.51 | −0.59 | 0.333 | 0.37 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.833 | −0.689 | −0.208 | −0.453 | −0.82 | 0.071 | 0.11 | 0.708 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | −0.444 | −0.634 | −0.588 | 0.598 | −0.612 | −0.926 | −0.746 | −0.22 | 0.161 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | −0.535 | −0.717 | −0.802 | −0.008 | −0.797 | −0.508 | −0.208 | 0.078 | 0.488 | 0.794 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.513 | −0.751 | −0.899 | 0.192 | −0.748 | −0.648 | −0.327 | 0.05 | 0.296 | 0.865 | 0.949 | 1 | |||

(b) RG5 (An-Nei gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 355.7 | 0.019 | 0.025 | 0.041 | 0.188 | 0.107 | 0.146 | 0.233 | 0.133 | 0.04 | 0.121 | 0.018 | 0.017 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 206.736 | 0.014 | 0.03 | 0.033 | 0.103 | 0.067 | 0.07 | 0.125 | 0.07 | 0.048 | 0.049 | 0.016 | 0.015 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | −0.112 | 0 | 1.143 | 0.182 | 0.081 | −0.46 | 0.212 | 0.36 | 0.483 | 1.327 | 1.133 | 0.895 | 0.563 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 1.677 | 1 | 2.325 | 1.397 | 1.113 | 1.39 | 1.35 | 1.675 | 1.866 | 3.019 | 2.317 | 2.489 | 1.821 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.929 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | −0.033 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | −0.182 | 0.438 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | −0.221 | 0.497 | 0.043 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | 0.375 | −0.354 | 0.264 | 0.16 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.463 | −0.004 | 0.703 | −0.336 | 0.628 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.303 | −0.426 | −0.356 | −0.923 | −0.383 | 0.045 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.65 | −0.502 | −0.129 | −0.553 | −0.446 | −0.309 | 0.49 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.44 | −0.302 | −0.53 | −0.454 | −0.781 | −0.659 | 0.619 | 0.821 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | 0.002 | −0.05 | −0.738 | 0.639 | −0.034 | −0.738 | −0.361 | −0.276 | 0.073 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | −0.224 | 0.858 | 0.016 | 0.439 | −0.728 | −0.482 | −0.222 | −0.198 | 0.175 | 0.221 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.296 | 0.905 | 0.721 | 0.51 | −0.178 | 0.15 | −0.591 | −0.339 | −0.388 | −0.244 | 0.671 | 1 | |||

RG7 (Nei-Bu gauge) | |||||||||||||||

Mean | 67.6 | 634.1 | 0.024 | 0.035 | 0.042 | 0.175 | 0.105 | 0.146 | 0.169 | 0.114 | 0.069 | 0.061 | 0.031 | 0.03 | |

Standard deviation | 38.495 | 375.854 | 0.038 | 0.028 | 0.035 | 0.144 | 0.062 | 0.088 | 0.08 | 0.099 | 0.056 | 0.051 | 0.035 | 0.029 | |

Skewness coefficient | 0.34 | 0.415 | 1.472 | 0.833 | −0.062 | 0.257 | −0.127 | −0.166 | 1.078 | 1.006 | 0.408 | 0.23 | 0.503 | 0.393 | |

Kurtosis coefficient | 1.237 | 1.903 | 3.213 | 2.598 | 1.367 | 1.309 | 2.358 | 1.549 | 2.851 | 2.536 | 1.393 | 1.294 | 1.38 | 1.175 | |

Correlation coefficient | Duration | 1 | |||||||||||||

Depth | 0.917 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{1/12} | 1 | ||||||||||||||

P_{2/12} | 0.016 | 1 | |||||||||||||

P_{3/12} | 0.123 | 0.617 | 1 | ||||||||||||

P_{4/12} | −0.336 | 0.545 | −0.026 | 1 | |||||||||||

P_{5/12} | 0.097 | 0.21 | 0.658 | 0.263 | 1 | ||||||||||

P_{6/12} | 0.56 | −0.112 | 0.578 | −0.779 | 0.291 | 1 | |||||||||

P_{7/12} | 0.92 | 0.072 | 0.25 | −0.567 | −0.072 | 0.728 | 1 | ||||||||

P_{8/12} | −0.41 | −0.756 | −0.455 | −0.636 | −0.512 | 0.087 | −0.222 | 1 | |||||||

P_{9/12} | −0.612 | 0.071 | −0.232 | −0.117 | −0.745 | −0.304 | −0.322 | 0.552 | 1 | ||||||

P_{10/12} | −0.434 | −0.47 | −0.938 | 0.252 | −0.603 | −0.786 | −0.551 | 0.435 | 0.383 | 1 | |||||

P_{11/12} | −0.36 | −0.647 | −0.933 | 0.183 | −0.422 | −0.678 | −0.537 | 0.46 | 0.161 | 0.958 | 1 | ||||

P_{12/12} | −0.467 | −0.684 | −0.913 | 0.071 | −0.503 | −0.629 | −0.572 | 0.615 | 0.32 | 0.955 | 0.979 | 1 |

*et al.*2006). Figure 9 shows storm patterns estimated from five rainstorm events at the nine rain gauges. According to Figure 9, all four types of storm patterns probably occur in the Bazhang River watershed. For example, at the Xiao-Gong-Tian (RG1) gauge, the storm patterns of Event 1 and Event 2 can be regarded as an advanced type, and the pattern of Event 4 can be identified as the uniform type. In addition, the patterns of Event 3 and Event 5 can be treated as the delayed type and central type, respectively. Similar results can also be seen at the remaining rainfall gauges. This reveals that uncertainty exists in the storm pattern (distribution of rainfall in time) in the Bazhang River watershed.

In order to generate the rainfall characteristics, this study employs the multivariate Monte Carlo simulation method (Wu *et al.* 2006) to simultaneously produce the 200 sets of rainfall durations, depths, and dimensionless rainfalls of a storm pattern at nine rain gauges based on their correlation structure, as shown in Table 6. Note that since the multivariate Monte Carlo simulation method (Wu *et al.* 2006) can be used to simultaneously generate various correlated variables, this study treats rainfall characteristics at the nine rain gauges as the 18 variables for the rainfall duration and depth and 108 variables for the 12 dimensionless rainfalls.

### Development of SOBEK river routing model

River reach . | Roughness coefficient . |
---|---|

Upstream bound of mean channel–Chu-Kou gauge | 0.035 |

Chu-Kou gauge–Jun-Hui gauge | 0.035 |

Upstream bound of Branch 1–Chang-Pan gauge | 0.044 |

Upstream bound of Branch 2–Tou-Qian-Qi gauge | 0.038 |

Jun-Hui gauge–Ba-Zhang-Qi gauge | 0.039 |

Ba-Zhang-Qi gauge–Qing-Shui-Gang gauge | 0.039 |

River reach . | Roughness coefficient . |
---|---|

Upstream bound of mean channel–Chu-Kou gauge | 0.035 |

Chu-Kou gauge–Jun-Hui gauge | 0.035 |

Upstream bound of Branch 1–Chang-Pan gauge | 0.044 |

Upstream bound of Branch 2–Tou-Qian-Qi gauge | 0.038 |

Jun-Hui gauge–Ba-Zhang-Qi gauge | 0.039 |

Ba-Zhang-Qi gauge–Qing-Shui-Gang gauge | 0.039 |

In addition to the geometric data on the channel section and hydraulic parameters (e.g., roughness coefficient), the parameters of the RR model (SAC-SMA model) are required. In this study, the calibration of the SAC-SMA parameters is carried out by using the genetic algorithm based on the sensitivity of the model parameter (GA_SA). The six rainstorm events (i.e., typhoons) recorded from 2007 and 2008 as listed in Table 8 are adopted. The observed peak discharges of the six rainstorm events are between 224 and 1,280 m^{3}/s.

No. of event . | Rainstorm event . | Occurrence period . | Rainfall depth (mm) . | Peak discharge (cm) . |
---|---|---|---|---|

6 | Sepat | 20070818–20070821 | 644.0 | 643.6 |

7 | Krosa | 20071006–20070920 | 286.8 | 224.5 |

8 | Haitang | 20071006–20071008 | 993.2 | 1276 |

9 | Kaimaegi | 20080717–20080720 | 670.9 | 830.84 |

10 | Fung-Wong | 20080728–20080730 | 386.5 | 410.6 |

11 | Jangmi | 20080928–20080916 | 1,049.6 | 523.83 |

No. of event . | Rainstorm event . | Occurrence period . | Rainfall depth (mm) . | Peak discharge (cm) . |
---|---|---|---|---|

6 | Sepat | 20070818–20070821 | 644.0 | 643.6 |

7 | Krosa | 20071006–20070920 | 286.8 | 224.5 |

8 | Haitang | 20071006–20071008 | 993.2 | 1276 |

9 | Kaimaegi | 20080717–20080720 | 670.9 | 830.84 |

10 | Fung-Wong | 20080728–20080730 | 386.5 | 410.6 |

11 | Jangmi | 20080928–20080916 | 1,049.6 | 523.83 |

_{obj}= 83.2 m

^{3}/s). Moreover, Figure 12 shows the comparison of the estimated runoff for the six rainstorm events in the calibration of the SAC-SMA model. It can be observed that the computed runoff, accordingly, has a good agreement with the observed values, except for Event 1 (Typhoon Sepat) and Event 3 (Typhoon Haitang). On average, the error of the peak discharge (%) approximates 5.98%, and the root of the mean square error of runoff is about 6.72 m

^{3}/s. In addition, this study calculates the coefficient of Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (CE) (Krause

*et al.*2005) is calculated to evaluate the accuracy of the calibrated optimal SAC-SMA parameters as:in which

*Q*and

_{obs,i}*Q*are estimated and observed discharge at the time step i; and serves as the average observed discharge. A CE value approaching one implies a perfect match of modeled discharge to the observed data. Given that the average CE is 0.88, it is concluded that the change in the estimated runoff resembles the observed values. In summary, the SAC-SMA model calibrated in this study can well simulate the RR characteristics in the Bazhang River watershed.

_{est,i}Parameter . | UZTWM . | UZFWM . | UZK . | PCTIM . | ADIMP . | SARVA . | ZPERC . | REXP . | LZTWM . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Value | 51.9 (mm) | 102.7 (mm) | 0.162 | 0.19 | 0.135 | 0.01 | 20.6 | 0.009 | 471.8 (mm) |

Parameter . | LZFSM . | LZFPM . | LZSK . | LZPK . | PFREE . | SIDE . | RESERV . | SSOUT . | OBJ_Value . |

Value | 23 (mm) | 40 (mm) | 0.043 (mm) | 0.009 (mm) | 0.063 | 0.0001 | 0.3 | 0.001 (mm/hr) | 83.2 (m^{3}/s) |

Parameter . | UZTWM . | UZFWM . | UZK . | PCTIM . | ADIMP . | SARVA . | ZPERC . | REXP . | LZTWM . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Value | 51.9 (mm) | 102.7 (mm) | 0.162 | 0.19 | 0.135 | 0.01 | 20.6 | 0.009 | 471.8 (mm) |

Parameter . | LZFSM . | LZFPM . | LZSK . | LZPK . | PFREE . | SIDE . | RESERV . | SSOUT . | OBJ_Value . |

Value | 23 (mm) | 40 (mm) | 0.043 (mm) | 0.009 (mm) | 0.063 | 0.0001 | 0.3 | 0.001 (mm/hr) | 83.2 (m^{3}/s) |

### Derivation of **PLT** equation

According to the proposed framework outlined above, the simulation of the hydrographs along the Bazhang River can be carried out by using the SOBEK river routing model with the 200 generated hyetographs. The lag times at specific locations (i.e., water level gauges), where the rainfall, hydraulic, and geographical uncertainty factors are available, are extracted based on the definition of the lag time used in this study. Results from the above can be used to derive the lag time equation with uncertainty factors. Thus, the quantile relationship (i.e., probability function) of the lag time can be derived by the AFOSM method with the uncertainties in the rainfall, hydraulic, and geographical factors to be applied in the risk analysis for the lag time.

#### Estimation of lag time from simulation cases

Table 10 contains the statistical properties of the lag time at six water level gauges calculated from the 200 simulations cases. The average lag time increases with the distance from the upstream. For example, the average lag time at the upstream gauge (Chu-Kou gauge) is 1.05 hours which is significantly less than the average at the downstream Qing-Shui-Gang gauge (5.02 hours). Similarly, the standard deviation of the lag time exhibits an increase with the distance from the upstream boundary. Specifically, the deviations of the lag time at the Qing-Shui-Gang gauge are significantly larger than the values at other gauges as a result of the impact of the tide on the water level.

Sub-basin . | Mean (hour) . | Standard deviation (hour) . |
---|---|---|

Chu-Kou gauge | 1.049 | 0.117 |

Jun-Hui gauge | 1.677 | 0.423 |

Chang-Pan gauge | 1.738 | 0.602 |

Tou-Qian-Qi gauge | 1.707 | 0.790 |

Ba-Zhang-Qi gauge | 3.069 | 0.489 |

Qing-Shui-Gan gauge | 5.018 | 1.036 |

Sub-basin . | Mean (hour) . | Standard deviation (hour) . |
---|---|---|

Chu-Kou gauge | 1.049 | 0.117 |

Jun-Hui gauge | 1.677 | 0.423 |

Chang-Pan gauge | 1.738 | 0.602 |

Tou-Qian-Qi gauge | 1.707 | 0.790 |

Ba-Zhang-Qi gauge | 3.069 | 0.489 |

Qing-Shui-Gan gauge | 5.018 | 1.036 |

#### Derivation of deterministic lag time equation

*et al.*2000; Creutin

*et al.*2013) have shown that the lag time equation is supposed to be a non-linear function. Therefore, in accordance with the proposed framework for deriving the PLT equation in this study, the relationship between the lag time

*t*(hour) and uncertainty factors considered in this study are treated as a non-linear function as follows:

_{lag}In Equation (7), the uncertainty factors of interest involve the rainfall factors, i.e., maximum rainfall intensity *i _{p}* (mm/hour) and average rainfall intensity

*i*(mm), hydraulic factor (i.e., roughness coefficient

_{a}*n*), and geographical factors, including the catchment area

*A*(km

^{2}), river length from the upstream boundary

*L*(km), and the centroid and

*L*(km) to the estuary and the basin slope .

_{ca}*et al.*2010). Since the derived lag time equation belongs to the exponential function, the coefficients can be used in the evaluation of the sensitivity of the dependent variable (i.e., lag time) to the independent variables (i.e., the uncertainty factors). This suggests that the larger coefficient of the uncertainty factor implies that this factor makes a significantly greater contribution to the estimation of the lag time. In addition, the positive coefficient means that the lag time should be positively related to a specific uncertainty factor; whereas the negative coefficient indicates that the lag time varies inversely with a specific factor. Regarding the rainfall factors maximum rainfall intensity (

*I*) and the average rainfall intensity (

_{p}*I*), the absolute value of the

_{a}*I*coefficient (0.191) is slightly greater than

_{p}*I*value (0.122). Therefore, the

_{a}*I*is selected as the rainfall uncertainty factor. Moreover, only one hydraulic factor is selected, i.e., the roughness coefficient (

_{p}*n*) as its coefficient is 4.5. Hence, the roughness coefficient should be an essential factor for the estimation of the lag time. With respect to the geographical factors , the and

*L*coefficients (1.46 and 2.09) obviously exceed the

*A*and

*L*coefficient (0.959 and 0.0029). This reveals that only the river length

_{ca}*L*and slope of the watershed are re-treated as the geographical factors. As a result, for the Bazhang River, the lag time equation with the rainfall factor (

*i*), hydraulic factor (

_{p}*n*), and geographical factors (

*L*and ) is determined by using the multivariate regression analysis as follows:

From Equation (9), it can be seen that the coefficients of the river length (*L*) and the roughness coefficient (*n*) are positive, and there are negative coefficients of the basin slope and the maximum rainfall intensity. This indicates that the lag time increases positively with *L* and *n*, whereas reduced lag time is obtained with a steeper basin slope and large maximum rainfall intensity *i _{p}*. This conclusion is consistent with the aforementioned discussion on the effect of the rainfall, the roughness coefficient of the river bed, the river length, and the basin slope on the flow speed, which strongly impacts the lag time. Although the lag time estimated using Equation (9) matches with the observed value worse than results from Equation (9), Equation (9) also can provide a reliable estimation of the lag time with given

*L*,

*n*, , and

*i*.

_{p}#### Derivation of PLT equation

*L*= 14.79 km and slope = 0.068) in association with various assumptions of the mean and variance of the maximum rainfall intensity

*i*and the roughness coefficient

_{p}*n*. It can be seen that the quantile of the lag time at the specific cumulative probability reduces with increasing the

*i*mean, but it reduces with rising

_{p}*n*means

*.*However, the quantile relationship of the lag time is not sensitive to the CV. For example, as the

*i*mean rises from 10 to 100 mm, the quantile of the lag time significantly decreases from 1.6 hours to 1.0 hour for the cumulative probability being 0.9; however, as the

_{p}*n*means increases from 0.01 to 0.06, the quantile of the lag time slightly rises from 1.1 hour to 1.3 hour. In general, a higher CV could lead to the wider confidence interval at a particular significant level (such as 95%). Nevertheless, the width of the 95% confidence interval approximately stays at a constant (about 0.5 hour) with varying CV of the maximum rainfall intensity and roughness coefficient.

^{1/3}and 0.15 s/m

^{1/3}, respectively. Accordingly, the 95% of confidence interval, i.e., the difference of lag times at the cumulative probability of 2.5% and 97.5%, increases with the distance from the upstream bound (i.e., river length). This implies that the variation in the lag time rises with the river length and it may be attributed to the more complicated influx characteristic and geographical property at downstream locations.

As a result, according to the above results from evaluating the effect of statistical properties of uncertainty factors on the lag time, especially for the mean value, the maximum rainfall intensity contributes more variation in the lag time than the roughness coefficient does. It is evident that the proposed PLT equation can be applied in quantifying the impact of the considered uncertainty factors to the lag time.

### Model application

In this section, the proposed PLT equation is used in the risk quantification of the lag time for Typhoon Matmo (2014/07/22 08:00–2014/07/24 08:00) as a case of model application. The lag times at six water level gauges are extracted based on the definition of the lag time considered in this study as being 1 hour (Chu-Kou gauge), 2.2 hours (Jun-Hui gauge), 1.2 hours (Tou-Qian-Qi gauge), 1.2 hours (Chang-Pan gauge), 4.3 hours (Ba-Zhang-Qi gauge), and 8.6 hours (Qing-Shui-Gang gauge).

*t**stands for the estimated lag time according to Equation (9), could reasonably reflect the difference between the estimated and observed lag times, except for the Ba-Zhang Qi and Qing-Shui-Gang gauges. For example, the estimated lag time (0.95 hours) at Chu Kou gauge in association with a high underestimated risk is less than the observed value (1 hour). In contrast, at the Chang-Pang gauge, the underestimated risk is approximately 0.47. Hence, there is a low probability that the corresponding estimated lag (1.8 hours) is greater than the observed one (1.2 hours). However, the difference between estimation and observation of the lag time at the Ba-Zhang-Qi and Qing-Shui-Gang gauges exceeds 3 hours, but their corresponding only reaches a value of 0.4. As mentioned earlier, the Qian Ba-Zhang-Qi and Qing-Shui-Gang gauges are located within the tidal watercourse; thus, the lag time might be impacted not only by the uncertainty factor considered in this study, but also by the tide.

In summary, a positive difference (t_{lag,obs}-t_{lag,est}) between the observed lag time (t_{lag,obs}) and estimated one (t_{lag,est}) is in association with the high overestimated risk calculated by using the proposed PLT equation. On the contrary, the negative difference (t_{lag,obs}-t_{lag,est}) corresponds to low underestimated risk . Therefore, using the proposed PLT equation, the lag time estimate can be provided and its underestimated risk can also be quantified. In addition, according to the unreasonable underestimated risk, i.e., the large difference of lag time in association with the exceedance probability , the uncertainty in the lag time can be identified.

## CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study is to develop a PLT equation to provide the lag time at specific locations along the river and its reliability by taking into account uncertainty factors, which include the rainfall, hydraulic, and geometrical factors. After sensitivity analysis, the rainfall factors including the average and maximum rainfall intensity and the roughness coefficient (i.e., Manning *n* coefficient) in the river serve as the hydraulic factor. Using the quantile relationship of the lag time estimated by the proposed PLT equation, the observed ones mostly locate within the 95% confidence interval when compared with observed lag times extracted from historical events in the study area (i.e., Bazhang River watershed). In addition, the underestimated risk of the estimated lag time by the proposed PLT equation can reasonably reflect the degree of difference between the observed lag time and estimated value. Therefore, the proposed PLT equation can provide useful information on quantifying the underestimated risk of the estimated lag time as compared with the observed value.

To enhance the generality of the proposed PLT equation, the PLT equation for other watersheds would be derived based on the proposed framework in the case of the geographical data and rainfall data being given. Moreover, hourly rainfall data are used in this study, but finer time resolution data would be required to estimate lag times in smaller sub-basins. In deriving the PLT equation, the only hydraulic factor used is the roughness coefficient of the river bed. However, other factors, such as the downstream boundary (i.e., the tide) and the initial soil moisture (Singh 1988) could be included as predictor variables. The parameters of the RR model might influence the accuracy and reliability of the estimated runoff and water level (e.g., Montanari & Brath 2004; Wu *et al.* 2010, 2011), and hence the RR model parameters should be considered as uncertainty factors. In addition to more uncertainty factors considered, numerous investigations (e.g., McCuen *et al.* 1984; Ward & Elliot 1995; Sadatinejad *et al.* 2012; Grimaldi *et al.* 2012) indicated that the lag time should be related to the time of concentration, which plays an important role in the control and management of flood. Thus, it is recommended that future research is undertaken to establish a probabilistic equation for the concentration time based on the proposed lag time equation. Eventually, by incorporating the PLT equation with the rainfall forecasts, the stochastic lag time forecast could be estimated for use in flooding warning operation.