4.0 Article

Application of HEC-HMS Model for Flow Simulation in the Lake Tana Basin: The Case of Gilgel Abay Catchment, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia

期刊

HYDROLOGY
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/hydrology6010021

关键词

Gilgel Abay; HEC-HMS; Lake Tana Basin; model; peak flow; rainfall-runoff; simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the complex relationships between rainfall and runoff processes is necessary for the proper estimation of the quantity of runoff generated in a watershed. The surface runoff was simulated using the Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS) for the Gilgel Abay Catchment (1609 km(2)), Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. The catchment was delineated and its properties were extracted from a 30 m x 30 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Lake Tana Basin. The meteorological model was developed within HEC-HMS from rainfall data and the control specifications defined the period and time step of the simulation run. To account for the loss, runoff estimation, and flow routing, Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN), Soil Conservation Service Unit Hydrograph (SCS-UH) and Muskingum methods were used respectively. The rainfall-runoff simulation was conducted using six extreme daily time series events. Initial results showed that there is a clear difference between the observed and simulated peak flows and the total volume. Thereafter, a model calibration with an optimization method and sensitivity analysis was carried out. The result of the sensitivity analysis showed that the curve number is the sensitive parameter. In addition, the model validation results showed a reasonable difference in peak flow (Relative Error in peak, REp = 1.49%) and total volume (Relative Error in volume, REv = 2.38%). The comparison of the observed and simulated hydrographs and the model performance (NSE = 0.884) and their correlation (R-2 = 0.925) showed that the model is appropriate for hydrological simulations in the Gilgel Abay Catchment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据