Results and Discussion Chapter Four

ChapterFour

76
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Chapter four
Result and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
This chapter produces all the results obtained for the selected
study area include catchment characteristics that results from DEM
analysis by ARC-GIS, Results of comparison between satellite rainfall
data with rain-gauge stations, and HEC-HMS model simulation,
calibration and statistical evaluation to check the model performance.
4.2 Catchment characteristics
4.2.1 Morphometric Characteristics
In the current investigation, depending on the STRM data and
Arc-GIS 10.5 software, the drainage characteristics of AL-Galal Bedra
watershed were derived, as shown in Table (4.1), their derivation was
based on simple mathematical equations as listed in Table (2.2).
The catchment classification, depending on the highest number of
stream order, was specified as sixth-order depending on Strahler’s
system classification.
Table 4.1: Table shows the results of morphometric analysis (stream characteristics)
of Galal Bedra

S.no Parameters Stream Orders

I II III IV V
1 Stream order (total) 1090 583 300 4 1
2 Stream length (lu) km 854 454 169 122 118
3 Bifurcation ratio (Rb) I/II II/III III/IV IV/V
1.86 1.94 1.63 4.0

76
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Table 4.2: Table shows the results of morphometric analysis (basin characteristics)
of Galal Bedra watershed

No. Parameters Calculated Value

1 Basin area (Km²) 4394
2 Perimeter (P) (Km) 442
3 Basin length ( ) (Km) 122.2
4 Total relief (R) (m) 2717
5 Relief ratio ( ) 22.23
6 Elongation ratio ( ) 0.61
7 Drainage density ( ) 0.39
8 Stream frequency ( ) 0.45
9 Drainage texture (T) 4.47
10 Form factor ( ) 0.29
11 Circulatory ratio ( ) 0.28

From results in Table 4.1 one can notes that the final number of the
segments of streams were 1978, where the first-order streams occupied
the great part of this number, this basically was an indication for the
flash floods possibility. The value of Circulatory ratio for the catchment
was less than 0.5. The values of Re and Ff were 0.61 and 0.28,
respectively. Essentially, such values can be considered as an indication
for watershed of elongated shape. Moreover, the variance that noticed in
case of streams length for various orders is compatible with the change
that observed in topography and slope of the watershed.
In terms of hydrology, the importance of knowing the rate of relief (Rh)
is due to its effect on the quantity and quality of the river load. The high
value of the area of the study (Rh= 22.23) indicates the speed of flow

77
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

and its ability to carry sediments, both of which negatively affect the
areas located in the river basin.
Finally, the values of stream frequency and drainage density were
0.45 and 0.39, respectively. Both values were an indication for the
presence of intermediate drainage texture in the catchment.
4.2.2 Soil Map Properties
Soil is one of the important factors in calculating the CN. Soil data
are obtained from the universal soil data sets of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) as mentioned in section (3.3.2). Galal Bedra basin
database is generate after cutting the global soil map to fit the extent of
the study area. Then the classification of FAO soil data base was adopted
by using the separate table that download with soil map contains the
definition of soil texture for each code as well as hydrological soil group
(HSG) to determine the hydrologic features of soil. It is clear that all of
Galal Bedra soil group was classified as D which is characterized with
less infiltration no more than 1 mm/hr. So, Galal Bedra basin distinguish
with high runoff. Table (4.3) shows the HSG of soil data for Galal Bedra
Basin.
Table 4.3: The table reveals soil texture types for Galal Bedra Watershed

No. Soil FAO code name classification Hydrologic

group
1 I-Rc-Xk-c Loam D
2 I-Rc-Yk-2c Loam D
3 Jc1-2a loam D
4 Jc40-2/3a Loam D
5 Rc33-3bc Loam D
6 Zo7-2/3a Clay-Loam D
7 Yk34-b Loam D
8 Zo22-2/3a Clay-Loam D
9 Zo7-2/3a Clay-Loam D

78
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

4.2.3 Land use pattern

Covers types of the study area are classified depending on the land
use map and table (3.5). The table (4.4) shows the classification
categories Land use/Land cover of Galal Bedra Watershed and the rate
of influence of each category, it can be observed that the highest effect
ratio is Bare area which occupy 61.19 % of the total area, and is
scattered in different parts of the basin Then followed by the spare
vegetation area, which is spreading in the north eastern part of the basin
with occupy 21.9a%. This can be attributed to the geological situation of
Galal Bedra basin and possibility of generating high surface runoff.

Table 4.4: Classification categories LU/LC of Galal Bedra Watershed

No. Class Area %

1 Rainfed croplands (Cropland) 236 5.36
2 Mosaic croplands/Vegetation (Cropland) 107 2.43
3 Mosaic Vegetation/ croplands 253 5.75
4 Mosaic forest (Shrubland) 97 2.21
5 Mosaic Grassland (Grassland) 96 2.21
6 Sparse Vegetation (Grassland) 965 21.91
7 Bare areas (Desert) 2690 61.19

4.2.4 Physical Input to HEC-HMS

Physical data that are entered for each sub-basin in order to
running HEC-HMS program are presents in Table (4.5), which
containing CN value that reflected to the land cover state and soil

79
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

hydrology. It is express the basin response for runoff. High value of CN

refer to impervious surface while low value of CN represent pervious
soil surfaces. Galal Bedra watershed the CN value range from 86.7 to 94
It can be note that the values of the CN high in all basins and this
indicates that the soil surface of Galal Bedra Basin is impervious, Thus
the runoff is high.

Table 4.5: Physical characteristics of each sub-basin

Sub-basin Physical charctirstics

Area CN S Ia Lag time (Min.)
(KM²)
W1030 70.334 88.7 32.35 6.47 419.07
W1060 432.89 86.7 38.96 7.79 246.166
W1080 3.7203 87.677 35.699 7.13 202.811
W1100 2.461 90.6 26.35 5.27 268.89
W1120 557.37 87.7 35.5 7.1 268.809
W1130 119.81 92.45 20.7 4.14 47.195
W1170 94.703 94 16.21 3.24 40.357
W1210 99.168 93.67 17.16 3.43 228.617
W1230 60.295 93.976 16.29 3.25 171.647
W1240 58.549 93.89 16.5 3.3 201.303
W1250 56.954 86.89 38.32 7.86 232.35
W1270 94.67 89.65 29.32 5.86 211.207
W1280 64.644 91.67 23 4.61 210.38
W1290 17.341 87.67 35.72 7.17 142.64
W1300 0.108 92.78 19.76 3.95 11.494
W780 1301.81 90.5 26.66 5.3 266.787
W910 180.49 87.2 37.28 7.45 278.048
W920 980.75 88.5 33 6.6 469.119
W990 106.019 93.88 16.55 3.3 290.2407

80
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

From Table (4.5), the potential maximum retention after runoff (S) range
between 16.21 to 38.96. S value is reflecting to the degree of saturation
for soil during runoff. The relationship between S value and saturation of
soil layer thickness depended upon soil type and soil cover and this is
reflected by the values of CN which enter into finding S value according
to the equation mentioned in chapter two (equation 2.11).
So, there is a relationship between CN and S as shown in figure (4.2) for
Galal Bedra watershed.

Fig.4.2: Relationship between CN and S

From the Figure above, the distribution of low s values corresponds to

the most impervious parts of the basin, which does not contain within its
components allows to save water on the surface, Thus, the maximum
potential of the surface in the conservation of water becomes low
allowing for rapid surface runoff. The distribution of high s values
corresponds to the most porous parts of the basin and here the possibility
of water conservation on the surface becomes high which slows down

81
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

the runoff. Thus, indicate a very strong inverse relationship between CN

and S.
The initial abstraction (Ia) represent the loss due to evaporation,
infiltration and surface detention and storage. Ia is important parameter
in equation 2.10 calculate the excess rainfall. there is a relationship
between Ia, soil class and soil cover. Figure (4.3) show the relationship
between S and Ia.

Fig. 4.3: Relationship between S and Ia value

From the above Figure we note that when increasing the value of the
primary extraction offset by an increase in the value of s and this means
its ability to retain more water and the opposite happens if the initial
extraction decreases and thus leads to a rise in the amount of runoff.

82
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

4.3 Assessment of NASA Precipitation Data

The degree of correlation between the monthly rainfall data
from NASA and the rain gauge stations was evaluated, including the
coefficient of correlation, as well as the coefficient of determination (r²),
which were calculated to determine the strength of the relationship
between both the sources of rainfall data.

The results of the comparison between the NASA precipitation data and
data observed from the Ilam rain gauge station in Galal-Badra basin,
shown in Figure 4.3, where the coefficient of correlation (r) is equal to
0.86 and Figure (4.3 B) displays the scatter plot that reveals the linear
relationship between the rainfall data from the rain gauge stations and
NASA (r² = 0.74) These values indicate good concurrence between the
data from NASA and that of the rain gauge stations.

Fig. 4.3 A: A comparison of the rainfall obtained from the observed data and that of
NASA (Ilam station) for the 1994-2005 period.

83
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig. 4.3 B: Scatter plot of the rainfall obtained from the data from NASA and the
rain gauge data on a monthly scale (Ilam station).

However, the correction is between observed data from the Badra rain
gauge station as compared with the NASA rainfall data, shown in Figure
4.3, where the correlation coefficient is around 0.81; and R sequre is
0.6532 this indicates good linkage between the two data sources.

R values for both statation were agreement with [64].

84
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig. 4.4 A: A comparison of the rainfall obtained from the observed data (Badra rain
gauge station) and NASA for the period, 1994-2005.

140

120
y = 0.6194x + 2.6679
R² = 0.6532
100
Observed Rainfall

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
NASA Rainfall

Fig. 4.4 B: Scatter plot of the rainfall obtained from the data from NASA and the
rain gauge data on a monthly scale (Bedra station).

85
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

4.4 Results of comparison between Galal Bedra and

analogue catchment
For the current study, rainfall pattern and topographic characterstics will
be compared It will compare and extract the lowest, highest, average and
standard deviation to find the convergence of the characteristics of both
regions after the DEM analysis by GIS. Rainfall of NASA data will be
based on because already been proven in the previously they can be used

as an alternative to station rain data.

4.4.1 Comparison rainfall characteristics of study area with

analogue catchment
Average annual rainfall data of long-term records was used in order to
compare rainfall characteristics of Galal Bedra watershed with the
analogue catchment which was AL-Adhaim watershed as cleared up in
chapter three. NASA data used to supply rainfall data for fourteen years
starting from 1990 to 2014.

To prove the similarity of these characteristics. Table (4.6) show the

results of comparison where 0.40%, 0.35%, 0.12% and 0.12%
repesenting difference between maximum, minimum, mean and standard
respectively of both region rainfall data, these values were close to the
differences found by Wali,2013 [20] during his study on Rukarka and
Mushishito catchments.
Table 4.6: Rainfall characteristics of Galal Bedra and AL-Adiam watershed.

Rainfall mm Bedra AL-Adhiam

Minimum 580.1 620

Maximum 142.77 178.35

Mean 326.28 338.9

Standard deviation 101.4 114.26

86
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

4.4.2 Similarity of topography between Galal Bedra and

AL-Adhiam watershed.
Both watershed were analysis by ARC-GIS (see Figure 4.5 and 4.6) in
order to find the Convergence of topography characteristics include
(elevation, flow length, and slope).

From Table 4.7 A ,Table 4.7 B And Table 4.7 C The difference in
maximum, minimum mean and standard deviation were 3.40%, 0.29%
and 10.2 % respectively for elevation, for the slope were 0.02 %, 0% ,
0.032% and 0.043 , while for flow length they were 0.315 %, 0%,
0.29% and 0.0072 respectively. All these results were closer than
differences in elevation , slope and flow length founded by Wali, 2013
through his study of Rukarka and Mushishito catchments.

87
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.5: Slope maps of AL-Adhaim and Galal Bedra watersheds

Fig.4.6: Elevation of Galal Bedra and AL-Adhaim watersheds

88
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Table 4.7 A: Convergence of elevation between Galal Bedra and AL-

Adhiam watershed

Elevation Bedra AL-Adhiam

Maximum 2200 1860

Minimum 56 85

Mean 527 425

Standard deviation 583.7 473

Table 4.7 B: Convergence of slope between Galal Bedra and AL-

Adhiam watershed

Slope Bedra AL-Adhiam

Maximum 76 74
Minimum 0 0
Mean 7.4 4.2
Standard deviation 8.84 4.5

Table 4.7 C: Convergence of flow length between Galal Bedra and AL-
Adhiam watershed

Flow length Bedra AL-Adhiam

Maximum 193.5 225

Minimum 0 0

Mean 100 129

Standard deviation 52.87 53.59

From all the results above it can be Judged that AL-Adhaim Suitable as a
analogue watershed in order to choose it observed discharge data after
using equation (3.2).

89
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

4.5 Results of HEC-HMS Model

4.5.1 Model Simulation for each sub-basin
For any catchment, during precipitation, the initial abstraction will
have to be satisfied firstly before the commencement of runoff. In this
study the integration of GIS is vital for providing input parameters in the
HEC-HMS model. The main advantage of the integration approach is to
utilize of GIS techniques for the given objective as detailed previously in
sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 which conclude many parts, starts from
extracting watershed boundary, till completion of building model
framework in HEC-GeoHMS, modelling was performed in HEC-HMS
by importing files from ArcGIS which were background- map, river map
and basin file with extension ‘. basin’ as shown in Figure (4.7) that
conclude Galal Bedra watershed divided into 15 sub-basins.

In addition to exporting maps other physical data which CN, Ia, Lag
time (see Table 4.5), as well as is evaporation, rainfall data and discharge
data must be entering in order to be eligible for simulation process.

Simulation run is created by interlace each of metreological data,

basin data and control specifications. The later, mange simulation span
time, which represent the starting to ending time and also time interval.

For the present study, simulation runs with daily time series data for
a period (1991-1994).

90
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.7: Galal Bedra watershed in HEC-HMS software window.

The successive step after providing the model with the necessary
information is to find the simulated flow quantity for each basin because
all these quantities accumulate at the downstream point of Galal Bedra
watershed see Figures (4.8 to 4.26) below is indicative the flows from
each sub-basin at pour point.

91
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.8: Simulated results of sub-basin W1030

Fig.4.9: Simulated results of sub-basin W1060

92
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.10: Simulated results of sub-basin W1080

Fig.4.11: Simulated results of sub-basin W1100

93
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.12: Simulated results of sub-basin W1120

Fig.4.13: Simulated results of sub-basin W1130

94
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.14: Simulated results of sub-basin W1170

Fig.4.15: Simulated results of sub-basin W1210

95
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.16: Simulated results of sub-basin W1230.

Fig.4.17: Simulated results of sub-basin W1240

96
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.18: Simulated results of sub-basin W1250

Fig.4.19: Simulated results of sub-basin W1270

97
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.20: Simulated results of sub-basin W1280

Fig.4.21: Simulated results of sub-basin W1290

98
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.22: Simulated results of sub-basin W1300

Fig.4.23: Simulated results of sub-basin W780

99
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.24: Simulated results of sub-basin W910

Fig.4.25: Simulated results of sub-basin W920.

100
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.26: Simulated results of sub-basin W990

From results above one can notes much of the precipitation that falls in
the watershed is changed in to direct runoff and that different at each
sub-basin, this belongs to several factors.

For the current study herein the effecting factor is:

1. Sub- basin size: there is direct proportion between sub-basin area

and amount of flow as we noted above, basin with large area, their
flow records the highest value among others.

2. Land use and soil type: Their effect is summarized by CN values

that previously found based on land use and soil data maps
through Arc-GIS and HEC-GeoHMS. There is a positive
correlative between CN value and Peak flow rate. It is noticeable
from the figures above that almost parts of the basin are of high
surface runoff and this is consistent with the high values of CN . It

101
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

is certain these basins are able to generate runoff when increasing

rain storms and the most vulnerable to the risk of floods,
especially the sub- basins that fall in the upper basin they cause
the flooding of the area located underneath.

3. Initial abstraction: high initial losses at the beginning of

precipitation. This is to the fact of high infiltration caused at the
beginning of the rain. Since the values of Ia are low, this indicates
that the ponds generate large amounts of runoff and this confirms
the previous results of CN which in turn indicated that the sub-
basin's ability to absorb higher amounts of runoff is weak, making
the pond vulnerable to flood risk

4.4.2 Simulation Result at Catchment Outlet

Simulation results at Galal Bedra outlet, represents by cumulative
hydrograph of 19 sub-basin as detailed previously.
Figure 4.27 show hydrograph of simulation results at Galal Bedra outlet
for the 1991-1994 period and it was compared to historically observed
data from neighboring analogue watershed (AL-Adhiam watershed) after
proving its similarity to the current study area as cleared up in order to
exam the accuracy of the model. Additionally, table (4.8) display
summary of simulation and observed results.

Table 4.8: Summary results of simulation before optimization.

Measured Observed Simulated

Peak flow M³/S 202.7 139.4

Volume Mm³as 227.33 140.45

Time of peak 5 Nov. 1994 8 Dec. 1992

102
 Results and Discussion Chapter Four

From results of daily simulation during 1991-1994 three events were

taken individually taken in order to explain flood behavior of current
study, first event represent least storm, second event intermediate storm
and the last one represent maximum storm which is the most important
of aspect of the hydrograph, as the peak flow represents the upper, of the
flood of the river. Table 4.9 represents selected flood events durations.

However, the values of peak discharge and total outflow volume of the
observed direct surface runoff hydrograph were compared with the
simulated values for individual calibration events and are presented in
Table 4.10

Table 4.9: Period of selected storm events

Event no. Start data End data

Event 1 1991/4/15 1991/4/21

Event 2 1993/4/20 1993/4/28

Event 3 1994/11/19 1994/11/20

Table 4.10: Comparison of simulated and observed peak discharge and

total outflow volume

Event no. Peak Discharge (m3/s) Total Outflow Volume (1000 m3)
Simulatio Observed Change in Simulatio observe Change in
n peak n d peak
discharge discharge (%)
(%)
1 31.8 22 30.8 2.75 1.9 30.9

2 88.8 110.7 19.78 7.67 9.56 24.64

3 126.9 202.2 37.24 10.96 17.47 59.39

103
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

104
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.28: Comparison of simulation and observed hydrograph for Event 1

Fig.4.29: Comparison of simulation and observed hydrograph for Event 2

105
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.30: Compartion of simulation and observed hydrograph for Event 3

The Figures above generally represents simulation hydrograph for four

years and events hydrographs of simulation of Galal Badra.

As listed in Table 4.10 there is a percentage change in outflow volumes

and the peak discharges need to calibration therefore, calibration by
optimization has been done to the model in order to create a simulated
hydrographs that matches the observed hydrographs as closely as
possible.

When looking closely at events 1, and event 2, indicated that, the study
area is prone to sudden flood waves that must be mange to avoiding
flood hazard and that result in agreement with results of morphometric
characterstics that appear in table 4.1 where the first-order stream
occupying most of this value, which further indicated the possibility of
flash floods.

However, event 3 indicated there is a lag in time to peak and this is due
to higher values of lag time in some basins as previously shown in a
table (4.5). In next sections, calibration for the same simulated period
will be applied conclude all selective events during that period.
Validation process then comes successively (1995-1996).

106
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

4.4.3 Results of Calibration

4.4.3.1 Calibration results at the out let
As previously explained Percent Error in Peak, Peak weighted Route
Mean Squre error, Sum of absolute error and sum of square residuals
used as an objective function and univariate gradient method applied
which adjusted only one parameter for calibrating model for the totally
simulated period. The same procedure will applied for each objective
function will be explained below:

A. Percent Error in Peak: for this objective function there are several
trail in order to get best calibration results and to determine which factor
is most effective

1. First trail (CN): This process started by adjusting CN for the first
trail for all sub-basins however, initial losses and lag time still constant
and the result shown in figure (4.31) which shows comaparion between
observed and simulated hydrograph. Table (4.11) shows the intial and
optimal parmeter after this trail and Table (4.12) result of summary table
after this trail. Second and third trail see ( Appendix A).

107
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

108
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Table.4.11: Intail and optimized parameter after first trail of calibration

Table 4.12: Summary results of simulation after optimization

Measured Observed Simulated

Peak flow M³/S 202.2 153.4

Volume MM³ 17.47 13.23

Time of peak 5 Nov. 1994 23 Nov. 1994

B. Peak wighted Route Mean Squre error, Sum of absolute

error, and sum of squre residuls:
The earlier procedure will be followed in these function which is briefly
includes three attempts for each function. Table 4.13 Summarizes the
results of the optimization of all attempts. and Figures that display
results for each trail are presented in (Appendix B).

109
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Table 4.13: Summary of calibration Results conclude all optimization

trails

Objective parameter Peak flow Volume Time

function
CN 153.4 13.25 23 Nov.
Percent Error in 1994
Peak Ia 151.1 13.05 23 Nov.
1994
lag 151 13.04 23 Nov.
1994
Peak wighted CN 152.2 13.15 23 Nov.
RMS error 1994
Ia 151.1 13.05 23 Nov.
1994
lag 169.03 14.6 23 Nov.
1994
Sum of absolute CN 152.5 13.17 23 Nov.
error 1994
Ia 151 13.04 23 Nov.
1994
lag 151 13.04 23 Nov.
1994
sum of squre CN 149.7 12.39 23 Nov.
residuls 1994
Ia 151 13.04 23 Nov.
1994
lag 151 13.04 23 Nov.
1994

From results above its seems that Percent Error in Peak is the most
effective objective function through adjust CN trail and that means CN
is the most sensitive parameter that changing its value (see Table 4.11)
That show optimal parameter of CN) has a great effective on the results
and make simulate peak discharge closer to peak of observed value. On
this basis, it simulation results will be adopted to used its optimal values
in validation process.

110
 Results and Discussion Chapter Four

4.4.3.2 Calibration of Individual Events

The observed and the simulated runoff hydrographs for selected 3 events
are shown in Figure 4.32 to Figure 4.34.

A perusal of Figure 4.32 to figure 4.34 the discharge for all events is
simulated well and the shape of the hydrograph is symmetric with the
observed hydrograph. Table 4.14 display results of peaks discharge after
calibration and percent change is less than before optimization special
for event 2 and event 3, where percent in observed change before
calibration were 41.18 and 37.24 respectively, after optimization became
18.18 and 34.44.

Table 4.14: Comparison of calibrated and observed peak discharge and total
outflow volume with percent change.

Event Peak Discharge (m3/s) Total Outflow Volume (Mm3)

no.
Optimizati Observe Change in Optimiza Observ Change in peak
on d peak tion ed discharge (%)
discharge (%)

1 26 22 18.18 2.24 1.9 15.17

2 92.5 110.7 19.67 7.99 9.56 19.64

3 150.4 202.2 34.44 13 17.47 34.34

111
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.32: Comparsion of calibration and observed hydrograph for Event 1

Fig.4.33: Compartion of calibration and observed hydrograph for Event 2

112
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.34: Compartion of calibration and observed hydrograph for Event 3

4.4.4 Model validation

After automated calibration was done and found out which parameter is
sensitive and get its optimal values then the final value of optimization
parameter were taken as input parameter for validation process but with
different simulation time.

For this research, validation was done for two years (1995
_1996). Figure (4.35),show results of validation compared with observed
flow and table (4.15) show summary results of peak discharge and
volume. Three storm events were selected during validation period,
where first depicts lowest storm, second event a representative of the
medium storm and third event represents highest storm. Table 4.16
demonstrate events period and Figure 4.36 to 4.38 Show their
hydrographs compared with observed.

On the other side, Table 4.17 display results of peaks discharge after
validation and percent change in flow and volume.

113
 Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Table 4.15: Summary results of validation for period 1995-1996

Measured Observed Simulated

Peak flow M³/S 169.6 180.5

Volume MM³ 14.65 15.58

Time of peak 22 Nov. 1996 22 Nov 1996

Table 4.16: Period of selected storm events through validation

Event no. Start data End data

Event 1 1995/12/26 1995/12/31

Event 2 1996/1/14 1996/1/20

Event 3 1996/11/18 1996/11/26

Table 4.17: Comparison of validation and observed peak discharge and total
outflow volume with percent change

Event Peak Discharge (m3/s) Total Outflow Volume (Mm³)

No. Validation Observed Change Validation Observed Change in
in peak peak discharge
discharge (%)
(%)
1 15.3 15.9 3.77 1.32 1.37 3.65

2 10.71 7.7 8.67 11.1

89.2 99.9
3 169.6 180.5 25.61 14.65 15.58 5.9

114
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

115
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.36: Compartion of validation and observed hydrograph for Event 1

Fig.4.37: Compartion of validation and observed hydrograph for Event 2

116
Results and Discussion Chapter Four

Fig.4.38: Compartion of validation and observed hydrograph for Event 3

Figure 4.36 to Figure 4.38 shows that for the computed hydrograph
follows the trend of the observed hydrograph. The peak discharge of
observed is slightly over predicted in all event, but the time to peak
coincides with the observed hydrographs. Table 4.17 Show that percent
change in observed flow and volume was very small, especially in the
first event and this indicates the importance of the impact of the value of
CN that was introduced after the process of calibration, which improved
the performance of the model despite the difference of years.

4.4.5 Evaluation of HEC-HMS Performance

To assess HEC-HMS model performance through calibration and
validation processes a multitude of quantitative statistics were applied. In
this research four statistical indicators were used, coefficient of
correlation (r), coefficient of determination (R²), Nash-Sutcliffe
efficiency (NSE), and standardization root mean squire error (RSR) as
these statistical values recommended by many researcher. Their
explication, limitation and equation are displayed in chapter two.

117
 Results and Discussion Chapter Four

From Table 4.18 show results of statistical analysis for both calibration
and validation, where R value equal 0.751, 0.833 for calibration and
validation respectively these value were accepted and indicated to
strong correlation according to [68].

R² value 0.565 and 0.694 for calibration and validation these value were
agreement with [72], NS value 0.534 and 0.67 were satisfactory and
good according to [73] and finally RSR values were satisfactory
according to [71].
Table 4.18 Statistical Evaluation for calibration and validation processes.

Statistical indicator Calibration Validation

value performance value performance
Coefficient of 0.751 Positive regression 0.833 Positive
correlation (r) regression

Coefficient of 0.565 Acceptable 0.694 Satisfactory

determination (R²)

Nash-Sutcliffe 0.534 Satisfactory 0.67 Good

efficiency (NSE),
Route Mean Square 0.682 Satisfactory 0.7 Satisfactory
Error (RMSE)
RSR= ⁄

118