Journal Pre-proof

Runoff assessment and modeling in arid regions by integration of watershed and

hydrologic models with GIS techniques

Burhan A. Niyazi, Milad H. Masoud, Mohamed Ahmed, Jalal M. Basahi, Mohamed A.

Rashed

PII: S1464-343X(20)30217-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2020.103966
Reference: AES 103966

To appear in: Journal of African Earth Sciences

Received Date: 19 May 2020

Revised Date: 26 July 2020
Accepted Date: 28 July 2020

Please cite this article as: Niyazi, B.A., Masoud, M.H., Ahmed, M., Basahi, J.M., Rashed, M.A.,
Runoff assessment and modeling in arid regions by integration of watershed and hydrologic
models with GIS techniques, Journal of African Earth Sciences (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jafrearsci.2020.103966.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 1 Runoff assessment and modeling in arid regions by integration of
2 watershed and hydrologic models with GIS techniques
3 Burhan A. Niyazi,1,2 Milad H. Masoud,1,3 Mohamed Ahmed,4 Jalal, M. Basahi,2

4 Mohamed A. Rashed1,5

1
5 Water Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80200, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

2
6 Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Management, Faculty of Meteorology,

7 Environment and Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80208,

of
8 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

ro
3
9 Hydrology Department, Desert Research Center, Cairo, Egypt

10 4
-p
Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Texas A&M University—Corpus
re
11 Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA
lP

5
12 Geology Department, Suez Canal University, P.O. Box 41522, Ismailia, Egypt
na

13
ur
Jo

1
14 Abstract

15 Assessment of the flash flood hazard in arid regions is a serious

16 challenge, especially as the climate changes. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

17 lies in one of the most arid regions of the world and is known for recurring

18 flash floods in many basins, particularly in the southwest. Many dams have

19 been constructed in some basins; however, flash floods sometimes cause

20 catastrophic damage for mankind and infrastructure when the floods’

21 intensity and capacity are higher than those the dams and reservoirs were

of
22 intended to contain. This study aims to assess runoff and reservoir capacity

ro
23 of the Jazan Basin in different return periods of rainfall events based on
-p
24 integrations between two models deals with morphometric parameters and
re
25 hydrologic characteristics. These models are, Watershed Modeling System
lP

26 (WMS) and the Hydrological Modeling System (HEC HMS) in addition to

na

27 Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Our results show that the dam peak
ur

28 storage in the condition of zero and full reservoir storage ranges from

55×106 to 98 ×106 m3 and from 84×106 to 124×106 m3, respectively. The

Jo

29

30 corresponding area of the dam reservoir (lake) in all scenarios ranges from

31 9 to 11.3 km2, respectively, for 5 and 100 year return periods. Sub-basins 2

32 and 3 contribute about 56% of the total runoff volume of Jazan Basin, while

33 Sub-basins 1, 4, and 5 contribute about 44%. These results highlight the

34 value of using an integrated modelling approach to assess and mitigate flash

35 flood hazards in arid environments worldwide.

36 Keywords: Flash floods, HEC-HMS, hydrograph, rainfall, runoff, watershed

37

2
38 1. Introduction

39 As the demand for water continues to increase around the world, in general, and in the

40 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), in particular, an imminent near-future challenge grows. A

41 good way to provide sources of fresh water while mitigating threats to humans and

42 infrastructure is to assess and manage flash floods in hilly arid regions. These flash floods are

43 an overwhelming natural risk that has a huge negative impacts, both socially and

44 economically, in different regions of the world (Smith 1999; Munich 2015; Rouf 2015). With

45 the recent implications of worldwide phenomena linked to climate change, the issue of flash

of
46 floods deserves great attention, especially in arid and semi-arid regions (IPCC 2014).

ro
47 -p
Flash flood hazard assessment in arid regions is an important topic that may reduce
re
48 flood-related risks and secure freshwater resources. According to Moser (1997) and Health
lP

49 and Safety Executive (2001), flood and inundation hazard evaluation is a type of water

50 resource management, which can support sustainable development for economic and
na

51 environmental situations. In recent years, numerous traditional studies of flood inundations

ur

52 have been accomplished using classic methods based on geographic information systems
Jo

53 (GIS), remote sensing, and hydrologic models (Sinha et al. 2008; Forkuo 2011; Vojtekova

54 2016; Elfeki et al. 2017; Abdulrazzak et al. 2019).

55 Historical flash-flood management scenarios (FFMSs) depended primarily on

56 engineering constructions such as dams, dykes, culverts, and other structures. New scenarios,

57 however, take into account climate change phenomena that may cause flash floods that

58 exceed the capacities of this engineering infrastructure. According to the World Water

59 Assessment Program (WWAP 2006), the largest number of flood-hazard victims are people

60 living below the poverty line. Therefore, hydrologic and hydraulic models must be integrated

61 to produce high-resolution thematic maps of flood inundation (non-structure tool) in order for

62 FFMS to determine flood prone-areas. Mathematical models are the most-recognized tools,
3
63 and are often implemented to assess flood hazards (Grimaldi et al. 2013; Bahadar et al. 2015;

64 Farooq et al. 2019).

65 Our objective is to evaluate the hydrological characteristics of the Jazan Basin and to

66 map the flood prone-areas in different return periods (5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years). This

67 study aims to maximize the use of water resources (surface water) from the lake behind Jazan

68 Dam to protect it from evaporating. Moreover, this paper aims to decrease the negative

69 effects of floods that result from heavy rainfall, which may occur repeatedly year after year,

70 leaving in its wake destruction, loss of life, and damaged infrastructure.

of
ro
71 This study is based on the integration of GIS modules, the Watershed Modeling System

72 -p
(WMS), and the Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) models. GIS modules deal with
re
73 the DEM processing and analysis of morphometric characteristics, and preparing the inputs
lP

74 for WMS software. The WMS deals with basin delineations, computed model scenarios that

75 are used as digital input data for HEC-HMS. The HEC-HMS, in turn, deals with hydrologic
na

76 equations that control the relationships between rainfall and runoff, generating the
ur

77 hydrographs for different scenarios and rainfall return periods.

Jo

78 2. Study Area

79 Jazan Basin is one of the significant basins in Jazan Province, which is located in the

80 southwest of the KSA and is an important agricultural area (Fig. 1). The main stream of the

81 Jazan Basin flows southwest from the Asir Mountains in the northeast, and eventually drains

82 surface runoff toward the Red Sea. The catchment area of the Jazan Basin is about 1,876 km2,

83 with a length of about 102 km. The Jazan Basin receives an annual rainfall that from 140 to

84 350 mm, and its annual average is about 280 mm (Fig. 2).

85 Jazan Basin is one of many classical wadis in the southwestern part of the KSA. It

86 receives occasional flood events that demolish infrastructure and waste a significant waste of

4
 87 surface water by draining it into the Red Sea. To control flood events, a dam was constructed

88 in the upper part of the catchment area of Wadi Jazan in 1970 (Fig. 1). The Jazan dam is

89 reaches a height of 35 m above the main channel bed. It is 316 m long and 4.4 m wide, with a

90 reservoir capacity of about 51×106 m3 (Ministry of Environment, water and agriculture,

91 2017). Occasionally, flash floods are larger than the reservoir capacity, and surface water

92 overflows to the Red Sea. This causes severe damage in the surrounding area. The study

93 basin is characterized by a semi-arid to humid climate, and receives intensive rainfall events

94 that can cause flash floods in two seasons: summer (August–September) and winter

of
95 (December–January).

ro
96 Geomorphologically, the Jazan Basin is a typical wadi with an upstream, downstream,
-p
97 and piedmont plain with a wide variety of elevations. The elevation of Jazan Basin ranges
re
98 from 0 to 2,872 m above mean sea level (MAMSL) with a mean elevation about 886
lP

99 MAMSL (Fig. 3a). Most of the upstream portion is located in Yemen and is characterized by
na

100 high elevation up to 2,800 MAMSL and very intense rainfall events. The upstream part is
ur

101 steep, with a slop ranging from 15° to 66°, while the downstream and piedmont plain are
Jo

102 characterized by gentle slope that ranges from 0° to 15° (Fig. 3b). The steep slope in the

103 upstream portions leads to high potential for flash flood hazards, while the downstream areas

104 are characterized by high potential for groundwater recharge due to the low slope.

105 Geologically, the Jazan Basin is covered by a wide variety of different types of rocks

106 that belong to ages ranging from the Precambrian to the Quaternary (Fig. 3c). These rocks are

107 affected by intense structural deformation, creating a dense network of lineaments and

108 fractures, which play a major role in groundwater migration and accumulation (Fig. 3d).

109

5
110 3. Material and Methods

111 An integrated approach is adopted to conduct the present study (Fig. 4). In this approach,

112 authors integrate GIS, WMS and HEC-HMS data and techniques in order to achieve the goals

113 stated in the introduction section. Accordingly, the work of this study has been divided into

114 the following phases:

115 3.1 Overall Rainfall Distribution Analysis of the Jazan Basin

116 Based on the annual rainfall data of the entire Jazan Province and its vicinity, 10

of
117 rainfall stations have been in use for time durations ranging from 27 to 53 years (1960–2013)

ro
118 to record mean annual and maximum daily rainfall. Only two rainfall stations are located

119
-p
inside the Jazan Basin itself, so there is a shortage of detailed and systematic studies related
re
120 to rainfall distribution and flood hazard evaluation in the Jazan Basin. Therefore, this study
lP

121 attempts to produce a systematic method for rainfall distribution and analyses that could be
na

122 used in the Jazan Basin and other ungauged basins worldwide to assess flood hazards and

123 propose mitigation scenarios. The results of this study are linked to surface water modelling
ur

124 to estimate the surface runoff in ungauged basins. The systematic method for rainfall analysis
Jo

125 and its distribution in this study is arranged as follows:

126 • Collection of average annual and maximum daily rainfall data from meteorological

127 stations of Wadi Jazan and its vicinities,

128 • Frequency analyses of maximum daily rainfall (mm),

129 • Best-fitting of maximum daily rainfall data using the proper common probability

130 distribution,

131 • Spatial analyses based on GIS technique are implemented for creating isohyetal and

132 zonation maps of the Jazan Basin for different return periods, and

6
133 • Thematic maps generated from the previous step to estimate flash flood hydrographs.

134 Statistical analytical tests (frequency and spatial analyses) concerning rainfall stations

135 inside the Jazan Basin were carried out using the Stormwater Management and Design Aid

136 (SMADA) software. The duration of the obtained rainfall records ranges from 27 to 53 years.

137 Numerous frequency distributions were fit to the maximum daily rainfall for each station to

138 obtain the best distribution. The distribution functions used in this study include normal, two-

139 parameter log-normal, three-parameter log-normal, Pearson type III, log-Pearson type III, and

of
140 Gumbel. Following the example of Chow et al. (1988), we selected the best fit of the

ro
141 distribution function based upon the root mean square error (RMSE).

142
-p
3.2 Satellite Image Analysis for Land Use and Soil Cover for Calculating Curve Number
re
143 (CN)
lP

144 We downloaded satellite images from the Landsat 8 (30-m resolution) acquired on
na

145 May, 8, 2016, and August, 28, 2016, from the Landsat reciprocities

146 (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). The date selection process was guided by cloud-free images.
ur

147 Red (0.64–0.67 µm wavelength), green (0.53–0.59 µm wavelength) and blue (0.45–0.51 µm
Jo

148 wavelength) (4, 3, 2) bands of these images were used to create a natural color composite

149 using the ArcGIS 10.2 image analysis tool. This step combined the three bands to form a

150 multiband image. Lake regions on these images were digitized using ArcGIS 10.2.

151 3.3 Rainfall Runoff Modeling of the Jazan Basin Using WMS and HEC-HMS

152 We modelled the Jazan Basin estimate the runoff from the rainstorms of 5, 10, 25, 50,

153 and 100 year return periods at the dam. Because modeling watersheds integrates GIS and

154 hydrological models, two models were used: WMS 10.1 and HEC-HMS 3.5. WMS 10.1 was

155 developed by the environmental modeling research laboratory of Brigham Young University

7
156 and can perform several operations. These operations include automated basin delineation,

157 geometric parameter calculations, GIS overlay computations, cross-section extraction from

158 terrain data, floodplain delineation and mapping, storm drain analysis, and runoff. Details of

159 the model can be found at Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory (2004). The HEC-

160 HMS, version 3.5, was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is designed to

161 simulate the rainfall–runoff processes of dendritic watershed systems. HEC-HMS allows the

162 modeler to choose between numerous infiltration loss and unit hydrograph parameterizations

163 (HEC 2000). The Soil Conservation Service-CN (SCS-CN) method was used to estimate

of
164 excess rainfall. For the distribution of rainfall over the duration of a storm, the SCS type II

ro
165 hyetograph was used because it is the most commonly used model in arid regions.

166
-p
Authors used the following three scenarios for the study basin:
re
•
lP

167 Lumped scenario;

168 • Routing scenario where two gates of the dam are open and the spillway is operating;
na

169 and
ur

170 • Routing scenario where the spillway is operating and the two gates of the dam are
Jo

171 closed.

172 Phases of the rainfall-runoff model are divided into three sections as follows: basin

173 model (methods and parameters), meteorological model, and model simulations and outputs.

174 3.3.1 Basin Model (Methods and Parameters)

175 The basin model shows hydrologic elements and relationships between them. The first

176 step is to delineate sub-basins within the catchment area. The characteristics of each sub-

177 basin affect the rainfall-runoff process. We used the WMS software with the Advanced

178 Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)-derived DEM (30-m

8
179 resolution) to subdivide the Jazan Basin into six sub-basins, as shown in Figure 5. Sub-basins

180 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 contribute their accumulated runoff to sub-basin 5, which represents the final

181 outlet of the whole Jazan Basin.

182 We used topographic maps (1:50,000 scale) to digitize land use maps of upstream and

183 downstream of the Jazan dam. Land use and soil maps of the study area were used to

184 calculate the CN upstream of the dam for use in HEC-HMS. Time series and paired data were

185 prepared in HEC-HMS. In time series data, we entered rainfall gauge data in the form of

186 specified hyetograph, while the elevation-storage curve of the Jazan reservoir was added to

of
187 the paired datasets to fulfil all the requirements that enable the model to run. For each sub-

ro
188 basin, authors added parameters such as CNs, initial abstraction, impervious area, etc., in
-p
189 WMS. The basin model created by WMS was then exported to the HEC-HMS hydrologic
re
190 model.
lP

191 To model the Jazan Basin, authors selected the SCS-CN method to calculate the
na

192 volume of runoff collected from each sub-basin. The SCS unit hydrograph was selected as
ur

193 the runoff transform method, and the Muskingum method was selected to simulate flow
Jo

194 routing through the streams to the dam. The above-mentioned procedure is explained in detail

195 in the HEC-HMS manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000). The CN of an area is a

196 function of its land use and soil type. This step is accomplished by aggregating the land use

197 and soil type in ArcGIS. The resultant shapefile has detailed areas shared by both land-use

198 and soil-type shape files.

199 After combining the features, each sub-basin can be assigned a CN as described in

200 Technical Release 55 (TR 55) from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS

201 1985). The dam parameters are also fused into the basin model. These parameters include

202 reservoir routing method, outflow structures, storage method, elevation storage, and initial

203 condition, and the inflow is equal to outflow. Six outlets are entered in the model. Each sub-
9
204 basin of the Wadi Jazan catchment is assigned to several hydrological parameters that frame

205 the model for runoff computation: loss rate: SCS-CN, initial loss, transform, lag time,

206 impervious area, and base flow. Each individual sub-basin polygon is characterized by its

207 land use and soil type.

208 After individual identification of areas, an area weighted CN is computed for every

209 sub-basins using the following equation:

∑ (
=

of
∑ 1)

ro
210 where Ai is the area of the polygon i within the basin and CNi is the CN of polygon i.
-p
211 Initial abstraction (Ia; mm) and maximum retention (S; mm) depend on CN and are
re
212 calculated for all sub-basins based on NRCS 1985, using Equations (2) and (3).
lP

(
na

= 0.2
2)
ur

(
Jo

25400
= − 254
3)

213 3.3.2 Meteorological Model

214 The meteorological model is a representation of rainfall quantity and intensity. There

215 are several methods that can be used in HEC-HMS to represent rainfall event over the entire

216 basin. These methods include gauge data, user hyetograph, or the SCS hypothetical storm. In

217 this study, we used the user hyetograph. For the model parameters, authors used a specific

218 user hyetograph that lasted for 24 hours and corresponded to the 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year

219 storms.

10
220 3.3.3 Model Simulations and Outputs

221 This phase includes the model running and outputs, after setting up the previous basin

222 and meteorological models and defining the model controls. The simulation for each event

223 was daily (24 hours) with a 10-minute time interval. Model results of all the runs for each

224 scenario were then collected for all junctions, reaches, and sub-basins especially at the Jazan

225 Dam.

226 4. Results and Discussion

of
227 Based on the available two rainfall stations (stations 505 and 508) located inside the

ro
228 Jazan Basin, Figure 6 shows that the total annual rainfall of the Jazan Basin ranges between

229
-p
84 and 1,292 mm, with an average is about 400 mm at station 505; it ranges between 32 and
re
230 379 mm with an average of about 171 mm at station 508. The maximum daily rainfall in a
lP

231 year ranges between 3 and 112 mm with an average of 51 mm for station 505; it ranges
na

232 between 10 and 107 mm with an average of 44 mm for station 508, as shown in Figure 7. At

233 station 505, there are between 1 and 82 rainy days each year, with an average of about
ur

234 27 days/year, while at station 508 the number of rainy days ranges between 3 and 27, with an
Jo

235 average of about 14 days/year, as shown in Figure 8.

236 Based on the maximum daily rainfall data at the stations inside the Jazan Basin and in

237 the surrounding area, statistical investigation is accomplished through the Weibull method

238 and examined by fitting numerous probability distribution to the values of rainfall. Using

239 SMADA software, created by Eaglin and cited by Wanielista et al. (1995), authors performed

240 many types of distribution analysis to fit the rainfall data to reach the best distribution curve,

241 which matches the actual data of each rainfall station. In this study, authors used the

242 following distribution fitting curves: generalized extreme value, log-normal, three-parameter

243 log-normal, and Gumbel. The best-fitting curve for rainfall distribution depends upon the

11
244 RMSE (Chow et al. 1988). Figure 9 shows the relationship between the maximum daily

245 rainfall and the corresponding return period with the best-fitting distributions. Based on the

246 results of return periods of the maximum daily rainfall, Figure 10 shows the spatial and

247 temporal maps of the forecast rainfall events with different recurrence periods.

248 Based on the Landsat 8 images, we created land use and soil classification maps, and

249 calculated all the areas for each specific category of soil and land use as shown in Figure 11

250 and Table 1. CN was calculated from Table 1 based on NRCS CN 1985, the calculated CN is

251 73, which characterizes high potentiality of surface runoff.

of
ro
252 Storage capacity curves show the relationship between elevation, area, and volume,

253 -p
which are calculated based on the DEM and the actual dam height (35 m) using the WMS.
re
254 The storage capacity curves of the volume and area express the volume of the expected
lP

255 storage and the inundation area of the reservoir (lake), as shown in Figure 12. The irregular

256 shape (zigzag) of the elevation-area curve (Fig. 12b), which it means that there is no change
na

257 in these areas with changing of the corresponding elevations.

ur

258
Jo

259 Authors conducted rainfall-runoff modeling of the studied basin sunder two sets of

260 conditions: zero reservoir storage and full reservoir storage. Each condition comprises three

261 scenarios: lumped, routing with flowing water from the gates and spillway, and routing with

262 closed gates and excess water flowing from the spillway. All inputs and outputs for these

263 scenarios are shown in Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 14 and 15. We applied all three scenarios

264 at different return periods (5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years) based on the return period and

265 probability of the maximum daily rainfall.

266 The input rainfall value ranges from 63 to 114 mm at 5 and 100 year return periods,

267 respectively (Table 2). The information of the spillway includes the crest elevation

12
268 (163 MAMSL), crest length (106 m), number of vents (2), vent geometry (1.6 m ×1.6 m),

269 discharge coefficient (0.6), and the initial reservoir storage (46 MCM), where MCM is 106m3.

270 For both conditions in the lumped scenario (zero and full reservoir storage), the inputs are the

271 basin area (1416.62 km2), lag time (9.7 hours), and CN (73), and the initial abstraction is 19

272 mm. In this scenario, the total inflow equals the total outflow, which ranges from 79.3 MCM

273 for the 5 year return period to 159.6 MCM for the 100 year return period (Table 2). The

274 maximum discharge value ranges from 1,655 to 3,332 m3/s for return periods of 5 and 100

275 years, respectively, with time to peak of about 7 hours. Results of the lumped scenarios show

of
276 that the capacity of the dam reservoir matches the 5 year return period.

ro
277 Both the second and third scenarios in both conditions of the routing with opening,
-p
278 closing gates and operating the spillway, depend on routing the flash flood through six sub-
re
279 basins to the final dam outlet (Fig. 13c). All inputs and outputs are tabulated in Table 3. Sub-
lP

280 basins 2 and 3 are larger than the other sub-basins, which allows these two sub-basins to
na

281 contribute more surface runoff volume (Table 3). For the second scenario, routing flowing
ur

282 water from the open gates and spillway (in the condition of zero reservoir storage), the total
Jo

283 inflow volume equals the total outflow volume, which ranges from 61.56 to 123.79 MCM for

284 the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively (Table 3). The maximum inflow discharge

285 ranges from 2,575.8 to 5,205.9 m3/s for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively, with

286 time to peak of 480 minutes, as shown in Table 3. The maximum outflow discharge ranges

287 from 177.2 to 1152.2 m3/s, and time to peak ranges between 990 and 810 minutes for the 5

288 and 100 year return periods, respectively (Table 3).

289 When the reservoir is full, the total inflow volume is not equal to the total outflow

290 volume. Table 3 shows that the total inflow volume ranges from 61.56 to 123.79 MCM for

291 the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively. The total outflow volume ranges from 107.33

292 to 169.57 MCM for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively. The maximum inflow

13
293 discharge ranges from 2,575.8 to 5,205.9 m3/s for the 5 and 100 year return periods,

294 respectively, with time to peak of 480 minutes (Table 3). The maximum outflow discharge

295 ranges from 852.3 to 1831.4 m3/s, with time to peak ranging between 740 and 730 minutes

296 for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively, as shown in Table 3.

297 The third scenario is routing with closed gates and flowing water through the spillway

298 (zero reservoir storage), and the total inflow volume does not equal the total outflow volume.

299 The total inflow volume ranges from 61.56 to 123.79 MCM for the 5 and 100 year return

300 periods, respectively, as shown in Table 3. The maximum inflow discharge ranges from

of
301 2,575.8 to 5,205.9 m3/s for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively, with a time to

ro
302 peak of 480 minutes (Table 2). The maximum outflow discharge ranges from 147.4 to
-p
303 1,121.8 m3/s, with time to peak ranging between 1020 and 810 minutes for the 5 and 100 year
re
304 return periods, respectively, as shown in Table 3.
lP

305 When the reservoir is full, the total inflow volume is equal to the total outflow volume,
na

306 which ranges from 61.56 to 123.79 MCM for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively.
ur

307 The maximum inflow discharge ranges from 2,575.8 to 5,205.9 m3/s for the 5 and 100 year
Jo

308 return periods, respectively, with a time to peak of 480 minutes (Table 3). The maximum

309 outflow discharge ranges from 830.7 to 1,809.1 m3/s, with a time to peak of 740 minutes for

310 the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively (Table 3). The calculated dam peak storage in

311 the condition of zero and full reservoir storage ranges from 55 to 98 MCM, and from 84 to

312 124 MCM, respectively, as shown in Table 3. The corresponding area of the dam reservoir

313 (lake) in all scenarios ranges from 9 to 11.3 km2 for the 5 and 100 year return periods,

314 respectively.

315 The results in Table 2 and 3 show that sub-basins 2 and 3 both contribute about 56%,

316 while the other sub-basins (1, 4, and 6) contribute 44% of the total runoff volume at the outlet

317 of the Jazan Basin (at sub-basin 5) as shown in Figure 5, and Tables 2 and 3.
14
318 Relationships between rainfall and runoff for the lumped and routing scenarios were created

319 as shown in (Fig. 16). This relations shows that the runoff volume for the lumped scenario is

320 greater than the routing scenarios. In the routing scenarios the surface runoff takes long travel

321 time to reach the final outlet, while in the lumped the travel time is short.

322 The groundwater potentiality in this basin, depends on the hydrologic characteristics of the

323 shallow aquifer and also the time of concentration of the hydrographs. In this study the

324 downstream area is characterized by high potentiality of groundwater recharge where the

325 curve number of this area is low, it is composed of conglomerates, gravel and sands in

of
326 addition its gentle slope. While the upstream portions of the study basin is characterized by

ro
327 high potential of surface runoff where it composed of hard rocks of fractured basement with
-p
328 high value of curve number.
re
lP

329 General Discussion

na

330 Flash flood estimation and modeling in arid regions is a serious and complicated issue

331 because the lack of trusted hydrological records. This study is an attempt to overcome the
ur

332 data scarcity problem through the integration of Watershed Modeling System, HEC HMS and
Jo

333 GIS techniques. The used data include digital elevation models (30 m resolution), geological

334 maps (1; 250000), topographic maps (1:50000), data from two rainfall stations (daily rainfall

335 data) for about 46 to 52 years.

336 Based on the maximum daily rainfall data at the stations inside the studied basin and

337 in the surrounding area, statistical investigation is accomplished through the Weibull method

338 and examined by fitting numerous probability distribution to the values of rainfall using

339 SMADA software. Spatial and temporal maps of the forecast rainfall events with different

340 recurrence periods are created. Based on the Landsat 8 images, land use and soil

15
341 classification maps have been created and CN is found to be equal to 73, which characterizes

342 high potentiality of surface runoff.

343 Storage capacity curves are calculated using WMS based on the DEM and the actual

344 dam height (35 m). The calculated storage capacity is 51×106 m3 which covers an area of the

345 lake is about 9 km2.

346 Rainfall-runoff relationship of the studied basin is estimated and modeled under two

347 sets of conditions; zero reservoir storage and full reservoir storage. Each condition comprises

of
348 three scenarios: lumped, routing with flowing water from the gates and spillway, and routing

ro
349 with closed gates and excess water flowing from the spillway. All the modeled scenarios are

350 -p
applied at different return periods of 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years, based on the return period
re
351 and probability of the maximum daily rainfall.
lP

352 The input rainfall value ranges from 63 to 114 mm at 5 and 100 year return periods

353 with initial reservoir storage of 46×106m3. For both conditions in the lumped scenario (zero
na

354 and full reservoir storage), the total inflow equals the total outflow, which ranges from
ur

355 79.3×106m3 to 159.6×106m3 at 5 and 100 years return period, respectively. The maximum
Jo

356 discharge value ranges from 1,655 to 3,332 m3/s for return periods of 5 and 100 years,

357 respectively, with time to peak of about 7 hours. Results of the lumped scenarios show that

358 the capacity of the dam reservoir matches the 5 year return period.

359 For the second scenario, routing flowing water from the open gates and spillway (in

360 the condition of zero reservoir storage), the total inflow volume equals the total outflow

361 volume, which ranges from 61.56×106m3 to 123.79 ×106m3 for the 5 and 100 year return

362 periods, respectively. The maximum inflow discharge ranges from 2,575.8 to 5,205.9 m3/s for

363 the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively, with time to peak of 8 hours. The maximum

16
364 outflow discharge ranges from 177.2 to 1152.2 m3/s, and time to peak ranges between 16.5

365 and 13.5 hours for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively.

366 When the reservoir is full, the total inflow volume does not equal the total outflow

367 volume. The calculated total inflow volume ranges from 61.56×106m3 to 123.79×106m3 for

368 the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively. The total outflow volume ranges from

369 107.33×106m3 to 169.57×106m3 for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively. The

370 maximum inflow discharge ranges from 2,575.8 to 5,205.9 m3/s for the 5 and 100 year return

371 periods, respectively, with time to peak of 8 hours. The maximum outflow discharge ranges

of
372 from 852.3 to 1831.4 m3/s, with time to peak of about 12 hours for both 5 and 100 year return

ro
373 periods. -p
re
374 The third scenario is routing with closed gates and flowing water through the spillway
lP

375 (zero reservoir storage), and the total inflow volume does not equal the total outflow volume.

376 The total inflow volume ranges from 61.56×106m3 to 123.79×106m3 for the 5 and 100 year
na

377 return periods, respectively. The maximum inflow discharge ranges from 2,575.8 to 5,205.9
ur

378 m3/s for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively, with a time to peak of 8 hours. The
Jo

379 maximum outflow discharge ranges from 147.4 to 1,121.8 m3/s, with time to peak ranging

380 between 17 hours for 5 years return period and 13.5 hours for 100 year return periods.

381 When the reservoir is full, the total inflow volume is equal to the total outflow

382 volume, which ranges from 61.56×106m3 to 123.79 ×106m3 for the 5 and 100 year return

383 periods, respectively. The maximum inflow discharge ranges from 2,575.8 to 5,205.9 m3/s for

384 the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively, with a time to peak of 8 hours. The maximum

385 outflow discharge ranges from 830.7 to 1,809.1 m3/s, with a time to peak of 12.3 hours for

386 the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively. The calculated dam peak storage in the

387 condition of zero and full reservoir storage ranges from 55×106m3 to 98×106m3, and from

17
388 84×106m3 to 124×106m3, respectively. The corresponding area of the dam reservoir (lake) in

389 all scenarios ranges from 9 to 11.3 km2 for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively.

390 The results show that both sub-basins 2 and 3 contribute about 56%, while the other

391 sub-basins (1, 4, and 6) contribute the rest of 44% of the total runoff volume at the outlet of

392 the Jazan Basin.

393

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

18
394 5. Conclusions

395 Assessing flash flood hazards in arid regions is a serious challenge, especially with the

396 foreseen climate changes and in conditions where data is scarce, especially in the KSA. Under

397 conditions of the hydrologic data scarcity, this study aims to assess the relationships between

398 rainfall, runoff, and reservoir capacity of the Jazan Basin based on integration between

399 hydrologic and hydraulic models. The models used to do this are WMS, HEC-HMS, and GIS.

of
400 Rainfall-runoff modeling of the studied basin is conducted under two conditions: zero

ro
401 reservoir storage and full reservoir storage. Each condition comprises three scenarios: lumped,

402 -p
routing with flowing water from the gates and spillway, and routing with closed gates and
re
403 flowing of the excess water from the spillway. These three scenarios were applied to different

404 return periods (5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years), based on the return period and probable maximum
lP

405 daily rainfall.

na

406 The corresponding area of the dam reservoir (lake) in all scenarios ranges from 9 to
ur

407 11.3 km2 for the 5 and 100 year return periods, respectively. Results show that sub-basins 2 and
Jo

408 3 together contribute about 56%, while the other sub-basins (1, 4, and 6) contribute 44% of the

409 total runoff volume at the outlet of the Jazan Basin (at sub-basin 5).

410 This study proved that the integration between morphometric parameters of the basin,

411 GIS techniques and hydrologic models is a very important, supportive tool for forcing the

412 scarcity of the hydrologic measurements and to understand the hydrologic behavior of the

413 hydrographic basins. This study shows that it is very important to install telemetric rainfall and

414 runoff stations at the constructed dams to confirm the relation between rainfall and runoff.

415 Before the rainy seasons begin, one gate of the Jazan Dam should be opened to replenish the

416 shallow groundwater aquifer, and to avoid overload above the dam.

19
417 Acknowledgements

418 Fund was provided by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz

419 University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia under grant number RG-2-123-39. Authors, therefore,

420 acknowledge with thanks DSR technical and financial support.

421

422

of
423

ro
424

425
-p
re
lP

426

427
na

428
ur

429
Jo

430

431

432

433

434

20
435 References

436 Abdulrazzak M, Elfeki A, Kamis A, Kassab M, Alamri N, Chaabani A, Noor K (2019) Flash

437 flood risk assessment in urban arid environment: case study of Taibah and Islamic

438 universities’ campuses, Medina, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Geomatics, Natural Hazards

439 and Risk, 10(1):780–796. DOI: 10.1080/19475705.2018.1545705

440 Bahadar I, Shafique M, Khan T, Tabassum I, Ali MZ (2015) Flood hazard assessment using

of
441 hydro-dynamic model and GIS/RS tools: a case study of Babuzai-Kabal Tehsil Swat

ro
442 Basin. Journal of Himalayan Earth Sciences 48(2):129–138

443 -p
Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays L (1988) Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York
re
444 Elfeki A, Masoud M, Niyazi B (2017) Integrated rainfall-runoff and flood inundation modeling
lP

445 for flash flood risk assessment under data scarcity in arid regions: Wadi Fatimah basin

446 case study, Saudi Arabia. Nat Haz. 85(1):87–109

na

447 Environmental Modeling Systems, Inc. [EMS-I] (2004) Watershed Modeling System, Version
ur

448 7.1. http://www.ems-i.com/WMS/WMS_Overview/wms_overview .html. Accessed 11

Jo

449 February 2020

450 Farooq M, Shafique M, Khattak MS (2019) Flood hazard assessment and mapping of River Swat

451 using HEC-RAS 2D model and high-resolution 12-m TanDEM-X DEM (WorldDEM).

452 Nat Hazards. 97:477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03638-9

453 Forkuo EK (2011) Flood hazard mapping using Aster Image data with GIS. Int J Geomat Geosci.

454 1(4):932–950

455 Grimaldi S, Petroselli A, Arcangeletti E, Nardi F (2013) Flood mapping in ungauged basins

456 using fully continuous hydrologic–hydraulic modeling. J Hydrol 487:39–47

21
457 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people – HSE’s decision

458 making process. London: HMSO

459 Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) (2000) Hydrologic modeling system HEC–HMS:

460 Technical reference manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering

461 Center, Davis, California

462 IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and

of
463 III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ro
464 [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)], Geneva

465 -p
Ministry of Environment, water and agriculture (2017), internal report in
re
466 Arabic.https://www.mewa.gov.sa/ar/InformationCenter/Researchs/Reports/Pages/default
lP

467 aspx (Accessed in 15 January 2020)

468 Moser DA (1997) The use of risk analysis by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alexandria,
na

469 VA: Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ur

470 Munich RE (2015) NatCatSERVICE loss events worldwide 1980–2014. Munich: Munich
Jo

471 Reinsurance.

472 https://www.munichre.com/site/touchnaturalhazards/get/documents_E2080665585/

473 mr/assetpool.shared/Documents/5_Touch/_NatCatService/Focus_analyses/1980-2014-

474 Loss event s-worldwide.pdf. Accessed 11February 2020

475 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS (1985) National engineering handbook, section

476 4: hydrology. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering

477 Division, Washington

22
478 Rouf T (2015): Flood inundation map of Sirajgonj district using mathematical model. MSc

479 Thesis. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka

480 Sinha R, Bapalu GV, Singh LK, Rath B (2008) Flood risk analysis in the Kosi river basin, north

481 Bihar using multi-parametric approach of analytical hierarchy process (AHP). J Indian

482 Soc Remote Sens. 36(4):335–349

483 Smith DI (1999) Floods: physical processes and human impacts by K. Smith and R. Ward, 1998.

of
484 Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 24, 569–569.

ro
485 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199906)24:6<569::AID-ESP985>3.0.CO;2-W

486 -p
Vojtek M, Vojtekova` J (2016) Flood hazard and flood risk assessment at the local spatial scale:
re
487 a case study. Geomat Nat Haz Risk. 7(6):1973–1992
lP

488 Wanielista MP, Kersten R, Eaglin R (1995) Hydrology water quantity and quality control, Wiley

489 and Sons, 2nd Edition

na

490 World Water Assessment Program (WWAP (2006) Water, a shared responsibility. UN world
ur

491 water assessment report 2. Paris.

Jo

492

23
 Weighted
Matrix Calculating CN Land Area (m2) %
No. CNi CNi for
Use—Soil (Ai) Area
Each Area
1 Alluvium—Sparse Shrubs 45.00 22.56 1.22 0.55
2 Alluvium—Urban 72.00 9.67 0.52 0.38
3 Alluvium—Agriculture 50.00 175.35 9.52 4.76
4 Alluvium—Bare Soil 64.00 0.81 0.04 0.03
5 Rock outcrops—Sparse Shrubs 77.00 1466.56 79.61 61.30
Rock outcrops—Natural
6 80.00 2.89 0.16 0.13

of
Vegetation
7 Rock outcrops—Urban 74.00 8.12 0.44 0.33

ro
8 Rock outcrops—Agriculture 74.00 45.74 2.48 1.84
9 Rock outcrops—Bare Soil 80.00
-p 36.03 1.96 1.56
10 Shallow Sand—Sparse Shrubs 70.00 1.45 0.08 0.05
re
11 Shallow Sand—Urban 70.00 5.83 0.32 0.22
12 Shallow Sand—Agriculture 60.00 47.54 2.58 1.55
lP

13 Sabkha—Urban 62.00 7.41 0.40 0.25

14 Sabkha—Agriculture 60.00 12.30 0.67 0.40
na

15 Sabkha—Bare Soil 60.00 18.48 1.00 0.60

16 Rock outcrops—water 100.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
ur

Total 1842.28 100.00 73.34

Table 1 CN calculation based on land use and soil classification
Jo

1
 Table 2 Inputs and outputs of the integrated rainfall-runoff modeling based on GIS, WMS and HECHMS (zero storage in the dam)

Lumped
Routing scenario open two gates and spillway Routing scenario close two gates and only spillway
scenario
Basin and sub-basins
All Jazan Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Dam Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-Basin Dam

Basin 1 2 3 4 6 outlet (5) 1 2 3 4 6 outlet (5)

Outlet 9C 10C 11C 12C 14C 13C 9C 10C 11C 12C 14C 13C

f
2
Area (km ) 1416.62 92.01 406.90 384.05 133.34 216.64 1416.62 92.01 406.90 384.05 133.34 216.64 1416.62

o
CN 73

ro
Ia (mm) 19

-p
Input parameters

Lag Time (hours) 9.7 1.91 3.35 4.14 4.79 4.30 4.52 1.91 3.35 4.14 4.79 4.30 4.52

re
5 Years 63

10 Years 76
Rainfall (mm)

lP
25 Years 91

50 Years 103

na
100 Years 114

Q max inflow (m /s)

Tp inflow (min)
3
1655.00

400
321.90

310 ur 935.20

400
746.80

450
229.70

490
407.60

460
2575.80

480
321.90

310
935.20

400
746.80

450
229.70

490
407.60

460
2575.80

480
Jo
Volume inflow MCM 79.30 4.00 17.68 16.69 5.79 9.41 61.56 4.00 17.68 16.69 5.79 9.41 61.56
3
Q max outflow (m /s) 1655.00 313.30 889.90 702.20 221.40 393.40 177.20 313.30 889.90 702.20 221.40 393.40 147.40
5

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 990 330 450 510 540 510 1020
Return periods (year)
Output parameters

Volume outflow MCM 79.30 4.00 17.68 16.69 5.79 9.41 61.47 4.00 17.68 16.69 5.79 9.41 15.30

Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 55.28 - - - - - 57.93

3
Q max inflow (m /s) 2051.50 403.70 1167.70 930.70 285.90 507.40 3206.60 403.70 1167.70 930.70 285.90 507.40 3206.60

Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

Volume inflow MCM 98.20 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 76.20 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 76.20
10

Q max outflow (m3/s) 2051.50 392.70 1110.50 874.40 275.40 489.80 390.00 392.70 1110.50 874.40 275.40 489.80 362.90

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 900 330 450 510 540 510 910

Volume outflow MCM 98.20 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 76.11 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 29.11
2
 Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 65.55 - - - - - 67.76
3
Q max inflow (m /s) 2565.10 501.10 1452.10 1159.10 356.40 632.60 3998.00 501.10 1452.10 1159.10 356.40 632.60 3998.00

Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

Volume inflow MCM 122.90 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 95.36 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 95.36
3
Q max outflow (m /s) 2565.10 487.50 1381.70 1089.30 343.30 610.40 698.90 487.50 1381.70 1089.30 343.30 610.40 669.80
25

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 850 330 450 510 540 510 860

Volume outflow MCM 122.90 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 95.28 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 49.05

f
Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 78.02 - - - - - 80.03

o
3
Q max inflow (m /s) 2950.90 580.20 1678.40 1337.90 411.00 730.10 4610.70 580.20 1678.40 1337.90 411.00 730.10 4610.70

ro
Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

-p
Volume inflow MCM 141.30 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 109.62 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 109.62
3
Q max outflow (m /s) 2950.90 564.40 1596.10 1256.80 395.90 704.10 923.60 564.40 1596.10 1256.80 395.90 704.10 895.60

re
50

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 820 330 450 510 540 510 830

lP
Volume outflow MCM 141.30 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 109.62 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 63.31

Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 87.13 - - - - - 89.08

na
Q max inflow (m3/s) 3332.00 654.00 1893.00 1509.90 464.00 824.00 5205.90 654.00 1893.00 1509.90 464.00 824.00 5205.90

Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

Volume inflow MCM 159.60 8.04 ur

35.55 35.56 11.65 18.93 123.79 8.04 35.55 35.56 11.65 18.93 123.79
Jo
Q max outflow (m3/s) 3332.00 636.10 1800.70 1418.40 446.80 794.80 1152.20 636.10 1800.70 1418.40 446.80 794.80 1121.80
100

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 810 330 450 510 540 510 810

Volume outflow MCM 159.60 8.04 35.55 33.56 11.65 18.93 123.71 8.04 35.55 33.56 11.65 18.93 77.47

Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 96.03 - - - - - 97.95

3
 Table 3 Inputs and outputs of the integrated rainfall-runoff modeling based on GIS, WMS, and HECHMS (while the dam is full)
Lumped
Routing scenario open two gates and spillway Routing scenario close two gates and only spillway
scenario
Basin and sub-basins
All Jazan Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Dam Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-Basin Dam

Basin 1 2 3 4 6 outlet (5) 1 2 3 4 6 outlet (5)

Outlet 9C 10C 11C 12C 14C 13C 9C 10C 11C 12C 14C 13C

Area (km2) 1416.62 92.01 406.90 384.05 133.34 216.64 1416.62 92.01 406.90 384.05 133.34 216.64 1416.62

f
CN 73

o
ro
Ia (mm) 19
Input parameters

Lag Time (hours) 9.7 1.91 3.35 4.14 4.79 4.30 4.52 1.91 3.35 4.14 4.79 4.30 4.52

-p
5 Years 63

re
10 Years 76
Rainfall (mm)

25 Years 91

lP
50 Years 103

na
100 Years 114
3
Q max inflow (m /s) 1655.00 321.90 935.20 746.80 229.70 407.60 2575.80 321.90 935.20 746.80 229.70 407.60 2575.80

Tp inflow (min)

Volume inflow MCM

400

79.30
310

4.00
ur 400

17.68
450

16.69
490

5.79
460

9.41
480

61.56
310

4.00
400

17.68
450

16.69
490

5.79
460

9.41
480

61.56
Jo
3
Q max outflow (m /s) 1655.00 313.30 889.90 702.20 221.40 393.40 852.30 313.30 889.90 702.20 221.40 393.40 830.70
5

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 740 330 450 510 540 510 740
Return periods (year)
Output parameters

Volume outflow MCM 79.30 4.00 17.68 16.69 5.79 9.41 107.33 4.00 17.68 16.69 5.79 9.41 61.12

Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 84.31 - - - - - 86.57

3
Q max inflow (m /s) 2051.50 403.70 1167.70 930.70 285.90 507.40 3206.60 403.70 1167.70 930.70 285.90 507.40 3206.60

Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

Volume inflow MCM 98.20 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 76.20 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 76.20
10

3
Q max outflow (m /s) 2051.50 392.70 1110.50 874.40 275.40 489.80 1083.60 392.70 1110.50 874.40 275.40 489.80 1060.00

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 740 330 450 510 540 510 740

Volume outflow MCM 98.20 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 121.97 4.95 21.88 20.66 7.17 11.65 75.74

4
 Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 93.30 - - - - - 95.52
3
Q max inflow (m /s) 2565.10 501.10 1452.10 1159.10 356.40 632.60 3998.00 501.10 1452.10 1159.10 356.40 632.60 3998.00

Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

Volume inflow MCM 122.90 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 95.36 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 95.36
3
Q max outflow (m /s) 2565.10 487.50 1381.70 1089.30 343.30 610.40 1384.30 487.50 1381.70 1089.30 343.30 610.40 1363.80
25

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 740 330 450 510 540 510 740

Volume outflow MCM 122.90 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 141.14 6.19 27.39 25.85 8.97 14.58 94.89

f
Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 104.88 - - - - - 107.08

o
3
Q max inflow (m /s) 2950.90 580.20 1678.40 1337.90 411.00 730.10 4610.70 580.20 1678.40 1337.90 411.00 730.10 4610.70

ro
Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

-p
Volume inflow MCM 141.30 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 109.62 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 109.62
3
Q max outflow (m /s) 2950.90 564.40 1596.10 1256.80 395.90 704.10 1607.90 564.40 1596.10 1256.80 395.90 704.10 1583.90

re
50

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 730 330 450 510 540 510 740

lP
Volume outflow MCM 141.30 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 155.40 7.12 31.49 29.72 10.32 16.76 109.15

Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 113.52 - - - - - 115.73

na
Q max inflow (m3/s) 3332.00 654.00 1893.00 1509.90 464.00 824.00 5205.90 654.00 1893.00 1509.90 464.00 824.00 5205.90

Tp inflow (min) 400 310 400 450 490 460 480 310 400 450 490 460 480

Volume inflow MCM 159.60 8.04 ur

35.55 35.56 11.65 18.93 123.79 8.04 35.55 35.56 11.65 18.93 123.79
Jo
Q max outflow (m3/s) 3332.00 636.10 1800.70 1418.40 446.80 794.80 1831.40 636.10 1800.70 1418.40 446.80 794.80 1809.10
100

Tp outflow (min) 400 330 450 510 540 510 730 330 450 510 540 510 740

Volume outflow MCM 159.60 8.04 35.55 33.56 11.65 18.93 169.57 8.04 35.55 33.56 11.65 18.93 123.11

Dam peak storage MCM - - - - - - 122.06 - - - - - 124.25

5
 Fig. 1 Location map of Jazan Basin

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Fig. 2 Isohyetal map of the Jazan Basin

1
 of
ro
-p
re
lP

Fig. 3 Thematic maps of the Jazan Basin: (a) digital elevation model (DEM), (b) slope map,

(c) geological map, and (d) surface lineament map.

na
ur
Jo

2
Data Collection DEM

Landsat Satellite Management and

ARC GIS
Rainfall Images Processing of the
Geospatial Data

Storm Pattern
Soil Type and Land
(SMADA)
Use (Curve Number)

HEC-HMS (Rainfall-Runoff Modeling) based upon:-

Basin Model Watershed Modeling
Meteorological Model System 10.0 (WMS):

of
Time Series Data Interface to Model
Paired Data

ro
Hydrogeological-
morphological Analysis of
the Study Area
Output Flood
Hydrographs
-p (Morphometric
Parameters)
re
lP

Fig. 4 Flowchart of the integrated rainfall-runoff model

na
ur
Jo

Fig. 5 Classification of the Jazan Basin into six sub-basins

3
 of
Fig. 6 Time series of annual rainfall at stations 505 and 508 in Jazan Basin

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur

Fig. 7 Time series of maximum daily rainfall at stations 505 and 508 in Jazan Basin
Jo

Fig. 8 Number of rainy days at stations 505 and 508 in Jazan Basin

4
Fig. 9 Rainfall event frequency for stations 505 and 508 in Jazan Basin, according to best

of
probability distribution

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

5
 (a) (b)

of
ro
(c) (d)
-p
re
lP
na
ur

(e)
Jo

Fig. 10 Spatial and temporal maps of forecast rainfall events with recurrence periods of:

(a) 5 years, (b) 10 years, (c) 25 years, (d) 50 years, and (e) 100 years

6
 (a) (b)

Fig. 11 (a) Land use and (b) soil classification maps of Jazan Basin

of
ro
(a) (b)

-p
re
lP
na

Fig. 12 Capacity curve (a) and corresponding area (b) for Wadi Jazan reservoir
ur
Jo

7
 of
(a) (b) (c)

ro
-p
re
lP
na

(d) (e) (f)

ur
Jo

(g) (h)
Fig. 13 Dam lake spatial distribution on the upstream side of the proposed dam and inundation
areas: (a) actual lake in 2019 (lake area = 5.2 km2), (b) theoretical lake based on DEM (lake area
= 10.9 km2), (c) different shapes at different return periods, (d) 5 years (lake area = 9 km2),
(e) 10 years (lake area = 9.1 km2), (f) 25 years (lake area = 10.0 km2), (g) 50 years (lake area =
11.3 km2), and (h) 100 years (lake area = 11.3 km2)

8
 a (5 Years) b (10 Years)

of
ro
-p
re
lP

c (25 Years) d (50 Years)

na
ur
Jo

e (100 Years)

Fig. 14 Hydrographs of the Jazan Dam reservoir routing from the dam spillway during periods of

zero storage: (a) 5-year return period, (b) 10-year return period, (c) 25-year return period,

(d) 50-year return period, and (e) 100-year return period

9
 (5 Years) b (10 Years)

of
ro
-p
re
lP

c (25 Years) d (50 Years)

na
ur
Jo

e (100 Years)

Fig. 15 Hydrographs of Jazan dam reservoir routing from dam spillway during periods of full

storage: (a) 5-year return period, (b) 10-year return period, (c) 25-year return period, (d) 50-year

return period, and (e) 100-year return period

10
 Lumped scenario Routing scenario

of
ro
Fig. 16 Rainfall runoff relationship of the lumped and routing scenarios

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

11
• Assessment and modeling of the runoff in arid regions is a serious challenge, especially
with data scarcity and as the climate changes,

• Runoff modeling, and reservoir capacity using two models of Watershed Modeling
System and the Hydrological Modeling System,

• Based on the hydrological characteristics the watershed it could be inundate the expected
lake-areas in different return periods of rainfall events,

• Runoff modeling it could be decrease the negative effects of floods that result from heavy
rainfall.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of Interest Statement

I declare that there is no conflict of interest.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo