DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE

CHANDIGARH-160012

HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING OF A CATCHMENT

SUBMITTED TO PRESENTED BY
Prof. Mohit Kumar Kuldeep Singh Rautela
Assistant Professor Water Resources Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering SID: 19203016
Contents
 Introduction
 Needs of the study
 Literature review
 Research gaps
 Objective of study
 Study area
 Methodology
 Results and Discussion
 Limitations of the study
 Future scope
 References
 Introduction
 “Water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as

such”. The growing pressure on the world‘s fresh water resources is enforced by population growth that leads to conflicts
between demands and supplies for different purposes.

 Hydrological models are among the available tools used to forecast and predict the quantity and quality of water.

Hydrologic models will become so user-friendly that little hydrologic knowledge will be needed to operate them.
The main challenges lies in choosing and utilizing these models for a specific basin and managerial plan (Johnston &
Smakhtin, 2014).

 Characterization of the specified watershed was continued by adapting a hydrological model under limited data

conditions. The primary objective of hydrologic models is to account for the distribution and movement of water
(Hamilton, 2005).

 SWAT is a continuous, semi distributed watershed model, which is used to simulate different hydrological responses

using process based equations. SWAT shows a user friendly interface to setup the model in a GIS framework; larger user
base and detailed user manual.
 Recently hydrologic models have been developed and widely applied due to the variability, complications and limited

and non-availability that normally associated with the tempo-spatial-distributed climatic, hydrological, soil and land use
data (Bello, 2020). The hydrological systems are processed based on their physical, chemical and/or biological governing
laws. According to Chow et al. (2010), the hydrological model classified as:

Classification of hydrological models (Source Researchgate.net )

 Needs of the Study
 Predict or forecast the impact of natural and anthropogenic changes on the water-bodies lies in the catchment.

 Understand the behavior of surface and subsurface strata that influence the streamflow.

 Prediction of the “change”, Change refers to significant modifications of baseline characteristics that affected
catchment the most such as land cover, climatic conditions, etc.

 Using semi-distributed models complex hydrological modeling can be simulated efficiently.

 Development of flood forecasting system using past hydrological data.

Literature review on Geo-Morphometric analysis
Year Author Title Findings

2011 Diakakis A method for flood find out the role of geo-morphometric parameters for the two un-gauged
hazard mapping based river catchments to analyze the hydrologic response. The methodology was
on basin based on GIS software for storing, fast processing of spatial data with
morphometry: excellent capabilities. The IUH based on the time area method was
application in two compiled with the drainage channels to analyze the flash flooding. The
catchments in Greece. study shows zones of flood hazards having a good co-relation with the
damaged locations which are affected by past floods.

2013 Altaf et al. Morphometric analysis analyzed the geo-morphometric parameters by using quantitative
to infer hydrological Morphometry to understand the hydrological response of the West Lidder
behaviour of Lidder river catchment. The study reveals that all the sub-catchments of the west
watershed, Western Lidder river show very high surface runoff and more prone to soil erosion
Himalaya, India. due to intense weathering of sounding rocks. The high surface runoff could
affect the peak flow during heavy storm events.
Year Author Title Findings

2017 Dang and Application of remote used RS along with a GIS system-based rainfall-runoff hydrological model
Kumar sensing and GIS-based for the identification of floods in the urban areas of Ho Chi Minh City,
hydrological modeling Vietnam. They also examine the tidal floods by using DEM using GIS
for flood risk analysis: interface with the river stage as an input. The study reveals that tidal floods
a case study of District cause a serious issue with 10-100cm flood depths while rainfall-induced
8, Ho Chi Minh city, floods do not create a serious problem with 2-10 cm of flood depths.
Vietnam.

2020 Mahala The significance of used drainage morphometric parameters to comprehend the hydro-
morphometric analysis morphological characteristics for two large river catchments of Kosi and
to understand the Kangsabati River, India. Also, categorized the morphometric parameters
hydrological into 3 aspects viz. linear, relief, and aerial aspects to quantify the
and morphological geological, geo-morphological, hydrological, and fluvial characteristics of
characteristics in two the catchments. The study reveals that the Kosi river has high flood
different morpho- potential as compared to the Kangsabati river due to its young stage of
climatic settings geomorphic development.
Literature Review on Hydrological modelling
Year Author Title Findings
1979 Beven et al. A physically based introduced the physical parameters in the model, capable of estimating the
variable contributing area hydrological characteristics directly. The model developed has the potential to be
model of basin hydrology. used for modeling the data for un-gauged rivers. To express and validate the various
characters of the hydrological cycle, he stated that these models should be purely
mathematical and representative of the presumed and known functions.

2001 Cheng et al. GIS-based statistical and stated that liquid precipitation, groundwater, and discharge are the principal
fractal/multi-fractal components of the river system in any catchment area. The interrelation and the
analysis of surface stream intricacy of these water systems rely on different basin characteristics driven by
patterns in the Oak different geographical, geological, hydrological, and ecological features of the area.
Ridges Moraine.
2008 Seth Role of remote sensing suggested that hydrological modeling is a robust technique of assessing the different
and GIS inputs in hydrologic ecosystems for water resources engineering. The models are helpful to
physically based hydrologists who deal with the management and development of water resources.
hydrological modeling

2011 Taseema Hydrological modeling as analyzed different types of hydrological models and their applications. Also,
a tool for sustainable selected model characteristics and stated that different methods predict different
water resources estimations. Thus, appropriate care should be taken in choosing and utilizing the
management: a case study existing methods for a particular catchment area and then results should be
of the Awash River Basin conveyed to the decision-makers
 Literature Review on the Hydrological Modeling using SWAT
Year Author Title Findings
1997 Bhasker et Flood Estimation for Un- used the empirical rainfall-runoff techniques to develop the Geomorphological
al. gauged Catchments Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (GIUH) from a particular catchment with distinct
Using the GIUH geomorphological features. Afterwards, he reported that there is a basic relationship
between GIUH and Nash-instantaneous unit hydrograph. IUH model’s the basic
parameters to extract comprehensive shape. This approach was executed on the sub-
catchment of the Jira river located in Eastern India, for simulating floods based on
twelve storm events. The estimations of both techniques were found in consonance
with the real events.
1999 a Tripathi et Estimation of sediment estimated the daily and monthly runoff and sediment yield from the Nagwan
&b al. yield and runoff from a watershed in Eastern India using the SWAT model. Extracted inputs had
small watershed using pronounced effect on estimating sediment yield from a small agricultural watershed.
SWAT model. The estimated values were very close to the observed values of the sediment yield.

2004 Srivastava et Hydrological modelling simulate SWAT for estimating surface runoff and sediment yield from a small
al. of a small watershed watershed “Chhokeranala” in eastern India. The SWAT model has been verified for
using satellite data and the initial phase of monsoon season in the year 2002 using daily rainfall and air
gis technique temperature. The results show a good agreement between observed and simulated
runoff and sediment yield during the study period.
Year Author Title Findings

2006 Addis et al. Modeling streamflow uses SWAT in a 53.7 sq.km area located in the Lake basin in Ethiopia. They
and sediment using applied model with some modifications in the S/R and adjustment of a support
SWAT in Ethiopian practice factor for modeling of stream flow and sediment. NSE for daily stream
Highlands flow was 0.56 and 0.48 for calibration and validation period respectively.

2006 Wu and Xu Evaluation of the applied the SWAT model in three coastal catchments in South-Eastern
applicability of the Louisiana. SWAT model has been used for hydrological investigation at
SWAT model for different time scales. The study reveals that the model showing excellent
Coastal Watersheds in performance for both calibration and validation periods. The study also reveals
Southeastern that the SWAT model capable to simulate the various hydrological responses
Louisiana for medium to large-scale coastal catchments.

2006 Cao et al. Multi‐variable and adopted a multivariable and multi-site approach for calibration and validation
multi‐site calibration of the SWAT model for the Motueka catchment in New Zealand. They used a
and validation of small set of parameters for optimization and often results in unrealistic values.
SWAT in a large The study was conducted using an 11 year historical flow records (1990-2000)
mountainous was used for simulation. SWAT generally predicted well the PET, water yield
catchment with high and daily stream flow.
spatial variability.
Year Author Title Findings
2007 Rouhani et Parameter estimation in calibrated and validated the SWAT model with respect to the total flow and low
al. semi‐distributed flow for the period of 10 years (1986-1995). The predicted daily average total
hydrological catchment flow matched the observed values with a Nash-Sutcliff coefficient of 0.67
modelling using a during calibration and 0.66 during validation. The Nash-Sutcliff coefficient for
multi‐criteria objective slow flow was 0.72 during calibration and 0.61 during validation. Their study
function revealed that SWAT is unbiased for high and low flows.

2007 Omani et Modeling of a river used SWAT-2000 model for a catchment area of 5793 km 2 Gharasu River
al. basin using SWAT Basin, Iran. Model was calibrated over 6 years, from January 1991 to
model and GIS December 1996 and validated over 4 years, from January 1997 to December
2000. 437 HRUs, were determined by unique intersections of the land use soils
within each sub-catchment.

2009 Li et al. Comparison of satellite- used the SWAT model satisfactorily in the upper reaches of the Heihe River
based and re-analysed catchment in China to understand the hydrological behavior. SWAT model
precipitation as input to performs satisfactorily in this watershed as a whole, although some low and
glacio-hydrological high flows were under- or overestimated, particularly in dry (e.g. 1991) and
modeling for Beas wet (e.g. 1996) years.
River basin, northern
India.
Year Author Title Findings
2010 Thampi et Influence of scale on applied the SWAT model to the 2530 km2 Chaliyar River basin in Kerala, India, to
al. SWAT model calibration investigate the influence of scale on the model parameters. Stream flow was
for streamflow in a river estimated from parts of the basin at two different scales—an area of
basin in the humid 2,361.58 km2 and an area of 1,013.15 km2. The streamflow estimates at both these
tropics scales were statistically analyzed by computing R2 and the NSE. Results indicate
that the SWAT model could simulate streamflow at both scales reasonably well with
very little difference between the observed and computed values.

2014 Panhalkar Hydrological modeling used Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT-2000) model with integration of RS&GIS
using SWAT model and tools in the Sutluj basin up to Bhakra Dam of a catchment area of 56,874 sq. km for
geo-informatic estimation of river runoff and sediment yield of the basin. 50 land use/ land cover
techniques classes as per the said data base. The model simulation was executed for 30 years
(1980–2010) and result of stream flow is validated with observed data of Kasol with
RMSE and r2 techniques.

2014 Johnson Hydrological modeling reviews hydrological modelling in 4 major basins of the world (Nile, Mekong,
and of large river basins: how Ganges and Indus). Based on their reviews four areas of action to improve the
Smakhtin much is enough?  effectiveness & reduce duplication in large basins are selected. New methods and
initiatives are needed to improve the model calibration and validation.
Year Author Title Findings

2017 Jain et al. Hydrologic modeling of simulate SWAT model for Ganga river catchment upto Devprayag during the
a Himalayan mountain period of 13 years (1993-2005) shows good values of R2 for both calibration
basin by using the and validation periods. The model simulated that the water yield for the basin
SWAT mode. is ranging between 57-58% of the precipitation. Snow/glacier melt
contributions are 13-20% for the Ganga catchment.

2017 Gupta et Hydrological Stream used SWAT model for Beas river catchment upto Bhuntar. They observed the
al. Flow Modeling in daily stream flow data from year 1990 to 2000 to calibrate the SWAT model
Himalayan Basin under output and then model was validated by using the data from the year 2001 to
Climate Change 2010 with the good values of R2 and NSE. ET was found to be less. The
snowmelt contribution at Bhuntar is found to be comparatively more.

2017 Himanshu Application of SWAT in an used integrated RS and GIS-derived products as gridded rainfall and gridded
et al Indian river basin for temperature in SWAT to model the hydrological process in the medium-sized
modeling runoff, sediment catchment named Ken-catchment in central India. The study revealed that the
and water balance
simulation of discharge and sediments shows good performance on the
monthly time scale as compared to the daily time scale. The study of water
balance shows that ET is a more predominant factor in the hydrological cycle.
 Research Gaps
After studying the literature review; the following research gaps have been identified:
 Applicability of SWAT modeling tool for accessing hydrological response of a coastal river catchments has

been missing.
 As past studies reported the estimation of parameters affecting the hydrological response of a catchment via

indirect techniques have been required.

 Identification of specific regions within the catchment susceptible towards generation of large hydrological

response(s) under different catchment characteristics are required;

 No single study has been reported in terms of geo-morphometric parameters with catchment characteristics

for the identification of catchment runoff and sediment production rate.

So far, not much work has been done towards hydrological modelling of a coastal river system using
SWAT and correlation with Geo-Morphometric parameters. Hopefully the present study fill this void
and provides a better solution to understand the hydrological response of a catchment.
 Objective of the study
The objectives of the study are as follows:
 To estimate the parameters of the catchment affecting the behaviour of stream discharge by indirect methods

using RS and GIS tools.

 To chart the catchment characteristics along with delineation of stretches within the study area responsible for

the considerable hydrological response.

 Outlining major processes responsible for the stream discharge generation within a catchment.

 To Calibrate and then validate the SWAT model with real-time hydro-meteorological parameters.

Hypothesis

 SWAT Model will be more appropriate for the study area for the estimation of streamflow.
General Description of the study area
 The Kuttiyadi River starts from the Narikota Ranges on

the western inclines near the hilly terrain of Waynad,

Kerala at an elevation of 1220 meters over the mean
sea level (MSL).
 The catchment is a part of Western Ghats.

 The river moves along through Badagara, Qulandy, and

Kozhikode Towns in Kerala before it merges with the

Arabian Sea at Kottakal.
 Kuttiyadi River and its tributaries bounded by the

latitudes N11°30' to N11°45' and longitudes E 75°42' to

E 75°59' and drained an area of 450 km2.

Location of the study area

Physiographic features of the study area
 Classification based on elevation;
 High land laying above 90 m to above from msl on the eastern side;

 Mid land laying between 45 to 90 m from msl on the central portion;

 Low land laying between 15 to 45 m form msl on the western side.

 Classification based on parallel zones;

 Eastern zone consisting of crystalline rocks of an Archaean group;

 Central zone consisting of mainly residual laterites;

 Western coastal zone consisting of recent sands and silt.

Climatic features of the study area
 In the coastal towns Bagdora and Quilandy, the average annual rainfall is reported to be 3070 mm and 3660
mm respectively.

 In the upper reaches of Kuttiyadi town, the past records showed an average annual rainfall of 4522 mm
respectively.

 Overall average annual rainfall received by the catchment is 5170 mm (Swetha and Gopinath, 2020).

 The average ambient temperature in the catchment ranges from 30 to 33.5 ⁰C

Methodology
Quantification of Morphometric parameters:
Drainage network generation

Digital Elevation Model

SOI: Topographic map

 Quantitative Morphometry
 Assessment of parameters by applying simple mathematical formulae for each sub-catchment.
Catchment Morphometric parameters
No.
Morphometric Formulae References No. Morphometric Formulae References
Parameters Parameters
1. Stream order (U) Hierarchical rank (Strahler, 1964) 1. Stream frequency(Fs) 𝐹𝑠 = 𝑁𝑢/𝐴 (H o rto n , 1 9 4 5 )
2. Stream length (Lu) Length of stream (Horton, 1945) Length of overland
2. 𝐿𝑔 = 1/Dd ∗ 2 (H o rto n , 1 9 4 5 )
3. M e a n stre a m le n g th flow (Lg)
𝐿𝑠𝑚 = 𝐿𝑢/𝑁𝑢 (Strahler, 1964)
(L sm ) Constant channel
S tre a m le n g th 3. 𝐶 = 1/𝐷d (Schumn, 1956)
4. 𝑅𝐿 = 𝐿𝑢/𝐿𝑢 − 1 (H o rto n , 1 9 4 5 ) maintenance (C)
ra tio (R L )
4. Elongation ratio(Re) 𝑅𝑒= (2/𝐿𝑏) ∗ 𝑠𝑞𝑟𝑡 (𝐴/𝜋); (Schumn, 1956)
5. B ifu rc a tio n ra tio (R b ) 𝑅𝑏 = 𝑁𝑢/𝑁𝑢 + 1 (S c h u m m , 1 9 5 6 )
6. M e a n b ifu rc a tio n Average of bifurcation ratios of all 5. Circulatory ratio (Rc) 𝑅𝑐 = 4 ∗𝜋 ∗ 𝐴/𝑝2 (Strahler, 1964)
(Strahler, 1957)
ra tio (R b m ) orders 6. Form factor(Ff) 𝑅𝑓 = 𝐴/𝐿𝑏2 (H o rto n , 1 9 4 5 )
7. The vertical distance between the Compactness
Catchment relief (Ch) lowest and highest points of the (Schumn, 1956)
7. Cc=0.282*Lp/sqrt(A) (Gravelius, 1914)
Coefficient (Cc)
catchment.
8. Rotundity factor (Rf) Rf=Lb2/4A (Chorley et al., 1957)
8. Relief ratio (Rh) Rh=Ch/Lb; (Schumn, 1956)
9. Shape index (Si) 𝑆i = 𝐿𝑏s2 /𝐴 (Horton, 1932)
9. Ruggedness number
Rn=Ch × Dd (Schumn, 1956)
(Rn)
10. Drainage density(Dd) 𝐷 = 𝐿𝑢/𝐴 (H o rto n , 1 9 4 5 )
11. Texture Ratio(Rt) 𝑅𝑡 = 𝑁𝑢/𝑃 (Smith, 1950)

Catchment Runoff and Sediment Production

Rate
Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
 SWAT is a physically-based semi-distributed hydrological model which can be implemented on a small catchment

to a river basin scale. Continuous model that can be operated for daily, monthly, and yearly time steps.
 Developed by Jeff Arnold in 1998 in collaboration with the USDA-ARS. Public domain network providing a

user-friendly interface in a GIS framework.

Weather Input Parameters

 Precipitation
 Relative Humidity
 Solar radiation
 Maximum and Minimum Temperature
 Wind Speed

• Duration 2001-2017 and provided in the form of text files.

• Streamflow was Simulated by taking 3 years (2001-2003) warm up period.
• Simulated streamflow obtained from 2004-2017.
Streamflow simulation

Source: vishvjeettholia/swat-model (slide share)

Streamflow simulation

 The model used the following water balancing equation:

Where;
SWt= Soil humidity/final water content (in mm of water),
SWo= Base humidity/initial soil water content (in mm of water),
Rday= Rainfall volume on an ith day (in mm of water),
Qs = Surface runoff on an ith day (in mm of water),
Wseep=Seepage of water in underlaying soil layer (in mm of water)
ET=Evapotranspiration on an ith day (in mm of water),
Qlat= Amount of lateral flow (in mm of water),
Qgw= Amount of return flow (mm of water),
t= time in days.
Calibration and Validation of Streamflow
 Soil and Water Assessment Tool - Calibration and Uncertainty Program (SWAT-CUP)

 SWAT-CUP 2012 v5.6.1.2.

 Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI) 2.0 algorithm has

been used to calibrate the model for the period 2004-2013.

 Three objective functions such as Coefficient of

determination (R2), Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), and
Percentage of Bias (PBIAS) to judge the model performance.
 Soil and Water Assessment Tool - Calibration and Uncertainty Program (SWAT-CUP)

 The parameters such as Soil, Ground water, HRU’s, etc; are used to calibrate the model to maximize the
efficiency.

 After that, these calibrated parameters has been used to validate the model for the period 2014-2017.

 The model is considered as satisfactory if R2 >0.55, NSE >0.5 and PBIAS ≤ ±0.25.

 Sensitivity Analysis

 Global sensitivity has been carried out to evaluate the sensitivity of the calibrated model parameters.

 The statistical t-test and p-value has been conducted.

 Larger the t-value is considered to have higher sensitivity. If the p-value approaches zero then the model is
considered significant.
 Data collection
S. No. Data Type Source Resolution Description
(Spatial/Temporal)

USGS earth explorer

1. Topography 30m SRTM digital elevation model
(https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/)

USGS earth explorer- Sentinel-2A satellite imaginary

2. Land use land cover 10m Land use classification
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/)

NBSS toposhets for Kerala region

Harmonized World Soil Database (HSWDS)- Food and
Agriculture (FAO)
3. Soils - Soil Classification
(
http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show%3
Fid=14116
)
Precipitation, Relative Humidity, Solar
NASA agro climatic data
4. Meteorological Daily radiation, Wind speed, Maximum and
(https://power.larc.nasa.gov/)
Minimum Temperature

Daily
Streamflow data obtained at the
5. Hydrological Central Water Commission (CWC)
Monthly gauging station
Results and Discussion
1. Morphometric parameters of the sub-
Sub Stream Stream Stream Mean Stream Stream length
watersheds order Numbers Length (L) Length (Lsm) ratio
(ID) (U) (N) (km) (km) (RL)

catchments SC1 1 20 40 2 1
2 6 19.72 3.29 0.493
 The 4th order Kuttiyadi river is made up of 96 different lower- 3 2 7.61 3.81 0.39
4 1 6.87 6.87 0.90
order streams. SC2 1 12 29.68 2.47 1
2 3 21.59 7.20 0.73
 Higher velocity and higher discharge enhance the erosions of bed 3 2 3.84 1.92 0.18
4 1 4.52 4.52 1.18
and banks of the river and also, contributes the higher sediment SC3 1 6 16.66 2.78 1
2 2 10.21 5.11 0.61
loads to the river. 3 1 0.27 0.27 0.02
4 - - - -
SC4 1 17 37.95 2.23 1
2 6 10.5 1.75 0.27
Minimum Maximum 3 1 14.23 14.23 1.36
Sub Relative Watershed Area Perimeter
Elevation Elevation
watersheds Relief length (km) (sq.km) (km) 4 - - - -
(km) (km)
SC5 1 13 26.7 2.05 1
SC1 0.017 0.563 0.546 16.96 128.35 60.78 2 2 2.97 1.49 0.11
3 2 16.15 8.08 5.43
SC2 0.017 1.038 1.021 14.87 97.07 56.82
4 1 5.86 5.86 0.36
SC3 0.038 1.291 1.253 13.04 49.6 45.4
SC6 1 6 11.83 1.97 1
SC4 0.033 1.542 1.509 17.92 68.12 115.4 2 2 6.7 3.35 0.57
SC5 0.015 0.692 0.677 19.03 61.97 88.64 3 2 3.21 1.60 0.48
SC6 0.015 0.027 0.012 9.25 31.03 37.5 4 1 2.39 2.39 0.75
 Sub- Stream Mean
 Structurally impermeable surface and sub-surface materials watershed order Bifurcation bifurcation Drainage Stream Drainage
ratio ratio density Frequency Texture
1 3.33
with uniform lithology. 2 3
SC1 2.33 0.145 0.056 0.119
3 2
 low drainage density, low stream frequency, and low 4 1
1 4
bifurcation ratio. SC2
2 1.5
2.13 0.154 0.046 0.079
3 2
4 1
 Accept SC1 all the Sub-watersheds are less susceptible to 1 3
2 2
SC3 2.00 0.182 0.060 0.066
erosion due to the fine drainage texture and shape index. 3 1
4 -
1 2.83
 Sub-watersheds show delayed peaks in the hydrograph.
2 6
SC4 3.28 0.307 0.117 0.069
3 1
Sub- Shape Form Compactness Elongation Circulatory Rotundity 4 -
watershed index factor Coefficient ratio ratio factor 1 6.5
SC1 1.762 0.446 1.513 0.754 0.436 0.560 2 1
SC5 2.63 0.208 0.073 0.051
3 2
SC2 2.272 0.439 1.626 0.747 0.378 0.569
4 1
SC3 2.480 0.292 1.818 0.609 0.302 0.857
1 3
SC4 3.457 0.212 3.942 0.520 0.064 1.178
2 1
SC5 3.563 0.171 3.175 0.467 0.099 0.984 SC6 1.75 0.194 0.089 0.077
3 2
SC6 2.698 0.363 1.798 0.679 0.309 0.689
4 1
 Surface Runoff and Sediment Production Rate
2. SWAT Topographic parameters
3. Simulation of the catchment Hydrological response
4. Calibration of the daily streamflow
(a) Initial Simulation
 Streamflow is under-predicted during high flows and over-predicted during low flows.
 Simulated streamflow and observed streamflow shows satisfactory correlation with each other which is
further improved by the calibrating the parameters.
 (b) Parameterization for Calibration of the daily streamflow

S.No. Parameters used for Qualifier Min Value Max Value Fitted Value
•The peak flow was increased by increasing the value calibration

1. CN2.mgt Relative (r) -0.25 0.25 -0.24

of CN2, GW_REVAP, and GWQMN.
2. SOL_AWC.sol Relative (r) -0.1 0.1 -0.03

3. ESCO.hru Replace (v) 0 1 0.85

• The parameters such as OV_N and SLSUBBSN was
4. OV_N.hru Replace (v) 0.01 20 16.48
introduced to control the shift of hydrograph towards
5. SLSUBBSN.hru Relative (r) -0.2 0.2 -0.12
left.
6. GWQMN.gw Replace (v) 20 200 35.15

7. GW_REVAP.gw Replace (v) 0.02 0.2 0.04

•Rest the other parameters was improving the 8. REVAMPM.gw Replace (v) 0 250 113.12

groundwater contribution. 9. CH_K2.rte Replace (v) 5 10 7.39

10. EPCO.hru Replace (v) 0 1 0.65

11. SOL_K.sol Relative (r) -0.2 0.2 0.01

12. ALPHA_BF.gw Replace (v) 0 1 0.98

(c) Final Calibration

 Streamflow is still under-predicted during high flows because of highly fluctuations in the daily flow.

 Streamflow is improved for the low and medium flows.

 Simulated streamflow and observed streamflow shows good correlation, NSE and PBIAS.
(d) Validation of the daily streamflow with
model performance index Index of Performance Coefficient of Nash-Sutcliffe Percentage
Determination Efficiency BIAS
Time step (R2) (NSE) (PBIAS)

 The higher peak flows were not properly captured by the

model. Daily Initial 0.42 0.40 53.5
Simulation
 Lower peaks were captured by the model due to the lower Calibration 0.63 0.59 21.0

range of CN2 Validation 0.57 0.56 34.3

5. Calibration of the Monthly streamflow
(a) Initial Simulation
 Streamflow is under-predicted during high flows.
 Simulated streamflow and observed streamflow shows good correlation with each other which is further
improved by the calibrating the parameters.
(b) Parameterization for Calibration of the daily streamflow

S.No. Parameters used for Qualifier Min Value Max Value Fitted Value
The peak flow was increased by increasing the calibration

1. CN2.mgt Relative (r) -0.25 0.25 -0.22

value of CN2, GW_REVAP, and GWQMN.
2. SOL_AWC.sol Relative (r) -0.1 0.1 0.04
 The parameters such as OV_N, SLSUBBSN 3. ESCO.hru Replace (v) 0 1 0.99

was introduced to control the shift of hydrograph 4. OV_N.hru Replace (v) 0.01 20 4.19

towards left. 5. SLSUBBSN.hru Relative (r) -0.2 0.2 -0.10

6. GWQMN.gw Replace (v) 20 200 126.65

Rest the other parameters was improving the
7. GW_REVAP.gw Replace (v) 0.02 0.2 0.19
groundwater contribution.
8. REVAMPM.gw Replace (v) 0 250 235.62

9. CH_K2.rte Replace (v) 5 10 9.27

10. EPCO.hru Replace (v) 0 1 0.51

11. SOL_K.sol Relative (r) -0.2 0.2 0.10

12. ALPHA_BF.gw Replace (v) 0 1 0.69

(c) Final Calibration
 Streamflow is improved for both high and low flows.
 Simulated streamflow and observed streamflow shows good correlation, NSE and PBIAS.
(d) Validation of the monthly streamflow Index of Performance Coefficient of Nash-Sutcliffe Percentage

with model performance index Time step

Determination
(R2)
Efficiency
(NSE)
BIAS
(PBIAS)
 The higher peak flows were not properly captured by the
model.
Daily Initial 0.80 0.73 34.3
Simulation
 Lower peaks were captured by the model due to the Calibration 0.88 0.79 22.4

lower range of CN2.

Validation 0.85 0.84 21.9
6. Sensitivity Analysis
 Rapid changes in land-use, rapid changes in hydraulic conductivity of the mainstream channel due to
the bi-directional interaction of the ground-water with the streamflow.
 Hydraulic conductivity of the catchment is very less and lesser amount of water is interacting with the
overlaying saturated zone.
7. Water Balance Components
 The average monthly surface runoff was varying from 0.06 Month Rain Surface Lateral Water Yield ET(mm) PET
(mm) Runoff (mm) runoff (mm) (mm) (mm)
mm to 284.29 mm which will obtain in the month of
1 3.99 0.06 0.52 28.4 17.4 112.13
January and July respectively.
2 4.74 0.09 0.2 6.41 18.07 119.47

3 32.69 5.72 1.09 9.45 52.64 148.07

 The larger variation was indentified in the surface runoff is
4 74.99 3.77 2.03 8.56 62.18 139.15
due to the higher variation in rainfall. 5 223.81 54.98 8.79 67.14 74.58 119.55

6 605.49 265.5 35.64 334.12 61.38 74.69

 Around 75 percent of the total surface runoff was generated 7 646.46 284.29 50.96 459.28 63.23 76.3

8 426.07 152.22 40.95 374.92 72.15 90.65

by southwest monsoon.
9 301.57 92.76 29.3 292.18 70.58 95.04

10 224.76 59.42 19.31 218.99 71.79 100.55

 Overall the surface runoff was high for the Kutiyadi river
11 120.97 23.47 13.48 139.09 56.72 93.61
catchment and the month January and February is
12 22.26 1.74 2.95 69.85 31.18 98.77
considered as the dry months where the rainfall and the
surface runoff are very less.
7. Water Balance Components
 Similar pattern was also obtained for the lateral runoff and water yield.
 The PET and ET were also quite high due to coastal area where the average ambient air temperature ranges
from 30- 33.5 ⁰C.
 Around 25% of the total precipitation was lost by ET, 7% was lost by lateral runoff, 30% gives its
contribution by return flow, and 32% was percolated to the shallow aquifer.
Conclusion
 The SC1 and SC2 generates more surface runoff while SC1 more prone to erosion.

 The streamflow was improved due to decrease in the CN2 and higher water uptake demand from lower soil layer.

 The parameters OV_N (overland manning’s coefficient), and SLSUBBSN were introduced to shift the hydrograph
peaks towards right.

 The maximum amount of ground water will transfer to the overlaying saturated zone from the shallow aquifer.

 The moderate response of groundwater flow to change in recharge.

 There is high water uptake demand from the lower layers of soils

 Moderate loss rate of surface water from the main channel and less hydraulic conductivity of soil which leads to
increase peakflows during the storm events.

 The variation in the water yield was dominated by the surface runoff, lateral flow and groundwater flow and it was
increased with increasing rainfall.
Limitations of the study
 One of SWAT's limitations is its lack of spatial representation of the HRUs within the sub-catchments.

 A wide range of different datasets are needed to run the SWAT model.

 A number of parameters had to be modified during the calibration of the model, and it takes a long time to
model complex catchments with numerous HRUs, which sometimes discourages the modelers.

 The model doesn’t simulate the peakflows in the daily streamflow simulation due to the higher variation in
the daily rainfall.
Future Scope
 The SWAT Rainfall-Runoff model should be applied successfully to the other small and large river
catchments of the situated in the coastal areas.
 This model is flexible and can be implemented as per the availability of data in different sub-catchments.
 Framing sustainable water and land use policies for the catchment.
 This primary investigation plays an important role in flood vulnerability assessment and flood risk
assessment in the downstream regions.
 Also, it shall provide the information and basic knowledge to the decision and policymakers to achieve
sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Extra Work done (Publish Work) 2020-21

J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev ( December 2020)

Current Science (March 2021)

Water Soil and Air Pollution (June 2021)

Extra Work done (Yet to be Published) 2020-21
 Manuscript Title “Assessment of river runoff, morphology, physical and chemical weathering and
transport of suspended sediment load in high altitude river system: A case from the Dhauliganga basin,
Central Himalaya” Submitted to Journal of Earth System Sciences (JESS) (Springer) IF-1.43.

 Manuscript Title “Assessment of daily melt, Sediment fluxes, and Erosion rate of a pro-glacial stream
basin, Central Himalaya, Uttarakhand” Submitted to Water Soil and Air Pollution (Springer) IF-2.5.

 Manuscript Title “Morphometry Governs the Dynamics of runoff and Sediment Production Rate: A case
study of Upper-Kosi Micro-watershed, Almora, Uttarakhand” Submitted to H2Open Journal (IWA
Publications) IF-0.6.

 Manuscript Title “Comparative Geomorphometric approach to understand the Hydrological behaviour

and Identification of the Erosion prone areas of a Coastal watershed using RS and GIS tools” Submitted
to Water Supply (IWA Publications) IF-1.3.

 Manuscript Title “Quantification of daily and monthly streamflow using SWAT of a Coastal river basin-
Kuttiyadi river, Southern India” Submitted to Applied Water Science (Springer) IF-3.9.
 References
 Addis, H. K., Strohmeier, S., Ziadat, F., Melaku, N. D., & Klik, A. (2016). Modeling streamflow and sediment using

SWAT in Ethiopian Highlands. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(5), 51-66.

 Bergstrom, S. (1992). The HBV model-its structure and applications.

 Bello, Q. (2020). A Literature Review of Multi-modeling in Hydrology.

 Chow, V.T. (2010). Applied hydrology. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

 Cao, W., Bowden, W. B., Davie, T., & Fenemor, A. (2006). Multi ‐variable and multi ‐site calibration and validation of

SWAT in a large mountainous catchment with high spatial variability. Hydrological Processes: An International
Journal, 20(5), 1057-1073.
 Hamilton, P. (2005). Groundwater and surface water: A single resource. Water Environment and Technology. 17, 37–41.

 Jain, S. K., Jain, S. K., Jain, N., & Xu, C. Y. (2017). Hydrologic modeling of a Himalayan mountain basin by using the

SWAT mode. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 1-26.https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-100

Johnston, R., & Smakhtin, V. (2014). Hydrological modeling of large river basins: how much is enough?. Water resources

management, 28(10), 2695-2730.

Li, L., Engelhardt, M., Xu, C. Y., Jain, S. K., & Singh, V. P. (2013). Comparison of satellite-based and re-analysed precipitation as

input to glacio-hydrological modelling for Beas River basin, northern India.

Migliaccio, K. W., & Srivastava, P. (2007). Hydrologic components of watershed-scale models. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(5),

1695-1703. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23955

Nasiri, S., Ansari, H., & Ziaei, A. N. (2020). Simulation of water balance equation components using SWAT model in Samalqan

Watershed (Iran). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13, 421.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05366-y

Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., & Williams, J. R. (2011). Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation

version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute.

Opere, A. O., & Okello, B. N. (2011). Hydrologic analysis for river Nyando using SWAT. Hydrology & Earth System Sciences

Discussions, 8(1).

Rouhani, H., Willems, P., Wyseure, G., & Feyen, J. (2007). Parameter estimation in semi ‐distributed hydrological catchment

modelling using a multi‐criteria objective function. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 21(22), 2998-3008.

Singh, V. P. (2018). Hydrologic modeling: progress and future directions. Geoscience Letters, 5(1), 1-18.https://doi.org

/10.1186/s40562-018-0113-z

Shrivastava, P. K., Tripathi, M. P., & Das, S. N. (2004). Hydrological modelling of a small watershed using satellite data and gis

technique. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 32(2), 145-157.

Tessema, S. M. (2011). Hydrological modeling as a tool for sustainable water resources management: a case study of the Awash River

Basin (Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).

Thampi, S. G., Raneesh, K. Y., & Surya, T. V. (2010). Influence of scale on SWAT model calibration for streamflow in a river basin in the humid

tropics. Water resources management, 24(15), 4567-4578.

Tripathi, M. P., Panda, R. K., & Raghuwanshi, N. S. (1999a). Estimation of sediment yield from a small watershed using SWAT model.

In Proceedings of the civil and environmental engineering conference on ‘New Frontiers and Challenges (pp. 8-12).

Tripathi, M. P., Panda, R. K., & Raghuwanshi, N. S. (1999). Runoff estimation from a small agricultural watershed using SWAT model.

In Hydrological Modelling: Proc., Int. Conf. on Water, Environment, Ecology, Socio-Economics and Health Engineering (WEESHE) (pp. 143-

152).

Tsihrintzis, V. A., Hamid, R., & Fuentes, H. R. (1996). Use of geographic information systems (GIS) in water resources: a review. Water

resources management, 10(4), 251-277.

Zhao, R. J. (1995). The xinanjiang model. Computer models of watershed hydrology, 215-232.

Thank You