“HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING SWAT FOR THE PARVARA MULA BASIN, INDIA.”
 
 
PRESENTED BY
Usman Mohseni
PhD Research Scholar
 
GUIDED BY
DR. S. K. Jain
PROFESSOR IIT Roorkee

1
 PRESENTATION OUTLINE

 Introduction

 Overview of SWAT

 Literature Review

 Study Area and Data Collection

 Methodology

 Results and Discussions

 Conclusions

 Future Scope

 Different Hydrological Models

 References
2
 INTRODUCTION

 What is a model ?
 A model is mathematical equation which represents a real world problem. It comprises of three components input,
operator and output.

 What is hydrological Model?

 A model which consists of hydrological variables as input and output is called hydrological Model.
For Example : Rainfall-Runoff Modelling

Rainfall Catchment Runoff

3
TYPES OF HYDROLOGICAL MODELS

4
 OVERVIEW OF SWAT TOOL

 SWAT is a acronym for Soil and Water Assessment Tool

 SWAT is a physical based semi distributed hydrological model that has proven to be useful in assessing water
resource problems (Neitsch et al., 2009).

 Advantages of SWAT Tool:

 It uses readily available inputs.

 It is a physically based model.

 It is a semi distributed model.

 It is a long term yield model.

Fig 3. Overview of SWAT tool (Source: Neitsch et al., 2009)

5
 The following is the water balance equation that governs the hydrological components of the SWAT model.

SWt = SWo + Rday - QSurf - ETi – WSeep – Qgw )

Where;
SWt = Final Soil water content at the end of the day in (mm).
SWo = Initial Soil water content on day i in (mm).
t = Time in days.
Rday = Precipitation on day i in (mm).
QSurf = Surface streamflow on day i in (mm).
ETi = Evapotranspiration on day i in (mm).
WSeep = Water entering vadose zone from soil profile on day i in (mm).
Qgw = Return flow on day i in (mm).

6
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Paper Author’s Review

Impact of climate change on the Shimelis G. Setegn, Methodology: Here SWAT model was adopted to develop the
hydroclimatology of Lake Tana David Rayner, hydrological water balance to determine the streamflow for the
Basin, Ethiopia Assefa M. Melesse, Lake Tana basin.
Bijan Dargahi, Results: The SWAT model gave good simulation results for daily
Raghavan and monthly time steps, despite the data uncertainty.
Srinivasan Conclusion: Anthropogenic climate changes may indeed alter
the water balance in the Lake Tana Basin during the next
century.

Assessment of Future Climate Boini Narsimlu,
Change Impacts on Water Ashvin K. Gosain,
Resources of Upper Sind River Baghu R. Chahar
Basin, India Using SWAT Model
Methodology: SWAT was used in the study, also Sequential
uncertainty fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm has been applied for
model calibration and uncertainty analysis.
Results: Increase in average annual flow by 16.4% in the middle
of this century while 93.5% at the end of this century.
Conclusion: Study reveals that the average annual streamflow
may increase considerably in future midcentury period and
significantly for end century period along with the increase in
both surface runoff and baseflow.

7
Assessing Climate Change Impact Bhumika Uniyal, Methodology: The Arc SWAT model was calibrated by
on Water Balance Components of a Madan Kumar Jha, using SUFI2 algorithm.
River Basin Using SWAT Model Arbind Kumar Verma Results: Reduction in the surface runoff ranging from 2.5 to
11 % by changing the temperature from 1 to 5 °C, increase
in rainfall by 2.5 to 15 % suggested an increase in surface
runoff by 6.67 to 43.42 %.
Conclusion: Future changes in the climatic condition by the
end of the 21st century are most likely to produce significant
impacts on the streamflow in the study area.

Assessment of the impact of
climate change on surface
hydrological processes using
SWAT: a case study of Omo-Gibe
river basin, Ethiopia
Shiferaw Eromo Methodology: They have used SWAT to calibrate and verify
Chaemiso, the model. In addition, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
Adane Abebe, was also performed by using SUFI2 and SWATCUP
Santosh Murlidhar algorithms.
Pingal Results: The model results revealed that a good performance
during the calibration ( = 72.4% and NSE = 62.6%) and
validation ( = 68.1%, and NSE = 68%).
Conclusion: The annual temperature will increase in the
future, and the monthly and seasonal precipitation will
change significantly.

8
Using SWAT and Fuzzy TOPSIS to
Assess the Impact of Climate
Change in the Headwaters of the
Segura River Basin
Runoff Simulation Using SWAT
Model
in the Middle Reaches of the Dagu
River Basin.
Javier-Senent Methodology: SWAT was used to simulate watershed
Aparicio, hydrological processes, and the fuzzy TOPSIS technique was
Julio Pérez- applied in order to select suitable RCM-GCM combinations.
Sánchez, Jesús Results: The study results show that the SWAT performed
Carrillo-García, satisfactorily for both calibration (NSE = 0.80) and
Jesús Soto validation (NSE = 0.77) periods.
Conclusion: Result obtained from this modelling study may
have strong implications in a basin that is already suffering
from high water stress.
Fu-hui Du, Methodology: SWAT model to simulate the dagu river basin
Li Tao, and SWAT-CUP 2012 was used to adjust the sensitive
Xin-mei Chen, parameters for the hydrology simulation.
Huai-xian Yao Results: The results showed that the determination
coefficient () was higher than 0.8 and Nash efficiency
coefficient (NSC) was higher than 0.7.
Conclusion: As temperatures rise, river runoff decreases.
With the increase of rainfall, river runoff increases. The
increase or decrease of rainfall has a larger influence than the
temperature.
9
Hydrological modelling using Gavit B.K, Methodology: Swat model for hydrological modelling in the
SWAT Purohit R.C, upper Godavari basin for the period of 1995 to 2009.
Bhange H.N. Results: The results showed that coefficient of determination
Ingle P.M (R) was 0.81 for calibration and 0.84 for validation. The
coefficient of correlation found to be less (0.81) as
compared to validation (0.84).
Conclusion: The model results showed that model
performance for simulating runoff during calibration and
validation period was satisfactory.

Hydrological modelling of Ermias Sisay, Methodology: SWAT model was used for the ungauged
ungauged urban watershed using Afera Halefom, urban watershed area in Vadodara city.
SWAT model Deepak Khare, Results: The model’s performance is relevant and has a
Lakhwinder Singh, strong predicting capacity, with NSE values of 0.53 and
Tesfa Worku 0.61, R2 of 0.69 and 0.51 in calibration and validation
Conclusion: The result suggests that there has been a good
match between simulated and observed flow. Therefore, the
model performance is applicable and strong predictive
ability for Vadodara city.

10
 STUDY AREA

 The current study is focused on the PMB,

which is solely under Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra.

 It is located between 73°40’ and 74° 50’ east

longitudes and 19° 02’ 23” and 19° 45’ north latitudes.

 The climate in the PMB ranges from arid to semiarid.

 The average rainfall ranging from 500 to 1,200 mm.

 The elevation of the PMB, ranges from 465 to 1596 m.

Fig 4. Index Map of Study Area

11
DATA COLLECTION

Daily Precipitation and

Temperature data (IMD)
Hydro-Meteorological
Data
Daily Discharge data
(CWC)
Data

3 GCM data (
CMIP6 GCM Data (https://zenodo.org/record/38740
46#.YOQWg0kzZPa)
)

12
 Table 1. Data Source

Data Resolution Source

DEM 30m https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Soil Map 1000m https://data.apps.fao.org/map/catalog/srv/eng/catalog.search
Slope Map 30m https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/

LULC 30m https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/

Rainfall 0.25m India Meteorological Department (IMD)
Temperature 10 India Meteorological Department (IMD)
Discharge - Central water Commission (CWC) – Krishna Godavari Basin
Organization

13
 METHODOLOGY

Steps to follow:
To obtain DEM of 30m Resolution from USGS Earth
Explorer.
Watershed Delineation using ArcGIS with the help of
DEM.
Preparation of soil map, slope map and LULC map using
ArcGIS which are model inputs.
HRU Analysis.
Edit SWAT input.
Simulation.
Run Model.
Calibration using SWATCUP.
Validation.
Output.

Fig 5. Methodological Flowchart 14

 MODEL SETUP

 In order to set-up SWAT model following steps are to be followed:

DEM

HRU WATERSHED
GENERATION DELINEATION

MODEL SETUP

LULC MAP SOIL MAP

SLOPE MAP

15
 DEM

 In this study we used a 30 m resolution digital elevation

model (DEM) to delineate the watershed.
 DEM was used to study the drainage patterns of the land
surface terrain. .
 The elevation values range from 465 m to 1596 m

Fig 6. DEM of Study Area

16
 WATERSHED DELI NEATION

 In this study we used a 30 m resolution digital elevation model

(DEM) to delineate the watershed.
 It defines the boundary of the study area and divides the basin
into sub-basins.
 In the present study, the study area PMB was divided into 5
sub-basins.

Fig 7. Watershed Delineation

17
 SOIL MAP
 The global soil map is provided by the food and agriculture
organization (FAO) of 1000m resolution and the study area
has been extracted as shown in the figure.

Table 2. FAO soil code details for the study area

Soil code Hydrologic group Type of soil

Vc43-3ab-3861 D Clay
Hh11-2bc-3711 D Clay-Loam
Bv12-3b-3696 D Clay-Loam
Be66-2c-3666 C Loam
Ne56-2b-6669 C Clay-Loam
Vc45-3a-3864 D Clay
Lc75-1b-3780 D Sandy-Clay-Loam

Fig 8. Soil Map of Study Area 18

 SLOPE MAP

 Runoff and infiltration are influenced by the slope of the

terrain.
 The higher the flow, the steeper the slope (Gupta et al. 2018).
 The slope, expressed as a percentage rise, ranges from 0% to
73.33%.

Fig 9. Slope Map of Study Area

19
 LULC MAP

 The satellite images of Landsat-8 are obtained from the USGS

earth explorer website are taken for LULC classification.
 The study area of the PMB was divided into five different
classes like Water Bodies, Built-Up area, Vegetation land,
Agricultural land, Barren land.

Table 3. Representing Areas of each LULC class

Sr. No Class Area (km2) Percentage Area

1 Water Bodies 32.42 0.97
2 Vegetation 125.19 2.25
3 Agricultural Land 1895.73 34
4 Built-up Area 165.81 2.97
5 Barren land 3355.97 60.19
Total 5575.11

Fig 10. LULC Map (2010)

20
 The study area of the PMB was divided into five different classes
like Water Bodies, Built-Up area, Vegetation land, Agricultural land,
Barren land.

Table 4. Representing Areas of each LULC class

SR.NO Class Area (km2) Percentage Area
1 Water Bodies 66.56 1.19
2 Vegetation 16.66 0.30
3 Agricultural Land 2046.46 36.70
4 Built-up Area 554.64 9.95
5 Barren Land 2890.78 51.85
Total 5575.11

Fig 11. LULC Map (2018)

21
 HRU GENERATION

 Hydrological Response Unit (HRU) depicts all the surface features like LULC, soil and slope merged into a single
unit.
 Watershed Delineation map is overlain by a LULC, soil , and slope map with threshold values of 5% for land use, 5%
for soil, and 5% for slope area.
 A total of 194 (HRUs) were generated.

22
 MODEL SIMULATION, CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION

 Swat Simulation

 SWAT simulation helps you to accomplish the model input preparation and generate the processed output.
 By running the model, the simulation of the basin's numerous hydrological components was achieved.
 The surface streamflow was generated as a result of the PMB simulation, which was carried out using the
SWAT model version 2012 interface in GIS version 10.3.

23
 SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis Program (SWAT-CUP)

 SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis Program (SWAT-CUP).

 SWAT calibration, validation, sensitivity, and uncertainty analysis were performed using SWAT-CUP.
 It is an open database program.
 It simplifies the calibration and validation by reducing the time required for each process.
 It is assisted with a graph generating functionality.
 The SWAT-CUP is the bridge between SUFI-2 and SWAT.

24
 Sensitivity Analysis

 The change in the model behavior in relation to given input parameters is described as sensitivity analysis (SA).
 After considering the potential parameter ranges, SWAT-CUP utilized the sequential uncertainty fitting version 2
(SUFI-2) algorithm to obtain the most sensitive parameters
 The SA of the parameters can be done with the help of local sensitivity (LSA) or global sensitivity (GSA).
 In the present study, GSA was adopted to identify the most sensitive parameter for calibration and validation.
 The SA of the parameters was determined based on statistical measurements such as p value and t test. The lower
the p values or the higher the absolute values of the t test, the greater is the sensitivity of the parameters
(Abbaspour et al., 2004).

25
 Model Calibration
 Model calibration is the process of determining which parameterized model is suitable for a certain set of
discrete variables that lowers the uncertainty of forecasts.
 The parameters are adjusted within their acceptable ranges either by substituting, adding or by multiplying the
original values.
 The parameters were changed till the best simulation associated with observation was found (Yen et al., 2016).

 Model Validation
 Validation is the process of comparing calibrated parameters to objective datasets without making any changes
to the values throughout the calibration process.
 The method of proposing that the model delivers suitably correct estimates at a specific location is known as
model validation (J.-Y. Park et al., 2011).

26
 Model Performance Criteria
 In the present study, we have evaluated the performance of model using different statistical measures such as
coefficient of determination (R2), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percent bias (PBIAS), and ratio of root-
mean-square error to measured standard deviation (RSR) (Shrestha et al., 2018).
R2 =
Table 5. Recommended performance of statistical measures for monthly time step

Performance RSR NSE PBIAS

NSE = 1 – [ ]
Very Good 0 < RSR < 0.5 0.75 < NSE < 1 PBIAS < + 10
PBIAS = x 100
Good 0.5 < RSR < 0.6 0.65 < NSE < 0.75 + 10 < PBIAS < + 15
RSR =
Satisfactory 0.6 < RSR < 0.7 0.50 < NSE < 0.65 + 15 < PBIAS < + 25

Where Qi = Observed discharge, = Mean observed discharge,RSR > 0.7

Unsatisfactory NSE < 0.50 PBIAS > + 25
Si = Simulated discharge, = Mean simulated discharge.

27
 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

LULC Accuracy Assessment Using KAPPA Analysis

 KAPPA analysis produces a KAPPA Coefficient, which is a way of measuring of agreement or accuracy.
 A Kappa coefficient of one indicates almost perfect while a zero indicates poor agreement.

Table 6. Rating criteria as per KAPPA analysis

Sr. No Kappa Coefficient Agreement
1 <0 Poor
2 0 – 0.2 Slight
3 0.21 – 0.4 Fair
4 0.41 – 0.6 Moderate
5 0.61 – 0.8 Substantial
6 0.81 – 1.0 Almost Perfect

Overall accuracy = *100

28
Kappa coefficient (T) =
 Accuracy Assessment of LULC map (2010)
 Using KAPPA analysis, the overall accuracy of the LULC map and Kappa coefficient (T) are determined.

Table 7. Accuracy assessment using KAPPA analysis for LULC map (2010)

Classes Barren Water Built-Up Vegetation Agricultural Total

Land Bodies Area land (User)

Barren Land 18 0 1 1 0 20

Water Bodies 1 18 0 0 1 20

Built-Up Area 6 0 10 4 0 20

Vegetation 2 0 0 16 2 20

Agricultural Land 0 0 0 4 16 20

Total (Producer) 27 18 11 25 19 100

Overall Accuracy = 80% and Kappa Coefficient = 0.75

The obtained Kappa Coefficient (T) = 0.75 is of substantial agreement as per rating shown in table 6.
29
Accuracy Assessment of LULC map (2018)
 Using KAPPA analysis, the overall accuracy of the LULC map and Kappa coefficient (T) are determined.

Table 8. Accuracy assessment using KAPPA analysis for LULC map (2018)

Overall Accuracy = 83% and Kappa Coefficient = 0.7875

The obtained Kappa Coefficient (T) = 0.7875 is of substantial agreement as per rating shown in table 6.
30
Sensitivity Analysis (SA) Using SUFI-2
 SA is better understood with t test, sensitivity of the parameter is directly proportional to t test value.
 On the basis of t stat and p-value, the parameter having highest t stat and lower p value is the most sensitive.

Table 9. Sensitivity Parameters (For the period 2003-2010)

Sr.No Parameter t stat P- value

1 R__CN2.mgt 27.81852 0.000000
2 V__GW_REVAP.gw -1.11035 0.267024
3 V__ESCO.hru 8.851582 0.000000
4 V__CH_N2.rte -2.73454 0.006320
5 R__SURLAG.bsn 0.437570 0.661760
6 R__CANMX.hru 0.249366 0.803111
7 R__SOL_AWC(..).sol 0.217374 0.827946

31
 Table 10. Sensitivity Parameters (For the period 2013-18)

Sr.No Parameter t stat P- value

1 R__CN2.mgt 17.81852 0.000000
2 V__GW_REVAP.gw 0.595071 0.551886
3 V__ESCO.hru 3.944408 0.000083
4 V__CH_N2.rte 0.416615 0.677019
5 R__SURLAG.bsn 0.168647 0.866096
6 R__CANMX.hru 0.615628 0.538233
7 R__SOL_AWC(..).sol 0.052711 0.957968

From Table 9 and 10, it can be seen that the parameters which are the most sensitive are CN2 and ESCO.

32
Model Calibration
 The monthly step model was prepared for 19 years i.e., from 2000-2018 and was divided under two decades i.e.,
2000-2010 and 2011-2018.
 The model calibration was done for both the decades.

Table 11. Performance analysis of the model during the calibration period

Sr. No Parameter Calibration Calibration

(2003-2007) (2013-2016)
1 Coefficient of determination (R2) 0.98 0.98
2 Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) 0.98 0.98
3 PBIAS 4.3 1.1
4 RMSE-observed standard 0.13 0.13
deviation ratio (RSR)

33
Fig 12. Calibrated streamflow scatter plot for the period (2003-2007). Fig 13. Calibrated streamflow scatter plot for the period (2013-2016).

34
 Model Validation
 The validation follows the same step as calibration.
 The monthly step model was prepared for the period 2000-2018 and was divided under two decades i.e., 2000-
2010 and 2011-2018.
 The model validation was done for both the decades

Table 12. Performance analysis of the model during the validation period

Sr. No Parameter Validation Validation

(2008-2010) (2017-2018)
1 Coefficient of determination (R2) 0.98 0.81
2 Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) 0.98 0.79
3 PBIAS 4.1 16
4 RMSE-observed standard 0.15 0.46
deviation ratio (RSR)

35
Fig 14. Validated streamflow scatter plot for the period (2008-2010). Fig 15. Validated streamflow scatter plot for the period (2017-2018).

36
Fig 16. Hydrograph of Monthly Simulated and Observed Streamflow for Calibration period (2003-2007) and Validation Period (2008-2010).

37
Fig 17. Hydrograph of Monthly Simulated and Observed Streamflow for Calibration period (2013-2016) and Validation Period (2017-2018).
 CONCLUSION

 In this study, hydrological modelling using SWAT was done to evaluate streamflow for the Parvara Mula Basin
(PMB).
 Sensitivity Analysis was done using SUFI-2 algorithm in SWAT-CUP and the result revealed that CN2 and ESCO are
the most sensitive parameter.
 The SWAT modeled coupled with SUFI-2 was established for the PMB which was then used to calibrate and validate
the model using the observed streamflow data from newasa gauging site which is the outlet of the basin
 Based on the results, the SWAT model performed very good in modelling the streamflow for the PMB.

38
 FUTURE SCOPE

 Multi-site modeling
 Effect of different DEM.
 Use of different algorithm for sensitivity analysis.

39
 OTHER HYDROLOGICAL MODELS

 HEC-HMS
 MIKE-SHE
 VIC
 SWAT+

40
 REFERENCES
 Barker, T., Bashmakov, I., Cubasch, U., & Davidson, O. (2002). Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability. In Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 39, Issue 06). CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.39-3433
 Biswas, A. K. ., & Tortajada, C. (2009). Water Resources Development and Management. In Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89346-2
 Chaemiso, S. E., Abebe, A., & Pingale, S. M. (2016). Assessment of the impact of climate change on surface
hydrological processes using SWAT: a case study of Omo-Gibe river basin, Ethiopia. Modeling Earth Systems and
Environment, 2(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0257-9
 Du, F., Tao, L., Chen, X., & Yao, H. (2019). Runoff Simulation Using SWAT Model in the Middle Reaches of the Dagu
River Basin. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61630-8
 Gavit, B. K., Purohit, R. C., Bhange, H. N., & Ingle, P. M. (2017). Hydrological modelling using SWAT. Research
Journal of Recent Sciences, 6(11), 10–15.
 Gosain, A. K., Rao, S., & Basuray, D. (2006). Climate change impact assessment on hydrology of Indian river basins.
Current Science, 90(3), 346–353.
 Jyrkama, M. I., Sykes, J. F., & Normani, S. D. (2002). Recharge estimation for transient ground water modeling. Ground
Water, 40(6), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2002.tb02550.x
 Kim, Y., & Worrell, E. (2002). CO2 emission trends in the cement industry: An international comparison. Mitigation and
41
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022857829028
 Kundzewicz, Z. W., & Gerten, D. (2015). Grand Challenges Related to the Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on
Freshwater Resources. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 20(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-
5584.0001012
 Narsimlu, B., Gosain, A. K., & Chahar, B. R. (2013). Assessment of Future Climate Change Impacts on Water
Resources of Upper Sind River Basin, India Using SWAT Model. Water Resources Management, 27(10), 3647–3662.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0371-7
 Neitsch, S. ., Arnold, J. ., Kiniry, J. ., & Williams, J. . (2011). Soil & Water Assessment Tool Theoretical
Documentation Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, 1–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.063
 Oki, T., & Kanae, S. (2006). Global Hydrological Cycles and World Water Resources. American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 313(5790), 1068–1072.
 Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Liverman, D., Leemans, R., Lenton, T. M., Monasinghe, M., Osman-elasha, B.,
Schellnhuber, H. J., Stern, N., Vogel, C., & Wæver, O. (2011). C L I M AT E C H A N G E : G L O BA L R I S K S , C
H A L Waver E N G E S.
 Setegn, S. G., Rayner, D., Melesse, A. M., Dargahi, B., & Srinivasan, R. (2011). Impact of climate change on the
hydroclimatology of Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia. Water Resources Research, 47(4), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009248
 Sisay, E., Halefom, A., Khare, D., Singh, L., & Worku, T. (2017). Hydrological modelling of ungauged urban
watershed using SWAT model. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3(2), 693–702.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-017-0328-6
42
 Senent-Aparicio, J., Pérez-Sánchez, J., Carrillo-García, J., & Soto, J. (2017). Using SWAT and fuzzy TOPSIS to assess
the impact of climate change in the headwaters of the Segura River Basin (SE Spain). Water (Switzerland), 9(2).
https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020149
 Uniyal, B., Jha, M. K., & Verma, A. K. (2015). Assessing Climate Change Impact on Water Balance Components of a
River Basin Using SWAT Model. Water Resources Management, 29(13), 4767–4785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-
015-1089-5

43
 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

 Mohseni, U., Patidar, N., Pathan, A. I., Agnihotri, P. G., & Patel, D. (2022). An Innovative Approach for Groundwater
Quality Assessment with the Integration of Various Water Quality Indexes with GIS and Multivariate Statistical
Analysis—a Case of Ujjain City, India. Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 1-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41101-022-00145-0
 Mohseni, U., Patidar, N., Pathan, A., Saran, V., Agnihotri, P. G., & da Silva Pizzo, H. (2022). Analyzing and
Evaluating Future Water Demand Using WaterGEMS and Population Forecasting Methods for Narangi Village,
Maharashtra, India. Journal of Civil Engineering Frontiers, 3(01), 18-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.38094/jocef30145
 Mohseni, U., Patidar, N., Pathan, A., Raaj, S., Kachhawa, N., Agnihotri, P. G., ... & Durin, B. (2022). Groundwater
Quality Assessment Using CCME WQI and GIS Technique for Ujjain City, India (No. EGU22-3643). Copernicus
Meetings. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-3643
 Mohseni, U., Pathan, A. I., Agnihotri, P. G., Patidar, N., Zareer, S. A., Kalyan, D., & Prieto, C. (2021, December).
Design and Analysis of Water Distribution Network Using Epanet 2.0 and Loop 4.0–A Case Study of Narangi Village.
In International Conference on Intelligent Computing & Optimization (pp. 671-684). Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93247-3_65

44
• Mohseni, U., Pathan, A. I., Agnihotri, P. G., Patidar, N., Zareer, S. A., Saran, V., & Rana, V. (2021, December). Design and
Analysis of Water Distribution Network Using Watergems–A Case Study of Narangi Village. In International Conference
on Intelligent Computing & Optimization (pp. 695-706). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93247-3_67
• Mohseni, U., Patidar, N., Raaj, S., Pathan, A. I., & Agnihotri, P. G. Artificial Neural Network Modeling for Rainfall
Prediction-a case of Surat City, Gujarat, India.
• Patidar, N., Mohseni, U., Pathan, A. I., & Agnihotri, P. G. (2022). Groundwater Potential Zone Mapping Using an
Integrated Approach of GIS-Based AHP-TOPSIS in Ujjain District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Water Conservation Science
and Engineering, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41101-022-00141-4
• Patidar, N., Mohseni, U., Pathan, A., Raaj, S., Agnihotri, P. G., Jariwala, K., & Đurin, B. (2022). GIS-Based Mapping of
Groundwater Potential Zones Using AHP for Ujjain District, Madhya Pradesh, India (No. EGU22-3814). Copernicus
Meetings. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-3814
• Raaj, S., Pathan, A., Mohseni, U., Patidar, N., Kachhawa, N., Agnihotri, P. G., & Đurin, B. (2022). An Integrated Approach
of AHP-GIS Based Dam Site Suitability Mapping-A Noval Approach for Flood Alleviating Measures (No. EGU22-4210).
Copernicus Meetings. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-4210
• Pathan, A. I., Agnihotri, P. G., Said, S., Patel, D., Prieto, C., Mohseni, U., ... & Salihi, M. (2022). Flood risk mapping using
multi-criteria analysis (TOPSIS) model through geospatial techniques-A case study of the Navsari city, Gujarat, India (No.
EGU22-2418). Copernicus Meetings
• Jariwala, K., Agnihotri, P., Patel, D., Pathan, A., Mohseni, U., & Patidar, N. (2022). Application of frequency ratio
modelling technique for predictive flooded area susceptibility mapping using remote sensing and GIS (No. EGU22-4771).
Copernicus Meetings. 45
THANK YOU

46