Monograph Annex III English

Government of the Republic of Mozambique
Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUNGWE RIVER BASIN

JOINT INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
MONOGRAPH REPORT
ANNEX III
SECTOR STUDY ON:
HYDROLOGICAL DATA
QUALITY & MODELLING
FINAL REPORT
APRIL 2004
SWECO & Associates

Client: Government of the Republic of Mozambique
Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe
Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency (Sida)
Project: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUNGWE RIVER BASIN

JOINT INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Title: Monograph Report
Sub title: Annex III,

Sector Study on: Hydrological Data Quality &
Modelling
Status of report: Final
SWECO Project No: 1150447
Date: April 2004
Project team: SWECO International AB, Sweden (lead)

ICWS, The Netherlands
OPTO International AB, Sweden
SMHI, Sweden
NCG AB, Sweden
CONSULTEC Lda, Mozambique
IMPACTO Lda, Mozambique
Catholic University of Mozambique
Interconsult Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd, Zimbabwe
Approved by:
Lennart Lundberg, Project Director

SWECO INTERNATIONAL AB
P:/1113/1116/1150447000 Pungue IWRM Strategy - Sida/Original/Monograph Report/Annex III/English/Annex III Hydrology.doc

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUNGWE RIVER BASIN JOINT IWRM STRATEGY Monograph Report
Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin
The Pungwe Project

The Pungwe River Basin Joint Integrated Water Resources Management
Strategy (IWRMS), the Pungwe Project in short, is a co-operative effort by the
Governments of Zimbabwe and Mozambique to create a framework for the
sustainable and equitable management, development and conservation of the
water resources of the Pungwe River basin, with the objective of increasing
the derived social and economic benefits for the people living in the basin. A
key element in the development of this strategy by the Project lies in building
capacity for its implementation and upgrading, to facilitate effective
participatory management by both the authorities and stakeholders. The
Pungwe River is in a shared watercourse between the two countries.
The Pungwe Project is financed by the Swedish International Development

Co-operation Agency (Sida), through an agreement with Zimbabwe and
Mozambique.
The project is implemented under the auspices of the Department of Water

Development (DWD), in the Ministry of Rural Resources, Water Development
and Irrigation (MRRWD&I), Zimbabwe, and the National Directorate of Water
(DNA), in the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Mozambique, on behalf of
the two governments. The implementing agencies are the Zimbabwe National
Water Authority (ZINWA) through the Save Catchment Manager’s Office, and
the Regional Water Administration of Central Mozambique (ARA-Centro),
respectively.
The Pungwe project commenced in February 2002 and is being implemented

in four phases, viz:
Phase 0 – Inception Phase
Phase 1 – Monograph Phase
Phase 2 – Scenario Development Phase
Phase 3 – Joint IWRM Strategy Phase
APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT
Page i
SWECO, ICWS, OPTO, SMHI, NCG,
CONSULTEC, IMPACTO, UCM,
Interconsult Zimbabwe
The Monograph Phase

During the monograph phase a large effort by the Consultant together with the
implementing agencies in Zimbabwe and Mozambique was directed towards
improving the knowledge base for the development of the water resources of
the basin through a number of sector studies. The sector studies describe the
present situation in the basin with regards to water resources, environment
and pollution, water demand, infrastructure and socio-economy.
Activities to assess and strengthen the legal and institutional capacities of the
implementing agencies have also been carried out. These activities that are
an on-going process throughout the Project have, among others, included the
development, technology acquisition and training in the use of GIS and
hydrological modelling management tools.
Dissemination of information about the Project as well as consultations with

stakeholder groups in the basin have been carried in order to increase the
awareness of the Project and to facilitate stakeholder participation in IWRM of
the Pungwe river basin.
List of Documents
The Monograph Report includes the following documents:
Main Report
Annex I Sector study on: Surface Water Resources
Annex II Sector study on: Hydrometric Networks
Annex III Sector study on: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling
Annex IV Sector study on: Groundwater Resources
Annex V Sector study on: Dams and other Hydraulic Works
Annex VI Sector study on: Water Quality and Sediment transport
Annex VII Sector study on: Water Demand for Water Supply & Sanitation
Annex VIII Sector study on: Water Demand for Irrigation and Forestry
Annex IX Sector study on: Fisheries
Annex X Sector study on: Conservation Areas, Wildlife and Tourism
Annex XI Sector study on: Infrastructure
Annex XII Sector study on: Socio-economy
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2 INTRODUCTION 4
3 HYDROLOGICAL DATA QUALITY 6

3.1 Runoff data 7
3.1.1 How is river runoff monitored? 7
3.1.2 Choice of principal stations 8
3.1.3 Data coverage and quality of data 11
3.1.4 Visual inspections 39
3.1.5 Summary of quality analysis 39
3.2 Rainfall data 41
4 HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING 43
4.1 Modelling methodology 44
4.2 Description of the models 45
4.2.1 The Pitman hydrological model 45
4.2.2 The HBV hydrological model 46
4.3 Model licenses and software 47
4.4 Modelling monthly flow for Pungwe River basin 47
4.4.1 Objective of monthly flow modelling 47
4.4.2 Subbasin division and catchment areas 47
4.4.3 Water abstractions 50
4.4.4 Model scheme 51
4.4.5 Patching of rainfall data 51
4.4.6 Evaporation data 52
4.4.7 Modelling period 53
4.4.8 Pitman model calibration and validation 54
4.4.9 Pitman model results 57
4.5 Modelling daily flow for Pungwe River basin 59
4.5.1 Objective of daily flow modelling 59
4.5.2 Subbasin division and model scheme 59
4.5.3 Weighting of rainfall station 60
4.5.4 Evaporation data 60
4.5.5 HBV model calibration and validation 60
4.5.6 HBV model results 65
4.5.7 Flood forecasting 66
4.6 Comparison of results for the two models 67
5 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS 70

5.1 Frequency analysis 71
5.2 Instantaneous peaks 75
5.3 Empirical methods 78
5.4 Previous studies 80
5.5 Conclusions of flood studies 80
Page iii
6 RELIABILITY OF RESULTS 82
6.1 Climatic analysis of the river basin 83
6.2 Reliability of the hydrological model results 87
6.3 Estimation of long-term mean runoff 87
6.4 Estimation of extremes 89
6.5 Conclusions 91
7 REFERENCES 92
APPENDIX 1 Rainfall stations in the Pungwe River basin
APPENDIX 2 Double-mass analysis of rainfall data
APPENDIX 3 Evaporation pans in the Pungwe River basin
APPENDIX 4 Monthly evaporation values
APPENDIX 5 Subbasin division for Pitman model
APPENDIX 6 Pitman model scheme
APPENDIX 7 Rainfall stations used for Pitman model
APPENDIX 8 Pitman model parameters
APPENDIX 9 Pitman model validation results
APPENDIX 10 HBV model scheme
APPENDIX 11 Rainfall stations used for HBV model
APPENDIX 12 HBV model parameters
APPENDIX 13 HBV model validation results
APPENDIX 14 Frequency analysis
Page iv
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 1 (93)
The present Annex III Hydrological Data Quality and Modelling aims to support
Annex I on Surface Water Resources through detailed descriptions of the data
and methods used to calculate the surface water resources and extreme
floods of the Pungwe River basin. Annex III is focused towards hydrologists or
water resources engineers with experiences in hydrological data monitoring
and modelling.
The annex describes in detailed and technical way the
• Runoff data quality analysis in the Pungwe River basin
• Rainfall data quality analysis in the Pungwe River basin
• Hydrological modelling of monthly and daily flows in the Pungwe River

basin.
• Flood frequency analysis for station sites in the Pungwe River basin.
It also ends with an assessment of the general reliability of the surface water
resources estimates and the extreme flows computed for the Pungwe River
basin.
The data quality analysis indicated that the F14, E64 and E65 stations have
the most reliable records on river flow in the Pungwe River. Also F22, E72 and
E81 have fairly reliable records. The reliability, however, varies considerably
for observed MAR, daily data and peaks.
The rainfall records in the Pungwe River basin are in general of good quality
and no record was found to be not reliable.
Only 21 years (Oct 1960 – Sep 1981) were simulated by the monthly
hydrological model for the entire basin because outside this period the number
rainfall stations with available data was too small. For the period Oct 1960 -
Sep 80, however, the overall conclusion from the hydrological modelling of
river flow in the Pungwe River basin is that the models can produce
acceptable results. The model results show a clear tendency of performing
better in the upper parts of the Pungwe River basin. The lower Pungwe River
basin is very complex to model since the area is very flat and a large part of
the rainfall is lost to evapotranspiration. For the upper parts of the basin it was
therefore also possible to simulate flows with reliable results for the period Oct
1956 – Sep 2002.
The frequency analysis results showed large variation because of the

uncertainties in observed peak values, uncertainties in simulated peak values
Page 2 (93)
and uncertainties in the frequency analysis methodology. Based on the results

it was therefore not possible to conclude any firm design floods for the station
sites in the Pungwe River basin. Instead intervals were computed to give
information on the order of magnitude for the design floods with different
return period.
A climatic analysis of the upper Pungwe River basin indicated that the results
on surface water resources are in the correct order of magnitude and the
validation of the models indicates that they can reproduce river runoff within
±15% of the mean annual runoff.
The general conclusions regarding the reliability of the surface water results
were:
• The mean annual runoff and rainfall estimated for the different subbasins
of the Pungwe River are considered as good and reliable for the period
1960-80. However, since the calculation period may be slightly wetter than
the long-term average the given MAR may be slightly overestimated (5-
15%) compared to the long-term true value.
• The average contribution from the two countries Mozambique (72%) and
Zimbabwe (28%) is also judged to be reliable. It shall, however, be noted
that the distribution is based on average conditions and that it can be very
different for individual years.
• The extreme low flows are less reliable. The extreme low flows based on
the period 1960-1980 are probably overestimated compared to the long-
term true minimum flows. Much care must therefore be taken when using
these low flow estimates for planning of water use.
• The extreme high flows are very uncertain and the calculated design flood
intervals must be used with much care.
Page 3 (93)
2 INTRODUCTION
Page 4 (93)
The present Annex III Hydrological Data Quality and Modelling aims to support
Annex I through detailed descriptions of the data and methods used to
calculate the surface water resources of the Pungwe River basin.
The annex is very technical and is focused towards hydrologists or water

resources engineers with experiences in hydrological data monitoring and
modelling.
To be able to read both Annex Surface Water Resources, and the present
Annex III as individual reports there are parts that are repeated in both
annexes.
Page 5 (93)
3 HYDROLOGICAL DATA QUALITY
Page 6 (93)
3.1 Runoff data
3.1.1 How is river runoff monitored?

In Mozambique and Zimbabwe as in most countries, river flow is computed
from observed water stage readings upstream of a gauging station. The water
levels are monitored manually via scales or with an automatic recorder.
To be able to calculate river flow an unambiguous relation, called rating curve,

between the water level and the river flow is needed. Hydraulically this is
called a control section where Froude’s number is equal to one. Basically two
types of control sections exist:
• Natural controls where the river naturally forms a control through changes
in the bed level and section. In Mozambique almost all stations are natural
controls.
• Artificial structures such as sharp- or broadcrested weirs, v-notches, and

flumes. In Zimbabwe most stations consist of artificial structures.
For structures rating curves can be computed through standard hydraulic

formulae based on the geometry of the structure. For natural controls the
rating curve, however, needs to be established by current meter gauging
where the river flow is measured in detail for different water levels.
The reliability of the river flow data is directly dependent of how well the rating
curves describe the actual relation between water levels and flow.
Artificial structures have the advantage of being stable and accurate if

constructed correctly. River flows for levels up to the height of the cut-off walls,
the notch capacity, are therefore reliable. However if the whole structure is
flooded the rating curve is normally extrapolated from the defined lower part
and is thus more uncertain.
Natural controls are very sensitive to changes in the river section at the station
site. Deposition or scouring of bed and bank sediments and growth of
vegetation directly influence the shape of the rating curve. For stations
adapted to section changes the rating curve thus needs to be continuously
updated every year by regular current meter measurements. In Mozambique
this procedure is common for many stations.
To evaluate the reliability of historical data on river flow an analysis can be

made taking into account for instance type of station, notch capacities,
adaptability to section changes and results from current meter measurements.
Page 7 (93)
This analysis has been conducted for the data used for calculation of surface
water resources in the Pungwe River basin.
3.1.2 Choice of principal stations

A total of some 40 runoff stations with a reference number exist in the Pungwe
River basin (Figure 1). There are totally 22 stations in Mozambique and 4
stations in Zimbabwe with available data records for Pungwe River basin (see
Annex I and II).
However, many of these records monitor a very small area or have very short
records. To make a general assessment of the surface water in the large
Pungwe River basin it is therefore necessary to choose a number of principal
stations to work with. Based on the location and record lengths the following
stations were chosen as principal stations as input to the hydrological
modelling (Figure 2):
• F14 Pungwe Falls
• F22 Katiyo U/S border
• E64 Pungwe Fronteira D/S border
• E73 Honde River
• E65 Pungwe Bridge at Tete Rd
• E72 Nhazonia
• E401 Pungwe River
• E80 Vunduzi River
• E66 Bué Maria
• E81 Urema River
• E76 Metuchira
• E67 Pungwe River U/S intake to Beira Water Supply
Page 8 (93)
Figure 1 River flow stations with a reference number in the Pungwe River basin. Many of
these records have, however, none or very short records. For details of available
data, see Appendix 6 in Annex I.
The principal stations covers the main Pungwe River and the major tributaries
such as Honde, Nhazonia, Vunduzi, Urema and Metuchira. Most of the major
runoff stations in Mozambique cover the period from mid 1950s to mid 1970s
(Figure 2). Only the Zimbabwean stations cover data for the last years.
Page 9 (93)
PRINCIPAL STATIONS OF THE PUNGWE RIVER BASIN

2
Name Stn no. River Area (km ) Data coverage
Pungwe Falls F14 Pungwe 86 1970-77, 80-2003
Katiyo F22 Pungwe 641 1997-2003
Pungue em fronteira E64 Pungwe 687 1956-73
Honde em Mavonde E73 Honde 1100 1956-76
Pungue em EN. 102 E65 Pungwe 3100 1954-83, 93-97
Nhazonia em A. Da Costa E72 Nhazónia 2700 1956-73
Pungue Tacuraminga E401 Pungwe 10370 1970-76
Vunduzi em V. Paiva de Andrade E80 Vunduzi 3365 1963-81
Bué Maria E66 Pungwe 15046 1953-81, 93-98
E.R.433 Chitengo E81 Urema 8060 1956-78
Metuchira em Bue Maria E76 Metuchira 798 1958-73, 80-97
Pungue em EN. 6 E67 Pungwe 26870 1957-84, 88-91, 95-96
Figure 2 Chosen principal river flow stations in the Pungwe River basin.
Page 10 (93)
3.1.3 Data coverage and quality of data

Below is described a quality assessment of all the principal stations. It is
recommended that the chapter be read in combination with Annex II
(Appendices 5-8), which describes the stations and station sites in more detail.
F14 Pungwe Falls
The station at Pungwe Falls just downstream of the Mutare water intake is a
concrete structure with sharp crested notches (see Annex II). The site is not
prone to sedimentation or major changes in vegetation.
160
F14 Pungwe Falls
140
120
100
80
60
40
Notch capacity
20
0
Oct-70 Oct-75 Oct-80 Oct-85 Oct-90 Oct-95 Oct-00
STATION FACTS F14

Record 1970-77, 80-2003
In operation
Daily Data
Sharp-crested weirs, Limnograph
Notch Capacity 31.5 m3/s
Max daily mean 153 m3/s
Catchment area 85.5 km2
Observed MAR 1460 mm/year
Page 11 (93)
Because of the stable conditions provided by the structure the flows below the
notch capacity are judged as very reliable. As seen in the graph the flows are
below the notch capacity more than 95% of the time. Therefore, the MAR is
also judged to be very reliable.
The peaks are more uncertain because they are above the notch capacity.
The high peak in March 1976 seems unrealistically high. However, a closer
analysis of the peak shows that the volume of the peak corresponds to a
monthly flow of 1 825 mm. At these extreme wet conditions almost all rainfall
is conveyed to the river, why the necessary rainfall to produce such a flow is in
the order of 1 900-2 000 mm/month. The stations in the area show maximum
observed rainfall in the order of 1 700 mm/month. Therefore the March-76
peak cannot be discarded.
CONCLUSIONS F14
MAR Very reliable
Daily data Very reliable below 31.5 m3/s
Peaks Fairly reliable
Page 12 (93)
F22 Katiyo
The Katiyo station is located in the Pungwe River a few kilometres upstream
the border to Mozambique. It is a natural control with a stable rocky section.
700
F22 Katiyo
600
500
400
300
Max current meter observation

200
100
0
Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03
STATION FACTS F22

Record 1997-2003
In operation
Daily Data
Natural Control, Data logger
Catchment area 641 km2
Reports on some problems with data logger
Totally 42 current meter measurements have been conducted at the F22 site.
The graph shows that the section is very stable and that both low and medium
flows are covered with current meter measurements.
Page 13 (93)
100.0
Current Meter Measurements F22
99.5
99.0
98.5
Level (m)
1995
1996
98.0 1997
1998
1999
97.5 ZINWA Rating Curve
97.0
96.5
0 50 100 150 200 250
Runoff (m3/s)
Because of the stable conditions correctly monitored water levels below the
maximum current meter gauging (99.86 m, 215 m3/s) can be converted to
reliable flows. As seen in the graph the monitored flows are also below this
maximum value for the majority of the time.
However, there have been reports on problems with the data logger and
therefore there may be some uncertainties with the observed water levels.
Comparison between the manually read scale and the logger has shown some
inaccuracies, although relatively small. ZINWA is at the moment further
analysing this problem.
Due to the limited error it is, however, still judged that the data is fairly reliable.
If the problem with the data logger is solved the data should be very reliable.
Since no current meter measurements have been made for really large flows
and the section changes quite much when the water floods the riverbanks the
high peaks are judged as uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS F22
MAR Fairly reliable
Daily data Fairly reliable below 250 m3/s
Peaks Uncertain
Page 14 (93)
E64 Pungue Fronteira
The E64 station that was closed in 1973, was located just downstream of the
border on the Mozambican side. It was a natural control station.
600

500
400
Max current meter observation
300
200
100
0
Oct-56 Oct-59 Oct-62 Oct-65 Oct-68 Oct-71
Totally 248 current meter measurements were conducted at the E64 site
between 1956 and 1973. The graphs show that the section, similarly to the
nearby Katiyo station, seems stable and that, except for the peaks, most of the
monitored flows are covered with current meter measurements.
STATION FACTS E64

Record 1956-73
Closed 1973
Daily Data
Natural Control, Scales
Max observed level 7.96 m
Page 15 (93)
4.0
Current Meter Measurements E64
3.8
3.6
1956
3.4 1957
1958
1959
Water Level (m)
3.2 1960
1961
3.0 1962
1963
1964
2.8 1965
1966
1967
2.6
1968
1969
2.4 1970
1971
1972
2.2
1973
DNA Rating curve
2.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Runoff (m3/s)
Because of limited scatter and the stable conditions flows below the maximum
current meter gauging (3.76 m, 106 m3/s) are judged as reliable. The graph
shows also that the monitored flows are below this maximum value for the
majority of the time and, therefore, the MAR is also judged to be reliable.
Since no current meter measurements have been made for flows above 106
m3/s the high peaks are judged as uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS E64
MAR Reliable
3
Daily data Reliable below 110 m /s
Peaks Fairly reliable for minor peaks (<110 m3/s)
Uncertain for medium to high peaks
Page 16 (93)
E73 Mavonde
The E73 station that was closed in 1976, was located in the Honde River just
downstream the confluence with the Nyamkwarara River. The scales were
located on the upstream side of the road bridge, which worked to a certain
extent as a control section.
700
E73 Mavonde
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
STATION FACTS E73

Record 1956-76
Closed 1976
Daily Data
Natural Control/Bridge, Scales
The totally 318 current meter measurements conducted at the E73 site shows
that the section is unstable. The reason is probably that deposition and
resuspension of bed sediment occur at the site depending on the flow. This is
indicated by that the level of the rating curve varies up and down from year to
year (see graphs). The long-term trend is, however, that the rating curve
seems to be rising, i.e. there is net deposition of sediment just upstream the
Page 17 (93)
bridge. The graph shows that during the period 1960 to 1976 the bed was
raised with almost one metre.
5
4.5
4 1956-57
1958-59
1960
1961
Level (m)
3.5 1962
1963
1964
1965
3 1966
1967
1968
2.5 1969
1970
1971
1972
2 1973
1974-76
1976
1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Runoff (m3/s)
5
DNA Rating curves E73
4.5
4
Level (m)
3.5
1956-63
1963-66
3 1966-67
1967-69
1969-73
2.5
1973-75
1975-
2 D.M.
1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Runoff (m3/s)
Because of the unstable section DNA has used different rating curves for
different periods as shown in the graph. However, since the sediment
deposition and resuspension probably cause changes frequently also within
the season a great deal of uncertainty still remains.
Page 18 (93)
The change in the bed levels mostly affects the low to medium flows, which
comprise most of the MAR. Therefore, the uncertainty in daily data also is
reflected in the long-term average flow.
As seen by the graphs, the highest observed levels are much higher than the
range covered by current meter measurements. Therefore the peaks are also
very uncertain and therefore judged as unreliable for the E73 site.
CONCLUSIONS E73
MAR Uncertain
Daily data Uncertain
Peaks Not reliable
Page 19 (93)
E65 Pungue Sul
The E65 station is located in the Pungwe River at the Tete Road just
downstream of the confluence with Mavuzi River. The scales were previously
located at the old road bridge but was in the late 1990s moved to the new
bridge just downstream of the former. The bridges therefore to a certain extent
works as a control but since the bridge pillars cover a relatively small part of
the section the station is essentially a natural control.
The E65 station covers approximately 10% of the Pungwe River basin.
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Level for reliable rating curve
500
0
Dec-53 Dec-57 Dec-61 Dec-65 Dec-69 Dec-73 Dec-77 Dec-81 Dec-85 Dec-89 Dec-93 Dec-97 Dec-01
STATION FACTS E65

Record 1953-82, 93-97, 99-01
In operation
Daily Data
Natural Control/Bridge
Max observed level 11.59m
Page 20 (93)
11
10
8
Level (m)
7
DM 1953-60
6 DM 1961-70
DM 1971-81
5
RC 1953-66
4 RC 1966-79
RC 1979-
3
2
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Runoff (m3/s)
Totally 648 current meter measurements were made during the period 1953 to
1981. They show little scatter and proves that the control section is stable. For
flows up to 750 m3/s the data are judged as reliable.
The record is complete up to 1977. After this the low to medium flows are
missing most probably because the lower scales were damaged. When the
record starts in 1993 data seem again to be of good quality. However, the
rating curve established from current meter measurements prior to 1981 is
used for the period, which causes some uncertainty in these data.
After the scales were re-established at the new bridge in 1999 the data show
clearly that the old rating curve is not valid. The zero level was probably
changed and the construction of the new bridge has probably changed the
river section.
The frequent current meter measurements up to flow levels of 750 m3/s

indicate that also many peak values are reliable. The current meter gauging at
1 667 m3/s further indicates that the medium-high peaks are well described by
the used rating curves.
Page 21 (93)
CONCLUSIONS E65
MAR Reliable
Daily data Reliable up to 1977
Uncertain 78-82, 93-97
Not reliable 99-01
Peaks Reliable up to 750 m3/s
Fairly reliable up to 1700 m3/s
Page 22 (93)
E72 Nhazonia
The E72 station is located in the Nhazonia River some 20 km upstream of its
confluence with Pungwe. The station is a natural control.
The station was active for the period 1956 to 1973. In 1999 the station was re-
established. However, since the information on the old location of the scales
was lost the new scales were not put exactly at the same place. Because of
this and probable natural changes in the river section a new rating curve is
needed, which is not yet in place.
200
E72 Nhazonia
180
160
140
120
Max current meter measurement
100
80
60
40
20
0
Oct-56 Oct-59 Oct-62 Oct-65 Oct-68 Oct-71
STATION FACTS E72

Record 1956-73
In operation
Daily Data
Natural Control
Page 23 (93)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Level (m)
2.5 1956-58
1959-61
2.0
1962-64
1.5
1965-67
1.0 1968-70
1971-73
0.5
DNA Rating curve
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Runoff (m3/s)
332 current meter measurements were conducted during the period 1956-73.
The values indicate a stable section even if a detailed analysis shows small
net deposition of bed sediment at the site, i.e. a small rise of the rating curve,
during the period. The current meter measurements show very little scatter up
to some 20 m3/s and little scatter up to 70 m3/s. Because the bulk of the
volume passing the station occurs at these flows the observed MAR thus is
judged as fairly reliable.
The range covered by current meter measurements includes minor peak

values. Because of no measurements for higher flows and that the natural
river section is dramatically changing at higher levels, the medium to high
peaks are judged as uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS E72
MAR Fairly reliable
Daily data Fairly reliable below 70 m3/s
Peaks Fairly reliable for minor peaks (<70 m3/s)
Uncertain for medium to high peaks
Page 24 (93)
E401 Tacuraminga
The E401 station was located in the Pungwe River upstream of the Vunduzi
tributary. The station was closed in 1977 and access is now very difficult. The
E401 covers approximately 30% of the Pungwe River basin.
3000
E401 Tacuraminga
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Max current meter
measurement
0
STATION FACTS E401

Record 1970-77
Closed 1977
Daily Data
Page 25 (93)
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
Level (m)
3.0
1970-73
2.8
Rating curve
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Runoff (m3/s)
Only 44 current meter measurements were conducted at the E401 site

between 1970 and 1973. The few measurements show little scatter. Because
of the short period for which current meter measurements were made it is,
however, not possible to make any conclusions on the stability of the river
section at the E401 site.
A comparison with the downstream stations E66 and E67 shows that the peak
flows at E401 are grossly overestimated. Because of the errors in high flows
and the short record the observed MAR is also judged as uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS E401
MAR Uncertain
Daily data Fairly reliable low flows (<240 m3/s)
Medium-high flows not reliable
Peaks Not reliable
Page 26 (93)
E80 Vunduzi
The E80 station was located in the Vunduzi River not far from the Gorongosa
Village covering almost the entire river before it enters the Pungwe River. The
station was closed in 1985.
500
450
400
350
300
Max current meter
measurement
250
200
150
100
50
0
STATION FACTS E80

Record 1964-85
Closed 1985
Daily Data
The graph of the record shows a very extreme flow with peaks up to 2 000
m3/s but with low average (12 m3/s).
Totally 142 current meter measurements were conducted during the period
1959-1980. These show clearly that the section was unstable with net
sediment scouring during the period of measurements. Also within each year
Page 27 (93)
the scatter is normally large and the majority of the measurements were made
during low flows.
Because of the unstable section and few rating curves used the low to
medium flows, and therefore also the MAR, are not judged as reliable. The
lack of current meter measurements for high flows further makes the peak
unreliable. The extreme uncertainty in the E80 records is confirmed by a visual
inspection of the record.
3.1
2.9
2.7
1959
2.5
1960
1961
1962-63
Level (m)
1964
2.3
1965-66
1967
1968
2.1 1969
1970
1971-72
1.9 1973-75
1976
1977
1.7 1978-80
R.C.1958-73
R.C.1973-80
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Runoff (m3/s)
CONCLUSIONS E80
MAR Not reliable
Daily data Not reliable
Peaks Not reliable
Page 28 (93)
E66 Bué Maria
The E66 station was located at the proposed Bué Maria dam site in the
Pungwe River. The station covers 50% percent of the Pungwe River basin. It
was active during the period 1953-1981. In the late 1990s the scales were
rehabilitated but no observer were engaged and therefore no levels have been
taken after 1981. In 2003 the Gorongosa Road Bridge some kilometres
upstream replaced the station site.
The river section is very wide with large banks of fine sediments within the
section and at the right riverbank. A large number of current meter
measurements (616) were conducted during the periods of 1953-81 and 1993-
96. These show also that the river bed is very unstable with large changes
between years and a long-term net scouring of almost one metre from 1953 to
1980. Only during one year, 1981, was current meter measurements made for
higher flows.
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
Level for fairly reliable data
1000
500
0
Page 29 (93)
STATION FACTS E66

Record 1953-81, 93-96
Closed 2003
Daily Data
DNA has accordingly used different curves for each year, which give less
uncertain low-medium flows. However, for high flows most of the used curves,
which are fitted to low flow current meter measurements, are unlikely (see
graphs). Only the curves for 1958-62, 1965-69 and 1981 are in the correct
order of magnitude for high flows.
A detailed study of each rating curve shows that they in general fit quite well
for low flows up to about 200 m3/s with the current meter measurements
conducted during the period of its validity. As seen by the graph above the
majority of the water volume passes E66 at lower values than this level
(average flow is 93 m3/s), and therefore the low-medium flows and the MAR
are judged as is fairly reliable.
For high flows the values are uncertain and for the periods 1953-57, 1963-64,
1970-80, 1993-96 not reliable.
Page 30 (93)
8.0

7.5
7.0 1953-57
1958
1959
1960
6.5 1961
1962
1963
6.0 1964
Level (m)
1965
1966
5.5 1967
1968
1969
1970
5.0 1971
1972
1973
4.5 1974
1975
1976
1977
4.0 1978-79
1980
1981
3.5 1993-96
3.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Runoff (m3/s)
8.0
Rating Curves E66
7.5
7.0
6.5
Discharge Measurements
1953-54
6.0
Level (m)
1954-57
1957
5.5
1957-58
1958-62
5.0
1962-65
1965-69
4.5
1969-73
1973-76
4.0
1976-79
1979-81
3.5
1981
3.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Runoff (m3/s)
CONCLUSIONS E66
MAR Fairly reliable
Daily data Fairly reliable up to 200 m3/s
Uncertain >200 m3/s
Peaks Uncertain 1958-62, 65-69, 81
Not reliable 1953-57, 63-64, 70-80
Page 31 (93)
E81 Chitengo
The E81 station was located in the Urema River downstream of the
Gorongosa National Park. The station monitors approximately 25% of the
Pungwe River basin.
180
160
140
120
Level for fairly
reliable data
100
80
60
40
20
0
STATION FACTS E81

Record 1956-81
Closed 1981
Daily Data
Despite its large catchment area the record shows very low high flows. One of
the reasons is probably that the upstream Urema lake, which is the heart of
the Gorongosa park, dampens the flow considerably.
Totally 188 current meter measurements were conducted during the period
1956-76. They show good consistency and a stable section until 1973, when
Page 32 (93)
apparently something is happening to the section or the scales. For the period
1956-73 there is fairly little scatter up to 15 m3/s.

7
6
Level (m)
5
1956-57
1958-59
1960-61
4 1962-63
1964-65
1966-67
3 1968-69
1970-71
1972-73
1975-76
2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Runoff (m3/s)
Rating Curves E81

8
6
Level (m)
1956-58
5
1958-61
1961-66
4
1966-70
1970-72
3
1972-73
2 1973-75
D.M. 1956-73
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Runoff (m3/s)
For the period 1956 to 1973 the low to medium flows, and the MAR, are
therefore judged as fairly reliable. For high flows the scatter is larger and the
peak data are therefore judged as uncertain although current meter
Page 33 (93)
measurements up to 140 m3/s indicate that even the highest observed values
are in the correct order of magnitude.
CONCLUSIONS E81
MAR Fairly reliable 1956-73
Daily data Fairly reliable up to 15 m3/s 1956-73
Not reliable 1974-81
Peaks Uncertain
Page 34 (93)
E76 Metuchira
The E76 station is located in the Metuchira village covering approximately 800
km2 of the Metuchira River basin. The river section is quite wide and shows no
obvious control. The scales were rehabilitated in 1998-99 at the exact place as
the old positions. No current meter measurements have, however, been
performed since the rehabilitation.
4.5
E76 Metuchira
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Oct-58 Oct-63 Oct-68 Oct-73 Oct-78 Oct-83 Oct-88 Oct-93 Oct-98
STATION FACTS E76

Record 1958-73, 80-98
In operation
Daily Data
The E76 record shows very strange patterns and unrealistically low values.
The 393 current meter measurements show further that there is a very poor
control section at the station site and/or that there have been serious changes
during the period of observations. The zero level seems to have changed
more than two metres.
Page 35 (93)
All together, the record, the poor control section and the current meter
measurements indicate that the E76 record is not reliable for either low,
medium or high flows.
4
3.5
1960
3 1961
1962
1963
2.5 1964
1965
Level (m)
1966
2 1967
1968
1969
1.5 1970
1971-72
1973-74
1 1975-76
1977-79
1980
0.5 1981
1982-83
1989-96
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Runoff (m3/s)
CONCLUSIONS E76
MAR Not reliable
Daily data Not reliable
Peaks Not reliable
Page 36 (93)
E67 Pungwe Bridge
The E67 station is located in the Pungwe River where the EN6 crosses the
river and just upstream of the water intake for Beira water supply and the
Mafambisse sugar cane estate.
The scales and limnograph are located on the downstream side of the bridge.
The landscape is very flat in the area of E67 and during floods the river
becomes very wide. The station covers 90% of the Pungwe River basin.
1800
E67 Pungwe Bridge Max current meter measurement
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Oct-56 Oct-61 Oct-66 Oct-71 Oct-76 Oct-81 Oct-86 Oct-91 Oct-96
STATION FACTS E67

Record 1956-84, 87-98
In operation
Daily Data
Natural Control/Bridge, Limnograph
Levels affected by high tide
Despite its distance from the sea, the station is clearly affected by the tides,
which can be seen by the record and the current meter measurements.
Page 37 (93)
Totally 216 current meter measurements were conducted during the periods
1955-58, 74-76, 80-84 and 88-92. Except for some outliers the measurements
show a rather little scatter for flow above 400 m3/s and the highest
measurement covered is 1 622 m3/s.
The reliability of E67 is therefore, opposite to most stations, good for high
flows but poor for low flows. For flows up to 400 m3/s the ratings are undefined
mainly due to the tidal effect and the MAR is therefore not reliable. For peak
floods, however, the ratings seem fairly well defined and because also the
very high flows are covered by current meter measurements, the peak flows
are judged as fairly reliable.
9
8
6
Level (m)
5 1955-58
1974-76
4 1980-84
1988-92
3
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Runoff (m3/s)
CONCLUSIONS E67
MAR Not reliable
Daily data Not reliable up to 400 m3/s.
Peaks Fairly reliable
Page 38 (93)
3.1.4 Visual inspections

Besides the analysis of the rating curves visual inspections were made for the
runoff data at the principal stations in the Pungwe River basins.
It was found that different sources (COBA reports and DNA data files) gave
different data on river runoff for the same station and month. Differences of up
to 50% were found for peak flow values. The difference was traced to the use
of different rating curves due to a conversion of data at DNA during the 1980s.
DNA therefore made an update of the runoff values for the principal stations,
which were delivered to the consultant.
A comparison of adjacent station in the Pungwe River (E64, E65, E401 and
E66) showed further that many inconsistencies exist in the flow records. This
may be because of temporarily mal-functional recorder or punching errors. As
described above, the quality of the data may also differ from year to year
because of unstable bed conditions. Different rating curves have been used
for different periods. However, the accuracy of the rating curve depends on
the number of made current meter measurements during the curve’s period of
validity.
3.1.5 Summary of quality analysis

Table 1 summarises the results of the flow data quality analysis. The data is
judged after a five-grades scale:
• Very reliable
• Reliable
• Fairly reliable
• Uncertain
• Not reliable
In general, the data that are judged as reliable or fairly reliable can be used for
estimations of flow statistics.
The quality judgement of MAR takes into account not just the quality of the
station ratings but also the length of record, number of gaps and other
information, e.g. reported problems with level monitoring, etc.
The quality analysis for the principal stations is based on digital data. For the
minor stations plots with current meter measurements have been provided,
which have been the basis for a general quality analysis, see Table 2.
Page 39 (93)
Table 1 Summary of quality analysis of flow data for principal stations in Pungwe River
basin.
Station Judged reliability of data

MAR Daily data Peaks
3
F14 Very reliable Very reliable <31.5 m /s Fairly reliable
3
E64 Reliable Reliable <110 m /s Uncertain
E65 Reliable Reliable up to 1977 Reliable < 750 m3/s
Uncertain 78-82, 93-97 Fairly reliable < 1700 m3/s
Not reliable 99-01
F22 Fairly reliable Fairly reliable <250 m3/s Uncertain
3
E72 Fairly reliable Fairly reliable <70 m /s Uncertain
3
E66 Fairly reliable Fairly reliable < 200 m /s Uncertain 58-62, 65-69, 81
Not reliable 53-57, 63-64, 70-80
E81 Fairly reliable Fairly reliable <15 m3/s Uncertain
Not reliable 74-81
E73 Uncertain Uncertain Not reliable
3
E401 Uncertain Fairly reliable <240 m /s Not reliable
3
E67 Not reliable Not reliable < 400 m /s Fairly reliable
E80 Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable
E76 Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable
Table 2 General quality analysis minor stations in Pungwe River basin.
Station Area (km2) Data collected in Judged reliability of

the study ratings
F1 Mapopo 6.5 1954-2000 Fairly reliable
E71 Rio Messambize 234 1963-73, 75-80 Fairly reliable
E77 Rio Muda 201 1965-71 Fairly reliable
E82 Rio Mucombeze 390 1963-73, 77-81 Fairly reliable
E392 Rio Mavuzi 66 1964-78 Fairly reliable
E42 Rio Nhandare - - Uncertain
E70 Rio Nhacangara 200 1956-81, 97-98 Uncertain
E74 Metuchira 151 1957-81 Uncertain
E83 Rio Mavuzi 500 1957-87 Uncertain
E228 Rio Messingaze - Uncertain
E478 Dingue-Dingue - 1972-81 Uncertain
E488 Rio Turanhanga - 1974-80 Uncertain
E69 Turanhanga 16 1961-68, 72-84 Not reliable
E75 Metuchira 521 1959-73 Not reliable
E79 Rio Muda - Not reliable
E483 Rio Nhazonia - 1972-82 Not reliable
Page 40 (93)
3.2 Rainfall data

A large number of rainfall stations were used as input to the hydrological
model (see Appendices 1, 7 and 11). All major stations where studied by help
of double mass analysis. A period of accumulated rainfall for one station is
plotted against the accumulated mean for the surrounding stations.
Heterogeneities at the one station will be seen as anomalies in the curve, and
are a warning that changes are not due to natural changes in the climate.
The double mass plots for the major stations are shown in Appendix 2. The
judged quality for the rainfall station is given in Table 3. The quality judgement
is based both on the double mass analysis and the number of gaps in the
records.
Table 3 General quality analysis of major rainfall stations used for the hydrological
modelling for the Pungwe River basin. The analysis is based on double mass
analysis.
Number Name Judged quality Comments

24796667 Erin Forest/Hydro Fairly reliable Gaps from 1986
24797363 Sanyangas Garden Fairly reliable Gaps from 1980
24797947 Honde Buisness Centre Fairly reliable Change in 1986
24798032 Stapleford Forest Reliable
24799172 Nyangani Luleche Reliable
24799172 Chingamwe Reliable
25790569 Katiyo Fairly reliable
67889030 Nyanga Experimental station Reliable
5015 Chimoio INAM Reliable
5044 Macossa INAM Fairly reliable Some irregularities
6010 Gorongosa INAM Fairly reliable
6007 Beira Observatorio INAM Fairly reliable Change in 1977
P90 Nhamatanda Fairly reliable Some irregularities
P94 Muda Fairly reliable Some irregularities
P99 Mote Xiluvo Fairly reliable Gaps
P101 Nharuchonga Fairly reliable Some irregularities
P106 Gondola Fairly reliable
P169 Bué Maria Fairly reliable Change in 1959 & 1972
P205 Zongorgué Reliable
P350 Nhacangara Reliable
P365 Urema Uncertain Gaps, Many changes
P368 Morombosi Reliable
P372 Mavonde Fairly reliable Change in 1863-69
P373 Chitengo Fairly reliable
P374 Nhazonia Reliable
Page 41 (93)
P375 Pungue Sul Fairly reliable Change 1962

P376 Pungue Fronteira Reliable
P478 Piro Fairly reliable
P496 Condue Uncertain Irregular behaviour
P498 Nhazonia Reliable
P502 Macossa Uncertain Irregular behaviour
P536 Messambize Reliable
P615 Amatongas Reliable
P616 Doeroi Uncertain Large change 68, 74, 75
P647 Monte Chimoio Fairly reliable Gaps from 1974
P659 Nhampassa Uncertain Irregular behaviour
P812 Gorongosa Fairly reliable
P862 Catandica Reliable Gaps after 1978
P894 Chitengo Fairly reliable Some irregularities
P1089 Tacuraminga Uncertain Irregular behaviour
No rainfall record was found to be not reliable even if some records show
uncertainties. There exist some systematic changes probably because of a
physical change at the local gauge site. Some records also show irregularities,
which may be caused by punching errors or similar. However, without very
detailed knowledge about the historical records it is impossible to evaluate
these errors further.
In general the available rainfall records in the Pungwe River basin are judged
as fairly reliable.
Page 42 (93)
4 HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING
Page 43 (93)
4.1 Modelling methodology

Hydrological modelling or rainfall-runoff modelling is the procedure where river
runoff is computed by help of observed rainfall and geographical information
on the river catchment. The benefit is that historical records on rainfall, in
general, are longer than the corresponding flow records, which enables the
possibilities of computing very long flow series. These long flow series are
used for instance to get reliable estimates of the long-term water resources in
a river basins or reliable estimates of design floods at a planned dam site.
The need to base flow characteristics on very long flow series is essential in
areas where the climate shows distinct cycles since short records may give a
biased result. In Southern Africa, climate cycles of 7-15 years duration are
commonly seen in observed rainfall and runoff records. Furthermore, to allow
an objective comparison of water resources at different parts of the Pungwe
River basin there is a need for concurrent series of runoff. Concurrent series
make the evaluation of different development options independent on the
temporal climatic variability.
Hydrological models were therefore used as the main tools in the sector study
on surface water resources. Two different models were applied to compute
long flow series for assessment of the water resources and extreme flows in
the Pungwe River basin.
The HBV model was successfully used for the upper parts of the Pungwe
River in the GAMZ project in Zimbabwe during 1997-2000. The HBV model
was therefore also used in the present project, since the results and
experiences of the GAMZ project were of great benefit.
The HBV model uses daily data on rainfall and river flow as standard input.
During the inception phase of the project it was, however, found that daily
records generally are scarce, especially in the lower parts of the Pungwe River
basin. The PITMAN model was therefore chosen as a supplement to the HBV.
The PITMAN model is more robust since it runs on monthly input data. It is the
main model used for surface water resources assessments in southern Africa.
The HBV and Pitman models are by their structure focused on different
applications and were applied as follows:
Page 44 (93)
• The HBV model was set up for the upper parts of the Pungwe River down
to the Bué Maria site. The daily river flow modelling of the central and
upper Pungwe has enabled detailed analysis of flood design values for
future dams and will provide a base for input to future flood forecasting
tools for the lower Pungwe.
• The Pitman model was set up for the whole Pungwe River and all major
tributaries down to the estuary close to Beira. The simulated monthly flow
series have provided statistics on the water resources of the Pungwe River
basin and will provide input data to future system analysis of water use.
4.2 Description of the models
4.2.1 The Pitman hydrological model

The monthly model used for the study, the Pitman Model, is a lumped rainfall -
runoff model using a monthly time step. It uses 11 parameters to define the
hydrological processes. The model has been divided into four basic modules:
• Runoff module
• Channel module
• Reservoir module
• Irrigation module
The whole catchment is subdivided into hydrologically similar sub-catchments,

each comprising the four modules. The modules are connected together by
means of routes. A route is the conduit by which water moves from one
module to the next. The sub-catchments are connected together to form the
required network, which is representative of the whole catchment.
The Runoff module is the heart of the system. It models the rainfall-runoff
relationship of a particular sub-catchment using monthly rainfalls (see Figure
in Appendix 8). All or part of the runoff from this module can go to either one
or more of the three other modules. It can go to the Channel Reach module
where abstractions, return flows or other actions can be simulated. It can go to
a reservoir module where the regulation of the flow, evaporation from storage
as well as water abstractions can be simulated. Finally it can go to an
Irrigation module where run-of-river irrigation can be simulated. The outflows
from these modules are then aggregated to present the net effect of the
catchment.
Page 45 (93)
In order to obtain a representative model it is necessary to calibrate the model

by adjusting the model parameters (see table in Appendix 8) such that the
simulated flows and the observed flows at a given point are in agreement. This
is accomplished by using known information regarding all manmade
influences on the catchment. For example, a historic record of return flow or
abstractions can be input in the Channel module to represent changes with
time. This will then compensate for this action in the modelling of the historic
sequence and it is not necessary to "naturalise" the observed flow record to
take account of development. This is applicable to irrigation and reservoirs as
well. Once calibrated, the runoff from the Runoff module represents the
natural or virgin runoff.
4.2.2 The HBV hydrological model

The daily rainfall-runoff model used for the present study, the HBV, belongs to
the second generation of computer-based models, which are characterised by
attempts to cover the most important runoff generating processes by as simple
and robust structures as possible. The model was originally developed at the
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) and the first
applications to hydropower-developed rivers in Sweden were made in the
early 1970s (Bergström 1976). Since then the model has continuously been
developed and the present version is named HBV-96 (Lindström et al. 1997).
The model has been applied world-wide and for a large range of scales, from
less than one square kilometre up to 1.6 million km2.
The HBV-96 rainfall-runoff model (see structure in Appendix 12) can best be
classified as a semi-distributed conceptual model. Model inputs of rainfall and
air temperature are causally related to outputs through simple equations that
describe the major processes in water transport. Water is stored and
conveyed based on the principle of continuity. The model uses subbasins as
primary hydrological units, and within these an area-elevation distribution and
a crude classification of land use (forest, open area, lakes) are made.
The model is usually run with daily time steps. Daily input data are
precipitation and, in areas with snow, air temperature. In addition monthly
mean standard values on the potential evapotranspiration are needed. The
source of these data may either be calculations according to a formula, e.g.
Penman, or measurements by evaporimeters. The basic structure of the HBV-
96 model consists of four main components:
Page 46 (93)
• subroutines for correction of meteorological data
• subroutines for snow accumulation and melt
• subroutines for soil moisture accounting and
• response and river routing subroutines.
The model has a number of empirical parameters (see table in Appendix 12),
values of which are found by calibration through comparison of simulated and
observed river-runoff. There are also parameters describing the characteristics
of the basin and its climate which, as far as possible, remain untouched during
model calibration. For tropical and arid regions, the number of parameters
actually calibrated is thereby 8-9, while for temperate regions with snow an
additional 3-4 parameters are needed.
The HBV model is run in the IHMS models system, which combines the
hydrological model with databases, presentation routines and model
applications such as calculation of long-term mean and forecasting.
4.3 Model licenses and software

Three IHMS (HBV) and three WRMS2000 (PITMAN) model licences and
software have been transferred to the counterparts through the project.
Training courses have been held in both software and model set ups and data
have been handed over to the counterpart. All data and results presented in
this report are therefore available at ARA-Centro in Mozambique and at
ZINWA Save in Zimbabwe.
4.4 Modelling monthly flow for Pungwe River basin
4.4.1 Objective of monthly flow modelling

The objective of applying the monthly Pitman hydrological model for the
Pungwe River basin was to compute long concurrent series of river runoff to
calculate the surface water resources and its spatial and temporal variation in
the basin.
4.4.2 Subbasin division and catchment areas

To calibrate the Pitman model and to describe the spatial variation of surface
water resources, twelve main sub-basins were defined for the Pungwe River
basin (see Appendix 5 and Table 4). These subbasins are the base for
calculation of areal rainfall that is used as input to the Pitman model.
Page 47 (93)
The sub-basins were digitised from the 1:50 000 maps, imported to GIS in
which the areas of the sub-basins were calculated. Table 4 presents the local
area for each sub-basin. The total area of the Pungwe River basin is
according to the new estimate 31 150 km2. It should, however, be noted that
the identification of catchment divides are extremely difficult in the lower areas
of the river basin where altitude differences are very small. The estimated
local catchment areas in the downstream sub-basins, and thereby also the
total catchment areas, are thus related with some uncertainty.
The estimate of catchment areas in Zimbabwe gives a total area of 1 463 km2
upstream the border (see Table 5). This area comprises 4.7% of the total
catchment area of the Pungwe River basin. As seen in Appendix 5, the
subbasin divides, however, do not exactly coincide with the border between
Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The sum of catchment areas of the Pungwe
Honde and Nyamkwarara subbasins upstream the border (1 463 km2) is
therefore not exactly the same as the territorial area of Zimbabwe (1 461 km2).
To calibrate the Pitman model also the exact catchment areas for the runoff
stations are needed to be known. The catchment areas for the major runoff
stations are shown in Table 6.
Page 48 (93)
Table 4 Catchment areas of sub-basin of the Pungwe River basin.
Subbasin name Area Total area at Outlet point

(km2) outlet (km2)
Pungwe Zimbabwe 687 687 Pungwe River at border

Honde 1245 1245 Honde River upstream of confluence
with Pungwe
Upper Pungwe 1360 3292 Pungwe River upstream of confluence
with Nhazonia River
Nhazonia 2846 2846 Nhazonia River upstream of confluence
with Pungwe
Upper Middle 2400 8538 Pungwe River downstream of
Pungwe confluence with Txatora River
Lower Middle 2990 11528 Pungwe River upstream of confluence
Pungwe with Gorongosa River
Vunduzi 3439 3439 Gorongosa River upstream of
confluence with Pungwe
Nhandugue 2830 2830 Nhandugue river at border of
Gorongosa National Park
Urema 5572 8402 Urema River upstream of confluence
with Pungwe
Lower Pungwe 3512 26881 Pungwe river upstream of confluence
with Muda River
Muda 1336 1336 Muda River upstream of confluence
with Pungwe
Pungwe Estuary 2933 31150 Pungwe estuary at Beira
Table 5 Catchment areas upstream the border between Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
Point Area (km2) Percentage of whole

Pungwe River basin
Pungwe River at border 687 2.2%
Honde River at border 528 1.7%
Nyamkwarara River at border* 248 0.8%
Total catchment area upstream the 1463 4.7%

border
*Note: A small part of the very upper parts of Nyamkwarara River is located in Mozambique before the river
enters into Zimbabwe.
Page 49 (93)
Table 6 Catchment areas upstream runoff stations in the Pungwe River basin (Source: DNA
and ZINWA).
Runoff station Area

(km2)
F14 Pungwe Falls 85.5
F22 Katiyo (Pungwe River U/S border) 641
E64 Pungwe River D/S border 687
E73 Honde River 1100
E65 Pungwe Bridge at EN 102 3100
E70 Nhazonia at EN 102 200
E72 Nhazonia 2700
E401 Pungwe River 10370
E80 Vunduzi River 3365
E66 Bua Maria 15046
E81 Urema River 8060
E74 Metuchira at EN 6 151
E76 Metuchira 798
E67 Pungwe Bridge at EN 6 26870
4.4.3 Water abstractions

The estimation of the current water demand in the Pungwe River basin (see
Annex VII and Annex VIII) is presented in Table 7.
Table 7 Estimated current water demand in the Pungwe River basin (source: Annex VII and
Annex VIII).
Type of water use Average annual water use (Mm3/year)
Mozambique Zimbabwe
Urban water supply (Beira & Mutare) 9.2 22

Rural water supply 3.1 0.7
Exotic tree plantations 8.8 18.5
Live stock 0.4 -
Irrigation 122 38
Total 144 79
Page 50 (93)
The water use in Zimbabwe corresponds to 0.7 m3/s for Mutare City, which
was started to be abstracted in 1999 just upstream of the F14 gauging station,
and 1.8 m3/s for the diffuse outtake by irrigation, afforestation and rural water
supply. The observed mean annual flow at F14 is 4.0 m3/s, which shows that
the Mutare water supply has a significant effect on the recorded flow here. The
corresponding observed mean flow at E64 Pungwe and E73 Honde are 24
m3/s and 17 m3/s. The diffuse water abstractions are therefore less than 5% of
the observed flow and have negligible effect on these records.
In Mozambique Beira water supply and Mafambisse sugar estate use in

average 131.2 Mm3/year (or 91%) of the total use of 144 Mm3/year. The water
intake for both the Beira water supply and Mafambisse are located
downstream of the E67 flow gauging station, which monitors the most
downstream point in the Pungwe River basin. The remaining water
abstractions for afforestation, irrigation and rural water supply is less than 1%
of the observed flow at the E66 Bué Maria gauging station.
With the main purpose of the monthly hydrological modelling to calculate

natural river flow in the Pungwe River basin only the Mutare Water Supply
abstraction has any significant impact on the river flow records and thus will
influence the calibration and validation procedure.
Accordingly the Mutare Water Supply abstraction starting 1999 was included
in the Pitman model set up. To be able in the future to simulate also the
artificially affected river flow in the Pungwe River, preparation were however
also made to include the major outtakes of water for in the Pungwe River, see
Appendix 6.
4.4.4 Model scheme

Based on the subdivision of the Pungwe River basin the Pitman model
scheme was set up (Appendix 6).
To be able to verify the model results and to produce flow statistics for all
points of interest runoff modules were created upstream of all the principal
runoff stations and upstream the points where Pungwe, Honde and
Nyamkwarara crosses the border to Mozambique.
4.4.5 Patching of rainfall data

The rainfall stations in the Pungwe River basin were grouped manually based
on the location of the subbasins (Appendix 5) and the rainfall data quality
analysis results. For each subbasin a manual weighting procedure was
applied where rainfall stations located in or close to the subbasins were
Page 51 (93)
weighted together with equal weights. When necessary, missing data periods
were filled in manually by using records from rainfall stations located further
away from the subbasin.
Appendix 1 illustrates where the rainfall stations in the Pungwe River basin are
situated and Appendix 7 lists which rainfall stations were used for each
subbasin.
The Pitman model combines the monthly variation of observed rainfall

expressed as percentage of the mean annual rainfall (MAP) and the estimated
MAP for each subbasin. Both the variation in percentage and MAP were
computed based on the weighted rainfall. The MAP for all subbasins are
presented in Table 9.
4.4.6 Evaporation data

The average monthly evaporation values were obtained from nine stations,
three in Zimbabwe and six in Mozambique. Except for the Nyanga
Experimental Station the source of these data were all monthly average from
previous literature, i.e. the actual data were not available. All data are the
results from daily observations with an A-pan.
Table 8 gives a list of the available evaporation data and the average yearly
evaporation for each station. The geographical positions for the stations are
illustrated in Appendix 3.
Table 8 Mean annual evaporation values for the available stations (see Appendix 4 for
monthly average data).
Station name Yearly evaporation Source

(mm)
Nyanga Exp. Stn 1416 Daily data, Met. Office, Zimbabwe
Erin Hydro 1321 Monthly average (GAMZ, 2000)
Katiyo Tea Estate 1657 Monthly average (GAMZ, 2000)
Pungue Fronteira 1483 Monthly average (Lázaro, 1997)
Chimoio 1379 Monthly average (INAM Mozambique)
Bué Maria 1554 Monthly average (Lázaro, 1997)
Urema 1636 Monthly average (Lázaro, 1997)
Chitengo 1590 Monthly average (Lázaro, 1997)
Beira Airport 1397 Monthly average (INAM Mozambique)
Page 52 (93)
As input to the Pitman model a manual weighting of the observed evaporation

data was made for each subbasin (Appendix 5). The calculated mean annual
potential evaporation (MAE) for all subbasins are presented in Table 9.
Table 9 Estimated MAP and MAE for the Pungwe River subbasins.
Subbasin name Mean Annual Precipitation Mean Annual Potential

(mm) Evaporation (mm)
Pungwe Zimbabwe 2020 1450
Honde 1340 1450
Upper Pungwe 1130 1450
Nhazonia 1140 1450
Upper Middle Pungwe 900 1450
Lower Middle Pungwe 950 1380
Vunduzi 1140 1450
Nhandugue 850 1450
Urema 900 1590
Lower Pungwe 1050 1590
Muda 1050 1380
Pungwe Estaury 1180 1400
4.4.7 Modelling period

Since rainfall data is the most important input to the hydrological models, it is
of great importance to minimize the risk for erroneous or uncertain data. For
the Pungwe River basin several of the subbasins have very few or even no
data at all for years prior to 1960 and after 1980. As a result, the patching of
rainfall data could only be made for the period 1960-80.
Therefore, reliable surface flow characteristics could only be computed for the
21-year period Oct 1960 – Sep 1980.
A 21-year period is, however, short to calculate long-term values of flow

characteristics. The 1970s is known to be a wet period and very dry years
such as for instance 1992 and 1995 are outside of the modelling period.
Therefore, for sensitivity analysis a second model set up was prepared for the
period Oct 1954 – Sep 2002. This second set up was, however, based only on
three rainfall stations (Nyangani Luleche, Chimoio and Beira), which makes
the results much more uncertain compared with the results produced with the
1960-80 set up.
Page 53 (93)
4.4.8 Pitman model calibration and validation

The PITMAN model includes a number of parameters that need to be
calibrated by comparing simulated and observed runoff. The result of the
calibration is a measure of how well the model can imitate the nature.
Calibration and validations periods were defined for the principal station based
on the quality of the records (see Table 1). Records judged as not reliable
were not used at all, while the rest was given a priority based on how reliable
the observed mean annual runoff (MAR) is. The calibration periods were also
chosen as much as possible to cover wet and dry years and to avoid years
with suspiciously poor data.
For some stations the data period was judged to be too short for allowing both
a calibration period and a validation period. If other stations were located close
to the station the short data were used for validation (e.g. F22 and E401),
while if they are important to retrieve model parameters for a part of the basin
the short records were used for calibration (E72, E81).
The calibration was made by emphasising good results for the priority 1
stations. The obtained calibration parameters are given in Appendix 8. The
results of the calibration and validation in terms of MAR are presented below
in Table 10 and Table 11. In Appendix 9, the results of the validation are
shown graphically.
Table 10 Calibration results for the PITMAN model set up.
Runoff Area Calibration Simulated Observed Diff Priority

station (km2) period runoff runoff (%) due to
(Mm/yr) *(Mm/yr) quality
F14 86 1970-74 131 138 -4.8 1
E64 687 1966-69 739 712 +3.8 1
E65 3100 1963-68 1317 1411 -6.6 1
E72 2700 1963-68 244 250 -2.6 2
E66 15046 1963-68 2048 2196 -6.7 2
E81 8060 1966-68 458 475 -3.5 2
E73 1100 1963-68 358 360 -0.6 3
Page 54 (93)
Table 11 Validation results for the PITMAN model set up.
Runoff Area Validation Simulated Observed Diff Priority

station (km2) period runoff runoff (%) due to
(Mm/yr) (Mm/yr) quality
F14 86 1980-98 111 115 -3.0 1
E64 640 1960-65 725 814 -10.9 1
E65 3100 1969-77 1964 2292 -14.3 1
F22 641 1998-2002 894 774 -14.6 2
E66 15046 1969-80 3272 2873 +13.9 2
E73 1100 1969-76 582 603 -3.4 3
E401 10370 1970-77 2859 3378 -15.3% 3
Below is given comments on the calibration and validation of each station:

• F14 has the most reliable record of all flow stations although some
inaccuracies can be seen in 1997-98. The area covered is, however, very
small and there is no rainfall station located within the catchment area.
Despite this the model performs very well with less than 5% error in the
MAR for both calibration and validation.
• E64 has also a reliable record. There is a slight decrease in model

performance from calibration to validation giving a model error of about
10%. The results, however, seem reliable when looking at the graphs and
the base flows seem to be captured well by the model.
• E65 is validated for a period of 8 years with reliable data. The simulated
and observed runoffs differs 14% for the validation period. The main
reason is that the model fails to simulate both the peaks and the base
flow during the wet years in the 1970s. The model was also run for the
period 1993-97 with fair results.
• F22 data were not available during the calibration of the model and the
validation is therefore a true “blind test”. The model simulates the monthly
dynamics very well but underestimates the MAR slightly for the five-year
validation period. The underestimation mainly occurs during the wet
months, while the base flow is very well simulated.
• E72 has a fairly reliable record but the coverage of rainfall stations is poor
for the model. The results for the calibration period, however, indicate that
the model fairly well can simulate the base flow and the long-term
average even if individual monthly peak values are poorly described.
• E66 has large uncertainties with an unstable river section and the data
are therefore uncertain. Due to many flow gaugings and use of different
Page 55 (93)
rating curves for each year observed long-term mean is, however, judged
as fairly reliable while individual values mainly during the wet months are
uncertain. The overestimation of 14% is therefore not judged as a large
problem since the overestimation occurs mainly during the wet months
with uncertain data. The base flow is very well simulated during the dry-
medium years, while the model underestimates the flow during the wet
years during the 1970s similar to the E65 station.
• E81 catchment has, similarly as for E72, very bad coverage of rainfall
stations. To retrieve reasonable parameters calibration was therefore
limited to years with good rainfall data. The model works reasonably well
for the calibration period but in general the model results for the Urema
River are uncertain. The reasons are the few rainfall stations and the
complicated hydrology caused by the Urema wet land in the Gorongosa
National Park.
• E73 has an uncertain record due to unstable bed conditions at the site.
The model results, however, indicate that the monthly dynamic is well
described by the model. The volume errors for the calibration and
validation period are difficult to evaluate because of the uncertain runoff
data.
• E401 has fairly reliable low-medium flow data but the length of the record
is short. The model results indicate that the model performs well for low to
medium flows during the validation period. The negative volume error is
caused by an underestimation during the peaks when data is very
uncertain.
The conclusion is that the model performs well for the period 1960-80 for the
majority of the basin and also for the Pungwe River in Zimbabwe for the period
1981-2002. The model results for Nhazonia and Urema tributaries are
acceptable but are associated with some uncertainties. Also for the lower
areas (Metuchira, Muda and Lower Pungwe) the results are uncertain since
they cannot be verified by observed flow records.
The parameters presented in Appendix 8 show consistency. No extreme

parameters were needed to get the model to fit with observed flow data, which
indicates that the model is robust.
In general the model is therefore judged to simulate the average mean flow for
the period 1960-80 within ±15% accuracy.
For the period 1981-2002 the results are also judged to be within ±15%
accuracy for the upper Pungwe River (down to E65). Further, downstream it is
Page 56 (93)
impossible to validate the model during this period against observed runoff
and the model can therefore not be evaluated.
4.4.9 Pitman model results

The validated Pitman model for the Pungwe River basin was used to estimate
the natural runoff of the basin. The model was run for the entire set-up period,
i.e. for all months from October 1960 to September 1981.
Table 12 presents the natural MAR for each of the twelve sub-basins in the
Pungwe River basin. In Table 13 the natural MAR for a number of points of
specific interest along the Pungwe River and its tributaries are presented.
Further surface water flow statistics are presented in detail in Annex I on

Surface Water Resources.
Page 57 (93)
Table 12 Pitman model estimated natural runoff (MAR) for the Pungwe sub-basins for the
period 1960-80. The runoff coefficient is the ratio between MAR and MAP.
Subbasin Local area Local Local CV Runoff

(km2) MAP MAR (%) coeff. (%)
(mm/year) (mm/year)
Pungwe Zimbabwe 687 2020 1195 0.35 60
Honde 1245 1340 477 0.53 36
Upper Pungwe 1360 1130 328 0.70 29
Nhazonia 2846 1140 166 0.73 15
Upper Middle Pungwe 2400 900 88 1.05 10
Vunduzi 3439 950 128 1.20 11
Lower Middle Pungwe 2990 1140 77 1.28 8
Nhandugue 2830 850 60 0.85 7
Urema 5572 900 59 1.09 7
Lower Pungwe 3512 1050 59 1.79 6
Muda 1336 1050 66 2.13 6
Pungwe Estuary 2933 1180 64 1.91 5
Table 13 Pitman model estimated natural runoff (MAR) for the period 1960-80 for some
specific points of interest.
Point of interest Total area Total MAR Total MAR CV

(km2) (Mm3/year) (mm/year) (%)
F14 86 127 1489 0.30
E64 Pungwe at border 687 821 1195 0.35
Honde at border 528 252 477 0.53
Nyamkwarara at border 248 118 477 0.53
E73 1100 525 477 0.53
E65 3100 1813 585 0.46
E72 2700 447 166 0.73
E80 3365 432 128 1.20
E66 15046 3220 214 0.55
E81 8060 478 59 0.95
E76 798 47 59 1.79
E67 26870 3919 146 0.58
Table 12 and 13 both indicate reasonable results. The runoff coefficient (ration
between runoff and rainfall) decreases from a rather high value in the
mountainous areas in the upper river basin in Zimbabwe to a very low value in
the flat areas in the lower basin. The mountainous areas have good potential
for rather quick conveyance of rainwater to the river giving little time for the
Page 58 (93)
water to evapotranspirate. In the lower areas the evaporation is very high

since water is temporarily stored in ponds on the flat ground surface and,
when infiltrated, is still accessible for evapotranspiration because of shallow
groundwater tables.
Also the coefficient of variation (CV) for annual flows shows typical pattern
with low values for the wet mountainous areas and high values for the lower
river subbasins. The high portion of base flow and low evapotranspiration in
the mountainous areas give limited variation between the annual flows in the
upper mountainous areas.
For the reliability of the results see further in Chapter 6.
4.5 Modelling daily flow for Pungwe River basin
4.5.1 Objective of daily flow modelling

The main objective of applying the daily HBV hydrological model for the
Pungwe River basin was to compute data on floods for design calculations
and provide the base for a future flood forecasting system.
By its detailed structure and results the HBV model can also confirm the long-
term flow statistics computed by the Pitman model for the upper river basin
where the input data coverage is good.
4.5.2 Subbasin division and model scheme

Since the main purpose of the daily modelling was to compute flood estimates
for the main Pungwe River no standard subbasin division was made. Instead
the Pungwe River basin was subdivided according to location of the flow
gauging stations. Because daily rainfall data is very limited for the Urema and
the lower Pungwe River basin, the HBV model was therefore set up down to
E66 Bué Maria site using the following nine subbasins (see Appendix 10 for
the HBV model scheme):
Pungwe Falls F14, Katiyo F22, Pungue Fronteira E64, Honde Mavonde E73,
Pungue Sul E65, Nhazónia E72, Vunduzi E80, Tacuraminga E401 and Bué
Maria E66.
The catchment areas for these subbasins correspond to the local areas
between the gauging stations (see Table 6).
Page 59 (93)
Similar to the monthly modelling the artificial influence is negligible except for
the Pungwe Falls subbasin (see Ch. 4.4.3), in which an abstraction of 0.7 m3/s
was included with start in 1999.
4.5.3 Weighting of rainfall station

Unlike the Pitman model the HBV uses the observed point rainfall data directly
as input. For each subbasin the point observations must therefore be given
weights for the model to calculate the areal rainfall. The chosen stations also
fill in each other’s gaps if needed.
The station weights were made manually based on map studies. The weights
are presented in Appendix 11.
4.5.4 Evaporation data

Similarly to the monthly modelling the HBV needs average monthly potential
evaporation as input data. For the HBV model the Katiyo pan evaporation data
were used for the upper river basin, while the Chimoio data were used for the
central subbasins (see Table 8 and Appendix 3).
4.5.5 HBV model calibration and validation

Due to lack of sufficient recent data, the model was calibrated with historical
data sequences. Because of the focus on floods the calibration and validation
procedure was made in two steps:
1) A general calibration and validation based on total volume error and

monthly R2-values (explained variance: Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970).
2) A detailed calibration and validation of the peaks based on daily R2-values

and peak flow errors.
For the first step the calibrations were made for the period Oct 1961 – Sep
1973 and validations for the periods Oct 1956 – Sep 1961 and, for some
stations, Oct 1973 – Sep 1976. The F14 and F22 stations in Zimbabwe were
also validated for the later period with data from 1980 and onwards.
Based on the quality analysis of the daily data (the calibration and validation
were emphasised on the stations with the most reliable daily data (Table 1).
The retrieved parameters are presented in Appendix 12 and the results for
calibration and validation periods are given in Table 14-16.
Page 60 (93)
In general the HBV model show very good results for the monthly dynamics
with explained variances between 0.5-0.9. For the stations with reliable
records at F14, F22 and E65 the volume errors are small and the explained
variance is very high. Also for E72 Nhazonia and E64 Pungwe Fronteira the
general model performance is good even if the explained variances are
slightly lower.
Table 14 Calibration results for the HBV model set up.
Basin Priority due to Calibration period: Oct 1961 – Sep 1973

quality of data
Accumulated difference (%) Monthly R2
F14 1 -1.6% 0.65
E64 1 +3.9% 0.63
E65 1 -3.3% 0.94
E66 2 +5.1% 0.93
E72 2 +1.4% 0.78
E73 3 +3.4% 0.85
Table 15 Validation results for the HBV model set up for the Mozambican stations.
Basin Priority Validation periods: Validation periods:

due to Oct 1956 – Sep 1961 Oct 1973 – Sep 1976
quality
of data Acc diff (%) Monthly R2 Acc diff (%) Monthly R2
E64 1 +2.3% 0.60 ---- ----

E65 1 -8.4% 0.95 -13.5% 0.94
E-72 2 +12.0% 0.50 ---- ----
E-66 2 -3.8% 0.90 +11.3% 0.79
E73 3 -11.3% 0.47 -3.6% 0.90
Page 61 (93)
Table 16 Validation results for the HBV model set up for the stations with recent data.
Basin Priority due to Period Acc diff (%) Monthly R2

quality of data
F14 1 Oct 73-Sep 02 +0.5% 0.83

F22 2 Oct 97-Sep 02 -4.0% 0.93
E65 3 Oct 93-Sep 97 -18.6% 0.82
The validation results are partly shown graphically in Appendix 13. The HBV
model generally shows very good results for the base flow for the stations with
reliable or fairly reliable data.
Because of the uncertain observed peak flow data (see Ch. 3) the calibration
and validation of the peak parameters must be done with great care. Table 1
shows that only three stations have reliable or fairly reliable data for high flows
(F14, E65, E67). However, F14 covers a very small area and no daily rainfall
data are available for setting up the model for E67 Pungwe Bridge.
Therefore the main evaluation of the HBV model’s ability to simulate peak
flows was made for E65 Pungue Sul. Data from the stations on the main river
(E64 and E66) were, however, also chosen although these data are more
uncertain. A detailed analysis of the separate rating curves for these three
stations is presented in Table 17 to estimate the reliability of the records.
Page 62 (93)
Table 17 Analysis of observed peak flow data for calibration and validation of the HBV
model. The years marked with green (italic) were chosen for calibration and the
years marked with yellow (bold) text were chosen for validation.
Year E64 E65 E66

Max Judged Max Judged Max Judged
observed reliability observed reliability observed reliability
daily of rating daily of rating daily of rating
mean curve mean curve mean curve
1956/57 312 <120 946 <1700 895 <100
1957/58 Gaps <120 743 <1700 1314 <100
1958/59 243 <120 983 <1700 1001 <800
1959/60 143 <120 395 <1700 376 <800
1960/61 Gaps <120 666 <1700 1376 <800
1961/62 576 <120 2540 <1700 4634 <800
1962/63 156 <120 673 <1700 Gaps <100
1963/64 156 <120 541 <1700 657 <250
1964/65 153 <120 470 <1700 563 <250
1965/66 245 <120 622 <1700 1189 <800
1966/67 313 <120 1208 <1700 1455 <800
1967/68 100 <120 131 <1700 151 <800
1968/69 189 <120 852 <1700 973 <800
1969/70 Gaps <120 542 <1700 1058 <600
1970/71 157 <120 282 <1700 291 <450
1971/72 267 <120 1155 <1700 No data <450
1972/73 77 <120 164 <1700 167 <450
1973/74 No data <120 791 <1700 947 <100
1974/75 No data <120 663 <1700 705 <100
The years to use for calibration and validation were chosen based on the
coverage of current meter gaugings and the magnitude of the observed water
levels each year. Years with only small peaks and years with peaks much
higher than the coverage of the rating curve were discarded. Accordingly, from
Table 17 it was decided to calibrate and validate the HBV recession
parameters based on the following years:
Page 63 (93)
E64: Calibration: Oct 1962 – Sep 1965

Validation: Oct 1959 – Sep 1960


The daily R2-values for the chosen periods were used to evaluate the model
for high flows. Furthermore, for each year the major peaks were studied in
detail and the average model performance for the peak magnitude was
calculated for the calibration period.
Table 18 Calibration and validation results for the HBV model for peak performance.
Basin Priority Calibration periods Validation periods

due to
quality Daily R2 Average Daily R2 Average
of data peak error peak error
E65 1 0.79 0% 0.70-0.82 -20%

E64 2 0.68 -21% 0.65-0.83 -23%
E66 2 0.85 -21% 0.80-0.84 -21%
In general the daily model can fairly well explain the daily dynamics with R2-
values of 0.65-0.85. Table 18 and the graphs (Appendix 13), however, indicate
that the HBV model tends to underestimate the peaks with 20-25%. The main
reason is in most cases that the input volume of rainfall is not sufficient to
simulate the magnitude correctly. Without seriously changing the overall
model performance it is not possible to tune the parameters to get better peak
simulations.
Page 64 (93)
4.5.6 HBV model results

The HBV model results were used as input to the flood frequency analysis,
see Ch 5 and to confirm the results on available surface water resources, see
Ch. 4.6.
Table 19 and 20 present the HBV simulated mean natural runoff and minimum
flows.
The results show that it is important to include the year 1992 when studying
the possible minimum flows in the Pungwe River basin. The simulated
minimum daily flows during October-November 1992 are 2-4 times lower than
the minimum flows during the period 1956-76.
Table 19 Estimated natural runoff (MAR) computed by the daily HBV model.
Station Total area Simulation period Total MAR Total MAR

(km2) (m3/s) (mm/year)
F14 86 Oct 1956-Sep 2002 4.0 1481
F22 641 Oct 1956-Sep 2002 25.6 1259
E64 687 Oct 1956-Sep 2002 26.5 1217
E73 1100 Oct 1956-Sep 2002 15.3 440
E65 3100 Oct 1956-Sep 2002 53.2 542
E72 2700 Oct 1956-Sep 1976 12.3 144
E401 10370 Oct 1956-Sep 1976 83.7 255
E80 3365 Oct 1956-Sep 1976 14.0 132
E66 15046 Oct 1956-Sep 1976 103.1 216
Table 20 Estimated minimum daily flows computed by the HBV model for the upper basin
where the model was run for the period 1956-2002.
Station Total area Date for minimum Minimum daily Daily flow at 90%
(km2) flow flow (m3/s) duration (m3/s)
F14 86 9 Nov 1992 0.45 1.36
F22 641 9 Nov 1992 0.74 4.35
E64 687 9 Nov 1992 0.74 4.43
E73 1100 29 Oct 1992 0.47 3.41
E65 3100 9 Nov 1992 1.28 9.35
Page 65 (93)
4.5.7 Flood forecasting

The HBV model was calibrated using data from the historical station network,
i.e. rainfall data from as many precipitation stations as possible. Presently just
a few of the precipitation stations are running:
• 5015 Chimoio INAM

• P 96 Dondo
• P 1272 Metuchira
• P 93 Vila Manica
• P 375 Pungwe Sul
• P 1273 Nhazonia
• P 862 Catandica
• P 502 Macossa
• P 373 Chitengo
• P 812 Gorongosa
For comparison purposes, tentative model runs with these circumstances

were made for the period 1956-1973. The simulated runoff for the case using
only current precipitation stations were compared to the simulated results with
historical station network. The purpose was to illustrate which results could be
expected when real-time forecasting is made with the currently existing
precipitation station network. The model results for the two different station
networks are shown in table 21. Because of the uncertainty in daily observed
data the comparison was made based on monthly R2-values.
Table 21 Simulated results 1956-73 with all available precipitation stations (Historical
network) and precipitation stations currently in function (current network).
Basin Historical network Current network
Acc diff (mm) Monthly R2 Acc diff (mm) Monthly R2

E64 +3% 0.64 +3% 0.63
E73 -3% 0.67 +22% 0.39
E65 -5% 0.95 -1% 0.92
E72 +4% 0.76 +3% 0.42
E66 +3 % 0.91 +10% 0.91
The differences in model results are varying from basin to basin, and only a
tentative station weighting has been made for the run with current network.
For some basins (E64, E65 and E66), however, the results are promising with
Page 66 (93)
fewer precipitation stations. This is encouraging since it means good

possibility for future use of the model as an operational flood forecasting tool.
The methodology to vary the amount of input stations can be used to find out
which precipitation stations are the most important for good simulation results
and thus to find the stations from which data are needed in real time for
acceptable forecasting results. Short time flood forecasting needs very recent
data to update the model in order to avoid errors because of a bad initial
model state for the forecast. Today only a few of the stations used in the
simulations with current network have radio access, and if only these are used
in the simulations, the results will probably be worse.
4.6 Comparison of results for the two models

The monthly Pitman modelling and the daily HBV modelling were made
independently. Therefore, a comparison of the simulated surface water
resources would indicate how robust the results are. Table 22 presents the
calculated MAR for the upper subbasins of the Pungwe River. Because of lack
of daily input data comparisons have been made for different periods.
Table 22 Comparison of the model results for the Pitman and HBV models for upper parts of
Subbasin Period Pitman model HBV model Difference

results results
Local MAR (mm/year)
Pungwe 1960-1980 1195 1295 +8%
Zimbabwe
Honde 1960-1980 477 490 +3%
Upper Pungwe 1960-1980 328 322 -2%
Nhazonia 1960-1976 170 142 -16%
Middle Pungwe* 1960-1976 87 91 +5%
Vunduzi 1960-1976 107 129 +20%
*Upper Middle Pungwe and Lower Middle Pungwe subbasins
In general terms the Pitman model is a simpler but more robust model
compared with the HBV model. It means that the Pitman model can be run
with less detailed input data and still produce reliable results, while the more
detailed HBV model are more sensitive to lack of input data. If there are
sufficient input data the more detailed daily HBV model should, however,
produce more reliable results.
Page 67 (93)
For the Pungwe River basin the input data situation is judged as good for the
upper parts approximately down to the E65 Pungwe Sul station. Downstream
this site the rainfall data coverage is judged too poor to give reliable results on
a daily time scale.
Table 22 shows small differences in results (<8%) for the upper basins, while
for the subbasins Nhazonia and Vunduzi there is a larger difference. For these
basins the rainfall data coverage is poor and the daily HBV model results are
more uncertain.
Considering the uncertainty in observed MAR and the estimated accuracy in

the Pitman model results (±15%) the small differences in results between the
Pitman and HBV models confirms the estimated available water resources for
1960-80.
Also the comparison of the Pitman model set up for 1954-64 using only three
rainfall stations gives similar results as the HBV model, see Table 23 for the
upper river basin.
Table 23 Comparison of the model results for the Pitman and HBV models for gauging
stations which were able to model for the period 1956-2002.
Station Period Pitman model HBV model Difference

results results
Total MAR (mm/year)
E64 1956-2002 1121 1217 +9%
E65 1956-2002 511 542 +6%
E73 1956-2002 422 440 +4%
Table 24 further indicate that the Pitman model seems to overestimate the
minimum flows. The only observed values available for 1992/93 when the
extreme low flows occurred indicate that the HBV model is more in the correct
order of magnitude.
Page 68 (93)
Table 24 Comparison of the model results for minimum flows for the Pitman and HBV models
for gauging stations that were able to model for the period 1956-2002.
Station Period Pitman model HBV model Observed

results results
Minimum monthly flow (m3/s)
F14 1956-02 0.86 0.51 0.40
E64 1956-02 1.62 0.99 ---
E65 1956-02 2.79 1.60 ---
E73 1956-02 0.82 0.54 ---
Page 69 (93)
5 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
Page 70 (93)
5.1 Frequency analysis

Frequency analysis uses annual maximum peak values as input. Because of
the uncertainties in observed high flows (see Ch. 3) due to poor rating curves
flood frequency analysis based on observed records are, however, extremely
uncertain. With the HBV model it is possible to simulate daily peak values for a
normally longer period than is observed. Simulation of extremes as annual
peaks are, however, also associated with great uncertainties. The results from
the validation of the daily model (Ch. 4.5.5) also indicated strongly that the
model underestimates the peaks.
There is, however, one station covering a larger area of the Pungwe River
basin, which has fairly reliable observed peak flows. For the E65 station at the
Tete Road Bridge it is judged that flows up to 750 m3/s are reliable, while up to
1 700 m3/s the data are fairly reliable.
The flow data quality analysis (Ch. 3) indicate further that also the E67 station
at Pungwe Bridge, covering almost the whole basin, is judged to give peak
results that are fairly reliable even if low-medium flows are uncertain. For this
site it was, however, not possible to set up the daily model to simulate peaks
because of lack of daily rainfall data.
The stations E64, E72, E66 and E81 the observed peak values are regarded
as uncertain but have anyhow been used as input to the flood studies.
Especially E66 Bué Maria shows very uncertain results with many years with
not reliable peak data.
The stations E73, E401, E80 and E76 were found to produce not reliable peak
data and were therefore not used in the study. Also the F22 station was not
used because of short record. Similarly the F14 record was not used because
it covers a very small catchment area.
Figure 3 shows the observed and simulated annual maximum values plotted
with a plotting position according to Weibul. The plots show that a frequency
analysis for observed and simulated maximum values would give very
different results for design floods.
For the only reliable observed high flow record, E65, the simulation model
clearly underestimates the extreme flows, which was also indicated by the
model validation.
For E64, E66 and E72 the extreme values are higher than the observed
values. Because of the very uncertain observed data it is, however, not
possible to verify if the simulated values are reliable or not.
Page 71 (93)
700
Observed E64 Pungue Fronteira

600 Simulated
500
Mean Daily flow (m3/s)
400
300
200
Limit for reliable observed values
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Return period (year)
3000
E65 Pungue Sul

Observed
2500
Simulated
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 3 Daily mean annual peaks plotted with the Weibul plotting position for the stations in
Page 72 (93)
5000
4500
E66 Bue Maria
Observed
4000 Simulated
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000 Limit for reliable observed values
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2000
Observed E67 Pungue Ponte

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 3 (Cont.) Daily mean annual peaks plotted with the Weibul plotting position for the
stations in the Pungwe River basin.
Page 73 (93)
500
450
E72 Nhazonia
Observed
Simulated
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
180
Observed E81 Chitengo

160
140
120
100
80

60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 3 (Cont.) Daily mean annual peaks plotted with the Weibul plotting position for the
stations in the Pungwe River basin.
Page 74 (93)
Because of the large uncertainties presented above the following methodology

was used to estimate the floods in the Pungwe River basin
1) Frequency analysis was made for both simulated and observed annual
maximum values.
2) Empirical models such as the RMF method developed in South Africa and
the Myers method were applied for the station sites in Pungwe.
3) Comparisons of the different results for each method and for different
stations were made to conclude the order of magnitude for design floods
in the Pungwe River basins.
Accordingly a frequency analysis was made for the E64, E65, E66, E67, E72
and E81 sites. The plots with fitted distributions are shown in Appendix 14
together with the used annual maximum values. A CHI-2 test was made to
assess if the distribution can be discarded. If the distribution could statistically
be discarded at 95% significance level they were not considered.
The result are summarised below in Table 25. Either the Extreme Value Type I
(Gumbel) or the Lognormal2 distributions were the best fits. Both are therefore
presented if they were not discarded by the CHI-2 test.
The use of Table 25 directly for design floods must be done with great care.
Normally the accuracy for high return periods is extremely uncertain. Normally
the accuracy of a frequency analysis is good up to a return period four times
the number of annual maximum values. In the Pungwe River basin this would
mean that calculated designs floods up to 100-years floods are fairly accurate,
while for instance the 1 000- and 10 000-years floods are extremely uncertain.
The variation in results between different distributions and between simulated
and observed maximum values also confirm the uncertainty in the
methodology.
5.2 Instantaneous peaks

The frequency analysis above was made only for daily mean flows. The
design floods should, however, be made for the instantaneous peak.
For large basins the instantaneous peaks are normally similar to the daily
mean, while for small upstream basins the difference can be very large. By the
look of the hydrograph it is therefore assumed that for E67 there is no
difference between the daily mean maximum and the instantaneous
maximum. For E65 the data, which is judged reliable, however, show that the
Page 75 (93)
point measurement (taken three times per day) normally is some 20-30%
higher than the daily mean (see Figure 4).
Table 25 Summary of frequency analysis for the Pungwe River basin.
Station Area Return SIMULATED OBSERVED

(km2) Period
EV I Log EV I Log norm2
(Gumbel) norm2 (Gumbel)
E64 687 2 228 ---- 191 186
10 421 ---- 365 352
100 662 ---- 581 594
1000 898 ---- 794 869
10000 1135 ---- 1006 1188
E65 3100 2 431 ---- 702 619
10 794 ---- 1569 1671
100 1248 ---- 2651 3754
1000 1693 ---- 3712 6782
10000 2137 ---- 4772 11036
E66 15046 2 1000 874 787 716
10 2037 2437 2047 1815
100 3331 5625 3619 3875
1000 4601 10366 5162 6747
10000 5868 17143 6703 10647
E67 26870 2 ---- ---- 569 ----
10 ---- ---- 1299 ----
100 ---- ---- 2210 ----
1000 ---- ---- 3104 ----
10000 ---- ---- 3996 ----
E72 2700 2 75 64 117 82
10 155 189 296 390
100 254 458 519 1392
1000 351 875 739 3531
10000 449 1490 958 7596
E81 8060 2 ---- ---- 74 70
10 ---- ---- 132 150
100 ---- ---- 205 280
1000 ---- ---- 277 442
10000 ---- ---- 348 643
Page 76 (93)
4000
3500
Observed instantaneous peak (m3/s)

3000 y = 1.2616x
2500
2000
1500
1000 E65 Pungue Sul
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Observed daily mean (m3/s)
Figure 4 Comparison between maximum daily mean annual values with the maximum
measured point measurements (taken three times per day) at E65.
Applying a factor 1.3 to the design floods also indicate similar values as the
ones computed directly with frequency analysis for instantaneous values
(Table 26). Based on the assumption of no difference in E67 and a factor 1.3
at E65 the correction factors for all stations were estimated, see Table 27.
Table 26 Comparison of corrected daily mean design floods and calculated instantaneous
design floods. The frequency analysis was made by the Extreme Value Type I
distribution.
Return period Frequency Corrected with a Frequency

(years) analysis for max factor 1.3 analysis for max
observed daily observed
mean instantaneous
2 702 913 846
10 1569 2040 2000
100 2651 3446 3440
1000 3712 4826 4853
10000 4772 6204 6263
Page 77 (93)
Table 27 Estimated correction factor for daily mean design floods to obtain instantaneous
values.
Station Area Correction factor

(km2)
E64 687 1.5
E65 3100 1.3
E72 2700 1.3
E66 15046 1.1
E81 8060 1.2
E67 26870 1.0
5.3 Empirical methods

Two empirical formulas were considered:
The RMF is an empirically established upper limit of instantaneous flood

peaks that can reasonably be expected at a given site in Southern Africa (RSA
Department of Water Affairs, 1988). The method is based on the Francou-
Rodier equation which has been further developed in determining different
maximum flood peak regions in Southern Africa.
Q=106(A/108)1-0,1K
in which : Q is the RMF peak in m3/s

A is the effective catchment area in km2, and
K is the regional maximum flood peak coefficient
The maximum flood peak coefficients for the Pungwe River is 5.6 for the upper
basins and 5.0 for the lower parts according to (RSA Department of Water
Affairs, 1988). Based on this the K has been estimated for the stations as
given in Table 28.
Page 78 (93)
Table 28 Estimated upper limit of peak floods by the empirical RMF method.
Station Area K Highest possible flood

(km2)
E64 687 5.6 5350
E65 3100 5.6 10380
E72 2700 5.4 7920
E66 15046 5.2 14670
E81 8060 5.0 8980
E67 26870 5.0 16400
The Myer formula can be used to adjust results calculated at one site by
frequency analysis to other locations downstream the river.
0.7
Q1 = Q2 . ( A1 / A2 )
Since the observed values for E65 are judged fairly reliable the design floods
at E65 calculated based on instantaneous peaks and the EV I distribution
were considered fairly reliable. By help of the Myer formula these values were
thus calculated for E66 and E67 (Table 29)
Table 29 Estimated design floods for the E66 and E67 stations with the Myer formula.
Station Area Return period Instantaneous design

floods according to Myers
formula and results at E65
E66 15046 2 2556
10 6043
100 10394
1000 14664
10000 18924
E67 26870 2 3836
10 9070
100 15600
1000 22000
10000 28400
Page 79 (93)
5.4 Previous studies

A recent study has been conducted for floods in Mozambique by SMEC
(2003). In this study the rating curve for E66 Bué Maria was recalculated and
frequency analysis based on these new data estimates the instantaneous 100-
year flood to 9980 m3/s. It should, however, be noted that the study is not yet
finalised and the value is therefore preliminary.
5.5 Conclusions of flood studies

The results in Tables 25-29 show large variation because of the uncertainties
in observed peak values, uncertainties in simulated peak values and
uncertainties in the frequency analysis methodology.
Based on the present results it is therefore not possible to conclude any firm
design floods for the station sites in the Pungwe River basin. By applying the
correction factors to daily mean estimates the following intervals for
instantaneous peaks are estimated:
100-years flood
E64: 850-1000 m3/s

E65: 3500-5000 m3/s
E66: 3700-10000 m3/s
E67: 2200-16000 m3/s
E72: 300-1800 m3/s
E81: 250-350 m3/s
1 000-years flood
E64: 1200-1350 m3/s

E65: 4900-9000 m3/s
E66: 5100-15000 m3/s
E67: 3100-22000 m3/s
E72: 450-4600 m3/s
E81: 400-800 m3/s
Page 80 (93)
10 000-years flood
E64: 1500-5400 m3/s

E65: 6000-15000 m3/s
E66: 6500-19000 m3/s
E67: 4000-28000 m3/s
E72: 600-10000 m3/s
E81: 500-9000 m3/s
Based on a consequence analysis for the breach of structures in the rivers or

for design of inundation maps the design flood values must be chosen from
the above intervals.
The high ends of the intervals seem unreasonably high but with the present
uncertainties it is not possible at this stage to discard these values.
Further detailed studies can, however, probably reduce the given intervals.
One apparent result is that the fairly reliable observed record at E67 gives so
low peak values compared to upstream stations (in fact lower in most cases).
The hydrograph shows that the peaks are very dampened at E67, which may
be possible due to the extreme flat landscape in the lower part of the Pungwe
River. However, until this has been proven by e.g. hydraulic calculations it is
not possible to discard the high values from empirical formulas. Alternatively,
the E67 station is by-passed at very high flows and even if the E67 records the
correct flow at the station it may be only a part of the total Pungwe River flow.
Another result which affects the conclusions considerably is the assumption

the E65 observed values are fairly reliable up to 1 750 m3/s. The few current
meter measurements for very high flows at E65 all indicate that the used
rating curve overestimate the flows at high water levels. Since the E65 is used
as base for the Myer method, which in general gives the high end of the
intervals, an overestimation at E65 would mean overestimation in also E66
and E67 for the given design floods. Further studies to confirm the rating
curves fro E65 at high water levels, e.g. through hydraulic models, would give
very valuable information for the flood estimation in the Pungwe River.
Page 81 (93)
6 RELIABILITY OF RESULTS
Page 82 (93)
There are basically two issues that are outstanding regarding the reliability of
the new results for surface water resources of the Pungwe River:
1) Is the period 1960-80 representative for the long-term flow characteristics

of the river basin?
2) How much uncertainty is introduced in the results when a hydrological

model is applied to simulate river runoff?
An analysis of results is made below to evaluate these uncertainties.
6.1 Climatic analysis of the river basin

The results of the hydrological modelling show very distinct differences in the
availability of the water resources in the Pungwe River Basin. Although, only
covering some 5% of the area the Zimbabwean part is estimated to produce
between 25-30% of the natural runoff. The reason for this is that the change in
generated runoff is very rapid when moving from the western Mozambican
parts up to the mountainous areas in Zimbabwe.
It is therefore valid to analyse if this is reasonable in a climatic sense. The

river basin shows large differences in slope and vegetation. In the upper parts
of the river basin these differences become very dramatic. Figure 5 illustrates
how the altitude increases from some 600 m.a.sl. at the border, where Honde
and Pungwe crosses, up to peaks of 2 500 m.a.sl. in the Nyanga Mountains.
2500
2000
1200
600
ALTITUDE
(m.a.sl.)
Figure 5 Illustration of the dramatic change in altitude in the Upper parts of the Pungwe
River basin. Brown starts at 600 m, green at 1 200 m ad grey at 2 000 m.
Page 83 (93)
Because the main cause for rainfall in this area is humid air from the Indian
Ocean, this dramatic rise in altitude creates an orographic effect, i.e. the
humid air is forced to rise, cools down and falls out as rainfall. This is clearly
shown in Figures 6 and 7 that present the rainfall and runoff distribution of the
upper river basin. A similar effect also occurs at the Gorongosa Mountains that
are known to receive much rainfall.
1220
1600
2730
2100
2290
2010
1490 1330
RAINFALL (mm/year)
Figure 6 Illustration of the dramatic change in rainfall in the upper parts of the Pungwe River
basin. Red bullets denote rainfall stations.
1460
1120
RUNOFF (mm/year)
Figure 7 Observed runoff in the upper parts of the Pungwe River basin. Blue bullets denotes
flow gauging stations.
Page 84 (93)
The change in rainfall goes from 1 300-1 400 mm/year (Pungue Fronteira) at
the border up to 2 700 mm/year on the eastern slopes (Nyangani Luleche) and
down to 1 200 mm on the western slopes of the Eastern Highlands (Nyanga
Exp. Stn). The orographic effect is shown in principle in Figure 8.
The rainfall probably rises rapidly on the eastern slopes and even more rapidly
decreases on the western slopes that are located in the so-called rain shadow.
The orographic effect therefore may explain the large change in areal runoff
shown in the F14 and E64 records. The F14 is located in a small area where
rainfall probably is close to 3 000 mm/year, while the E64 covers an area
where rainfall varies from 1 300 to 3 000 mm/year.
OROGRAPHIC EFFECT
~3000 mm/year ?
2730 mm/year
1880 m Nyanga F14
870 m Nyangani Luleche
1220 mm/year
E64 Moist air
Altitude Rainfall
Figure 8 Principle illustration of orographic effect in the astern Highlands in the upper parts
of the Pungwe River basin.
Through utilising the information from runoff records for the minor stations in
the Pungwe River basin the variation in the climate can be further studied. The
large increase in runoff towards the mountainous areas can for instance be
seen for both the F1 Mapopo station in the Nyamkwarara River basin, the E71
station in Messambize and the E70 station in Nhazonia.
The simulated areal runoff for Pungwe River in Zimbabwe was about 1 200
mm, for Honde about 500 mm and for the Upper Pungwe (Mavuzi and
Messambize) about 350 mm. Based on Figures 5-9 these results seem to be
reasonable considering the climatic variability in the upper area of the river
basin that can be seen in observed records and can be explained by a
climatically sound theory.
Page 85 (93)
OBSERVED
MAR (mm/year)
740
790
1450 1120
1460
120
690
500
350
1040 90
360
120
320
80
200
240 50 20
80
140
OBSERVED
MAR (mm/year)
Figure 9 Observed mean annual runoff (MAR) for the stations in the Pungwe River basin.
Red figures are reliable stations, blue fairly reliable, green uncertain and black not
reliable. MAR is based on all available data.
Page 86 (93)
6.2 Reliability of the hydrological model results

The major uncertainty in hydrological models applied in southern Africa is
whether the rainfall data used for input is sufficient to calculate areal rainfall for
a river basin. Normally very many evenly distributed rainfall stations are
needed to get a good estimate of the areal rainfall. The reason why only 21
years (1960-1980) have been simulated for the entire basin is that outside this
period the number of rainfall stations with available data was too small. The
results for these years are therefore not judged to be reliable for the 12
subbasins for which flow characteristics were to be calculated.
For the period 1960-80, however, the overall conclusion from the hydrological
modelling of river flow in the Pungwe River basin is that the models can
produce acceptable results. Both models support each other in the results
(see Ch. 4.6) for long-term mean flow (MAR) indicating that the reasons for
bad results are probably due to poor input data rather than poor model
configurations.
The climatic analysis above indicates that the results are in the correct order
of magnitude and the validation of the models indicates that they can
reproduce river runoff within ±15% of the mean annual runoff.
The model results show a clear tendency of performing better in the upper
parts of the Pungwe River basin. The lower Pungwe River basin is very
complex to model since the area is very flat and a large part of the rainfall is
lost to evapotranspiration (more than 90%). Relative large errors in river runoff
for small basins like the Muda or Metuchira are therefore very difficult to avoid.
It should further be noted that a general feature of hydrological model

performance is difficulties in simulating extremes, i.e. overestimation of low
flows and underestimation of peak flows. One reason for this is that the input
data sets include few high flow events and that these periods also are
associated with the largest degree of input-data inaccuracy. Another difficulty
is that during low flow periods the relative importance of evapotranspiration on
the water balance calculation is larger. Also, model calibration is (intentionally
or unintentionally) normally focused on a good general model fit, which means
that the average flows and MAR are emphasised.
6.3 Estimation of long-term mean runoff

21 years of data on river runoff in southern Africa is generally too short to give
reliable long-term flow characteristics. The reason is that the region suffers
from clear cycles in the climate where wet and dry periods alternate. Normally
at least 30 years are therefore considered to be required for good estimates of
e.g. mean annual runoff (MAR).
Page 87 (93)
A deeper study of the rainfall records available from the rainfall stations in
Chimoio, Mozambique, and Nyangani Luleche, Zimbabwe, gives valuable
information (Figures 10 and 11).
1800
Annual Rainfall at Chimoio MAP 1951-1999: 1081 mm
1600 MAP 1960-1980: 1055 mm
1400
1200
(mm/year)
1000
800
600
400
200
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Figure 10 Annual rainfall for the station Chimoio.
5000
Annual Rainfall at Inyangani Luleche MAP 1954-2001: 2709 mm
4500 MAP 1960-1980: 2832 mm
4000
3500
3000
(mm/year)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
N/A
0
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Figure 11 Annual rainfall for the station Nyangani Luleche.
The mean annual precipitation for the 50-year long period at Chimoio is similar
to the mean value for 1960-1980, while at Nyangani Luleche a larger
difference is seen (5% larger for 1960-1980). Since much of the water for the
Pungwe River is generated in the upper parts this difference may indicate that
the estimated mean annual runoff values for 1960-80 are slightly
overestimated.
Page 88 (93)
Despite the uncertainty of using only three rainfall stations as input data
(Nyangani Luleche, Chimoio and Beira) the Pitman model set up for 1954-
2002 can be used to study the relative difference in water resources between
different periods. The set up for 1954-2002 was used to estimate series of
monthly runoff in the Pungwe River (Table 30).
Table 30 Comparison of the model results for the Pitman for different calculation periods.
Station Period Period Difference

1960-80 1954-2002
Total MAR (mm/year)
E64 1175 1120 -5%
E65 585 511 -13%
E73 477 422 -12%
E67 146 130 -11%
A comparison of the MAR values for the two periods indicate that the 50-years
series give 5-15% lower values compared to the values computed from 1960-
1980.
The conclusion from both the study of the long rainfall records and the
modelling for the period 1954-2002 is therefore that the calculated natural
MAR for the period 1960-80 is some 5-15% lower than the long-term true
mean available water resources in the Pungwe River basin.
6.4 Estimation of extremes

A study of the extreme years shows that the dry period in 1991-92 is very
clear at Nyangani Luleche (Figure 11 and Table 31). At Nyangani Luleche only
one of the five driest years occurred during 1960-1980. This strongly indicates
that the calculated minimum flows and the low flow statistics based on the
simulated monthly values for 1960-80 are overestimated compared to the
long-term true value.
Page 89 (93)
Table 31 Driest years at Chimoio and Inyangani Luleche.
Chimoio Nyangani Luleche

Year Rainfall (mm) Year Rainfall (mm)
1972 473 1991 947
1991 485 1994 1462
1990 538 1967 1515
1967 548 1990 1534
1993 744 1982 1680
The Pitman model results for the period 1954-2002 also indicated clearly that
the runoff in Oct 1992 was the lowest for the whole period (4.4 Mm3/month at
the border and 9.4 Mm3/month at E67). These results are considerably less
than the minimum monthly simulated flows for the period 1960-1980, which
further indicates that the given low flow estimates most likely are
overestimated.
Furthermore, the comparison between the Pitman model and the HBV model
results for low flows (Table 24) indicates that also the Pitman simulated values
for 1992 are overestimated.
As a conclusion the calculated statistics on low flows based on the monthly

simulated values for 1960-80 must be used with much care. The extreme
minimum values are likely to be considerably lower in the long-term.
Likewise as for the low flows the flood statistics are based on a limited period
of data. For the upper parts down to E65 simulation has enabled values for the
period 1956-2002, while for the lower parts of the basin data are only available
for the period 1956-76.
Table 32 indicates that three of the wettest years occurred during this period.
Since peak values are very dependent on the distribution of rainfall on a daily
basis it is, however, not possible to make any conclusions of the accuracy in
the given values in this report. Table 32 shows that no extremely wet year
occurred outside of the calculation period since the start of the observations.
Table 32 Wettest years at Chimoio and Inyangani Luleche
Chimoio Nyangani Luleche

Year Rainfall (mm) Year Rainfall (mm)
1951 1595 1973 4391
1996 1593 1955 4174
1973 1556 1954 3912
1975 1515 1969 3630
1962 1492 1977 3617
Page 90 (93)
The uncertainty in design flood estimates are therefore more dependent on

the accuracy of used rating curves for high water levels, the ability of the daily
HBV model to simulate the peak values correctly and the uncertainty in the
frequency methodology, rather than that a non-representative period has been
modelled (see further in Ch. 5.)
6.5 Conclusions
The conclusions regarding the reliability of the surface water results are:
• The mean annual runoff and rainfall estimated for the different subbasins
of the Pungwe River are considered reliable for the period 1960-80.
However, since the calculation period may be slightly wetter than the long-
term average the given MAR may be slightly overestimated (5-15%)
compared to the long-term true value.
• The average contribution from the two countries Mozambique (72%) and
Zimbabwe (28%) is also judged to be reliable. It shall, however, be noted
that the distribution is based on average conditions and that it can be very
different for individual years.
• The extreme low flows are less reliable. The extreme low flows based on
the period 1960-1980 are probably overestimated compared to the long-
term true minimum flows. Much care must therefore be taken when using
these low flow estimates for planning of water use.
• The extreme high flows are very uncertain and the calculated design
floods must be used with much care.
Page 91 (93)
7 REFERENCES
Page 92 (93)
Bergström, S. (1976) Development and application of a conceptual runoff

model for Scandinavian catchments. SMHI RHO 7, Norrköping.
GAMZ (2000) Streamflow and Sediment Gauging and Modelling in Zimbabwe,

Final Report, Dept. of Water Development, ZINWA, SMHI and SIDA, June
2000.
Lázaro, D. (1997) Approvetamento dos recursos Hidraulicos dos rios Pungoe

e Buzi, Abril 1997, Maputo.
Lindström, G., Gardelin, M., Johansson, B., Persson, M. and Bergström, S.,
1997. Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model,
Journal of Hydrology, 201: 272-288.
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V. (1970)

River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I. A discussion of
principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282-290.
RSA Department of Water Affairs (1988) Technical Report TR 137: Regional

Maximum Flood Peaks in Southern Africa, Z. Kovàcs.
SMEC (2003) Flood Risk Analysis Project, First Project Status Report,
Republic of Mozambique, prepared by SMEC International Pty Ltd.
Page 93 (93)
Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUNGUE

RIVER BASIN JOINT IWRM STRATEGY
Monograph Report April 2004 APPENDIX 1
Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Rainfall stations in the
Modelling Pungwe River basin
Compiled Mozambican rainfall data in the Pungwe River basin

Station Position Coverage of available data Comments
Name No. Latitude Longitude Altitude Daily data # years Monthly data # years
Beira O. P. 46 19:50:00 34:51:00 1955-60 5 1955-60 5
Beira CFB 58 19:50:00 34:51:00 1 1952-67, 69-76 24 1952-67, 69-76 24
Pungoe CFB 88 19:29:00 34:32:00 5 1952-67, 69-76 23 1952-67, 69-76 23
Nhamatanda 90 19:16:00 34:12:00 1952-75, 89-97 30 1952-75, 89-97 30 Gaps
Muda CFB 94 19:22:00 34:24:00 11 1952-67 15 1952-67 15
Mafambisse CFB 95 19:33:00 34:37:00 8 1952-67, 69-76 23 1952-67, 69-76 23
Dondo 96 19:37:00 34:45:00 1952-67, 69-76 23 1952-67, 69-76 23
Chimoio CFB 97 19:07:30 33:29:00 703 1952-67 16 1952-67, 69-76 23
Montes Siluvo CFB 99 19:14:00 34:00:00 137 1952-67, 69-76 23 1952-67, 69-76 23
Naruchonga CFB 101 19:15:00 34:07:00 159 1953-67, 69-76 21 1953-67, 69-76 21
Tembe CFB 104 19:01:51 33:25:57 684 1953-61 8 1953-61 8
Lamego CFB 105 19:29:00 34:20:00 22 1952-67, 69-76 23 1952-67, 69-76 23
Gondola CFB 106 19:05:00 33:39:00 620 1952-67, 69-76 23 1952-67, 69-76 23
Bua Maria 169 19:01:00 34:11:00 100 1953-78 23 1953-78 23 Gaps
Zongorgue 205 18:27:30 34:20:00 140 1951-68 16 1951-68, 70-72 18
Nova Maceria CFB 215 19:37:00 34:45:00 46 1954-66 13 1954-66 13
Nhacangara E.N. 102 350 18:11:45 33:13:30 600 1956-82 24 1956-82 24 Gaps
Urema E.N. 218 365 19:10:00 34:30:00 36 1956-82 24 1956-82 24 Gaps
Morombosi 368 18:30:57 34:02:17 600 1957-77 20 1968-74 6
Mavonde 372 18:32:00 33:02:30 600 1956-76 20 1956-76 20
Chitengo O. P. 373 18:59:00 34:21:30 43 1957-65, 67-70, 98-00 16 1956-70, 98-00 16
Esperanca da Costa 374 18:27:00 33:21:30 480 1956-73 17 1956-73 17
Pungue E.N. 102 375 18:33:30 33:17:00 500 1956-83, 86-88, 99-00 30 1956-83, 86-88, 99-00 30
Pungoe Fronteira 376 18:21:00 33:04:30 600 1956-73 15 1956-73 15 Gaps
Brown B.E.H.R 385 19:11:00 33:39:00 520 1956-68, 71-74 15 1956-68, 71-74 15
Piro 478 18:20:24 34:22:00 140 1956-64, 66-67, 69-72 13 1959-64, 66-67, 69-72 10
Semacueza 484 19:23:00 34:43:30 100 1959-65 7 1959-65 7
Condue 496 18:48:00 34:50:00 300 1960-64, 67-70, 72-75, 77-78 13 1960-64, 67-70, 72-75, 77-78 13
Nhazonia 498 17:57:00 33:12:00 693 1959-62, 64-80 19 1959-62, 64-80 19
Macossa 502 17:55:00 33:56:00 499 1961, 64-70 8 1963-70 8
Messambize A.E. De Tete 536 18:19:30 33:09:30 1000 1959-73, 75-79 18 1959-73, 75-79 18
Herdade Alentejo 537 18:59:00 33:33:45 - - 1959-62 3
Zipinga CFB 614 19:06:00 33:50:30 400 1965-67, 69-76 10 1965-67, 69-76 10

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Rainfall stations in the Pungwe River basin
Modelling
Compiled Mozambican rainfall data in the Pungwe River basin (Cont.)

Amatongas II CFB 615 19:06:00 33:46:30 490 1965-67, 69-76 11 1965-67, 69-76 11
Doeroi 616 19:10:30 33:51:30 140 1965-67, 69-76 10 1965-67, 69-76 10
Beira Sacadura Cabral INAM 617 19:46:30 34:53:00 8 1960-67 7 1960-67 7
Chimoio 647 19:00:00 33:23:00 684 1961-67, 69-76 14 1961-67, 69-76 14
Nhampassa 659 17:48:00 33:13:00 670 1960-72 12 1960-72 12
A. Azevedo 718 18:50:23 33:17:26 610 1960-63, 72-73 5 1960-63, 72-73 5
Metuchira Serração 728 19:10:30 34:03:00 150 1961-70 9 1961-70 9
Beira 769 19:50:00 34:51:00 7 1951-68 18 1950-68 19
Chimoio INAM 806 19:08:00 33:29:00 731 1954-79, 81-84 27 1954-79, 81-84 27 Gaps
Gorongoza 812 18:41:00 34:04:00 375 1957-72, 81-83, 94, 96, 99 19 1956-72, 81-83, 94, 96, 99 19 Gaps
Catandica 862 18:04:00 33:11:30 611 1951-70, 72-79, 81-84 32 1925-70, 72-79, 81-84 54
Nhamatanda 866 19:16:00 34:12:00 57 1957-72 16 1957-72 16
Chitengo M.Z. 894 18:59:10 34:21:35 80 1962-69, 74-77, 81 12 1962-69, 73-77, 81 12
Metuchira 896 19:09:30 34:11:30 35 1961-73, 89-96 20 1961-73, 89-96 20
Lamego CT Pungue 897 19:19:30 34:20:00 22 1961-75 13 1961-75 13
Tica C.T.P. 898 19:25:00 34.28.30 20 1960-66 7 1960-66 7
Honde A. R. Gonçalves 908 18:19:30 33:12:00 560 1964-81 16 1964-81 16 Gaps
Nova Maceira 933 19:38:43 34:45:45 40 1966-67, 69-76 9 1966-67, 69-76 9
Tica 935 19:24:30 34:26:00 30 1969-76 8 1969-76 8
Metuchira II 936 19:08:00 34:09:30 70 1967-73 7 1967-73 7
Metuchira III 937 19:07:00 34:09:00 70 1967-77 8 1967-77 8 Gaps
Lamego II CT Pungue 938 19:21:00 34:20:00 24 1967-75 8 1967-75 8
Lamego III CT Pungue 939 19:22:00 34:21:00 22 1967-75 8 1967-75 8
Lamego IV 952 19:22:00 34:20:00 24 1968-75 7 1968-75 7
Lamego V 953 19:23:00 34:20:30 22 1968-75 7 1968-75 7
Metuchira IV CT Pungue 954 19:07:00 34:07:21 100 1968-73 6 1968-73 6
Metuchira V CT Pungue 955 19:08:00 34:01:00 80 1968-74 6 1968-74 6
Muanza INAM 963 18:59:00 34:50:00 230 1967-68 1 1967-68 1
Dondo INAM 971 19:37:00 34:45:00 1967-68 1 1967-68 1
Amatongas INAM 972 19:11:00 33:45:00 1967-70 2 1967-70 2 Gaps
Massara 1069 18:16:30 34:07:36 - - 1971-72 2
Nhacauango 1077 17:36:16 33:42:31 - - 1972 1
Tacuraminga 1089 18:48:18 33:56:51 1972-78 6 1972-78 6

Modelling
Compiled Mozambican rainfall data in the Pungwe River basin (Cont.)

Metuchira 7 1103 19:12:00 34:09:00 1971-77 7 1971-77 3 Gaps
Metuchira 8 1104 19:12:00 34:12:00 1971-77 7 1971-77 -
Chissato 1107 18:09:00 33:25:00 - - 1972 1
Goera 1108 17:43:00 33:37:00 - - 1972 0 Few data
INAM Chimoio 5015 19:07:00 33:28:00 731 1951-2000 50 1951-2000 -
INAM Amatongas 5043 19:11:00 33:45:00 1971-86 16 1971-86 -
INAM Macossa 5044 17:54:00 33:56:00 254 1971-78 8 1971-78 -
INAM Beira Observatorio 6007 19:50:00 34:51:00 7 1955-99 45 1955-99 -
INAM Gorongosa 6010 18:41:00 34:04:00 300 1951-77 27 1951-77 -
INAM Muanza 6060 18:49:00 34:05:00 7 1971-79 9 1971-79 -
INAM Maringue 6065 17:58:00 34:23:00 10 1969-79 11 1969-79 -
Compiled Zimbabwean rainfall data in the Pungwe River basin

Stapleford Forest CP 24798032 1986-99 14 1986-99 -
Stapleford Forest 1028 1951-82, 84-86, 89-99 46 1951-82, 84-86, 89-99 -
Rupere Nursery 2368 1969-76, 78-96 27 1969-76, 78-96 -
Erin Hydro (Forest) 24796667 18:23:00 32:42:00 1800 1980-2002 23 1980-2002
Sanyanga Gardens 24797363 18:25:00 32:45:00 1640 1966-77, 79, 87 14 1965-80, 86, 91-96 20 Gaps
Chingamwe 24797459 18:28:00 32:45:00 1953-85, 91-94 35 1953-85, 90-94 35 Gaps
Honde B C 24797947 18:34:00 32:48:00 840 1980-2002 23 1980-2002 5
Nyangani Luleche 24799172 18:20:00 32:55:00 870 1954-2002 49 1954-2002 36 Gaps
Zindi 24799370 18:22:00 32:56:00 760 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Mruwa 24799371 18:21:00 32:56:00 840 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Nyawanba 24799473 18:20:00 32:57:00 820 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Wamba 24799674 18:20:00 32:58:00 740 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Aberfoyle West 24799775 18:19:00 32:58:00 780 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Aberfoyle North 24799779 18:17:00 32:58:00 1000 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Aberfoyle East 24799877 18:18:00 32:59:00 760 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Chiwanza 25790473 18:20:00 33:02:00 680 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Katiyo 25790569 18:22:00 33:03:00 640 1987-2002 16 1987-2002 16
Nyanga Exp Station 67889030 18:13:00 32:44:00 1878 1951-2002 52 1951-2002 45

Modelling
DOUBLEMASS ANALYSIS FOR RAINFALL IN THE PUNGWE RIVER BASIN
24799172 Inyangani Luleche 67889030 Nyanga Experimental Station
24799172 Chingamwe 24797363 Sanyangas Garden
Along the y-axis is the accumulated precipitation for the investigated station, and along the x-axis the
accumulated mean of the surrounding stations. A small x along the y-axis denotes missing data.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUNGUE RIVER

BASIN JOINT IWRM STRATEGY
Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Double-mass analysis of
Modelling rainfall data
24796667 Erin Forest/Hydro 25790569 Katiyo Tea Estate
24798032 Stapleford Forest 24797947 Honde Business Centre

5115 Chinoio INAM 6007 Beira Obsevatorio INAM
376 Pungue Fronteira 372 Mavonde

350 Nhancangara 862 Catandica
536 Messambizi 374 Nhazonia ESP

498 Nhazonia 659 Nhampassa
647 Monte Chimoio 106 Gondola

169 Bué Maria 1089 Tacuraminga
6010 Gorongosa INAM 368 Morombosi

502 Macossa 5044 Macossa INAM
812 Gorongosa 478 Piro

205 Zongorgué 365 Urema
496 Condue 373 Chitengo OP

375 Pungue Ponte 615 Amatongas II
616 Doeroi 894 Chitengo MZ

90 Nhamatanda 99 Montes Xiluvo
101 Nharuchonga 94 Muda CFB


Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Evaporation pans in the
Modelling Pungwe River basin
OBSERVED AVERAGE MONTHLY A-PAN EVAPORATION VALUES FOR PUNGWE RIVER BASIN
All values in mm
Station Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Yearly
Nyanga Exp Station 171 145 113 115 100 112 103 95 83 93 124 162 1416
Erin Hydro 151 132 115 122 101 109 92 89 75 82 111 141 1321
Katiyo 176 153 155 144 141 145 123 103 77 88 148 205 1657
88 - Pungue Fronteira 167 166 150 171 125 131 109 84 61 76 108 134 1483
5015 - Chimoio 151 125 105 87 67 76 74 86 92 95 120 141 1379
169 - Bué Maria 175 183 180 153 132 140 109 104 70 80 95 133 1554
365 - Urema 166 154 171 161 165 140 117 110 88 85 125 155 1636
373 - Chitengo 166 165 174 172 128 129 114 104 91 85 113 148 1590
Beira Aeroporto 145 138 134 131 111 119 109 102 95 89 103 122 1397

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Monthly evaporation values
Modelling
SUBBASIN DIVISION FOR THE PITMAN MODEL

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Subbasin division for Pitman model
Modelling
PITMAN SCHEME FOR CALCULATION OF FLOW IN

PUNGWE RIVER
Urema
to E81
Nhandugue
Vunduzi
Pungue Falls to E80 502
Nhazonia 501 500
to E72 1
101 401 02
50
301 Nhandugue 501
Nhazonia
(rest)
4001
1001
Vunduzi E80 Urema
3001
302 E72 E81
5003
(rest) (rest) Irrigation
402 4002 401 Mafambisse
300
1050 150 2 301 503 5004 502
101 Water
Water supply Nhazonia supply
Mutare City F14 Vunduzi Beira
4003
30
03
Urema
5005
1025
1051
26
10
E64 E65 1008 E66 E67
1053 102 103 104 105 1009 106 1011 107 1013 108 109 110 1018 111 112 113
101
Afforestation 1003 1004 1006 1016 1020 1022 1024
Upper 1015
& irrigation
Pungue Upper Lower
1002
Honde Middle Middle E76 Muda Pungue
1005
1007
1010
1012
1014
1017
1019
1021
1023
Estaury
2006
Pungue Pungue
102 103 105 106 107 108 109 110 111
202 104
Upper Pungue Upper Middle Lower Middle
Pungue Zimbabwe Upper Pungue Lower Pungue Lower Pungue Lower Pungue Muda Pungue
5 to E65 Pungue Pungue
(except Pungue Falls) 200 (rest) to E66 Metuchira (rest) Estaury
E73
2004
204
2003 203
Honde River 201
after E73 rest of Honde
2007
River to E73
1
200
200
2
Afforestation Honde Nhamakurara
& irrigation At border At border
201 202
Honde River Nhamakurara River

at border at border

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Pitman model scheme
Modelling
RAINFALL STATIONS USED IN THE PITMAN MODEL FOR PUNGWE RIVER BASIN
Model set up 1960-80 Model set up 1954-02

Subcatchment
Station no Period of record MAP Station no
24799172 1953-02 2729 24799172 Nyangani Luleche
67889030 1951-99 (gaps) 1218 5015 Chimoio INAM*
Pungwe Zimbabwe
24796667 1980-86 1198
24797363 1965-80,86-88,92-96 (gaps) 1597
24797947 1980-86 1012 24799172 Nyangani Luleche

Honde P372 1956-76 1312 5015 Chimoio INAM*
24797459 1953-86, 90-95 (gaps) 1709
P375 1956-83, 86-88, 99-00 858 24799172 Nyangani Luleche

P376 1956-73 1328 5015 Chimoio INAM*
Upper Pungue P536 1959-73, 75-79 1214
P862* 1980-81 1559
P350* 1980-81 1068
P350 1956-82 1068 24799172 Nyangani Luleche

P374 1956-73 863 5015 Chimoio INAM*
P498 1959-62, 64-80 1074
P659 1960-72 1147
Nhazonia P862 1925-70, 72-79, 81-84 1559
P908 1964-81 1111
P536* 1980 1214
P375* 1980 858
P376* 1980 1328
P374 1956-73 863 24799172 Nyangani Luleche

P375 1956-83, 86-88, 99-00 858 5015 Chimoio INAM*
P647 1961-67, 69-76 894
P350* 1976, 80-81 1068
Upper Middle Pungue P498* 1979 1074
P536* 1979 1214
P806* 1979 1072
P862* 1976, 80-81 1559
P908* 1979 1111
P647 1961-67, 69-76 894 5015 Chimoio INAM

P806 1954-79, 81-84 1072 6007 Beira Obs. INAM*
P97 1952-67, 69-76 886
Lower Middle Pungue
P375 1979-81 858
P812* 1979-81 1087
P894* 1979-81 826
P812 1956-72, 81-83, 94, 96, 99 1087 5015 Chimoio INAM

P1089 1972-78 1046 6007 Beira Obs. INAM*
P368 1968-74 1284
Vunduzi P169* 1961, 63, 68, 76, 78-80 931
P350* 1978-80 1068
P498* 1978-80 1074
P862* 1978-80 1559
P478 1956-64, 66-67, 69-72 890 5015 Chimoio INAM

P502 1963-70 675 6007 Beira Obs. INAM*
P205 1951-68, 70-72 925
P368* 1972-75 1284
Nhandugue
P496* 1972-75, 77-78 1231
P498* 1975-80 1074
P812* 1981 1087
P1089* 1972-78 1046

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Rainfall stations used for
Modelling Pitman model
RAINFALL STATIONS USED IN THE PITMAN MODEL FOR PUNGWE RIVER BASIN (Cont.)
Model set up 1960-80 Model set up 1954-02

Subcatchment
Station no Period of record MAP Station no
P205 1951-68, 70-72 925 5015 Chimoio INAM
P365 1956-82 525 6007 Beira Obs. INAM*
P478 1956-64, 66-67, 69-72 890
Urema P496 1960-64, 67-70, 72-75, 77-78 1231
P169* 1978 931
P806* 1978-79 1072
P894* 1980 826
P90 1952-75, 89-97 924 5015 Chimoio INAM

P99 1952-67, 69-76 1042 6007 Beira Obs. INAM*
P101 1953-67, 69-76 1100
P105 1952-67, 69-76 886
P169 1953-78 931
P373 1956-70, 98-00 852
P614 1965-67, 69-76 1479
Lower Pungue
P615 1965-67, 69-76 1223
P616 1965-67, 69-76 1429
P866 1954-71 983
P894 1962-68, 73-76, 80 826
P897 1961-75 880
P365* 1979-81 525
P806* 1979-80 1072
P90 1952-75, 89-97 924 5015 Chimoio INAM

P99 1952-67, 69-76 1042 6007 Beira Obs. INAM*
P105 1952-67, 69-76 886
P106 1958-68, 71-74 1321
Muda P385 1956-68, 70-73 1262
P897 1961-75 880
P365* 1973, 76-81 525
P806* 1973, 76-81 1072
P894* 1976-81 826
P88 1952-67, 69-76 931 6007 Beira Obs. INAM

P94 1952-67 995 5015 Chimoio INAM*
P95 1952-67, 69-76 1150
P215 1953-65 1244
P769 1950-67 1593
P933 1966-67, 69-76 1178
Pungue Estaury
P365* 1973, 76-81 525
P806* 1973, 76-81 1072
P894* 1976-81 826
P897* 1968 880
P952* 1968 817
P953* 1968 823
* Only used for filling in gaps during periods or single months without data

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Rainfall stations used for
Modelling Pitman model
PITMAN MODEL PARAMETERS FOR PUNGWE RIVER BASIN
Parameter Description
POW Determines the rate at which subsurface flow reduces as soil moisture is depleted
SL Soil moisture level below which all subsurface flow ceases
ST Moisture holding capacity of soil
FT Maximum rate of subsurface flow at soil moisture capacity

Splits soil moisture into upper (faster response – see TL) and lower (slower response – see
GW GL) zones
ZMIN Minimum rainfall intensity required to initiate surface runoff
ZMAX Determines (in conjunction with ZMIN) the average infiltration to soil moisture
PI Interception storage
TL Lag of surface runoff and subsurface flow from the upper zone (see GW)
GL Lag of subsurface flow in the lower zone (see GW)
R Controls rate at which evaporation reduces as soil moisture is depleted

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Pitman model parameters
Modelling
Module Subbasin POW SL ST FT GW ZMIN ZMAX PI TL GL R

101 Pungwe Zimbabwe 1.0 0.00 600.00 99.00 5.00 0.00 750.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
102 Pungwe Zimbabwe 1.5 0.00 600.00 70.00 5.00 0.00 850.00 1.50 0.50 1.50 0.00
201 Honde 1.5 0.00 600.00 20.00 5.00 0.00 825.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
202 Honde 1.5 0.00 600.00 20.00 5.00 0.00 825.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
203 Honde 1.5 0.00 600.00 20.00 5.00 0.00 825.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
204 Honde 1.5 0.00 600.00 20.00 5.00 0.00 825.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
103 Upper Pungwe 2.0 0.00 600.00 12.00 2.00 100.00 700.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
104 Upper Pungwe 2.0 0.00 600.00 12.00 2.00 100.00 700.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
301 Nhazonia 3.0 0.00 1000.00 8.00 2.00 100.00 1100.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
302 Nhazonia 3.0 0.00 1000.00 8.00 2.00 100.00 1100.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
105 Upper Middle Pungwe 3.0 0.00 1000.00 5.00 1.00 100.00 1100.00 1.50 0.50 1.50 0.00
401 Vunduzi 3.0 0.00 1100.00 3.00 0.00 200.00 1200.00 1.50 0.25 1.50 0.00
402 Vunduzi 3.0 0.00 1100.00 3.00 0.00 200.00 1200.00 1.50 0.25 1.50 0.00
106 Lower Middle Pungwe 3.0 0.00 1000.00 5.00 1.00 100.00 1100.00 1.50 0.50 1.50 0.00
107 Lower Pungwe 3.0 0.00 1000.00 1.00 0.00 200.00 1200.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
501 Nhandugue 3.0 0.00 1000.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
502 Urema 3.0 0.00 1000.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
503 Urema 3.0 0.00 1000.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
108 Lower Pungwe 3.0 0.00 1000.00 1.00 0.00 200.00 1200.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
109 Lower Pungwe 3.0 0.00 1000.00 1.00 0.00 200.00 1200.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
110 Muda 3.0 0.00 1200.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 1200.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00
111 Pungwe Estaury 3.0 0.00 1500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 1500.00 1.50 0.50 2.50 0.00

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Pitman model parameters
Modelling
20%
Accumulated Difference
0%
-20%
60
Pungue F14
Observed
50
Simulated
40
30
Monthly flow (Mm 3)

20
10
0
okt-80 okt-82 sep-84 sep-86 sep-88 sep-90 sep-92 sep-94 sep-96 sep-98
Station F14 (Priority 1)

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Pitman model validation results
Modelling
20%
0%
-20%
300
Pungue E64
Observed
250
Simulated
200
3
150
Monthly flow (Mm )

100
50
0
okt-60 okt-61 okt-62 okt-63 okt-64 okt-65 okt-66
Station E64 (Priority 1)

Modelling
20%
0%
-20%
1600
Pungue E65
Observed
1400
Simulated
1200
1000
800
600
Monthly flow (Mm 3)

400
200
0
okt-69 okt-71 okt-73 okt-75 okt-77

Modelling
25%
0%
-25%
450
Observed Katiyo F22

400
Simulated
350
300
3
250
200
Monthly flow (Mm )

150
100
50
0
Sep-97 Sep-98 Sep-99 Sep-00 Sep-01 Sep-02
Station F22 (Priority 2)

Modelling
20%
0%
-20%
2500
Pungue E66
Observed
2000 Simulated
1500
1000
Monthly flow (Mm 3)

500
0
okt-69 okt-71 okt-73 okt-75 okt-77 okt-79 okt-81

Modelling
20%
0%
-20%
400
Honde River E73
Observed
350
Simulated
300
3
250
200
150
Monthly flow (Mm )

100
50
0
okt-69 okt-70 okt-71 okt-72 okt-73 okt-74 okt-75 okt-76 okt-77

Modelling
25%
0%
-25%
3000
Observed Tacuram inga E401
2500 Simulated
2000
3
1500
Monthly flow (Mm )

1000
500
0
Oct-70 Oct-71 Oct-72 Oct-73 Oct-74 Oct-75 Oct-76 Oct-77
Station 401 (Priority 3)

Modelling
HBV SCHEME FOR UPPER AND MIDDLE

PUNGWE RIVER
Pungwe Falls F14

Area: 86 km2
Katiyo F22
Area: 555 km2
Total area: 641 km2
Honde Mavonde E73 Pungue Fronteira E64

Area: 1100 km2 Area: 46 km2
Total area: 687 km2
Pungue Sul E65 Nhazonia E72

Area: 1313 km2 Area: 2700 km2
Total area:
3100 km2
Tacuraminga E401
Vunduzi E80
Area: 4570 km2
Area: 3365 km2
Total area:
10370 km2
Bué Maria E66

Area: 1311 km2
Total area: 15046 km2

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & HBV model scheme
Modelling
RAINFALL STATIONS USED IN THE HBV SET UP FOR PUNGWE RIVER
Subbasin: Pungwe Falls F14 (area: 86 km2)

Period Stations & weights
1956-65 Nyangani Lul. 60% Nyanga Exp 40%
1965-80 Nyangani Lul. 60% Nyanga Exp 20% Sanyangas 20%
1980-02 Nyangani Lul. 60% Nyanga Exp 20% Erin Forest/Hydro 20%
Subbasin: F22 Katiyo (area: 555 km2)

1956-66 Nyangani Lul. 50% 376 Pungue Fronteira 30% Chingamwe 20%
1966-73 Nyangani Lul. 50% 376 Pungue Fronteira 30% Sanyangas 20%
1973-87 Nyangani Lul. 80%* Sanyangas 20%
1987-02 Nyangani Lul. 50% Katiyo 30% Sanyangas 20%
Subbasin: E64 Pungwe Fronteira (area: 46 km2)

1956-73 376 Pungue Fronteira 100%
1973-87 Nyangani Lul. 100%*
1987-02 Katiyo 100%
Subbasin: E73 Mavonde (area: 1100 km2)

1956-76 372 Mavonde 35% Chingamwe 25% Stapleford Forest 15% Watsomba 15%
1976-80 Chingamwe 75%* Stapleford Forest 25%
1980-02 Honde B.C. 50% Chingamwe 25% Stapleford Forest 25%

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Rainfall stations used for HBV model
Modelling
RAINFALL STATIONS USED IN THE HBV SET UP FOR PUNGWE RIVER (Cont.)
Subbasin: E65 Pungwe Sul (area: 1313 km2)

1956-59 376 Pungue Front. 25% 372 Mavonde 20% 350 Nhacangara 15% 862 Catandica 10% 375 Pungue Sul 30%
1959-73 376 Pungue Front. 20% 372 Mavonde 20% 350 Nhacangara 10% 862 Catandica 5% 375 Pungue Sul 30% 536 Messambize 15%
1973-76 372 Mavonde 40% 350 Nhacangara 10% 862 Catandica 5% 375 Pungue Sul 30% 536 Messambize 15%
1976-81 350 Nhacangara 10% 862 Catandica 5% 375 Pungue Sul 70% 536 Messambize 15%
1981-87 Honde B.C. 50% 375 Pungue Sul 50%
1987-98 Honde B.C. 70% Katiyo 30%
1987-02 Honde B.C. 30% Katiyo 30% 375 Pungue Sul 40%
Subbasin: E72 Nhazonia (area: 2700 km2)

1956-59 374 Nhazonia 50% 862 Catandica 20% 350 Nhacangara 30%
1959-63 374 Nhazonia 40% 862 Catandica 15% 350 Nhacangara 20% 659 Nhampassa 10% 498 Nhazonia 15%
1963-72 374 Nhazonia 40% 862 Catandica 15% 350 Nhacangara 15% 659 Nhampassa 10% 498 Nhazonia 15% 908 Honde 5%
1972-73 374 Nhazonia 40% 862 Catandica 15% 350 Nhacangara 15% 498 Nhazonia 25% 908 Honde 5%
1973-80 375 Pungue Sul 40% 862 Catandica 15% 350 Nhacangara 15% 498 Nhazonia 25% 908 Honde 5%
Subbasin: E401 Tacuraminga (area: 4570 km2)

1956-61 5015 Chimoio 15% 106 Gondola 15% 374 Nhazonia 15% 375 Pungue Sul 15% 169 Bue Maria 15% 6010 Gorongosa 25%
1961-72 647 M. Chimoio 15% 106 Gondola 15% 374 Nhazonia 15% 375 Pungue Sul 15% 169 Bue Maria 15% 6010 Gorongosa 25%
1972-77 647 M. Chimoio 15% 106 Gondola 15% 374 Nhazonia 15% 375 Pungue Sul 15% 1089 Tacura 30% 6010 Gorongosa 10%
1977-78 647 M. Chimoio 15% 106 Gondola 15% 374 Nhazonia 15% 375 Pungue Sul 15% 1089 Tacura 40%
1978-80 5015 Chimoio 40% 375 Pungue Sul 30% 5043 Amatongas 30%

Modelling
RAINFALL STATIONS USED IN THE HBV SET UP FOR PUNGWE RIVER (Cont.)
Subbasin: E80 Vunduzi (area: 3365 km2)

1956-59 6010 Gorongosa INAM 25% 368 Morombosi 25% 374 Nhazonia 30% 862 Catandica 20%
1959-70 6010 Gorongosa INAM 15% 368 Morombosi 20% 374 Nhazonia 20% 862 Catandica 15% 502 Macossa 30%
1970-73 6010 Gorongosa INAM 15% 368 Morombosi 20% 374 Nhazonia 20% 862 Catandica 15% 5044 Macossa INAM 30%
1973-78 6010 Gorongosa INAM 15% 368 Morombosi 20% 375 Pungue Sul 20% 862 Catandica 15% 5044 Macossa INAM 30%
1977-78 368 Morombosi 35% 375 Pungue Sul 20% 5044 Macossa INAM 30%
1978-80 375 Pungue Sul 100%
Subbasin: E66 Bué Maria (area: 1311 km2)

1956-72 169 Bue Maria 40% 106 Gondola 40% 6010 Gorongosa INAM 20%
1972-78 169 Bue Maria 30% 106 Gondola 40% 1089 Tacuraminga 30%
1978-80 5015 Chimoio 50% 5043 Amatongas 50%
*Station combined with correction factor for homogeneity with other periods

Modelling
The HBV-96 Rainfall-Runoff Model

TTI
Corr p ( z ) = PCALT if z ≤ PCALTL RF = RFCF ⋅ P if T ≥ TT +
2
Corr p ( z ) = PCALTUP if z > PCALTL
TTI
SF = SFCF ⋅ P if T ≤ TT −
P = (1 − Corr p ( z ) ⋅ (z − z ref ))⋅ (∑ wi pi ) 2
T = TCALT ⋅ (z − z ref ) ⋅ (∑ wi ti )
  T − Tmean  
EP = ECORR ⋅ (1 − ECALT ⋅ (z − z ref )) ⋅ 1 + ETF ⋅    ⋅ (∑ wi epi )

  Tmean  
MELT = CFMAX ⋅ (T − TTM ) if T > TTM and MELT ≤ SP
REFR = CFR ⋅ CFMAX ⋅ (T − TTM ) if T < TTM and REFR ≤ WC
WC = WC + MELT + RF if WC < WHC ⋅ SP EI = EP if ICST ≥ EP
INF = MELT + RF if WC ≥ WHC ⋅ SP EI = ICST if ICST < EP
ICSTmax = IC
SM = INF + CF − EA − R  SM 
EA =   ⋅ EP if SM < LP
β  LP 
R  SM 
= 
INF  FC  EA = EP if SM ≥ LP
 FC - SM 
CF = CFLUX ⋅   if CF ≤ hUZ − PR
 FC 
hUZ = R − PR − CF − Q0
Q0 = K (hUZ )
(1+ α )
1+ α
KHQ
K=
HQ α
PR = PERC if PR ≤ hUZ
hLZ = PR + (RF − EL )ilake area − Q1
Q 1 = K 4 hLZ
EL = CEVPL ⋅ EP

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & HBV model parameters
Modelling
The empirical parameters of the HBV-96 model. Parameters in bold are the ones normally
calibrated according to Lindström et al. (1997)
Parameter Explanation
PCALT Elevation correction factor for precipitation below PCALTL
PCALTL The threshold level between PCALT and PCALTUP
PCALTUP Elevation correction factor for precipitation above PCALT L
TCALT Elevation correction factor for air temperature
ECORR Correction factor for evapotranspiration
ECALT Elevation correction factor for evapotranspiration
RFCF Correction factor when precipitation falls as rain
SFCF Correction factor when precipitation falls as snow
SFDIST Distribution factor when precipitation falls as snow
CFMAX Degree-day factor for snowmelt
TT Threshold temperature for whether precipitation falls as snow or
rain
TTI Temperature interval with a mixture of snow and rainfall
TTM Threshold temperature for melting and refreezing
CFR Snow refreezing factor
WHC Maximum water holding capacity of snow
IC Maximum interception storage
ETF Temperature correction factor for evapotranspiration
FC Maximum soil moisture storage
LP Limit for potential evapotranspiration
β Soil parameter
CFLUX Capillary flow rate
HQ Runoff level when the linear recession coefficient equals
KHQ, i.e. K ⋅ h αUZ,HQ = KHQ
KHQ Recession parameter for upper response box
α Recession parameter for upper response box
PERC Percolation rate between upper and lower response box
K4 Recession parameter for lower response box
MAXBAS Transformation function parameter
CEVPL Correction factor for lake evaporation

Modelling
HBV parameters for the Monograph set up

for upper and middle Pungwe
Description Parameter Values for subbasin

F14 F22 E64 E73 E65 E72 E401 E80 E66
Field capacity fc 500 600 800 1000 1000 1500 1700 1700 1700
Evaporation lp 1.0 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
parameter
Beta coefficient beta 1.0 1.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8
Recession coefficient khq 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.30 0.35
Recession non- hq 20 9 6 8 4 4 2 2 2
linearity threshold
Recession non- alfa 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
linearity parameter
Intrabasin routing maxbas 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
parameter
Percolation to base perc 4.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
flow
Base flow recession k4 0.007 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Evapotranspiration ecorr 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
factor

Modelling
F14 Pungwe Falls

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & HBV model validation results
Modelling
F22 Katiyo
Modelling
E64 Pungwe Fronteira

Modelling
E65 Pungwe Sul

Modelling
E72 Nhazonia
Modelling
E66 Bué Maria

Modelling
E73 Mavonde

Modelling

Year Max Observed (Daily mean) Max Simulated (Daily mean)
1956/57 312 485
1957/58 232 293
1958/59 243 202
1959/60 143 111
1960/61 103 318
1961/62 576 398
1962/63 156 192
1963/64 156 203
1964/65 127 153
1965/66 245 205
1966/67 313 337
1967/68 100 28
1968/69 189 194
1969/70 183 342
1970/71 157 102
1971/72 267 354
1972/73 77 65
1973/74 331
1974/75 165
1975/76 542
1976/77 473
1977/78 378
1978/79 274
1979/80 297
1980/81 375
1981/82 155
1982/83 61
1983/84 158
1984/85 343
1985/86 431
1986/87 208
1987/88 270
1988/89 342
1989/90 352
1990/91 80
1991/92 54
1992/93 119
1993/94 172
1994/95 66
1995/96 163
1996/97 399
1997/98 369
1998/99 216
1999/00 188
2000/01 410
2001/02 102

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Frequency analysis
Modelling
800
E64 Observed Values

700
600
Daily mean flow (m3/s)
500
400
Annual Maximum Values

300 Weibul
Gumbel
200 Lnorm2
Lnorm3
Normal
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
700
E64 Simulated Values

600
500
400
300
Annual Maximum values
Gumbel
200
Normal
Weibul
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Modelling
E65 Pungue Sul
Year Max Observed (Daily mean) Max Observed (Inst.) Max Simulated (Daily mean)
1953/54 378 415
1954/55 640 768
1955/56 910 1000
1956/57 946 1096 743
1957/58 743 779 605
1958/59 983 1132 502
1959/60 395 466 197
1960/61 666 731 671
1961/62 2540 3465 919
1962/63 673 738 739
1963/64 541 660 313
1964/65 470 554 239
1965/66 622 860 474
1966/67 1208 1447 532
1967/68 131 178 60
1968/69 852 1120 527
1969/70 542 609 543
1970/71 282 450 237
1971/72 1155 1904 651
1972/73 164 186 117
1973/74 791 976 572
1974/75 663 963 490
1975/76 2852 3714 793
1976/77 912 1006 684
1977/78 1400 1501 694
1978/79 1149 1501 484
1979/80 789 1161 328
1980/81 901 941 664
1981/82 522 623 340
1982/83 125 128 91
1983/84 295
1984/85 797
1985/86 771
1986/87 321
1987/88 454
1988/89 649
1989/90 609
1990/91 107
1991/92 59
1992/93 199
1993/94 666 680 310
1994/95 117 125 106
1995/96 202 206 395
1996/97 1244 1373 933
1997/98 760
1998/99 836 1094 331
1999/00 301 314 446
2000/01 791
2001/02 134

Modelling
4000
3500 E65 Observed Values (Mean)
3000
2500
2000
1500 Annual Maximum Values

Weibul
1000 Gumbel
Lnorm2
Lnorm3
500
Normal
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4500
E65 Observed Values (Instantaneous)
4000
3500
Daily instantaneous flow (m3/s)
3000
2500
2000
1500 Annual Maximum Values

Gumbel
1000 Lnorm2
Lnorm3
500 Normal
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Modelling
1400
1200 E65 Simulated Values
1000
800
600

400
Gumbel
Normal
200
Weibul
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Modelling
E66 Bué Maria

1953/54 537
1954/55 461
1955/56 680
1956/57 895 1355
1957/58 1314 1441
1958/59 1001 901
1959/60 376 357
1960/61 1376 891
1961/62 4634 2076
1962/63 2975
1963/64 657 1988
1964/65 563 367
1965/66 1189 750
1966/67 1455 796
1967/68 151 163
1968/69 973 859
1969/70 1058 823
1970/71 291 391
1971/72 833
1972/73 167 134
1973/74 947 1386
1974/75 705 1482
1975/76 1746
1976/77 591 1052
1977/78 926 1792
1978/79 683
1979/80 330
1980/81 1238

Modelling
5000
4500
4000 E66 Observed Values
3500
3000
2500
2000

1500
Gumbel
1000 Lnorm2
Lnorm3
500
Normal
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
8000
6000
5000
4000
3000

2000
Gumbel
Normal
1000 Weibul
Lnorm2
Lnorm3
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Modelling
E67 Pungwe Ponte
Year Max Observed (Daily mean)

[m3/s]
1956/57 637
1957/58 968
1958/59 524
1959/60 274
1960/61 178
1961/62 1049
1962/63 944
1963/64 591
1964/65 319
1965/66
1966/67 889
1967/68 200
1968/69 553
1969/70 903
1970/71 347
1971/72 705
1972/73 242
1973/74 1233
1974/75 859
1975/76 1563
1976/77 726
1977/78 1042
1978/79 612
1979/80 217
1980/81 1206
1981/82 1134
1982/83 211
1983/84 357
1984/85 1207
1985/86
1986/87 101
1987/88 1472
1988/89 269
1989/90 122
1990/91 64
1991/92 36
1992/93 84
1993/94 37
1994/95
1995/96 113
1996/97 1698
1997/98 1677

Modelling
3000
E67 Observed Values

2500
2000
1500
1000

500 Gumbel
Lnorm2
Normal
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
E72 Nhazonia
1956/57 118 220
1957/58 163 113
1958/59 86 119
1959/60 15 7
1960/61 56 46
1961/62 114 146
1962/63 145 309
1963/64 82 104
1964/65 150 48
1965/66 73 34
1966/67 82 65
1967/68 11 8
1968/69 51 40
1969/70 88 123
1970/71 28 56
1971/72 193 131
1972/73 20 7
1973/74 301
1974/75 468
1975/76 275
1976/77 115
1977/78 34 274

Modelling
500
450
E72 Observed Values
400
350
300
250
200
150
100 Gumbel
Lnorm2
Lnorm3
50 Normal
Weibul
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1000
800
700
600
500
400

300
Gumbel
200 Weibul
Lnorm2
100
Lnorm3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Modelling
E81 Chitengo
Year Max Observed (Daily mean)
[m3/s]
1956/57 55.9
1957/58 149.8
1958/59 62.6
1959/60 36.1
1960/61 62.8
1961/62 96.6
1962/63 134.7
1963/64 66.3
1964/65 52.3
1965/66 97.8
1966/67 106.3
1967/68 11.9
1968/69 91.0
1969/70 122.5
1970/71 43.3
1971/72 53.4
1972/73 26.0
1973/74 129.9
1974/75 97.7
1975/76 166.1
1976/77 53.4
1977/78 79.9
1978/79 78.3
1979/80
1980/81 54.1
300
250 E81 Observed Values

200
150
100

Gumbel
50
Lnorm2
Normal
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Modelling

Monograph Annex III English

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Monograph Annex III English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government of the Republic of Mozambique

Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUNGWE RIVER BASIN

SECTOR STUDY ON:

SWECO & Associates

Project: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUNGWE RIVER BASIN

Title: Monograph Report

Sub title: Annex III,

Status of report: Final

SWECO Project No: 1150447

Date: April 2004

Project team: SWECO International AB, Sweden (lead)

Lennart Lundberg, Project Director

P:/1113/1116/1150447000 Pungue IWRM Strategy - Sida/Original/Monograph Report/Annex III/English/Annex III Hydrology.doc

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

The Pungwe Project

The Pungwe Project is financed by the Swedish International Development

The project is implemented under the auspices of the Department of Water

The Pungwe project commenced in February 2002 and is being implemented

Phase 0 – Inception Phase

Phase 1 – Monograph Phase

Phase 2 – Scenario Development Phase

Phase 3 – Joint IWRM Strategy Phase

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

The Monograph Phase

Dissemination of information about the Project as well as consultations with

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

3 HYDROLOGICAL DATA QUALITY 6

5 FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS 70

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

APPENDIX 1 Rainfall stations in the Pungwe River basin

APPENDIX 2 Double-mass analysis of rainfall data

APPENDIX 3 Evaporation pans in the Pungwe River basin

APPENDIX 4 Monthly evaporation values

APPENDIX 5 Subbasin division for Pitman model

APPENDIX 6 Pitman model scheme

APPENDIX 7 Rainfall stations used for Pitman model

APPENDIX 8 Pitman model parameters

APPENDIX 9 Pitman model validation results

APPENDIX 10 HBV model scheme

APPENDIX 11 Rainfall stations used for HBV model

APPENDIX 12 HBV model parameters

APPENDIX 13 HBV model validation results

APPENDIX 14 Frequency analysis

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

The annex describes in detailed and technical way the

• Runoff data quality analysis in the Pungwe River basin

• Rainfall data quality analysis in the Pungwe River basin

• Hydrological modelling of monthly and daily flows in the Pungwe River

The frequency analysis results showed large variation because of the

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

and uncertainties in the frequency analysis methodology. Based on the results

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

APRIL 2004 FINAL REPORT

Annex III: Hydrological Data Quality & Modelling Basin

The annex is very technical and is focused towards hydrologists or water