Bab 4. Hydrology - Laporan Final FFEWS - Han AI

CHAPTER IV.
HIDROLOGY AND HIDRAULICS MODELING

Consultant Services for Development, Installation and Final Report
Interconnection of Flood Forecasting and Early Warning
System (FFEWS) For Ciujung River
CHAPTER IV. HYDROLOGY AND

HYDRAULICS MODELING
4.1. HYDROLOGICAL MODELING
Hydrological modeling is a vital process that integrates various stages to

analyze and understand the behavior of water flow within a hydrological
system. The initial stage involves determining the boundaries of the
watershed. This fundamental step determines the geographic area where
rainfall is collected and directed to a specific point within the system.
Accurately identifying these boundaries ensures that all relevant sources
of flow are included in the analysis, providing a strong foundation for
subsequent stages.
Once the boundaries are established, the next step is to create a model
schema in HEC-HMS. HEC-HMS, one of the leading hydrological
modeling software, allows users to visualize and organize key elements of
the watershed, such as sub-basins, flow paths, and reservoirs, in a
structured and systematic format. With this schema, the hydrological
system is divided into analyzable and integratable components.
Next, determining the parameters within the model is a critical stage.

This involves assigning variables and key coefficients that depict the
hydrological characteristics of the watershed, such as soil infiltration
rate, storage capacity, and surface flow coefficients. Each of these
parameters influences how water moves and interacts with the
environment, thus the accuracy of these parameters greatly affects the
quality of the model results.
Calibration is the next important step. Through calibration, model

parameters are adjusted to ensure that the output of the model
simulations matches actual observation data, such as historical river
flow records. This process ensures that the model can replicate real
conditions with good accuracy and thus can be relied upon for future
simulations.
Chapter 4 - 1
During the fifth stage, rainfall frequency calculations are performed for
each rainfall station. This allows for the analysis of rainfall frequency and
understanding how often certain rainfall events can be expected to occur.
This information is crucial in the context of infrastructure planning and
flood risk management.
The final stage in this modeling process is the determination of rainfall

scenarios. Based on the computed rainfall frequency data, various
rainfall scenarios with different intensities, durations, and distributions
can be developed and analyzed. This enables stakeholders to understand
the potential impacts of different rainfall events and make informed
decisions in dealing with them.
With this systematic approach, hydrological modeling provides in-depth

insights into the hydrological system and facilitates informed decision-
making in dealing with complex hydrological challenges.
4.1.1. Watersheds Delineation
The determination of Watershed boundaries (Daerah Aliran Sungai/DAS)

is conducted using ArcGIS software, following the steps outlined in
Figure 4.1. The figure shows the process of watershed delineation from
start to finish. The National Digital Elevation Model (DEMNAS) data is
used as the basis for topographic analysis. If multiple DEM maps exist,
the first step is to merge them, a process known as "DEM Merging,"
followed by mosaic to combine multiple images into one. Next, the data is
converted to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection to ensure
spatial accuracy. Errors in the DEM are corrected through "DEM
Reconditioning," and areas in the DEM where water might be trapped or
"sinks" are filled to ensure an accurate water flow model. Subsequently,
flow direction is identified based on DEM gradients, and flow
accumulation is calculated to give an overview of where the highest water
flow occurs. This is used to define rivers or streams. The next steps
involve determining the boundaries of the watershed, processing the
watershed polygon, identifying and processing drainage links, and
analyzing the contributing catchment areas to each point in the drainage
network. Finally, reference points are created for hydrological analysis,
Chapter 4 - 2
and the boundaries of the Watershed (DAS) or catchment areas are

determined for each identified point.
Figure 4.1. Flow diagram of Watershed Delineation
The results of the delineation of the Ciujung Watershed boundaries

obtained a total of 105 sub-watersheds, as shown in Figure 4.2. The
number of sub-watersheds obtained is 105 with varying sizes. Table 4.1.
illustrates the hydrological characteristics of various sub-basin
Watersheds (DAS) sections, each with a unique code. The information
provided for each subsection includes the area of the Watershed, length
of the longest flow, and the distance from the longest flow to the midpoint
or centroid. From the available data, "W-530" stands out with the largest
Watershed area of 83.38 km2, the longest flow of 49.65 km, and a
Chapter 4 - 3
distance from the longest flow to the centroid of 26.72 km. On the other
hand, "W-20" accounts for the smallest Watershed area with only 0.05
km2, but with a longest flow of 0.49 km and a distance to the centroid of
only 0.28 km.
Figure 4.2. DAS division of Ciujung Watershed in HEC-HMS model
Table 4.1. Geometry Details of Sub-DAS in the Ciujung Watershed

Watershed
Sub-DAS Longest Flow (L) Longest Flow to
No. Area (A)
Code (km) Centroid (LCT) (km)
(km2)
1 W-10 5.58 19.96 9.57

2 W-20 0.05 0.49 0.28
3 W-30 11.11 11.85 4.99
4 W-40 11.55 11.80 6.60
5 W-50 25.16 16.01 9.37
6 W-60 45.68 20.52 6.80
7 W-70 2.82 5.77 4.04
8 W-80 24.95 20.86 6.10
9 W-90 38.29 33.42 25.89
10 W-100 1.97 4.44 1.98
11 W-110 13.00 17.77 8.35
12 W-120 29.91 20.49 9.22
13 W-130 28.88 28.34 13.80
14 W-140 33.82 36.85 19.30
15 W-150 1.18 2.78 1.28
16 W-160 6.28 8.84 3.73
17 W-170 1.53 3.79 3.11
18 W-180 0.44 1.38 0.67
19 W-190 14.14 10.91 5.30
Chapter 4 - 4
Watershed
No. Area (A)
(km2)
20 W-200 0.22 0.90 0.34

21 W-210 10.76 9.97 4.41
22 W-220 0.69 2.16 1.04
23 W-230 17.02 11.25 5.37
24 W-240 6.19 10.40 4.10
25 W-250 12.39 12.21 4.27
26 W-260 9.68 8.23 4.72
27 W-270 31.30 20.11 9.82
28 W-280 42.45 27.57 14.73
29 W-290 38.42 24.42 8.85
30 W-300 31.35 15.26 8.68
31 W-310 12.63 9.82 4.65
32 W-320 16.89 12.87 7.77
33 W-330 5.31 5.53 2.79
34 W-340 18.01 11.64 5.62
35 W-350 25.76 16.87 6.59
36 W-360 14.08 11.44 6.01
37 W-370 41.08 22.17 16.23
38 W-380 25.33 20.58 11.63
39 W-390 16.89 12.39 4.82
40 W-400 11.35 18.71 11.42
41 W-410 14.67 16.73 7.01
42 W-420 12.53 10.44 6.15
43 W-430 23.19 28.71 13.29
44 W-440 12.12 10.19 6.86
45 W-450 24.72 13.65 6.34
46 W-460 0.36 1.25 0.50
47 W-470 25.80 12.95 3.88
48 W-480 6.41 7.45 4.12
49 W-490 1.23 2.60 1.26
50 W-500 1.77 2.80 1.08
51 W-510 0.14 0.80 0.35
52 W-520 15.98 12.03 4.65
53 W-530 83.38 49.65 26.72
54 W-540 13.32 18.54 11.18
55 W-550 0.77 1.72 0.73
56 W-560 11.77 7.71 4.30
57 W-570 14.61 11.37 4.80
58 W-580 5.37 7.03 0.58
59 W-590 2.05 3.96 2.35
60 W-600 0.36 1.48 0.46
61 W-610 10.83 10.30 5.92
62 W-620 6.68 7.61 1.79
63 W-630 14.92 10.78 5.74
64 W-640 39.50 27.79 15.41
65 W-650 22.70 12.87 6.28
66 W-660 4.22 3.31 0.97
67 W-670 1.26 2.14 1.19
68 W-680 31.40 23.02 13.15
69 W-690 77.46 35.86 23.71
70 W-700 19.60 16.29 8.51
71 W-710 48.69 35.60 30.57
72 W-720 17.17 9.74 4.91
73 W-730 33.12 17.32 7.95
74 W-740 24.05 17.00 9.17
75 W-750 14.68 12.06 6.71
Chapter 4 - 5
Watershed
No. Area (A)
(km2)
76 W-760 14.47 11.38 6.43

77 W-770 14.65 12.61 2.74
78 W-780 25.30 15.93 10.32
79 W-790 60.89 32.77 8.39
80 W-800 10.33 11.03 4.90
81 W-810 6.36 6.60 3.14
82 W-820 10.58 12.55 7.54
83 W-830 4.52 6.77 2.69
84 W-840 28.31 15.31 9.34
85 W-850 11.14 10.27 5.65
86 W-860 12.94 12.21 6.65
87 W-870 12.52 10.20 5.18
88 W-880 13.03 9.07 3.90
89 W-890 42.08 19.30 8.48
90 W-900 6.29 5.08 2.45
91 W-910 10.33 7.68 3.41
92 W-920 15.40 13.47 7.13
93 W-930 28.91 21.43 11.97
94 W-940 14.54 12.21 5.58
95 W-950 29.23 17.44 7.04
96 W-960 21.29 10.71 5.87
97 W-970 42.66 14.59 8.12
98 W-980 18.03 11.14 4.21
99 W-990 13.64 9.33 5.78
100 W-1000 7.20 6.28 2.69
101 W-1010 22.01 8.70 3.58
102 W-1020 12.59 6.41 3.29
103 W-1030 50.42 17.08 8.40
104 W-1040 13.69 9.73 4.48
105 W-1050 25.91 13.97 9.14
4.1.2. Model Parameters
In this study, the HEC-HMS model has been developed by adopting

several specific methods to understand the dynamics of water flow in the
Ciujung Watershed (DAS). The Snyder method is applied as a
transformation, converting excessive rainfall into surface flow
hydrographs based on the physical characteristics of the Watershed
(DAS). Furthermore, 'lag time' is used for routing, predicting how water
moves through the river network by considering the time period between
rainfall peak and flow peak. Finally, to model water loss, the SCS Curve
Number approach is adopted, estimating the proportion of rainfall that
becomes surface runoff versus being absorbed or evaporated. The
combination of these three methods in HEC-HMS ensures in-depth and
accurate hydrological analysis.
Chapter 4 - 6
The Snyder method is one of the classical approaches in hydrology used

to transform rainfall input into surface flow hydrographs. The key
parameters in this method are the Cp value (peak coefficient) and the Tp
value (peak time). Cp provides an indication of the magnitude of the
resulting flow peak, while Tp indicates when that peak will occur after
the start of rainfall. What is interesting is how these two parameters are
determined. Both are highly dependent on the geometry of the Watershed
(DAS). Factors such as the total area of the Watershed, the longest flow
length from the beginning of the Watershed to the outlet, and the length
of the flow from the beginning of the Watershed to its centroid affect
these two parameters. All of this geometry information is typically
presented in a table, as mentioned in Table 4.2. Understanding and
accurately calculating Cp and Tp is crucial because they affect the shape
and timing of the output hydrograph, which in turn can influence
decisions in water resources management and infrastructure planning.
Parameter for water loss in a Watershed (DAS) is represented by the CN

value, which stands for Curve Number. CN is an indicator that measures
the potential of an area to generate surface runoff from rainfall. The CN
value is determined by the combination of land cover in the watershed.
Different types of land cover, such as forests, agricultural land, urban
areas, or wetlands, have different CN values, which reflect how quickly
rainfall can become surface runoff in that land cover type. For example,
rocky or paved areas may have high CN values, indicating that most of
the rainfall will become surface runoff. Conversely, dense forests or
wetlands may have low CN values, indicating that more rainfall will be
absorbed by the soil or vegetation. Thus, understanding the combination
of land cover and appropriate CN values is crucial in predicting water
loss and the response of watershed flow to rainfall. The percentage of
land cover for each sub-watershed is shown in the Table 4.2. below :
Table 4.2. Sub-Watershed Code Land Cover Percentage (%)

Percentage of Land Cover (%)
Sub-
watershe Wate Forest / Moor
Garde Settlemen Ricefiel Shrub Vacan
d Code r Vegetatio /
n t d s t land
body n Farm
W-10 35.89 0.00 6.60 3.98 40.04 1.02 0.23 12.22

W-20 10.00 0.00 0.00 31.29 58.71 0.00 0.00 0.00
W-30 12.85 0.00 28.68 14.85 35.87 0.00 5.92 1.84
Chapter 4 - 7

Sub-
n t d s t land
body n Farm
W-40 1.68 0.00 12.33 27.44 30.18 0.73 23.14 4.51

W-50 0.08 0.00 4.35 11.19 67.34 0.49 5.37 11.17
W-60 1.60 0.00 7.30 17.53 55.78 0.00 17.69 0.11
W-70 3.58 0.00 21.27 11.86 61.07 0.00 2.22 0.00
W-80 0.00 0.00 20.75 8.22 48.60 0.84 0.25 21.33
W-90 0.09 1.52 37.68 10.44 41.63 2.32 0.39 5.94
W-100 11.41 0.00 51.83 10.56 22.90 0.00 3.30 0.00
W-110 0.00 9.35 28.25 10.85 40.13 0.89 0.00 10.53
W-120 0.00 10.28 50.99 7.03 21.26 4.60 0.53 5.31
W-130 0.00 0.00 50.96 11.89 34.22 0.99 0.53 1.40
W-140 0.00 0.73 51.98 10.11 34.55 0.33 0.22 2.07
W-150 13.79 0.00 17.87 7.48 60.86 0.00 0.00 0.00
W-160 2.03 0.00 27.49 12.22 57.27 0.24 0.56 0.19
W-170 11.84 0.00 49.76 7.92 20.61 0.00 0.00 9.88
W-180 12.93 0.00 86.26 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
W-190 0.04 0.00 24.69 12.23 61.48 0.33 1.23 0.00
W-200 20.70 0.00 76.71 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
W-210 0.00 0.00 25.82 11.09 62.24 0.00 0.68 0.17
W-220 14.89 0.00 74.85 1.77 1.91 0.00 0.00 6.58
W-230 0.00 0.00 51.58 12.07 35.66 0.00 0.00 0.70
W-240 0.50 0.00 19.96 13.24 63.69 0.00 1.35 1.27
W-250 0.00 0.00 35.73 8.00 56.17 0.03 0.07 0.00
W-260 9.56 0.00 34.22 12.92 40.31 0.00 0.83 2.15
W-270 0.01 0.00 27.89 9.19 38.54 0.15 1.92 22.30
W-280 0.06 7.22 49.55 14.02 28.90 0.03 0.09 0.13
W-290 0.00 4.52 44.00 15.80 28.84 6.24 0.39 0.21
W-300 0.00 0.00 56.98 9.24 32.71 0.36 0.71 0.00
W-310 0.00 0.00 60.27 9.32 29.87 0.17 0.35 0.02
W-320 0.00 0.00 45.16 9.86 44.56 0.03 0.33 0.06
W-330 0.02 0.00 38.98 9.19 40.01 0.00 0.00 11.80
W-340 3.17 0.00 44.74 8.52 17.63 0.67 4.24 21.03
W-350 3.70 0.00 46.06 25.44 23.36 0.00 1.28 0.16
W-360 0.03 0.00 63.56 9.37 15.77 0.00 1.72 9.55
W-370 0.01 31.43 24.76 8.23 35.33 0.14 0.09 0.00
W-380 0.01 17.61 39.12 14.83 27.77 0.01 0.40 0.26
W-390 0.00 0.00 52.34 14.05 33.29 0.00 0.00 0.32
W-400 0.00 10.98 47.35 14.44 26.81 0.30 0.00 0.12
W-410 0.05 2.05 41.85 13.41 40.96 0.12 0.13 1.42
W-420 0.00 5.67 35.42 7.92 27.25 22.48 0.05 1.20
W-430 0.00 21.13 38.73 10.89 26.89 0.35 0.16 1.85
W-440 0.00 0.00 57.36 10.00 28.58 4.00 0.00 0.06
W-450 1.23 0.00 51.62 15.70 30.01 0.00 1.43 0.00
W-460 0.11 0.00 57.26 26.13 16.51 0.00 0.00 0.00
W-470 1.00 5.72 28.04 9.53 25.00 29.64 0.00 1.07
W-480 3.49 0.00 58.54 14.13 22.70 0.00 0.34 0.80
W-490 8.87 0.00 44.66 36.88 6.70 0.00 2.89 0.00
W-500 3.18 0.00 49.42 31.98 14.66 0.00 0.77 0.00
W-510 7.39 0.00 43.34 18.59 30.49 0.00 0.19 0.00
W-520 0.22 0.00 67.93 4.33 5.87 0.28 0.43 20.93
W-530 2.09 45.94 14.40 4.35 14.33 15.05 0.75 3.09
W-540 0.00 9.67 40.53 10.07 38.75 0.46 0.00 0.51
W-550 0.00 63.69 0.00 11.11 24.03 0.00 0.00 1.17
W-560 0.00 2.82 66.41 8.76 19.52 0.34 0.02 2.14
W-570 0.00 48.30 25.98 4.01 20.18 0.56 0.01 0.95
W-580 3.37 24.82 2.83 8.54 26.36 31.81 0.03 2.24
W-590 5.08 63.53 0.00 8.80 17.79 0.67 0.76 3.37
W-600 9.54 34.65 0.00 36.41 10.21 6.71 1.10 1.38
W-610 0.01 70.86 0.00 1.99 12.18 10.70 0.01 4.24
W-620 1.50 62.16 0.00 5.94 22.09 6.94 0.03 1.34
W-630 0.00 63.57 1.71 6.33 24.12 2.98 0.11 1.18
W-640 0.00 72.34 4.18 2.46 13.88 2.35 0.08 4.70
W-650 1.21 71.93 2.20 4.53 15.31 2.23 0.22 2.38
Chapter 4 - 8

Sub-
n t d s t land
body n Farm
W-660 1.63 0.24 70.28 6.67 14.88 4.44 0.16 1.70

W-670 3.70 0.00 69.94 7.95 12.31 1.97 0.00 4.13
W-680 0.19 30.90 42.60 1.63 12.61 8.39 0.84 2.84
W-690 1.19 43.77 29.76 4.87 13.96 2.69 0.74 3.01
W-700 1.40 19.94 59.52 2.74 6.53 8.75 0.25 0.87
W-710 1.44 76.75 1.43 1.81 15.98 1.88 0.15 0.56
W-720 0.91 83.34 0.06 1.27 9.61 3.45 0.10 1.27
W-730 0.00 75.12 1.70 3.18 14.14 3.78 0.08 2.00
W-740 0.00 75.71 0.00 2.08 20.73 0.84 0.02 0.62
W-750 1.44 73.62 0.16 3.26 16.97 0.74 0.00 3.80
W-760 0.00 57.33 1.33 4.05 31.63 3.98 0.00 1.69
W-770 0.00 44.57 39.35 1.73 11.93 0.99 0.80 0.62
W-780 0.53 59.92 0.00 3.96 33.26 1.93 0.09 0.32
W-790 0.50 66.24 3.48 2.69 23.51 2.37 0.04 1.18
W-800 2.00 56.05 2.63 9.44 23.92 4.06 0.02 1.90
W-810 2.57 56.22 0.21 10.02 26.92 1.59 2.32 0.16
W-820 0.00 59.50 0.00 4.02 33.87 2.23 0.02 0.36
W-830 2.63 48.34 0.27 6.37 38.14 0.58 2.26 1.41
W-840 0.29 60.32 0.03 3.86 31.03 3.90 0.04 0.53
W-850 0.00 62.77 11.52 1.34 23.17 0.30 0.00 0.90
W-860 0.03 42.15 38.61 1.31 16.67 0.00 0.00 1.24
W-870 1.31 69.70 0.19 2.23 21.20 2.88 0.04 2.45
W-880 0.00 69.60 0.16 2.94 25.42 0.88 0.00 1.00
W-890 1.36 68.50 0.40 3.00 19.06 6.53 0.03 1.12
W-900 1.78 70.25 0.57 3.10 21.00 1.49 0.05 1.75
W-910 0.00 61.99 0.75 2.74 24.77 9.22 0.00 0.53
W-920 0.00 72.77 0.21 3.21 20.15 0.92 0.18 2.56
W-930 1.27 47.81 0.01 1.77 4.72 43.65 0.00 0.76
W-940 0.25 73.57 0.01 2.62 22.34 0.75 0.04 0.42
W-950 1.00 68.40 7.65 4.11 13.91 2.98 0.09 1.87
W-960 0.31 61.84 3.59 2.82 23.96 6.57 0.00 0.91
W-970 0.13 59.73 19.98 0.91 13.81 5.10 0.01 0.33
W-980 0.01 51.71 0.00 1.91 25.57 18.71 0.01 2.08
W-990 0.00 65.35 0.00 0.11 0.00 32.67 0.00 1.87
W-1000 2.01 57.34 0.00 1.89 31.62 7.14 0.00 0.00
W-1010 0.16 67.06 0.06 1.94 27.39 3.32 0.02 0.04
W-1020 0.14 40.76 0.00 2.01 35.02 21.94 0.00 0.12
W-1030 0.43 63.72 0.00 1.40 25.80 8.60 0.00 0.05
W-1040 0.00 97.90 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
W-1050 0.00 99.87 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
The parameter of flow routing in rivers, often referred to as "routing," is

crucial in understanding how water moves through the river network. In
this context, "lag-time" is used as a primary indicator. Lag-time
represents the time it takes for flow to move from the starting point to a
specific point in the river, usually to the watershed outlet. One of the
main determining factors for lag-time is the length of the river. However,
river length alone is not enough to determine lag-time. The velocity of
water flow in the river also plays a crucial role. If we have information
about the total length of the river and the average flow velocity, we can
easily calculate lag-time by dividing the river length by the flow velocity.
Chapter 4 - 9
In other words, lag-time reflects how long it takes for water to move along
the river at a certain average velocity. The values of river length for each
river reach are shown in the table below :
Table 4.3. List of River Lengths

No. River Code River Length (km)
1 R-5810 17.82
2 R-5830 0.21
3 R-5850 6.28
4 R-5870 3.13
5 R-5890 0.71
6 R-5910 12.00
7 R-5930 2.07
8 R-5950 2.47
9 R-5970 2.78
10 R-5990 0.90
11 R-6010 0.63
12 R-6030 1.56
13 R-6050 3.00
14 R-6070 4.22
15 R-6090 5.41
16 R-6110 1.42
17 R-6130 6.76
18 R-6150 6.41
19 R-6170 1.88
20 R-6190 1.10
21 R-6210 5.64
22 R-6230 0.99
23 R-6250 0.32
24 R-6290 5.30
25 R-6330 6.82
26 R-6350 4.52
27 R-6370 5.10
28 R-6280 1.92
29 R-6390 1.88
30 R-6410 1.81
31 R-6430 1.54
32 R-6320 0.64
33 R-6470 1.00
34 R-6490 1.92
35 R-6460 3.66
36 R-6510 6.10
37 R-6530 6.49
38 R-6550 20.22
39 R-6570 4.66
40 R-6590 13.00
41 R-6610 2.64
42 R-6630 5.23
43 R-6650 2.53
44 R-6670 14.67
45 R-6690 4.58
46 R-6710 3.08
Chapter 4 - 10
No. River Code River Length (km)
47 R-6730 3.10
48 R-6750 6.23
49 R-6770 10.79
50 R-6790 6.39
51 R-6810 3.52
52 R-6830 7.60
4.1.3. Setting up HEC-HMS
Setting up the HEC-HMS model is a crucial step in conducting hydrologic

simulations for a Watershed. This process involves inputting various
parameters and data that reflect the physical, meteorological, and
operational conditions of the Watershed.
a. Basin Models
The basin model includes several important elements. Sub-basins
represent small parts of the Watershed with similar hydrological
characteristics, which have specific parameters such as area,
surface runoff coefficient, and soil type. River Reach represents the
river or stream sections within the Watershed, with parameters
such as length, slope, and channel roughness. For Watersheds with
reservoirs or dams, reservoir information including capacity and
gate operation details need to be considered. Additionally, the Base
Flow & Loss Models component describes base flow and water
losses through processes such as infiltration and
evapotranspiration. Figure 4.3 shows the HEC-HMS basin model for
the Ciujung Watershed.
Chapter 4 - 11
Figure 4.3. HEC-HMS Basin Model For The Ciujung Watershed
b. Meteorologic Models
This component focuses on weather data that affects the
Watershed. Rainfall data, whether historical data or design rainfall
scenarios, is a critical input. Additionally, information on
evaporation and evapotranspiration, which can be based on daily or
monthly data, is also included to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the hydrological processes in the Watershed.
Figure 4.4. shows the HEC-HMS meteorologic model for the
Ciujung Watershed.
Chapter 4 - 12
Figure 4.4. Meteorologic Models HEC-HMS for the Ciujung Watershed
c. Control Specifications
Determining the simulation period is essential. This includes
simulation start and end times, which can be adjusted based on
specific rain events, rainy seasons, or annual analysis. Other
parameters, such as the computing time interval, are also specified
Chapter 4 - 13
here to ensure the simulation runs efficiently. Figure 4.5. shows

the HEC-HMS Control Specifications for the Ciujung Watershed.
Figure 4.5. Control Specifications HEC-HMS for Ciujung Watershed
d. Time Series Data

These data provide an overview of parameter variations over time.
For example, information on observed rainfall or river flow is critical
for model calibration and validation, ensuring that the resulting
simulations well reflect real conditions. Figure 4.6. shows the time
series of HEC-HMS data for the Ciujung watershed.
Chapter 4 - 14
Figure 4.6. Time Series Data HEC-HMS for the Ciujung Watershed
4.1.4. Calibration
Model calibration is a vital process in hydrological modeling to ensure

that the developed model can accurately represent field conditions. In the
calibration process, model parameters are adjusted using field
observation data, such as river flow or rainfall data, to make the
Chapter 4 - 15
simulated model results approximate or match the observation data. The

main objective is to improve the confidence and accuracy of the model in
simulating hydrological phenomena, so that decisions or predictions
based on the model can be reliable and reflect the reality in the field.
In this study, the flood event that occurred in January 2012 was selected
as the main case for calibrating the HEC-HMS model. This event was one
of the major floods caused by the overflow of the Ciujung River, posing
real challenges in hydrological analysis and modeling. As a result of this
flood, various significant impacts emerged in various sectors, including
infrastructure. One of the most notable impacts was the disruption of the
Jakarta-Merak toll road, which not only disrupted intercity mobility but
also had economic and social impacts in the area. Through calibration
using this event, the study aims to obtain more accurate parameters so
that the simulated results of the HEC-HMS model can better reflect the
reality in the field.
In the context of the January 2012 flood, the available data was limited
to daily rainfall and daily flow. On January 14, 2012, the Cibeurem rain
gauge station recorded heavy rainfall with an intensity of 190 mm.
Meanwhile, the flood discharge at the Pamarayan dam significantly
increased, reaching 1950 m3/second on January 15, 2012. Compared to
previous flow records, there was a significant surge; on January 13, the
discharge was only 206 m3/second and it drastically increased to 1344
m3/second on January 14. This increase in flow indicates the direct
impact of the extreme rainfall that occurred on January 14, 2012,
indicating that this rainfall played a crucial role in triggering the major
flood in the area.
In the spatial analysis of rainfall distribution, there was quite significant

inconsistency between neighboring rain gauge stations. For example, on
January 14, the Bojongmanik station recorded a rainfall of 100.5 mm,
while the Ciboleger station, located only about 7 km away from
Bojongmanik, recorded a rainfall of only 15 mm. This difference was
surprising considering the spatial proximity of the two stations.
Furthermore, the Ciminyak station, which is about 16 km away from the
Bojongmanik station, recorded a rainfall of 136 mm. Despite the greater
Chapter 4 - 16
distance between these rain gauge stations, Bojongmanik and Ciminyak

showed higher consistency in rainfall measurements compared to the
comparison between Bojongmanik and Ciboleger. All of these rain gauge
stations are located in the upstream area of the Ciujung Watershed,
indicating that rainfall variations in the upstream area can be highly
diverse even though the stations are relatively close to each other.
Satellite rainfall data from GSMaP provided a different perspective on

rainfall distribution in the upstream area of the Ciujung Watershed.
Unlike data from rain gauge stations, GSMaP showed that on January
14, 2012, rainfall at the same location as the Ciboleger station reached
240 mm, while at Bojongmanik it reached 245 mm. This means that
there is a significant difference between the data obtained from rain
gauge stations and satellite data. This satellite data indicates that
extreme rainfall occurred evenly across the upstream area of the Ciujung
Watershed, without significant variation between neighboring locations.
This provides strong indications that high-intensity rainfall throughout
the upstream area may be the main driving factor behind the major flood
event in 2012. The presence of data like this highlights the importance of
considering various data sources when analyzing hydrological
phenomena since different sources can provide different perspectives on
the same situation.
Figure 4.7. provides a detailed overview of rainfall changes in the

Ciujung River Basin during a three-day period in January 2012. On
January 13th, although some rainfall was recorded at several rain
stations, the highest intensity was recorded at the Sampang Peundey
Station with a measurement of 120 mm, indicating that the period began
with significant rainfall. However, the following day, on January 14th,
there was a significant spike in rainfall intensity at several stations. The
Cibeurem, Bojong Manik, Pasir Ona, and Ciminyak stations all recorded
rainfall exceeding 100 mm, indicating extremely intense rainfall on that
day. Although rainfall decreased to moderate levels throughout the entire
basin on January 15th, the Ciminyak Station still recorded relatively
high-intensity rainfall at 89 mm. Looking at the overall data, it is clear
that January 14th, 2012 was the peak of this intense rainfall period. This
Chapter 4 - 17
fact correlates with the water discharge data, which showed an increase
at the Pamarayan Dam on January 14th and 15th, indicating that the
intense rainfall played a crucial role in increasing the water flow in the
Ciujung River during that period.
Based on GSMaP data, there is a pattern of rainfall distribution moving

through the Ciujung River Basin. On January 14th, the western
upstream region recorded extremely high rainfall, reaching 245 mm,
indicating the presence of extreme rainfall phenomena in that area. The
following day, on January 15th, rainfall intensity in the western
upstream region decreased while shifting to the eastern upstream region
with lower intensity at 60 mm. Although there are differences in intensity
between these two days, the high concentration of rainfall in the
upstream areas of the Ciujung River, both in the west and east, has a
significant impact on river flow. This is evident from the increased
discharge in the Ciujung River, as recorded at the Pamarayan Dam on
January 14th and 15th. The correlation between GSMaP rainfall data
and increased discharge in the Ciujung River indicates that rainfall
intensity and distribution play a crucial role in the dynamics of river flow
in the region. Understanding these patterns can provide insights for
predicting and mitigating flood impacts in the future.
Chapter 4 - 18
Figure 4.7. Comparison of Rainfall at Hydrological Stations and Satellite

Rainfall
From the analysis of hourly rainfall data obtained from the GSMaP
satellite, as shown in Figure 4.8., we can observe fluctuating rainfall
dynamics with several intensity peaks. On January 13th, the first peak
occurred at 08 : 00, indicating the beginning of an intense rainfall period
that affected the area. However, the intensity peaks did not stop there.
The following day, on January 14th, there was a second peak recorded
between 02 : 00 and 04 : 00. This indicates the presence of intense
rainfall waves occurring within a short period but with high intensity.
Additionally, the data also shows another rainfall increase on January
14th, specifically at 07 : 00. The presence of multiple rainfall peaks
within a relatively short time period indicates the characteristics of
convective rainfall, which is often accompanied by high intensity in a
short duration. Such rainfall patterns often trigger flash floods or rapid
river flow surges, especially in areas with low infiltration capacity or in
urban areas with many impermeable surfaces.
Chapter 4 - 19
Figure 4.8. Spatial Map of Hourly Satellite Rainfall
Hourly rainfall data is essential in hydrological modeling as it provides

insights into the intensity and distribution of rainfall over a short period
of time. As shown in Figure 4.9., the variation in rainfall distribution
between sub-basins highlights areas with potential hydrological risks,
such as floods or erosion. On January 14th, 2012, at 2 am, the focused
peak rainfall in the upstream sub-basin, particularly in sub-basins like
W-920, indicates critical areas that may require special intervention. The
steep topography of the upstream areas makes them more vulnerable to
rapid surface flow and flash floods, making a comprehensive
understanding of the rainfall patterns in these sub-basins vital for the
development of adaptation strategies and risk mitigation.
Chapter 4 - 20
Figure 4.9.Hourly Rainfall for Each Sub-Basin
Chapter 4 - 21
In this study, rainfall data grouped by sub-basin is the key input for the
model. To improve the accuracy of the model, calibration is performed
with several parameters, such as the Curve Number (CN) value
representing soil infiltration capacity, the percentage of impervious area
indicating the extent of non-absorbent surfaces, and the lag time value
depicting the delay between rainfall and peak discharge in the river. One
challenge in this study is that the discharge data at the Pamarayan Dam
is only available in daily format, and the timing of the recordings is
unknown. However, for the purpose of comparison, this research focuses
on the recorded peak discharge during flood events. Figure 4.10., shows
the comparison between simulated and observed discharge at the
Pamarayan Dam. The fact that the simulated discharge closely matches
the observed discharge with only a 0.7% difference indicates that the
HEC-HMS model, with its calibrated parameters, exhibits excellent
accuracy in simulating flood events in the area. The maximum recorded
discharge during the flood event was 1950 m3/s, while the simulation
yielded a discharge of 1936 m3/s at 6 : 00 pm on January 14th. This
small difference demonstrates that the model has successfully replicated
the field conditions.
Chapter 4 - 22
Figure 4.10. Comparison of Simulation and Observation Discharge at the

Pamarayan Dam
In hydrological modeling, calibration with field data ensures prediction

accuracy. Table 4.4. describes the transformation of rainfall into
discharge and water loss in each sub-basin, including parameters such
as the Cp (peak coefficient), Tp (peak time), CN (Curve Number indicating
soil infiltration potential), and the percentage of non-absorbent area.
Meanwhile, Table 4.5. focuses on the lag time values for each river
reach, measuring the duration between rainfall and peak river discharge.
These calibrated parameters allow the hydrological model to predict river
flow response to rainfall more accurately, which is essential for
infrastructure planning and water resource management.
Table 4.4. Calibration Parameters for Each Sub-Basin
Sub-
But Imperviuos
watershed Cp C.N
(hour) Area (%)
Code
W-10 0.98 0.26 82.91 53.71

W-20 0.98 0.01 79.06 46.58
W-30 0.98 0.69 74.50 41.32
W-40 1.00 0.75 74.38 38.61
W-50 0.72 1.80 74.59 30.10
W-60 0.52 3.31 74.83 34.09
Chapter 4 - 23
Sub-
But Imperviuos
watershed Cp C.N
(hour) Area (%)
Code
W-70 0.98 0.23 73.25 33.03

W-80 0.70 1.93 71.85 28.70
W-90 0.74 1.73 69.26 29.46
W-100 0.98 0.15 70.54 38.31
W-110 0.95 0.90 68.27 28.01
W-120 0.71 1.86 64.41 26.11
W-130 0.80 1.43 67.89 30.35
W-140 0.78 1.54 67.44 29.41
W-150 0.98 0.12 76.14 38.71
W-160 0.98 0.51 71.97 32.02
W-170 0.98 0.10 70.69 37.44
W-180 0.98 0.04 65.34 35.06
W-190 0.89 1.08 71.89 30.53
W-200 0.98 0.02 68.80 41.69
W-210 0.96 0.87 71.67 29.99
W-220 0.98 0.05 67.45 36.96
W-230 0.88 1.11 67.85 30.43
W-240 0.98 0.52 72.74 31.33
W-250 0.92 0.99 70.04 28.60
W-260 0.98 0.63 72.84 37.98
W-270 0.69 2.00 70.79 29.14
W-280 0.67 2.12 66.11 29.91
W-290 0.65 2.24 67.70 31.21
W-300 0.73 1.76 66.89 29.16
W-310 0.97 0.84 66.41 29.19
W-320 0.90 1.05 68.71 29.44
W-330 0.98 0.47 69.38 29.15
W-340 0.86 1.20 68.99 31.21
W-350 0.83 1.33 70.26 39.22
W-360 0.97 0.85 65.72 29.24
W-370 0.59 2.69 62.27 22.43
W-380 0.78 1.52 64.58 28.16
W-390 0.88 1.11 67.85 31.32
W-400 0.98 0.63 65.32 29.30
W-410 0.94 0.93 68.76 30.66
W-420 0.94 0.92 67.91 27.43
W-430 0.81 1.41 63.35 25.67
W-440 0.98 0.72 66.82 29.50
W-450 0.80 1.45 68.32 32.99
W-460 0.98 0.04 67.74 36.84
W-470 0.65 2.21 69.19 28.90
W-480 0.98 0.40 67.78 33.97
W-490 0.98 0.08 72.30 48.25
W-500 0.98 0.14 69.97 41.78
W-510 0.98 0.02 71.27 38.91
W-520 0.90 1.06 64.65 27.12
W-530 0.38 5.25 59.42 19.34
W-540 0.98 0.80 66.50 27.60
W-550 0.98 0.16 56.42 17.26
W-560 0.99 0.79 64.58 28.38
W-570 0.78 1.52 56.78 17.14
W-580 0.92 0.99 67.72 26.41
W-590 0.98 0.29 57.55 20.06
W-600 0.98 0.06 68.63 41.61
W-610 0.84 1.28 53.55 11.73
W-620 0.90 1.06 56.86 16.37
Chapter 4 - 24
Sub-
But Imperviuos
watershed Cp C.N
(hour) Area (%)
Code
W-630 0.75 1.68 55.90 15.13

W-640 0.50 3.45 52.65 11.64
W-650 0.60 2.56 53.52 13.56
W-660 0.98 0.42 65.00 29.18
W-670 0.98 0.11 65.71 31.35
W-680 0.67 2.12 59.23 19.70
W-690 0.41 4.73 57.82 19.33
W-700 0.84 1.28 60.38 23.29
W-710 0.50 3.52 52.16 11.55
W-720 0.65 2.22 50.18 9.58
W-730 0.49 3.58 52.25 11.41
W-740 0.61 2.53 52.36 10.79
W-750 0.75 1.65 53.32 12.82
W-760 0.77 1.56 57.69 15.36
W-770 0.74 1.71 55.77 16.87
W-780 0.63 2.39 57.31 15.20
W-790 0.33 6.24 54.79 13.34
W-800 0.88 1.14 58.64 19.53
W-810 0.98 0.80 59.16 20.19
W-820 0.89 1.10 57.30 14.91
W-830 0.98 0.59 61.35 20.17
W-840 0.58 2.77 57.08 14.89
W-850 0.85 1.25 54.48 13.05
W-860 0.87 1.15 56.61 17.18
W-870 0.78 1.51 54.39 13.04
W-880 0.74 1.72 54.20 12.40
W-890 0.43 4.34 54.73 13.67
W-900 0.93 0.94 54.37 13.68
W-910 0.81 1.39 56.23 13.84
W-920 0.74 1.72 53.23 11.90
W-930 0.61 2.52 60.17 17.19
W-940 0.73 1.75 53.10 11.65
W-950 0.54 3.10 53.69 13.92
W-960 0.63 2.39 55.98 14.13
W-970 0.45 4.12 54.05 13.56
W-980 0.65 2.21 59.17 15.53
W-990 0.76 1.61 54.71 11.98
W-1000 0.91 1.01 58.25 15.89
W-1010 0.55 2.97 54.94 12.59
W-1020 0.77 1.59 62.46 17.86
W-1030 0.38 5.22 55.89 13.20
W-1040 0.70 1.92 45.36 5.42
W-1050 0.55 2.97 45.04 5.08
Table 4.5. Calibration Result Parameters for Each River

Section
Lag-Time
No. River Code
(Minutes)
1 R-5810 148.51
2 R-5830 1.75
3 R-5850 52.36
Chapter 4 - 25
Lag-Time
No. River Code
(Minutes)
4 R-5870 26.04
5 R-5890 5.93
6 R-5910 100.04
7 R-5930 17.24
8 R-5950 20.58
9 R-5970 23.15
10 R-5990 7.47
11 R-6010 5.26
12 R-6030 12.99
13 R-6050 24.97
14 R-6070 35.13
15 R-6090 45.05
16 R-6110 11.87
17 R-6130 56.33
18 R-6150 53.40
19 R-6170 15.63
20 R-6190 9.16
21 R-6210 46.97
22 R-6230 8.29
23 R-6250 2.63
24 R-6290 44.19
25 R-6330 56.87
26 R-6350 37.64
27 R-6370 42.47
28 R-6280 15.99
29 R-6390 15.69
30 R-6410 15.09
31 R-6430 12.80
32 R-6320 5.29
33 R-6470 8.37
34 R-6490 16.00
35 R-6460 30.48
36 R-6510 50.83
37 R-6530 54.09
38 R-6550 168.50
39 R-6570 38.87
40 R-6590 108.31
41 R-6610 22.01
42 R-6630 43.61
43 R-6650 21.06
44 R-6670 122.29
45 R-6690 38.13
46 R-6710 25.64
47 R-6730 25.80
48 R-6750 51.91
49 R-6770 89.95
50 R-6790 53.28
51 R-6810 29.34
52 R-6830 63.33
Chapter 4 - 26
4.1.5. Calculation Rain Plans
Rainfall design calculations are used to determine rainfall values for

planned scenarios. The rainfall design calculations are based on the
maximum daily rainfall values as shown in Table 4.6. This table
presents data on the maximum daily rainfall from 15 rainfall stations
during the period from 1997 to 2022. However, there are some challenges
with this record. Firstly, there are missing data from some stations in
certain years. This missing data can make it difficult to identify
consistent rainfall patterns or estimate rainfall with better accuracy.
Secondly, some data indicates inconsistent values, such as the Sajira
station in 2016 with a maximum daily rainfall of only 7 mm. Compared
to other stations in the same year, this value appears very low and could
be a recording error or anomaly. Similarly, the Ciboleger station shows
large fluctuations in maximum daily rainfall records, ranging from 7 to
30 mm in some years, but spiking up to 250 mm in 2021 and 2022.
These inconsistencies raise questions about the quality and reliability of

the data in predicting future rainfall. However, despite these challenges,
the rainfall design calculations still choose to use the available data as a
basis for initial rainfall scenarios. This may be done with the assumption
that considering all data, including those that appear anomalous, will
provide a more comprehensive picture of the rainfall potential in the
region. However, it is important to always consider uncertainty and
validate the model with additional data or other analysis techniques to
ensure the reliability of predictions.
In hydrological analysis, selecting the appropriate distribution for rainfall

data plays a crucial role in understanding and predicting extreme events.
Four main frequency distribution methods tested in this study include
the normal distribution, which represents a symmetric distribution; the
log-normal distribution, which adjusts data with a logarithmic scale; the
log Pearson III distribution, which considers the skewness of the data;
and the Gumbel distribution, which focuses on extreme values. To
determine the most suitable distribution for the rainfall data from each
station, criteria based on the value of ∆max are used, representing the
difference between the observed data distribution and the theoretical
Chapter 4 - 27
distribution. The distribution with the smallest ∆max value is considered

the best fit, providing a more solid basis for estimation.
Chapter 4 - 28
Table 4.6. Maximum Daily Rain Data
POS
POS SAMPAN POS POS POS POS POS POS POS POS
POS POS POS POS POS
Tahun PAMARAY G BANJIR BOJONG CADASAR CIBEURE CIBOLEG CIMINYA PASIR RAGAS
CIMARGA JONJING PETIR PIPITAN SAJIRA
AN PEUNDE IRIGASI MANIK I UM ER K_CILAKI ONA HILIR
UY
1997 88 116 77 116 60 - 84 54 - 30 77 60 92 60 -
1998 70 109 102 73 60 96 40 84 95 65 99 58 82 70 57
1999 95 102 77 69 94 130 17 124 69 51 95 82 70 50 40
2000 107 134 65 65 72 75 12 133 76 65 85 127 108 50 40
2001 124 98 60 60 60 - 25 94 98 62 108 50 85 62 60
2002 100 72 40 90 42 - 7 86 122 89 135 50 76 78 40
2003 77 87 54 37.5 60 125 7 83 275 63 88 45 126 50 65
2004 84 105 70 180 80 105 15 78 130 115 70 73 116 120 122
2005 86 117 72 46 52 108 24 95 80 80 112 73 100 60 75
2006 148 92 69 130 20 115 36 92 52 87 70 88 135 59 118
2007 163 140 89 75.5 - 22 57 110 62 203 70 125 94 72 120
2008 103 119 94 60.6 30 89 26 112 161 120 92 45 105 120 60
2009 75 80 61 33.5 41 125 29 160 103 72 96 75 87 80 87
2010 109 94 58 90.9 21 84 25 - 132 82 108 - 105 45 85
2011 66 86 47 92 72 81 26 - 99 63 102 - 85 68 99.5
2012 90 120 55 134.04 110 190 25 - 136 46 110 - 77 58 96
2013 75 115.5 77 121.03 82 110 27 82 131 54 142 - 113 65 75
2014 77 106 60 76 108 94 25 115 84 57 82 88 80 70 65
2015 88 121 30 113.05 67 96 25 82 104 102 54 60 81.5 130 30
2016 73 145.5 115 142.08 96 133 25 105 100 58 149 95 101 70 7
2017 93 146 103 137.07 79 106 25 88 96 52 107 120 90 100 15
2018 98 129 178 104.05 70 135 25 93 97 52 102 85 87 71 10
2019 115.5 100 186 137.05 186 135 140 107 95 111 75 235 136 70 9
2020 116 148 222 241 76 97 115 95 172 168 75 120 127 100 55
2021 105 146 144 244 119 176 250 152 173 98 193 87 112 95 84
2022 108 81 146 169 89 105 250 115.5 173 80 92 107 139 85 83
Chapter 4 - 29
In hydrological analysis, selecting the appropriate distribution for rainfall

data plays a crucial role in understanding and predicting extreme events.
Four main frequency distribution methods tested in this study include
the normal distribution, which represents a symmetric distribution; the
log-normal distribution, which adjusts data with a logarithmic scale; the
log Pearson III distribution, which considers the skewness of the data;
and the Gumbel distribution, which focuses on extreme values. To
determine the most suitable distribution for the rainfall data from each
station, criteria based on the value of ∆max are used, representing the
difference between the observed data distribution and the theoretical
distribution. The distribution with the smallest ∆max value is considered
the best fit, providing a more solid basis for estimation.
Figure 4.11. the results of rainfall frequency distribution analysis for

several stations are displayed, with examples from the Banjar Irigasi and
Pamarayan stations. In the analysis of the Banjar Irigasi station, the Log-
Pearson II distribution proved to be the most suitable, indicated by a
value of ∆max of 0.106, below the critical threshold of 0.254.
Furthermore, the chi-square analysis yielded a chi2 value of 3.444,
which is much lower than the critical chi2 value of 11.070, indicating a
good fit with the observed data. Similarly, for the Pamarayan station, the
Log-Pearson III distribution was also the best choice based on the
evaluation, with a ∆max value of 0.074 and a chi2 value of 3.538. Both
stations showed a preference for the Log-Pearson III model, confirming its
relevance in analyzing rainfall frequency distribution at both locations.
Chapter 4 - 30
Figure 4.11.Frequency Distribution for Each Rain Station
The above figure presents a summary of design rainfall values for each
analyzed station. One notable pattern from the data is the difference
between design rainfall at upstream stations compared to downstream
stations. Specifically, stations located upstream, such as Bojongmanik,
tend to have higher design rainfall values. For example, Bojongmanik has
a design rainfall value for a 100-year return period reaching 294.3 mm.
In contrast, stations located in the downstream part of the river basin,
such as Ragas Hilir, show lower values, with a design rainfall value for a
100-year return period of only 152.8 mm. This may be due to the
topographic characteristics of the river basin, which influence orographic
Chapter 4 - 31
rainfall, where stations located upstream tend to have higher elevation

(mountains). Orographic rainfall occurs when moist air masses are forced
to rise over mountains or highlands. As the air rises, it cools, and the
moisture in the air condenses into water or ice droplets, which then
cluster into clouds and eventually result in rainfall.
Table 4.7. Design Rainfall Values for Each Station

Design Rainfall (mm)
Station 5 10 25 50 years 100
2 yrs
years yrs yrs old years
Pamarayan Post 92.1 114.2 129.2 143.4 161.6 175.0

Sampang Peundeuy 109.
Post 6 132.7 147.9 162.6 181.5 195.7
Irrigation Flood Post 79.9 121.7 150.1 177.1 211.6 237.0
Bojongmanik Post 96.6 149.7 185.4 219.4 262.6 294.3
Cadasari Post 73.8 102.7 117.8 130.2 144.2 153.6
107.
Cibeureum Post 9 133.1 149.7 165.3 184.9 199.3
Ciboleger Post 37.9 83.2 119.8 157.5 208.1 247.0
Cimarga Post 98.2 121.5 137.0 151.9 171.1 185.5
107.
Ciminyak_Cilaki post 5 149.5 177.1 203.1 235.9 259.9
Jojing Post 74.7 107.4 128.9 149.1 174.5 193.1
Ona Sand Post 93.8 117.4 133.0 148.0 167.4 181.9
Lightning Post 80.9 128.7 164.8 200.9 248.7 284.9
Pipitan Post 96.2 115.8 128.6 140.7 155.9 167.0
Lower Ragas Post 69.8 91.7 106.6 121.0 139.3 152.8
Sajira's post 67.1 97.3 117.3 136.5 161.3 179.9
4.1.6. Sizing Scenarios
In this study, the main focus is on the development of rainfall scenarios

at telemetric rainfall stations. Through various scenarios, the study seeks
to understand the dynamics of rainfall at different locations based on
geographical positions and station interactions. For example, one
scenario may consider a situation where only one station records rainfall
while the others remain dry. In contrast, another scenario may consider
a situation where more than two stations experience rainfall
simultaneously. One key consideration in formulating these scenarios is
the distance between stations. Geographically close stations tend to have
a higher probability of experiencing rainfall together compared to stations
that are far apart. Thus, this study not only depicts spatial variations in
Chapter 4 - 32
rainfall but also provides insights into how rainfall patterns can be
influenced by the distance between stations.
Figure 4.12 illustrates the geographical distribution of various telemetric

stations, including PDA (water level station), PCH (rainfall station), and
climatology stations. From the PCH stations, some are located in the
upstream area, including Bojongmanik, Ciboleger, Sindang Jaya, and
Lebak Situ. The upstream area, with its steeper topography, becomes a
critical area for monitoring rainfall intensity. On the other hand, PCH
stations in the downstream area are Tersaba and Pamarayan. Moreover,
there is currently no PCH station representing the central part of the
Ciujung River Basin.
Figure 4.12. Telemetric Station Locations in the Ciujung River Basin
Chapter 4 - 33
Table 4.8. provides detailed information on the distances between

rainfall telemetric stations located in and around the Ciujung River
Basin. This table allows us to understand how close the interaction and
potential correlation between stations are based on their geographical
proximity. For example, the CIminyak and Lewidamar stations are only
about 5 km apart, indicating that these two stations may experience
similar or closely timed weather conditions. Similarly, the Bojongmanik
and Ciboleger stations are relatively close, approximately 6.9 km apart.
Interestingly, the Ciboleger station also has the same distance, 6.9 km,
from the Leuwidamar station. With this distance information, researchers
can more easily understand and predict how a rainfall event at one
station may affect or be related to events at nearby stations. This also
provides insights for monitoring strategies and planning responses to
rainfall events in the area.
Chapter 4 - 34
Table 4.8. Distance Matrix of Rainfall Telemetric Stations in and around the Ciujung River Basin
Kp.
Sindangla Lebak Luhur SMP Parigi /
ya (AWS Situ (AWS Jaya Seruni Bojong Leuwida Ciminyak Pamaraya Padarinca Telaga Sukmajay Pulo
Nama 2) 3) (AWS 1) (AWS 4) Kiarasari Ciboleger Manik mar / Cilaki Cicinta n ng Luhur Cinangka Sepang Tersaba a Ampel
Sindanglaya (AWS 2) 0.0 10.7 14.9 42.6 21.8 10.2 17.0 11.6 11.5 35.4 42.5 61.6 53.3 70.0 59.8 67.6 73.3 85.2
Lebak Situ (AWS 3) 10.7 0.0 11.4 49.3 11.2 20.3 27.3 19.1 16.0 34.1 44.4 69.0 58.5 77.5 63.8 67.4 77.5 88.8
Luhur Jaya (AWS 1) 14.9 11.4 0.0 40.9 18.4 19.9 25.9 15.0 10.1 22.8 33.4 61.0 48.8 69.4 53.4 56.0 67.1 78.0
Seruni (AWS 4) 42.6 49.3 40.9 0.0 59.0 34.1 30.2 31.1 33.2 32.7 21.7 20.1 13.0 28.5 21.9 43.5 33.3 46.1
Kiarasari 21.8 11.2 18.4 59.0 0.0 31.5 38.5 29.9 26.2 38.7 51.1 79.0 67.2 87.4 71.6 71.5 85.3 95.9
Ciboleger 10.2 20.3 19.9 34.1 31.5 0.0 6.9 6.9 11.0 34.8 38.3 52.4 45.8 60.6 53.1 64.6 66.2 78.5
Bojong Manik 17.0 27.3 25.9 30.2 38.5 6.9 0.0 11.2 16.1 37.5 38.3 47.2 42.7 55.2 50.6 64.9 63.2 75.8
SMP Leuwidamar 11.6 19.1 15.0 31.1 29.9 6.9 11.2 0.0 5.0 28.0 32.2 50.4 41.7 58.8 48.4 58.2 61.7 73.8
Ciminyak / Cilaki 11.5 16.0 10.1 33.2 26.2 11.0 16.1 5.0 0.0 24.7 31.0 53.0 42.8 61.5 48.8 56.2 62.4 74.1
Cicinta 35.4 34.1 22.8 32.7 38.7 34.8 37.5 28.0 24.7 0.0 14.6 50.8 34.4 58.6 35.7 33.3 48.8 58.1
Pamarayan
Kp. Parigi / 42.5 44.4 33.4 21.7 51.1 38.3 38.3 32.2 31.0 14.6 0.0 37.5 20.2 44.9 21.3 26.5 34.6 44.8
Padarincang 61.6 69.0 61.0 20.1 79.0 52.4 47.2 50.4 53.0 50.8 37.5 0.0 18.0 8.5 23.8 50.6 26.4 38.1
Telaga Luhur 53.3 58.5 48.8 13.0 67.2 45.8 42.7 41.7 42.8 34.4 20.2 18.0 0.0 24.8 9.2 34.0 20.5 33.2
Cinangka 70.0 77.5 69.4 28.5 87.4 60.6 55.2 58.8 61.5 58.6 44.9 8.5 24.8 0.0 28.6 55.0 27.0 36.8
Sepang 59.8 63.8 53.4 21.9 71.6 53.1 50.6 48.4 48.8 35.7 21.3 23.8 9.2 28.6 0.0 26.8 13.7 25.4
Tersaba 67.6 67.4 56.0 43.5 71.5 64.6 64.9 58.2 56.2 33.3 26.5 50.6 34.0 55.0 26.8 0.0 31.5 33.9
Sukmajaya 73.3 77.5 67.1 33.3 85.3 66.2 63.2 61.7 62.4 48.8 34.6 26.4 20.5 27.0 13.7 31.5 0.0 12.9
Pulo Ampel 85.2 88.8 78.0 46.1 95.9 78.5 75.8 73.8 74.1 58.1 44.8 38.1 33.2 36.8 25.4 33.9 12.9 0.0
Chapter 4 - 35
The Spatial Rain Return Period map is a tool that displays the
distribution of rainfall based on a specific period in a given region, as
shown in Figure 4.13. The rain return period represents a specific
frequency at which a certain rainfall intensity is expected to occur. By
using this map, we can determine the rainfall values at various Rainfall
Stations. For example, for a 100-year return period, the Lebak Situ
Rainfall Station has a rainfall value of 243.1mm. Meanwhile, the Tersaba
Rainfall Station has a rainfall value of 186.54mm for the same return
period.
Figure 4.13. Spatial Rain Return Period Map for 100-Year Period
Chapter 4 - 36
The data available is daily rainfall, so it needs to be converted into hourly

rainfall. This study uses the PSA 007 rainfall distribution for a 6-hour
duration, as shown in the table below :
Table 4.9. Rainfall Distribution in Terms of PSA 007 for Hourly Duration
Rain Distribution (%)

Hour
5 years 10 years 25 years 50 years 100 years
1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

2 11.33 12.00 12.33 13.00 13.33
3 70.00 68.00 67.00 65.00 64.00
4 6.67 8.00 8.67 10.00 10.67
5 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
6 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Furthermore, as part of the analysis, this study involved simulations

based on the patterns of hourly rainfall distribution and predetermined
return period values. One of the example scenarios is 109_100. In this
scenario, rainfall phenomena occur at eight telemetry stations, with
intensities equivalent to rainfall with a 100-year return period. Figure
4.10. displays the detailed rainfall distribution at each station in this
scenario, providing an in-depth understanding of the spatial distribution
and intensity of rainfall at each location.
Table 4.10. Rainfall Scenario 109 - 100
Station Rainfall (mm)
Sindanglaya (AWS 2) 234.5

Lebak Situ (AWS 3) 243.1
Luhur Jaya (AWS 1) 239.6
Chrysanthemum (AWS 4) 0.0
Kiarasari 0.0
Ciboleger 248.0
Bojong Manik 293.8
Leuwidamar Middle School 236.2
Ciminyak / Cilaki 259.9
Cicinta 202.2
Pamarayan 0.0
Kp. Parigi / Padarincang 0.0
Lake Luhur 0.0
Cinangka 0.0
Sepang 0.0
Tersabat 0.0
Sukmajaya 0.0
Pulo Ampel 0.0
Chapter 4 - 37
The results of the hydrological simulation reveal the flood hydrographs

obtained for each Sub-Basin and Flood Control Area (PDA). These
hydrographs represent graphical representations of the variation in water
flow discharge over time, which is an important indicator in flood
analysis. As an illustration, Figure 4.14. presents a comparison of
hydrographs from three critical locations : Keong Bridge, Cilangkap Flood
Control Area (PDA), and Pamarayan Dam.
At Keong Bridge, the peak discharge is recorded at 3430 m3/second.

This phenomenon occurs at the 16th hour, which means 10 hours after
the start of rainfall. This indicates that the area around Keong Bridge has
a relatively quick response time to rainfall, with a significant discharge.
Meanwhile, at Cilangkap Flood Control Area (PDA), the response to

rainfall is slightly slower. The peak discharge occurs 12 hours after the
start of rainfall, precisely at the 18th hour, with a magnitude of 2346
m3/second. Although lower than Keong Bridge, this discharge value still
indicates significant flood potential.
The most prominent is Pamarayan Dam. Despite requiring a longer

response time, which is 14 hours after the start of rainfall or at the 20th
hour, the peak discharge reaches an astonishing 5595 m3/second. This
indicates that the area around Pamarayan Dam has a high accumulation
of surface flow, which can pose a greater flood risk if not managed
properly.
Chapter 4 - 38
Figure 4.14. Hydrographs at Cilangkap Flood Control Area (PDA), Keong

Bridge, and Pamarayan Dam in Scenario 109 - 100
The results of the conducted simulations play a crucial role in the

subsequent stages of flood analysis. In the context of hydraulic modeling
using HEC-RAS, these simulation results will be integrated as "boundary
conditions." These boundary conditions define the initial and final
parameters that serve as constraints in the simulation, such as input
and output water levels. By incorporating the simulation results into the
boundary conditions of the HEC-RAS model, the analysis process will
provide a more accurate reflection of the real conditions. Subsequently,
based on the input data, HEC-RAS will simulate flood inundation for
each predetermined scenario. With this approach, we can predict the
extent of flooding, the depth of inundation, and the duration of events
under different conditions and scenarios, providing valuable insights for
flood planning and mitigation strategies in the relevant areas.
4.2. HYDRAULIC MODELING
In this study, hydraulic modeling is carried out using the HEC-RAS

software, renowned in civil engineering and hydrology for its reliability
and comprehensive features. The model used integrates both one-
dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) approaches, allowing for a
more in-depth and representative analysis of water flow phenomena in a
particular area. The stages of hydraulic modeling are designed
systematically, starting with the initial setup of the HEC-RAS model,
Chapter 4 - 39
which includes the input of initial parameters, river geometry, and

hydrological data. The second stage focuses on the calibration and
validation of flood inundation, where simulation results are compared
with real data or observations to ensure the accuracy of the model. The
third stage involves the application of the calibrated model to perform
flood simulations based on specific scenarios, enabling a better
understanding of flood potential under various conditions.
4.2.1. HEC-RAS Model Setup
During the hydraulic modeling process using Hecras, the setup phase of
the model is crucial to ensure the accuracy of simulation results. The
main component of this phase is the creation of geometry. Within it, the
river scheme is depicted in detail, including the flow path, length, and
branches, to accurately replicate the flow of water. Cross-sections of the
river are made at specific points to depict the depth, width, and
characteristics of the riverbed, ensuring that variations in flow along the
river are achieved. The "Flow 2D Area" component represents the two-
dimensional flow of water, depicting how water moves, its velocity, and
how it interacts with obstacles in the field. Equally important, physical
structures such as bridges, dams, and other buildings that can affect the
flow are accounted for in detail. Additionally, the determination of
boundary conditions sets the initial and final conditions of the
simulation, while the computation setup adjusts the technical
parameters used. All these components collaborate to ensure that the
resulting simulation reflects real conditions with high precision.
River Scheme : This is a graphical representation of the river path,

including its length, meanders, and branches, which ensures that the
water flow can be accurately simulated. Figure 4.15 shows the river
scheme of Ciujung.
Chapter 4 - 40
Figure 4.15. View of Ciujung River Scheme
Cross Section : This section shows cross-sectional views of the river at

specific points, including the depth, width, and type of riverbed
substrate. This information is crucial for understanding how the water
flow changes along the river. Figure 4.16. shows a cross-section view of
Ciujung River.
Figure 4.16. View of Ciujung River Cross
Flow 2D Area : This component represents the two-dimensional flow of

water, providing an overview of the direction and velocity of the flow, as
Chapter 4 - 41
well as its interaction with structures and other obstructions in the field.
Figure 4.17. shows the view of the 2D flow area of Ciujung River.
Figure 4.17. View of Ciujung River 2D Flow Area
Buildings and Structures : In the Hecras model, buildings and other

structures in the field, such as bridges, dams, or any other structures
that can affect the flow, must be included with detail to ensure that the
simulation reflects real conditions. Figure 4.18. shows a view of the
Pamarayan dam in Ciujung River.
Chapter 4 - 42
Figure 4.18.View of the Pamarayan Dam in Ciujung River
In addition to geometry, there are other aspects such as determining

boundary conditions, which refer to the initial and final conditions of the
simulation, such as input and output water levels. The computational
setup determines other technical parameters, such as time steps and
numerical methods used in the simulation. All these components work
together to ensure that the Hecras model can generate accurate and
reliable simulations. Figure 4.19. and Figure 4.20. show the respective
boundary conditions and computation setup in HEC-RAS for Ciujung
model.
Chapter 4 - 43
Figure 4.19. View of Boundary Conditions in HEC-RAS Model for Ciujung
Figure 4.20. View of Computation Setup in HEC-RAS Model for Ciujung
Chapter 4 - 44
4.2.2. Model Calibration
In an effort to improve the accuracy of the flood model that has been
created, a calibration process based on real data from the January 2012
flood event was conducted. At that time, the flood intensity was
significant and had a significant impact on infrastructure, particularly
the Jakarta-Merak toll road. One tangible evidence of the magnitude of
the flood impact was the flooding that occurred in several sections of the
toll road. The lowest elevation of the toll road was recorded at 8.78
meters, and during the flood, the area with this elevation was completely
submerged, causing serious constraints on mobility. As a result, the toll
road became unfit and unsafe for vehicles to access. This condition not
only caused severe traffic congestion but also resulted in economic and
logistical losses. Therefore, through the calibration of the model based on
this event, it is expected that the developed model can more accurately
predict the potential flood risks in the future and help in planning more
disaster-adaptive infrastructure.
The map displayed in Figure 4.21. illustrates the flood inundation in the
Ciujung river basin during the 2012 flood event. It can be seen that some
areas experienced flooding, but certain areas were significantly affected.
Upstream of the Pamarayan dam, especially after the confluence of the
Ciujung and Cimanik rivers, flood areas began to form. However, the
situation became more critical downstream of the Pamarayan dam. Here,
the flood not only caused inundation but also disrupted crucial
infrastructure, such as the Jakarta-Merak toll road. Figure 4.22.
reinforces this by showing the physical condition of the Merak toll road
completely submerged, with some sections even disconnected due to the
strong flood currents. Interestingly, the simulation results generated
from this analysis align with field reports showing the damage and
disruption of the Jakarta-Merak toll road. This indicates that the
simulation method used has high reliability in predicting and replicating
real conditions in the field.
Chapter 4 - 45
Figure 4.21.Map of Flood Inundation in 2012
Chapter 4 - 46
Figure 4.22. Condition of Flooded Jakarta-Merak Toll Road in 2012
Furthermore, the water level profile for the Undar Andir station is shown
in Figure 4.23. The figure indicates that the maximum elevation of the
floodwater is +9.84 meters or 4.5 meters above the bridge abutment. This
elevation is slightly higher than the height of the toll road.
Chapter 4 - 47
Figure 4.23. Water Level Elevation at PDA Undar-Andir
4.2.3. Flood Simulation Based on Scenarios
Flood simulations under various scenarios provide valuable information.

This includes maps indicating the flood-affected areas, summary data
about the floods themselves, and the ability to observe how the situation
changes over time. In this report, we will examine an example of
simulation results from a specific scenario, SKE-0129_100. Figure 4.24.
in the report shows the depth of water inundation at various locations.
Similar information can be found in all the scenarios we have conducted.
Chapter 4 - 48
Figure 4.24. Flood Inundation in SKE-0129_100
In addition to maps showing the flooded areas, the simulation results

also provide additional valuable information, such as the extent of the
flooded area and the number of affected villages in each scenario. For
instance, this information is presented in Table 4.11. The table depicts
the area that is inundated in each scenario, as well as administrative
Chapter 4 - 49
data including the names of the villages, sub-districts, and related

districts. These simulation results are highly beneficial in summarizing
the impact of the floods by providing information about the number of
affected villages and the total area submerged by the floods.
Table 4.11. Information on Affected Villages in Simulation Results

Village Subdistrict Regency Inundation Area (ha)
Babakan Bandung Serang 79.1

Bandung Bandung Serang 90.8
Bantar Panjang Cikeusal Serang 129.3
Barengkok Kibin Serang 60.3
Binong Pamarayan Serang 209.7
Blokang Bandung Serang 75.6
Bojong Catang Tunjung Teja Serang 334.4
Bojong Menteng Tunjung Teja Serang 132.4
Bojong Pandan Tunjung Teja Serang 294.6
Bojongcae Cibadak Lebak 227.0
Bolang Lebak Wangi Serang 37.9
Carenang Carenang Serang 107.6
Cerukcuk Tanara Serang 352.4
Ciagel Kibin Serang 133.1
Cibadak Cibadak Lebak 3.2
Cibodas Tanara Serang 118.7
Cijeruk Kibin Serang 192.2
Cijoro Lebak Rangkasbitung Lebak 78.5
Cijoro Pasir Rangkasbitung Lebak 89.9
Cikatapis Kalanganyar Lebak 2.3
Cikeusal Cikeusal Serang 77.0
Cirangkong Petir Serang 29.7
Cirendeu Petir Serang 30.6
Cisangu Cibadak Lebak 79.4
Dahu Cikeusal Serang 173.6
Damping Pamarayan Serang 103.2
Dukuh Kragilan Serang 215.4
Gandayasa Cikeusal Serang 16.2
Harundang Cikeusal Serang 1.2
Jatimulya Rangkasbitung Lebak 23.9
Kaduagung Timur Cibadak Lebak 2.3
Kamaruton Lebak Wangi Serang 30.5
Kampung Baru Pamarayan Serang 308.3
Katulisan Cikeusal Serang 103.8
Keboncau Pamarayan Serang 39.3
Chapter 4 - 50
In every simulation scenario, besides obtaining information about the

inundation map and related data on the number of affected villages and
the area of inundation, other important data are also collected. For
instance, in Figure 4.25, we can observe a hydrograph that reflects the
flow of water from a specific Cloud Data Center (CDC), such as the
Pamarayan CDC. This hydrograph provides insights into how the water
discharge changes over time. Additionally, the simulation results also
generate information regarding the water surface elevation, which is
crucial for understanding the water level at various locations in the flood
scenario.
Chapter 4 - 51
Figure 4.25. The Hydrograph and Stage-hydrograph of the Pamarayan CDC for the SKE-0129_100 Scenario Can be Seen
Chapter 4 - 52
From the obtained hydrograph, time-travel can be derived for each

scenario, as indicated in 3.12. This time-travel is calculated based on the
onset of rainfall. It can be observed from the table of warning time
changes that the alert condition has a faster response time compared to
the alarm condition. These results will serve as information for early flood
warnings through rain post stations.
Table 4.12. Provides the Warning Time for Each CDC

Warning Time (Hours :
Post Name Minutes)
Alert Standby Watch Out
PAMARAYAN 3:00 3:55 4:40

CILAKI JAHE 3:40 4:10 4:30
SABAGI 6:00 - -
UNDAR ANDIR - - -
AWLR_A (CILADEUN-LEBAKGEDONG) - - -
AWLR_C (HAURGAJRUK-CIPANAS) - - -
AWLR_C1 (GIRIMUKTI-CIMARGA) 5:40 - -
AWLR_E1 (MEKARMULYA) 4:15 4:45 5:20
AWLR_F (HARIANG-SOBANG) - - -
AWLR_G (MERGAJAYA-CIMARGA) 4:20 4:40 5:20
AWLR_H (PARUNGKUJANG-CILELES) 3:10 3:20 3:30
AWLR_I (CILELES-CILELES) - - -
AWLR_J (JAYASARI-CIMARGA) - - -
AWLR_K (MARGATIRTA-CIMARGA) 4:30 - -
AWLR_L (MUNCANG KOPONG-CILELES) - - -
AWLR_M (CIKULUR-CILELES) 3:50 4:05 4:25
AWLR_N (CILANGKAP-KALANGANYAR) 3:45 4:00 4:10
AWLR_D (AWEH-KALANGANYAR) 4:10 4:50 5:30
AWLR_O (CIJORO-RANGKASBITUNG) 3:15 3:35 4:00
4.3. SCENARIO SELECTION
The selection of scenarios is based on the cumulative daily rainfall that

occurs, as demonstrated in the example shown in Table 4.13. In the
table, rainfall occurs at PCH Bojongmanik, Ciboleger, Leuwidamar, and
Cilaki, with an accumulated rainfall range of 150 - 175 mm.
Table 4.13. Example of Realtime Input Data

PCH Telemetry Accumulative
Chapter 4 - 53
Rainfall (mm)
Sindanglaya (AWS 2) 0
Lebak Situ (AWS 3) 0
Luhur Jaya (AWS 1) 0
Seruni (AWS 4) 0
Kiarasari 0
Ciboleger 150
Bojong Manik 175
SMP Leuwidamar 150
Ciminyak / Cilaki 175
Cicinta 0
Pamarayan 0
Kp. Parigi / Padarincang 0
Telaga Luhur 0
Cinangka 0
Sepang 0
Tersaba 0
Sukmajaya 0
Pulo Ampel 0
Next, the measured rainfall is inputted into a computational program

that selects the scenario that best approximates the actual rainfall
conditions, using the smallest Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) value as
a reference. In this example, we want to demonstrate that with an
increasing number of different databases, the prediction results will also
differ. Figure 4.26. displays the comparison of spatial rainfall
distribution between actual telemetry data and data from various
scenarios, with a database count of 144. On the other hand, Figure
4.27. shows the same results but with a larger database count of 864.
The results indicate that the RMSE for the scenario with 864 databases
is 3.4 mm, which is significantly smaller compared to the scenario with
144 databases, which has an RMSE of 30.48 mm. This illustrates the
importance of increasing the number of scenarios and considering the
rainfall that occurs within a specific time interval, rather than just its
accumulation, in order to improve flood prediction accuracy.
Chapter 4 - 54
Figure 4.26. Scenario Selection with 144 Databases
Figure 4.27. Scenario Selection with 864 Databases

CHAPTER IV. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS MODELING....................................1
Chapter 4 - 55
4.1. HYDROLOGICAL MODELING............................................................................1

4.1.1. Watersheds Delineation.................................................................................2
4.1.2. Model Parameters..........................................................................................6
4.1.3. Setting up HEC-HMS...................................................................................11
4.1.4. Calibration................................................................................................... 15
4.1.5. Calculation Rain Plans.................................................................................27
4.1.6. Sizing Scenarios...........................................................................................32
4.2. HYDRAULIC MODELING.................................................................................39
4.2.1. HEC-RAS Model Setup.................................................................................39
4.2.2. Model Calibration........................................................................................45
4.2.3. Flood Simulation Based on Scenarios..........................................................48
4.3. SCENARIO SELECTION...................................................................................53
Figures
Figure 4.1. Flow diagram of Watershed Delineation.........................................................................................3
Figure 4.2. DAS division of Ciujung Watershed in HEC-HMS model..................................................................4
Figure 4.3. HEC-HMS Basin Model For The Ciujung Watershed......................................................................12
Figure 4.4. Meteorologic Models HEC-HMS for the Ciujung Watershed.........................................................13
Figure 4.5. Control Specifications HEC-HMS for Ciujung Watershed...............................................................14
Figure 4.6. Time Series Data HEC-HMS for the Ciujung Watershed.................................................................15
Figure 4.7. Comparison of Rainfall at Hydrological Stations and Satellite Rainfall...........................................19
Figure 4.8. Spatial Map of Hourly Satellite Rainfall.........................................................................................20
Figure 4.9.Hourly Rainfall for Each Sub-Basin.................................................................................................21
Figure 4.10. Comparison of Simulation and Observation Discharge at the Pamarayan Dam..........................22
Figure 4.11.Frequency Distribution for Each Rain Station...............................................................................30
Figure 4.12. Telemetric Station Locations in the Ciujung River Basin..............................................................32
Figure 4.13. Spatial Rain Return Period Map for 100-Year Period...................................................................35
Figure 4.14. Hydrographs at Cilangkap Flood Control Area (PDA), Keong Bridge, and Pamarayan Dam in
Scenario 109 - 100..........................................................................................................................................37
Figure 4.15. View of Ciujung River Scheme.....................................................................................................39
Figure 4.16. View of Ciujung River Cross.........................................................................................................40
Figure 4.17. View of Ciujung River 2D Flow Area............................................................................................41
Figure 4.18.View of the Pamarayan Dam in Ciujung River...............................................................................42
Figure 4.19. View of Boundary Conditions in HEC-RAS Model for Ciujung......................................................43
Figure 4.20. View of Computation Setup in HEC-RAS Model for Ciujung........................................................43
Figure 4.21.Map of Flood Inundation in 2012.................................................................................................45
Figure 4.22. Condition of Flooded Jakarta-Merak Toll Road in 2012...............................................................46
Figure 4.23. Water Level Elevation at PDA Undar-Andir..................................................................................47
Figure 4.24. Flood Inundation in SKE-0129_100.............................................................................................48
Figure 4.25. The Hydrograph and Stage-hydrograph of the Pamarayan CDC for the SKE-0129_100 Scenario
Can be Seen....................................................................................................................................................51
Figure 4.26. Scenario Selection with 144 Databases.......................................................................................54
Figure 4.27. Scenario Selection with 864 Databases.......................................................................................54
Table
Table 4.1. Geometry Details of Sub-DAS in the Ciujung Watershed.................................4
Table 4.2. Sub-Watershed Code Land Cover Percentage (%).............................................8
Table 4.3. List of River Lengths.....................................................................................10
Table 4.4. Calibration Parameters for Each Sub-Basin..................................................23
Table 4.5. Calibration Result Parameters for Each River Section....................................25
Table 4.6. Maximum Daily Rain Data............................................................................28
Table 4.7. Design Rainfall Values for Each Station........................................................31
Table 4.8. Distance Matrix of Rainfall Telemetric Stations in and around the Ciujung
River Basin................................................................................................................... 34
Table 4.9. Rainfall Distribution in Terms of PSA 007 for Hourly Duration......................36
Table 4.10. Rainfall Scenario 109 - 100.........................................................................36
Chapter 4 - 56
Table 4.11. Information on Affected Villages in Simulation Results................................49

Table 4.12. Provides the Warning Time for Each CDC....................................................52
Table 4.13. Example of Realtime Input Data..................................................................53
Chapter 4 - 57

Bab 4. Hydrology - Laporan Final FFEWS - Han AI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bab 4. Hydrology - Laporan Final FFEWS - Han AI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER IV.

HIDROLOGY AND HIDRAULICS MODELING

CHAPTER IV. HYDROLOGY AND

4.1. HYDROLOGICAL MODELING

Hydrological modeling is a vital process that integrates various stages to

Next, determining the parameters within the model is a critical stage.

Calibration is the next important step. Through calibration, model

The final stage in this modeling process is the determination of rainfall

With this systematic approach, hydrological modeling provides in-depth

4.1.1. Watersheds Delineation

The determination of Watershed boundaries (Daerah Aliran Sungai/DAS)

and the boundaries of the Watershed (DAS) or catchment areas are

Figure 4.1. Flow diagram of Watershed Delineation

The results of the delineation of the Ciujung Watershed boundaries

Figure 4.2. DAS division of Ciujung Watershed in HEC-HMS model

Table 4.1. Geometry Details of Sub-DAS in the Ciujung Watershed

1 W-10 5.58 19.96 9.57

20 W-200 0.22 0.90 0.34

76 W-760 14.47 11.38 6.43

4.1.2. Model Parameters

In this study, the HEC-HMS model has been developed by adopting

The Snyder method is one of the classical approaches in hydrology used

Parameter for water loss in a Watershed (DAS) is represented by the CN

Table 4.2. Sub-Watershed Code Land Cover Percentage (%)

W-10 35.89 0.00 6.60 3.98 40.04 1.02 0.23 12.22

Percentage of Land Cover (%)

W-40 1.68 0.00 12.33 27.44 30.18 0.73 23.14 4.51

Percentage of Land Cover (%)

W-660 1.63 0.24 70.28 6.67 14.88 4.44 0.16 1.70

The parameter of flow routing in rivers, often referred to as "routing," is

Table 4.3. List of River Lengths

No. River Code River Length (km)

4.1.3. Setting up HEC-HMS

Setting up the HEC-HMS model is a crucial step in conducting hydrologic

Figure 4.3. HEC-HMS Basin Model For The Ciujung Watershed

Figure 4.4. Meteorologic Models HEC-HMS for the Ciujung Watershed

here to ensure the simulation runs efficiently. Figure 4.5. shows

Figure 4.5. Control Specifications HEC-HMS for Ciujung Watershed

d. Time Series Data

Model calibration is a vital process in hydrological modeling to ensure

simulated model results approximate or match the observation data. The

In the spatial analysis of rainfall distribution, there was quite significant

distance between these rain gauge stations, Bojongmanik and Ciminyak

Satellite rainfall data from GSMaP provided a different perspective on

Figure 4.7. provides a detailed overview of rainfall changes in the

Based on GSMaP data, there is a pattern of rainfall distribution moving

Figure 4.7. Comparison of Rainfall at Hydrological Stations and Satellite

Figure 4.8. Spatial Map of Hourly Satellite Rainfall

Hourly rainfall data is essential in hydrological modeling as it provides

Figure 4.9.Hourly Rainfall for Each Sub-Basin

Figure 4.10. Comparison of Simulation and Observation Discharge at the

In hydrological modeling, calibration with field data ensures prediction

Table 4.4. Calibration Parameters for Each Sub-Basin

W-10 0.98 0.26 82.91 53.71

W-70 0.98 0.23 73.25 33.03

W-630 0.75 1.68 55.90 15.13

Table 4.5. Calibration Result Parameters for Each River

4.1.5. Calculation Rain Plans

Rainfall design calculations are used to determine rainfall values for

These inconsistencies raise questions about the quality and reliability of

In hydrological analysis, selecting the appropriate distribution for rainfall

distribution. The distribution with the smallest ∆max value is considered

Table 4.6. Maximum Daily Rain Data