This article was downloaded by: [179.57.239.

20]
On: 03 March 2015, At: 06:52
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

International Association of
Scientific Hydrology. Bulletin
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj18

A DEFINITION OF DOMINANT
DISCHARGE
a

M. A. BENSON & D. M. THOMAS

U. S Geological Survey , Washington, D. C.

Published online: 04 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: M. A. BENSON & D. M. THOMAS (1966) A DEFINITION OF

DOMINANT DISCHARGE, International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Bulletin,
11:2, 76-80, DOI: 10.1080/02626666609493460
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626666609493460

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in

relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [179.57.239.20] at 06:52 03 March 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

A DEFINITION OF DOMINANT DISCHARGE

M. A. BENSON and D. M. THOMAS
U. S Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.

ABSTRACT

Downloaded by [179.57.239.20] at 06:52 03 March 2015

The concept of dominant (stream) discharge in geomorphology has not been firmly defined. By
defining it, on rational grounds, as that discharge at which, over a long period of time, most sediment
has been transported, a definite value can be computed for a stream for which there are available durationcurve values of daily discharge and a sediment-rating curve. This has been done for 5 eastern and 4
western rivers. The dominant discharge, when expressed in terms of percentage duration, is remarkably
consistent, and is found to be a lower discharge than has generally been considered as dominant.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of dominant discharge in geomorphic processes is somewhat tenuous. Inglis

(1941) said that "Dominant discharge is the discharge which controls the meander length and
breadth. It appears to be slightly in excess of bank-full stage."
Wolman and Miller (1960) summarized a study by Wolman that included observations on
the discharges that were most responsible for shaping a channel. "In an analysis of factors
controlling bank erosion, Wolman (1959) has shown that lateral cutting of the cohesive channel
bank of a small stream in Maryland occurs mostly during the winter months, when flows of a
size which occurs eight to ten times per year attack previously wetted banks." Although the
position of such discharges on the daily-duration curve is uncertain, the effective magnitude
apparently is considerably lower than that of bankful stage.
Leopold, Wolman, and Miller (1964) say, "The most meaningful discharge for any discussion
of channel morphology is that which forms or maintains the channel. --the effective discharge
can often be approximated by bankfull discharge. In many rivers the bankfull discharge is one
that has a recurrence interval of about 1.5 years."
Carlston (1965) has concluded that the dominant discharge which controls meander wave
length is a range of flows, possibily falling-stage flows, between the mean of the month of maximum
discharge and mean annual discharge.
There appears to be some uncertainty as to whether the discharge that controls or can best
be related to meander length can be equated with the discharge most meaningful in shaping or
maintaining a channel. Both have been associated with bankfull stage (Inglis, 1941, and Leopold,
Wolman, and Miller, 1964), and both have been associated with something much less than
bankfull stage (Wolman and Miller, 1960, and Carlston, 1965).

DEFINITION

The forming and maintenance of channel cross sections and the movement of meanders
must be accompanied by the movement of sediment. It seems, therefore, logical to suggest a
definition of dominant discharge as the discharge that over a long time period transports the
most sediment. Such a discharge may be computed by combining information from a daily
sediment-rating curve and a discharge-duration curve. Because only information on suspended
sediment load is generally available, only suspended sediment can be considered and it is
necessary therefore to assume that total sediment load is proportional to suspended load.

76

ApPLICATION

Downloaded by [179.57.239.20] at 06:52 03 March 2015

Sediment-rating and discharge-duration information have been combined for several streams
where necessary data were available. Figure 1 shows histograms of discharged suspended
sediment for equal intervals of stream discharge at each station. Each histogram has a peak
ordinate. For each peak ordinate it can be said that there are more tons of sediment transported

West Branch Delaware River at Hale Eddy, N. Y.

191660

V>

I-

u..

V>

v.

=>
o

Neversink River at Godeffroy, N. Y.

193B59

:I:

I-

;;:
1-'

:!!

V>

4.4

53
c
i'5
"'-

30
20
10

o );
o 0.2

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000

Fig. la -

Histograms of suspended sediment discharge (eastern U. S.).

77

within that range of stream discharge than within any other equivalent discharge range. From
duration curves the percent of daily flows that exceed the mid-range discharge of the peak ordinate were determined and are summarized in table 1. Flow days only were considered in computing the duration value; therefore for ephemeral streams the indicated duration is the percentage of flow days that exceed the peak ordinate discharge rather than percentage of time that
flow exceeds the peak ordinate discharge.
Rio Grande near

40

Downloaded by [179.57.239.20] at 06:52 03 March 2015

12
en
Z

I-

e;
en
C>

;::';
::0

::r::
,.....

10
8

6 i2'" ':~ :; <,1".;01

~~fj~r!8~10~~IA2(;;LlI4~16

00

;0;

~Colorado River near Grand Canyon/ Ariz.

::;: 2.0
1931-59

~ 1.5

en

63 1.0

CI

en
=:>
en

0.5

o
o

200

400

600

800

0.25
0.20

0.15
0.05
0.10

['~f~>?~~.

o
o

1
DISCHARGE, IN HUNDREDS OF
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Fig. Ib -

Histograms of suspended sediment discharge (southwestern U. S.).

CONCLUSIONS

With one exception the percentage of flow days exceeding the mid-range of the maximum
histogram ordinate lies within a fairly narrow range, 7.6 to 18.5 percent, and averages 12.4 percent. The exception is the Rio Grande at Bernalillo, New Mexico, for which the dominant discharge has a 42.1 percent duration. The reason that this stream diverges from the gerenal
pattern is not known. It might be that the transported sediment size is smaller than at other stations, but data are unavailable to investigate this possibility.

78

TABLE 1
Summary of discharge intervals transporting greatest amounts of suspended sediment at gaging stations

Downloaded by [179.57.239.20] at 06:52 03 March 2015

Stream

Contrib.
drainage
area
(sq. mi.)

Discharge Class

Average
Discharge
(cfs)

Lower
(cfs)

Upper
(cfs)

Duration

Average
duration

Lower
limit

Upper
limit

50.2

35.2

42.7

16.7
4.6

13.7
3.8

15.2

10.0
2.6

8.9
2.4

9.4

l.5-yr.
Peak
discharge
(cfs)

Rio Grande near

Bernalillo, N .. M
Rio Puerco near Bernardo,
N.M.
(only flow days)
(all days)
Galisteo Creek at Domingo,
N.M.
(only flow days)
(all days)
Colorado River nr Grand
Canyon, Ariz.
E. B. Delaware R. at Fish's
Eddy, N. Y.
W. B. Delaware R. at
Hale Eddy, N. Y.
Neversink R. at Godeffroy,
N.Y.
Neshaminy Cr. at Langhorne,
Pa.
Potomac R. at Point of
Rocks, Md.

14,360

1.152

6,220

600

800

400

500

211.9
56.5
70

640

80

50.6
10.1
137,800

17,010

45,000

50,000

9.1

7.1

8.1

783

1,670

4,000

4,400

8.3

6.8

7.6

593

1,066

1,600

2,400

19.4

10.1

14.8

302

604

800

1,000

22

15

18.5

210

276

400

500

15

11

13.0

8,000

9,651

9,248

15,000

20,000

12.8

78,000

15.8

9.9

74,000

In any case, the dominant discharge defined in this manner is for most rivers much less than
bankfull-stage discharge and lies somewhere between the mean annual flow and the point indicated by Wolman's investigations.
The shapes of the histograms indicate that, although there are peaks, sediment loads of
almost the same amount (per equal discharge intervals) are transported over a large range of
discharge. Therefore the concept of a dominant discharge may not be too meaningful. Only
further study can show whether the dominant discharge determined in this manner has any
value in defining channel morphology.

Downloaded by [179.57.239.20] at 06:52 03 March 2015

REFERENCES CITED
CARLSTON, C. W., 1965, The relation of free meander geometry to stream discharge and its geomorphic
implications: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 263, pp. 864-885.
INGLIS, C. c., 1941, Digest of answers to the Central Board of Irrigation questionaire on meandering
of rivers with comments on factors controlling meandering and suggestions for future action, in
Edgecombe, A.R.B., ed. 1941, annual report (technical) of the Central Board of Irrigation, India,
1939-40: Pub. 24, pp. 100-114.
LEOPOLD, L. B., WOLMAN, M. G., and MILLER, J. P., 1964, Fluvial processes in geomorphology: San
Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Co., 522 p.
WOLMAN, M. G., and MILLER, J. P., 1960, Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes:
Jour. Geology, V. 68, No.1, pp. 54-74.

80