Part 1.

Rainfall Average
Amount Annual Distance from Within
Station % Deviation
(inches Precipitation Station X (miles) 10%?
) (inches)
X - 36.5 - - -

A 4.2 42.1 √ 32 +72=7.62 ¿ 36.5−42.1∨ ¿ ×100 %=15.34 % ¿ No

36.5

B 3.7 37.1 √ 4 2+ 62=7.21 ¿ 36.5−37.1∨ ¿ ×100 %=1.64 % ¿ Yes

36.5

C 4.9 39.8 √ 52 +92=10.30 ¿ 36.5−39.8∨ ¿ ×100 %=9.04 % ¿ Yes

36.5

Calculation for missing data for rainfall at Gauge X using Normal Ratio Method:

[( ) ]
n
1 Nx
P x= ∑ P
n i=1 N i i

P x=
1
3 ([ 36.5
42.1
× 4.2) + (
36.5
37.1
×3.7 )+(
36.5
39.8
×4.9 )
]
P x =3.93∈¿

Among the three methods (Arithmetic Mean Method, Normal Ratio Method, and Inverse Distance
Method), I would say that Normal Ratio Method is the best option for solving the problem.

First, the problem provided data for average annual precipitation. This implies the possibility of
using Arithmetic Mean Method and Normal Ratio Method. Data for average annual precipitation can be
used to calculate % deviation which is important to identify if the two methods are possible. Based on the
table above, Station A showed a deviation of more than 10% unlike Station B and C. This would mean that
Normal Ratio Method is possible as it only requires at least one station to have a deviation of more than
10% for all data to be utilized. This would also mean that data for Station B and C are the only the remaining
data for Arithmetic Mean Method. Utilizing Normal Ratio Method rather than Arithmetic Mean Method is
more sensible as it will utilize data from 3 stations unlike the other one which has only 2. Thus, the answer
computed for Normal Ratio Method is more reliable than the answer computed in Arithmetic Mean Method.

Second, with the problem providing the distance, Inverse Distance Method is a possible method to
solve this problem. However, it would also mean addressing the limitation of proximity in Normal Ratio
Method. Normal Ratio Method’s limitation is that it is not advisable to use when stations are very far from
each other. However, the calculated distance of each station from Station X is within 7.21 to 10.30 miles, a
reasonable distance for Normal Ratio Method since the size of a storm, that could have a span of hundreds
of miles, can easily cover this distance.
 Lastly, the topography on where the stations are built are not described on the problem. It is known
that the orographic limitation of Inverse Distance Method lessens the reliability of data computed from this
method, and it is not properly or clearly addressed in this problem. Furthermore, there is no available data
from calibration studies. Even though the formula for Inverse Distance Method will automatically assign e =
2, this will also imply another uncertainty in the result.

Thus, based on the three points above, Normal Ratio Method is the best option to solve this
problem.

-
Part 2.

Water Added to
Day Rainfall (inches) Pan Evaporation (inches)
Maintain 8 in (inches)
1 0 0.29 0.00 + 0.29 = 0.29
2 0.65 0.55 0.65 + 0.55 = 1.20
3 0.12 0.07 0.12 + 0.07 = 0.19
4 0 0.28 0.00 + 0.28 = 0.28
5 0.01 0.10 0. 01 + 0.10 = 0.11
Total = Epan = 2.07

Computing for Average Elake (Given: cp = 0.7):

c p × E pan 0.7 × 2.07 inches

Average Elake = =
No . of days 5 days

Average Elake =0.29 ¿

day

Total Volume of Evaporation∈5−day Period =c p × E pan × Surface Areaof Lake

Total Volume of Evaporation∈5 day Period =0.7 ×2.07 inches ×250 acres

Total Volume of Evaporation∈5−day Period =362.25 ac−¿

Part 3.

Horton’s Equation derived from the given (fo = 0.9; fc = 0.2; k = 0.4):
f =f c + ( f o−f c ) e−kt =0.2+ ( 0.9−0.2 ) e−0.4 t

−0.4 t
f =0.2+0.7 e

Plotting of Rainfall Intensity Hyetograph and Infiltration Rate:

Infiltration Curve of Horton's Equation

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
f, i (in/hr)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (Hour)

Calculating the time by letting i = f = 0.4 in/hr:

0.4=0.2+0.7 e−0.4 t

t=
ln [ ( 0.4−0.2 )
0.7 ]
−0.4

t=3.1319 hr
 (3.1319, 0.4)
( 0.4 )( 3.1319−2 )
2 5
∫ (0.2+0.7 e −0.4 t
)dt ∫ (0.2+0.7 e−0.4t ) dt
0 3.1319

Calculating the infiltration depth (area of shaded region on the graph):

2 5
F=∫ ( 0.2+ 0.7 e ∫
−0.4 t −0.4 t
)dt+ ( 0.4 ) ( 3.1319−2 ) + (0.2+ 0.7 e )dt
0 3.1319

)| )|
t =2 t =5

(
¿ 0.2t +
0.7 ⅇ−0.4 t
−0.4 t =0
(
+ ( 0.4 )( 1.1319 ) + 0.2t +
0.7 ⅇ−0.4 t
−0.4 t =3.1319

[( )( )]+ 0.45276
−0.4 ( 2) −0.4 ( 0)
0.7 e 0.7 e
¿ 0.2 ( 2 )+ − 0.2 ( 0 )+
−0.4 −0.4

[( )( )]
−0.4 ( 5 ) −0.4 ( 3.1319 )
0.7 e 0.7 e
+ 0.2 ( 5 ) + − 0.2 ( 3.1319 )+
−0.4 −0.4

¿ [ ( 0.4−0.7863256872 )−( 0−1.75 ) ] +0.45276+ [ ( 1−0.23683674457 )−( 0.62638−0.50000 ) ]

¿ 1.363674313+0.45276+0.6367832554

F=2.453217568 ≈ 2.4532∈¿

Calculating the infiltration volume (Given: Area of the Basin= 15 ac):

Infiltration Volume=Infiltration Depth × Area of the Basin=2.4532∈×15 ac

Infiltration Volume=36.7980 ac−¿