Is there any valid relationship between these two CGs, and does it reflect any physics in contrast to rainfall runoff conversion process over a natural catchment (either channel phase or overland phase or combined). May be possible some researchers have attempted it in variety of sets of conditions. I am eager to get enriched on this aspect by asking or putting this question before august group here.
See:
(1) Nash, J. E., 1959, Systematic determination of unit hydrograph parameters, J. Geophys. Res. 64, 111-115
(2) On the parametric approach to unit hydrograph identification (link follows)
Article On the parametric approach to unit hydrograph identification
in answering the original question, CG points are mere aggregation estimates to represent a watershed or a region. While comparing the two CGs to actual runoff process, it is important to understand that CGs are lumped estimates. It is not a good idea to assume that the aggregate values will have rainfall runoff relational information. The loss of information in aggregating into CGs compared to distributed parameter assessment (Raster-based assessment in GIS) need to be accounted before relating it to actual rainfall-runoff process.
thanks demetris
its really nice relevant stuff
Thanks Randhir for a very logical interpretation as CG use to be mere a physical entity of figure to show a balance point ...but not the real physical system where all rainfall-runoff game is happening...but i think still it could be a good idea to attempt its i mean CG's relationships reflecting rainfall-runoff relationships in one or another way
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling