Comparison of Clark, Nash Geographical Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph models for semi arid regions

Abstract

This paper compares the results obtained from three hydrologic techniques namely Clark, Nash and Geographical Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph. Underpinning of these models and calibration of parameters for these models was a demanding assignment which was performed by downhill simplex optimization method. A semi-arid region of Pakistan was selected for testing the models. Computer coding was prepared for all the models. SPOT maps of the study area were collected from NESPAK (National Engineering Services of Pakistan). The rainfall runoff data was taken from Punjab Irrigation and Power Department. The maps were digitized using ERDAS and Arc GIS to determine the geographic parameters of the watershed. Field surveys and measurements were used to estimate the discharge data. The shape of direct runoff hydrograph, peak flows and time to peak flow obtained from the three models were compared. The model efficiency was determined by a statistical parameter coefficient of determination. It was found that the Clark model simulated superior results in comparison with Nash and Geographical Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph models.

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

References

  1. 1.

    Ahmad, M.M., Ghumman, A.R., Ahmad, S., and Hashmi, H.N., Estimation of a unique pair of Nash model parameters: an optimization approach, J. Water Resour. Manag., 2010, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2971–2989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ahmad, M.M., Ghumman, A.R., and Ahmad, S., Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters and development of direct surface runoff hydrograph, J. Water Resour. Manag., 2009, vol. 23, pp. 2417–2435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ahmed, F., A hydrologic model of kemptville basin-calibration and extended validation, Water. Resour. Manag., 2012, vol. 26, pp. 2583–2604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W., Applied Hydrology, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Company, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Clark, C.O., Storage and the unit hydrograph, Trans. ASCE, 1945, vol. 110, pp. 1419–1446.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dobrovolski, S.G., Year to year and many year runoff variations in world rivers, Water Resour., 2012, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dzhamalov, R.G., Krichevets, G.N., and Safronova, T.I., Current changes in water resources in Lena river basin, Water Resour., 2012, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ghumman, A.R., Ahmad, M.M., Hashmi, H.N., and Kamal, M.A., Regionalization of hydrologic parameters of Nash model, Water Resour., 2011, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 735–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ghumman, A.R., Ahmad, M.M., Hashmi, H.N., and Kamal, M.A., Development of geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph for a large watershed, Environ. Monit. Assess., 2012, vol. 184,is. 5, pp. 3153–3163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gupta, V.K., Wymire, E.D., et al., A representation of an instantaneous unit hydrograph from geomorphology, Water Resour. Res., 1980, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 855–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Horton, R., Erosional development of streams and their drainage basin: hydro-physical approach to quantitative morphology, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 1945, vol. 56, pp. 275–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Johnston, R. and Kummu M., Water resources models in the Mekong Basin: a review, Water Resour. Manag., 2012, vol. 26, pp. 429–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kirpitch, Z.P., Time of concentration of small agricultural catchments, Civil Eng., 1940, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 362–365.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kumar, R., Chatterjee, C., Singh, R.D., et al., GIUH based Clark and Nash models for runoff estimation for an ungauged basin and their uncertainty analysis, Int. J. River Basin Manag., 2004, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H., Hydrology for Engineers, 3rd ed., N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mikhailova, M.V., Mikhailov, V.N., and Morozov, V.N., Extreme hydrological events in the Danube river basin over the last decades, Water Resour, 2012, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Nash, J.E., The form of instantaneous unit hydrograph, Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol., 1958, pp. 546–557.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nguyen, H.Q., Maathuis, B.H.P., and Rientjes, T.H.M., Catchment storm runoff modelling using the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph, Geocarto Int., 2009, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ponce, V.M., Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practice, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. and Valdes, J., The geomorphological structure of hydrologic response, Water Resour. Resour., 1979, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1409–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rosso, R., Nash model relation to Horton order ratios, Water Res. Resour., 1984, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 914–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sarangi, A., Madramootoo, C.A., Enright P., and Prasher, S.O., Evaluation of three unit hydrograph models to predict the surface runoff from a Canadian watershed, Water Resour. Manag., 2007, vol. 21, pp. 1127–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Serrano, S.E., Hydrology for Engineers, Geologists, and Environmental Professionals, Kentucky, USA: Hydro Sciences Incorporation, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Singh, V.P., Hydrologic Systems: Rainfall-Runoff Modeling, vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Troitskaya, Yu.I., Rybushkina, G.V., Soustova, I.A., et al., Satellite altimetry of inland water bodies, Water Resour., 2012, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 184–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Yasinskii, S.V. and Kashutina E.A., Effect of regional climate variations and economic activity on changes in the hydrological regime of watersheds and small-river runoff, Water Resour., 2012, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 272–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Zelazinski, J., Application of the geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph theory to development of forecasting models in Poland. Hydrol. Sci., Journal des Sciences Hydrogiques, 1986, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. R. Ghumman.

Additional information

The article is published in the original.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghumman, A.R., Khan, Q.U., Hashmi, H.N. et al. Comparison of Clark, Nash Geographical Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph models for semi arid regions. Water Resour 41, 364–371 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0097807814040071

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nash
  • Clark
  • hydrograph
  • watershed
  • peak
  • flows