Effect of Base Flow and Rainfall Excess Separation on Runoff Hydrograph Estimation using Gamma Model (Case Study: Jong Catchment)
- 5 Downloads
A forecast of runoff hydrograph leads to effective decision making in flood management. In this study, effect of three base flow separation methods- straight line (DRH1), fixed base (DRH2), and variable slope (DRH3) and two methods of excess rainfall estimation (Ø index and SCS (Soil Conservation Service) method) with six different rainfall-runoff events are studied on the flood hydrograph simulation. The 6 rainfall-runoff events recorded at Jong catchment in Iran were used for this study. The Percentage Error in Volume (PEV), Percentage Error in Peak (PEP), Percentage Error in Time to Peak (PETP), Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient (NSC), R2 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), were also used to evaluate the results. The results show that the combination of SCS-DRH2 method is the best combination of base flow separation - excess rainfall for improving the accuracy of the model in predicting the hydrograph shape. Also, in estimating the flood volume, the SCS-DRH3 and SCS-DRH1 are the best combination in estimating peak flood and time to peak the flood respectively. The analysis of the results suggests that the combination of SCS-DRH2 is the best combination in improving the accuracy of Gamma model.
Keywordsbase flow separation excess rainfall gama model runoff flood peak flow
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Adib, A., Salarijazi, M., Shooshtari, M. M., and Akhondali, A. M. (2011). “Comparison between characteristics of geomorphoclimatic instantaneous unit hydrograph be produced by GcIUH based Clark Model and Clark IUH model.” Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 201–209, DOI: 10.6119/JMST.Google Scholar
- Adib, A., Salarijazi, M., Vaghefi, M., Shoshatari, M. M., and AkhondAli, A. M. (2010). “Comparison between GcIUH-Clark, GIUH-Nash, Clark-IUH, and Nash-IUH models.” Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 91–104, DOI: 10.3906/muh-0908-1.Google Scholar
- Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., and Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied Hydrology, pp. 135–152.Google Scholar
- Clark, C. O. (1945). “Storage and the unit hydrograph.” Trans ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 9, pp. 1419–1446.Google Scholar
- Ebrahimian, M., See, L. F., Malek, I. A. (2009). “Application of natural resources conservation service-Curve number method for runoff estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran.” European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 34, Nos. 4. pp. 575–590.Google Scholar
- Eidipour, A., Akhondali, A. M., Zarei, H., and Salarijazi, M. (2016). “Flood hydrograph estimation using GIUH model in ungauged Karst Basins (Case study: Abolabbas Basin).” TUEXENIA, Vol. 36, No. 36, pp. 26–33.Google Scholar
- Gray, D. M. (1961). “Synthetic hydrographs for small drainage areas.” Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE Vol. 87, Nos. 4. pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
- Hjelmfelt, A. T. Jr. and Kramer, L. A. (1988). “Unit hydrograph variability for a small agricultural watershed.” Modeling Agricultural, Forest, and Rangeland Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 357–336.Google Scholar
- Kathol, J., Werner, H., and Trooien, T. (2003). “Predicting runoff for frequency based storms using a rainfall-runoff model.” North-Central Intersectional Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), Fargo, ND, USA.Google Scholar
- Mockus, V. (1957). Use of storm and watershed characteristics in synthetic hydrolograph analysis and application, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
- SCS (1957). Use of storm and watershed characteristics in synthetic hydrograph analysis and application: V Mockus, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar