Effect of Base Flow and Rainfall Excess Separation on Runoff Hydrograph Estimation using Gamma Model (Case Study: Jong Catchment)

  • Erfan Bahrami
  • Omolbani MohammadrezapourEmail author
  • Meysam Salarijazi
  • Parviz Haghighat jou
Water Resources and Hydrologic Engineering


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.


base flow separation excess rainfall gama model runoff flood peak flow 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adib, A., Salarijazi, M., and Najafpour, K. (2010). “Evaluation of synthetic outlet runoff assessment models.” Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 13–18, DOI: 10.4314/jasem.v14i3.61450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Aron, G. and White, E. (1982). “Fitting a gamma distribution over a synthetic unit hydrograph.” Water Resour Bull., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 95–98, DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1982.tb04533.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhunya, P. K., Berndtsson, R., Ojha, C. S. P., Mishra, S. K. (2007). “Suitability of gamma, Chi-square, Weibull, and Beta distributions as synthetic unit hydrographs.” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 334, Nos. 1–2, pp. 28–38, DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhunya, P. K., Panda, S. N., and Goel, M. K. (2011). “Synthetic unit hydrograph methods: A critical review.” The Open Hydrology Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1–8, DOI: 10.2174/1874378101105010001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., and Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied Hydrology, pp. 135–152.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, C. O. (1945). “Storage and the unit hydrograph.” Trans ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 9, pp. 1419–1446.Google Scholar
  9. Croley, T. E. (1980). “Gamma synthetic hydrographs.” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 47, Nos. 1–2, pp. 41–52, DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(80)90046-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Geetha, K., Mishra, S. K., Eldho, T. I., Rastogi, A. K., and Pandey, R. P. (2008). “SCS-CN-based continuous simulation model for hydrologic forecasting.” Water Resources Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 165–190, DOI: 10.1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goni, M., Gimena, F. N., and Lopez, J. J. (2013). “Three unit hydrographs based on the beta distribution function: A novel approach.” Hydrological Sciences Journal, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 65–76, DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2012.746461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, D. M. (1961). “Synthetic hydrographs for small drainage areas.” Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE Vol. 87, Nos. 4. pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Kumar, R., Chatterjee, C., Lohani, A. K., Kumar, S., and Singh, R. D. (2002). “Sensitivity analysis of the GIUH based Clark model for a catchment.” Journal of Water Resource Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 263–278, DOI: 10.1023/A:1021920717410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mockus, V. (1957). Use of storm and watershed characteristics in synthetic hydrolograph analysis and application, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Nadarajah, S. (2007). “Probability models for unit hydrograph derivation.” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 344, Nos. 3–4, pp. 185–189, DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Opolot, E. (2013). “Application of remote sensing and geographical information systems in flood management: A review.” Research Journal of Applied Science Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 10, pp. 1884–1984, Scholar
  21. Patil, P. R., Mishra, S. K., Sharma, N., and Swar, A. K. (2012). “Twoparameter Gamma-based SUH derivation.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 427–432, DOI: 10.7763/IJESD.2012.V3.260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pinder, G. and Jones, J. F. (1969). “Determination of the ground water component of peak discharge from the chemistry of total runoff.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 430–445, DOI: 10.1029/WR005i002p00438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SCS (1957). Use of storm and watershed characteristics in synthetic hydrograph analysis and application: V Mockus, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Snyder, F. F. (1938). “Synthetic unit hydrographs.” Trans. Am. Geophysics Union, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tung, Y. K. and Wong, C. L. (2014). “Assessment of design rainfall uncertainty for hydrologic engineering applications in Hong Kong.” Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 583–592, DOI: 10.1007/s00477-013-0774-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yue, S, Taha, B. M. J., Bobee, B., Legendre, P., and Bruneau, P. (2002) “Approach for describing statistical properties of flood hydrograph.” J. Hydrol. Eng., ASCE. Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 147–153, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2002)7:2(147).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erfan Bahrami
    • 1
  • Omolbani Mohammadrezapour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Meysam Salarijazi
    • 2
  • Parviz Haghighat jou
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Water EngineeringUniversity of ZabolZabolIran
  2. 2.Dept. of Water EngineeringGorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural ResourcesGorganIran

Personalised recommendations