Water Resources

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 19–28 | Cite as

Investigating Parameters of Geomorphic Direct Runoff Hydrograph Models

  • A. R. GhummanEmail author
  • Y. GhazawEmail author
  • R. H. Abdel-MaguidEmail author
  • A. Zafar


Formulation of rainfall runoff models and identification of their parameters is difficult step especially for catchments having scanty or no data. Parameters of geomorphic instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH) models have been investigated in this research. Recorded data of Shahpur Dam Catchment, Pakistan was used for developing direct runoff hydrograph model. Satellite imageries of the catchment were processed using ArcGIS 10.1 to estimate geomorphologic parameters. The rainfall and runoff data for 10 events was collected from Meteorological Department Lahore and from Small Dam Organization, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Rainfall data was analyzed and excess rainfall was estimated using Percent Runoff Method. Using estimated geomorphologic parameters the ordinates of GIUH- Nash Model were obtained by standard equations of Nash instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH). These ordinates of Nash-IUH, were converted into the ordinates of direct runoff hydrographs through their convolution with the excess rainfall. The results of model were evaluated on the basis of their deviation from the observed runoff data. Statistical parameter Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient and percent error between observed and simulated direct runoff were used for this purpose. The impact of using digital elevation models (DEM) of two different resolutions; 30 and 90 m, was then investigated. It is observed that the geomorphic parameters are affected due to DEM’s resolution. Hence the resolution of DEM impacts the direct runoff as well.


digital elevation shahpur hydrograph instantaneous geomorphic runoff 


  1. 1.
    Alekseevskii, N.I., Zavadskii, A.S., Krivushin, M.V., and Chalov, S.R., Hydrological monitoring at international rivers and basins, Water Resour., 2015, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 747–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abid, A., Salarijazi, M., Vaghefi, M., Shooshtari, M.M., and Akhondali, A.M., Comparison between GcIUH-Clark, GIUH-Nash, Clark-IUH, and Nash-IUH models, Turkish J. Eng. Env. Sci., 2010, vol. 34, pp. 91–103.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmad, M.M., Investigation and application of new techniques in determination of runoff for various conditions of humid and arid catchments, PhD thesis, Univ. Engineering and Technol., Taxila, Pakistan, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Almeida, S., Vine, N.L., McIntyre, N., Wagener, T., and Buytaert, W., Accounting for dependencies in regionalized signatures for predictions in ungauged catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 2015, vol. 12, pp. 5389–5426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhimjiani, H.M., A survey paper on prediction of runoff for ungauged catchment, J. Emerging Technol. Innovative Res., 2015, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 881–883.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corduneanu, F., Bucur, D., Cimpeanu, S.M., Apostol, I.C., and Strugariu, Al., Hazards resulting from hydrological extremes in the upstream catchment of the Prut River, 2016, Water Resour., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, B.H., Kwon, H.H., and Jang, S.H., Regionalization of parameters of rainfall-runoff model for small reservoir risk analysis, Proc. Sympos. Hydropower 15, Stavanger, Norway, 2015, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chowdhury, S. and Al-Zahrani, M., Characterizing water resources and trends of sector. Wise water consumptions in Saudi Arabia, J. King Saud Univ., Engineering Sci., 2015, vol. 27, 68–82.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chowdhury, S., Al-Zahrani, M., and Abbas, A., Implications of climate change on crop water requirement in Arid Region An Example of al-Jouf Saudi Arabia, J. King Saud Univ., Engineering Sci., 2016, vol. 28, pp. 21–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chuenchooklin, S., Taweepong, S., and Pangna-korn, U., Rainfall-runoff models and flood mapping in a catchment of the Upper Nan Basin, Thailand, J. Water Resour. Hydraulic Engineering, 2015, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixon, B. and Earls, J., Resample or not?! Effects of resolution of DEMs in watershed modeling, Hydrol. Processes, 2009, vol. 23, pp. 1714–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emmerik, T., Mulder, G., Eilander, D., Piet, M., Savenije, H., Predicting the ungauged basin: model validation and realism assessment, Front. Earth Sci., 2015, vol. 3, no. 62, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gartsman, B.I. and Shamov, V.V., Field studies of runoff formation in the Far East Region based on modern observational instruments, Water Resour., 2015, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 766–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gopchenko, E.D, Ovcharuk, V.A, and Romanchuk, M.E, A method for calculating characteristics of maximal river runoff in the absence of observational data: case study of Ukrainian rivers, Water Resour., 2015, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gusev, E.M., Nasonova, O.N., and Dzhogan, L.Ya., Physically based modeling of many year dynamics of daily stream flow and snow water equivalent in the Lena R. Basin, Water Resour., 2016, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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, pp. 3153–3163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghumman, A.R., Kheder, K., Hashmi, H.N., and Ahmad, M.M., Comparison of Clark and geographical instantaneous unit hydrograph models for arid and semiarid regions, Int. J. Water Resour. Arid Environ., Saudi Arabia, 2014, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horton, R.E., Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology, Bull. Geol. Soc. of Am., 1945, vol. 56, pp. 275–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibn Ali, Z., Lajili, L., and Zairi, M., Rainfall-runoff modeling for predictive infiltration and recharge areas for water management in semi-arid basin: a case study from Saadine watershed, Tunisia, Arabian J. Geosci., 2016, pp. 9–19.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaiswal, R.K., Thomas, T., Galkate, R.V., Ghosh, N.C., Lohani, A.K., and Kumar, R., Development of Geomorphology Based Regional Nash Model for Data Scares Central India Region, Water Resour. Manage., 2014, vol. 28, pp. 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jing, L. and Wong, D.W.S., Effects of DEM sources on hydrologic applications, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 2010, vol. 34, pp. 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, M.S., Park, S.W., Jang, N.J., and Kwak, D.H., Statistical Analysis of Water Infrastructure Characteristics: Case Study of Saemangeum Watershed, Water Resour., 2016, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kochkov, N.V. and Ryanzhin, S.V., A Method for Assessing Lake Morphometric Characteristics with the Use of Satellite Data, Water Resour., 2016, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kudoli, A.B. and Oak, R.A., Runoff estimation by using GIS based technique and its comparison with different methods-A case study on Sangli Micro Watershed, Int. J. Emerging Res. Management & Technol., 2015, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 131–135.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar, R., Chatterjee, C., Singh, R.D., Lohani, A.K., and Kumar, S., GIUH based Clark and Nash models for runoff estimation for an ungauged basin and their uncertainty analysis, Int. J. River Basin Management, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus J.L.H., Hydrol. Engineers, N. Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matishov, G.G, Kleshchenkov, A.V., and Sheverdyaev, I.V., Disastrous flashflood in the Western Caucasus in July 2012: Causes and Consequences, Water Resour., 2015, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 932–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mirza, M., Dawod, G., and Al-Ghamdi, K., Accuracy and relevance of digital elevation models for geomatics applications: a case study of Makkah Municipality, Saudi Arabia, Int. J. of Geomatics and Geosci., 2011, vol. 1, pp. 803–812.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nash, J.E., The form of instantaneous unit hydrograph, Int. Assn. Sci. Hydrol., 1957, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 114–121.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nash, J.E., A note on investigation into two aspects of the relation between rainfall and storm runoff, Int. Assn. Sci. Hydrol., 1960, vol. 1, no.51, pp. 567–578.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe J.V., River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part-I: A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 1970, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ponce, V.M., Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Gonzalez-Sanabria, M., and Bras, R.L., A geomorphoclimatic theory of instantaneous unit hydrograph, Water Resour. Res., 1982, vol. 18, pp. 877–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. and Valdes, J.B, The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response, Wat. Resour. Res., 1979, vol. 15, no. 6, pp 1409–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosso, R., Nash model relation to Horton order ratio, Water Resour. Res., 1984, vol. 20, pp. 914–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharif, H.O, Al-Juaidi, F.H., Al-Othman, A., Al-Dousary, I., Fadda, E., Jamal-Uddeen, S., and Elhassan, A., Flood hazards in an urbanizing watershed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 2016, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 702–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Skaugen, T., Peerebom, I.O., and Nilsson, A., Use of a parsimonious rainfall–run-off model for predicting hydrological response in ungauged basins, Hydrol. Process., 2015, vol. 29, pp. 1999–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sudhakar, B.S., Anupam, K.S., and Akshay, O.J., Snyder unit hydrograph and GIS for estimation of flood for un-gauged catchments in Lower Tapi Basin, India, Hydrol.: Current Res., 2015, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zelazinski, J., Application of the geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph theory to development of forecasting models in Poland, Hydrol. Sci. J.-des Sci. Hydrogiques, 1986, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 263–270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Qassim UniversityBuraydahSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and TechnologyTaxilaPakistan
  3. 3.Irrigation and Hydraulic Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt
  4. 4.Faculty of Engineering, Fayoum UniversityAl FayoumEgypt

Personalised recommendations