BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY

BAHIRDAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

GIS BASED ASSESSMENT OF HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL

(A Case study on Gumara River Basin)

BY

Mehari Kebede Ayele

Program: Hydraulic Engineering

Advisor: Dr. Michael Mehari

September, 2017

Bahirdar, Ethiopia

i
GIS BASED ASSESSMENT OF HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL
(A case study on Gumara River Basin, Ethiopia)

MSc. Thesis
Submitted to Bahirdar University Institute of Technology, School of
Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Masters of Science in Hydraulic Engineering

By

Mehari Kebede Ayele

Advisor
Dr. mechil Mehari

September, 2017
Bahirdar, Ethiopia

ii
 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that the thesis comprises my own work. In compliance
with internationally accepted practices, I have acknowledged and refereed all
materials used in this work. I understand that non-adherence to the principles of
academic honesty and integrity, misrepresentation/ fabrication of any
idea/data/fact/source will constitute sufficient ground for disciplinary action by the
University and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not been
properly cited or acknowledged.

Name of the student: Mehari kebede Signature _____________

Date of submission: 14/09/2017

Place: Bahir Dar

This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as a university
advisor.

Advisor Name: __________________________________

Advisor’s Signature: ______________________________

i
 © 2017

Mehari Kebede Ayele

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii
 Bahir Dar University

Bahir Dar Institute of Technology-

School of Research and Graduate Studies

SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

THESIS APPROVAL SHEET

Student:

Mehari Kebede Ayele

Name Signature Date

The following graduate faculty members certify that this student has successfully
presented the necessary written final thesis and oral presentation for partial fulfillment of
the thesis requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Hydraulic Engineering

Approved By:

Advisor:
________________________________________________________________________
Name Signature Date
External Examiner:
________________________________________________________________________
Name Signature Date
Internal Examiner:
________________________________________________________________________
Name Signature Date
Chair Holder:
______________________________________________________________________
Name Signature Date

Faculty Dean:
________________________________________________________________________
Name Signature Date

iii
 Acknowledgement
First and for most I am so grateful to the Almighty and Unlimited GOD, for his mercy
and grace up on me during all these days and blessings all along the way. GOD, what you
have done for me in all my life is really beyond what I can express. Generally, thanks for
everything.

My sincere appreciation and special thanks goes to My Supervisor, Dr. Michael Mehari. I
thank him for his supervision, encouragement, critical comment, continuous discussions
and helpful guidance, above all his unselfish contribution to this thesis since early age of
work. Every discussion I had with him has been educative and enlightening to make a
deep impression on me.

iv
 Acronyms and Abbreviation

Bdu Bahir dar university

DEM Digital Elevation Model

EEPCo Ethiopian Electric and Power Corporation

EMA Ethiopian Mapping Agency

FDC Flow Duration Curve

GIS Geographic Information system

GWh Giga watt hours

GWh/yr Giga Watt Hours per year

Km2 Kilometer square

KW Kilowatt

MAP Mean Annual Precipitation

MCA multi criteria Analysis

MHP micro scale hydropower

MoWR Ministry of Water Resources

MW Mega watt

SHP Small scale Hydro Power

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

v
 Abstract
Energy crisis has emerged as a serious issue all over the world in recent years. Ethiopia
is facing a similar crisis that has resulted in frequent power failures and load shedding
throughout the country for past several years. The utilization of renewable energy
resources may help reducing fossil fuel dependency of the country for power generation.
There are various renewable energy options for Ethiopia including solar, wind and
hydropower. The objective of this study is to develop an approach that can be used to
assess the run-of-river hydropower potential of Gumara River using geospatial data and
techniques. Gumara River is a tributary Of Abay River located in the Amhara (south
gonder) province of Ethiopia. Satellite data used in this study include ASTER Digital
Elevation Model (DEM). Flow data are acquired from regional hydrologic gauges.
Geographical Information Systems tools are used for processing the satellite images,
delineation of watershed and stream network, and identification of potential sites for
hydropower projects. This study will aid decision-makers in the energy sector to optimize
the available resources in selecting the suitable sites for small hydropower plants with
high power potential. The proposed approach can further be utilized to assess an overall
hydropower potential of the country.
Key Words: GIS, Hydropower, Remote Sensing, Renewable Energy, Run-of-River
hydropower plant

vi
 Table of Content

Page
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms And Abbreviation ...........................................................................................v
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... vi
List Of Tables ................................................................................................................ xi
List Of Figure ............................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
1.1.Background ............................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement Of The Problem ....................................................................................3
1.3. Objectives .............................................................................................................5
1.3.1. General Objective ...........................................................................................5
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ..........................................................................................5
1.4. Research Questions ...............................................................................................5
1.5. Significance Of The Study.....................................................................................6
1.6. Scope ....................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO ...........................................................................................................7
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................7
2.1. Present And Future Development Of Hydropower .................................................7
2.2. Small Hydro Power Project Classification .............................................................7
2.3. Hydropower Potential Calculation .........................................................................8
2.4. Energy Supplies In Rural Areas .............................................................................8
2.5. Micro And Small Hydropower – An Important Rural Energy Source .................. 10
2.6. Definition And Classification Of Small Scale Hydropower ................................. 10
2.7. Components Of Micro And Small Hydropower ................................................... 12
2.8. Small Hydropower As A Choice ......................................................................... 12
2.9. Site Selection ...................................................................................................... 14
2.9.1. Choosing A Micro And Small Hydro Site ..................................................... 14
2.10. A Run-Of-The-River Scheme ............................................................................ 16

vii
 2.11. A Daily Regulation Scheme .............................................................................. 16
2.12. A Seasonal Regulation Scheme ......................................................................... 16
2.13. Gis And Multi Criteria Analysis Tool For Site Suitability .................................. 17
2.14. Proposed GIS-Based MCE Framework For Solving Site Selection Problems ..... 18
2.14.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) .............................................................. 19
2.14.2. Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) ......................................................... 20
2.14.3. AHP-OWA ................................................................................................. 20
2.14.4. Weighted Linear Combination .................................................................... 20
2.15. Review Of Methodologies For Hydropower Potential Estimation ...................... 21
2.16. GIS In Hydropower Potential Estimation ........................................................... 23
CHAPTER THREE ..................................................................................................... 24
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 24
3.1. Description Of The Study Area ........................................................................... 24
3.2. Topography ......................................................................................................... 25
3.3. Climate ............................................................................................................... 26
3.3.1. Rainfall ......................................................................................................... 26
3.3.2. Temperature.................................................................................................. 27
3.4. Land Use/Cover .................................................................................................. 27
3.5. Socioeconomic Aspect of the Watershed ............................................................. 28
3.5.1. Administrative Structure of the Watershed .................................................... 28
3.5.2. Population..................................................................................................... 28
3.6. Methodology Used In Hydropower Potential Estimation ..................................... 29
3.6.1. FLOW DURATION CURVE ....................................................................... 29
3.6.2. Discharge Analysis ....................................................................................... 30
3.6.3. Potential Head Drop Estimation Of The Site ................................................. 31
3.6.4. Determination Of Potential Power................................................................. 32
3.7. Identification Of Suitable Sites For Hydropower Plant Based On Sensitive Criteria
.................................................................................................................................. 32
3.8. Prioritization And Suitability Analysis Of The Hydropower Sites Based On Gis
Based Multi Criteria Analysis (Gis-Mca) ................................................................... 33
3.9. Ranking Of Technically Feasible Hydropower Potential Sites. ............................ 34

viii
 3.10. Conceptual Frame Work Of The Overall Work Flow Of The Study ................... 36
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................... 37
DATA AVAILABILITY AND ANALYSIS .................................................................. 37
4.1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 37
4.1.1. Digital elevation model ................................................................................. 37
4.1.2. Gumara Watershed and Stream link .............................................................. 38
4.2. Meteorological Data ............................................................................................ 39
4.2.1. Rainfall ......................................................................................................... 39
4.3. Estimating Missing Precipitation Data ................................................................. 41
4.3.1. Arithmetic Mean Method .............................................................................. 41
4.3.2. Normal - Ratio Method ................................................................................. 41
4.3.3. Distance power method ................................................................................. 42
4.4. Consistency Analysis .......................................................................................... 44
4.5. Homogeneity Checking For Rainfall Stations ...................................................... 46
4.6. Stream Flow Data ................................................................................................ 47
4.6.1. Checking consistence and homogeneity of stream flow data ......................... 48
4.6.2. Test for absence of trend by using plotting the data and spearman`s rank
correlation method .................................................................................................. 48
4.6.3. Checking the stability of Mean ...................................................................... 50
4.7. Flow Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 52
4.7.1. Transfer data to Runoff Factor estimator sites ............................................... 52
4.8. Develop Flow Duration Curve For Gage Site ...................................................... 55
CHAPTER FIVE ......................................................................................................... 56
GIS BASED RASTER GRID VALUE DEVELOPMENT OF DISCHARGE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF PARAMETRIC DURATION CURVE...................................... 56
5.1. Prediction Of Duration Curves At Un Gauged Sites............................................. 56
5.2. Predict Average Flow At Un Gauged Points On Streams ..................................... 56
5.2.1. Development of an average rainfall grid ........................................................ 57
5.2.2. Combining the flow direction and rainfall grid .............................................. 57
5.3. Development Of Parametric Duration Curve And Discharge Grid Map For Key
Percent Of Exceedance............................................................................................... 62

ix
 5.3.1. Application of Regionalization of monthly flow characteristics using GIS and
Spatial Interpolation Algorithm on Gumara watershed. ........................................... 63
5.3.1.1. The flow duration curve.......................................................................... 63
5.3.1.2. Multiple Linear Regression..................................................................... 63
5.3.1.3. Spatial Interpolation Algorithm .............................................................. 64
5.3.2. The Object Basin and Parametric Duration Curve Estimator sites.................. 64
5.3.3. The result of Multiple Linear Regression ...................................................... 66
5.3.4. Computing Flow Duration curve at the Gumara gauging Station. .................. 67
CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................................ 72
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 72
6.1. Identification Of Suitable Sites For Hydropower Plant Based On Sensitive Criteria
.................................................................................................................................. 72
6.2. Power And Energy Determination For The Identified Sites ................................. 76
6.2.1. Discharge Raster Map ................................................................................... 76
6.2.2. Head Raster map ........................................................................................... 77
6.2.3. Theoretical power potential of Gumara river basin ........................................ 78
6.2.4. Prediction of dependable plant capacity ........................................................ 81
6.2.5. Mean Power of Gumara stream ..................................................................... 82
6.2.6. Technical Power and Energy Output from Gumara Stream ........................... 83
6.3. Prioritization And Suitability Analysis Of The Hydropower Sites Based On Gis
Based Multi Criteria Analysis (Gis- Mca) .................................................................. 86
6.3.1. Standardization of Criteria ............................................................................ 87
6.3.2. Criterion Weights.......................................................................................... 90
6.3.3. Creating Final Map Using Weighted Linear Combination Method ................ 92
CHAPTER SEVEN ..................................................................................................... 95
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .............................................................. 95
7.1. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 95
7.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................... 96
REFERANCE .............................................................................................................. 97
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................ 100

x
 List of Tables
Table 2.1: Classification of hydropower plant based on power capacity. ..................................... 7
Table 2.2: Definition and classifications of small-scale hydropower ......................................... 12
Table 3.1: Percentage of Elevation coverage for Gumara Watershed ......................................... 25
Table3.2: Percent coverage of slope variation in Gumara watershed .......................................... 26
Table 3.3: percent of area coverage for land use in Gumara Watershed ...................................... 28
Table 3.4: Population of Weredas in Gumera Watershed ........................................................... 29
Table 3.5: The criteria and limits to identify potentially feasible sites……………………………………….32

Table 4.1: Selected Meteorological Stations ............................................................................. 39

Table 4.2: percentile points for t-distribution ............................................................................. 50
Table 4.3: percentile points for F-test ........................................................................................ 51
Table 4.4: Location of Outlet and Runoff Factor Estimator Sites of Gumara River Basin ........... 54
Table 5.1: Average runoff and Precipitation Area products (average rainfall accumulation) for
Gumara stream. ......................................................................................................................... 59
Table 5.2: MAP long-term mean monthly flow for parametric Duration Curve estimator Sites. . 65
Table 5.3: MAP long-term mean monthly flow for Gumara Gauging station Sites. .................... 67
Table 5.4: Key percent of Exceedance with the corresponding discharge quantile ...................... 68
Table 5.5: Average annual flow with Q 30 ................................................................................... 69
Table 6.1: Suitable hydropower potential Sites .......................................................................... 72
Table 6.2: Range of Head for Hydropower potential sites .......................................................... 74
Table 6.3: Percent area coverage of Head drop distribution within 500m increment…..78

Table 6.4: Power for Q30, Q 40 and Q50 (in Kw) ........................................................................... 80
Table 6.5: Number of Potential sites for Q30, Q40 and Q50 for the Given Range of power capacity.
................................................................................................................................................. 80
Table 6.6: power and energy calculated for the suitable hydropower site -1by using FDC .......... 85
Table 6.7:summary of Energy Output for hydropowerpotential Sites. ....................................... 85
Table 6.8 : Maximization and Minimization of Criteria ............................................................. 87
Table 6.9 : Pair wise Comparison of the Evaluation Criteria ...................................................... 91
Table 6.10: Normalization and Weight Determination ............................................................... 91
Table 6.11: Random Consistency Index (RI) (Saaty, 1980). ....................................................... 92
Table 6.12: suitability Rank of feasible hydropower potential sites. ........................................... 93

xi
 List of Figure
Figure 3.1: Map of Area Description. ........................................................................................ 24
Figure 3.2: Topography of Gumara Watershed .......................................................................... 25
Figure3.3: Slope of Gumara Watershed ..................................................................................... 26
Figure3.4: Rainfall Distribution in Gumera Watershed .............................................................. 27
Figure3.5: Land Use in Gumara Watershed ............................................................................... 27
Figure3.6: weredas in Gumara watershed .................................................................................. 29
Figure3.7: Population of Weredas in Gumera Watershed ........................................................... 30
Figure 3.8: Procedure for most suitable site selection ................................................................ 33
Figure 3.9: Conceptual Frame work .......................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.1: Gumara sub- Watershed and Stream link ................................................................. 38
Figure 4.2: Location of selected Rain gauge station ................................................................... 40
Figure 4.3: Mean monthly Rainfall at Bahirdar station............................................................... 43
Figure 4.4: Annual Rainfall at Bahirdar station .......................................................................... 43
Figure 4.5: Mean monthly rainfall for lewaye station. ................................................................ 43
Figure 4.6: Annual average Rainfall for Lewaye station ............................................................ 44
Figure 4.7: Double Mass Curve plot for Lewaye Station ............................................................ 45
Figure 4.8: Double Mass curve for D/tabor station .................................................................... 45
Figure 4.9: Double mass Curve for Wanzaye Station ................................................................. 45
Figure 4.10: Homogeneity Test for Lewaye’s Base Station ........................................................ 46
Figure 4.11: Homogeneity Test for M/eyasus’s Base Station ..................................................... 46
Figure 4.12: Homogeneity Test for Wanzaye’s Base Station ...................................................... 47
Figure 4.13: Gumera river stream flow trend analysis graph ...................................................... 48
Figure 4.14: Gumara watershed of runoff factor estimator sites ................................................. 54
Figure 4.15: flow duration curve for Gumera River at gauge station. ......................................... 55
Figure 5.1: Rainfall Raster Map of Gumara Watershed .............................................................. 57
Figure 5.2: Discharge Output of Each cell in Gumara Watershed without loss ........................... 58
Figure 5.3: Rainfall accumulation Raster near Gumara stream flow gauging station................... 58
Figure 5.4: Runoff Factor estimator sites and Rainfall Accumulation grid.................................. 59
Figure 5.5: Rainfall Accumulation Vs Runoff Factor. .............................................................. 61

xii
Figure 5.6: Runoff Factor Map .................................................................................................. 61
Figure 5.7: Average Flow Grid near the area of Gumara river gauge station .............................. 62
Figure 5.8: Parametric Duration Curve Estimator sites .............................................................. 65
Figure 5.9: observed and simulated flow duration curve comparison ......................................... 67
Figure 5.10: Parametric duration curve of Gumara watershed .................................................... 71
Figure 6.1: Suitable Sites for micro to Small scale hydropower potential in Gumara Watershed. 73
Figure 6.2: Range of Head for Hydropower Potential sites ........................................................ 74
Figure 6.3: Relation between head and waterway length ............................................................ 75
Figure 6.4: partial view of hydropower sites in the Google Earth Environment. ......................... 76
Figure 6.5: Discharge Grid Map ................................................................................................ 77
Figure 6.6: Head Drop Grid Map............................................................................................... 77
Figure 6.7: Power potential (P 30 ) in (Kw) for Selected Hydropower Sites. ............................... 79
Figure 6.8: Spatial distribution of suitable sites for run-of-river projects and their hydropower
potentials. ................................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 6.9: Spatial distribution of suitable sites for Firm power potentials. ................................ 81
Figure 6.10: Mean Discharge of Gumara River Basin ................................................................ 83
Figure 6.11: Grid Based Hydropower Potential for Gumara watershed ...................................... 83
Figure 6.12: Road Map for Gumara Watershed.......................................................................... 87
Figure 6.13: Standardized In_Stream power of Gumara Watershed’s Stream. ............................ 88
Figure 6.14: Standardized Discharge of Gumara Watershed’s Stream ........................................ 88
Figure 6.15: Standardized Head of Gumara Watershed’s Stream ............................................... 89
Figure6.16: Euclidian Distance to road of Gumara Watershed ................................................... 89
Figure 6.17: Standardized Euclidian Distance to road of Gumara Watershed ............................. 90
Figure 6.18: Suitability of Hydropower potential sites Using WLC Method ............................... 93

xiii
i
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACK GROUND

The socio-economic development and increased living standards with the fast
growing industry has led to a major increase in electricity demand and generation.
Being the basic input of all kinds of economic activity, electrical energy has
become an indispensable component of social life. As a result of rapid increase in
energy consumption and global warming threatening the environment together with
the unbalanced and unpredictable increases of the fossil fuel prices has increased
the importance of renewable energy sources.

Much of the world’s remaining unexploited hydropower potential is found in

developing countries. These resources of clean energy can meet part of the growing
demand for electricity in the third world. The industrialized countries have realized
that their own dependence on fossil fuel for energy generation is a threat to the
global environment. But the developing countries are still moving in the same
direction. The negative impact on the environment of increased energy demand in
these countries would be reduced if they made full use of their big potential for
hydroelectric energy production. Hydropower produces essentially no carbon
dioxide or other harmful emissions, in contrast to burning fossil fuels or gas, and so
is not a significant contributor to global warming through
CO2(www.microhydropower.net/intro.htm/).

The main prerequisite for socio-economic development in an area is the acquisition

of economic and reliable energy. According to statistics from the United Nations, a
total installed capacity of 85 GW should be newly added in the world’s rural areas
so that the unelectrified rural areas inhabited by 1.7 billion people will have
electricity for basic needs. However, due to the limitations of conventional energy
resources and a shortage of funds and expertise, etc only a few million of rural

1
people in the world can be energized in a year. Therefore the lack of electricity
becomes a great constraint to the rural and even the national economic development
of a country (Jiandong et al. 2000).

Ethiopia is one of the few countries in Africa with the potential to produce hydro
power, and estimates of this capacity range from 15,000 MW to 30,000 MW,
although only approximately 2% of this is currently being exploited. Nevertheless
this is also the most important developed energy source, accounting in 2003/2004
for 668.75 MW or approximately 90% of the total installed capacity (744.36 MW)
and 2279 GWh or 98% of the total energy production (2317.8 GWh).

Considering the substantial hydropower resources, Ethiopia has one of the lowest
levels of per capita electrical consumption in the world. The standard of living is
reflected by the per capita power consumption and as such Ethiopia ranks 174 in
Human Development Index. Ethiopian’s per capita consumption of electric was
estimated to be 28kWh equivalent to about 1% of the world average. Only 17 % of
the population has access to electricity. Most of energy consumption of the country
is met from biomass related products. Traditional source of energy cannot supply
the increase and diversified demand of the community. Ethiopia needs energy to
increase agricultural productivity and food distribution, deliver basic education,
medical service, establish adequate water supply, and sanitation facilities as well as
to build and power newly job creation industries. So that formulation of systems
must be required to reduce the traditional source of power as much as possible.

When an isolated community needs power either from household and community
use ,for driving small agricultural processing plants or other small industries ,one of
the frequently used energy source is a small hydro-electric plant. Small hydropower
(SHP) has emerged as an energy source which is accepted as renewable, easily
developed, inexpensive and harmless to the environment. These features have
increased small hydropower development in value giving rise to a new trend in
renewable energy generation(Adıgüzel and Tutuş 2002).

2
Moreover, because of the considerable amount of financial requirements and
insufficient financial sources of the national budget, together with the strong
opposition of environmentalist civil organizations, large scale hydropower projects
cannot be completed in the planned construction period generally, which lead to
widely use of SHP in developing countries with its low investment cost, short
construction period, and environment friendly nature.

The supply of power for remote rural areas is not an easy task by large scale station,
since transmission cost is high due to topographic and socio-economic problems;
however micro and small hydropower is the ultimate choice to supply power to
remote areas where the national grid does not extend, since it can be used for
domestic and communication purpose or directly coupled with drive machinery.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

One of the most important infrastructures for sustainable development is the
availability of electric power. In contrary to this most of the rural part of the
country has not electrified yet. Rural electrification for the country like any other
countries in the developing world is major challenge for central and local
government and other investors. The major problem for the rural electrification
from either thermal or electricity tapped from other distance major electric source
lies on financial viability. This is because consumers in our typical villages and
rural towns have low purchasing power thus casting doubts to the investors whether
their investment cost shall be recovered on the commercial terms. The challenge of
today is now to provide electricity on cheap means for rural development hence
alleviating poverty. On the other hand, almost all rural areas and some small towns
depend on energy from wood, fuel, dung and the like for various purposes such as
cooking, warming and illumination. This dependence on biomass is leading to
drastic damage on the environment. There is a fear that some decades later the
country will be devoid of any kind of forest. The use of fuel wood as a source of
energy should be reduced and replaced by environmental friendly source of energy,
hydropower. EEPCo has built numerous decentral power stations apart from the
3
main interconnected system. But, these plants are largely diesel power stations
which are operated with imported fuel oil. The rise in cost of fuel does not justify
the installation of similar diesel stations to rural communities in future endeavors.
On the other hand, the high expense of transmission line makes capital investment
for grid extension prohibitive. One of the solutions for this problem is to identify
micro to small scale hydropower potential in the rural areas and develop them to
electrify the rural areas.

4
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. General Objective
The general objective of the study is to assess micro to small hydroelectric power
potential in Gumara river basin.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 Select suitable hydropower potential sites and evaluate the selection
criteria based on GIS Multi-criteria analysis.
 Estimation of hydropower potential and energy output of alternative
feasible sites for rural electrification.
 Prioritize hydropower potential sites for small scale hydropower
development in the basin.

1.4. Research Questions

To achieve the aforementioned objectives, this thesis analyzes the following research
questions:

 What is the actual state of hydro potential sites in Gumara and how are they
distributed in the local area?

 What are the major issues related to the current power crisis in the country from
the demand and the supply side perspective?

 How much discharge and respective drop is available to authenticate the

feasibility of the site for hydropower generation during lean period?

5
1.5. Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to provide piece of information for national and
regional policy makers and water resources implementing agency on available
potential of Micro to Small hydro power potential and available demands .Thus
concerned bodies especially EEPCO will hopefully consider the study and put into
action by reviewing their plan of expansion of transmission line from main grid of
Hydro power stations to the site as some of hydroelectric projects can be easily
developed at cost lower than the identified in the EEPCO expansion plan (ministry
of water resource, 1997). Therefore, off-grid alternative electric supply should be
given due attention. As a result, the development gap between urban and rural
dwellers reduced to some extent as far as the use of energy is concerned. And even
also by doing natural landscape of the environment, gained economic benefit from
the schemes and satisfaction of the social needs of the rural population in the area,
can be improved.

1.6. Scope
This study does not deal with detail and deep investigation of micro to small
hydropower development. It is limited to assessment of the hydropower potential of
the basin. So that the door is opened for further study and detail investigation and
project implementation. It also deals with only micro to small hydropower; not with
the higher capacities.

6
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. PRESENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROPOWER

The existing development of hydropower has resulted from a fairly uniform rate of
increase in competition with other modes of electrical energy production. Until the mid-
1970s, the pattern of hydro development was to develop bigger and bigger units because
smaller hydro plants were not competitive with fossil fuel power plants. Recently, with
rising costs of fossil fuels, the economic feasibility of small-scale hydro has changed.
During the period from 1940 to 1970, small units were actually forced out of production
because of the high cost of operation and the ready availability of electrical energy from
large steam power plants and large high-capacity Hydro plants. That situation having
changed, small-scale hydropower development is becoming an attractive energy
production alternative (Warnick 1984).

2.2. SMALL HYDRO POWER PROJECT CLASSIFICATION

Hydro power projects are generally categorized in two segments i.e. small and large
hydro. Different countries are following different norms keeping the upper limit of small
hydro ranging from 5 to 50 MW. Though different countries have different criteria to
classify hydro power plants (Dudhani et al. 2006), general classification of hydro power
plants is as follows:
Table 2.1: Classification of hydropower plant based on power capacity.

Type Capacity
Large-hydro More than 100MW and usually feeding in to a large electricity grid
Medium-hydro 15-100MW –usually feeding the grid.
Small-hydro 1-15 MW –usually feeding the grid.
Mini-hydro Above 100KW, but below 1MW; Either stand alone scheme or more
often feed in to the grid.
Micro-hydro From 5kw up to 100kw; usually provided power for a small community
or rural industry in remote areas away from the grid.
Pico-hydro From few hundred watt to 5 kw

7
2.3. HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL CALCULATION
Hydropower potential is a function of head drop and discharge at certain flow
exceedance. The theoretical ROR hydropower potential is calculated by using equation
(2.1).
P = P*g*Q 2.1

Where,
P = Power generated in Watt (W)
ρ = Mass density of water (kg/m3)
g = Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
Q = Discharge (m3/s)
H = Gross head drop (m)

If there are numbers of sub-basins in a given basin, the total power of the basin can be
calculated by summing the potential of all sub-basins.

P= ∑𝒏
𝒊=𝟏 𝑷 ∗ 𝐠 ∗ 𝐐 ∗ 𝐇 2.2
Where,
i = Sub-basin number = i.............n
n = Number of sub-basins
The mass density of water is taken as 1000 kg/m3 and acceleration due to gravity as 9.81
m/s2. The gross head is the elevation difference between headrace and tailrace. By
estimating the head drop, H and discharge, Q of any basin, the theoretical hydro potential
can be calculated.

2.4. ENERGY SUPPLIES IN RURAL AREAS

The main prerequisite for socio-economic development in an area is the acquisition of
economical and reliable energy. According to statistics from the United Nations, a total
installed capacity of 85 GW should be newly added in the world’s rural areas so that the
unelectrified areas inhabited by 1.7 billion people will have electricity for basic needs
(exclusive of industrial and agricultural loads) (Tong Jiandong etal. 2000). However, due
to the limitations of conventional energy resources and a shortage of funds and expertise,

8
etc., only a few millions of rural people in the world can be energized in a year.
Therefore, the lack of electricity becomes a great constraint to the rural and even the
national economic development of a country. At the heart of rural electrification is the
development of commercial energy. Owing to some historic factors, vast rural areas are
completely cut off from the national economy. Most energy consumption in rural areas is
still from the biomass and electricity occupies only a small portion of the energy.
Especially for many developing countries, 80 percent of the population is scattered in the
countryside. On the other hand, a large proportion of the commercial energy is imported,
imposing seriously on the financial balance of the country, whilst on the other hand, cities
and industrial centers are overusing large amounts of energy. Such a disproportionate
energy allocation leads to an increase in firewood consumption and large-scale
deforestation in rural areas, resulting in soil erosion and loss as well as a decrease in soil
fertility and damage the environment. Therefore, the promotion of rural commercial
energy is a critical decision for all developing countries. Every government can make use
of many policies and means to influence the choice of rural energy structure. But
whichever energy is to be exploited, it should always be in conformity with local energy
resources; the technical level and economic ability of the area. Those who are in favor of
conventional energy think that if all the total firewood consumption in rural areas of the
world is replaced by oil, about 0.2 billion tons of oil will be needed annually, occupying
only 7 percent of the total oil production in the world (Tong Jiandong etal. 2000). So, the
shortage of energy in rural areas is actually an issue of poverty, rather than an energy
issue. However, past energy crisis and escalation in oil prices clearly show that this
strategy is neither realistic nor cost-effective. Moreover, the large-scale burning of
hydrocarbons would exacerbate the greenhouse effect, making a serious ecological
impact on the environment. Thus, it is necessary to set up a clean rural energy structure.
Those who are in favor of a centralized energy supply think that micro hydropower plants
are neither economically feasible nor technically viable, and the energy demand in rural
areas would be better solved by the extension of large grids. But, this is not the case in
reality. Many rural areas are rich in MHP resources and many remote areas cannot be
economically energized by the extension of large grids. In reality, a flexible or diversified
strategy of rural electrification should be considered, based on local conditions.

9
2.5. MICRO AND SMALL HYDROPOWER – AN IMPORTANT RURAL
ENERGY SOURCE
In new and renewable energy sources, micro hydropower is mature in technology. Long
ago, human beings learnt how to make use of water for power and even now in some
countries like Ethiopia, primitive hydraulic devices can be found. Nowadays, MHP is
being developed, with the application of new technology and design to shorten its
construction period and the initial cost being reduced by full use of local people and
materials as well as a series of preferential policies from government. Even some
countries that stopped the development of small scale hydropower schemes for many
years have decided to develop them again on account of the saving of oil and
environment considerations, etc.
The main advantages of MHP and SHP are:
1. Its suitability for decentralized development, fully using local materials and
appropriate technology with the participation of local people;
2. Its mature technology and small investment risk;
3. Its low operating costs, easy maintenance, and reliable water supply;
4. Little environmental impact during construction, with some positive impact on the
environment;
5. The obvious social benefit to a developing local economy and improvements in the
material and spiritual life of local residents.
Hence, it is pointed out in a United Nations report that, as a clean and renewable energy,
small scale hydropower or MHP ought to be developed as a priority for its maximum
economic benefits as well as its multi-purposes, such as irrigation, water supply, fish-
breading and ecological effects (www.microhydropower.net/intro.htm/).

2.6. DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER

Micro-hydropower systems are relatively small power sources that are appropriate in
most cases for individual users or groups of users who are independent of the electricity
supply grid. Hydropower may be classified according to different criteria, such as head,
powerhouse layout, and installed capacity. But habitually, small-scale hydro powers are
classified in terms of their capacity. Different methods of classification only reflect the

10
degree of industrial development of a country at a certain period and the proportion of
hydropower in the whole power sector of a country. Therefore, different countries have
different definitions; as shown in table 2.2
Table 2.2: Definition and classifications of small-scale hydropower (Tong Jiandong et.
al, Mini Hydropower, published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England,
2000.)

Name of country Micro Mini Small

UNIDO 100 101-1000 1001 – 10,000
HRC 100 101-500 501 – 10,000
OLADE 50 51-500 501 – 500
China 100 101-500 501 – 25,000
Peru 5-50 51-500 501 – 5000
Philippines 15,000
Romania 5 - 5000
Sweden 100 101-15,000
Thailand 200 201-6000 6001 – 15,000
Turkey 100 101-1000 1001 – 5000
USA 500 501-2000 2001 – 15,000
Colombia 20,000
India 100 101-2000
Malaysia 25 25-500 501 – 5000
Nepal 10,000
Panama 100 101-1000 1001 – 10,000
Ecuador 50 51-500 501 – 5000
Bolivia 100 101-1000
Dominica 100 101-1000 1001 – 5000
Vietnam 50 51-500 501 – 5000
Japan 10,000
France 500 501-2000 2001-8000

11
New Zealand 10,000 10,001-50,000
Indonesia 500
Zimbabwe 5-500 501 – 5000
Norway 10,000
Greece 100 101-1000 1001 – 15,000
Poland 100 101-1000 1001 – 15,000
Finland 200 201-2000
Ethiopia 1-500 501-1000 1001 – 15,000

**Remark: 1.Ethiopian Energy Agency defines micro hydropower as having a capacity of 11 –

500kW, mini Hydropower as 501 – 1000kw and Pico - hydropower as 1 – 10kw.

2.7. COMPONENTS OF MICRO AND SMALL HYDROPOWER

Micro-hydro systems have the following components:
 a water turbine that converts the energy of flowing or falling water into
mechanical energy that drives a generator, which generates electrical power - this
is the heart of a micro-hydropower system
 A control mechanism to provide stable electrical power
 Electrical transmission lines to deliver the power to its destination
Depending on the site, the following may be needed to develop a micro and small
hydropower System:
 An intake or weir to divert stream flow from the water course
 A canal/pipeline to carry the water flow to the forebay from the intake
 A forebay tank and trash rack to filter debris and prevent it from being drawn into
the turbine at the penstock pipe intake.
 A silting basin to settle the sediments carried with the flow.

2.8. SMALL HYDROPOWER AS A CHOICE

Amongst the renewable energy technologies, small hydro- power is one of the most
attractive and probably the oldest environmental friendly energy technology. Small hydro
potential is available on small rivers, canal head sand canal drops. Of all the non
conventional renewable energy sources, small hydropower represents the highest density

12
resource and stands in first place in the generation of electricity from renewable sources
throughout the world (Dudhani et al. 2006).
Hydropower plants are of three types (Okot 2013)
 Impoundment: this is a large hydropower system which uses a dam to store river
water in reservoir. Water stored in the reservoir is then used to generate
electricity.
 Diversion: a diversion facility channels a portion of a river through ha canal or
penstock. This system may not require the use of a dam.
 Run-of-river: the system uses water within the natural flow range and it requires
little or no impoundment.
Small-scale hydro is mainly ‘run-of-river’, so it involves construction of a quite small
dam or barrage, usually just a weir, and generally little or no water is stored. A small
scale hydropower facility generates power through the kinetic energy of moving water as
it passes through a turbine. Most small scale hydropower facilities are ‘run-of-river,’
meaning that the natural flow of the river is maintained, and that a dam- med reservoir is
not created in order to generate power. Without a permanent dam to block river flow, nor
a large reservoir to flood arable land and disrupt river temperature and composition
levels, many of the negative rivers in effects of traditional hydropower are avoided with a
small scale hydropower plant (Kosnik 2010).

SHP projects can be installed in rivers, small streams, dams and canals with negligible
apparent environmental effects. In order to minimize the environmental effects and
maximize water conservation, prominence has been given to the development and
integration of SHP projects into river systems during last few years (Nautiyal et al. 2011).
Small hydropower is a key element for sustainable development due to the following
reasons:(Nautiyal et al. 2011).
 Proper utilization of water resources: various streams and rivers can safely
provide energy to run a small hydroelectric plant. No big water storage is required
in such projects which prevents resettlement and rehabilitation of the population.

13
  Small hydropower is a renewable source of energy: small hydropower meets the
definition of renewable because it uses the energy of flowing water repeatedly and
generates electricity without fear of depletion also.
 Small hydro is a cost effective and sustainable source of energy: simple and less
expensive construction work and inexpensive equipment are required to establish
and operate small hydro- power projects. The cost of electricity generation is
inflation free. Also, the gestation period is short and the schemes give financial
returns quickly.
 Small hydro aids in conserving scarce fossils fuels: no fossil fuels or other
petroleum products are required in small hydroelectric projects. SHP replaces the
fossil – fired generation of electricity.
 Low polluting: SHP projects are known for low carbon energy production.
Several authors have evaluated Small hydropower (SHP) projects as candidates
for the reduction in GHG emissions. Renewable energy technologies, which
include SHP, contribute to global sustainability through GHG mitigation, and
these technologies lead to building capacity and infrastructure sites. The
development of small hydro has low effect on the environment. In small hydro, no
big storage is formed and rehabilitation of population is not required as in case of
large hydropower projects.
 Development of rural and remote areas: In remote and hilly areas, sources for
development of Small Hydro Power Plants are found in abundance. Small hydro
development provides electricity, transportation, communication links and
economy to such rural areas.
 Other uses: Small hydropower also gives additional benefits along with power
generation such as irrigation, water supply, flood prevention, fisheries and
tourism.

2.9. SITE SELECTION

2.9.1. Choosing a Micro and Small Hydro Site
Many people find that they have a need for electricity in places that are beyond the reach
of power lines. Others look wishfully at the creek that flows through their property and

14
dream of tapping the power of the water either for their own use or to sell to potential
buyers. Regardless of the reason for wanting to develop a micro hydro project, an
appropriate location is required for the project. Choosing a site is one of the most
important steps in development, as it will largely determine the amount of power that can
be developed and the complexity of site development. Stream basin areas were
determined and the steepest section of creek that was over 10% slope (in grid areas) and
5% slope (in diesel areas) were selected as the best locations for an intake, penstock, and
powerhouse(May 1986).
What to Look For In a Hydro Site?
There are several things to look for when selecting a site for micro and small hydro
development. A good site should have the characteristics listed below. Where sites are
less than ideal, developers can sometimes use creative approaches to optimize projects.
Water…and Lots of It
Generally, the larger the stream the more water available for a micro hydro development.
However not all water can be diverted from a stream, for power production, as water
must remain in the stream environmental reasons. The amount of water that must remain
varies for different streams.
High Head
The greatest fall over the shortest route is preferable when choosing a micro hydro site as
a long penstock can be quite costly. More head is usually better, since power is the
product of head and flow. Thus less flow is required at a higher head to generate similar
amounts of power. Also with a higher head, the turbine is able to run at a higher speed,
resulting in a smaller turbine and generator for a given power output. However, pipe
pressure ratings and pipe joint integrity require careful design at very high heads.
Close Proximity to Distribution (Transmission) Lines or Load
The closer a site is to distribution lines, or the load center in the case of an off-grid plant,
the less costly it will be to transmit electricity. For grid connection it is generally only
economical to connect a micro hydro plant to the 12 or 25 kV distribution system.
Connecting to the higher voltage transmission system greatly increases the
interconnection cost.

15
Site Accessibility
The terrain surrounding the stream must be suitable for running a length of pipe from the
proposed intake structure to the powerhouse location. Anticipated high and low water
flows and levels must be taken into account when sizing and sitting these facilities. The
site also requires access for construction and maintenance purposes.

2.10. A RUN-OF-THE-RIVER SCHEME

Power is generated by natural runoff without flow regulation. Firm power is guaranteed
by a natural base flow with high reliability. Many MHP stations belong to this scheme.
This is because the scheme costs less in engineering, especially in the case where water is
diverted from rivers with a high base flow. However, in this study almost all sites are of
diversion scheme for the purpose of taking advantage of the promising heads which are
by far greater than those which can be found from fall in the water course.

2.11. A DAILY REGULATION SCHEME

Power is generated by the natural daily flow, but with a daily regulating pond by which
the natural daily flow can be regulated in accordance with the fluctuation of the daily
load, i.e., storing water in the regulating pond at off-break times and discharging it from
the pond at peak hours, the power output is thus bigger than that without regulation. It
can be approximately considered that when the pond volume is greater than 5 percent of
the water volume passing through all turbines in a station, an incomplete daily regulation
can be realized. If the pond volume reaches 20-25 percent of that water volume, then a
complete daily regulation, and even certain weekly regulations, is possible (Tong
Jiandong etal. 2000)

2.12. A SEASONAL REGULATION SCHEME

In this case a reservoir should be built at the intake of the power station to store water in
the rainy season and discharge it in the dry season, thus enhancing the firm power output
the whole year round. Most of these kinds of hydropower stations are dam schemes and
mixed schemes. This is not the case for micro hydropower. MHP does not need large
dams and reservoirs. Besides the above-mentioned traditionally applicable schemes, there

16
are also tidal power stations and pumped storage power stations, each of which takes a
special mode to get a concentrated head and design discharge.

2.13. GIS AND MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS TOOL FOR SITE SUITABILITY
Site selection is a critical decision made by private and public owners that affects a wide
range of activities ranging from land use planning to sitting of industrial facilities.
Selection of an appropriate site is a critical decision that could significantly affect the
profit and loss of the project under investigation. Often, site selection also significantly
influences the life style of the surrounding communities. Therefore, developing expertise
in site selection is a big business when measured in terms of budgets committed, stature
of decision-makers involved, size of communities affected, or prosperity of the area
influenced. In a site selection exercise, the analyst strives to determine the optimum
location that would satisfy the proponents’ selection criteria. The selection process
attempts to optimize a number of objectives desired for a specific facility. Such
optimization often involves numerous decision factors, which are frequently
contradicting. As a result, the process often involves a number of possible sites each has
advantages and limitations. A number of tools have been used to select proper sites for
capital improvement facilities. Geographic Information Systems and Multi Criteria
Evaluation techniques (MCE) are the two common tools employed to solve these
problems. Although these tools have played an important role in solving site selection
problems, each tool has its own limitations and could not be used alone to reach an
optimum solution. GIS, which deals mainly with physical suitability analysis, has very
limited capability of incorporating the decision maker’s preferences into the problem
solving process. MCE, which deals mainly with analyzing decision problems and
evaluating the alternatives based on a decision maker’s values and preferences, lacks the
capability of handling spatial data (e.g., buffering and overlay) that are crucial to spatial
analysis. The need for combining the strengths of these two techniques has prompted
researchers to seek integration of GIS and MCE. This poses the challenge of integrating
these decision support tools. Such integration was achieved through loose and tight
coupling techniques. However, these techniques suffer many drawbacks and limitations.
Thorough discussion of these techniques and their limitations can be found elsewhere
(Eldrandaly 2010).
17
2.14. Proposed GIS-Based MCE Framework for Solving Site Selection
Problems
GIS-based Multi Criteria Evaluation (GIS-MCE) can be defined as a process that
integrates and transforms
Geographic data (map criteria) and value judgments (decision maker’s preferences) to
obtain overall assessment of the decision alternatives (Malczewski 1999). The procedural
steps of the proposed GIS-based MCE approach entails five steps as explained below.
Step1. Defining Site Selection Criteria: In the first step, the analyst declares the type of
facility and defines the regions of interest. Based on the facility type and the regions of
interest, the analyst defines the sitting criteria.
Step2. Preparing Criterion Maps: After defining the sitting criteria, the analyst prepares
the criterion maps based on the predefined sitting criteria. Central to spatial multi criteria
decision making is the fact that an attribute can be represented in a GIS database as an
attribute (criterion) map layer. A criterion map represents the spatial distribution of an
attribute that measures the degree to which its associated objective is achieved (Nyerges
and Jankowski 2009). The procedure for generating criterion maps is based on different
GIS functions.
Step3. Data Standardization: Given a variety of scales on which each criterion can be
measured, MCE requires that values contained in the various criterion map layers be
transformed to comparable units (standardized to a common scale). Two common
approaches to standardizations are linear and nonlinear. The simplest formula for linear
standardization is called the maximum score procedure. The formula divides each raw
criterion value by the maximum criterion value as shown in equation 2.3:
𝑿𝒊𝒋
X’ij = 𝑿𝒋𝒎𝒂𝒙 2.3

Where x' ij is the standardized score for the ith decision alternative and the jth criterion, xij
is the raw data value, and Xjmax is the maximum score for the jth criterion. The values of
standardized scores can range from 0 to 1 and are linearly related to the raw data values.
In the nonlinear standardization procedure, the standardized criterion value is computed

18
by dividing the difference between a given criterion’s raw data value and the minimum
value of the value range as shown in equation (2.4):
𝑿𝒊𝒋−𝑿𝒋𝒎𝒊𝒏
X’ij = 𝑿𝒋𝒎𝒂𝒙−𝑿𝒋𝒎𝒊𝒏 2.4

Detailed descriptions of standardization approaches are reported elsewhere (Nyerges and

Jankowski 2009).
Step4. Multi criteria Evaluation: A number of MCE techniques have been implemented
in the GIS environment for tackling site selection problems. AHP, OWA, and the
extension of AHP using OWA operators are three of the most commonly used techniques
for solving the sitting problems.

2.14.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Is one of the most common used MCE tools. AHP is a method that allows the
consideration of both objective and subjective factors in ranking alternatives. Since its
introduction in the mid 1970s by Thomas Saaty, AHP has been applied in a wide variety
of practical applications in various fields including site selection. It assists the decision
making process by allowing decision-makers to organize the criteria and alternative
solutions of a decision problem in a hierarchical decision model. The AHP decision
hierarchy involves a number of steps: Identification of the goal (e.g., select the most
suitable hydropower site), use of a set of decision factors/ variables/ criteria (e.g., labor
climate, economic costs, and living conditions), and determination of a set of
alternatives/choices (e.g., site 1, site 2 and site 3). The levels of the hierarchy may be
expanded as needed (e.g., cost could be considered in terms of labor, utilities, and taxes).
At the lowest level on the hierarchy we find the alternative solutions. Comparisons of the
available choices/ alternatives are made on a pair-wise basis. For example in considering
hydropower site, AHP would determine whether site 1 is “better” (i.e., has higher power
potential) than site 2 and if so, by how much? Similar comparisons are performed at each
level on the hierarchy. This measure of importance/weight is done using a nine-point
scale, which is widely utilized in the AHP technique. The AHP process synthesizes the
alternatives’ priorities in to overall set of values that indicate the relative importance of

19
each factor at the lowest level of the hierarchy. Detailed description of AHP is reported
elsewhere (Malczewski 1999)

2.14.2. Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA)

Is a family of multi-criteria aggregation procedures. It has been developed in the context
of fuzzy set theory. OWA involves two sets of weights: criterion, or importance weights
and order weights. A criterion weight is assigned to a given criterion or attribute for all
locations in a study area to indicate its relative importance, according to the decision-
maker’s preferences, in the set of criteria under consideration. The order weights are
associated with the criterion values on a location-by-location basis. They are assigned to
a location’s attribute values in decreasing order with no consideration of the attribute
source of each value. The re ordering procedure involves associating an order weight
with a particular ordered position of the weighted attribute values. The first order weight
is assigned to the highest weighted attribute values for each location, the second order
weight to the second highest values, and so on. The nature of the OWA procedure
depends on some parameters, which can be specified by means of fuzzy (linguistic)
quantifiers. The GIS-based OWA provides a tool for generating a wide range of decision
strategies by specifying an appropriate linguistic quantifier and the associated set of the
OWA weights. The position of the OWA operator can be identified on the continuum
ranging from the all quantifier to the at least quantifier.

2.14.3. AHP-OWA
(Yager and Kelman. 1999) introduced an extension of the AHP using OWA operators
(AHP-OWA), suggesting that the capabilities of AHP as a comprehensive tool for
decision making can be improved by integration of the fuzzy linguistic OWA operators.
The inclusion of AHP and OWA can provide a more powerful multi criteria decision-
making tool for structuring and solving decision problems including spatial decision
problems.

2.14.4. Weighted Linear Combination

The weighted linear combination (WLC) approach is the most commonly used GIS-based
decision rules technique (Malczewski 1999). WLC, otherwise known as weighing, is
based on the concept of a weighted average in which continuous criteria are standardized

20
to a common numeric range, and then combined using a weighted average. The decision
maker determines and assigns the weights of relative importance directly to each attribute
map layer. The total score for each alternative is the product of the importance weight
assigned to each attribute multiplied by the scaled value given for that attribute to the
alternative and then summing the products over all attributes. The scores are calculated
for all of the alternatives. The one chosen is that with the highest overall score. The
method can be executed using any GIS system with overlay capabilities. The use of the
method allows the evaluation criterion map layers to be combined in order to determine
the resulting composite map layer. Both raster and vector GIS environments can be used
to implement this technique. With the weighted linear combination, factors are combined
by first applying a weight to each factor, followed by a summation of the results to yield
a suitability map:
S = Σ 𝑤𝑖 𝑥𝑖 2.5

Where S is suitability, 𝑤𝑖 is weight of factor 𝑖, and 𝑥𝑖 is the criterion score of factor 𝑖.

2.15. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES FOR HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL

ESTIMATION
The estimation of hydropower potential requires the estimation of head drop H and river
discharge Q. Different methodologies have been developed to estimate the head drop and
discharge. Head drop can be calculated manually from the topographic map or
automatically along the river system from Digital Elevation Model (DEM) using GIS
software.

Estimation of discharge is a little more difficult because the river flow depends upon the
number of processes taking place in the catchment. The main processes are surface runoff
from precipitation, ground water flow, snow and glacial melt and evapotranspiration.
Generally, discharge observations are done only at a few locations in the river catchment
and therefore, the observed discharge data are not available at the location of interest.
Therefore, the discharge estimation is required upstream and downstream of the observed
point as the river flow changes with every new tributary. Discharge estimation is also

21
required for an ungauged river basin. Some of the methodologies used to estimate the
river discharge are: linear regression method, drainage area ratio method and
hydrological simulation.

Regression equations have been used to estimate the discharge at gauged and ungauged
sites in many countries. In this method, several parameters such as drainage area, land
use, climate variables, geomorphology etc. are used as the independent variables to
develop the regression equation of stream flow for the given catchment (Vogel et al.
1999).

Drainage area ratio method is a widely used technique in many cases where limited
stream flow recorded data are available. This method is easy to use, requires little data,
does not require any development, and many times, is the only method available because
regional statistics or precipitation-runoff models have not been developed (Emerson et al.
2005). However, this method is valid where the watersheds are of similar size, land use,
soil type and rainfall have similar pattern. This method is the most appropriate for use
when the ungauged site lies on the same stream as a gauging station and the accuracy
depends on the closeness of two sites (gauged and ungauged), similarities in drainage
area, and other physical and climatic characteristics of the basin (Flynn 2003). Discharge
is estimated by drainage area weighting using equation (2.6),

𝑨𝒚
Qi,j = *Qi,j 2.6
𝑨𝒙

Where,
῀Qi, j = Estimated discharge for month i and year j at ungauged location
Qi,j = Flow for month i and year j at gauged location
Ay = Drainage area at ungauged location
Ax = Drainage area at gauged location
Hydrological modeling is another method of estimating the river discharge. Hydrologic
models are the simplified, conceptual representation of a part of the hydrologic cycle.

22
They are used for hydrologic prediction and for understanding the hydrologic process.
The type of modeling depends upon the objective of the study and may be chosen as
lumped, semi distributed, distributed models(Þórarinsdóttir 2012).

2.16. GIS IN HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL ESTIMATION

Traditionally hydropower potential is estimated for a particular site by using historical
data of discharge. Very limited tools were available to estimate the stream flow at
ungauged locations. Due to the complexity involved in hydrological phenomena, the
estimation of discharge at ungauged location based on the observed data of some specific
sites using the traditional estimation method poses doubts regarding the accuracy and
reliability of the assessment. Furthermore, the assessment based on the location specific
recorded data does not cover the entire potential basin, thus leaving the more potential
sites at other locations. The collection of observed data from a large number of gauging
stations is costly as well.
With the advent of modern computation tools such as GIS, remote sensing (RS) and
hydrological models, the aforementioned constraints have been addressed
comprehensively. The realistic representation of: (i) terrain, (ii) complex hydrological
phenomena and (iii) varying climate are now possible through the spatial tools and
modeling techniques. GIS is a computerized data management system that is used to
digitally represent, store, manipulate, analyze and manage all types of spatial or
geographical data (WIKIPEDIA, Geographic Information System).RS is the acquisition
of information about an object or phenomenon without making physical contact with the
object. GIS is also used to locate and select the potential hydropower sites. GIS was used
to identify quickly the potential sites for micro and macro hydropower sites in South
Africa (Ballance et al. 2000). Selected the potential sites for a small ROR hydropower
project in Thail and using GIS, economic and environmental criteria (Rojanamon et al.
2009). However, some of the limitations of GIS-based hydrological models are the
requirement of the enormous amount of data, expensive GIS software and resolution of
temporal data. The simulated results from the GIS-based hydrological model can be used
for the water resource planning where the observed data are not available or insufficient.

23
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The Gumara River is located to the east direction of Lake Tana; it is found between
latitude of 110. 35’ and 110.55’ N and longitude of 370.40’ and 380.10’ E. Gumera River
originates from the high Mountainous area south and east of the town Debretabor at an
approximately 3050 meter above sea level. Gumera River is one of the tributary rivers of
Abay basin which flows into Lake Tana. The river flows westwards for a length of 132.5
km until it reaches Lake Tana. And it has a total drainage area of 127186 ha
(1271.86km2) up to the gauging station (near Woreta). There are many small intermittent
and perennial rivers and springs in the watershed which flows into the Gumera River,
such as Tinshu Sembet, Tiliku Sembet, Ishete, Inkulal, Minchat, Mimit, Gibir Wuha,
Fogeda, Weyzeriye, Manjurit, and Maynat.
Area Description Map

Figure 3.1: Map of Area Description.

24
3.2. Topography
The watershed consists of rugged and undulating topographies which vary from 1790 m
asl up to 3700 m asl. The area has a steep slope (greater than 25%) in the high
mountainous region in the east which rises above 2000 m asl elevation, and of lower
slope (below 3%) towards Lake Tana, the area that ranges from 1700 - 1900 m asl
altitude. The lower down plain reaches, near the confluence of Gumera with Lake Tana,
is subject to inundation in wet seasons. This is because of the flat slopes, further
worsened by back water effects of the Lake which is at higher levels during the flood
(Abate et al. 2015).

Figure 3.2: Topography of Gumara Watershed

Table 3.1: Percentage of Elevation coverage for Gumara Watershed

Range of Elevation(m) Percent coverage

1793-1973 16.09
1973-2109 16.64
2109-2240 16.80
2240-2375 18.75
2375-2526 14.77
2526-2702 9.69
2702-2917 5.00

25
 2917-3236 1.48
3236-3712 0.78

Figure3.3: Slope of Gumara Watershed

Table3.2: Percent coverage of slope variation in Gumara watershed

Range of Slope Percent Coverage

0-7 23.40
7-15 28.94
15-23 20.67
23-31 13.10
31-40 7.88
40-51 3.98
51-66 1.56
66-96 0.39
96-229 0.08

3.3. Climate
3.3.1. Rainfall
The annual Rainfall is relatively higher in the watershed ranging between 1145 mm up to
1523 mm; the eastern plain having lower rainfall, 1145-1300 mm/yr, and the
mountainous areas having higher rainfall, greater than 1300 mm/yr.

26
Figure3.4: Rainfall Distribution in Gumera Watershed
3.3.2. Temperature
The maximum and minimum monthly temperature in the watershed varies between 230C-
29.90C and 70C-140C respectively. Annual maximum and minimum temperature varies
between 160C-270C and 2 0C- 12 0C.

3.4. Land Use/Cover

The land use practice in the watershed as shown in the table below is dominated by
cultivated land and followed by Grass land.

Figure3.5: Land Use in Gumara Watershed

27
Table 3.3: percent of area coverage for land use in Gumara Watershed

Land Use Land Cover Area-coverage Percentage of Area

type (km2) Coverage
Built Up Area 9 0.70
Cultivated Land 986 76.97
Forest Land 35 2.73
Grass Land 220 17.17
Shrub and Bush Land 31 2.42

3.5. Socioeconomic Aspect of the Watershed

3.5.1. Administrative Structure of the Watershed
The Gumera watershed is located in four weredas, Fogera, Dera, Farta, and Esite which
are under the administration of Debub Gonder Zone of Amhara Regional State. The
weredas covering an area of 6346.03 km2 have a total population of 1,324,044 resulted in
an average population density of 217.55 persons per square kilometer.

Figure3.6: weredas in Gumara watershed

3.5.2. Population
Farta has the most densely populated, 254.5 p/km2, followed by Fogera and Dera, 246.8
p/km2, and 190 p/km2 respectively. Esite is least populated, with 179.1 p/km2. The
population and the area of the weredas are shown in the table below.

28
Table 3.4: Population of Weredas in Gumera Watershed

WERED A MALE FEMALE TOTAL AREA DENSITY

Fogera 137919 132324 270243 1095 247
Farta 166091 158179 324270 1274 254
Esite 214738 209303 424041 2368 179
Dera 156828 148662 305490 1608 190
Source: (CSA, 2007)

Figure3.7: Population of Weredas in Gumera Watershed

3.6. METHODOLOGY USED IN HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL ESTIMATION

The methodology used in the estimation of hydro potential consists of mainly two parts:
i) estimation of discharge along the river system and ii) estimation of potential head drop.

3.6.1. FLOW DURATION CURVE

The flow-duration curve (FDC) is a cumulative frequency curve that shows the percent
of time that flow in a stream is likely to equal or exceed some specified value of interest
(Searcy 1959).
Hydropower design and hydro potential calculation require stream flow data which can
be obtained from the flow duration curve. The shape of FDC plays a role in evaluating
the stream and basin characteristics. The slope of the curve at upper end shows the type
of flood regime the basin is likely to have, whereas the slope of the lower end of the
curve indicates the ability of basin to sustain low flows during dry seasons.FDC can be

29
prepared for the daily, weekly or monthly stream flow data. The following steps are
followed to prepare the flow-duration curve (Büyükkaracığan 2014).
1. Sort out or rank the average monthly (or daily) discharges for the period of record
from the largest value to the smallest value involving a total 'N o' number of values.
2. Assign each discharge value a rank M, starting with 1 for the largest monthly
discharge value.
3. Calculate the exceedance probability as follows:

𝑴
Prb =100* 3.1
(𝑵𝒐+𝟏)

Where,
Prb = the probability that a given flow will be equaled or exceeded (%
of time)
M = the ranked position on the list (dimensionless)
No = the number of events for a period of record (dimensionless)
MS-excel can be used to prepare flow-duration curve. The excel function "RANK" can
be used to calculate the rank and the data can be arranged in descending order in
Spreadsheet.

3.6.2. DISCHARGE ANALYSIS

To analysis discharge along the river basin Drainage area ratio method was used. Stream
flow data for hydropower potential sites was transferred through the area ratio method for
those sites suitable for the requirement of drainage area ratio method. Drainage area ratio
method is a widely used technique in many cases where limited stream flow recorded
data are available. This method is easy to use, requires little data, does not require any
development, and many times, is the only method available because regional statistics or
precipitation-runoff models have not been developed (Emerson et al. 2005). However,
this method is valid where the watersheds are of similar size, land use, soil type and
rainfall have similar pattern. This method is the most appropriate for use when the
ungauged site lies on the same stream as a gauging station and the accuracy depends on
the closeness of two sites (gauged and ungauged), similarities in drainage area, and other

30
physical and climatic characteristics of the basin (Flynn 2003). Discharge is estimated
by drainage area weighting using equation (3.2)
𝑨𝒚
҃ i,j =
Q *Qi, 3.2
𝑨𝒙

Where,
῀Qi, j = Estimated discharge for month i and year j at ungauged location
Qi,j = Flow for month i and year j at gauged location
Ay = Drainage area at ungauged location
Ax = Drainage area at gauged location.
In this study the Area ratio method applied only for either hydropower sites or
parametric duration curve estimator sites, which satisfy the requirement of Drainage Area
Ratio method. The hydropower sites much more far apart from the gauge station, their
corresponding flow duration curve was done by using Regionalization of long term
monthly flow characteristics using GIS based spatial interpolation Algorithm.

3.6.3. POTENTIAL HEAD DROP ESTIMATION OF THE SITE

The Hydropower potential assessment requires the drop in head along the river. Focal
statistics function is applied on the digital elevation data. This is a function which
computes the necessary statistics (i.e. minimum, maximum, sum of all values) for the
neighboring cells surrounding each individual cell. A run-of-river plant does not require
space for water storage and 500 meter horizontal distance between two plants is usually
considered feasible(Khan and Zaid 2015).In the contemporary analysis, the minimum
function is applied to a rectangle containing 17*17 cells around each cell which are used
to find the minimum cells around each raster cell (lowest neighboring cells).The
minimum neighbors’ dataset is then subtracted from DEM(without sink),which is
30m*30m resolution, in order to find out the drop elevation of each cell to its minimum
neighbors. The output is the height value “head”, which is then, used in the equation to
calculate the potential energy. The head difference between the DEM without sink and
the DEM, which contain a pixel value of minimum elevation of neighboring particular
cell within 500m increment, was considered in this study. The head obtained for each cell
through the method of focal statistics was checked by taking the head of Sample suitable
potential sites from the Google Earth and make its coefficient of determination.

31
3.6.4. DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL POWER
Power potential of sites was calculated from long-term monthly flow and heads for
different time scale. Once the Raster map of average annual flow (the flow for the
required key percent of exceedance) and the drop of particular cell within 500m
increment was determine in- stream power potential can be determine by Raster
calculator using the following equation.
The potential power for each selected site was calculated using equation (3.3)
P in-stream = P*g*Q*H 3.3
Where

P in-stream = In-Stream power potential in kW

Q = stream discharge in m3/s

g = unit weight of water, 9.81 kN/m3

H = head in m

3.7. IDENTIFICATION OF SUITABLE SITES FOR HYDROPOWER PLANT

BASED ON SENSITIVE CRITERIA
To select hydropower feasible sites, selection criteria should be developed. In this study
In-stream power, Discharge and Head was considered as selection criteria. The table
shown below describes sensitive criteria with the corresponding range of criteria’s

Table 3.5: The criteria and limits to identify potentially feasible sites

Parameter Valid Range

Long term dependable annual >=0.1m3/s
Discharge
Head >=5m
In Stream Power >30kw
By using fuzzy overlay analysis of raster map of those criteria in the GIS Environment,
the hydropower potential sites which intersect or inclusive the above three criteria should
be selected. This selected suitable hydropower sites were used for further analysis.

32
3.8. PRIORITIZATION AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE
HYDROPOWER SITES BASED ON GIS BASED MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS
(GIS-MCA)
GIS-based Multi Criteria Evaluation (GIS-MCA) can be defined as a process that
integrates and transforms geographic data (map criteria) and value judgments (decision
maker’s preferences) to obtain overall assessment of the decision alternatives
(Malczewski 1999). The procedural steps of the proposed GIS-based MCA approach
entails five steps as explained below and depicted in Figure 3.8. In this study Selection of
Suitable sites for hydropower based on the given criteria were done by GIS based Multi
criteria analysis (GISMCA).

Step-1 Site selection criteria (discharge, head and in-stream power)

Step-2 Preparing criterion map

In-stream Accessibility
Discharge map Head map
power map map

Data Standardization (making the scale of each map comparable to each others)
Step-3
By using Fuzzy linear transformation method

Step-4 Multi criteria evaluation

AHP OWA AHP/ OWA

Step-5 Most Suitable site

/

Figure 3.8: Procedure for most suitable site selection

33
3.9. RANKING OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL
SITES.
The process of prioritization involves evaluation of all potential sites in the river basin for
hydropower development. It may lead to suitability order of potential sites on which to
focus further investigations directed to early construction or to ranking of all potential
sites that appear attractive for a long term program of development. The weighted value
for each ranking criteria was done by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).

The selection criteria’s are explained as follow:

Power: In stream power is the combination of head and discharge. The sites with the best
intersection of head and discharge are suitable site for hydropower plant development.
This criterion contains the effect of both discharge and head. So that it was considered as
the best site prioritization criteria.

Discharge: - The power output of the sites is highly depending on discharge. In turn
discharge depends on so many factors such as weather condition, which is very dynamic.
That is why heavy weight is given to this criterion.
Head: -The potential energy that makes the turbine to rotate while the water strikes it is
as a result of the head above the turbine. Especially in Ethiopian condition the head plays
a great role in amplifying the power. Therefore, head is taken as one of the parameters to
evaluate the rank of the sites. It does not incur much cost upon its increment when
compared with power output due to head increment. Therefore sites with high head shall
be exploited.

Accessibility: - accessibility is one of the most important criteria for project prioritization
because accessibility influences duration of study, construction period, and cost of
projects. Using these criteria the sites are prioritized using the equation (3.4)

R=a1X1+a2X2+a3X3+a4X4 3.4

Where
a= assigned value for each criteria (0 up to1)

34
X=the score attached to each criteria. It is the ratio of value of the criteria to the
maximum value of that criterion for all sites.
R= Ranking Value.

35
3.10. CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK OF THE OVERALL WORK FLOW OF THE STUDY

DEM(fill) Rainfall Data Stream flow

Data Regionalization of monthly
flow characteristics using
Data Analysis GIS and Spatial
interpolation Algorithm

Area Ratio Method

IDW
Focal statistic Data Transfer to
Parametric Duration Curve
Data Transfer to Runoff Estimator sites.
Rainfall Raster Map Factor Estimator Sites

Develop Parametric
Duration Curve
Flow accumulation function (P*A)/Stream Flow at gauge
(weighted by Rainfall Raster and Estimator sites
Map)

Develop Discharge Grid

Head (m)
Annual Rainfall Runoff Factor Raster Map for Key Percent of
Accumulation (P*A) Map Exceedance

Long-term Mean Discharge (m3/s)

Power for Design

Discharge and Firm
Discharge
Figure 3.9: Conceptual Frame work In-Stream Power

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA AVAILABILITY AND ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION
Availability of data is a necessary and crucial condition for any research work. Without
adequate data and information it is impossible to anticipate reliable result. A package of
data and information is required to come up with reliable and sensible results. Thus, data
are collected from different sources and their systematic and careful integral no doubt
leads to an organized useful result provided the researcher really has the know-how of
what he/she is going to deal with and if there are promising fertile conditions such as
getting the data in the time available. For this study, some numbers of data were collected
from different institutions. In order to achieve reasonable result for assessment of
hydropower potential sites, at least 15 to 20 years duration of stream flow and above 10
year rainfall data should be available. Some of the main data which are used to estimate
the potential of a river catchment are stream flow, rainfall and digital elevation model.
All of these and other related primary and secondary data were necessary for the study
and therefore the first step to begin the research was collection of these data from the
respective institutions. Therefore, the topographical data, meteorological data and runoff
data availability, processing and analysis will be dealt with in the following sections of
this chapter.

4.1.1. Digital elevation model

DEM is a digital cartographic/geographic dataset of elevations in xyz coordinates (USGS
2012). DEM is widely used in many applications such as geomorphology and landscape
studies, archeology, forestry and wildlife management, geological and hydrological
modeling, GIS, climate impact studies and educational programs. There are two publicly
available DEM dataset: SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) and ASTER GDEM
(Advanced Space borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer Global-DEM).
ASTER GDEM has 30 m resolution compared to 90 m resolution in SRTM DEM
(Tachikawa 2011) and is better for mountainous terrain than SRTM. So that, the Gumara
watershed is delineated using ASTER DEM and used for further analysis.

37
4.1.2. Gumara Watershed and Stream link
The process of delineating watersheds by using DEM is referred to as terrain pre-
processing (Merwade 2012). In this study, the watershed was delineated using the
"Hydrology" tool within the Spatial Analyst tools in Arc Toolbox. Stream network can be
defined from DEM using the output from Flow Accumulation function. In this study 1%
of the maximum flow accumulation was used to define the stream, which is
0.01*1343697 (13436) used as a threshold value to define the stream in the watershed.
When threshold value becomes smaller in number perennial as well as non perennial
streams was defined through the watershed. Selecting the hydropower site on non
perennial streams require the construction of dam for long term storage. But in this study
micro to small hydropower potential was assed. This much potential more of the time
addressed with the help of runoff river type of hydropower plant, which is constructed on
Perennial River to get power throughout the year. So the threshold value must amplify
the streams which flow through the year.

Figure 4.1: Gumara sub- Watershed and Stream link

38
4.2. METEOROLOGICAL DATA
4.2.1. Rainfall

The relevant data in the research area is precipitation in the form of rainfall. Monthly
precipitation data of 13 stations namely Bahirdar, Wereta, Addiszemen, Amedber,
Arbgebaye, Amebesami, Lewaye, Hamusit, Zenzelima, Mekaneyesus, Wanzaye and
Yifage have been collected from the National Meteorological services Agency of
Ethiopia from Baherdar branch. The rainfall data obtained from such nearest station to
the Gumera catchment should be taken in to consideration to develop Rainfall grid map
of the catchment. The respective distance of these rainfalls gauging station with respect to
the respective base station was obtained by using GIS from Rain gauge stations map and
authenticated by their respective coordinate system. There is an intermittent or break of
data for a short period of time or even for a particular month. Missing rainfall data with in
such gauging stations have been calculated and even also their consistency and
homogeneity was also checked. The selected meteorological stations are also presented in
Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2.

Table 4.1: Selected Meteorological Stations

Period of
Record Degree Altitude
Station
Station Name Class Years Easting Northing m

yifage 3rd 2003-2016 37.60 12.10 2020

Amebesami 3rd 2008-2016 37.625 11.700 2076

Amed Ber 3rd 1984-2015 37.886 11.914 2051

Wanzaye 3rd 2003-2015 37.631 11.758 1928

Mekaneyasus 3rd 2003-2016 38.054 11.608 2374

Baherdar 1st 1961-2016 37.360 11.680 1800

Debratabor 1st 1951-2016 37.995 11.867 2612

Lewaye 4th 2003-2016 38.072 11.720 2709

Hamusit 3rd 2003-2016 37.562 11.783 1930

39
Werata 3rd 1978-2015 37.696 11.922 1819

Addiszemen 3rd 1997-2016 37.773 12.117 1940

Arbegebaye 4th 2006-2015 37.750 11.636 2228

Zenzalim 3rd 2008-2016 37.462 11.625 1910

Source: - Information collected from Metrological Agency Bahirdar Branch.

Figure 4.2: Location of selected Rain gauge station

From the above stations Arebegebaye and Wnzaye were located within the watershed, the
other stations located around the watershed. The estimator stations for the base stations
ware selected based on their relative distance from the Base stations.

40
4.3. ESTIMATING MISSING PRECIPITATION DATA
Measured precipitation data are important to many problems in hydrologic analysis and
design. The record at many rain gauge stations may consist of short breaks due to several
reasons such as absence of the observer, instrumental failures etc. it is better to estimate
these missing records and fill the gaps rather than to leave them. This applies especially
when data is processed with automatic equipment like an electronic computer (Reddy
2005)

A number of methods have been proposed for estimating missing rainfall data. The
Arithmetic Mean Method is the simplest method. The normal-ratio method is based on
the weights on the mean annual rainfall at each gage and Distance power method is based
on the weights on distance of each estimator station from base station.

In this study the mean monthly rainfall values have been determined and the missing
monthly rainfall data have been filled using Simple Arithmetic mean, Normal Ratio
method and Distance power method.

4.3.1. Arithmetic Mean Method

If the normal annual precipitations at the adjacent stations are within 10% of the normal
rainfall of the station under consideration, then the missing rainfall data may be estimated
as a simple arithmetic average of the rainfalls at the adjacent gauges. Thus, if the missing
precipitation at station X is P𝑥 and P1 , P2 , … … … , Pn are the rainfalls at the n surrounding
stations.(Reddy 2005)

𝟏
𝐏𝒙 = (𝑷 + 𝑷𝟐 +. . . 𝑷𝒏 ) 𝟒. 𝟏
𝐧 𝟏

Usually the data from three surrounding gauges will give good results.

4.3.2. Normal - Ratio Method

If the normal annual rainfalls at the surrounding gauging stations differ from the normal
annual rainfall of the station in question by more than 10%, the normal ratio method is
preferred. In this method, the rainfall values at the surrounding stations are weighted by
the ratio of the normal annual rainfalls. The general formula for computing 𝑃𝑥 is:

41
 𝟏 𝐍𝐱 𝐍𝐱 𝐍𝐱
𝐏𝐱 = [ 𝐏𝟏 + 𝐩𝟐 + ⋯ 𝐏 ] 𝟒. 𝟐
𝐦 𝐍𝟏 𝐍𝟐 𝐍𝐦 𝐦

Where:Nx is the normal annual rainfall at station X and N1 , N2 , … … , Nm , are the normal
annual rainfalls at the m surrounding stations respectively. A minimum of three
surrounding stations are generally used in the normal ratio method (Reddy 2005)

4.3.3. Distance power method

The rainfall at a station is estimated as a weighted average of the observed rainfall at the
neighboring stations. The weights are equal to the reciprocal of the distance or some
power of the reciprocal of the distance of the estimator stations from the estimated
stations. Let Di be the distance of the estimator station from the estimated station. If the
weights are an inverse square of distance, the estimated rainfall at station A is:

∑𝐧
𝐢=𝟏 𝐏𝐢/𝐃𝐢
𝟐
PA = ∑𝐧 𝟐 4.3
𝐢=𝟏 𝟏/𝐃𝐢

Note that the weights go on reducing with distance and approach zero at large distances.
A major shortcoming of this method is that the orographic features and spatial
distribution of the variables are not considered. The extra information, if stations are
close to each other, is not properly used. The distance of each estimator station from the
estimated station whose data is to be estimated is computed with the help of the
coordinates using the formula:

Di2 =[(𝐱 − 𝐱𝐢)𝟐 + (𝐲 − 𝐲𝐢)𝟐 ] 4.4

Both the mean monthly rainfall values and the summarized annual rainfall values in mm
are given in Appendix – IIB. The graphs showing the monthly and yearly variability of
rainfall at Bahirdar, which have longest series of data and Lewaye, which is the closer
station to the watershed are given below. For other stations, the graphs are attached in
Appendix – IIB.

42
 Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Baherdar Station
450.0
400.0
350.0
Rainfall in mm 300.0
250.0 mean monthly
200.0 variability of
150.0 Rainfall at Bahedar
100.0
50.0
0.0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
months

Figure 4.3: Mean monthly Rainfall at Bahirdar station

Yearly Variability of Rainfall for Bahirdar Station

2000.0

1500.0
Rainfall in mm

1000.0

yearly variability of
500.0
Rainfall

0.0
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Years

Figure 4.4: Annual Rainfall at Bahirdar station

Mean monthly Rainfall variability for Lewaye

400.0
350.0
Rainfall in mm

300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0 Mean monthly
50.0 Rainfall of Lewaye
0.0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
months

Figure 4.5: Mean monthly rainfall for lewaye station.

43
 Annual average variability of Rainfall for Lewaye Station
1800.0
1600.0
Rainfall mm 1400.0
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
Annual average
600.0 variability of Rainfall
400.0 at Lewaye
200.0
0.0
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Year

Figure 4.6: Annual average Rainfall for Lewaye station

The figures given above indicate that the rainfall characteristics are a bimodal rainfall
pattern. The main rainy season among the above given stations are from July to
September while the second rainy season is from March to May and from October to
November.

4.4. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

A double mass curve technique is used to test the consistency and accuracy of rainfall
records at all stations. It is used to check the consistency of many kinds of hydrologic
data by comparing data for a single station with that of a pattern composed of the data
from several other stations in the area. The double-mass curve can be used to adjust
inconsistent precipitation data. In hydrologic studies, the use of the cumulations of two
measured variables plotted as a double-mass curve may give indefinite results because we
may be unable to say which of the variables caused a break in slope. The pattern, which
is composed of the average of many records, is less affected by an inconsistency in the
record of any one station. After constructing the double mass curve, it was found that
there is no inconsistency observed for all stations. The Double Mass Curve for Lewaye
(M/eyasus and D/tabor as Base station), D/tabor (Lewaye and Amedber) as a Base
station) and Wnzaye (Hamusit, Werata and A/gebaye are base station), which are the
nearest Rain gauge station for Gumera Watershed, were shown below. The double Mass
Curves for the rest of stations were plotted in Appendix III.

44
 Double mass curve for Lewaye station
25000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall for
20000 R² = 0.9974

15000
lewaye in( mm)

10000 Double Mass curve

for Lewaye
5000
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Cummulative annual Rainfall for pattern(Base stations in mm)

Figure 4.7: Double Mass Curve plot for Lewaye Station

25000
Double mass Curve for Debratabor Station
Cummulative Annual Rainfall

20000 R² = 0.9993
D/tabor station in mm

15000
10000
Double Mass Curve for
5000 D/tabor station
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Cummulative annual Rainfall for pattern(Base station)in mm

Figure 4.8: Double Mass curve for D/tabor station

Double mass curve for Wanzaye Station

25000.000
cummulative annual rainfall for

20000.000 R² = 0.9977
Wanzaye in mm

15000.000

10000.000
Double Mass Curve
5000.000 for Wanzaye

0.000
0.000 5000.000 10000.000 15000.000 20000.000 25000.000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall for Base stationns(mm)

Figure 4.9: Double mass Curve for Wanzaye Station

45
 4.5. HOMOGENEITY CHECKING FOR RAINFALL STATIONS
Checking homogeneity of group stations is essential. The homogeneity of the selected
base gauging stations average monthly rainfall records were made to be non-dimensional
using equation.

𝑷𝒊
𝑷𝒊′ = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% 𝟒. 𝟓
𝑷𝒋

Where: -𝑃𝑖 ′ - Non - dimensional value of rainfall for month i

𝑃𝑖 - Over years - averaged monthly rainfall at the station i

𝑃𝑗 - The over year - averaged yearly rainfall of the station

4
Homogeneity Test
Non dimensionalized

3.5
3
2.5
Rainfall

Lewaye
2
1.5
D/tabor
1
0.5
0 M/eyasus
0 5 10 15
month

Figure 4.10: Homogeneity Test for Lewaye’s Base Station

Homogeneity Test
4
3.5
Non dimensionalized Rainfall

3
2.5 A/gebaye
2 M/eyasus
1.5 Lewaye
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15
month

Figure 4.11: Homogeneity Test for M/eyasus’s Base Station

46
 Homoginity Test
4
3.5
Nondimentionlized Rainfall

3
2.5 Wanzaye
2 Werata
1.5
Ambesame
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0 5 10 15
Month

Figure 4.12: Homogeneity Test for Wanzaye’s Base Station

As shown in the above figure there is extreme homogeneous nature between the
Estimator station of Lewaye (M/eyasus and D/tabor) and Lewaye , Estimator station of
M/eyasus(Lewaye and A/gebaye) and M/eyasus as well as Estimator station of Wanzaye
(Hamusit,Werata,Ambesami) and Wanzaye. The Homogeneity natures of the other
stations are attached in Appendix IV.

4.6. STREAM FLOW DATA

Stream flow data is one of the most important and predominant data for hydropower
potential analysis of the Gumera river basin. Stream flow records are among the most
valuable of all hydrologic data because they represent an integration of all hydrologic
factors. Furthermore, the flow of streams is a sensitive indicator of climatic variations,
because runoff is the residual of precipitation after the demands for evapotranspiration
are satisfied. With evapotranspiration losses fairly constant from year to year in a given
area, variations in annual runoff are much greater in percentage than variations in annual
precipitation. In this study monthly stream flow data of Gumera river basin for 40 years
was recorded from the Gumara gauging station. From the total order of data, 33 in
number or 7.05% of data were missed. Therefore, to fill missed data a simple Arithmetic
average method from its data set is applied. The filled stream flow data of Gumara was
Attached in appendix v

47
4.6.1. Checking consistence and homogeneity of stream flow data
Before the data was used as an input for any types of process, its consistency and
homogeneity must be checked. To detect the presence of inconsistencies or non –
homogeneities in Gumera river flow data , split record tests on Variances and Means are
applied (from the total order of 40 yearly observational data, in one group 20 number of
data set and in the next group 20 number of data set were prepared for checking stability
of variance and mean). Among different test types, simple but efficient procedures for
screening the data in annual time series are selected. These are F-test for stability of
Variances, t-test for stability of Means and Spearman`s rank correlation test for indicating
absence of trends.

4.6.2. Test for absence of trend by using plotting the data and spearman`s rank
correlation method
To authenticate the absence of trend or discontinuity of the given time series stream flow
data of Gumera river basin, plotting average annual stream flow data with respect to
duration at which the flow occurred.
A).plotting the time series data

Trend Analysis of Gumara Stream Flow datta series

70.000

60.000
mean monthly flow(m3/s)

50.000

40.000

30.000
Gumara
20.000 Stream Flow
Trend Analysis
10.000

0.000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

Figure 4.13: Gumera river stream flow trend analysis graph

48
The figure shows, Gumera river Annual average stream flow data for 40 year time series,
has some discontinuities or trends. This is due to the value of mean monthly rainfall
between (1997-2001) was out layer in some extent. But this out layer is due to the fact
that, there is a vagary of environment to some extent (from the office of Abay Basin
Authority Bahirdar Branch). Despite the fact that there is an out layer to some extent, the
recorded data taken as it is without adjustment, because the change is due to vagary of
environment.
b) Spearman`s Rank-correlation coefficient Method
The Spearman`s Rank-correlation coefficient, Rsp is expressed as:

𝟔∗∑𝒏
𝒊=𝟏 𝑫𝒊^𝟐
RSP = 1- 4.5
𝒏∗(𝒏𝟐 −𝟏)

Where n is the total number of data, D is difference, and i is the chronological order
number. The difference between rankings is computed as:
Di =Kx – Ky 4.6
Where Kx, is the rank of the variable, x, which is the chronological order number of the
observations. The series of observations, y, is transformed to its rank equivalent, Ky, by
assigning the chronological order number of an observation in the original series to the
corresponding order number in the ranked series, y.

𝒏−𝟐
Tt = RSP* 4.7
𝟏−𝐑𝐬𝐩^𝟐

Where has Student’s t-distribution with v = n-2 degrees of freedom. Student’s t-

distribution is symmetrical around t = O. Appendix IX contains a table of the percentile
points of the t-distribution for a significance level of 5 per cent (two-tailed). At a
significance level of 5 percent (two-tailed), the time series has no trend if:

t{𝒗, 𝟐. 𝟓%} < tt < t{𝒗, 𝟗𝟕. 𝟓%} 4.8

The table which show the computation procedure of Spearman`s Rank-correlation
coefficient Method for checking the trend of long term Stream flow data was attached in
appendix IB

49
The table of percentile points for the t-distribution (Appendix IX) gives the critical
Values at the 5-percent level of significance for 40 - 2 = 38 degrees of freedom as:
Table 4.2: percentile points for t-distribution

t {(v,2.5%)} tt t {(v,97.5%)}
-2.02 0.314 2.02

When checking this result against the permissible Range in Equation 4.8, the condition is
satisfied. Thus, the time series doesn't have trend. Therefore, it is possible to use the data
for further analysis.

4.6.3. Checking the stability of Mean

a) Checking the stability of Mean using F-test
The Fisher Distribution, F-test is the statistical test which is analyzed the ratio of the
Variance two split, non-over lapping, sub-sets of the time series. In order to carry over
the F-test, the River flow time series are grouped (split) in to two non-over lapping sub-
sets i.e. 1 - 20 and 21 – 40.
The Fisher Distribution test statistically expressed as:

𝐒𝟏𝟐
Ft =𝐒𝟐𝟐 4.9

Where S2 is variance and its convenient formula for computing the sample Standard
deviation, S is expressed as follow:-

0.5
∑𝒏
𝒊=𝟏 (𝑿𝒊−𝑿 )^ 𝟐
S= 4.10
𝒏−𝟏

Where, X i is the observation, n is is the total number of data in the sample, and X is the
mean of the data. The null hypothesis for the test, Ho: S12 = S22 is the equality of the
variance; the alternate hypothesis is H1: S12< > S22.

The variance of the time series is stable, and one can use the sample standard deviation, s,
as an estimate of the population standard deviation if;
F V1, V2, 2.5% < Ft < V1, V2, 97.5

50
Where V1 = n1-1, is the number of degree of freedom for the nominator.
V2 = n2-1, is the number of degree of freedom for the denominator. n1 and n2 are the
number of data in each sub-set. The F-distribution is not symmetrical for v1 and v2. One
should therefore enter Tables properly, usually by taking v1 horizontally and v2 vertically.
(See Appendix XV for a table of the F-distribution F{V1, V2, P } for the 5-per-cent level of
significance (two- tailed).
b) Checking the Stability of Mean by using t-test
In order to compute the t-test for the Mean stability, the same sub-sets from F-test (for
stability of variance test) are used. A suitable statistic for testing the null hypothesis,
HO; X1 = X2., Against the alternative hypothesis, H1; X1 < > X2.

𝐗𝟏− 𝐗𝟐
tt= (𝒏𝟏−𝟏)𝒔𝟏𝟐+(𝒏𝟐− 4.11
𝟏 )𝒔𝟐^𝟐∗( 𝟏 + 𝟏
𝒏𝟏+𝒏𝟐−𝟐 𝒏𝟏 𝒏𝟐)

Where, n is the number of the subset, x is the mean of the subset and s is the variance.
The Mean of the time series is considered stable if:
t {v,2.5%} < tt < t{v,97.5%}
The computation of stability of Variance, Ft and stability of Mean, t t, by using the same
two sub-sets of Gumera River Mean monthly stream flow data is attached in appendix V.
Fisher test Computation with referring tables of appendix IX.
Table 4.3: percentile points for F-test

F {v1,V2, 2.5%} 0.406

F {v1,V2,97.5%} 2.46

The result of variance stability and Mean stability analysis shows that, Ft and tt values are
being within the permissible stable range. So that the variance and mean of the time
series stream flow data of Gumera river basin have been stable at 5% significance level.
Based on the consistency and homogeneity analysis were preformed in the above, the
data has been Consistence and Homogeneous. So that, it is possible to utilize stream flow
data for further studies of hydropower potential assessment on Gumara River basin.

51
4.7. FLOW DATA ANALYSIS

4.7.1. Transfer data to Runoff Factor estimator sites

Even though hydrometric stations are available in a river basin, usually it is not common
for these gauges to be located precisely at rivers confluence and site of interest. The most
recommended guideline to transfer stream flow data to the point of interest is to use area
ratio methods described by equation 4.11. This method uses the drainage areas to
interpolate flow values between or near gauged sites on the same stream. Flow values are
transferred from a gauged site, either upstream or downstream to the un gauged site
(Admasu 2000)
𝐧
𝐀𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞
𝐐𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 = 𝐐𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 ∗( ) 𝟒. 𝟏𝟐
𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞

Where:Q ungauge  Discharge at the Site of Interest

Q gauge  Discharge at the gauge site

AUngauge Drainage area at the site of interest
Agauge  Drainage area at the gauging site

nVaries between 0.6 – 1.2

If the un gauged Area is within 20% of the gauge Area (0.8 ≤ (Agauge/Aungauge) ≤ 1.2) then
(n=1) to be used. The estimated discharge at the site will be within 10% of actual
discharge(Awulachew 2007). When un gauged A is within 50% of the gauge A, two
station data are considered for data transferring. Relation can be developed to estimate a
weighted average flow at a site lying between upstream and downstream gauges.

𝐐𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 ∗ (𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞𝟏 − 𝐀𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 ) + (𝐀𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 − 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞𝟐) ∗ 𝐐𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞𝟐

𝐐𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 = 𝟒. 𝟏𝟑
(𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞𝟏 − 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞𝟐 )

Where: - Gauge1 upstream gauging site and gauge2 downstream gauging site.

When the site of interest is more than 50% of the area of gauge, estimate the value of n
from annual flow data in the basin. The ratio of average annual discharge at the site
(estimated) and at gauge (recorded) can be used to transform the flow duration curve
from gauge to the site of interest. The stream flow data of Gumara river basin at Gauged

52
station transferred to the un Gauge (Runoff Factor and Parametric duration curve
estimator sites) was done by area ratio method for those sites suitable for area ratio
method and by Regionalization of monthly flow characteristics using GIS and Spatial
Interpolation Algorithm for those sites deviate from the requirements of area ratio
method. Runoff factor estimator Site number 2, 4, 7 & gauge station are also used as
parametric duration curve estimator sites. Estimator sites for development of
representative Runoff factor and parametric duration curve equation was selected based
on the criteria of area ratio method and have relatively the same land use, soil type, main
stream slope, topography, morphology and Drainage area and even also projected along
the same stream line. The drainage area ratio between the gauged site and the estimated
sites for Runoff Factor are 1.015, 1.017, 1.026, 1.042, 1.049, 1.15, and 1.18 respectively
from the downstream to upstream in the Gumara watershed. Most of these sites found at
the downstream side of Gumara watershed in order to detect the effect of whole
watershed Runoff Formation factors upstream of estimator points. This estimator points
lay on relatively lower elevation of Gumara watershed. Due to this reason it is batter to
analysis the runoff formation factors, which relate rainfall and runoff of among part of
the watershed in the upstream side was detected through these points. The distance
between the gauged station and the last estimated site (estimator station -7) is 25.6km
following the natural River structure. The distance between the estimated stations
arranged according to the topography of the watershed. More distance was given for
those sites, which have drainage area similar to the topography of drainage area of
gauging station. The topography of Gumara is extremely flat at the downstream side of
the watershed. So that the drainage area ratio of gauged site to estimated sites, which are
lay on 25 km River stretch starting from the outlet, are in between 0.8 and 1.2 or within
20% of the gauge station. This implies that the drainage area difference of extremely flat
surface is not that much huge within a considerable distance. Figure 20 and table 10
shows the location of the outlet as well as Runoff factor estimator sites on the Gumara
watershed.

53
Table 4.4: Location of Outlet and Runoff Factor Estimator Sites of Gumara River
Basin

UTM Altitude

Station Name Easting Northing m

Gumara outlet 4202122.137 1314140.742 1796

Estimator site_1 37.6417 11.8148 1797

Estimator site_2 37.6487 11.8020 1798

Estimator site_3 37.6588 11.7978 1801

Estimator site_4 37.6791 11.7877 1808

Estimator site_5 37.6955 11.7887 1827

Estimator site_6 37.7104 11.7795 1878

Estimator site_7 37.7483 11.8062 1881

Figure 4.14: Gumara watershed of runoff factor estimator sites

The stream flow data for runoff factor estimator sites was attached in appendix V.

54
4.8. DEVELOP FLOW DURATION CURVE FOR GAGE SITE
Flow duration curve is used to relate flow rate with duration. The discharge Q p or more
will be available for p percent of the time of the total data period. Thus Qmin = Q100
would be that discharge available for 100 percent of the time. Perennial streams would
show a finite value for Q100, while intermittent stream would show zero ordinates
corresponding to the duration for which they are non flowing (Dandkar and Sharma
1997). The number of monthly flow values for Gumara stream flow data series greater
than or equal to the upper limit of specified category was calculated. This value was
divided by the total number of flows to find the percent of monthly flows greater than or
equal to the highest flow in that category. A flow duration calculation for Gumera River
basin is shown in appendix VI. A graph is made by plotting the exceedance percentage
versus the value for the upper limit flow in each category. This graph is the flow duration
curve. Figure 4.15 shows a typical flow duration curve for the Gumara River basin at
gauged site. Note that the duration curve is normally plotted on a semi-log axis system.
This is done because of the large variability between the high and low flows in the
streams and to help straighten the flow duration curve for easier interpolation between
values. This procedure was repeated for each of the hydropower sites or parametric
duration curve estimator sites in Gumera. Flow duration curve for Runoff factor and
Parametric Duration Curve estimator sites was attached in appendix VII.

Gumera River flow duration curve at gauge site

300
monthly flow (m3/s)

250
200
150 Gumera River flow
duration curve
100
50
0
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000
percent of time flow equaled or exceeded

Figure 4.15: flow duration curve for Gumera River at gauge station.

55
 CHAPTER FIVE
GIS BASED RASTER GRID VALUE DEVELOPMENT OF
DISCHARGE TO ESTABLISH PARAMETRIC DURATION CURVE

5.1. PREDICTION OF DURATION CURVES AT UN GAUGED SITES

In this section the application of a technique to predict duration curves at ungauged sites
in Gumara river basin was performed. Many of the potential hydropower sites in Gumara
are not located at or near stream gage location. Almost all sites located upstream from
gauged station. The method that was applied involved the development of parametric
curves of flow versus average annual flow for chosen specific exceedance percents. This
method was originally developed by the co-investigator in a study of hydropower
potential in the Pacific Northwest (Gladwell, et al, 1979). The method was applied to all
of the streams in Idaho to assist in determining the hydropower potential for that state.
The first step in applying the method was to take the flow values for the key exceedance
percentages of Q95, Q30, Q40, Q50, and consider Q30, Q40 and Q50 from each of the duration
curves developed for the gauged station and the corresponding Runoff factor and
parametric duration curve estimator sites. These exceedance values were chosen because
these percentages are important in the sizing of hydropower plants. The long-term
average monthly flow was computed for each site. The values of Q vs long-term
Average monthly Flow were plotted for each exceedance value at each site and a best fit
curve, which is linear trend line, was matched to the data set recorded in Gumara River
Basin. The best fit equations are shown at the end of the curves for each exceedance
percentage. Although there were limited number of data points the high R 2 values
indicates a very good fit to the data by the prediction equations. These equations were
used later to predict actual flows at ungauged sites or stream reaches.

5.2. PREDICT AVERAGE FLOW AT UN GAUGED POINTS ON STREAMS

In this phase, predict average flows at ungauged points on Gumera river basin. The
technique called for the development of grid based maps of elevations and average
annual rainfall and then applying various GIS Watershed functions available in the

56
computer program Arc Map. The end product was a grid based map of average annual
flow in the streams. Following is a detailed explanation of this process.

5.2.1. Development of an average rainfall grid

The raster map of elevation with resolution of 30m by 30m digital elevation model (the
data obtained from Abay basin Authority of Bahir dar branch) and flow accumulation
maps are an input for development of an average Rainfall Grid. Rainfall grid map is the
map that represents the average annual rainfall amount falling into each grid cell. In this
section the average annual Rainfall for 13 Rain gauge stations within and around the
Gumara watershed were collected. In this study 14 year monthly rainfall data was
collected from Ethiopian Metrological Agency of Bahir dar branch. The Annual Average
Rainfall from this point Rain gauge stations were used to develop Rainfall Grid map of
Gumara Watershed through Inverse Distance Weight (IDW) surface interpolation
method.The resulting raster map is shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Rainfall Raster Map of Gumara Watershed

5.2.2. Combining the flow direction and rainfall grid
In this section combine the flow direction raster and the average annual rainfall raster.
The result was a raster map that shows the total amount of rainfall accumulating in each

57
cell each year. To accomplish this step the "Accumulation" Spatial Analyst function was
applied. The rainfall raster map of Gumara watershed was used as the input weight raster
in the "Accumulation" function. In this manner the spatial analyst sums up the total
accumulation of rainfall traveling down gradient through the Gumera stream systems.
Proper conversions factor are applied to the raster map so that the resulting values come
out in units of cubic meter per second (cms) average annual flow of Gumara River basin.

Figure 5.2: Discharge Output of Each cell in Gumara Watershed without loss

Figure 5.3: Rainfall accumulation Raster near Gumara stream flow gauging station

58
When developing Rainfall accumulation grid in the above way, loss in the hydrologic
system was not consider. This value is sometimes referred to as the Precipitation Area
product as it is the product of the average annual precipitation in a watershed times the
area of the watershed. Figure 5.2 shows the results of this final accumulation. Figure 5.3
shows the same map expanded on an area near the location of the Gumara gauging
station. The cell nearest the gage site has a value 53.23m3/s. Table 5.1 shows the
Precipitation Area (PxA) or rainfall accumulations for the gauge station and Runoff
factor estimator sites. A Runoff Factor (RO) is computed for each station. This factor is
the ratio of the average annual flow at the station to the average annual rainfall
accumulation.

Figure 5.4: Runoff Factor estimator sites and Rainfall Accumulation grid

Table 5.1: Average runoff and Precipitation Area products (average rainfall
accumulation) for Gumara stream.

AVG flow [𝑷 ∗ 𝑨] Drainage RO Factor

station (m3/s) (m3/s) Area
(km2)
Gauging station 33.997 53.226 1280 0.639
Estimator Station_1 33.492 52.913 1261 0.633

59
Estimator Station_2 33.412 52.791 1258 0.633
Estimator Station _3 33.120 52.272 1247 0.634
Estimator Station _4 32.615 51.416 1228 0.634
Estimator Station_5 32.403 51.066 1220 0.635
Estimator Station _6 29.481 46.246 1110 0.637
Estimator Station _7 28.764 45.085 1083 0.638
Average Runoff 0.635
Factor

The total annual runoff coefficients ranged between 0.23 and 0.81in 2012 in the Lake
Tana basin (Ethiopia) (Meketa et al. 2012).The runoff coefficient obtained through this
process(0.635) is within the above recommended range.
This factor was applied to the rainfall accumulation map that was developed previously
to predict the average flow at the ungauged sites. In the figure 5.5 plotted the rainfall
accumulation or Precipitation Area product versus the computed runoff factor for the
stream flow gage station and Runoff Factor estimator sites of Gumara watershed to get an
equation, which represent relation between Rainfall accumulation and Runoff factor of
the Watershed. Polynomial curve fits the data set better than other trend line curves. It
represents the data with an R2 of 0.974. The Figure shown below, represent the equation
of the polynomial curve, which represents the given dataset. Then apply this equation to
the rainfall accumulation map using the grid "Map Algebra" functions available in the
Spatial Analyst. This result is a map of runoff factors for the Gumara watershed. Multiply
this map by the rainfall accumulation map, the results is an average annual flow map for
streams on the Gumara watershed. Figure 5.6 shows the average annual flow grid for the
area near the Gumara River gage station. The pixel value of estimated average annual
flow at the gauge station of Gumara river basin is 33.73m3/s. This is very close to the
actual average annual flow measured at the outlet site of Gumara watershed of 33.99m3/s.

60
 Rainfall Accumulation Vs Runoff Factor
0.639

0.638

0.637

Rainfall Accumulation Vs
Runoff Factor

0.636
Runoff Factor

0.635
Poly. (Rainfall
Accumulation Vs Runoff
Factor)
0.634

y = -6E-06x2 - 7E-06x + 0.651

0.633 R² = 0.9746

0.632
44 46 48 50 52 54
Rainfall Accumulation

Figure 5.5: Rainfall Accumulation Vs Runoff Factor.

Figure 5.6: Runoff Factor Map

61
Figure 5.7: Average Flow Grid near the area of Gumara river gauge station

5.3. DEVELOPMENT OF PARAMETRIC DURATION CURVE AND

DISCHARGE GRID MAP FOR KEY PERCENT OF EXCEEDANCE
To develop parametric duration curve for Gumara Watershed for the corresponding Key
percent of exceedance, which is used for sizing of the hydropower plant, estimator sites
should be required. This estimator sites must be selected based on discharge grid value
distribution throughout the longitudinal river reach in order to develop representative
parametric duration curve. In this study seven (7) representative sites selected from
different discharge ranging scale (for instance one cell (pixel value of cell) was selected
which represent the discharge pixel value from 10-20m3/s). Most of the parametric
duration curve estimator sites extremely far away from the gauge station. Due to this
reason their drainage area size, main stream line slope, topographical condition differ in
some extent to that of the drainage area of gauging station. So that, stream flow transfer
from gauge site to those parametric duration curve estimator sites, which is deviate from
the requirement of drainage area ratio method was done by Regionalization of monthly
flow characteristics using GIS and Spatial Interpolation Algorithm.

62
5.3.1. Application of Regionalization of monthly flow characteristics using GIS and
Spatial Interpolation Algorithm on Gumara watershed.
The information of daily and monthly flow is essential for the development of water
supply system, water resources objective planning, determining of water quantity that can
maintain stream flow and reservoir storage, planning for water quality and environmental
conservation. Hence, getting daily and mean monthly information at ungauged site is
very important in the view of the above purposes. In the regionalization technique,
multiple linear regression, flow duration curve, and spatial interpolation algorithm
(Hughes and Smakhtin 1996) is used for computing daily and Monthly flow time series at
un gauged site. GIS is used for computation of the parameter values of multiple linear
regressions. In this study, the regionalization technique is also applied to the Gumara
river basin in Gumara at the gauge station by assuming the flow is ungauge to visualize
the reliability and its effectiveness to transfer stream flow data for other site of interest.

5.3.1.1. The flow duration curve

The flow duration curve (FDC) is the curve that shows the relation between time excess
probability and discharge corresponding to the probability. The flow duration curve is
usually used for the assessment of the available quantity of water that can maintain the
stream flow or reservoir storage and variability of the water quantity. The procedure how
to construct the flow duration curve was expressed in the previous section.

5.3.1.2. Multiple Linear Regression

In the Spatial Interpolation Algorithm (Hughes and Smakhtin 1996), the daily flow time
series and flow duration curves are normalized so that we get rid of the impacts of
specific site’s characteristics. Hence, the flow time series values that computed at the un
gauged site are also normalized, and the values must be multiplied by the long-term mean
daily flow value to give the characteristics of the unguaged site. The long-term mean
daily and monthly flow value can be computed as following (Smakhtin et al. 1997). ;

lnQmean = -α +β lnA+ γ lnMAP 5.1

Where, Qmean is long-term mean daily or monthly flow (cfs), A is drainage area (sqmi),
MAP is Mean Annual

63
Precipitation (in). In this study, GIS is used to compute the characteristics value- drainage
area, mean annual precipitation at ungauged site.

5.3.1.3. Spatial Interpolation Algorithm

Spatial Interpolation Algorithm (Hughes and Smakhtin 1996) is developed to generate
the flow time series that are timely coincident with the source site. The relationship
between the time excess probability values and discharge values of each source site and
destination site are like following:

𝐥𝐧(𝒀𝒊)−𝐥𝐧(𝒀𝒊−𝟏)
Ln(y) = ln(yi-1) + *(x-xi-1) 5.2
𝑿𝒊−𝑿𝒊−𝟏

𝐥𝐧(𝒀𝒊′)−𝐥𝐧 (𝒀𝒊−𝟏′)
Ln(y’)= ln(yi-1’) + *(x-xi-1’) 5.3
𝑿𝒊′−𝑿𝒊−𝟏′

𝐥𝐧(𝒀𝒊′)−𝐥𝐧(𝒀𝒊−𝟏′)
X=Xi-1 + *(x-xi-1’) 5.4
𝑿𝒊′−𝑿𝒊−𝟏′

𝐥𝐧(𝒀𝒊′)−𝐥𝐧(𝒀𝒊−𝟏′)
Y’=exp (ln(yi-1’)+ *(x-xi-1’) 5.5
𝑿𝒊′−𝑿𝒊−𝟏′

Where x is time excess probability corresponding to y (discharge at FDC of source site)

y is the discharge of source site
y’ is discharge of destination site
xi is 0.01, 0.1, 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95, 99, 99.9, 99.99 % value of time
excess probability(I=1~17)

5.3.2. The Object Basin and Parametric Duration Curve Estimator sites
The object basin is the Gumara River basin that locates in Gumara. The watershed area is
1280.73km2(494.479 sqmi), the river length is132.5km (82.3 mile) and the annual rainfall
is 1342.15mm (52.841in).the drainage area and mean annual rainfall of parametric
duration curve estimator sites was shown in the table 5.2; the drainage area of gauge
station as well as the estimator sites was computed in the GIS Environment.MAP value
of each site was computed considering of weighting factor of drainage area at each site.
This was done by using Thiessen Polygo method in the GIS proximity function. The long

64
term mean monthly stream flow of each site was determine from the above Average flow
grid map in figure 5.7. The location of parametric duration curve estimator sites and
Gumara gauging station was shown in figure 5.8.

Figure 5.8: Parametric Duration Curve Estimator sites.

Table 5.2: MAP long-term mean monthly flow for parametric Duration Curve
estimator Sites.

Site Name Drainage Latitu Longit Duration of- Long Term Mean
Area(sqmi) -de -ude Data Mean Annual
monthly- Precipitat
flow(ft3/s) -ion
(in)
Gauge station 494.48 37.64 11.83 1978-2016 1159.53 52.84

Estimator station_1 485.71 37.65 11.80 1978-2016 1141.35 52.77

Estimator station_2 474.13 37.68 11.79 1978-2016 1113.14 52.63

65
Estimator station_3 418.15 37.75 11.81 1978-2016 981.80 52.21

Estimator station_4 227.10 37.79 11.79 1978-2016 555.60 57.18

Estimator station_5 131.39 37.89 11.76 1978-2016 323.33 57.09

Estimator station_6 78.48 37.98 11.78 1978-2016 194.41 57.03

Estimator station_7 9.75 38.11 11.72 1978-2016 23.84 56.43

5.3.3. The result of Multiple Linear Regression

The independent variables of multiple linear regressions are Mean Annual Precipitation
and Drainage Basin Area. Once the value of independent variables (MAP, Drainage area)
at each parametric Duration Curve estimator sites, was determine, the equation of
multiple linear regression was computed like
lnQmean = -1.2512 +0.99878 ln (A)+ 0.53326ln (MAP) 5.6
2
Where, R (Coefficient of Determination) = 0.99, SSE (Sum of Square Error)=0.00511
The coefficient of determination is the criteria of consonance between the real value and
the regressed value. The sum of square error is the criteria of differences between the line
of regression and the real values. The coefficient of determination and sum of square
error of the result shows the regressed value is very satisfactory.
Because the site Gumara was assumed to be ungauged, the drainage basin area at the
Gumara was computed and the respective Mean Annual precipitation of the watershed
was determine from the point rain gauge station within and around the watershed through
Thiessen Polygon method in proximity function of GIS. This is very important to
visualize the effectiveness of this method to transfer the stream flow data for other un
gauged sites. Now, we know the two independent variables at Parametric Duration curve
estimator sites; the long-term mean monthly flow was computed using eq. (5.6). <Table
5.3> shows the result of computing long term mean monthly flow at site Gumara.

66
Table 5.3: MAP long-term mean monthly flow for Gumara Gauging station Sites.

site Drainage Mean Annual Mean Long term Long term

Area(sqmi) Precipitation(in) Annual Mean Mean
Precipitation monthly Monthly
flow(ft3/s) flow(m3/s)
Gumara
gauge 494.479 52.841 1342.16 7.060328
32.984
station

5.3.4. Computing Flow Duration curve at the Gumara gauging Station.

The flow duration curve (FDC) was computed at Gumara outlet point by averaging FDCs
of another 7 sites. <Fig.5.9> shows the comparison between the observed and computed
FDC at the Gumara outlet. As shown from the graph there is no significance difference
between the observed and simulated FDCs. so that, the simulated FDC were decided as
the FDC of destination site.

Comparision between observed and simulated flow duration

300 curve

250

200
Discharge(m3/s)

150

100

50

0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
time excess probability
Gmara River Flow Duration Curve at Gauge ststion
Gumara river simulated flow duration curve

Figure 5.9: observed and simulated flow duration curve comparison

67
The relation between the observed and simulated FDCS implies that, the application of
this method to transfer data from the gauge station and those stations estimated by area
ratio method was satisfactory. The stream flow data for parametric duration curve
estimator sites, which are not satisfy the requirement of drainage area ratio method was
done by Regionalization of monthly flow characteristics using GIS and Spatial
Interpolation Algorithm. To construct the parametric duration curve for the Gumara
watershed based on flow for the key percent of exceedance and mean annual flow of each
site ,it should be necessary to compute the corresponding magnitude of discharge of those
key percent of exceedance from the FDCs of each site by the spatial interpolation
algorithm equation given in (5.2&5.3) ;the key percent of exceedance of gauged site with
the corresponding quantile of discharge computed by spatial interpolation algorithm was
shown in table 5.4 .The simulated flow duration curve and the quantile of discharge for
the key percent of exceedance by the method of spatial interpolation algorithm for
estimator sites of Gumara River basin were shown in appendix VII.
Table 5.4: Key percent of Exceedance with the corresponding discharge quantile

Q(40)
Q(30)
b Ln(Yi-1) 2.30
b ln(Yi-1) 3.22
c (Ln(Yi)-Ln(Yi-1)) 0.41
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.182
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -6.04
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -1.67
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.29
e (X-(Xi-1)) -1.042
f c/d -0.07
f c/d -0.11
g Exp(b+f*e) 2.46 11.66
g Exp(b+f*e) 3.33 28.02

Q(10)
Q(50)
b ln(Yi-1) 4.74
b ln(Yi-1) 1.61
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.043
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -0.625
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -11.667

68
 e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.208
e (x-(Xi-1)) -3.96
f c/d -0.07
f c/d -0.06
g Exp(b+f*e) 4.76 116.64
g EXP(b+f*e) 1.84 6.33

Q(0) 260

Q(80) Q(90)
b ln(Yi-1) 0 b ln(Yi-1) -0.69
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69 c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -11.875 d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -10.0
e (x-(Xi-1)) -5.000 e (x-(Xi-1)) -5.0
f c/d -0.06 f c/d -0.069
g=a Exp(b+f*e) 0.29 1.34 g Exp(b+f*e) -0.35 0.71

The long-term mean monthly flow was computed for each site. The values of Q (the
discharge quantil of key percent of exceedance) vs long-term mean monthly Flow was
plotted for each exceedance value at each site. This is so called parametric duration curve
of the Gumara watershed for the corresponding key percent of exccedanec. The discharge
and long-term mean monthly flow at each site for Q30 was shown in table 5.5: the
discharge and long-term mean monthly flow for other probability of exceedance for
parametric duration curve Estimator sites was shown in appendix VII. Figure 5.10 show
parametric flow duration curve of Gumara Watershed.

Table 5.5: Average annual flow with Q30

Long Term Mean

Station_Name Q30 monthly flow(m3/s)
site_7 0.55536769 0.677
site_6 4.721703954 5.464
site_5 7.502097165 9.149
site_4 13.70755093 15.815
site_3 24.1563201 28.764
site_2 27.38612788 32.615
site_1 28.01742948 33.412
Gauge Station 28.01742948 33.997

69
The value of annual average flow for each parametric duration curve estimator sites was
obtained from average flow Grid map shown in Figure 5.7 above.

In the figure shown below the parametric duration curve, which represent the flow nature
of the stream in the Gumara Watershed was presented with the corresponding
representative equation. Based on those equations the pixel value of each and every cell
in the Gumara watershed was estimated.

4 Q(60)
y = 0.1103x - 0.0151
R² = 0.9997
3.5 Q(70)
Exceedance Percent of flow(m3/s)

3 Q(80)
y = 0.0675x + 0.0022
2.5 R² = 0.9996 Q(95)

2
Q(100)
y = 0.0396x + 0.0035
1.5 R² = 0.9992 Linear (Q(60))

1
Linear (Q(70))
y = 0.014x - 0.0041
R² = 0.9703
0.5
Linear (Q(80))
y = 0.006x - 0.0091
R² = 0.6714
0
Linear (Q(95))
0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000
-0.5
Linear (Q(100))
Flow(m3 /s)

70
 300.000

y = 7.4953x + 3.3188
R² = 0.9995
250.000

200.000
Exceedance percent of flow(m3/s)

Q(30)

Q(0)
y = 4.7072x + 0.033
Q(10)
R² = 0.9999
150.000 Q(40)

Q(50)

y = 3.4278x + 0.3211 Q(5)

R² = 0.9994
Q(20)
100.000
Linear (Q(30))

Linear (Q(0))
y = 1.989x + 0.1512
R² = 0.9999 Linear (Q(10))

Linear (Q(40))
50.000
Linear (Q(50))
y = 0.8326x + 0.1169
R² = 0.9995 Linear (Q(5))
y = 0.3425x + 0.1079
R² = 0.9985 Linear (Q(20))

y = 0.0209x - 0.0047
0.000 R² = 0.9995
0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000
Flow (m3/s)

Figure 5.10: Parametric duration curve of Gumara watershed

71
 CHAPTER SIX
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section the output of feasible hydropower potential sites, sites power potential and
prioritization of hydropower sites were described and discussed.

6.1. IDENTIFICATION OF SUITABLE SITES FOR HYDROPOWER PLANT

BASED ON SENSITIVE CRITERIA
The sites which are suitable for hydropower potential Development throughout the
streams within the Gumara Watershed were analyzed and suitable sites were selected
based on Raster based value of In-stream power, Head and Discharge. The sites, which
are suitable for hydropower plant development was presented in table as well as in the
figure format as follow.

Table 6.1: Suitable hydropower potential Sites

Distance between
Site_ID Longitude Latitude Elevation Head sites(meter)
1 37.681194 11.787234 1825 5 -
2 37.687519 11.788033 1831 7 690
3 37.697071 11.784436 1852 5 1155
4 37.702865 11.777216 1854 9 1013
5 37.706793 11.777996 1872 9 510
6 37.790746 11.754684 1920 5 9574
7 37.950066 11.768178 2035 5 6110(from site-5)
8 37.776699 11.703504 1968 7 5853
9 37.774864 11.701796 1973 5 500
10 37.773527 11.697410 1990 6 550
11 37.768598 11.694992 1997 5 605
12 37.766707 11.691584 2007 5 593
13 37.764870 11.689618 2013 6 500
14 37.758984 11.687956 2020 5 502
15 37.756349 11.688405 2027 10 672
16 37.754493 11.684843 2047 7 500
17 37.751759 11.681824 2058 8 520
18 37.743904 11.680521 2067 8 500
19 37.741947 11.676256 2096 11 847
20 37.742746 11.672696 2106 5 519

72
Figure 6.1: Suitable Sites for micro to Small scale hydropower potential in Gumara
Watershed.
Most of suitable Hydropower potential sites were found in the stream of Gumara
Watershed locally called Licha River, which is turned from the main Gumara River at a
place where known as Safo. The minimum flow conditions represent practical limits to
generating power from an economic standpoint is 0.1m3/s (Ron Monk, et al, 2007). In
this study the flow above 0.1m3/s from a Grid based map of long term dependable (Firm)
flow of Gumara stream (Q90) was extracted for hydropower generation to make the
practical limit more acceptable as well as residual flow take in to consideration. The
discharge of all selected hydropower sites from Gumara Watershed were above 0.1m3/s.
the streams, which are close to the Guna mountain or around all marginal edge of the
Gumara Watershed were not have enough Discharge for hydropower potential above the
coverage of residual flow. The head of those selected hydropower sites were varying in
the range 5 to 20 meter. From the total order of 20 hydropower sites 18 sites have the
head which lay in the range of 5 to 10 meter whereas the head of the remaining sites lay
in the range between 10 to 20 meters. The distribution of head over the river stretch was
described in table and figure shown below.

73
 Table 6.2: Range of Head for Hydropower potential sites

Range of Head(m) Number of Sites

5 < H < 10 18
10 < H < 20 2

Figure 6.2: Range of Head for Hydropower Potential sites

In this study L/H [ratio between waterway length (L) and total head (H)] was used to fix
the minimum feasible head based on the specified length of waterway. A run-of-river
plant does not require space for water storage and 500 meter horizontal distance between
two plants is usually considered feasible (Khan and Zaidi 2015). A site with a smaller
L/H value is more advantageous for small-scale hydropower. The maximum and
minimum L/H ratio for selected hydropower potential sites in Gumara watershed was
100m and 45m respectively. The sites which found in the upper south west edge of
Gumara Stream, especially in Licha stream have lower length to head ratio. Figure 6.3
shows the relation of the ratio between the total head (H) and the waterway length (L)
(L/H) among existing small-scale hydropower sites (May 1986).

74
Figure 6.3: Relation between head and waterway length.
During identification of the site consecutive cells were occur which satisfy the given
range. In such case the cell, which have the maximum head could be selected with in
500m interval in the Google Earth environment. Because the variation of head within a
short distance is significantly high relative to the variation of discharge within the same
increment of reach segment. In case the production of power also increases significantly,
when selecting successive sites based on Head increment rather than increment of
discharge. According to the range of site selecting criteria 117 suitable cells for
hydropower potential were occurred. But there were sites, which occur successively. In
order to maintain 500m distance between successive suitable hydropower sites (cells),
measured the distance in the Google earth environment between proposed sites. The
figure has shown below shows how the hydropower sites visualized and extract from
Google Earth. By doing this the final suitable sites for hydropower potential development
reduces to 20 numbers of sites.

75
 Suitable Hydropower
site 1 Hydropower site
3

Suitable Hydropower
site 2

Figure 6.4: partial view of hydropower sites in the Google Earth Environment.

6.2. POWER AND ENERGY DETERMINATION FOR THE IDENTIFIED SITES

The power and energy output for selected hydropower sites in the Gumara river basin
was basically based on the discharge raster map and head raster map.

6.2.1. Discharge Raster Map

Most of the time discharge is useful for sizing the hydropower plant. Key probabilities of
exceedance (Q30, Q40, and Q50) are used most of the time to fix the size of hydro power
plant and Q90 used to fix the dependable or firm power potential of the site. The water
availability for SHP is based on 90% dependability (Nwachukwu, 2005). The selection of
such probability of Exceedance is based on economical point of view. To develop
discharge Raster map of Gumara Watershed for Q30, Q40, Q50,and Q90 the equation
y=0.832x+0.116, y=0.342x+0.107,y=0.187x-0.034 and y= 0.02x-0.004 respectively,
which is developed from parametric duration curve estimator sites were used. This
equation is shown in figure 5.13 above. Among the tributaries in the Gumara Watershed
like Chan, Metare, Gonta, Gunagunit,Tineshu Chan,Anzoke, Mimita ,shobeli wenze and

76
the like small streams have not been flow throughout the year and were not satisfy the
selection criteria, which is discharge greater than 0.1m3/s. only the tributary locally called
Licha Gumara satisfy the above discharge selection criteria. The figure 6.5 below show
Raster map for Q30.The Discharge Raster map for Q40, Q50 and Q90 were attached in
Appendix VIII.

Figure 6.5: Discharge Grid Map

The discharge pixel value for streams in the Gumara watershed, which is found in the
upper edge of the watershed in every direction, is very low. It satisfies only the residual
flow for ecosystem in the Stream.

6.2.2. Head Drop Raster map

The head raster map of Gumara watershed was shown in the figure 6.4 below.

Figure 6.6: Raster Map of Head Drop for Gumara Watershed

77
The southeastern and northeastern edge part of the Gumara watershed has higher Amount
of head, which is represented by the white color in the digital elevation model. The
Northwestern part of the watershed has very flat area and not recommended for
hydropower potential development. The percentage area coverage for the range of Raster
map of head drop for Gumara Watershed is summarized in the table below.
Table 6.3: Percent area coverage of Head drop distribution within 500m increment

Range of Head drop Percentage of area

coverage (%)
0-15 36
15-30 29.8
30-48 20.57
48-73 10.75
73-217 2.84
From the table shown above around 70% of the Gumara watershed have a drop of Head
in the Range between 0-30m within 500m searching radius. But only 3% of the Gumara
watershed have a head above 70m.this indicates that most of the topography of the
Gumara Watershed have relatively lower head. The head drop through focal statistic has
coefficient of determination (R2 =0.788), which is checked through Google Earth.

6.2.3. Theoretical power potential of Gumara river basin

Total theoretical power potential (in Watts) of Gumara River basin is calculated for each
percentile discharges i.e. Q30, Q40 and Q50 using the Equation. (6.1).The theoretical
power of any river or river systems are given by the aggregate of the value computed for
the individual stretches by the following equation. In this study both the theoretical as
well as the Real power potential was taken in to consideration for Gumara River basin.

Pi =∑𝒏𝒋=𝟏 𝒈𝝆𝑯𝒋 𝑸𝒊𝒋 6.1

Where; i = index for flow percentiles (40, 50 and 60)
j = index for proposed plants = 1, 2, 3 ……n
n = total number of plants
Hj = head at plant j

78
Qij = discharge at percentile i and plant j
Discharge and Head raster map was developed in the above Figure 6.5 and 6.6
respectively. For selected suitable hydropower sites (in figure 6.1) above, head and
discharge value was extracted in the GIS environment and by using equation (6.1) the
total power (P30, P40 and P50 (in Kw)) for all selected sites was summarized as below. The
figure for Raster map of P50 and P40 were described in Appendix VIII (A).

Figure 6.7: Power potential (P 30) in for Selected Hydropower Sites.

From the above figure each suitable hydropower potential sites holds theoretical power
potential for a discharge of 30% probability of Exceedance. From the total order of sites
site-4, which is found on the main Gumara River basin holds the maximum amount of
power potential (2248kw).on the other hand site- 20, which is found in the tributary
locally called Licha Gumara holds minimum amount of power potential (222kw).the
other 18 hydropower sites holds power potential between the above described maximum
and minimum value. The table (6.4) shown below describes the total hydropower
potential sites with the corresponding theoretical power capacity in (kw). The values of
Hydropower potential for individual suitable hydropower potential sites were attached in
appendix IA.

79
Table 6.4: Power for Q30, Q 40 and Q50 (in Kw)

Total Theoretical P30 P40 P50

hydropower potential 13825.706 5760.556 3029.082

Since power potential is directly proportional to the head and discharge at any site,
therefore, greater head and discharge will produce higher energy. Based on this
information, all proposed sites within Gumara River Basin can be grouped into various
classes depending upon their power potentials as shown in Table 6.5. Figure 6.8 presents
spatial distribution of proposed sites with their power potentials for 30th percentile flow
in the Gumara River Basin. Similar layout can be drawn for Q40 and Q50 discharges in
Appendix VIII (B).

Table 6.5: Number of Potential sites for Q30, Q40 and Q50 for the Given Range of power
capacity.

Power Potential(kw) No of Sites

Q30 Q40 Q50

0-300 8 17 17
301-600 7 2 3
601-900 - - -
901-1200 - - -
1201-2000 3 1 -
>200 2 - -

80
Figure 6.8: Spatial distribution of suitable sites for ranges of hydropower potentials.
6.2.4. Prediction of dependable plant capacity
The total amount of Firm power obtained from suitable hydropower potential sites (20
sites) is 323.49 Kw. Firm power potential for individual suitable hydropower sites was
attached in appendix IA. The spatial Distribution of hydropower potential for Suitable
sites of Gumara stream is shown in figure 6.5

Figure 6.9: Spatial distribution of suitable sites based on their Firm power potentials.

81
A hydropower station generates firm power for consumer needs with a firm flow that
guarantees a consumer a highly dependable electric energy supply. Accordingly, the
dependability of flow for an isolated hydropower stations must be greater than 90 percent
(Jiandong et al. 2000), however, the installed capacity of a hydropower station is always
greater than the firm power so as to utilize seasonal hydro energy when the additional
flow is needed to meet maximum power generation. The sites which find on the main
Gumara river section generates relatively higher amount of Firm power above 30kw.the
other suitable sites, which lays on the tributary sections are generates small amount of
firm power, which is less than 30kw.This is due to the fact that, the flow in the tributary
section of Gumara river basin have been reduced highly during the lean period.

6.2.5. Mean Power of Gumara stream

The mean flow rate Qmean (Nwachukwu, 2005) is computed from;
Qav=0.025(Q0+Q100) +0.05(Q5+Q95) +0.075(Q90+Q10) ++0.1(Q20+Q30 Q40+Q50
+Q60+Q70+Q80) 6.2
The parametric equation, which represents the discharge of each percent of exceedance
found in the above equation, was developed based on the parametric duration curve found
in figure 5.10 above. Each equation for the corresponding percent of exceedance was
used to generate the discharge of each cell of the Gumara watershed. In such case the
discharge value for every exceedance probability was estimated for Gumara stream and
by using equation 6.2 mean power could be estimated. The figure 6.10 and 6.11 below
shows the grid based mean discharge and mean power of the Gumara River Basin. The
total amount of theoretical mean power obtained from the whole suitable sites is
17255.48 kw or 17.26Mw. site-4, which found at the main Gumara river has higher
amount of mean power (2806.63kw).On the other hand site-20, which is found at the
upper end of Lich Gumara has minimum amount of mean power (278.18kw).The mean
power of remaining sites vary between the above described minimum and maximum
value. Mean power for individual sites in the Gumara Watershed was attached in
appendix IA.

82
Figure 6.10: Mean Discharge of Gumara River Basin

Figure 6.11: Grid Based Hydropower Potential for Gumara watershed

6.2.6. Technical Power and Energy Output from Gumara Stream
Before any power plant is contemplated it is essential to assess the inherent power
available from the discharge of the river and the head available at the site. The theoretical
power potential of key percent of exceedance for Gumara Watershed was obtained in the
previous section. But the technical power potential of the stream also very important.

83
Technically available power is obtained by including losses due to conveyance, plant
losses such as entrance loss, rack loss, generator and turbine loss etc. For MHP, the
overall efficiency, η, of 50% is multiplied with the theoretical power to obtain technically
available power. The low overall efficiency is as a result of the following losses (Harvey
A.1998).
 Channel loss = 5%
 Penstock losses = 10%
 Turbine losses = 20%
 Generator losses = 15
 Step-up and down transformer losses = 4%
 Transmission losses = 10%

Power output is obtained after all these losses are considered.

Power output = power input * conversion efficiency 6.3
Power output = 0.95*0.90*0.80*0.85*0.96*0.90 *power input
Power output = 0.5*power input
Therefore, overall efficiency, η for MHP = 0.5
Power output = 9.8· η ·Q·H
P = 9.8·0.5·Q·H
P = 4.9· Q·H 6.4
This is the technically available power the sites have.
For the sites under consideration, monthly and annual potential power and energy are
calculated. To find the annual energy the formula presented below is used.
E=ΣΡ ΔΤi *Υ 6.5
Where E=average annual electricity production, kWh
ΔΤ =increment along the percent scale (10% and 5%)
Υ - Is the number of hours in a year i.e. 8760 hr.

84
Table 6.6: power and energy calculated for the suitable hydropower site -1by using
FDC Method

% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 111.62 64.75 27.14 11.21 6.04 3.56 3.56 1.27 0.65 0.45 0.19
Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Efficiency, η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et
al.) 2737.4 1587.9 665.5 275.0 148.1 87.2 87.2 31.1 15.8 11.0 4.6
Time interval
(%) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5
Energy(Gwh) 2.398 1.391 0.583 0.241 0.130 0.076 0.076 0.027 0.014 0.005 0.002
Annual
E(Gwhr/year) 4.943

The total annual energy output of all sites as calculated using this method of flow
duration curve is found to be 50.303 GWh/year. The summarized annual energy output
of all sites by FDC is shown in table 6.7 below. The technical power and Energy output
for other individual hydropower sites was attached in appendix I
Table 6.7: Summary of Energy Output for suitable hydropower potential Sites.

Annual Energy Output

Site_ID (Gwh/year)
1 4.939
2 6.915
3 4.014
4 8.350
5 8.348
6 1.666
7 0.939
8 1.258
9 0.898
10 1.062
11 0.892
12 0.883
13 1.044
14 0.879
15 1.739

85
 16 1.173
17 1.340
18 1.332
19 1.811
20 0.822

6.3. PRIORITIZATION AND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE

HYDROPOWER SITES BASED ON GIS BASED MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS
(GIS- MCA)
Prioritization of suitable hydropower potential sites of Gumara river basin was performed
based on the Grid based Raster map of Instream power, Discharge, head and
Accessibility of Gumara watershed. The raster map for instream power, Discharge and
head was developed in the previous section. But the map which represents accessibility
(the road map of Gumara watershed) should be developed. The road map for accessibility
was digitized from Google Earth (image Landsat at 2017) by using Editor Toolbar in the
GIS environment. The road suitable for accessibility analysis through the Gumara
watershed is extend from different small towns around Gumara Watershed, such as
Debratabor, Hageraselam, Hamusit, Gasay, Tigura and Dilala. These roads are extending
from those towns towards the watershed. The road map for Gumara watershed is shown
in the figure below.

86
Figure 6.12: Road Map for Gumara Watershed.
6.3.1. Standardization of Criteria
The output for standardization of raster maps of in-stream power, discharge, Head and
accessibility of Gumara watershed were described in the figure shown below. The
standardization value ranges between 0 and 1.The higher the value of the score, the more
attractive is the criterion value, if the criterion is of the maximization type. If the criterion
is of the minimization type, the lower the score indicates the better performance. Since
each criterion has a different value, a table was prepared and the criteria were determined
as maximum or minimum (Table 6.8).

Table 6.8: Maximization and Minimization of Criteria

Criteria Value
In Stream Power Maximization
Discharge Maximization
Head Maximization
Accessibility(Rod proximity to the Minimization
Site)

87
Figure 6.13: Standardized In-Stream power of Gumara Watershed’s Stream.
If the cell have maximum pixel value of power, the pixel value of standardized cell close
to 1.most of suitable hydropower sites lay on the main Gumara River section have
relatively higher standardized value than those sites lay on the tributaries.

Figure 6.14: Standardized Discharge of Gumara Watershed’s Stream

Most of the sites in the downstream section of Gumara River have higher standardized
pixel value. On the other hand those sites found in the upper edge of Gumara watershed
in every direction have very small standardized pixel value. The sites at the Gumara
gauging station have a pixel standardized value of 1.

88
Figure 6.15: Standardized Head of Gumara Watershed’s Stream
The streams in the upper edge of the watershed have a standardized pixel value close to
1.those sites which found at the downstream section have a standardized pixel value close
to 0.

Figure6.16: Euclidian Distance to road of Gumara Waters

89
 Figure 6.17: Standardized Euclidian Distance to road of Gumara Watershed
The sites closer to any one of the road extend from towns around the Gumara Watershed
have a higher standardized pixel value. On the other hand those sites not closer to any
one of the road extend from the Gumara watershed have standardized pixel value close to
0. Site-6 has relatively closer distance to the road, which is extend from the town Debra
tabor.

6.3.2. Criterion Weights

The pairwise comparison method and trade-off analysis methods offer much more
precision in terms of calculating weights and both have underlying theoretical bases;
however, research has shown that the pairwise comparison technique is simpler to use
and just as effective as trade-off analysis (Malczewski 1999). For this analysis, factors
selected to evaluate the hydropower potential sites, were standardized using the pairwise
comparison method. In this process, each factor is rated for its importance relative to
every other factor using a 9-point reciprocal scale. This leads to an n x n matrix of rating
where n is the number of factors being considered (Eastman 1999).

1/9 1/7 1/5 1/3 1 3 5 7 9

Extremely very strongly moderately equally moderately strongly very extremely

90
Less more important
important

The value given for the factors was based on requirements for suitability analysis of
hydropower sites. In-stream power considered as greater importance than the other three
criteria, because it holds the impact of both head and discharge on a specific site.

Table 6.9: Pair wise Comparison of the Evaluation Criteria

Criterion
In-stream Discharge Head Accessibility (road
power proximity)
In-stream power 1 2 3 5
Discharge 1/2 1 2 5
Head 1/3 1/2 1 4
Accessibility (road 1/5 1/5 1/4 1
proximity)
Total 2.033 3.7 6.25 15

Table 6.10: Normalization and Weight Determination

Priority
Criterion
In-stream Discharge Head Accessibility Vector or
power (road Weight
proximity)
In-stream power 0.492 0.54 0.48 0.333 0.461
Discharge 0.246 0.27 0.32 0.333 0.292
Head 0.164 0.135 0.16 0.267 0.182
Accessibility 0.098 0.054 0.04 0.067 0.065
(road proximity)

91
Calculate the Consistency Ratio (CR)

CR = Consistency index /Random Consistency Index (RI) 6.6

CI = (λmax – n)/n – 1 6.7

λmax is the Principal Eigen Value; n is the number of factors

λmax = ∑of the products between each element of the priority vector and column totals
of table 23 given above.
λmax = (0.461*2.033)+(0.292*3.7)+(0.182*6.25)+(0.065*15)

λmax =4.13

CI = (4.13 – 4)/4-1=0.0433

CR = 0.0433/0.9 CR = 0.048 < 0.10 (Acceptable)

Table 6.11: Random Consistency Index (RI) (Saaty 1980)

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Out of the four criterion for prioritization analysis greater weight was given for In-stream
power, which is 46.1% followed by Discharge(29.2%).the third factor is Head, which has
a weight of 18.5%.the last one is accessibility, which has a weight of 6.5%.

6.3.3. Creating Final Map Using Weighted Linear Combination Method

In this study, WLC model is implemented within the GIS environment using map algebra
operations. To complete the analysis, the raster calculator was used to find the ideal
locations for hydropower development. Therefore, four criterion maps were integrated by
applying weights as criterion weights:

[In-stream power]* 0.461 + [Discharge] *0.292+ [Head]* 0.182 + [Accessibility (road

proximity)]* 0.065 6.8

The result of this integration shows potential sites (ranked from best to worst) that could
be suitable for hydropower development (Figure 6.18).

92
Figure 6.18: Suitability of Hydropower potential sites Using WLC Method.
Most of the hydropower sites lay on the main Gumara river basin was ranked to the
first.Site-5 was ranked at the first. The primal focus was given from rural electrification
expansion stockholders. Site -14 and site-8 was ranked from the last. So that rapid
investigation and power plant implementation may not be given. Suitability rank of
suitable hydropower potential sites was summarized in the table shown below.

Table 6.12: suitability Rank of feasible hydropower potential sites.

Standardized Suitability
Site_id Longitude Latitude Elevation Suitability weight Rank
1 37.681194 11.787234 1825 0.44 5
2 37.687519 11.788033 1831 0.47 3
3 37.697071 11.784436 1852 0.58 2
4 37.702865 11.777216 1854 0.47 3
5 37.706793 11.777996 1872 0.76 1
6 37.790746 11.754684 1920 0.29 6
7 37.950066 11.768178 2035 0.16 8
8 37.776699 11.703504 1968 0.10 19
9 37.774864 11.701796 1973 0.13 13
10 37.773527 11.697410 1990 0.12 15
11 37.768598 11.694992 1997 0.12 15

93
12 37.766707 11.691584 2007 0.12 15
13 37.764870 11.689618 2013 0.15 11
14 37.758984 11.687956 2020 0.10 19
15 37.756349 11.688405 2027 0.13 13
16 37.754493 11.684843 2047 0.16 8
17 37.751759 11.681824 2058 0.14 12
18 37.743904 11.680521 2067 0.11 18
19 37.741947 11.676256 2096 0.19 7
20 37.742746 11.672696 2106 0.16 8

94
 CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1. Conclusion
The recent energy crises in the country and overexploitation of non-renewable energy
sources have created a gap between supply and demand of this vital commodity.
Unserved communities living in small settlements far from the main energy grid stations
are the main sufferers of this situation. Apart from unit electricity cost, the infrastructure
development and maintenance cost may also increase energy tariffs for these settlements.
The transmission losses are also not to be disregarded. This study is an effort to establish
the importance of renewable energy sources and to present a methodology to investigate
the feasibility of installing small plants at locations which have adequate hydropower
potential. Locating a good site for installation of a new plant is one of the main obstacles
for small hydroelectric power generation. The site where the small hydropower is
installed must have sufficient head and enough water flow rate to produce sufficient
amount of energy and the site must also be close to the location where the energy is going
to be utilized. Flow rate is very essential for hydropower generation since the head at a
proposed site is practically constant while the available flow is highly variable. Having
known the water discharge, annual energy output of the proposed site under consideration
can be estimated which will serve as an input energy to run hydro turbine of the SHP
scheme to generate electricity. Since the entire quantity available at a site is utilized in
power production, the study of water demand for hydropower amount to collection of
stream flow data and their analysis. Therefore, stream flow is an important parameter in
determining the maximum power derivable from any flowing river.

The theoretical and technical Run-of- River Hydropower potential was estimated based
on different algorithm and feasible hydropower potential sites was identified based on
Multi Criteria Analysis on the Gumara Watershed. Accordingly the estimated total
theoretical ROR hydro potential of Gumara River basin is 13825.706 Kw, 5760.556 Kw,
3029.082 Kw and 323.49 Kw for 30%,40%, 50% and 90% flow exceedance respectively
for selected hydropower potential Sites.

95
The finding of this research provides valuable insights. The estimated theoretical hydro
potential in this study has provided the new potential figure for the major rivers of
Gumara. This will provide the fundamental information to the government and concerned
stakeholders to formulate plans and policies to develop hydropower in the country.
Furthermore, this information is also valuable for the power developers to select the
particular river of high potential during the desk study.

7.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has highlighted the need for the developing country like Ethiopia as a whole to
adopt rural electrification as a key policy of government as it improves the living
standards of the people and reduce poverty by the creation of new income sources in rural
areas. It is clear that the utilization of small-scale hydropower can provide a viable source
of energy to increase the electrification levels in Ethiopia. Exploring the potential of SHP
scheme as eco-friendly source of energy serves the least cost option for provision of
electricity to underdeveloped rural areas compared to the extension of grid. They are
affordable if necessary subsidy is provided. Furthermore, the value added benefits of the
scheme is as follow: Availability of local labor and materials; thereby, increasing the
income of the poor. They help to check rural/urban immigration. They are flexible and
can usefully be integrated into almost any kind of development program such as rural
development, poverty alleviation program and environment protection programs.
However, small-scale hydropower will only be able to fulfill this role if certain policy
and other issues are addressed before implementation of projects. As a result, this study
has made a number of recommendations, a summary of which is provided below:

i. More hydrological data needs to be collected over a period of time. In order to

achieve this goal, technical equipment such as a network of gauging stations is
required along with human capacity building.
ii. Build or improve local manufacturing capacity to produce components such as
low cost turbines for small hydropower plants.
iii. Providing clear and agreed environmental compliance standards at licensing.
iv. With a well arrangement of system of power plant structures, new
environmental impacts will not be introduced.
96
REFERANCE
Abate, M., J. Nyssen, T. S. Steenhuis, M. M. Moges, S. A. Tilahun, T. Enku, and E.
Adgo. 2015. Morphological changes of Gumara River channel over 50 years,
upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Journal of Hydrology 525:152-164.
Adedokun, G., J. Oladosu, and T. Ajiboye. 2013. Small hydro power potential capacity
estimation For provision Of rural electricity In Nigeria. Acta Technica
Corviniensis-Bulletin of Engineering 6 (2):117.
Adıgüzel, F., and A. Tutuş. 2002. Small hydroelectric power plants in Turkey.
Proceedings of Hydro:283-293.
Admasu, G. 2000. Hydrology and sedimentation:some not relevant for the development
of small scale irrigation. Paper presented on seminar: Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Awulachew. 2007. Water Resources and Irrigation Development in Ethiopia. Colombo,
Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute, 78p. (Working Paper 123).
Ballance, A., D. Stephenson, R. Chapman, and J. Muller. 2000. A geographic information
systems analysis of hydro power potential in South Africa. Journal of
Hydroinformatics 2 (4):247-254.
Büyükkaracığan, N. 2014. Determining the Best Fitting Distributions for Minimum
Flows of Streams in Gediz Basin. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, International Journal of Environmental, Chemical, Ecological,
Geological and Geophysical Engineering 8 (6):417-422.
Dandkar M.M. and Sharma K.N. (1997), Water Power Engineering, Vikas
Publishing House Pvt Ltd, Delhi
Dudhani, S., A. Sinha, and S. Inamdar. 2006. Assessment of small hydropower potential
using remote sensing data for sustainable development in India. Energy policy 34
(17):3195-3205.
Eastman, J. 1999. Multi-criteria evaluation and GIS. Geographical information systems 1
(1):493-502.
Eldrandaly, K. A. E. M. S. 2010. Spatial decision making: an intelligent GIS-based
decision analysis approach. Germany.
Emerson, D. G., A. V. Vecchia, and A. L. Dahl. 2005. Evaluation of drainage-area ratio
method used to estimate streamflow for the Red River of the North Basin, North
Dakota and Minnesota.
Flynn, R. H. 2003. Development of regression equations to estimate flow durations and
low-flow-frequency statistics in New Hampshire streams: US Department of the
Interior, US Geological Survey.
Harvey A. (1998), A Guide to Small Scale Water Power Schemes Micro
Hydropower Design Manual
spatial interpolation approach based on flow duration curves. Hydrological Sciences
Journal 41 (6):851-871.

97
Khan, M., A. Z. Zaidi. 2015.Run-of-River Hydropower Potential of Kunhar
River.Pakistan Journal of Meteorology. Vol. 12.
Kosnik, L. 2010. The potential for small scale hydropower development in the US.
Energy policy 38 (10):5512-5519.
Lee, H.-H., I.-K. Park, and K.-S. Hong. 2008. Design and implementation of a mobile
devices-based real-time location tracking. Paper read at Mobile Ubiquitous
Computing, Systems, Services and Technologies, 2008. UBICOMM'08. The
Second International Conference on.
Malczewski, J. 1999. GIS and multicriteria decision analysis: John Wiley & Sons.
May, N. P. 1986. A guide for the potential micro hydro developer: micro hydro in British
Columbia, Environment: School of Resource and Environmental Management.
Mekete Dessie, Verhoest, N., Teshager Admasu, Pauwels, V., Poesen, J., Enyew Adgo,
Deckers, J., Nyssen, J., 2014. Effects of the floodplain on river discharge into
Lake Tana (Ethiopia). Journal of Hydrology, 513: 699-710.
Merwade, V. 2012. Watershed and stream network delineation using ArcHydro Tools.
University of Purdue, School of Civil Engineering, Printed Lecture Note, USA.
MINSTE OF WATER RESOURCES, BaroAkobo River Basin Integrated Development
Master Plan, Final report Annex 1, Water resource part 2 May 1997
Nautiyal, H., S. Singal, and A. Sharma. 2011. Small hydropower for sustainable energy
development in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (4)
Nyerges, T. L., and P. Jankowski. 2009. Regional and urban GIS: a decision support
approach: Guilford Press.
Nwachukwu M.C (2005), Hydrological data collection and analysis for small hydropower
Development OgunOsun River Basin Development Authority, Nigeria.
Okot, D. K. 2013. Review of small hydropower technology. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 26:515-520.
Þórarinsdóttir, T. 2012. Development of a methodology for estimation of technical
hydropower potential in Iceland using high resolution hydrological modeling.
Reddy, J. R. 2005. A Text Book of Hydrology: Double Mass Curve Laxmi Publications,
India.
Ron Monk., Stefan Joyce, and Mike Homenuke, Rapid Hydropower Assessment Model
(Identify Hydroelectric Sites Using Geographic Information Systems), 2007 BC
Canada.
Rojanamon, P., T. Chaisomphob, and T. Bureekul. 2009. Application of geographical
information system to site selection of small run-of-river hydropower project by
considering engineering/economic/environmental criteria and social impact.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9):2336-2348.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource
allocation: McGraw-Hill International Book Company.

98
Searcy, J. K. 1959. Flow-duration curves, Manual of Hydrology: Part 2, low-flow
techniques: United States Geological Survey.
Smakhtin, V., D. Hughes, and E. Creuse-Naudin. 1997. Regionalization of daily flow
characteristics in part of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Hydrological Sciences
Journal 42 (6):919-936.
Tachikawa, T., Hatol, M., Kabu, M., et al., 2011. Characteristics of ASTER GDEM
version 2. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), 2011 IEEE
International.
Tong Jiandong, Zheng Naibo, Wang Zianhuan, Hai Jing and Ding Huishen
(2000), Mini Hydropower, published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester,
England.
Vogel, R. M., I. Wilson, and C. Daly. 1999. Regional regression models of annual
streamflow for the United States. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
125 (3):148-157.
Warnick, C. 1984. Hydropower engineering.

www.microhydropower.net/intro.htm/

99
APPENDIX
Appendix IA: Hydropower potential for key percent of exceedance
Table IA.1: theoretical Hydropower potential for suitable Hydropower sites

Site_id Longitude Latitude Elevation p30 P40 P50

1 37.681194 11.787234 1825 1331.029 550.039 296.215
2 37.687519 11.788033 1831 1861.946 769.440 414.365
3 37.697071 11.784436 1852 1328.295 548.915 295.600
4 37.702865 11.777216 1854 2248.389 929.455 500.043
5 37.706793 11.777996 1872 2247.835 929.227 499.919
6 37.790746 11.754684 1920 449.887 187.839 98.170
7 37.950066 11.768178 2035 254.585 107.558 54.274
8 37.776699 11.703504 1968 341.240 144.342 72.572
9 37.774864 11.701796 1973 243.390 102.957 51.758
10 37.773527 11.697410 1990 290.485 122.898 61.753
11 37.768598 11.694992 1997 240.700 101.851 51.153
12 37.766707 11.691584 2007 239.420 101.325 50.865
13 37.764870 11.689618 2013 286.638 121.316 60.889
14 37.758984 11.687956 2020 238.398 100.905 50.636
15 37.756349 11.688405 2027 466.166 197.440 98.882
16 37.754493 11.684843 2047 318.383 134.947 67.434
17 37.751759 11.681824 2058 363.454 154.056 76.975
18 37.743904 11.680521 2067 361.245 153.148 76.479
19 37.741947 11.676256 2096 491.249 208.332 103.930
20 37.742746 11.672696 2106 222.975 94.565 47.169

100
Table I.2: firm power for individual suitable Hydropower sites
Firm
Site_Id Longitude Latitude Elevation Power(P90)
1 37.681194 11.787234 1825 31.66
2 37.687519 11.788033 1831 44.29
3 37.697071 11.784436 1852 31.60
4 37.702865 11.777216 1854 53.45
5 37.706793 11.777996 1872 53.44
6 37.790746 11.754684 1920 10.48
7 37.950066 11.768178 2035 5.79
8 37.776699 11.703504 1968 7.74
9 37.774864 11.701796 1973 5.52
10 37.773527 11.697410 1990 6.58
11 37.768598 11.694992 1997 5.45
12 37.766707 11.691584 2007 5.42
13 37.764870 11.689618 2013 6.49
14 37.758984 11.687956 2020 5.40
15 37.756349 11.688405 2027 10.54
16 37.754493 11.684843 2047 7.19
17 37.751759 11.681824 2058 8.20
18 37.743904 11.680521 2067 8.15
19 37.741947 11.676256 2096 11.08
20 37.742746 11.672696 2106 5.03

Table I.3: Mean power of individual Suitable hydropower potential Sites.

Site_id Longitude Latitude Elevation Mean Power

1 37.681194 11.787234 1825 1661.52
2 37.687519 11.788033 1831 2324.26
3 37.697071 11.784436 1852 1658.10
4 37.702865 11.777216 1854 2806.63
5 37.706793 11.777996 1872 2805.94
6 37.790746 11.754684 1920 561.47
7 37.950066 11.768178 2035 317.64
8 37.776699 11.703504 1968 425.75
9 37.774864 11.701796 1973 303.67

101
10 37.773527 11.697410 1990 362.42
11 37.768598 11.694992 1997 300.31
12 37.766707 11.691584 2007 298.71
13 37.764870 11.689618 2013 357.62
14 37.758984 11.687956 2020 297.44
15 37.756349 11.688405 2027 581.60
16 37.754493 11.684843 2047 397.22
17 37.751759 11.681824 2058 453.45
18 37.743904 11.680521 2067 450.69
19 37.741947 11.676256 2096 612.88
20 37.742746 11.672696 2106 278.18

Table I.4: Technical power and energy output for suitable hydropower sites.

site_2
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 111.53 64.69 27.11 11.20 6.03 3.55 3.55 1.27 0.65 0.45 0.19

Head(m) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et al.) 3829.28 2221.27 930.97 384.72 207.18 122.04 122.04 43.56 22.15 15.46 6.38
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 3.354 1.946 0.816 0.337 0.181 0.107 0.107 0.038 0.019 0.007 0.003
Annual E(Gw/hr) 6.915
site_3
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 111.39 21.80 27.08 11.19 6.03 3.55 3.55 1.27 0.64 0.45 0.19
Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Power(Lee et al.) 2731.77 534.66 664.15 274.46 147.80 87.06 87.06 31.07 15.80 11.03 4.55
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 2.393 0.468 0.582 0.240 0.129 0.076 0.076 0.027 0.014 0.005 0.002
Annual E(Gw/hr) 4.014
site_4
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100
Discharge(m3/s) 104.74 60.75 25.47 10.53 5.66 3.34 3.34 1.19 0.61 0.42 0.17
Head(m) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

102
Power(Lee et al.) 4623.62 2681.95 1124.19 464.73 250.02 147.29 147.29 52.59 26.72 18.65 7.67
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05

Energy(Gwh) 4.050 2.349 0.985 0.407 0.219 0.129 0.129 0.046 0.023 0.008 0.003

Annual E(Gw/hr) 8.350

site_6
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 37.62 21.80 9.17 3.83 2.00 1.18 1.18 0.43 0.21 0.15 0.06

Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et al.) 922.7 534.7 224.9 93.9 49.1 29.0 29.0 10.5 5.2 3.6 1.4
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.808 0.468 0.197 0.082 0.043 0.025 0.025 0.009 0.005 0.002 0.001
Annual E(Gw/hr) 1.666
site_7
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 21.22 12.28 5.19 2.19 1.11 0.66 0.66 0.24 0.12 0.08 0.03

Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et al.) 520.47 301.21 127.29 53.78 27.14 16.09 16.09 5.91 2.89 2.00 0.68
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.456 0.264 0.112 0.047 0.024 0.014 0.014 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.000
Annual E(Gw/hr) 0.939
site_8
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 20.31 11.75 4.97 2.10 1.06 0.63 0.63 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.03
Head(m) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Power(Lee et al.) 697.40 403.55 170.62 72.17 36.29 21.52 21.52 7.91 3.87 2.67 0.89
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.611 0.354 0.149 0.063 0.032 0.019 0.019 0.007 0.003 0.001 0.000
Annual E(Gw/hr) 1.258
site_9
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 20.28 11.74 4.96 2.10 1.06 0.63 0.63 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.03
Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

103
 Power(Lee et al.) 497.41 287.83 121.69 51.48 25.88 15.35 15.35 5.64 2.76 1.90 0.64
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05

Energy(Gwh) 0.436 0.252 0.107 0.045 0.023 0.013 0.013 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.000

Annual E(Gw/hr) 0.898

site_10
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 20.17 11.74 4.94 2.09 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.03
Head(m) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et al.) 593.64 345.39 145.24 61.45 18.31 18.20 18.31 6.74 3.29 2.27 0.76

Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.520 0.303 0.127 0.054 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.000

Annual E(Gw/hr) 1.062

site_11
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 20.06 11.61 4.91 2.08 1.05 0.62 0.62 0.43 0.11 0.08 0.03

Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et
al.) 491.87 284.61 120.35 50.93 25.73 15.17 15.17 10.48 2.73 1.88 0.63
Time
interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.431 0.249 0.105 0.045 0.023 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.000
Annual
E(Gw/hr) 0.892
site_12
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 19.95 11.54 4.88 2.07 1.04 0.62 0.62 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.03
Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et
al.) 489.24 283.08 119.71 50.66 25.43 15.08 15.08 5.55 2.71 1.87 0.62
Time
interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.429 0.248 0.105 0.044 0.022 0.013 0.013 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.000
Annual
E(Gw/hr) 0.883

104
site_14
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 19.86 11.49 4.86 2.06 1.03 0.61 0.62 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.03
Head(m) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Power(Lee et al.) 487.13 281.86 119.20 50.45 25.37 15.05 15.08 5.55 2.71 1.87 0.62
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.427 0.247 0.104 0.044 0.022 0.013 0.013 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.000

Annual E(Gw/hr) 0.879

site_15
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 19.42 11.49 4.86 2.06 1.03 0.61 0.62 0.23 0.11 0.07 0.02
Head(m) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Power(Lee et al.) 952.37 563.73 238.40 100.90 50.74 30.09 30.17 11.10 5.42 3.49 1.20
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.834 0.494 0.209 0.088 0.044 0.026 0.026 0.010 0.005 0.002 0.001
Annual E(Gw/hr) 1.739

site_16
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100
Discharge(m3/s) 18.94 10.96 4.64 1.97 0.98 0.58 0.58 0.21 0.10 0.07 0.02
Head(m) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et al.) 650.32 376.23 159.19 67.47 33.72 20.01 20.01 7.37 3.59 2.44 0.84
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.570 0.330 0.139 0.059 0.030 0.018 0.018 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.0004
Annual E(Gw/hr) 1.173
site_17
% of time 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 100

Discharge(m3/s) 18.92 10.95 4.64 1.96 0.98 0.58 0.58 0.21 0.10 0.07 0.02
Head(m) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Effency,η 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Power(Lee et al.) 742.38 429.48 181.93 77.03 38.53 22.86 22.86 8.42 4.11 2.79 0.96
Time interval(%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05
Energy(Gwh) 0.650 0.376 0.159 0.067 0.034 0.020 0.020 0.007 0.004 0.001 0.0004
Annual E(Gw/hr) 1.340

105
 Appendix IIA: summary of filled rainfall data for selected Rain Gauge Station
Table II.1: Filled Rainfall Data for the stations
Amed_
ber
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 1.0 11.6 9.0 63.5 14.2 226.6 340.2 274.5 138.3 104.2 16.7 1.7
2005 0.0 0.0 18.6 6.2 41.1 211.4 352.1 400.2 249.1 0.0 12.4 0.0
2006 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 177.2 132.3 456.6 366.3 233.3 79.4 0.0 14.2
2007 1.0 0.0 3.4 74.7 44.7 318.6 326.0 354.1 232.8 34.8 4.2 0.0
2008 10.8 0.0 0.0 112.3 217.5 376.4 364.1 315.8 151.6 35.0 5.4 0.0
2009 0.0 3.0 17.7 13.7 0.0 161.8 429.1 427.1 59.1 77.1 0.0 1.4
2010 11.6 0.0 12.3 76.5 69.7 169.8 567.3 490.7 135.5 18.5 10.6 0.0
2011 6.2 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 165.4 318.4 285.6 247.0 59.8 18.3 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 168.9 403.1 390.8 162.4 39.0 0.0 0.0
2013 0.0 0.0 9.8 45.9 60.7 171.6 424.1 361.8 104.0 266.0 41.5 0.0
2014 0.0 0.0 40.0 83.6 83.6 191.3 251.5 313.8 234.9 155.1 19.4 0.0
2015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 202.8 134.0 351.3 367.1 200.5 108.8 83.5 37.6

D/TABOR
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2003 0.0 13.9 24.1 28.1 10.5 86.2 435.7 396.8 221.7 16.7 33.3 14.8
2004 0.5 37.6 33.7 75.5 19.1 141.0 333.7 295.2 120.8 85.8 42.5 12.7
2005 1.3 0.0 34.1 10.3 56.3 224.4 473.6 436.0 216.2 5.0 29.7 0.0
2006 0.0 1.4 6.8 63.2 147.3 170.0 482.2 452.5 255.0 47.5 0.0 7.9
2007 19.9 0.5 22.2 87.8 65.6 281.4 424.7 439.1 183.1 8.1 0.0 0.0
2008 81.4 0.0 1.5 81.9 211.5 209.4 376.4 341.8 228.6 51.8 2.5 18.5
2009 0.0 5.1 63.2 19.1 28.2 66.8 418.3 667.4 113.2 107.4 3.0 2.0
2010 13.1 0.0 33.3 52.1 65.3 151.2 499.3 527.9 203.0 41.4 21.1 9.7

106
 2011 0.0 0.0 43.9 20.9 175.9 132.9 359.6 392.2 259.7 50.4 86.6 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 33.8 0.0 57.2 277.7 389.3 447.7 214.0 24.4 41.3 4.0
2013 2.1 4.2 26.9 34.3 165.0 169.2 423.0 439.1 191.3 176.4 33.9 5.5
2014 5.4 4.3 151.5 63.7 206.3 165.2 340.8 453.6 222.2 86.1 50.8 0.0
2015 0 4.4 17.9 8.3 176.3 129.2 234.1 284.2 200.5 26.6 83.5 37.6
2016 0.0 0.0 16.6 16.6 193.0 162.3 375.6 398.8 168.4 27.9 1.5 0.0

M/eyasus
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2003 0.0 16.5 66.0 10.2 8.0 137.7 434.4 359.7 268.5 1.3 6.8 8.5
2004 5.2 8.3 11.2 57.7 23.2 132.2 415.1 194.2 103.1 44.7 22.3 2.4
2005 3.9 3.6 56.6 1.0 0.00.0 115.8 330.2 257.1 136.1 31.1 2.3 0.0
2006 0.0 2.9 16.5 42.2 125.1 257.4 310.8 277.2 219.7 65.1 40.4 30.0
2007 0.0 11.1 41.1 43.8 73.9 343.9 355.4 278.0 160.3 39.1 70.0 0.0
2008 6.4 5.0 0.0 70.2 193.9 192.5 332.6 304.0 107.4 95.4 15.4 6.2
2009 0.0 26.4 56.4 19.1 0.0 130.0 12.4 258.1 81.3 108.6 2.9 0.0
2010 22.0 0.0 29.1 62.3 84.7 174.9 515.6 334.4 232.8 24.1 44.0 14.2
2011 28.1 0.0 45.0 20.1 115.5 214.7 398.5 371.5 180.7 29.0 89.3 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 31.5 8.4 59.2 259.8 317.0 253.6 258.6 76.4 26.0 24.0
2013 2.7 0 13.4 20.4 73.4 184.5 456.5 305.3 130.8 144 57.5 0.4
2014 0.0 4.3 42.3 71.9 na 154.1 255.1 305.1 130.8 84.1 33.7 0.3
2015 0.0 4.0 45.4 10.3 169.5 144.6 315.4 353.4 205.7 29 42.6 33.5
2016 0.0 0.9 15.1 12.2 145.6 216.8 305.8 418.3 132.5 61.5 0.0 0.0

107
 wereta
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2003 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 245.2 301.4 404.4 292.9 9.5 6.3 5.2
2004 1.3 5.9 5.2 37.5 3.2 163.1 362.1 402.6 120.5 55.6 29.5 0.0
2005 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 37.9 262.1 261.8 461.6 271.3 44.6 22.4 0.0
2006 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.7 195.7 118.9 388.7 503.0 180.3 96.6 0.0 22.7
2007 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 19.0 167.5 232.3 425.0 346.7 7.0 16.5 0.0
2008 7.9 30.0 0.0 120.1 173.8 259.7 406.8 331.2 137.9 95.9 6.4 0.0
2009 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 121.8 400.5 356.5 159.4 64.0 0.0 0.0
2010 5.6 0.0 2.4 5.7 29.5 119.4 526.5 426.6 291.5 61.2 0.0 0.0
2011 1.5 0.0 29.5 10.3 184.4 147.2 314.7 317.9 158.5 21.9 9.4 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 172.3 380.9 392.7 246.1 14.0 9.2 0.0
2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 36.0 221.4 354.5 383.2 158.8 121.7 17.0 0.0
2014 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 181.0 86.6 283.9 424.4 218.5 10.0 16.2 0.0
2015 0.0 0.0 2.0 33.0 8.0 184.5 759.6 332.201 176.3 320.0 33.82344 17.10452

AddisZemen
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1997 0.0 0.0 4.7 26.2 97.0 118.3 337.1 49.4 33.7 56.9 5.0 0.0
1998 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 32.4 107.5 325.5 192.0 19.9 1.2 0.0 0.0
1999 0.0 1.6 7.3 23.2 68.7 127.6 409.7 349.1 162.1 107.0 0.0 0.0
2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.8 24.3 166.1 598.7 511.7 150.2 41.6 24.0 0.0
2001 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 71.2 200.0 147.4 212.2 36.2 14.0 0.0 0.0
2002 0.0 0.0 22.4 8.8 13.0 270.3 405.1 459.3 150.9 2.0 0.0 0.0
2003 0.0 5.7 8.2 3.0 0.0 182.2 411.3 338.5 183.9 7.9 0.0 0.0
2004 0.0 7.5 0.0 50.5 20.0 121.5 444.0 315.8 135.6 47.2 44.6 0.0
2005 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.7 36.9 218.4 397.8 319.1 248.7 0.0 2.0 0.0
2006 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.5 113.7 221.3 513.2 321.0 143.7 124.4 0.0 2.5
2007 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 60.6 258.3 287.3 350.9 208.4 6.9 15.3 0.0
2008 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.3 212.3 247.2 519.1 486.6 292.2 7.5 15.0 0.0

108
 2009 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.9 105.1 673.4 492.8 118.3 71.2 0.0 0.0
2010 98.0 0.0 10.0 42.0 31.3 277.1 535.5 919.9 193.1 20.8 26.4 0.0
2011 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.0 319.3 644.1 738.3 591.7 0.0 45.4 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 167.7 613.2 675.3 322.7 44.0 56.9 0.0
2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 147.1 513.2 233.5 75.3 67.5 9.6 0.0
2014 0.0 4.0 28.5 19.1 19.1 128.0 235.2 296.4 179.2 97.8 19.5 0.0
2015 0 6.6 0.9 0 169.7 124.4 276.8 285 108.8 1.2 14.4 0.0
2016 0 8.7 9.7 8.4 136.3 143.9 387.6 339.4 189.5 19.7 9.3 0

Yifage
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2003 0.0 9.6 13.8 3.3 6.2 100.2 323.9 354.3 155.7 2.0 0.0 0.5
2004 2.4 5.0 0.0 48.5 7.3 115.4 351.9 247.0 118.6 20.5 28.1 0.0
2005 0.0 0.0 20.1 4.6 40.5 188.5 252.6 379.0 181.4 0.3 3.2 0.0
2006 0.0 8.2 0.0 3.4 87.2 87.5 387.3 335.2 160.8 96.7 0.0 7.1
2007 0.0 0.8 3.5 10.4 32.9 154.2 379.1 248.7 139.0 8.1 7.5 0.0
2008 14.8 0.0 0.0 61.5 123.2 211.1 325.6 294.0 166.6 19.1 12.6 0.0
2009 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.7 78.1 337.5 278.3 56.3 21.4 0.0 15.0
2010 5.1 0.0 7.1 24.0 28.0 114.5 271.5 402.9 126.0 16.4 3.0 0.3
2011 12.4 0.0 36.9 6.5 70.2 126.7 260.4 345.9 206.8 12.0 36.3 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 12.5 91.9 387.1 299.8 166.4 24.0 0.8 1.1
2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 32.1 150.3 394.6 na 82.4 86.5 1.0 0.0
2014 0.0 0.2 15.9 20.0 61.4 82.7 268.4 262.6 214.2 132.2 30.8 0.0
2015 0.0 8.8 100.6 0.0 169.7 83.0 267.5 336.3 137.0 6.2 22.7 7.3
2016 0.0 0.0 7.8 17.5 108.2 108.7 322.6 272.9 124.1 33.5 8.2 2.4

109
 Ambesami
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 5.4 0.0 0.2 121.6 147.4 226.7 392.5 382.5 154.8 146.0 7.9 0.0
2009 0.0 3.6 32.1 6.1 13.9 139.2 423.7 549.2 199.9 152.5 5.3 1.9
2010 7.6 0.0 16.9 47.8 84.1 204.3 534.4 522.4 285.2 0.0 8.7 0.0
2011 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.7 164.4 91.4 454.6 442.8 273.0 37.4 43.4 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 55.3 108.6 546.4 425.3 406.3 25.2 19.1 3.9
2013 0.0 0.6 5.0 9.8 83.0 214.6 714.1 464.6 181.2 231.2 36.7 0.0
2014 0.0 0.0 66.0 83.0 291.0 248.5 345.6 683.9 303.5 222.0 19.0 0.0
2015 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 288.0 253.5 524.0 468.5 253.0 161.0 90.0 24.0
2016 10 0 56.1 3.9 308.2 316.6 591.2 408.9 269.3 107.3 0 3.7

Arebgebaye
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2006 0.0 2.6 9.1 104.3 63.7 15.7 157.6 194.3 73.2 14.8 30.4 6.5
2007 0.0 2.6 34.3 68.4 17.8 145.3 191.7 193.2 87.8 2.5 1.5 0.0
2008 2.6 0.0 3.0 7.7 70.3 48.7 216.2 233.4 169.1 17.7 55.3 0.2
2009 0.0 13.0 19.2 14.3 18.8 100.9 199.7 351.1 96.7 134.2 2.3 15.9
2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 280.9 10.6 323.2 245.4 31.3 9.9 1.7
2011 3.5 0.0 16.2 7.3 21.0 45.2 424.3 412.3 275.2 48.2 15.1 3.1
2012 0.0 0.0 7.5 8.7 92.8 337.4 414.4 326.7 23.2 25.0 25.0 25.0
2013 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 12.8 155.6 306.5 219.9 61.9 79.5 38.3 0.1
2014 0 1.5 62.5 67 215 194 343 374 195.5 165.8 13.4 0.0
2015 0 1 9.5 1 124.5 201.5 183.5 415 203.5 111.5 83 56

110
 lewaye
Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2003 0.0 43.0 66.0 10.2 8.0 137.7 434.4 359.7 268.5 1.3 6.8 8.5
2004 3.71 8.5 24.5 70.0 26.5 145.5 374.8 254.8 90.5 80.8 20.1 3.0
2005 3.07 0.0 21.1 23.0 59.3 137.8 291.4 354.7 136.1 31.1 2.3 0.0
2006 0.0 5.3 14.8 0.0 0.0 303.3 316.5 274.8 271.1 66.7 62.8 0.0
2007 0.0 11.4 49.0 59.0 91.9 341.3 459.8 244.4 152.6 3.9 28.8 0.0
2008 25.7 1.5 0.3 105.2 242.0 229.1 408.6 356.2 219.8 107.0 22.0 23.9
2009 0.0 3.5 16.3 19.08 8.97 97.7 696.6 1048.5 217.1 138.0 2.97 2.4
2010 28.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 211.6 554.1 538.4 325.1 7.3 26.9 15.1
2011 0.0 0.0 43.6 8.3 204.1 239.0 468.4 556.4 230.2 40.4 91.7 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 76.1 6.5 23.7 203.3 428.1 253.4 157.0 44.0 49.0 12.1
2013 8.3 5.4 13.7 36.8 119.01 166.7 na 363.3 108.6 na 21.7 3.5
2014 7.7 0 13.5 52.5 na 159 482.5 299.3 191.5 75.1 39.14 0.20
2015 0.00 4.40 30.8 11.6 176 136.4 408.1 366.7 184.6 17.3 36.8 34.80
2016 5.1 7.1 7.7 32.7 152.3 231.9 376.7 203.5 138.0 79.5 11.5 0.0

Bahirdar
Year JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1997 0.0 0.0 19.4 29.1 237.5 121.7 233.5 217.5 179.7 145.5 23.4 10.1
1998 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.6 107.6 196.5 384.1 358.0 240.6 115.3 1.1 0.0
1999 9.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 50.5 130.9 393.6 485.7 196.3 197.3 3.0 0.0
2000 0.0 0.0 0.3 90.3 61.2 153.7 314.2 517.2 225.8 173.3 27.8 0.0
2001 0.0 0.0 1.0 22.7 54.8 249.3 380.6 562.1 142.5 92.7 12.5 16.9
2002 0.0 1.2 8.2 15.9 2.0 437.2 465.0 405.0 154.9 17.8 0.5 1.0
2003 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.2 239.2 616.2 451.1 258.3 74.2 5.2 5.7
2004 8.7 20.5 5.1 39.2 7.3 144.3 503.3 294.5 232.0 89.9 7.4 0.0
2005 0.7 9.0 85.6 9.9 74.6 188.8 533.3 247.5 278.0 52.8 7.4 0.0
2006 3.1 0.2 0.1 6.7 151.2 225.5 563.9 364.1 211.0 153.7 0.0 3.7

111
2007 0.0 0.0 1.1 29.2 16.2 285.6 314.8 328.8 203.4 115.6 11.4 0.0
2008 1.8 0.0 0.0 104.3 87.8 175.6 481.5 337.6 150.2 56.5 33.1 0.0
2009 0.0 0.0 7.7 3.0 8.0 66.3 319.5 618.5 112.1 56.8 3.0 0.0
2010 13.3 0.0 0.0 34.0 72.1 127.3 407.8 449.3 182.2 54.6 1.5 0.0
2011 0.0 0.0 28.4 12.9 103.0 169.0 415.4 312.8 144.0 37.9 28.1 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 25.4 122.0 466.5 504.4 255.9 7.6 2.0 11.2
2013 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 88.0 148.6 594.0 350.3 137.9 169.1 16.6 0.0
2014 0.0 0.0 65.9 66.6 163.7 178.4 378.4 480.8 260.0 117.4 0.0 0.4
2015 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 136.8 89.3 302.2 248.9 223.9 116.7 12.2 31.8
2016 0.0 0.0 23.8 8.5 171.2 248.8 409.6 274.4 104.8 0.5 0.0 0.0

Wanzaye
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2003 0.0 0.0 5.3 2.6 7.7 235.5 415.6 394.8 305.7 17.0 2.5 2.1
2004 0.0 0.0 3.0 24.5 0.0 117.9 378.8 256.4 211.1 87.2 9.8 0.0
2005 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 54.7 136.8 334.1 289.0 299.8 45.5 9.8 0.0
2006 2.9 0.3 2.1 99.0 111.7 82.0 413.1 599.4 199.4 77.8 0.0 8.8
2007 0.0 0.0 0.5 39.7 64.0 301.9 344.0 393.0 253.8 57.5 7.4 0.0
2008 5.6 0.0 0.0 153.7 196.7 177.0 391.2 386.2 153.3 118.7 9.8 0.0
2009 0.0 3.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 103.1 436.4 658.6 83.9 75.8 1.7 0.0
2010 11.7 0.0 14.8 15.9 62.4 225.8 460.6 739.9 312.4 25.1 9.6 0.0
2011 3.4 0.0 14.6 14.7 167.5 125.3 396.9 406.9 260.8 11.6 30.0 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.0 49.7 134.9 510.3 760.0 522.5 33.5 13.8 4.7
2013 2.5 1.6 0.0 2.5 26.2 145.9 556.9 372.9 187.6 131.1 15.7 0.0
2014 1.6 1.5 37.9 48.3 168.1 255.8 295.3 301.4 217.0 110.3 3.8 0.0
2015 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 117.2 64.5 530.1 364.1 153.7 157.3 52.97 18.487
2016 19.3 0.0 17.0 0.0 171.0 226.3 446.1 346.8 177.7 81.1 3.3 19.3

112
 Hamusit
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2003 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 12.7 229.1 491.0 388.4 314.1 21.9 0.0 0.0
2004 0.1 3.6 5.3 11.3 8.9 150.3 454.7 279.6 216.7 127.3 22.8 0.0
2005 1.8 16.9 55.5 42.7 8.7 138.8 446.4 298.3 519.2 58.4 17.7 0.0
2006 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.9 496.0 153.8 92.2 455.5 181.8 52.3 0.1 5.4
2007 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1457.0 329.0 532.2 0.0 109.7 0.0 3.9 0.0
2008 1.0 0.0 0.0 127.9 129.6 197.8 522.5 380.0 98.5 94.3 1.8 0.0
2009 0.0 0.0 8.0 1.0 4.5 133.1 362.8 477.5 0.0 109.6 0.0 0.0
2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 186.2 708.1 573.1 313.2 66.7 1.5 0.0
2011 0.0 0.0 30.9 2.4 186.5 158.1 496.1 435.3 294.2 26.5 12.0 0.0
2012 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 31.9 147.7 535.2 0.0 296.7 58.0 9.3 9.0
2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 678.2 166.5 580.6 588.7 2045.8 220.5 0.0 0.0
2014 0.0 0.0 9.5 71.0 236.2 383.0 461.5 501.0 436.5 91.0 0.0 0.0
2015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 133.5 206.5 387.2 293.3 187.0 143.7 13.9 11.7
2016 10.0 0 1.5 0 95.7 361.6 482.4 519.6 192.1 12.8 0 2.0

zenzalima
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 4.2 0.1 0.0 96.1 97.9 244.0 473.2 385.2 213.7 121.5 16.7 0.0
2009 0.0 1.3 23.8 25.9 47.2 66.2 0.0 478.0 109.9 0.0 0.0 0.5
2010 9.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 46.4 232.8 546.1 682.3 186.0 83.9 0.0 0.2
2011 0.6 0.0 16.4 13.3 137.1 162.9 384.8 377.5 311.6 72.3 33.7 0.8
2012 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.0 21.3 209.4 442.2 408.1 361.6 29.8 23.2 33.9
2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.7 178.3 683.5 421.2 170.0 203.8 34.1 0.0
2014 0.0 2.1 38.2 49.6 177.3 112.2 339.6 387.4 223.7 104.1 3.2 0.0
2015 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 154.0 198.7 378.9 119.3 169.5 98.0 7.0 18.3
2016 0.0 0.0 6.0 18.9 186.0 333.3 351.0 264.9 138.9 80.5 0.0 0.0

113
Table I.2: Annual Rainfall Data for Different Stations

year A/ber D/tabor M/eysus Werata A/zemen Yifage Ambesami A/gebaye wanzaye B/dar Hamusit Zenzalima Lewaye
2003 1233.32 1281.8 1317.6 1267.5 1140.7 969.5 1773.005 1135.538 1388.7 1651.4 1460.4 1224.869 1344.1
2004 1201.5 1198.1 1019.6 1186.5 1186.7 944.7 1817.102 1213.327 1088.7 1352.2 1280.6 987.8487 1102.7
2005 1291.1 1486.9 937.7 1388.4 1275.6 1070.2 1827.315 1185.137 1197.5 1487.6 1604.5 1129.174 1059.9
2006 1471.0 1633.8 1387.3 1514.4 1444.7 1173.4 1682.662 672.1 1596.5 1683.2 1439.2 1363.271 1315.3
2007 1394.3 1532.4 1416.6 1238.0 1193.7 984.2 1482.679 745.1 1461.8 1306.1 2437.5 1499.733 1442.1
2008 1588.9 1605.3 1329.0 1569.6 1888.2 1228.5 1585.0 824.2 1592.2 1428.4 1553.4 1652.6 1741.3
2009 1190.0 1493.7 695.2 1107.1 1467.7 790.0 1527.4 966.1 1365.1 1194.9 1096.5 752.8 2251.1
2010 1562.5 1617.4 1538.1 1468.4 2154.1 998.8 1711.4 903.1 1878.2 1342.1 1857.3 1790.4 1706.8
2011 1118.6 1522.1 1492.4 1195.3 2446.8 1114.1 1517.5 1271.3 1431.7 1251.5 1642.1 1511.0 1882.1
2012 1198.2 1489.4 1314.5 1239.0 1902.2 984.2 1598.6 1285.7 2034.8 1396.0 1090.3 1534.0 1253.2
2013 1485.4 1670.9 1388.9 1297.6 1082.2 749.0 1940.8 874.9 1442.9 1507.3 4280.2 1801.6 847.0
2014 1373.2 1749.9 1081.7 1249.6 1026.8 1088.4 2262.5 1631.7 1441.0 1711.6 2189.7 1437.4 1320.4
2015 1485.6 1202.6 1353.4 1866.5 987.8 1139.1 2066.0 1390.0 1462.0 1163.0 1376.8 1144.5 1407.5
2016 1298.92 1360.7 1308.7 1311.89 1252.5 1005.9 2075.2 1322.551 1482.939 1241.6 1675.7 1379.5 1393.59

114
Appendix IIB: checking of hydrological data
TABLE II.1: spearman’s rank –correlation coefficient method computation
procedure
i=x MeanSflow(x) Ranked flow(y) Kxi Kyi Di Di^2
1 27.304 17.720 1 3 -2 4
2 32.628 20.362 2 10 -8 64
3 17.720 20.385 3 18 -15 225
4 25.180 20.886 4 13 -9 81
5 33.515 21.463 5 15 -10 100
6 40.435 22.649 6 14 -8 64
7 30.214 24.795 7 11 -4 16
8 37.151 25.180 8 4 4 16
9 28.616 25.257 9 35 -26 676
10 20.362 27.304 10 1 9 81
11 24.795 28.616 11 9 2 4
12 35.411 30.214 12 7 5 25
13 20.886 30.327 13 20 -7 49
14 22.649 30.430 14 14 0 0
15 21.463 31.315 15 17 -2 4
16 35.272 31.442 16 21 -5 25
17 31.315 31.524 17 26 -9 81
18 20.385 31.538 18 22 -4 16
19 41.205 32.628 19 2 17 289
20 30.327 33.086 20 33 -13 169
21 31.442 33.515 21 5 16 256
22 31.538 33.980 22 24 -2 4
23 30.430 34.127 23 32 -9 81
24 33.980 34.205 24 36 -12 144
25 38.569 35.272 25 16 9 81

115
26 31.524 35.411 26 12 14 196
27 53.007 36.261 27 40 -13 169
28 44.831 37.151 28 8 20 400
29 56.762 38.569 29 25 4 16
30 51.048 40.435 30 6 24 576
31 61.896 41.205 31 19 12 144
32 34.127 43.575 32 34 -2 4
33 33.086 43.581 33 37 -4 16
34 43.575 44.479 34 38 -4 16
35 25.257 44.831 35 28 7 49
36 34.205 48.651 36 39 -3 9
37 43.581 51.048 37 30 7 49
38 44.479 53.007 38 27 11 121
39 48.651 56.762 39 29 10 100
40 36.261 61.896 31 -31 961
∑Di^2 4420
Rsp = 1-
((6*∑Di^2)/(n*(n^2-1)) 0.585
t= RSP * ((n-2)/(n-
Rsp^2))^2 0.314

116
Appendix IIB: Mean monthly and yearly Variability of Rainfall for considered Rain
gauge Stations
Figure II.1: Mean monthly and yearly variability of Rainfall
Annual Variability of Rainfall for Amedber Station
2000.0
Rainfall(mm)

1500.0
1000.0
500.0
Annual Variability of Rainfall of
0.0
Amedber Station

Year

Mean Monthly Rainfall Varibality of Amedber Station

500.0
400.0
Rainfall(mm)

300.0
Mean Monthly Rainfall
200.0 Varibality of Amedber…
100.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
month

600.0
Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Debratabor Station
Rainfal(mm)

400.0

200.0 Mean Monthly Variability

of Rainfall for Debratabor
0.0 Station
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
month

Annual Variability of Rainfll for Debratabor Station

2000.0
Rainfall(mm)

1500.0
1000.0 Annual Variability of
Rainfll for Debratabor
500.0 Station
0.0

Year

117
 600.0Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Werata Station

Rainfalll(mm) 400.0

200.0 Mean Monthly Variability

of Rainfall for Werata
0.0 Station
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Year

600.0
Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Werata Station
Rainfalll(mm)

400.0

200.0 Mean Monthly Variability

of Rainfall for Werata
0.0 Station
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Year
Mean Monthy Variability of Rainfall for Addiszemen Station
500.0
400.0
Rainfall(mm)

300.0
200.0
Mean Monthy Variability
100.0 of Rainfall for Addiszemen
Station
0.0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
month

Annual Variability of Rainfall for Addiszemen Station

3000.0
2500.0
Rainfall(mm)

2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
Annual Variability of
500.0
Rainfall for
0.0 Addiszemen Station
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
year

118
 Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Amebesame Station
600.0

Rainfall(mm) 400.0

200.0 Mean Monthly Variability of

Rainfall for Amebesame
0.0 Station
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
month

Annual Varibality of Rainfall for Ambesame Station

2500.0
2000.0
Rainfall(mm)

1500.0
1000.0 Annual Varibality of Rainfall for
500.0 Ambesame Station
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year

Annual Variability of Rainfall for Arebgebaye Station

2000.0
Rainfall(mm)

1500.0

1000.0
Annual Variability of Rainfall for
500.0 Arebgebaye Station
0.0
2006200720082009201020112012201320142015
Year

Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Arebegebaye

400.0
Rainfall(mm)

300.0

200.0

100.0 Mean Monthly Variability

of Rainfall for Arebegebaye
0.0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
month

119
 600.0 Mean Monthly Varibility of Rainfall for Hamusit Station

Rainfall(mm)
400.0

200.0
Mean Monthly Varibility of
0.0 Rainfall for Hamusit Station
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
month

6000.0
Annual Variability of Rainfall for Hamusit Station
Rainfall(mm)

4000.0
2000.0
Annual Variability of
0.0 Rainfall for Hamusit
Station

year

Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Wanzaye Station

500.0
Rainfall(mm)

400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0 Mean Monthly Variability…
0.0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
month

Annual Variability of Rainfall for Wanzaye Station

2500.0
Rainfall(mm)

2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
Annual Variability of
500.0
Rainfall for Wanzaye
0.0 Station

Year

120
 Annual Variability of Rainfall for Yifage Station
1500.0

1000.0

500.0 Annual Variability of

Rainfall for Yifage
0.0 Station
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Yifage Station

400.0

300.0

200.0
Mean Monthly
100.0 Variability of Rainfall
for Yifage Station
0.0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Mekaneyesus Station

400.0
Rainfall(mm)

200.0
Mean Monthly Variability of
0.0 Rainfall for Mekaneyesus Station
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month

Annual Variability of Rainfall for Mekaneyesus Station

400.0
Rainfall(mm)

200.0
Annual Variability of
0.0 Rainfall for
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Mekaneyesus Station
Year

Mean Monthly Variability of Rainfall for Zenzalima Station

500.0
Rainfall(mm)

400.0
300.0
200.0 Mean Monthly Variability of
100.0 Rainfall for Zenzalima Station
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

121
 Annual Variabilty of Rainfall for Zenzalima Station
2000.0
Rainfall(mm)

1000.0
Annual Variabilty of Rainfall for
0.0 Zenzalima Station
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year

Appenix III:Consistancy Analysis of Rainfall Data for Methorological stations

Figure III.1:Double Mass Curve Analysis of stations
30000.000
25000.0

Cummulative Annual Rainfll for

Cummulative Annual Rainfall

25000.000
20000.0 R² = 0.9992 R² = 0.996
for Baherdar Station

20000.000

Hmusitinmm
15000.0
15000.000 Double Mass
10000.0 Double Mass
Curve for
Curve for 10000.000
Hamusit
5000.0 Baherdar
station 5000.000
0.0
0.000
0.0 10000.0 20000.0 30000.0
0.000 10000.00020000.00030000.000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall for pattern(Base
Station) Cummulative Annual Rainfall for pattern

16000.000 25000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall

Cummulative Annual Rainfal for

14000.000
R² = 0.9985 20000
12000.000 R² = 0.9985
Yifage station

10000.000
15000
Zenzalima

8000.000
for

6000.000 Double Mass

Double Mass 10000
Curve for
4000.000 Curve for Yifage Zenzalima
2000.000 5000
0.000
0
0.000 10000.000 20000.000
0 10000 20000 30000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall of pattern(Base cummulative Annual Rainfall of pattern(Base
station) station)

122
 20000 20000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall

Cummulative Annual Rainfall

18000 R² = 0.9999 18000
R² = 0.9987
16000 16000
for Amedber in mm

14000 14000

for M/eyasus
12000 12000
10000 Double 10000 Double Mass
8000 Curve for 8000 Curve for
6000 Amedber 6000 M/eyasus
station
4000 4000
2000 2000
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall for Cummulative Annual Rainfall for pattern(Base
pattern(Base station) station)

20000.000 30000

Cummulative Annual Rainfall

Cummulative Annual Rainfall

18000.000 R² = 0.9959 25000 R² = 0.9987

for Ambesame in mm
16000.000
for Addiszemen

14000.000 20000
12000.000
10000.000 15000 Double Mass
Double Mass
8000.000 curve for
Curve for
6000.000 10000 Ambesame
A/zemen
4000.000
5000
2000.000
0.000 0
0.000 10000.00020000.00030000.000 0 10000 20000 30000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall for Cummulative Annual Rainfall for Pattern(Base
Pattern(Base station) station)

25000.000 18000.000
cummulative annual rainfall for

Cummulative Annual Rainfall

16000.000
20000.000 R² = 0.9977 R² = 0.9961
14000.000
Wanzaye in mm

12000.000
for A/gebaye

15000.000
Double 10000.000
10000.000 Mass Curve 8000.000 Double Mass
for Wanzaye 6000.000 Curve for
A/gebaye
5000.000 4000.000
2000.000
0.000
0.0005000.000
10000.000
15000.000
20000.000
25000.000 0.000
0.000 10000.000 20000.000 30000.000
Cummulative Annual Rainfall for pattern Cummulative Annual Rainfall for pattern(Base
station)

123
Appenix V: Estimated Stream Flow Data for UnGauged Sites and stream flow data of gauge site.
Table V-1:Stream flow data for gauge site of Gumara River Basin
year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1970 4.205 3.831 3.758 0.454 0.645 4.608 34.002 139.820 76.092 24.707 8.218 3.843
1971 1.798 1.084 0.795 0.575 1.373 3.843 68.326 176.736 73.110 20.525 10.748 5.150
1972 2.226 1.227 0.822 0.513 0.679 2.454 33.615 109.529 32.975 7.623 3.260 2.272
1973 1.501 0.525 0.296 0.245 1.968 3.032 28.978 118.005 77.469 36.231 8.731 4.008
1974 2.639 1.154 0.810 0.575 3.225 15.116 99.402 137.168 84.576 18.719 5.278 2.276
1975 1.439 0.910 0.563 0.386 0.440 1.381 59.437 181.015 171.701 19.549 7.963 3.603
1976 1.995 1.157 0.930 0.556 1.389 5.756 65.297 152.122 70.741 19.298 13.117 6.188
1977 2.454 1.188 0.818 0.345 1.057 4.059 86.559 157.083 86.497 48.850 19.753 6.343
1978 2.600 1.157 0.903 0.826 0.883 3.850 83.133 119.985 62.596 27.731 11.107 5.768
1979 2.006 0.837 0.633 0.188 0.823 1.876 43.681 96.802 56.439 13.681 7.022 2.924
1980 1.400 0.374 0.309 0.625 0.370 2.230 56.057 137.257 64.294 25.822 5.818 2.982
1981 1.478 0.548 0.390 0.177 1.262 2.438 38.565 226.304 104.375 34.742 9.653 5.000
1982 1.636 0.845 1.346 0.544 0.613 2.975 22.689 111.327 64.125 33.036 8.738 2.762
1983 2.330 1.424 0.941 0.536 0.745 2.203 31.698 144.329 56.790 19.552 8.252 2.994
1984 1.736 1.339 0.710 0.451 1.038 8.326 58.488 101.868 58.989 13.557 6.717 4.340
1985 1.759 1.204 0.517 0.571 1.547 3.148 118.495 132.527 114.481 26.983 13.789 8.239
1986 1.755 0.883 0.505 0.390 0.252 18.413 100.491 115.631 83.647 34.191 12.516 7.109
1987 1.640 0.907 0.675 0.436 3.457 14.954 35.679 126.579 42.670 10.737 4.776 2.106
1988 0.961 0.544 0.365 0.246 0.428 1.998 165.741 164.545 88.387 56.867 9.819 4.560
1989 2.203 1.485 0.633 0.520 0.887 10.643 87.145 144.925 65.581 33.295 11.522 5.088
1990 2.465 0.849 0.625 0.405 0.556 1.782 54.086 180.362 109.281 20.756 4.144 1.998
1991 1.026 0.494 0.394 0.444 0.840 13.681 83.215 168.091 75.972 24.514 4.826 4.965
1992 3.144 1.995 2.870 0.841 1.975 2.052 42.006 164.691 71.570 52.485 14.919 6.609
1993 2.793 1.222 0.722 0.919 2.208 10.262 89.610 145.305 100.436 37.675 11.713 4.896
1994 2.461 1.223 0.633 0.343 1.065 20.181 88.738 194.354 122.512 19.987 7.068 4.267
1995 2.240 1.559 1.532 1.418 1.629 5.009 61.610 148.572 98.927 25.606 17.021 13.171
1996 7.751 3.468 3.519 3.457 8.422 57.242 173.916 200.466 102.022 38.032 22.064 15.726
1997 11.134 7.465 6.852 4.973 7.813 48.376 141.976 150.534 80.035 61.254 11.522 6.035
1998 11.292 7.342 6.458 5.378 9.375 28.727 123.353 213.434 151.451 68.075 27.739 28.519

124
1999 23.864 7.906 5.251 4.211 5.230 16.417 130.487 164.379 100.358 112.002 36.433 6.035
2000 3.715 2.070 1.776 11.720 9.685 34.142 173.988 251.636 99.403 97.566 36.695 20.356
2001 3.188 1.769 1.743 1.281 1.811 14.484 96.130 207.525 57.817 14.146 5.879 3.757
2002 2.847 1.843 2.008 1.669 1.184 24.909 95.179 162.446 80.133 12.751 6.774 5.291
2003 3.908 2.862 3.214 2.334 2.280 14.479 93.196 182.070 157.171 48.201 7.967 5.223
2004 3.837 3.041 2.660 2.998 2.486 9.423 80.789 109.871 53.213 21.231 8.089 5.452
2005 4.022 3.300 3.633 2.629 3.454 13.932 75.305 119.492 129.766 40.008 9.037 5.878
2006 4.276 3.492 3.317 3.281 6.590 17.343 88.987 213.629 142.394 24.357 9.516 5.786
2007 3.715 2.070 1.776 1.681 2.603 44.196 114.488 145.941 169.866 29.857 11.522 6.035
2008 3.717 2.070 1.776 4.740 6.620 39.096 158.114 229.454 106.919 13.753 11.522 6.035
2009 3.717 2.070 1.776 1.681 2.603 13.777 108.320 162.900 87.439 33.295 11.522 6.035

125
 Table v-2: Stability of Variance and Mean

sub-set 1 Sub-set 2
i Xi X i2 i Xi X i2
1 27.304 745.482 21 31.442 988.625
2 32.628 1064.610 22 31.538 994.672
3 17.720 314.008 23 30.430 925.976
4 25.180 634.029 24 33.980 1154.644
5 33.515 1123.235 25 38.569 1487.597
6 40.435 1634.982 26 31.524 993.793
7 30.214 912.904 27 53.007 2809.739
8 37.151 1380.209 28 44.831 2009.790
9 28.616 818.857 29 56.762 3221.905
10 20.362 414.623 30 51.048 2605.865
11 24.795 614.786 31 61.896 3831.105
12 35.411 1253.930 32 34.127 1164.678
13 20.886 436.243 33 33.086 1094.696
14 22.649 513.000 34 43.575 1898.820
15 21.463 460.670 35 25.257 637.938
16 35.272 1244.091 36 34.205 1169.959
17 31.315 980.649 37 43.581 1899.275
18 20.385 415.532 38 44.479 1978.396
19 41.205 1697.862 39 48.651 2366.952
20 30.327 919.740 40.000 36.261 1314.878
Total 576.834 17579.442 808.251 34549.305
Number of observation n1 20 n2 20
Mean 28.841698 878.972088 40.412561 1727.46526
Variance 49.608998 99.252779

X1 - X2 -11.57086
(n1-1)S12+(n2-1)S22//(n1+n2-2) 2828.3738
(⅟n1+⅟n2) 0.1
Ft 0.49982477
tt -0.6880141

126
Table V-3: Estimated Stream Flow Data for Runoff Factor Estimator Sites
Base station_1
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 4.14 3.77 3.70 0.45 0.64 4.54 33.50 137.74 74.96 24.34 8.10 3.79
1971 1.77 1.07 0.78 0.57 1.35 3.79 67.31 174.11 72.02 20.22 10.59 5.07
1972 2.19 1.21 0.81 0.51 0.67 2.42 33.12 107.90 32.49 7.51 3.21 2.24
1973 1.48 0.52 0.29 0.24 1.94 2.99 28.55 116.25 76.32 35.69 8.60 3.95
1974 2.60 1.14 0.80 0.57 3.18 14.89 97.93 135.13 83.32 18.44 5.20 2.24
1975 1.42 0.90 0.55 0.38 0.43 1.36 58.55 178.33 169.15 19.26 7.84 3.55
1976 1.96 1.14 0.92 0.55 1.37 5.67 64.33 149.86 69.69 19.01 12.92 6.10
1977 2.42 1.17 0.81 0.34 1.04 4.00 85.27 154.75 85.21 48.13 19.46 6.25
1978 2.56 1.14 0.89 0.81 0.87 3.79 81.90 118.20 61.67 27.32 10.94 5.68
1979 1.98 0.82 0.62 0.18 0.81 1.85 43.03 95.36 55.60 13.48 6.92 2.88
1980 1.38 0.37 0.30 0.62 0.36 2.20 55.23 135.22 63.34 25.44 5.73 2.94
1981 1.46 0.54 0.38 0.17 1.24 2.40 37.99 222.94 102.83 34.23 9.51 4.93
1982 1.61 0.83 1.33 0.54 0.60 2.93 22.35 98.37 56.66 32.55 8.61 2.72
1983 2.30 1.40 0.93 0.53 0.73 2.17 31.23 142.19 55.95 19.26 8.13 2.95
1984 1.71 1.32 0.70 0.44 1.02 8.20 57.62 105.81 58.11 13.36 6.62 4.28
1985 1.73 1.19 0.51 0.56 1.52 3.10 119.08 135.76 103.08 16.10 6.72 3.79
1986 1.73 0.87 0.50 0.38 0.25 12.72 92.66 97.79 65.60 22.33 5.98 3.22
1987 1.62 0.89 0.67 0.43 3.41 14.73 35.15 129.23 42.04 10.58 4.71 2.08
1988 0.95 0.54 0.36 0.24 0.42 1.97 163.28 162.10 87.08 56.02 9.67 4.49
1989 2.17 1.46 0.62 0.51 0.87 10.48 85.85 160.48 64.61 32.80 11.35 5.01
1990 2.43 0.84 0.62 0.40 0.55 1.76 53.28 185.93 109.75 20.45 4.08 1.97
1991 1.01 0.49 0.39 0.44 0.83 13.48 85.47 172.14 74.84 24.15 4.75 4.89
1992 3.10 1.96 2.83 0.83 1.95 2.02 41.38 162.25 70.51 51.71 14.70 6.51
1993 2.75 1.20 0.71 0.90 2.18 10.11 88.28 143.15 76.52 32.80 11.54 4.82
1994 2.42 1.20 0.62 0.34 1.05 19.88 87.42 199.04 120.69 23.44 6.96 4.20
1995 2.21 1.54 1.51 1.40 1.60 4.93 63.50 152.84 97.46 25.23 16.77 12.98
1996 7.64 3.42 3.47 3.41 8.30 56.39 171.33 202.19 100.51 37.47 21.74 15.49
1997 10.97 7.35 6.75 4.90 7.70 47.66 145.15 153.06 78.85 60.34 11.35 5.95
1998 11.12 7.23 6.36 5.30 9.24 28.30 121.52 210.27 149.20 67.06 27.33 28.10
1999 23.51 7.79 5.17 4.15 5.15 16.17 128.55 161.94 98.87 110.34 35.89 5.95
2000 3.66 2.04 1.75 11.55 9.54 33.64 171.41 247.90 97.93 96.12 36.15 20.05

127
2001 3.14 1.74 1.72 1.26 1.78 14.27 94.70 204.44 56.96 13.94 5.79 3.70
2002 2.80 1.82 1.98 1.64 1.17 24.54 93.77 160.03 78.94 12.56 6.67 5.21
2003 3.85 2.82 3.17 2.30 2.25 14.26 91.81 179.37 154.84 47.49 7.85 5.15
2004 3.78 3.00 2.62 2.95 2.45 9.28 79.59 108.24 52.42 20.92 7.97 5.37
2005 3.96 3.25 3.58 2.59 3.40 13.73 74.19 117.72 127.84 39.41 8.90 5.79
2006 4.21 3.44 3.27 3.23 6.49 17.09 87.67 210.46 140.28 24.00 9.37 5.70
2007 3.66 2.04 1.75 1.66 2.56 43.54 112.79 143.77 167.34 29.41 11.35 5.95
2008 3.66 2.04 1.75 4.67 6.52 38.52 155.77 226.05 105.33 13.55 11.35 5.95
2009 3.66 2.04 1.75 1.66 2.56 13.57 106.71 160.48 86.14 32.80 11.35 5.95

Base station_2
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 4.13 3.77 3.69 0.45 0.63 4.53 33.42 137.42 74.78 24.28 8.08 3.78
1971 1.77 1.07 0.78 0.56 1.35 3.78 67.15 173.70 71.85 20.17 10.56 5.06
1972 2.19 1.21 0.81 0.50 0.67 2.41 33.04 107.65 32.41 7.49 3.20 2.23
1973 1.47 0.52 0.29 0.24 1.93 2.98 28.48 115.98 76.14 35.61 8.58 3.94
1974 2.59 1.13 0.80 0.57 3.17 14.86 97.69 134.81 83.12 18.40 5.19 2.24
1975 1.41 0.89 0.55 0.38 0.43 1.36 58.42 177.90 168.75 19.21 7.83 3.54
1976 1.96 1.14 0.91 0.55 1.37 5.66 64.17 149.51 69.52 18.97 12.89 6.08
1977 2.41 1.17 0.80 0.34 1.04 3.99 85.07 154.38 85.01 48.01 19.41 6.23
1978 2.56 1.14 0.89 0.81 0.87 3.78 81.70 117.92 61.52 27.25 10.92 5.67
1979 1.97 0.82 0.62 0.18 0.81 1.84 42.93 95.14 55.47 13.45 6.90 2.87
1980 1.38 0.37 0.30 0.61 0.36 2.19 55.09 134.90 63.19 25.38 5.72 2.93
1981 1.45 0.54 0.38 0.17 1.24 2.40 37.90 222.41 102.58 34.14 9.49 4.91
1982 1.61 0.83 1.32 0.53 0.60 2.92 22.30 98.14 56.52 32.47 8.59 2.71
1983 2.29 1.40 0.93 0.53 0.73 2.17 31.15 141.85 55.81 19.22 8.11 2.94
1984 1.71 1.32 0.70 0.44 1.02 8.18 57.48 105.56 57.98 13.32 6.60 4.27
1985 1.73 1.18 0.51 0.56 1.52 3.09 118.79 135.44 102.83 16.06 6.70 3.78
1986 1.73 0.87 0.50 0.38 0.25 12.69 92.44 97.56 65.44 22.28 5.96 3.21
1987 1.61 0.89 0.66 0.43 3.40 14.70 35.07 128.92 41.94 10.55 4.69 2.07
1988 0.94 0.53 0.36 0.24 0.42 1.96 162.89 161.72 86.87 55.89 9.65 4.48
1989 2.17 1.46 0.62 0.51 0.87 10.46 85.65 160.10 64.45 32.72 11.32 5.00
1990 2.42 0.83 0.61 0.40 0.55 1.75 53.16 185.49 109.49 20.40 4.07 1.96
1991 1.01 0.49 0.39 0.44 0.83 13.45 85.27 171.73 74.67 24.09 4.74 4.88
1992 3.09 1.96 2.82 0.83 1.94 2.02 41.28 161.86 70.34 51.58 14.66 6.50
1993 2.75 1.20 0.71 0.90 2.17 10.09 88.07 142.81 76.34 32.72 11.51 4.81
1994 2.42 1.20 0.62 0.34 1.05 19.83 87.21 198.57 120.41 23.39 6.95 4.19
1995 2.20 1.53 1.51 1.39 1.60 4.92 63.34 152.47 97.23 25.17 16.73 12.94
1996 7.62 3.41 3.46 3.40 8.28 56.26 170.93 201.71 100.27 37.38 21.68 15.46
1997 10.94 7.34 6.73 4.89 7.68 47.54 144.80 152.69 78.66 60.20 11.32 5.93

128
 1998 11.10 7.22 6.35 5.29 9.21 28.23 121.23 209.77 148.85 66.90 27.26 28.03
1999 23.45 7.77 5.16 4.14 5.14 16.13 128.24 161.55 98.63 110.08 35.81 5.93
2000 3.65 2.03 1.75 11.52 9.52 33.56 171.00 247.31 97.69 95.89 36.06 20.01
2001 3.13 1.74 1.71 1.26 1.78 14.23 94.48 203.96 56.82 13.90 5.78 3.69
2002 2.80 1.81 1.97 1.64 1.16 24.48 93.54 159.65 78.76 12.53 6.66 5.20
2003 3.84 2.81 3.16 2.29 2.24 14.23 91.59 178.94 154.47 47.37 7.83 5.13
2004 3.77 2.99 2.61 2.95 2.44 9.26 79.40 107.98 52.30 20.87 7.95 5.36
2005 3.95 3.24 3.57 2.58 3.39 13.69 74.01 117.44 127.54 39.32 8.88 5.78
2006 4.20 3.43 3.26 3.22 6.48 17.04 87.46 209.96 139.95 23.94 9.35 5.69
2007 3.65 2.03 1.75 1.65 2.56 43.44 112.52 143.43 166.95 29.34 11.32 5.93
2008 3.65 2.03 1.75 4.66 6.51 38.42 155.40 225.51 105.08 13.52 11.32 5.93
2009 3.65 2.03 1.75 1.65 2.56 13.54 106.46 160.10 85.94 32.72 11.32 5.93

Base station-3

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 4.10 3.73 3.66 0.44 0.63 4.49 33.12 136.22 74.13 24.07 8.01 3.74
1971 1.75 1.06 0.77 0.56 1.34 3.74 66.56 172.18 71.22 20.00 10.47 5.02
1972 2.17 1.20 0.80 0.50 0.66 2.39 32.75 106.71 32.12 7.43 3.18 2.21
1973 1.46 0.51 0.29 0.24 1.92 2.95 28.23 114.96 75.47 35.30 8.51 3.91
1974 2.57 1.12 0.79 0.56 3.14 14.73 96.84 133.63 82.40 18.24 5.14 2.22
1975 1.40 0.89 0.55 0.38 0.43 1.35 57.90 176.35 167.27 19.04 7.76 3.51
1976 1.94 1.13 0.91 0.54 1.35 5.61 63.61 148.20 68.92 18.80 12.78 6.03
1977 2.39 1.16 0.80 0.34 1.03 3.95 84.33 153.03 84.27 47.59 19.24 6.18
1978 2.53 1.13 0.88 0.80 0.86 3.75 80.99 116.89 60.98 27.02 10.82 5.62
1979 1.95 0.82 0.62 0.18 0.80 1.83 42.55 94.31 54.98 13.33 6.84 2.85
1980 1.36 0.36 0.30 0.61 0.36 2.17 54.61 133.72 62.64 25.16 5.67 2.91
1981 1.44 0.53 0.38 0.17 1.23 2.38 37.57 220.47 101.68 33.85 9.40 4.87
1982 1.59 0.82 1.31 0.53 0.60 2.90 22.10 97.28 56.03 32.18 8.51 2.69
1983 2.27 1.39 0.92 0.52 0.73 2.15 30.88 140.61 55.33 19.05 8.04 2.92
1984 1.69 1.30 0.69 0.44 1.01 8.11 56.98 104.64 57.47 13.21 6.54 4.23
1985 1.71 1.17 0.50 0.56 1.51 3.07 117.76 134.26 101.93 15.92 6.65 3.74
1986 1.71 0.86 0.49 0.38 0.25 12.58 91.63 96.71 64.87 22.09 5.91 3.18
1987 1.60 0.88 0.66 0.42 3.37 14.57 34.76 127.79 41.57 10.46 4.65 2.05
1988 0.94 0.53 0.36 0.24 0.42 1.95 161.47 160.30 86.11 55.40 9.57 4.44
1989 2.15 1.45 0.62 0.51 0.86 10.37 84.90 158.70 63.89 32.44 11.22 4.96
1990 2.40 0.83 0.61 0.39 0.54 1.74 52.69 183.86 108.54 20.22 4.04 1.95
1991 1.00 0.48 0.38 0.43 0.82 13.33 84.52 170.23 74.01 23.88 4.70 4.84

129
 1992 3.06 1.94 2.80 0.82 1.92 2.00 40.92 160.45 69.73 51.13 14.53 6.44
1993 2.72 1.19 0.70 0.89 2.15 10.00 87.30 141.56 75.67 32.44 11.41 4.77

1994 2.40 1.19 0.62 0.33 1.04 19.66 86.45 196.83 119.35 23.18 6.89 4.16
1995 2.18 1.52 1.49 1.38 1.59 4.88 62.79 151.14 96.38 24.95 16.58 12.83
1996 7.55 3.38 3.43 3.37 8.20 55.77 169.43 199.94 99.39 37.05 21.50 15.32
1997 10.85 7.27 6.68 4.84 7.61 47.13 143.54 151.36 77.97 59.67 11.22 5.88
1998 11.00 7.15 6.29 5.24 9.13 27.99 120.17 207.93 147.55 66.32 27.02 27.78
1999 23.25 7.70 5.12 4.10 5.09 15.99 127.12 160.14 97.77 109.11 35.49 5.88
2000 3.62 2.02 1.73 11.42 9.43 33.26 169.50 245.15 96.84 95.05 35.75 19.83
2001 3.11 1.72 1.70 1.25 1.76 14.11 93.65 202.17 56.33 13.78 5.73 3.66
2002 2.77 1.80 1.96 1.63 1.15 24.27 92.73 158.26 78.07 12.42 6.60 5.15
2003 3.81 2.79 3.13 2.27 2.22 14.11 90.79 177.38 153.12 46.96 7.76 5.09
2004 3.74 2.96 2.59 2.92 2.42 9.18 78.71 107.04 51.84 20.68 7.88 5.31
2005 3.92 3.21 3.54 2.56 3.36 13.57 73.36 116.41 126.42 38.98 8.80 5.73
2006 4.17 3.40 3.23 3.20 6.42 16.90 86.69 208.12 138.72 23.73 9.27 5.64
2007 3.62 2.02 1.73 1.64 2.54 43.06 111.54 142.18 165.49 29.09 11.22 5.88
2008 3.62 2.02 1.73 4.62 6.45 38.09 154.04 223.54 104.16 13.40 11.22 5.88
2009 3.62 2.02 1.73 1.64 2.54 13.42 105.53 158.70 85.18 32.44 11.22 5.88

Base Station_4

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 4.03 3.68 3.61 0.44 0.62 4.42 32.62 134.14 73.00 23.70 7.88 3.69
1971 1.72 1.04 0.76 0.55 1.32 3.69 65.55 169.56 70.14 19.69 10.31 4.94
1972 2.14 1.18 0.79 0.49 0.65 2.35 32.25 105.08 31.63 7.31 3.13 2.18
1973 1.44 0.50 0.28 0.23 1.89 2.91 27.80 113.21 74.32 34.76 8.38 3.85
1974 2.53 1.11 0.78 0.55 3.09 14.50 95.36 131.60 81.14 17.96 5.06 2.18
1975 1.38 0.87 0.54 0.37 0.42 1.33 57.02 173.66 164.73 18.75 7.64 3.46
1976 1.91 1.11 0.89 0.53 1.33 5.52 62.64 145.94 67.87 18.51 12.58 5.94
1977 2.35 1.14 0.78 0.33 1.01 3.89 83.04 150.70 82.98 46.87 18.95 6.08
1978 2.49 1.11 0.87 0.79 0.85 3.69 79.76 115.11 60.05 26.60 10.66 5.53
1979 1.92 0.80 0.61 0.18 0.79 1.80 41.91 92.87 54.15 13.12 6.74 2.81
1980 1.34 0.36 0.30 0.60 0.36 2.14 53.78 131.68 61.68 24.77 5.58 2.86
1981 1.42 0.53 0.37 0.17 1.21 2.34 37.00 217.11 100.13 33.33 9.26 4.80
1982 1.57 0.81 1.29 0.52 0.59 2.85 21.77 95.80 55.18 31.69 8.38 2.65
1983 2.24 1.37 0.90 0.51 0.71 2.11 30.41 138.47 54.48 18.76 7.92 2.87
1984 1.67 1.28 0.68 0.43 1.00 7.99 56.11 103.04 56.59 13.01 6.44 4.16
1985 1.69 1.15 0.50 0.55 1.48 3.02 115.96 132.21 100.38 15.67 6.54 3.69
1986 1.68 0.85 0.48 0.37 0.24 12.39 90.24 95.23 63.88 21.75 5.82 3.13
1987 1.57 0.87 0.65 0.42 3.32 14.35 34.23 125.84 40.94 10.30 4.58 2.02

130
1988 0.92 0.52 0.35 0.24 0.41 1.92 159.01 157.86 84.80 54.56 9.42 4.37
1989 2.11 1.42 0.61 0.50 0.85 10.21 83.60 156.28 62.92 31.94 11.05 4.88
1990 2.37 0.81 0.60 0.39 0.53 1.71 51.89 181.06 106.88 19.91 3.98 1.92
1991 0.98 0.47 0.38 0.43 0.81 13.12 83.23 167.63 72.89 23.52 4.63 4.76
1992 3.02 1.91 2.75 0.81 1.90 1.97 40.30 158.00 68.66 50.35 14.31 6.34
1993 2.68 1.17 0.69 0.88 2.12 9.85 85.97 139.40 74.52 31.94 11.24 4.70
1994 2.36 1.17 0.61 0.33 1.02 19.36 85.13 193.83 117.53 22.83 6.78 4.09
1995 2.15 1.50 1.47 1.36 1.56 4.81 61.83 148.84 94.91 24.57 16.33 12.64
1996 7.44 3.33 3.38 3.32 8.08 54.92 166.85 196.90 97.88 36.49 21.17 15.09
1997 10.68 7.16 6.57 4.77 7.50 46.41 141.35 149.05 76.78 58.77 11.05 5.79
1998 10.83 7.04 6.20 5.16 8.99 27.56 118.34 204.76 145.30 65.31 26.61 27.36
1999 22.89 7.58 5.04 4.04 5.02 15.75 125.19 157.70 96.28 107.45 34.95 5.79
2000 3.56 1.99 1.70 11.24 9.29 32.75 166.92 241.41 95.36 93.60 35.20 19.53
2001 3.06 1.70 1.67 1.23 1.74 13.90 92.22 199.09 55.47 13.57 5.64 3.60
2002 2.73 1.77 1.93 1.60 1.14 23.90 91.31 155.85 76.88 12.23 6.50 5.08
2003 3.75 2.75 3.08 2.24 2.19 13.89 89.41 174.67 150.79 46.24 7.64 5.01
2004 3.68 2.92 2.55 2.88 2.38 9.04 77.51 105.41 51.05 20.37 7.76 5.23
2005 3.86 3.17 3.49 2.52 3.31 13.37 72.25 114.64 124.49 38.38 8.67 5.64
2006 4.10 3.35 3.18 3.15 6.32 16.64 85.37 204.95 136.61 23.37 9.13 5.55
2007 3.56 1.99 1.70 1.61 2.50 42.40 109.84 140.01 162.97 28.64 11.05 5.79
2008 3.57 1.99 1.70 4.55 6.35 37.51 151.69 220.13 102.58 13.19 11.05 5.79
2009 3.57 1.99 1.70 1.61 2.50 13.22 103.92 156.28 83.89 31.94 11.05 5.79

Base station_5
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 4.01 3.65 3.58 0.43 0.61 4.39 32.41 133.27 72.53 23.55 7.83 3.66
1971 1.71 1.03 0.76 0.55 1.31 3.66 65.12 168.45 69.68 19.56 10.24 4.91
1972 2.12 1.17 0.78 0.49 0.65 2.34 32.04 104.40 31.43 7.27 3.11 2.17
1973 1.43 0.50 0.28 0.23 1.88 2.89 27.62 112.47 73.84 34.53 8.32 3.82
1974 2.52 1.10 0.77 0.55 3.07 14.41 94.74 130.74 80.61 17.84 5.03 2.17
1975 1.37 0.87 0.54 0.37 0.42 1.32 56.65 172.53 163.65 18.63 7.59 3.43
1976 1.90 1.10 0.89 0.53 1.32 5.49 62.24 144.99 67.42 18.39 12.50 5.90
1977 2.34 1.13 0.78 0.33 1.01 3.87 82.50 149.72 82.44 46.56 18.83 6.05
1978 2.48 1.10 0.86 0.79 0.84 3.67 79.24 114.36 59.66 26.43 10.59 5.50
1979 1.91 0.80 0.60 0.18 0.78 1.79 41.63 92.26 53.79 13.04 6.69 2.79
1980 1.33 0.36 0.29 0.60 0.35 2.13 53.43 130.82 61.28 24.61 5.55 2.84
1981 1.41 0.52 0.37 0.17 1.20 2.32 36.76 215.70 99.48 33.11 9.20 4.77
1982 1.56 0.81 1.28 0.52 0.58 2.84 21.63 95.17 54.82 31.49 8.33 2.63
1983 2.22 1.36 0.90 0.51 0.71 2.10 30.21 137.56 54.13 18.64 7.87 2.85
1984 1.65 1.28 0.68 0.43 0.99 7.94 55.75 102.37 56.22 12.92 6.40 4.14

131
1985 1.68 1.15 0.49 0.54 1.47 3.00 115.21 131.35 99.73 15.57 6.50 3.66
1986 1.67 0.84 0.48 0.37 0.24 12.31 89.65 94.61 63.47 21.61 5.78 3.11
1987 1.56 0.86 0.64 0.42 3.29 14.25 34.01 125.02 40.67 10.23 4.55 2.01
1988 0.92 0.52 0.35 0.23 0.41 1.90 157.97 156.83 84.24 54.20 9.36 4.35
1989 2.10 1.42 0.60 0.50 0.85 10.14 83.06 155.26 62.51 31.73 10.98 4.85
1990 2.35 0.81 0.60 0.39 0.53 1.70 51.55 179.88 106.19 19.78 3.95 1.90
1991 0.98 0.47 0.38 0.42 0.80 13.04 82.69 166.54 72.41 23.36 4.60 4.73
1992 3.00 1.90 2.74 0.80 1.88 1.96 40.04 156.97 68.22 50.02 14.22 6.30
1993 2.66 1.16 0.69 0.88 2.10 9.78 85.41 138.49 74.04 31.73 11.16 4.67
1994 2.35 1.17 0.60 0.33 1.01 19.24 84.58 192.57 116.77 22.68 6.74 4.07
1995 2.14 1.49 1.46 1.35 1.55 4.77 61.43 147.87 94.29 24.41 16.22 12.55
1996 7.39 3.31 3.35 3.29 8.03 54.56 165.76 195.61 97.24 36.25 21.03 14.99
1997 10.61 7.12 6.53 4.74 7.45 46.11 140.43 148.08 76.28 58.38 10.98 5.75
1998 10.76 7.00 6.16 5.13 8.94 27.38 117.57 203.43 144.35 64.88 26.44 27.18
1999 22.75 7.54 5.00 4.01 4.98 15.65 124.37 156.67 95.65 106.75 34.72 5.75
2000 3.54 1.97 1.69 11.17 9.23 32.54 165.83 239.84 94.74 92.99 34.98 19.40
2001 3.04 1.69 1.66 1.22 1.73 13.80 91.62 197.80 55.11 13.48 5.60 3.58
2002 2.71 1.76 1.91 1.59 1.13 23.74 90.72 154.83 76.38 12.15 6.46 5.04
2003 3.72 2.73 3.06 2.22 2.17 13.80 88.83 173.54 149.80 45.94 7.59 4.98
2004 3.66 2.90 2.54 2.86 2.37 8.98 77.00 104.72 50.72 20.24 7.71 5.20
2005 3.83 3.15 3.46 2.51 3.29 13.28 71.78 113.89 123.68 38.13 8.61 5.60
2006 4.08 3.33 3.16 3.13 6.28 16.53 84.82 203.62 135.72 23.22 9.07 5.51
2007 3.54 1.97 1.69 1.60 2.48 42.12 109.12 139.10 161.90 28.46 10.98 5.75
2008 3.54 1.97 1.69 4.52 6.31 37.26 150.70 218.70 101.91 13.11 10.98 5.75
2009 3.54 1.97 1.69 1.60 2.48 13.13 103.24 155.26 83.34 31.73 10.98 5.75

Base station_6
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 3.65 3.32 3.26 0.39 0.56 4.00 29.49 121.25 65.99 21.43 7.13 3.33
1971 1.56 0.94 0.69 0.50 1.19 3.33 59.25 153.26 63.40 17.80 9.32 4.47
1972 1.93 1.06 0.71 0.44 0.59 2.13 29.15 94.98 28.60 6.61 2.83 1.97
1973 1.30 0.46 0.26 0.21 1.71 2.63 25.13 102.33 67.18 31.42 7.57 3.48
1974 2.29 1.00 0.70 0.50 2.80 13.11 86.20 118.95 73.34 16.23 4.58 1.97
1975 1.25 0.79 0.49 0.33 0.38 1.20 51.54 156.97 148.90 16.95 6.91 3.12
1976 1.73 1.00 0.81 0.48 1.20 4.99 56.62 131.92 61.35 16.73 11.38 5.37
1977 2.13 1.03 0.71 0.30 0.92 3.52 75.06 136.22 75.01 42.36 17.13 5.50
1978 2.25 1.00 0.78 0.72 0.77 3.34 72.09 104.05 54.28 24.05 9.63 5.00
1979 1.74 0.73 0.55 0.16 0.71 1.63 37.88 83.95 48.94 11.86 6.09 2.54
1980 1.21 0.32 0.27 0.54 0.32 1.93 48.61 119.03 55.75 22.39 5.05 2.59
1981 1.28 0.48 0.34 0.15 1.09 2.11 33.44 196.25 90.51 30.13 8.37 4.34

132
1982 1.42 0.73 1.17 0.47 0.53 2.58 19.68 86.59 49.87 28.65 7.58 2.40
1983 2.02 1.23 0.82 0.47 0.65 1.91 27.49 125.16 49.25 16.96 7.16 2.60
1984 1.51 1.16 0.62 0.39 0.90 7.22 50.72 93.14 51.15 11.76 5.82 3.76
1985 1.53 1.04 0.45 0.50 1.34 2.73 104.82 119.51 90.73 14.17 5.92 3.33
1986 1.52 0.77 0.44 0.34 0.22 11.20 81.57 86.08 57.75 19.66 5.26 2.83
1987 1.42 0.79 0.59 0.38 3.00 12.97 30.94 113.75 37.00 9.31 4.14 1.83
1988 0.83 0.47 0.32 0.21 0.37 1.73 143.73 142.69 76.65 49.31 8.51 3.95
1989 1.91 1.29 0.55 0.45 0.77 9.23 75.57 141.26 56.87 28.87 9.99 4.41
1990 2.14 0.74 0.54 0.35 0.48 1.55 46.90 163.66 96.61 18.00 3.59 1.73
1991 0.89 0.43 0.34 0.38 0.73 11.86 75.23 151.52 65.88 21.26 4.19 4.31
1992 2.73 1.73 2.49 0.73 1.71 1.78 36.43 142.82 62.06 45.51 12.94 5.73
1993 2.42 1.06 0.63 0.80 1.91 8.90 77.71 126.01 67.36 28.87 10.16 4.25
1994 2.13 1.06 0.55 0.30 0.92 17.50 76.95 175.21 106.24 20.64 6.13 3.70
1995 1.94 1.35 1.33 1.23 1.41 4.34 55.89 134.53 85.79 22.20 14.76 11.42
1996 6.72 3.01 3.05 3.00 7.30 49.64 150.82 177.98 88.47 32.98 19.13 13.64
1997 9.66 6.47 5.94 4.31 6.77 41.95 127.77 134.73 69.41 53.12 9.99 5.23
1998 9.79 6.37 5.60 4.66 8.13 24.91 106.97 185.09 131.34 59.03 24.06 24.73
1999 20.69 6.86 4.55 3.65 4.54 14.24 113.16 142.55 87.03 97.13 31.59 5.23
2000 3.22 1.80 1.54 10.16 8.40 29.61 150.88 218.22 86.20 84.61 31.82 17.65
2001 2.76 1.53 1.51 1.11 1.57 12.56 83.36 179.96 50.14 12.27 5.10 3.26
2002 2.47 1.60 1.74 1.45 1.03 21.60 82.54 140.87 69.49 11.06 5.87 4.59
2003 3.39 2.48 2.79 2.02 1.98 12.56 80.82 157.89 136.30 41.80 6.91 4.53
2004 3.33 2.64 2.31 2.60 2.16 8.17 70.06 95.28 46.15 18.41 7.01 4.73
2005 3.49 2.86 3.15 2.28 3.00 12.08 65.30 103.62 112.53 34.69 7.84 5.10
2006 3.71 3.03 2.88 2.85 5.71 15.04 77.17 185.26 123.48 21.12 8.25 5.02
2007 3.22 1.80 1.54 1.46 2.26 38.33 99.28 126.56 147.31 25.89 9.99 5.23
2008 3.22 1.80 1.54 4.11 5.74 33.90 137.11 198.98 92.72 11.93 9.99 5.23
2009 3.22 1.80 1.54 1.46 2.26 11.95 93.93 141.26 75.83 28.87 9.99 5.23

Base Station_7

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1970 3.56 3.24 3.18 0.38 0.55 3.90 28.77 118.30 64.38 20.90 6.95 3.25
1971 1.52 0.92 0.67 0.49 1.16 3.25 57.81 149.54 61.86 17.37 9.09 4.36
1972 1.88 1.04 0.70 0.43 0.57 2.08 28.44 92.67 27.90 6.45 2.76 1.92
1973 1.27 0.44 0.25 0.21 1.66 2.57 24.52 99.84 65.55 30.65 7.39 3.39
1974 2.23 0.98 0.69 0.49 2.73 12.79 84.10 116.06 71.56 15.84 4.47 1.93
1975 1.22 0.77 0.48 0.33 0.37 1.17 50.29 153.16 145.28 16.54 6.74 3.05
1976 1.69 0.98 0.79 0.47 1.18 4.87 55.25 128.71 59.85 16.33 11.10 5.24
1977 2.08 1.01 0.69 0.29 0.89 3.43 73.24 132.91 73.18 41.33 16.71 5.37

133
1978 2.20 0.98 0.76 0.70 0.75 3.26 70.34 101.52 52.96 23.46 9.40 4.88
1979 1.70 0.71 0.54 0.16 0.70 1.59 36.96 81.90 47.75 11.58 5.94 2.47
1980 1.18 0.32 0.26 0.53 0.31 1.89 47.43 116.13 54.40 21.85 4.92 2.52
1981 1.25 0.46 0.33 0.15 1.07 2.06 32.63 191.47 88.31 29.39 8.17 4.23
1982 1.38 0.71 1.14 0.46 0.52 2.52 19.20 84.49 48.66 27.95 7.39 2.34
1983 1.97 1.20 0.80 0.45 0.63 1.86 26.82 122.12 48.05 16.54 6.98 2.53
1984 1.47 1.13 0.60 0.38 0.88 7.04 49.49 90.88 49.91 11.47 5.68 3.67
1985 1.49 1.02 0.44 0.48 1.31 2.66 102.27 116.60 88.53 13.82 5.77 3.25
1986 1.49 0.75 0.43 0.33 0.21 10.93 79.58 83.99 56.34 19.18 5.13 2.76
1987 1.39 0.77 0.57 0.37 2.92 12.65 30.19 110.98 36.10 9.08 4.04 1.78
1988 0.81 0.46 0.31 0.21 0.36 1.69 140.23 139.22 74.78 48.12 8.31 3.86
1989 1.86 1.26 0.54 0.44 0.75 9.00 73.73 137.83 55.49 28.17 9.75 4.31
1990 2.09 0.72 0.53 0.34 0.47 1.51 45.76 159.68 94.26 17.56 3.51 1.69
1991 0.87 0.42 0.33 0.38 0.71 11.58 73.40 147.84 64.28 20.74 4.08 4.20
1992 2.66 1.69 2.43 0.71 1.67 1.74 35.54 139.34 60.56 44.41 12.62 5.59
1993 2.36 1.03 0.61 0.78 1.87 8.68 75.82 122.94 65.72 28.17 9.91 4.14
1994 2.08 1.03 0.54 0.29 0.90 17.08 75.08 170.95 103.66 20.13 5.98 3.61
1995 1.90 1.32 1.30 1.20 1.38 4.24 54.53 131.26 83.70 21.66 14.40 11.14
1996 6.56 2.93 2.98 2.92 7.13 48.43 147.15 173.65 86.32 32.18 18.67 13.31
1997 9.42 6.32 5.80 4.21 6.61 40.93 124.66 131.45 67.72 51.83 9.75 5.11
1998 9.55 6.21 5.46 4.55 7.93 24.31 104.37 180.58 128.14 57.60 23.47 24.13
1999 20.19 6.69 4.44 3.56 4.42 13.89 110.40 139.08 84.91 94.76 30.83 5.11
2000 3.14 1.75 1.50 9.92 8.19 28.89 147.21 212.91 84.10 82.55 31.05 17.22
2001 2.70 1.50 1.47 1.08 1.53 12.25 81.33 175.59 48.92 11.97 4.97 3.18
2002 2.41 1.56 1.70 1.41 1.00 21.08 80.53 137.44 67.80 10.79 5.73 4.48
2003 3.31 2.42 2.72 1.97 1.93 12.25 78.85 154.05 132.98 40.78 6.74 4.42
2004 3.25 2.57 2.25 2.54 2.10 7.97 68.36 92.96 45.02 17.96 6.84 4.61
2005 3.40 2.79 3.07 2.22 2.92 11.79 63.72 101.10 109.79 33.85 7.65 4.97
2006 3.62 2.95 2.81 2.78 5.58 14.67 75.29 180.75 120.48 20.61 8.05 4.90
2007 3.14 1.75 1.50 1.42 2.20 37.39 96.87 123.48 143.72 25.26 9.75 5.11
2008 3.14 1.75 1.50 4.01 5.60 33.08 133.78 194.14 90.46 11.64 9.75 5.11
2009 3.14 1.75 1.50 1.42 2.20 11.66 91.65 137.83 73.98 28.17 9.75 5.11

134
Appendix VI: Flow Duration Calculation for Runoff Factor And parametric Duration Curve
estimator Sites
Table VI-1: Flow Duration Calculation for Runoff Factor estimator Sites

Gumara Outlet
Number
Low High In Between Greater %Greater In Percent
0 0.5 24 456 0.950 95.000
0.5 1 48 408 0.850 85.000
1 2 57 351 0.731 73.125
2 5 92 259 0.540 53.958
5 10 56 203 0.423 42.292
10 15 29 174 0.363 36.250
15 20 11 163 0.340 33.958
20 25 14 149 0.310 31.042
25 30 8 141 0.294 29.375
30 35 10 131 0.273 27.292
35 40 7 124 0.258 25.833
40 45 5 119 0.248 24.792
45 50 3 116 0.242 24.167
50 55 3 113 0.235 23.542
55 60 10 103 0.215 21.458
60 65 4 99 0.206 20.625
65 70 5 94 0.196 19.583
70 75 3 91 0.190 18.958
75 80 5 86 0.179 17.917
80 85 5 81 0.169 16.875
85 90 9 72 0.150 15.000
90 95 2 70 0.146 14.583
95 100 9 61 0.127 12.708
100 105 4 57 0.119 11.875
105 110 5 52 0.108 10.833
110 115 3 49 0.102 10.208
115 120 3 46 0.096 9.583
120 125 3 43 0.090 8.958
125 130 1 42 0.088 8.750
130 135 2 40 0.083 8.333
135 140 4 36 0.075 7.500
140 150 5 31 0.065 6.458
150 160 7 24 0.050 5.000
160 170 8 16 0.033 3.333

135
170 180 5 11 0.023 2.292
180 190 3 8 0.017 1.667
190 200 0 8 0.017 1.667
200 210 3 5 0.010 1.042
210 220 2 3 0.006 0.625
220 230 2 1 0.002 0.208
230 240 0 1 0.002 0.208
240 250 0 1 0.002 0.208
250 260 1 0 0.000 0.000

Station_1
In Number
Low High Between Greater % Greater In Percent
0.000 0.500 25.000 455.000 0.948 94.792
0.500 1.000 47.000 408.000 0.850 85.000
1.000 2.000 59.000 349.000 0.727 72.708
2.000 5.000 91.000 258.000 0.538 53.750
5.000 10.000 55.000 203.000 0.423 42.292
10.000 15.000 30.000 173.000 0.360 36.042
15.000 20.000 11.000 162.000 0.338 33.750
20.000 25.000 13.000 149.000 0.310 31.042
25.000 30.000 8.000 141.000 0.294 29.375
30.000 35.000 10.000 131.000 0.273 27.292
35.000 40.000 8.000 123.000 0.256 25.625
S40.000 45.000 4.000 119.000 0.248 24.792
45.000 50.000 3.000 116.000 0.242 24.167
50.000 55.000 3.000 113.000 0.235 23.542
55.000 60.000 10.000 103.000 0.215 21.458
60.000 65.000 6.000 97.000 0.202 20.208
65.000 70.000 4.000 93.000 0.194 19.375
70.000 75.000 5.000 88.000 0.183 18.333
75.000 80.000 5.000 83.000 0.173 17.292
80.000 85.000 2.000 81.000 0.169 16.875
85.000 90.000 9.000 72.000 0.150 15.000
90.000 95.000 4.000 68.000 0.142 14.167
95.000 100.000 8.000 60.000 0.125 12.500
100.000 105.000 3.000 57.000 0.119 11.875
105.000 110.000 6.000 51.000 0.106 10.625
110.000 115.000 2.000 49.000 0.102 10.208

136
 115 120.000 4.000 45.000 0.094 9.375
120 125.000 2.000 43.000 0.090 8.958
125 130.000 3.000 40.000 0.083 8.333
130 135.000 0.000 40.000 0.083 8.333
135.000 140.000 4.000 36.000 0.075 7.500
140.000 150.000 7.000 29.000 0.060 6.042
150.000 160.000 5.000 24.000 0.050 5.000
160.000 170.000 9.000 15.000 0.031 3.125
170.000 180.000 6.000 9.000 0.019 1.875
180.000 190.000 1.000 8.000 0.017 1.667
190.000 200.000 1.000 7.000 0.015 1.458
200.000 210.000 2.000 5.000 0.010 1.042
210.000 220.000 2.000 3.000 0.006 0.625
220.000 230.000 2.000 1.000 0.002 0.208
230.000 240.000 0.000 1.000 0.002 0.208
240.000 250.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Station_2
In Number % In
Low High Between Greater Greater Percent
0 0.5 25 455 0.948 94.792
0.5 1 47 408 0.850 85.000
1 2 59 349 0.727 72.708
2 5 91 258 0.538 53.750
5 10 55 203 0.423 42.292
10 15 30 173 0.360 36.042
15 20 11 162 0.338 33.750
20 25 13 149 0.310 31.042
25 30 8 141 0.294 29.375
30 35 10 131 0.273 27.292
35 40 8 123 0.256 25.625
40 45 4 119 0.248 24.792
45 50 3 116 0.242 24.167
50 55 3 113 0.235 23.542
55 60 10 103 0.215 21.458
60 65 6 97 0.202 20.208
65 70 4 93 0.194 19.375
70 75 5 88 0.183 18.333
75 80 5 83 0.173 17.292

137
 80 85 2 81 0.169 16.875
85 90 9 72 0.150 15.000
90 95 4 68 0.142 14.167
95 100 8 60 0.125 12.500
100 105 3 57 0.119 11.875
105 110 6 51 0.106 10.625
110 115 2 49 0.102 10.208
115 120 4 45 0.094 9.375
120 125 2 43 0.090 8.958
125 130 3 40 0.083 8.333
130 135 2 38 0.079 7.917
135 140 3 35 0.073 7.292
140 150 6 29 0.060 6.042
150 160 6 23 0.048 4.792
160 170 8 15 0.031 3.125
170 180 6 9 0.019 1.875
180 190 1 8 0.017 1.667
190 200 1 7 0.015 1.458
200 210 4 3 0.006 0.625
210 220 0 3 0.006 0.625
220 230 2 1 0.002 0.208
230 240 0 1 0.002 0.208
240 250 1 0 0.000 0.000

Station_3
In
Low High Between Number Greater % Greater In Percent
0 0.5 26 454 0.946 94.583
0.5 1 47 407 0.848 84.792
1 2 59 348 0.725 72.500
2 5 91 257 0.535 53.542
5 10 55 202 0.421 42.083
10 15 29 173 0.360 36.042
15 20 13 160 0.333 33.333
20 25 12 148 0.308 30.833
25 30 7 141 0.294 29.375
30 35 11 130 0.271 27.083
35 40 7 123 0.256 25.625
40 45 4 119 0.248 24.792
45 50 3 116 0.242 24.167

138
 50 55 5 111 0.231 23.125
55 60 9 102 0.213 21.250
60 65 6 96 0.200 20.000
65 70 4 92 0.192 19.167
70 75 4 88 0.183 18.333
75 80 5 83 0.173 17.292
80 85 6 77 0.160 16.042
85 90 5 72 0.150 15.000
90 95 5 67 0.140 13.958
95 100 8 59 0.123 12.292
100 105 4 55 0.115 11.458
105 110 5 50 0.104 10.417
110 115 2 48 0.100 10.000
115 120 4 44 0.092 9.167
120 125 1 43 0.090 8.958
125 130 3 40 0.083 8.333
130 135 3 37 0.077 7.708
135 140 2 35 0.073 7.292
140 150 6 29 0.060 6.042
150 160 8 21 0.044 4.375
160 170 8 13 0.027 2.708
170 180 4 9 0.019 1.875
180 190 1 8 0.017 1.667
190 200 2 6 0.013 1.250
200 210 3 3 0.006 0.625
210 220 0 3 0.006 0.625
220 230 2 1 0.002 0.208
230 240 0 1 0.002 0.208
240 250 1 0 0.000 0.000

Station_4
In In
Low High Between Number Greater % Greater Percent
0 0.5 28 452 0.942 94.167
0.5 1 46 406 0.846 84.583
1 2 62 344 0.717 71.667
2 5 88 256 0.533 53.333
5 10 54 202 0.421 42.083
10 15 29 173 0.360 36.042
15 20 14 159 0.331 33.125

139
20 25 12 147 0.306 30.625
25 30 6 141 0.294 29.375
30 35 13 128 0.267 26.667
35 40 5 123 0.256 25.625
40 45 4 119 0.248 24.792
45 50 3 116 0.242 24.167
50 55 8 108 0.225 22.500
55 60 6 102 0.213 21.250
60 65 6 96 0.200 20.000
65 70 4 92 0.192 19.167
70 75 6 86 0.179 17.917
75 80 4 82 0.171 17.083
80 85 7 75 0.156 15.625
85 90 4 71 0.148 14.792
90 95 6 65 0.135 13.542
95 100 6 59 0.123 12.292
100 105 5 54 0.113 11.250
105 110 5 49 0.102 10.208
110 115 2 47 0.098 9.792
115 120 4 43 0.090 8.958
120 125 1 42 0.088 8.750
125 130 2 40 0.083 8.333
130 135 4 36 0.075 7.500
135 140 3 33 0.069 6.875
140 150 6 27 0.056 5.625
150 160 10 17 0.035 3.542
160 170 6 11 0.023 2.292
170 180 2 9 0.019 1.875
180 190 1 8 0.017 1.667
190 200 3 5 0.010 1.042
200 210 2 3 0.006 0.625
210 220 1 2 0.004 0.417
220 230 1 1 0.002 0.208
230 240 0 1 0.002 0.208
240 250 1 0 0.000 0.000

140
 Station_5
%
Low High In Between Number Greater Greater In Percent
0 0.5 28 452 0.942 94.167
0.5 1 46 406 0.846 84.583
1 2 62 344 0.717 71.667
2 5 90 254 0.529 52.917
5 10 52 202 0.421 42.083
10 15 30 172 0.358 35.833
15 20 13 159 0.331 33.125
20 25 12 147 0.306 30.625
25 30 6 141 0.294 29.375
30 35 14 127 0.265 26.458
35 40 4 123 0.256 25.625
40 45 4 119 0.248 24.792
45 50 3 116 0.242 24.167
50 55 9 107 0.223 22.292
55 60 6 101 0.210 21.042
60 65 6 95 0.198 19.792
65 70 4 91 0.190 18.958
70 75 5 86 0.179 17.917
75 80 4 82 0.171 17.083
80 85 9 73 0.152 15.208
85 90 3 70 0.146 14.583
90 95 8 62 0.129 12.917
95 100 5 57 0.119 11.875
100 105 5 52 0.108 10.833
105 110 3 49 0.102 10.208
110 115 3 46 0.096 9.583
115 120 3 43 0.090 8.958
120 125 2 41 0.085 8.542
125 130 1 40 0.083 8.333
130 135 4 36 0.075 7.500
135 140 4 32 0.067 6.667
140 150 7 25 0.052 5.208
150 160 8 17 0.035 3.542
160 170 6 11 0.023 2.292
170 180 3 8 0.017 1.667
180 190 0 8 0.017 1.667
190 200 3 5 0.010 1.042
200 210 2 3 0.006 0.625

141
 210 220 2 1 0.002 0.208
220 230 0 1 0.002 0.208
230 240 1 0 0.000 0.000

Station_6
%
Low High In Between Number Greater Greater In Percent
0 0.5 39 441 0.919 91.875
0.5 1 38 403 0.840 83.958
1 2 69 334 0.696 69.583
2 5 86 248 0.517 51.667
5 10 57 191 0.398 39.792
10 15 22 169 0.352 35.208
15 20 14 155 0.323 32.292
20 25 12 143 0.298 29.792
25 30 11 132 0.275 27.500
30 35 9 123 0.256 25.625
35 40 4 119 0.248 24.792
40 45 3 116 0.242 24.167
45 50 9 107 0.223 22.292
50 55 6 101 0.210 21.042
55 60 7 94 0.196 19.583
60 65 3 91 0.190 18.958
65 70 7 84 0.175 17.500
70 75 3 81 0.169 16.875
75 80 9 72 0.150 15.000
80 85 6 66 0.138 13.750
85 90 7 59 0.123 12.292
90 95 6 53 0.110 11.042
95 100 4 49 0.102 10.208
100 105 4 45 0.094 9.375
105 110 2 43 0.090 8.958
110 115 3 40 0.083 8.333
115 120 3 37 0.077 7.708
120 125 2 35 0.073 7.292
125 130 4 31 0.065 6.458
130 135 4 27 0.056 5.625
135 140 3 24 0.050 5.000
140 150 9 15 0.031 3.125
150 160 6 9 0.019 1.875

142
 160 170 1 8 0.017 1.667
170 180 3 5 0.010 1.042
180 190 2 3 0.006 0.625
190 200 2 1 0.002 0.208
200 210 0 1 0.002 0.208
210 220 1 0 0.000 0.000

Station_7
In In
Low High Between Number Greater % Greater Percent
0 0.5 39 441 0.919 91.875
0.5 1 41 400 0.833 83.333
1 2 68 332 0.692 69.167
2 5 89 243 0.506 50.625
5 10 54 189 0.394 39.375
10 15 21 168 0.350 35.000
15 20 13 155 0.323 32.292
20 25 13 142 0.296 29.583
25 30 11 131 0.273 27.292
30 35 8 123 0.256 25.625
35 40 4 119 0.248 24.792
40 45 4 115 0.240 23.958
45 50 11 104 0.217 21.667
50 55 5 99 0.206 20.625
55 60 6 93 0.194 19.375
60 65 5 88 0.183 18.333
65 70 5 83 0.173 17.292
70 75 8 75 0.156 15.625
75 80 5 70 0.146 14.583
80 85 10 60 0.125 12.500
85 90 3 57 0.119 11.875
90 95 7 50 0.104 10.417
95 100 2 48 0.100 10.000
100 105 5 43 0.090 8.958
105 110 1 42 0.088 8.750
110 115 2 40 0.083 8.333
115 120 4 36 0.075 7.500

143
 120 125 5 31 0.065 6.458
125 130 2 29 0.060 6.042
130 135 5 24 0.050 5.000
135 140 6 18 0.038 3.750
140 150 7 11 0.023 2.292
150 160 3 8 0.017 1.667
160 170 0 8 0.017 1.667
170 180 3 5 0.010 1.042
180 190 2 3 0.006 0.625
190 200 2 1 0.002 0.208
200 210 0 1 0.002 0.208
210 220 1 0 0.000 0.000

Table VI_2: Flow duration Calculation for Parametric Curve Estimator Sites

Station_4
In Number In
Low High Between Greater % Greater Percent
0 0.25 30 450 0.9375 93.75
0.25 0.5 46 404 0.841667 84.17
0.5 1 61 343 0.714583 71.46
1 2 74 269 0.560417 56.04
2 5 69 200 0.416667 41.67
5 10 42 158 0.329167 32.92
10 15 18 140 0.291667 29.17
15 20 19 121 0.252083 25.21
20 25 7 114 0.2375 23.75
25 30 15 99 0.20625 20.63
30 35 8 91 0.189583 18.96
35 40 10 81 0.16875 16.88
40 45 13 68 0.141667 14.17
45 50 13 55 0.114583 11.46
50 55 7 48 0.1 10.00
55 60 5 43 0.089583 8.96
60 65 6 37 0.077083 7.71
65 70 6 31 0.064583 6.46
70 75 7 24 0.05 5.00
75 80 9 15 0.03125 3.13
80 85 6 9 0.01875 1.88
85 90 1 8 0.016667 1.67

144
 90 95 1 7 0.014583 1.46
95 100 4 3 0.00625 0.63
100 105 0 3 0.00625 0.63
105 110 2 1 0.002083 0.21
110 115 0 1 0.002083 0.21
115 120 1 0 0 0.00

Station_5
In Number %
Low High Between Greater Greater In Percent
0 0.15 35 445 0.927 92.71
0.15 0.25 34 411 0.856 85.63
0.25 0.5 53 358 0.746 74.58
0.5 1 70 288 0.600 60.00
1 2 64 224 0.467 46.67
2 5 56 168 0.350 35.00
5 10 41 127 0.265 26.46
10 15 14 113 0.235 23.54
15 20 22 91 0.190 18.96
20 25 19 72 0.150 15.00
25 30 21 51 0.106 10.63
30 35 9 42 0.088 8.75
35 40 11 31 0.065 6.46
40 45 14 17 0.035 3.54
45 50 8 9 0.019 1.88
50 55 2 7 0.015 1.46
55 60 4 3 0.006 0.63
60 65 2 1 0.002 0.21
65 70 1 0 0.000 0.00

Station_6
In Number
Low High Between Greater % Greater In Percent
0.000 0.075 23 457 0.952 95.208
0.075 0.150 47 410 0.854 85.417
0.150 0.250 32 378 0.788 78.750
0.250 0.500 70 308 0.642 64.167
0.500 1.000 72 236 0.492 49.167
1.000 2.000 47 189 0.394 39.375

145
 2.000 5.000 48 141 0.294 29.375
5.000 10.000 39 102 0.213 21.250
10.000 15.000 31 71 0.148 14.792
15.000 20.000 28 43 0.090 8.958
20.000 25.000 16 27 0.056 5.625
25.000 30.000 18 9 0.019 1.875
30.000 35.000 6 3 0.006 0.625
35.000 40.000 2 1 0.002 0.208
40.000 45.000 1 0 0.000 0.000
Station_7
In Number %
Low High Between Greater Greater In Percent
0 0.0125 42 438 0.9125 91.2500
0.0125 0.025 44 394 0.8208 82.0833
0.025 0.05 68 326 0.6792 67.9167
0.05 0.075 42 284 0.5917 59.1667
0.075 0.15 61 223 0.4646 46.4583
0.15 0.25 34 189 0.3938 39.3750
0.25 0.5 40 149 0.3104 31.0417
0.5 1 33 116 0.2417 24.1667
1 2 56 60 0.1250 12.5000
2 5 59 1 0.0021 0.2083
5 10 1 0 0.0000 0.0000

Appendix VII: Flow Duration curve, Discharge and Flow Vs Long term mean monthly flow for Runoff
Factor and Parametric Duration curve Estimator Sites.
Figure VII_1: flow duration curve for Runoff factor Estimator Sites
300
300
250
250
Monthly Flow
Flow in m3/s

200
Flow in m3/s

200 Duration For

Monthly Flow 150
150 Estimated Station_2
Duration curve
for Estimated 100
100
Station_1
50 50

0 0
0.000 50.000 100.000 0.000 50.000 100.000
Percent of time equaled or Exceeded Percent of time Equaled or Exceeded

146
 300 300
250 250 Monthly
200 Flow
Monthly Flow 200
Duration

Flow in m3/s
Flow in m3/s

150 Duration Curve 150 Curve for

for Estimated Estimated
100 Station_3 100 Station_4
50 50
0 0
0.000 50.000 100.000 0.000 50.000 100.000
Percent of time Equaled or Exceeded Percent of Time Equaled or exceed

300 300
Monthly
250 Monthly 250 Flow
Flow Flow in m3/S Duration
200 200
Duration Curve For
Flow In m3/s

150 Cure for 150 Estimated

Estimated Station _6
100 100
Station_5
50 50

0 0
0 50 100 0.000 50.000 100.000
Percent of Time Equaled or Exceed Percent of Time Equaled or Exceed

300
Flow in m3/s

250
Monthly
200 Flow
Duration
150
Curve for
100 Estimated
estation_7
50
0
0.000 50.000 100.000
Percent of time Equaled or Exceed

147
Figure VII_2: flow duration curve for Parametric Duration curve Estimator Sites

140 80
70
120
60

Discharge(m3/s)
Discharge(m3/s)

100 Flow
50
80 Flow Duration Duration
40 Curve
60 Curve of
parametric 30 Parametric
40 duration curve Duration
20
Estimator site_5 Curve
20 10 estima tor
0 0 site_6
0.00 50.00 100.00 0.00 50.00 100.00
% of time equaled or exceeded % of time equaled or exceeded

50.000 12
45.000
10
40.000
Discharge(m3/s)

35.000
Discharge(m3/s)

8 Flow
30.000 Flow
Duration
Duration 6
25.000 Curve For
Curve for
20.000 Parametric
Parametric 4 Duration
15.000 Duration
Curve
10.000 CurveEstima 2 Estimator
tor site_7
5.000 site_8
0
0.000
-50.0000 0.0000 50.0000 100.0000
0.000 50.000 100.000
% of time exceeded or equaled
% of time exceeded or equaled

Table VII_1: Discharge of Different Percent of Exceedance for Parametric Duration Curve Estimator
Sites
Station_2
Q(5)
Q(30)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 5.01063529
b ln(Yi-1) 3.218875825
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.06453852
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.182321557

148
 d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -1.250
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -1.667
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.042
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.042
f c/d -0.0516308
f c/d -0.10939293
g=a b+f*e 5.0644174 158.288196
g=a b+f*e 3.332826798 28.01743

Q(40)
Q(20)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 2.3025850
b ln(Yi-1) 4.17438727
(ln(Yi)-ln(Yi- c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.4054651
c 1)) 0.07410797
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -6.250
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -0.833
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.292
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.208
-
f c/d 0.0648744
f c/d -0.0889296
g=a b+f*e 2.4512556 11.60291
g=a b+f*e 4.19291426 66.2154794

Q(60)
Q(50)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0.69314718
b ln(Yi-1) 1.609437912
(ln(Yi)-ln(Yi- c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.91629073
c 1)) 0.693147181
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -18.958
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -11.458
e (x-(Xi-1)) -12.708
e (x-(Xi-1)) -3.750
f c/d -0.0483318
f c/d -0.06049284
g=a b+f*e 1.30736404 3.696417
g=a b+f*e 1.836286081 6.273197

Q(70)
Q(10)

149
 a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0.69314718
b ln(Yi-1) 4.744932128
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.91629073
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.042559614
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -18.958
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -0.833
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.708
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.208
f c/d -0.0483318
f c/d -0.05107154
g=a b+f*e 0.82404586 2.27970456
g=a b+f*e 4.755572032 116.2301

Q100 0.235
Q(90)
Q95 0.489795918
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) -0.69314718
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693147181
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -9.792
e (x-(Xi-1)) -4.792
f c/d -0.0707895
g=a b+f*e -0.3539475 0.701912

Station_3
Q(40)
Q(30)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 2.302585093
b ln(Yi-1) 3.2188758
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.40547
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.1823
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -6.042
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -1.250
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.083
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.625
f c/d -0.06711147
f c/d -0.145857
g=a b+f*e 2.442400648 11.50061
g=a b+f*e 3.3100366 27.38612

Q(10)
Q(50)

150
 a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 4.70048
b ln(Yi-1) 1.609437912
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.044451
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693147
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) 5.000
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -11.250
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.208
e (x-(Xi-1)) -3.333
f c/d 0.00889
f c/d -0.06161308
g=a b+f*e 4.698628 109.79645
g=a b+f*e 1.814814855 6.13993

Q(80)
Q(90)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0
b ln(Yi-1) -0.693147
(ln(Yi)-ln(Yi- c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69314
c 1)) 0.693147
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -12.917
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -9.583
e (x-(Xi-1)) -4.583
e (x-(Xi-1)) -4.167
-
f c/d 0.053663
f c/d -0.07232
0.67585 g=a b+f*e 0.245955 1.278842
g=a b+f*e -0.391778 3
Q(0) 250
Q100 0.235
Q95 0.48979592

Q(60)
Q(5)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0.6931472
b ln(Yi-1) 5.0106353
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.9162907
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.0645385
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -18.333
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -2.083

151
 e (x-(Xi-1)) -11.667
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.625
f c/d -0.049979
f c/d -0.030978
g=a b+f*e 1.2762413 3.5831
g=a b+f*e 5.0299969 152.93
Q(20) 65

Q100 0.198
Q(70)
Q95 0.458
b ln(Yi-1) 0.6931472
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.9162907
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -18.333
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.667
f c/d -0.049979
g=a b+f*e 0.7764463 2.17374

Station_4
Q(40)
Q(30)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 1.6094
b ln(Yi-1) 2.995732274
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69315
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.223143551
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -11.250
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -2.708
e (x-(Xi-1)) -10.625
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.292
f c/d -0.0616
f c/d -0.0823914
g=a b+f*e 2.26407 9.62224
g=a b+f*e 3.184546 24.15632

Q(90)
Q(50)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) -0.69314718
b ln(Yi-1) 1.609437912
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.6931472
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693147

152
 d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -8.542
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -11.250
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.875
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.625
f c/d -0.0811489
f c/d -0.0616130
g=a b+f*e -0.5409929 0.58217
g=a b+f*e 1.647946089 5.1963

Q(80) Q(5)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 1.609438
b ln(Yi-1) 0
(ln(Yi)-ln(Yi- c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693147
c 1)) 0.6931472
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -0.044
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -14.167
e (x-(Xi-1)) 29.606
e (x-(Xi-1)) -3.333
f c/d -15.8434
f c/d -0.048928
g=a b+f*e -467.453 135
g=a b+f*e 0.16309345 1.17715
Q(0) 220

Q(60)
Q(20)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0.693147
b ln(Yi-1) 4.007333
(ln(Yi)-ln(Yi- c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.916
c 1)) 0.087
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -18.542
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -1.250
e (x-(Xi-1)) -9.167
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.625
f c/d -0.04942
f c/d -0.06961
g=a b+f*e 1.146145 3.146041028
g=a b+f*e 4.050839 57.4456

Q100 0.0291
Q(70)

153
 Q95 0.32
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -14.167
e (x-(Xi-1)) -13.333
f c/d -0.04893
g=a b+f*e 0.652374 1.920093374

Station_5
Q(40)
Q(30)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 1.60943791
b ln(Yi-1) 2.30258509
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69315
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.40547
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -8.750
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -3.750
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.667
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.917
f c/d -0.07921682
f c/d -0.108124
g=a b+f*e 1.74146595 5.7057
g=a b+f*e 2.61794684 13.7076

Q(5)
Q(80)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 4.24849524
b ln(Yi-1) -0.69314718
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.06899287
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69315
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -0.019
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -12.708
e (x-(Xi-1)) 4.950
e (x-(Xi-1)) -4.167
f c/d -3.67961981
f c/d -0.05454273
g=a b+f*e -13.9656228 75
g=a b+f*e -0.46588581 0.62758
Q(80) 70
Q(0) 120

154
Q(10) 55

Q(60)
Q(20)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0
b ln(Yi-1) 3.401197
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.6931471
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.154150
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -15.417
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -1.667
e (x-(Xi-1)) -11.458
e (x-(Xi-1)) -0.625
f c/d -0.04496
f c/d -0.0924904
g=a b+f*e 0.515176 1.674
g=a b+f*e 3.4590038 31.79

Q100 0.0872
Q(70)
Q95 0.2176
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.6931471
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -15.417
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.458
f c/d -0.0449608
g=a b+f*e 0.065567977 1.068

Station_6
Q(40)
Q(30)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0
b ln(Yi-1) 0.693147181
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.69315
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.916290732
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -9.792
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -10.000
e (x-(Xi-1)) -9.167
e (x-(Xi-1)) -9.375
f c/d -0.07078
f c/d -0.091629073

155
 g=a b+f*e 0.64890 1.91344
g=a b+f*e 1.552169742 4.7217

Q(90)
Q(50)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) -2.5902671
b ln(Yi-1) -0.6931471
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693147
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693147
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -9.792
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -15.000
e (x-(Xi-1)) -5.208
e (x-(Xi-1)) -14.167
f c/d -0.070789
f c/d -0.0462098
g=a b+f*e -2.2215718 0.10843
g=a b+f*e -0.0385081 0.96222

Q(80)
Q(90)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) -1.897119
b ln(Yi-1) -2.590267
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.5108256
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.6931472
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -6.667
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -9.792
e (x-(Xi-1)) -5.417
e (x-(Xi-1)) -5.208
f c/d -0.076623
f c/d -0.070789
g=a b+f*e -1.482074 0.227166
g=a b+f*e -2.22157 0.10843
Q(0) 45

Q(10)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 2.708050201
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.2876821
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -5.833
e (x-(Xi-1)) -4.792
f c/d -0.049316927

156
g=a b+f*e 2.944360475 18.9985

Station_7
Q(40)
Q(30)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) -1.897119
b ln(Yi-1) -0.6931471
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.51083
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.6931471
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -7.083
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -6.875
e (x-(Xi-1)) -6.458
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.042
f c/d -0.072116
f c/d -0.1008214
g=a b+f*e -1.43136 0.238982
g=a b+f*e -0.588124 0.555368

Q(90)
Q(50)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) -4.382026
b ln(Yi-1) -2.590267165
(ln(Yi)-ln(Yi- c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.6931472
c 1)) 0.693147
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -9.167
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -12.708
e (x-(Xi-1)) -1.250
e (x-(Xi-1)) -9.167
f c/d -0.075616
f c/d -0.054542729
g=a b+f*e -4.287506 0.0137
g=a b+f*e -2.09029215 0.123651

Q(10)
Q(80)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0.693147
b ln(Yi-1) -3.688879

157
 c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.9162907
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.6931472
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -12.292
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -14.167
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.500
e (x-(Xi-1)) -2.083
f c/d -0.074546
f c/d -0.048928
g=a b+f*e 0.879511 2.40972
g=a b+f*e -3.586946 0.028

Q(0) 10

Q(20)
Q(5)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) 0
b ln(Yi-1) 0.69314
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693147
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.91629
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -11.667
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -12.292
e (x-(Xi-1)) -4.167
e (x-(Xi-1)) -7.50
f c/d -0.0594
f c/d -0.0745
g=a b+f*e 0.24755 1.28089
g=a b+f*e 1.2522 3.4982

Q(70)
Q(60)
a ln(y)
a ln(y)
b ln(Yi-1) -3.689
b ln(Yi-1) -2.996
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.693
c (ln(Yi)-ln(Yi-1)) 0.4054
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -14.167
d (Xi-(Xi-1)) -8.750
e (x-(Xi-1)) -12.083
e (x-(Xi-1)) -7.917
f c/d -0.049
f c/d -0.0464
g=a b+f*e -3.098 0.045
g=a b+f*e -2.6289 0.07216

158
Q100 0.0004
Q95 0.0074

Table VII_2: Long term Mean Monthly Flow of different percent of exceedance for Parametric
Duration Curve Estimator Sites
Q(0)
Q(30)
Exceedance Mean Monthly
Exceedance Mean Monthly Station_Name Flow flow
Station_Name Flow flow
site_11 10 0.677
site_11 0.555 0.677
site_10 45 5.464
site_10 4.722 5.464
site_9 70 9.149
site_9 7.502 9.149
site_8 120 15.815
site_8 13.708 15.815
site_7 220 28.764
site_7 24.156 28.764
site_4 250 32.615
site_4 27.386 32.615
site_2 250 33.412
site_2 28.017 33.412
site_outlet 260 33.997
site_outlet 28.017 33.997

Q(5)
Q(10)
Exceedance
Exceedance Mean Monthly Base_name Base_name Flow Mean mont.flow
Station_Name Flow flow
site_11 site_11 3.498 0.677
site_11 2.410 0.677
site_10 site_10 25.771 5.464
site_10 18.999 5.464
site_9 site_9 42.426 9.149
site_9 31.582 9.149
site_8 site_8 75 15.815
site_8 55.000 15.815
site_7 site_7 135 28.764
site_7 100.000 28.764
site_4 site_4 152.932 32.615
site_4 109.796 32.615

159
 site_2 site_2 158.288 33.412
site_2 116.230 33.412
site_outlet site_outlet 160 33.997
site_outlet 116.643 33.997

Q(40)
Q(20)
Exceedance Mean Monthly Station_Name Exceedance Flow Mean Monthly flow
Station_name Flow flow
site_11 0.239 0.677
site_11 1.281 0.677
site_10 1.913 5.464
site_10 10.816 5.464
site_9 3.376 9.149
site_9 18.734 9.149
site_8 5.706 15.815
site_8 31.785 15.815
site_7 9.622 28.764
site_7 57.446 28.764
site_4 11.501 32.615
site_4 65.000 32.615
site_2 11.603 33.412
site_2 66.215 33.412
site_outlet 11.663 33.997
site_outlet 67.955 33.997

Q(80)
Q(90)
Mean Monthly
Exceedance Mean Month Station_Name Exceedance Flow flow
Station_Name Flow flow
site_11 0.028 0.677
site_11 0.014 0.677
site_10 0.227 5.464
site_10 0.108 5.464
site_9 0.356 9.149
site_9 0.182 9.149
site_8 0.628 15.815
site_8 0.327 15.815
site_7 1.177 28.764
site_7 0.582 28.764
site_4 1.279 32.615
site_4 0.676 32.615
site_2 1.326 33.412
site_2 0.702 33.412
site_outlet 1.339 33.997
site_outlet 0.707 33.997

160
 Q(100)
Q(95)
Exceedance Mean Monthly
Exceedance Mean Station_Name Flow flow
Station_Name Flow Monthly flow
site_11 0.00044 0.677
site_11 0.007 0.677
site_10 0.0383 5.464
site_10 0.087 5.464
site_9 0.047 9.149
site_9 0.118 9.149
site_8 0.0872 15.815
site_8 0.218 15.815
site_7 0.0291 28.764
site_7 0.320 28.764
site_4 0.198 32.615
site_4 0.458 32.615
site_2 0.235 33.412
site_2 0.490 33.412
site_outlet 0.25 33.997
site_outlet 0.500 33.997

Q(70)
Q(60)
Exceedance Mean Monthly
Exceedance Mean Monthly Station_Name Flow flow
Station_Name Flow flow
site_11 0.045 0.677
site_11 0.072 0.677
site_10 0.379 5.464
site_10 0.606 5.464
site_9 0.622 9.149
site_9 1.000 9.149
site_8 1.068 15.815
site_8 1.674 15.815
site_7 1.920 28.764
site_7 3.146 28.764
site_4 2.174 32.615
site_4 3.583 32.615
site_2 2.280 33.412
site_2 3.696 33.412
site_outlet 2.322 33.997
site_outlet 3.746 33.997

161
Appendix VIII (A): Discharge Grid Map for Q40,Q50 and Q90
Figure VIII (A)_1: Discharge Raster Map representation for considered percent of Exceedance

162
Appendix VIII (B): Spatial distribution of suitable sites for run-of-river projects and their
Hydropower potentials.
Figure VIII_1 (B): Layout and Power Distribution for Q40 and Q50

163
164
Appendix- IX: Student t-distribution
Percentile point of student t-distribution for 5% level of significance
p = P(t<tp): 0.025 0.975

v
4 -2.78 2.78
5 -2.57 2.57
6 -2.54 2.54
7 -2.36 2.36
8 -2.31 2.31
9 -2.26 2.26
10 -2.23 2.23
11 -2.2 2.2
12 -2.18 2.18
14 -2.14 2.14
16 -2.12 2.12
18 -2.1 2.1
20 -2.09 2.09
24 -2.06 2.06
30 -2.04 2.04
40 -2.02 2.02
60 -2.0 2.0
100 -1.98 1.98
160
Table-2: PPoF F, distribution for 5% level of significance

165
 .

166
167