Natural Hazards

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 129–146 | Cite as

The storage potential of different surface coverings for various scale storms on Wu-Tu watershed, Taiwan

  • Shin-Jen Cheng
  • Huey-Hong Hsieh
  • Cheng-Feng Lee
  • Yu-Ming Wang
Original Paper


An impervious surface cover is continuously spreading over the Wu-Tu upstream watershed due to the concentrated population and raised economical demands, while that area also frequently suffers from heavy storms or typhoons during the summer season. The increased flood volume due to this extended imperviousness causes a greater potential hazard than that of the past. In order to evaluate the urbanized impacts on the watershed, a set of methods were used to estimate the changes of the watershed storage. This research chose 51 observed events from three raingauges on the Wu-Tu upstream watershed, Taiwan, to study the volume characteristic of abstracted rainwater. In the study, the block Kriging method was used to estimate the area rainfall and the hourly excess was derived through the non-linear programing (NLP). A total of 40 samples were calibrated through the hydrological model and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) model using the optimum seeking method in order to search out and establish the best parameters that illustrate the hydrological and geomorphic conditions at that time. Eleven cases were used to examine the established relationship of the parameters and the impervious coverings. A design storm approach was used to view the changes of the volume for various scale storms/typhoons because of the different degrees of urbanization. Then, a diagram was designed to show the relationships that exist among the runoff coefficient, return period, and impervious surface. The satisfactory results show that storage capability of rainwater for various scale storms on the Wu-Tu watershed would be respectively reduced about 42–156 cms in different decrements up to now.


Flood volume Imperviousness Block Kriging method SCS model Design storm approach 


  1. Arnell V (1982) Estimating runoff volumes from urban areas. Water Resour Bull 18(3):383–387Google Scholar
  2. Aronica G, Cannarozzo M (2000) Studing the hydrological response of urban catchments using a semi-distributed linear non-linear model. J Hydrol 238:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bérod DD, Singh VP, Devred D, Musy A (1995) A geomorphologic non-linear cascade (GNC) model for estimation of floods from small alpine watersheds. J Hydrol 166:147–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhaskar NR (1988) Projection of urbanization effects on runoff using Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters. Water Resour Bull 24(1):113–124Google Scholar
  5. Bonta JV, Amerman CR, Harlukowicz TJ, Dick WA (1997) Impact of coal surface mining on three Ohio watersheds – surface-water hydrology. J Am Water Resour As 33(4):907–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd MJ, Bufill MC, Knee RM (1994) Predicting pervious and impervious storm runoff from urban basins. Hydrol Sci J 39:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng S-J, Wang R-Y (2002) An approach for evaluating the hydrological effects of urbanization and its application. Hydrol Process 16(7):1403–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiles JP, Delfiner P (1999) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28(4):1015–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1994) Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J Hydrol 158:265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duan Q, Gupta VK, Sorooshian S (1993) Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization. J Optim Theory Appl 76(3):501–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franchini M, O’Connell PE (1996) An analysis of the dynamic component of the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph. J Hydrol 175:407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goovaerts P (2000) Geostatistical approaches for incorporating elevation into the spatial interpolation of rainfall. J Hydrol 228:113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gremillion P, Gonyeau, P., A., Wanielista M (2000) Application of alternative hydrograph separation models to detect changes in flow paths in a watershed undergoing urban development. Hydrol Process 14:1485–1501Google Scholar
  16. Hjelmfelt AT (1980) Empirical investigation of curve number technique, ASCE. J Hydraulics Div 106:1471–1476Google Scholar
  17. Hollis GE (1975) The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval. Water Resour Res 11(3):431–435Google Scholar
  18. Hsieh LS, Wang RY (1999) A semi-distributed parallel-type linear reservoir rainfall-runoff model and its application in Taiwan. Hydrol Process 13:1247–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jin CX (1992) A deterministic gamma-type geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph based on path types. Water Resour Res 28(2):479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Junil P, Kang IS, Singh VP (1999) Comparison of simple runoff models used in Korea for small watersheds. Hydrol Process 13:1527–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang IS, Park JI, Singh VP (1998) Effect of urbanization on runoff characteristics of the On-Cheon Stream watershed in Pusan, Korea. Hydrol Process 12:351–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krug WR (1996) Simulation of temporal changes in rainfall-runoff characteristics, Coon Creek Basin, Wisconsin. Water Resour Bull 32(4):745–752Google Scholar
  23. Kumar S, Jain SC (1982) Applications of SCS infiltration model. Water Resour Bull 18(3):503–507Google Scholar
  24. Lazaro TR (1976) Nonparametric statistical analysis of annual peak flow data from a recently urbanized watershed. Water Resour Bull 12:101–107Google Scholar
  25. Lee YH, Singh VP (2005) Tank model for sediment yield. Water Resour Manage 19:349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matheron G (1971) The theory of regionalized variables and its application. Cahiers du Centre de Morphologic Mathematique, Ecole des Mines, Fountainbleau, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Mays LW, Taur CK (1982) Unit hydrographs via nonlinear programming. Water Resour Res 18(4):744–752Google Scholar
  28. Moon J, Kim J-H, Yoo C (2004) Storm-coverage effect on dynamic flood-frequency analysis: empirical data analysis. Hydrol Process 18:159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moscrip AL, Montgomery DR (1997) Urbanization, flood frequency, and salmon abundancee in Puget Lowland Streams. J Am Water Resour As 33(6):1289–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nash JE (1957) The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. IAHS Publ 45:112–121Google Scholar
  31. Rodriguez F, Andrieu H, Creutin J-D (2003) Surface runoff in urban catchments: morphological identification of unit hydrographs from urban databanks. J Hydrol 283:146–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simmons DL, Reynolds RJ (1982) Effects of urbanization on base flow of selected south-shore streams, Long Island, New York. Water Resour Bull 18:797–805Google Scholar
  33. Singh RB (1998) Land use/cover changes, extreme events and ecohydrological response in the Himalayan Region. Hydrol Process 12: 2043–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sorooshian S, Duan Q, Gupta VK (1993) Calibration of rainfall-runoff models: application of global optimization to the Sacramento soil moisture accounting model. Water Resour Res 29:1185–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Syed KH, Goodrich DC, Myers DE, Sorooshian S (2003) Spatial characteristics of thunderstorm rainfall fields and their relation to runoff. J Hydrol 271:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsihrintzis VA, Hamid R (1997) Urban stormwater quantity/quality modeling using the SCS method and empirical equations. J Am Water Resour As 33(1):163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tung YK, Mays LW (1981) State variable model for urban rainfall-runoff process. Water Resour Bull 17(2):181–189Google Scholar
  38. Wackernagel H (1998) Multivariate geostatistics. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Yue S, Hashino M (2000) Unit hydrographs to model quick and slow runoff components of streamflow. J Hydrol 227:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shin-Jen Cheng
    • 1
  • Huey-Hong Hsieh
    • 1
  • Cheng-Feng Lee
    • 1
  • Yu-Ming Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environment and Resources EngineeringDiwan UniversityTainanTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of Information ManagementDiwan UniversityTainanTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations