Skip to main content

An Approach for Determination of the Drainage Network Effect on GIUH Using Hesitant Probabilistic Fuzzy Linguistic Sets

Abstract

Digital elevation models (DEMs) enable extraction of stream networks, delineation of watersheds and determination of geomorphological characteristics. A widely used method for stream network extraction is to specify a threshold area required to initiate a channel. This is achieved by applying a threshold area value (As) in GIS software which displays the accumulated flow to each cell. In this study, the effect of the assigned As on the direct runoff hydrographs was analyzed. Of using different threshold values varying in a wide range, stream network extraction and watershed delineation were performed, and then stream orders, main channel lengths and related morphometric parameters were computed. The geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH) theory was adopted to obtain the hydrological response of the watershed and three direct runoff hydrographs were considered for validation. Statistical parameters and cumulative density functions of both observed and simulated hydrographs were computed and uncertainty analysis was performed. The best performing value of As with respect to the stream order and main channel length was determined using hesitant probabilistic fuzzy linguistic sets for different runoff hydrographs and criteria considered. It was found that the As value affected the stream order as expected and a stream order of maximum 3 was adequate for estimation of the runoff hydrograph with acceptable accuracy without unreasonably increasing the computational effort.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Data Availability

Data is available upon request.

References

  1. Abbaspour KC, Vaghefi SA, Srinivasan R (2018) A guideline for successful calibration and uncertainty analysis for soil and water assessment: a review of papers from the 2016 International SWAT Conference. Water-Sui 10(1):6

  2. Akay H, Koçyiğit MB, Yanmaz AM (2018) Effect of using multiple stream gauging stations on calibration of hydrologic parameters and estimation of hydrograph of ungauged neighboring basin. Arab J Geosci 11(11):282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alarcon VJ, O’hara CG (2006) Advanced techniques for watershed visualization. In: 35th IEEE Applied Imagery and Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR'06). IEEE, p 30. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIPR.2006.10

  4. Al-Wagdany A, Elfeki A, Kamis AS, Bamufleh S, Chaabani A (2020) Effect of the stream extraction threshold on the morphological characteristics of arid basins, fractal dimensions, and the hydrologic response. J Afr Earth Sci 172:103968

  5. Ariza-Villaverde AB, Jiménez-Hornero FJ, De Ravé EG (2015) Influence of DEM resolution on drainage network extraction: a multifractal analysis. Geomorphol 241:243–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Azizian A, Shokoohi A (2014) DEM resolution and stream delineation threshold effects on the results of geomorphologic-based rainfall runoff models. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 38(1):64–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Azizian A, Shokoohi A (2015) Effects of data resolution and stream delineation threshold area on the results of a kinematic wave based GIUH model. Water SA 41(1):61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baduna Koçyiğit M, Akay H, Yanmaz AM (2017) Effect of watershed partitioning on hydrologic parameters and estimation of hydrograph of an ungauged basin: a case study in Gokirmak and Kocanaz, Turkey. Arab J Geosci 10(15):331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bamufleh S, Al-Wagdany A, Elfeki A, Chaabani A (2020) Developing a geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH) using equivalent Horton-Strahler ratios for flash flood predictions in arid regions. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 11(1):1697–1723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Band LE (1986) Topographic partition of watersheds with digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 22(1):15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Band LE (1989) A terrain-based watershed information system. Hydrol Process 3(2):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beven K, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6(3):279–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chavan SR, Srinivas VV (2015) Effect of DEM source on equivalent Horton-Strahler ratio based GIUH for catchments in two Indian river basins. J Hydrol 528:463–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen Y, Shi P, Ji X, Qu S, Zhao L, Dong F (2019) New method to calculate the dynamic factor–flow velocity in geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph. Sci Rep 9(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chorowicz J, Ichoku C, Riazanoff S, Kim YJ, Cervelle B (1992) A combined algorithm for automated drainage network extraction. Water Resour Res 28(5):1293–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. da Ros D, Borga M (1997) Use of digital elevation model data for the derivation of the geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph. Hydrol Process 11(1):13–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. de Moura MM, Beskow S, da Silva Terra F, de Mello CR, da Cunha ZA, Cassalho F (2021) Evaluation of geomorphological approaches combined with digital elevation models for the Nash's instantaneous unit hydrograph. J S Am Earth Sci 107:103153

  18. Elsheikh S, Guercio R (1997) GIS topographic analysis applied to unit hydrograph models: sensitivity to DEM resolution and threshold area. IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-Intern Assoc Hydrological Sciences 242:245–254

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gandolfi C, Bischetti GB (1997) Influence of the drainage network identification method on geomorphological properties and hydrological response. Hydrol Process 11(4):353–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gao Y, Chen Y, Jiang Y (2015) Effects of DEM source and resolution on the HEC-HMS hydrological simulation [J]. Adv Water Sci 26(5):624–630

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gardner TW, Sasowsky KC, Day RL (1990) Automated extraction of geomorphometric properties from digital elevation data. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphol, Supplementband 80:57–68

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ghumman AR, Al-Salamah IS, AlSaleem SS, Haider H (2017) Evaluating the impact of lower resolutions of digital elevation model on rainfall-runoff modeling for ungauged catchments. Environ Monit Assess 189(2):54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghumman AR, Ghazaw Y, Abdel-Maguid RH, Zafar A (2019) Investigating parameters of geomorphic direct runoff Hydrograph models. Water Resour 46(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Goyal MK, Panchariya VK, Sharma A, Singh V (2018) Comparative assessment of SWAT model performance in two distinct catchments under various DEM scenarios of varying resolution, sources and resampling methods. Water Resour Manage 32(2):805–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hancock GR, Martinez C, Evans KG, Moliere DR (2006) A comparison of SRTM and high-resolution digital elevation models and their use in catchment geomorphology and hydrology: Australian examples. Earth Surf Process Landf: The Journal of the British Geomorphological Research Group 31(11):1394–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hastings DA, Dunbar P (1998) Development & assessment of the global land one-km base elevation digital elevation model (GLOBE). ISPRS Archives 32(4):218–221

  27. Hoover KA, Foley MG, Heasler PG, Boyer EW (1991) Sub-grid-scale characterization of channel lengths for use in catchment modeling. Water Resour Res 27(11):2865–2873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hosseini SM, Mahjouri N, Riahi S (2016) Development of a direct geomorphologic IUH model for daily runoff estimation in ungauged watersheds. J Hydrol Eng 21(6):05016008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jenson SK, Domingue JO (1988) Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation data for geographic information system analysis. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 54(11):1593–1600

    Google Scholar 

  30. Joshi DK, Beg I, Kumar S (2018) Hesitant probabilistic fuzzy linguistic sets with applications in multi-criteria group decision making problems. Mathematics 6(4):47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Karimi S, Amiri BJ, Malekian A (2019) Similarity metrics-based uncertainty analysis of river water quality models. Water Resour Manage 33(6):1927–1945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kozlov DV, Ghebrehiwot AA (2019) Efficacy of digital elevation and Nash models in runoff forecast. Mag Civil Eng 87(3):103–122

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lehbab-Boukezzi Z, Boukezzi L (2019) Bayesian calibration of HEC-HMS model using two different algorithms. Arab J Geosci 12(23):718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ludwig R, Schneider P (2006) Validation of digital elevation models from SRTM X-SAR for applications in hydrologic modeling. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 60(5):339–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Moussa R (2008) Effect of channel network topology, basin segmentation and rainfall spatial distribution on the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph transfer function. Hydrol Process: An International Journal 22(3):395–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moussa R (2009) Definition of new equivalent indices of Horton-Strahler ratios for the derivation of the geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph. Water Resour Res 45(9):W09406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moussa R, Bocquillon C (1996) Fractal analyses of tree-like channel networks from digital elevation model data. J Hydrol 187(1–2):157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Narayanamoorthy S, Annapoorani V, Kang D, Ramya L (2019) Sustainable assessment for selecting the best alternative of reclaimed water use under hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Access 7:137217–137231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Narayanamoorthy S, Annapoorani V, Kalaiselvan S, Kang D (2020) Hybrid hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method: a symmetric analysis of the selection of the best water distribution system. Symmetry 12(12):2096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nash JE (1957) The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. Int Assoc Sci Hydrol, Publ 3:114–121

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nemes G (2010) New asymptotic expansion for the Gamma function. Arch Math 95(2):161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. O’Callaghan JF, Mark DM (1984) The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Comput Graphics Image Process 28(3):323–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rodríguez-Iturbe I, Valdés JB (1979) The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response. Water Resour Res 15(6):1409–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rosso R (1984) Nash model relation to Horton order ratios. Water Resour Res 20(7):914–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Qin CZ, Zhan L (2012) Parallelizing flow-accumulation calculations on graphics processing units—from iterative DEM preprocessing algorithm to recursive multiple-flow-direction algorithm. Comput Geosci 43:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Qiu X, Wu SS, Chen Y (2010) Effects of threshold drainage area and study region size on HAZUS flood analysis. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 37(2):93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sahoo B, Chatterjee C, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R, Kumar R (2006) Flood estimation by GIUH-based Clark and Nash models. J Hydrol Eng 11(6):515–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(6):529–539

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wolock DM, Price CV (1994) Effects of digital elevation model map scale and data resolution on a topography-based watershed model. Water Resour Res 30(11):3041–3052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Xu Z, Zhou W (2017) Consensus building with a group of decision makers under the hesitant probabilistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 16(4):481–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Xu Y, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) A consensus model for hesitant fuzzy preference relations and its application in water allocation management. Appl Soft Comput 58:265–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Yanmaz M (2013) Applied Water Resources Engineering. Metu Press, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zhang W, Fu C, Yan X (2005) Automatic watershed delineation for a complicated terrain in the Heihe river basin, northwestern China. In: Proceedings 2005 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2005, IGARSS'05 (vol. 4), IEEE, p 2347–2350. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2005.1525446

  54. Zhang S, Xu Z, Zeng XJ, Yan X (2020) Integrations of continuous hesitant Fuzzy information in group decision making with a case study of water resources emergency management. IEEE Access 8:146134–146144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhao F, Wu Y, Qiu L, Sun Y, Sun L, Li Q, Wang G (2018) Parameter uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model in a mountain-loess transitional watershed on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Water 10(6):690

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu), grant number 114M292.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: HA; Methodology: HA; Funding acquisition: MBK; Writing—original draft preparation: MBK, HA; Writing—review and editing: HA, MBK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hüseyin Akay.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Compliance with ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

All authors consent to participate in this research /publication.

Consent for Publication

This research does not have any consent to publish.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akay, H., Baduna Koçyiğit, M. An Approach for Determination of the Drainage Network Effect on GIUH Using Hesitant Probabilistic Fuzzy Linguistic Sets. Water Resour Manage 35, 3873–3902 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02935-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph
  • Drainage network
  • Hesitant probabilistic fuzzy linguistic sets
  • Uncertainty