ABSTRACT

How well do traditional and analytical hydraulic geometry hypotheses predict discharge? We tested whether Dingman’s analytical expressions can be validated with field data by comparing it with the traditional Leopold-Maddock at-a-station hydraulic geometry (AHG). Data from a small basin (66 km²) in southern Brazil were used. The correlations for all the coefficients and for the exponents of depth and velocity of AHG relations were strong. Other results were confirmed: (i) there is a strong linear correlation between bankfull width and the AHG width coefficient; (ii) the hydraulic depth exponent and coefficient κ from generalized hydraulic equation are well predicted using relations between exponents and coefficients of AHG. The test of the hypotheses of the Leopold-Maddock and Dingman hydraulic geometry shows similar results and can be used to estimate discharge. However, the Leopold-Maddock method is simpler to apply from field measurements.

摘要

传统和解析水力几何假设对流量的预测效果如何？我们通过将 Dingman 的分析表达式与传统的 Leopold-Maddock 现场水力几何学 (AHG) 进行比较，测试了丁曼的分析表达式是否可以用现场数据进行验证。来自一个小盆地的数据（66 km ²) 在巴西南部使用。所有系数以及 AHG 关系的深度和速度指数的相关性很强。其他结果得到证实：（i）bankfull 宽度与 AHG 宽度系数之间存在很强的线性相关性；(ii) 利用 AHG 的指数和系数之间的关系，可以很好地预测广义水力方程中的水力深度指数和系数 κ。Leopold-Maddock 和 Dingman 水力几何学假设的检验显示了类似的结果，可用于估计流量。然而，Leopold-Maddock 方法更容易应用于现场测量。