[Insert/paste extra picture or delete this text

]

Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model
for the data scarce region in Kilombero
basin,Tanzania
WSE-HWR
Karina Sifuentes Alegria
MSc Thesis WSE-HWR-16.06
April 2016

Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data
scarce region in Kilombero basin,Tanzania

Master of Science Thesis
by
Karina Sifuentes Alegria

Supervisors
Dr. Michael McClain

Mentors
Dr. Shreedhar Maskey

Examination committee
Chair
: Dr. Michael Mc.Clain (UNESCO-IHE)
Member
: Dr. Shreedhar Maskey (UNESCO-IHE)
External Member : Dr. Ilyas Masih (UNESCO-IHE)
This research is done for the partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Science degree at the
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands

Delft
April 2016

.

damage.[Optional copyright text or delete this text] Although the author and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education have made every effort to ensure that the information in this thesis was correct at press time. ©2016 by Karina Sifuentes Alegria. or disruption caused by errors or omissions. or any other cause. accident.0 International License. . This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4. whether such errors or omissions result from negligence. the author and UNESCO-IHE do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss.

.

Dedicated to my late mother Juana Alegria Flores i .

Some of these studies attempted to simulate the hydrological processes in the catchment applying different modelling techniques. the model is also good in simulating low flows. Furthermore.Abstract Hydrologic models are very powerful tools to simulate rainfall-runoff processes which allow to estimate the availability of water. It can be concluded that the hydrological model simulate well the mean monthly discharge in the upstream gage (Mpanga station) and a good simulation of mean daily and mean monthly discharge in the downstream gage (Ifakara station). However. Here we show that the use of the globally available data allows to develop a satisfactory performance in predicting the discharge in certain time resolutions. ii . the most important are precipitation and evapotranspiration are obtained from globally available data sources (open source). SMA. This study could be considered as a starting point for a more rigorous calibration of the Kilombero catchment hydrological model. The data period is from 1961 to 1982. Among different input data needed to develop the model. for example use various sources of global data sources.rainfall-runoff processes. validation. but not good enough in peak flows. The peak flows are underestimated in most of the cases. A number of hydrological studies recently conducted in the Kilombero catchment shows that this basin is getting more attention. Our results demonstrate that the use of globally available data in hydrological modelling can be used to model runoff in the Kilombero catchment with a proper calibration and validation. Observed discharge data from two stations are used for calibration and validation of the model. a soil moisture accounting method (SMA) algorithm was used to simulate a continuous hydrological model using the Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS). However. calibration. HEC-HMS. The aim of this research is to assess the suitability of globally available data sets in hydrological modelling of the Kilombero catchment. KEYWORDS: Hydrological modelling. hydrological modelling consists of a complex set of tasks and needs to be accurately calibrated to increase its confidence and veracity in the application of the model in forecasting. due to the lack of observation hydro-climatic data it was not possible to develop a reliable hydrological model.globally available data. For this study.

I express my appreciation to Dr. who helped me somehow during my stay in the Netherlands. Special thanks to UNESCO-IHE and its staff. for his patient. I am very grateful with the Government of the Netherlands for awarding me with a NFP Scholarship and to the General Director of the Division of Agriculture from the Regional Government of Lima-Peru.Acknowledgements Firstly. Finally. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. Jose Vasquez La Cruz. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my research mentor. Dr. motivation and knowledge. Shreedhar Maskey for the continuous support on my thesis research. iii . who gave me all the support and recommendation to fulfill this achievement to study in UNESCO-IHE.Michael McClain for his valuable feedback during my research. I would like to thank my family and friends in Peru who supported me providing me encouragement during my study.

.

Evapotranspiration 3. Meteorological model 3. Sensitivity analysis in Ifakara gage 26 26 26 28 v . Sensitivity analysis in Mpanga gage. Previous studies modelling Kilombero catchment 6 6 7 7 7 8 3.2.1.3.3. Precipitation data 3.1.2.Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Abbreviations ix 1.1.5. The hydrological model: HEC. Sensitivity Analisis 4. Location and topography 1.1. Hydrological models 2.1. Evaluation of the model performance 10 10 10 11 11 11 13 13 13 16 17 17 19 20 24 4. Hydrological process in HEC-HMS 3.2.5. Literature Review 2.4. Climate and hydrology 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2.4. Calibration of the HEC-HMS models 3. 4. Research questions 1.1.2.1.2.3. Result and discussion 4.2. Subbasin elements 3.3.1.1. Calibration of hydrological models 2.2.3.1.2.2.1. Model Introduction 3.2.2.2.1.1. Research objectives 1. Topographic map 3.2.3. Data collection and analysis 3.1. Calibration and evaluation of hydrological models 2. Model Set-up 3. Basin model 3.4.3. Evaluation of hydrological models 2. Discharge data 3. Problem definition 1.3.HMS 3. Data and Methodology 3. Research area 1.1.3. Introduction 1.2.5.1. Background 1.2.

2.1. Conclutions 5. Recommendations References Appendices 30 30 32 34 36 36 38 40 43 43 44 45 6. 4. Calibration result based Best fit objective function 4.2.2.3.3. Calibration and validation on Mpanga gage 4. Validation of the model Calibration and validation on Ifakara gage 4.2.3. Validation of the model Conclutions and recommendations 5. Comparison of calibration using differente objective functions 4. Comparison of the simulations using different objective functions 4.4.2.3. Calibration result based best fit objective function 4.3.3.2.2.1. 5. 47 vi .1.

..................................... 42 vii .................................................................................................6 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using different objective functions ................................................................... .................... 39 Figure 4........... 40 Figure 4.......................... 31 Figure 4.... 27 Figure 4......... 33 Figure 4................................1 Location of the Kilombero catchment in the Rufiji basin ........... 16 Figure 3.................................................... 29 Figure 4....................................................................................................................................................................13 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982)............ 32 Figure 4.................... 37 Figure 4.............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 4... 33 Figure 4......................... 34 Figure 4....................................... 18 Figure 3...........................................23 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982)......................................... 10 Figure 3..................................3 Linear Reservoir GW2 Coefficient in hours (Sensitivity analysis).......5 Schematic of calibration procedure......................................................................15 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using different objective functions . 35 Figure 4...................................... 27 Figure 4.........7 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga gage using different objective functions ................. 38 Figure 4............................. 35 Figure 4........................................................................................ 39 Figure 4.............. 37 Figure 4.................11 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using in Mpanga gage using LogRMSerror ............ 41 Figure 4..............List of Figures Figure 1.......................................................................... 15 Figure 3.......................8 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using different objective functions in Mpanga gage ..................... 14 Figure 3..................................10 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga using LogRMSerror........................ 36 Figure 4.....21 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982) ....18 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals ............................................................................4 Conceptual schematic of the continuous soil moisture accounting algorithm ................12 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982) ................... 3 Figure 3..................................1 Topographic map of Kilombero Basin.....................2 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in hours (Sensitivity analysis) ..............................2 Precipitation grid on Kilombero Basin ...........................................................14 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982)..................................................17 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year in Ifakara gage using different objective functions............3 Typical HEC-HMS representation of watershed runoff ............................................................................ 29 Figure 4...............1 Soil Moisture Accounting GW1 coefficient in hours(Sensitivity analysis) ........................................ 41 Figure 4...............20 Observed and predicted average daily flows per year in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals .............. 31 Figure 4............... 28 Figure 4......6 Kilombero catchment delineated with distribution of subbasins and network .....................22 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982).....................................................................................................5 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W860 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis) ..................................19 Observed and predicted average daily flows per month in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals ..................................................................................................7 Global distribution of leaf are index [ m2/m2] ..................................... 11 Figure 3............................................................4 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W1090 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis) ............................................16 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Ifakara gage using different objective functions ..................................................................9 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using LogRMSerror .......................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 4-2 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance using LogRMSerror .................................. 20 Table 3-5 Potential evapotranspiration per month per subbasin ... 23 Table 3-10 General Perfomance ratings for recommended statistics ................................................................................ 21 Table 3-7 Soil characteristics of the different subcatchments ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table A-5 Initial parameter values for Soil Moisture Accounting Method..... 36 Table 4-5 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance using Sum of squared residuals in Ifakara station .................................................................. 20 Table 3-6 Parameters considered for Soil Moisture Accounting method...... 48 Table A-4 Annual precipitation (mm) (Grids 31-36) .......... 22 Table 3-8 Time of concentration and storage coefficient ................................................. 32 Table 4-3 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982)...................................................................... 13 Table 3-2 Catchment characteristics .............................................................................. 47 Table A-2 Annual precipitation (Grid 4-13) .............................................. 51 Table A-6 Optimized parameters per subbasin ........ 23 Table 3-9 Initial parameter values for Linear reservoir Method .......................................................................... 18 Table 3-3 The properties of river reaches........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Table 4-4 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the model calibration in Ifakara station using different objective functions ................................................List of Tables Table 1-1 Status of data availability of some river gauging stations in the Kilombero River..................................................................................... 53 viii ............................................................... 38 Table 4-6 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982)........... 40 Table A-1 Average discharge per year in the stations ........................................... 19 Table 3-4 Gauge weights per subbasin................................................................................... 48 Table A-3 Annual precipitation (mm) (Grids 14-24) ...................................................... 4 Table 3-1 Hydrological (Discharge Measurement) stations in the study area............................. 25 Table 4-1 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the calibration in Mpanga station using different objective functions ......................

Abbreviations DEM ET GAD GIS GW HEC-HMS LAI NSE PEP PVE RMS RMSE R2 SMAR SMA SPAW SRTM SWAT USGS UTM WGS Digital elevation model Evapotranspiration Globally available data Geographic Information System Groundwater Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modelling System Leaf index area Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Percent error in peak Percent volume error Root mean square Root mean square error Coefficient of determination Soil moisture accounting and routing Soil moisture accounting Soil .Atmosphere – Water Shuttle radar topography mission Soil and Water Assessment Tool United States Geological Survey Universal Transverse Mercator World Geodetic System ix .Plant .

.

(US Army Corps of Engineers.Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) and it is designed to simulate the rainfall-runoff processes of dentritic drainage basins.1. Background Nowadays. 2000). A reliable and accurate model calibration procedure is required to predict runoff response realistically in situations in which the data is limited.2013) The Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS) is one of the most widely used simulation tools developed by the US.CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.Tanzania 1 . only two studies have been reported of hydrological modelling with HEC-HMS in the Kilombero basin. the need of assesing the water resources is a challenge especially due to the impacts of the climate change in the water availability. One of these areas is the Kilombero basin which is part of the biggest river basin in Tanzania and it is the area where this research is focused. Different techniques were used in order to set-up the models. This problem is even more significant in regions where there is a data scarcity such as developing countries. Some studies have been conducted in the Kilombero catchment for hydrological and environmental purposes. however the most important are the precipitation and the evapotranspiration. althought these studies did not consider an appropriate calibration and validation for the models. a long term simulation of the precipitation-runoff of a catchment can be developed with an appropriate calibration and validation of the model. Modelling requires different inputs. Many studies have reported successfully the use of the HEC-HMS in modelling different catchments around the world. However. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. Others set-up hydrological models.Others inputs could be analysed from the field or experimental data. some of these studies excluded the Kilombero catchment in the region because of the lack of data. (Roy et al. In order to achieve a proper assessment of the water resources as well as a to planning assertively water policies for the development of the catchment. while others parameters need to be calibrated.

4.For these reasons exposed previously. Problem definition The lack of network of observation stations of hydroclimatic parameters in the study catchment is very limited and most of the Kilombero subbasin is ungauged. For this reason. this study aims to develop a hydrological model using global available precipitation and evapotranspiration datasets that can be the begining from further study of the catchment in the future. 1.3. there is no sufficient observation data in the Kilombero catchment to develop a reliable hydrological model. This situation is challenging task in this particular region where the proper assessment of the water resources is a main requisite in order to model hydrological scenarios and also to forecast futures outcomes. 1. monthly or annually? • Is it possible to obtain a reliable calibration using globally available precipitation and evapotranspiration data sets in hydrological modelling of Kilombero catchment at different seasonal fluctuations such as high flows and low flows? • What are the most sensitive parameters with respect to high and low flows? • Can we get a better calibration for different flow conditions by using different objective functions? Introduction 2 .2. Research questions • Is it possible to obtain a reliable calibration using globally available precipitation and evapotranspiration data sets in hydrological modelling of Kilombero catchment at different temporal resolution: daily. 1. Research objectives • To assess the suitability of Globally Available Data Sets in hydrological modelling of the Kilombero Basin. • To assess whether different objective functions could improve the calibration for different flow conditions (high and low).

The Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. which is located in the eastern part of Tanzania and forms one of the four principal sub-basins of the Rufiji River Basin. 2012). The topography in the catchment area is surrounded by high mountains on both sides. 2015 1. (WREM International.5.2. The difference of altitude in the Kilombero floodplain are from more than 1.800 amsl to about 300 amsl in a few kilometres.023° south. Climate and hydrology Precipitation The mean annual rainfall within the catchment differs from 1100 to 2100 mm. The eastern part and the low altitude southwest plains collect the highest rainfall between 1500-2000 mm. Figure 1.1 Location of the Kilombero catchment in the Rufiji basin Source: Environmental Flow Assessment of the Kilombero catchment.Tanzania 3 .5. The basin have an extension area of approximately 184. Research area 1.563° and 37. The Kilombero River catchment is located in Morogoro Region and it is geographically located between longitudes 34. Location and topography The research area of this study is the Kilombero basin.The Udzungwa Mountains are located in the north and west part of the Kilombero valley.1.654° and 10.797° east and latitudes 7.1.000 km2 and it is the largest of the nine river basins in Tanzania.5.

26 37.85 -8.42 35.62 35.15 36.12 -8.55 35.76 -7.36 36.00 -9.01 36.97 -7.95 36.42 -8. Table 1-1 Status of data availability of some river gauging stations in the Kilombero River S/N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Introduction Reg.rainy season is from December to April while the dry season are between June and September.21°C).85 -8. The largest catchment in the study area (4747 km2 ).81 -9.66 -8.17 35.29 -8.71 36.32 34. Temperature and wind The Kilombero Basin is situated in tropical humid zone and in general has a semi-arid climate. the annual mean daily temperature are 24 ° C and 17 ° C respectively.24 36.28 34.82 -9. (WREM International. 2012).33 34.63 -8. which is Mnyera River is about 155.76 -9.52 -8.80 36.80 Years of record Start End 1954 1955 1976 1957 1978 1956 1976 1960 1976 1967 1958 1960 1989 1977 1975 1957 1958 1976 1961 1960 1962 1961 1966 1976 1973 1991 1980 1970 1986 1987 1989 1974 2002 1984 2007 1982 2000 2002 2009 2002 2002 4 .40 34.83 -9. 2012). (WREM International.97 -7. (WREM International.91 35. 2012).23 m3/s for April.48 -8. In the table 1-1 we can see the status of the data availability of the river gauging stations in the Kilombero basin. The warmest temperature is registered in December and January (14 °C .00 -8.95 -8.33 36. Discharge data Most of the hydrometric stations in the Kilombero river were established between 1950s and 1960s and they operated between 1970s and early 1990s. No.58 37.95 36.53 m3/s for April and for the smallest catchment (25 km2) called Udagaji River catchment is 1.12 -8.82 35.21°C) and the coldest in July (14 °C .09 -8.96 -8.94 35.66 36.94 -8. 1KB2 1KB4 1KB8 1KB9 1KB10 1KB12 1KB14A 1KB15 1KB15A 1KB16 1KB17 1KB18A 1KB18B 1KB19 1KB20 1KB23 1KB24 1KB26 1KB27 1KB28 1KB29 1KB32 1KB33 1KB34 FSU7 River Kilombero Kilombero Mpanga Mnyera Ruhudji Mchilipa Lumemo Mgeta Mgeta Furua Kilombero Ruhudji Ruhudji Hagafiro Ijunilo Sonjo Sanje Kiberege Ruipa Kihansi Luhombero Kihansi Kihansi Kihansi Kihansi Location Ifakara Ifwema Mpanga Mission U/S Taveta Mission Mwayamulungu Itete D/S Kiburubutu D/S Mchombe Mis U/S Bridge Malinyi Mission Swero Njombe Below Kifunga falls Hagafiro Kibena Sonjo Sanje Kiberege U/S Mbingu Lugoda Luhombero Lutaki Below Kihansi Uhafiwa Bridge D/S Muhu Conf Location Lat Long -8.98 35. In the lowlands and highlands. The temperature varies depending of the topography.

Tanzania 5 .35 -8.42 -8.90 2000 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 2002 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Source: WREM International.45 -8. 2012 Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.80 35.40 -8.87 35.53 -8.83 35.92 35.35 -8.85 35.26 27 28 29 30 31 32 FSU8 FSU1 FSU4 FSU3 FSU2 FSU5 FSU6 Kihansi Muhu Muhu Mkalasi Ruaha Ruaha Luvala U/S Muhu Conf Ilogombe Ilogombe Kipanga Uhafiwa Kipanga Kipanga -8.80 35.43 35.

which is a model that can make possible the simulation of the rainfall-runoff and has been used successfully in different regions of the world to model catchments.J.CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 2. parameters can vary in space at different resolutions.0. if the interest of the user is only the discharge prediction these models can simulate satisfactorily. 2004). This tool helps users to simulate the hydrological responses due to different water management practices and the impacts of these practices in the catchment. 2008). Lumped models. 2011).These models are not recommended to for event scale hydrological processes. Finally the semidistributed models contain parameters that partially change in space. Hydrological models Hydrological modelling is a tool to estimate the runoff – precipitation processes within a catchment. (Cunderlik. distributed and semidistributed models. Literature Review 6 . (Kadam. In distributed models.Thus. The main advantage compared with the fully distributed models is that these models do not need so much data and they are more physically based that lumped models.1. parameters in this kind of model do not change in space within a catchment and the basin response is evaluated only in the outlet of the catchment without considering the internal proceses and responses of every sub-catchment. (Pechlivanidis. 2011). (Xu.Several studies have been conducted using the HEC-HMS model in different regions aroun the world. In this study we use the HEC-HMS 4. 2008). The hydrological models can be classified in three categories. 2011).Lumped. However these kind of models need a large amount of data. (Lastoria. One advantage of the distributed models is that they can have a high level of accuracy in the predictions due to the physical processes within a catchment are modelled in detail. 2009). (Pechlivanidis. (Orellana et al.

2.2. Calibration and evaluation of hydrological models
2.2.1. Calibration of hydrological models

The objective of the calibration of a hydrol.ogical model is to find out whether the model
structure can be considered as a suitable representation of the hydrological processes in a
catchment. (Beven, 2010).
Once all the information needed is available, the calibration sites and period of record to use
were selected, and the data have been checked, analysed and introduced in the software. In
order to simulate real conditions over the entire catchment many procedures should be used.
Most of these procedures need parameters which are obtained by analysing physical and
experimental data. The paremeters may vary depending of the climatogy and physical factors.
(Anderson, 2002).
The criterion to assess the success of a calibration depends of the necessities of the user, some
statistic criteria selected are based on goodness of fit, or some multiobjective function
combining diferent statistical assessment. The differente statistical criteria to examine the data
and the acceptance of the calibration could be: statistics from a complete set of simulation flows,
statistics of only those flows which are of our particular interests, statistics of change of flow
from a period of time to another. Any of these statistical method should guide to have a good
calibration by minimizing the objective function selected. (Douglas and Burges, 1982)
There are two basics method used to calibrate hydrological model: the first is the trial and error
method, where the user’s knowledge of the model and how each parameter affects the results
are used to control changes to parameter values. Decision are made to which parameters can
change depending of the comparison of the simulated and observed values.This procedure is
very effective when we can see the graphical comparison and make parameter changes. The
calibration is finished when the user subjectively determines that the objectives have been
reached. The second method is automated calibration. In this method computer algorithms are
used to achieve the best fit between simulated and observed values. (Anderson, 2002).
2.2.2. Evaluation of hydrological models

The evaluation of a model performance of a hydrological model should be done using two
approaches: subjective and objective estimation of the closeness between the simulated
behaviour compared with the values in the cathment. The subjective approach is assessed by
visual inspection of the simulated and observed hydrograph.The objective approach needs to
quantify mathematically the error by using efficiency criterias. (Krause et al, 2005).
The efficiency criterias are defined as a mathematical measure to estimate how well the
simulated values can fit the observed information. (Beven, 2001).
To evaluate quantitavely the performance of the model three different efficiencies criterias were
used: Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), Coefficient of determination (R2) and percent volume
error (PVE).
Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin,Tanzania

7

The NSE is the most widely used indicator in hydrological models. (Ewen, 2011). A NSE=1
indicates a perfect fit, while a NSE ≤ 0 indicates that the mean of the observed data could be a
better predictor than the model. (Moriasi et al., 2007).
Another useful statistical criteria is the Coefficient of determination (R2), the range of R2 values
are from 0 to 1, which describes how much of the observed values are explained by the
prediction. A value of zero means that there is no correlation at all while values of 1 indicates
that the dispersion of the predicted and observed values are the same. (Krause et al, 2005).
The final statistical criteria used in this research was percent volume balance (PVE), which
shows the difference in terms of volumen of the observed and simulated hydograph. High
simulated disharges represent over estimation whereas low discharge indicates underestimation
in this efficiency criteria. The accuracy of the model can only be guaranteed when all the
possible uncertainties has been properly assessed. (Maskey et al., 2004). The uncertainties could
be linked to data input, parameters, model estructure and methodology and output. (Van
Griensven et al., 2008).

2.2.3. Previous studies modelling Kilombero catchment

Relevant studies were conducted in the Kilombero catchment using HEC-HMS such as an
attempt to establish a computerised flood warning model in the Lower Rufiji Floodplain,
including the Kilombero Sub-basin. The calibration period was from 1960 to 1977 (18 years)
and the verification period from 1978 to 1982 (5 years). HEC-HMS simulated the precipitationrunoff and routing processes, both natural and controlled. The efficiency (R2) for the calibration
was 22% and for the verification R2 of –49% was obtained. The model registered an error of
48.60% in estimating the observed peak flow. (Wrep UDSM, 2003)
Different techniques were applying to simulate the river flow forecasting in the Kilombero
River in 2005. This study used different system (black-box) models: a simple linear model, a
linear perturbation model and a linear varying gain factor model. A lumped conceptual model—
the soil moisture accounting and routing model—and a distributed model (HEC-HMS) were
also applied to the basin. From these different methods, the soil moisture accounting and routing
(SMAR) model is a simple lumped conceptual model and perfomed extremely well, specially
predicting peak flows. The conclusion of this research was that increasing the model
complexity, and thereby increasing the number of parameters, does not necessarily enhance the
model performance. (Yawson et al, 2005).
A method on recharge estimations for monsoonal conditions in India developed by Sutcliffe et
al. (1981) was used in the Kilombero catchment. Unfortunately because of the lack of data in
the area, this method could not be tested successfully.The soil moisture recharge was found to
be negative, which is a value that does not have interpretation in the reality. However, the aim
intention of this study was only to give an estimation of the recharge in the Kilombero
catchment. (Fischer, 2013)

Literature Review

8

A rainfall-runoff model used Sacramento type model was set-up for the Rufiji catchment in
2015. Model parameters were derived from contemporaneous observations of precipitation,
temperature, and unimpaired flow sequences, as well as GIS based terrain and land use maps.
The Rufiji hydrologic models were used in combination with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
rainfall and potential evapotranspiration database to reconstruct the Rufiji river flows at several
key locations over the historical long term period of 1901-2011 .The model calibration was
considered good with Pearson and Spearman correlations (between observed and simulated
values) of 0.88 and 0.89 respectively.The outlier data rate was 2.6% of the total record, which
was close to the expected rate. (Wrem International, 2015).
The same year an Environmental Flow AssessRment was conducted in the Kilombero
catchment. A SWAT hydrological model was set up and the simulation period was from 1979
to 2014.The performance of the model was evaluated at four gaging stations using Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) and graphical visualizations.The model could not properly
calibrate and validate (Kashaigili J.J, 2015)

Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin,Tanzania

9

usgs. The spatial resolution of the DEM is 90 m by 90m. The Kilombero basin DEM is shown in the Figure 3. 2012 Data and Methodology 10 .gov/) Figure 3. The DEM was projected to WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_37S and used for delineating the catchments.1. The basic data to develop the hydrological model are precipitation and evapotranspiration.1 with the major stream network. 3.1.1 Topographic map of Kilombero Basin Source: WREM International.CHAPTER 3 Data and Methodology 3.1.( http://earthexplorer. Topographic map The data was obtained from the USGS in the format of Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Data collection and analysis The hydrological model performance depends on the quality and quantity of the data.

In the table 3. 3.nasa.4. Among those hydrometric stations. These datasets are regular 0.engr. The gridded rainfall dataset which is available for the period 1950-1999 on daily time step and 0. This information was calculated using remote sensing images and algorithms. Evapotranspiration The datasets were downloaded from http://modis.3. only two have consistent information which could be feasible and useful for modelling the catchment in this research. Precipitation data The precipitation data is the most important hydrological information necessary to run the model.scu.1 the gage stations are described.Tanzania 11 .gov/ . Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. the discharge data is available only for seven stations. which are datasets from potential evapotranspiration data. For this research. These stations provide information on discharge and sediment transport.1.3. From these seven stations.edu/~emaurer/global_data/) Figure 3. Discharge data There are 21 hydrometric stations in Kilombero catchment.5 o × 0. The dataset was downloaded from the Santa Clara university website.gsfc.5 o spatial resolution.1.2 Precipitation grid on Kilombero Basin 3. monthly evapotranspiration from 2013 was downloaded.1.( http://www.5°x 0.2.The product is called MOD16.5°of resolution.

.

HMS 3.2.Tanzania 13 .2. we can see that the model includes a simulation of the water infiltracion in the land surface but this model can not represent the downward movement of the water. 2000).2. The processes within a catchment are simulated on three different ways in the HEC-HMS: The losses which is the rainfall subject to fall in the pervious area. Model Introduction The Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS) is a software used to simulate the processes of dentritic watershed. The direct runoff is calculated as a combination of two sources: the near surface flow and the overland flow.Table 3-1 Hydrological (Discharge Measurement) stations in the study area Gage Station Longitude Latitude Mpanga -8. (US Army Corps of Engineers. in this case only the baseflow is simulated in this model. The basin model which represent the delineation of the catchment.15 36.63 Periods of data available 1961-1982 Ifakara -8. The meteorological model which uses the rainfall and the evapotranspiration data and the control specifications that consider the time step of the model simulation. (US Army Corps of Engineers.2. The hydrological model: HEC. unit hydrographs and hydrologic routings.1. 2000). The software allows to use many procedures such as infiltration events.3 describe the components necessary to predict runoff in a catchment. HEC-HMS Representation of Runoff Process The figure 3. The transformation of the excess precipitation into direct runoff component and finally the baseflow component which is the water transferred from the groundwater flow to the river. (US Army Corps of Engineers. 2000).81 1961-1982 3. Hydrological process in HEC-HMS General The HEC-HMS model needs three main components in order to run the simulation of the catchment.The internal processes in the groundwater aquifer are not consider in this model. 3. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. From this graph.94 35.

SCS UH.This method is an algorithm which is suitable during a continuous period that simulates wet and dry weather behaviour.4 shows the representation of the different storages layers and the direction of the water in this method with a given precipitation and evapotranspiration data input. soil profile and the groundwater layer. (US Army Corps of Engineers. Runoff Volume Computation: The different models that compute the runoff volume in the HEC-HMS are : Initial and constant rate. the soil surface. SCS Curve Number (CN).Figure 3. 2000). Direct Runoff computation: The different models to compute the surface runoff from the excess precipitation available in the HEC-HMS are: User – specified unit hydrograph (UH). Gridded SCS CN. the Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) was used to model the precipitation on the pervious surfaces that is subject to losses. (US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) and gridded SMA. Clark’s UH. 2000 HEC-HMS uses different models to represent each of the components which has an effect in the runoff process showed in the figure 3. Green and Ampt. models of direct runoff. This model obtains a basin unit hydrograph by simulating two processes to transform the excess precipitation to runoff which are translation and attenuation. For this study the Clark Unit Hydrograph Model was used to model the transformation of precipitation excess into direct surface runoff. The figure 3. Deficit and constant rate.This model simulates the movement of the water through the vegetation. ModClark and Kinematic wave. 2000).3. For this study. model of baseflow and models of channel flow. Data and Methodology 14 .3 Typical HEC-HMS representation of watershed runoff Source: US Army Corps of Engineers. These component are: models that compute runoff volume.

1998. Baseflow computation: The methods use in the HEC-HMS to determine the baseflow which is the water that return to the river from the the groundwater flow once it has passed through the unsaturated zone are constant monthly. (US Army Corps of Engineers. Muskingum-Cunge Standard Section. 2000) Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. 2000). Modified Plus.Tanzania 15 . Lag. However many of the parameters are difficult to estimate in the field and also the model has many assumptions that in natural channel are different. For this research.Figure 3. The Muskingum model is the most common method to use. Muskingum-Cunge 8 point section. Channnel flow computation: For the simulation of the channel flow there are 8 models available in the HEC-HMS software. the Muskingum-Cunge model was used. exponential recession and lineal reservoir. This model represents the movement and storage of the water through reservoirs. Muskingum. the linear reservoir baseflow model was used. These are: Kinematic wave. (US Army Corps of Engineers. Confluence and Bifurcation.4 Conceptual schematic of the continuous soil moisture accounting algorithm Source: Bennet. For this thesis study.

which are: sum of absolute errors.2. RMS error. which are algorithms.3. sum of squared residuals. the HEC-HMs model does different trials of optimization comparing the observed and simulated hydrograph. the HEC-HMS compute different goodness of fit. the calibration will used all the hydrometeorological information given by the user to systematically search of parameters that can be achieved the best fit between observed and simulated runoff. the HEC-HMS will adjust the parameters again using the objective function that it is selected by the user. The objective of these algorithms is to obtain the minimum value of the objective function. percent error volume.5 Schematic of calibration procedure Source: US Army Corps of Engineers. 2000 Once we choose the initial parameters. After this. After different trials and when the fit is satisfactory the HEC-HMS will report the best parameters values. For this study we used only three of them: • Sum of squared residuals: This objective function compares the squared values of the simulated and observed discharges. 2000) There are 8 objective functions choices available in the last version of the HEC-HMS. 2004).5 represents the schematic of calibration procedure. RMS Logerror. (US Army Corps of Engineers. percent error peak. Once we have the rainfall and the observed discharge data sets. Figure 3. Data and Methodology 16 .3. (Cunderlik and Simonovic. time weighted error and peak weighted RMS error. if the fit is not satisfactory. Calibration of the HEC-HMS models The starting point of the calibration procedure is the data collection. In order to compare a computed hydrograph with an observed hydrograph. The figure 3.

Model Set-up An HEC-HMS project must have three components: the basin model. − Z = 100| • | | Log root mean squared error: this objective function compare the observed and predicted flow but applying a logarithmic transformation in the values. Digital Elevation Model data from the area of the study with the following characteristics: 90mx90m resolution SRTM DEM data projected from UTM Zone 37S was downloaded and used in ARCGIS.1. 3.3. 3. this is often used for many to evaluate the hydrological model. Basin model The basin model and basin features were created as a background map using HEC-GEO HMS which is an extension package to delineate the catchment as well as to derive river networks of the basins and to delineate subbasins of the main basin and connectivity of various hydrologic elements in ARCGIS. LogRMSE = ! ∑% log + 1 − log & +1 The sum of squared residuals was selected as an efficiency criteria to calibrate the fit between observed and simulated discharge. Log RMSerror was used to emphasizes the calibration of the low flows. the meteorological model and the control specifications. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. (P. The percent error in peak flow objective function was chosen to ensure the fit of simulated and observed peak flow and peak stages. avoiding the cancelling of errors of opposite signs. thus the sensitivity of the model will have an effect over under or overprediction of the simulated data.Krause el al).Tanzania 17 .3.= • | − Percent error in peak: This objective function only measures the goodness of fit of the computed-hydrograph peak to the observed peak. Through the logarithmic transformation of the discharge values the peak flows will be flattened and the influence of the low flows will increase.

275.175. In order to build a small number of subbasins.046.275. The program assisted us estimating Data and Methodology 18 .2). The final number of subbasins were 8.954 km2 and 7.333. basin slope. (SeeTable 3. the outlet of the whole basin (longitude 37º 20' 24.211.400.90 Total 40.134. etc.6 Table 3-2 Catchment characteristics Catchment Area(km2) W1090 W610 7.4422"E.80 W840 2. Thus.033 km2 was selected for determining stream network and number of subbasins.211. river length. the smallest and the largest subbasin area were 3.A threshold area of 4. the original number of subbasins given by the HEC-GEOHMS software were modified. It was possible to estimate some of the hydrological parameters.82 W860 6.70 km2 respectively. The threshold area define the drainage area required to form a stream.767" S) and the watershed delineation were defined. The catchment and the subbasin delineation are showed in the figure 3.65 Ifakara discharge gage Mpanga discharge gage Figure 3. the final delineation of the subbasins.6 Kilombero catchment delineated with distribution of subbasins and network After the physical parameters of basins and streams and subbasins have been extracted.70 4. basin and river slope.884.805. we considered many outlet points as part of a subbasin.93 W930 5. 7 river reaches and 9 junctions. After the adjustments.90 W980 3.60 6. latitude -8º 30' 46.00 W650 W760 4. The HEC-GEOHMS also processed the basin characteristics such as: longest flow path.

(US Army Corps of Engineers. specified hytograph and standard project storm. This model will also specify the amount of precipitation that every sub-basin will generate.025 50 0.00 1 R440 0. SCS storm.a number of parameters for the Muskingum-Cunge method given the properties of the river reaches.The evapotranspiration is also included in this part for every sub-basin.000632 43788.30 1 3. gage weights.Tanzania 19 . the monthly evapotranspiration are specified as well as the ET coefficient. The potential ET rate will be calculated as the product of the monthly evapotranspiration and the coefficient.025 50 0.00 1 R460 0. 2013) The evaporation and transpiration are combined and collectively referred to as evapotranspiration (ET) in the HEC-HMS SMA model and in the meteorological input to the program.000500 91755. Table 3-3 The properties of river reaches Name Manning (n) Bottom width (m) Slope (m/m) Length (m) Side Slope (xH:1V) R150 0.025 100 0.025 30 0. inverse distance. In this input. which is showed in the table 3-4. gridded precipitation.025 220 0. Table 3-5 shows the potential evapotranspiration per month per sub-basin.000186 59828.3.000120 58312. (See table 3-3).09 1 R550 0. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.2.025 300 0.002233 63003. For this study the gage weigth method was used and it was created using ARCGIS using the thiessen polygon method to calculate the gage weigth for the 6 basins that will be calibrated.025 50 0. (US Army Corps of Engineers.38 1 R290 0.025 50 0.000305 80934. The evapotranspiration images per month are attached in the Annex.00 1 R500 0.025 100 0.000500 48363.000865 20532.62 1 R300 0.30 1 R250 0.000576 88257.00 1 R470 0. 2000) There are seven methods in HEC-HMS that can be used to distribute the precipitation over the basin: frequency storm. Meteorological model The meteorological model prepares the boundary conditions that act on the catchment during a calibration.

65 66.039 0.70 94.74 81.144 0.06 117.107 0.51 104.092 0.417 0.65 96.00575x1.022 W840 0.70 76. (US Army Corps of Engineers.129 0.16 74.13 90.43 65.002 0.005 0. The canopy value was calculated from the Von Hoynigen Huene formula: S'() = 0.64 71.328 0.52 57.87 52.198 0.56 85.00575LAI Where: LAI= Leaf area index (m2/m2) For our site the mean leaf area index is 1.45 98.181 0.18 100.19 63.90 70.048 0.75 – 0.53 88.17 3.17 98.087 0.390 0.92 82.51 89.32 98.71 77.46 87.008 0.3.65 W760 99.94 69.57 61.331 0.15 67.3. Smax = 0.95 75.78 101.92 113.115 0.093 0.498LAI − 0.Table 3-4 Gauge weights per subbasin Grid number Cathment 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 21 0.73 100.018 0.121 Table 3-5 Potential evapotranspiration per month per subbasin Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W650 104.43 86.91 70.50 116.75 101.55 116.54 68. 2013) For the canopy values the initial storage (%).34 82.111 0.16 106.87 78.498x1.06 105.935 + 0.83 76.002 W760 0.063 0.62 103.87 101.53 106.09 129.59 87.38 85.37 74.123 W860 0. max storage (mm) were considered as 0% and 2% for all the subbasins.257 0.88 W1090 103.99 90.210 W650 0.058 0.41 106.34 93.335 0.004 0.099 W980 W1090 22 24 31 35 36 0.035 0.67 82.027 33 0.587 0.116 0. Subbasin elements Canopy method The simple canopy method means that all the precipitation will be intercepted until the storage capacity is filled and when this happens the precipitation will fall into the surface.60 91.78 ≈2 mm Data and Methodology 20 .276 0.47 102.43 112.75 117.103 34 0.34 95.25 80.336 0.262 0.25 W860 85.03 65.34 84.752 =1.76 W840 113.35 89.17 87.29 99.11 W980 110.75 m2/m2.935 +0.36 56.119 0.

Thus. Loss method For the calculation of the parameters of the losses using the Soil Moisture Accounting Method the fixed values that were considered in all the subbasins are showed in the Table 3-6. 2013) The surface initial storage (%) was considered cero and the maximum storage will be calculated in the calibration part.ac.Figure 3. Table 3-6 Parameters considered for Soil Moisture Accounting method W1090 W610 W650 W760 W840 W860 W930 W980 Soil (%) 45 30 45 45 30 30 45 35 GW 1 (%) 37 22 37 37 22 22 37 27 GW 2 (%) 60 45 60 60 45 45 60 50 Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.u-tokyo. (US Army Corps of Engineers.iis.jp/ The uptake method selected was the tension reduction that means the water will be abstracting by the evapotranspiration rate and it will be reduced when the water reaches the tension zone.7 Global distribution of leaf are index [ m2/m2] Source: http://hydro. 2013) Surface method The surface method selected was the simple surface method. This method means that all the precipitation will be absorved by the soil until the storage capacity of the soil is filled. when the latter happens the surface runoff will be generated due to the excess precipitation.Tanzania 21 . (US Army Corps of Engineers.

75 4.html).5 30. Table 3-7 Soil characteristics of the different subcatchments Catchment W650 W760 W840 Texture sandy clay loam 40 sandy clay loam 50 sandy clay loam 50 clay loam Silt Fraction (%) 28 17 Clay Fraction (%) 32 Salinity (dS/m) W1090 W980 31 sandy clay loam 72 sandy clay loam 72 17 6 3 3 33 33 63 25 25 0.7 24. field capacity and saturation hydraulic conductivity necessary to determine the max infiltration rate were calculated using harmonized world data soil database. The parameters found for the six catchment which will be calibrated are listed in the table 3. considering that this area is for agricultural activities The initial parameter values are listed in the Appendices. The percentage of impervious was considered zero from all the basin. the wilting point and the field capacity.33 0 0.(http://webarchive.Some physical properties such as soil type.Atmosphere . This software can determine the saturation hydraulic conductivity.32 2.77 2.2 19.6 32.arsusda. The saturation hydraulic conductivity was considered to be the maximum infiltration rate and the tension storage was derived from SPAW as the field capacity.32 0.7.4 34.gov/SPAW/SPAWDownload.These values was used to calculate the Initial parameters in the Soil Moisture Accounting Method.25 5.9 19.6 16.ac.8 21 20. (http://hydrolab.65 0. was derived from the Soil .6 Field capacity (%) 31.7 Sand Fraction (%) Data and Methodology W860 22 .at/Research/LUC/External-World-soildatabase/HTML/) The soil storage was specified as the total storage of water available in the soil profile.6 0 0 0 0 0 Organic matter (% weight) Saturation hydraulic conductivity (mm/hr) Wilting point (%) 0.7 16.Water (SPAW) Hydrologic Budget Model is a daily hydrologic budget model for agricultural fields and ponds. Tension storage which is another component of the upper soil layer parameters values.9 24.9 11.11 11.Plant .37 0.iiasa.

The information that should be included are starting time and date.63 87.25 Baseflow method To compute the baseflow the linear reservoir was selected. These initial parameters values are showed in the table 3-9.See table 3-8.17 0.000214 84.659.18 0.49 92.17 144.184.Transformation method The transformation method selected was the Clark Unit Hydrograph.26 0.000240 63.000288 44.84 0.80 127.47 66.94 W840 115.46 95. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.285.20 W980 79.54 0. Table 3-8 Time of concentration and storage coefficient Subbasin Length (m) S Time of concentration (hour) Storage coefficient (hr) W650 87. and computation time step.000149 61.24 W760 102. ending time and date.54 0.295.000234 58.18 W860 158.71 W1090 183.600. The time of concentration and storage coefficient were calculated from the Kirpich formula using the catchment area and longest flow path.000206 96.Tanzania 23 . Table 3-9 Initial parameter values for Linear reservoir Method Subbasin W650 GW1 GW1 Initial Coefficient (m3/s) 20 200 GW1 Reservoirs 1 GW2 Initial (m3/s) 10 GW2 Coefficient GW2 Reservoirs 400 1 W760 20 200 1 10 400 1 W840 20 200 1 10 400 1 W860 20 200 1 10 400 1 W980 20 200 1 10 400 1 W1090 20 200 1 10 400 1 Control specifications The control specifications set the time span of the simulation run.The discharge baseflow initial parameters was estimated from observed discharge in the downstream and distributed as initial baseflow in two groundwater reservoirs layers. Only two groundwater reservoirs were considered.665.

NSE is Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency. A value of zero means that there are not correlation at all. A value of 1 indicates a perfect fit. The years from 1962-1972 were taken as calibration period and year from 1973-1982 as the validation period. (Krause et al. The Nash. 5 is observed discharge at time t.4.Sutcliffe Efficiency is calculated as: NSE = 1 − ∑% ∑% 5 −6 5 − 5 78 9 Where. the control specifications were defined based on the available data of precipitation and discharge. 2005) And finally. ∑% < ∑% 5 − 5 78 5 − 5 78 9 9 < 6 − 6 78 ∑% 9 6 − 6 78 9 = Where. 3. (Nash and Sutcliffe. 6i is simulated discharge at time t and 5 78 9 is the average observed discharge.∞ ≤ NSE ≤ 1. : =. while values below zero means that the mean value of the observed values can be a better predictor of the model. The formula is given by. A daily time step was considered for the simulation based on the time interval of the available data. three differents efficiency criterias were used to assess the hydrological model. the percent volume error (PVE) will assess the volume balance between the observed and simulated runoff. while a value of 1 represents that the dispersion of the predicted and observed values are the same.For this study. 1970). The year 1961 was taken as a warm up period. which are numerically described in the following paragraphs. (Nash and Sutcliffe. The range of R2 lies between 0 and 1. Evaluation of the model performance As it was mentioned in previous chapter. 1970) The Coefficient of determination (R2) is given by. 5 and Pi are observed and simulated discharge. 6>? = Data and Methodology @ABCD8BED − ABCD8BED ABCD8BED FG100 24 . This efficiency criteria takes values . 5 78 9 and 6 78 9 are mean observed and simulated discharge.

2006.50 >+-25 < 0. Table 3-10 General Perfomance ratings for recommended statistics NSE PVE(%) R2 0.75 Satisfactory 0.50-0. Positive values means that there are an underestimation of the simulated discharge whereas negative values denote that the simulated flows are overestimated.10.75 to unity < +-10 0. The ideal case would be to have a zero value where the observed and simulated streamflow are the same. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.65-0.75 +-10 +-15 0.Where.65 Performance Rating Very good Unsatisfactory <0.00 Good 0.65 +-15 +-25 0.50 to 0.75 to 1.65 to 0. The range adopted in this research for the performance of the model using the different statistical criterias explained previously are listed in the table 3. Vaverage (s) and Vaverage(o) are average simulated volume and average observed volume respectively.50 Source: Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.Tanzania 25 .

2. from the figure 4. Sensitivity Analisis Some parameters are very sensitive in terms of changing theirs values may result in huge change in the comparison between observed and predicted hydrographs. In this item the most sensitive parameters related to high and flow flows in the upstream and downstream will be show.CHAPTER 4 Result and discussion 4. These outputs can be analysed to determine the variation with respect to the base output set and this is a measure of sensitivity. is the most sensitive parameter related to the low flows. This was followed by varying each input parameter within a range while keeping the others constant. On the other hand. Result and discussion 26 . which calculates the baseflow. the model run with the base data and the initial parameters that were showed in the earlier sections.1. The most sensitive parameters which affects the peak flows are related to the losses. Sensitivity analysis in Mpanga gage.1 and 4.4. At the beginning.1. 4. In the following figures 4. For this reason the most sensitive parameters need to be found in order to adjust manual and automatically the match between observed and predicted hydrograph and obtain a better prediction.2. 4.1.1. the Soil Moisture Accounting GW1 and GW2 coefficient have a strong influence in the peal flows as we can see from the Figure 4.3 we can see that the GW2 coefficient of the Linear Reservoir method.3 the most sensitive parameters which affect the peak and low flows in the upstream are showed.

Tanzania 27 .79 400 1000 18 observed discharge Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.Figure 4.94 3.1 Soil Moisture Accounting GW1 coefficient in hours(Sensitivity analysis) 400 350 300 m3/s 250 200 150 100 50 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 50 100 200 400 Observed discharge Figure 4.8 1.8 7.2 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in hours (Sensitivity analysis) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 0.

From these 85 parameters (17 parameters per subbasin). the parameters which have more influence in the peak and low flows discharge in the downstream gage station were assesed.Figure 4.8 hr 1897. Sensitivity analysis in Ifakara gage The HEC-HMS do an automatic sensitivity analysis based on the objetive function chosen.5 hr 4743. in two catchments (W1090 and W860). These parameters belong to the cathments which are located in the upper part of the catchment.125 hr 0bserved discharge 300 250 m3/s 200 150 100 50 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 4.1.75 hr 189.3 Linear Reservoir GW2 Coefficient in hours (Sensitivity analysis) 350 94.25 hr 3035.2. when the model simulates the losses in the Soil Moisture Accounting Method. The most sensitive parameters are the Storage coefficients of the groundwater 2.6 hr 3794.5 hr 379 hr 758 hr 1517. Result and discussion 28 .

1 hr 2 hr 500 hr 0.8 hr 8 hr 1000 hr 1 hr 10 hr observed 1.5 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W860 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis) 3500 3000 0.8 hr observed 2 hr 0.2 hr 3000 2500 m3/s 2000 1500 1000 500 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 Figure 4.Tanzania 29 .4 hr 1.5 hr 50 hr 2500 m3/s 2000 1500 1000 500 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.4 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W1090 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis) 600 hr 1 hr 0.1 hr 3500 300 hr 0.5 hr 0.Figure 4.

34 -0.58 Result and discussion PEP SQR LogRMS Error Annually SQR LogRMS Error 0. However.8 show the comparison of the discharges daily. As we can see from this table.46 0.70 -11. The figures 4.50 -1.66 -0.65 (good performance rating) for monthly and annually average daily discharge.66 -0. The PVE is quite good in all the temporal resolution.2. using a daily time period. log root mean squared error (LogRMSerror) and percent error in peak flow (PEPF).07 0.1.30 0. monthly and annually. which shows R2 and NSE over 0.53 PEP PEP 30 .50 0.55 0.69 0. The criteria for model calibration adopted in this research involved three objective functions: Sum of squared residuals (SQR).50 7.56 -64. Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and percent volume error (PVE) The model was calibrated for a 10 period of year (01January 1962.2. Table 4-1 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the calibration in Mpanga station using different objective functions Daily Efficiency criteria Monthly SQR LogRMS Error R2 0. comparing the observed flow measured in this site with the predicted flow generated by the model. As a result of it.7. The table 4. with a start and end time of 00:00.64 -64.63 7.65 0.4.56 -64. Comparison of calibration using differente objective functions The first part of the calibration was set up in the upstream (gage 10).6. seventeen parameters were calibrated for the W840 catchment.70 NSE 0. 4.50 0.The performance of the model was evaluated using coefficient of determination (r2). the peak flows are underestimated. the best fit corresponds to the LogRMS error objective function. and 4.47 0.70 -1.65 0.64 PVE(%) 7.31December1972). Calibration and validation on Mpanga gage 4.40 0.71 0.1 described the summary of the evaluation performance of the model using three different objective functions.

Tanzania 31 .07 PVE(% ) 7.50 -1.65 NSE 0.30 PVE(% ) 7.64 -64.Figure 4.70 0.58 -0.50 200 150 100 50 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 Predicted flow (SQR) Predicted flow (Log RMSerror) Predicted flow (PEP) Observed flow Figure 4.63 150 100 50 January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September 0 1962 1963 1964 Predicted flow (SQR) 1965 1966 1967 Predicted flow (Log RMSerror) 1968 1969 Predicted flow (PEP) 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.50 0.50 0.7 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga gage using different objective functions Efficiency criteria 250 200 SQR LogRMS Error PEP R2 0.56 64.47 NSE 0.70 -1.46 0.66 -0.69 0.6 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using different objective functions Efficiency criteria 350 300 250 LogRMS Error SQR PEP R2 0.64 0.

71 0.2.70 -11. For the monthly daily discharge the values for the R2.The best calibration was achieved using the LogRMS error approach. NSE and PVE were found to be 0. The Figures 4.70 -0. 0.66 -0.70 0. Calibration result based Best fit objective function After several automatic trials performed by HEC-HMS and manual trial and error iterations.70 0.11 show daily discharges.56% for R2. the performance for all the temporal resolution are satisfactory.64 -0.71 NSE 0. As we can see from this table. the evaluation performance for the annually daily discharge were 0.65 NSE 0.8 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using different objective functions in Mpanga gage Efficiency criteria 120 100 SQR LogRMS Error PEP R2 0.Figure 4.70 and -0.55 0.34 PVE(% ) 7.40 0. 4.56 -64. whose efficiency criterias are summarize in the table 4-2. specially in the monthly and annually average discharge which are quite good.64%.10 and 4. 0.53 80 60 40 20 0 1962 1963 1964 1965 Predicted flow (SQR) 1966 1967 Predicted flow (Log RMSerror) 1968 1969 Predicted flow (PEP) 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow 4.56 PVE(%) Result and discussion Daily 32 . NSE and PVE respectively.2.50 0.50 0. Table 4-2 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance using LogRMSerror Efficiency criteria Monthly Annually R2 0.9.0 and -0. monthly and annually daily discharge average respectively.56 -0. Similarly.71.70.

Tanzania 33 .56 % 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 Predicted flow Observed flow Figure 4.50 PVE = -0.Figure 4.10 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga using LogRMSerror.64% 150 m3/s 125 100 75 50 25 January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September 0 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Predicted flow 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.9 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using LogRMSerror 350 R2 = 0.70 PVE = .50 NSE = 0.70 NSE = 0. 175 R2 = 0.0.

Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and percent volume error(PVE). The model performance underpredicted the peak flows over the years 1973.70 PVE = -0. 1974.13 and 4. 4.12. 0.65 0. monthly and annually are illustrated in the figures 4.Figure 4. According to this table.57 -4. NSE and PEV are 0.11 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using in Mpanga gage using LogRMSerror 80 R2 = 0.73 -4. The performance of the validation of the model in the upstream is showed in the table 4-3.2.46 0. Table 4-3 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the validation period in Mpanga gage (19731982) Eficciency criteria Daily Monthly Annually R2 0. the model performance in the validation period considering daily and annually time resolution is unsatisfactory.56% 70 60 m3/s 50 40 30 20 10 0 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Predicted flow 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow 4.93%. The model was executed for a ten year validation period (1973-1982).14. 1975 and 1979.45 0.68. Validation of the model The model calibration involves running the model for a period of time using the parameters calibrated in the calibration process.3.67 0.66 and -4.27 -4. Whereas the monthly resolution parameters such as R2.33 NSE 0.57 PVE(%) Result and discussion 34 .71 NSE = 0. The performance of the model was evaluated using coefficient of determination (r2). which are considered good. while the low flows fit quite well. The comparison of the observed and simulated discharge daily.

13 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982) 250 R2 = 0.46 NSE = 0.Tanzania 35 .73 % 200 m3/s 150 100 50 January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September 0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Predicted flow 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Observed flow Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.67 NSE = 0.45 PVE = -4.12 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982) 500 R2 = 0.67 % 450 400 350 m3/s 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 01/01/73 01/01/74 01/01/75 01/01/76 01/01/77 01/01/78 01/01/79 01/01/80 01/01/81 01/01/82 Predicted Outflow Observed flow Figure 4.65 PVE = -4.Figure 4.

68 -15.15.14 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982) 80 R2 = 0.45 -4.73 0.67 0.33 -4. Table 4-4 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the model calibration in Ifakara station using different objective functions Efficiency criteria SQR Daily LogRMS Error R2 0. percent error in peak flow and LogRMSerror.34 -6.72 0.67 -15.08 -6.59 NSE 0.59 0.16. the PVE are under 15% which means that the model performance is good. The figures 4.68 0.63 0. although the R2 and NSE have a slight decrease. monthly and annually daily discharge.46 -4.78 0.42 -14. the table shows that the LogRMSerror approach has very similar values with SQR.27 PVE = -4.1.57 % 70 60 m3/s 50 40 30 20 10 0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Predicted flow 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Observed flow 4.17 show the comparison of the daily discharge.33 NSE = 0.77 -6.10 PVE(%) Result and discussion PEP SQR Monthly LogRMS Error PEP SQR Annually LogRMS Error PEP 36 .65 0. The summary of the evaluation performance is represented in the table 4-4.67 0.Figure 4. monthly and annually.3.50 0.70 0. Moreover. and 4.47 0.74 0.3. The parameters values: R2 and NSE are over 0.72 0. 4.65.63 0. Calibration and validation on Ifakara gage 4. Comparison of the simulations using different objective functions In this item we show a comparison of the 3 different predicted flows generated using three different objective functions: Sum o squared residuals.69 0. From this table we can see that the best fit is performed by the Sum of squared residuals approach in all the temporal resolution: daily.

72 0.33 2500 m3/s 2000 LogRMS Error PEP 0.70 0.47 PVE(% ) -6.63 0.72 0.50 -4.Tanzania 37 .Figure 4.74 NSE 0.59 NSE 0.68 0.77 1500 1000 500 January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September 0 1962 1963 1964 Predicted flow (SQR) 1965 1966 Predicted flow (Log RMSerror) 1967 1968 Predicted flow (PEP) 1969 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.67 -15.73 PVE(%) -6.67 0.15 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using different objective functions 3500 3000 2500 Efficiency criteria SQR LogRMS Error PEP R2 0.42 -14.08 m3/s 2000 1500 1000 500 0 01/01/6201/01/6301/01/6401/01/6501/01/6601/01/6701/01/6801/01/6901/01/7001/01/7101/01/72 Predicted flow (SQR) Predicted flow (Log RMSerror) Predicted flow (PEP) Observed flow Figure 4.45 -4.16 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Ifakara gage using different objective functions 3000 Efficiency criteria SQR R2 0.69 0.

69 0. The figures 4.3. we can see that the simulated peak flow do not align with the observed data.2.All the discharge temporal resolution have a good performance over 0.18.74 0.45 -6. the simulated and observed low flows match quite well in all the temporarily resolutions.70 0.68 -15.Figure 4.33 -6.67 0.46 -4.65 0.59 NSE 0.10 600 400 200 0 1962 1963 1964 Predicted flow (SQR) 1965 1966 1967 Predicted flow (Log RMSerror) 1968 1969 Predicted flow (PEP) 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow 4. whose efficiency criterias are summarize in the table 4-5.46 38 .67 PVE(%) -6.17 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year in Ifakara gage using different objective functions 1200 1000 800 Efficiency criteria SQR LogRMS Error PEP R2 0.The best calibration was achieved using the Sum of squared residuals. Table 4-5 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance using Sum of squared residuals in Ifakara station Result and discussion EFFICIENCY CRITERIA Daily Monthly Annually R2 0.65 and the PVE is under 10% which is quite good.63 0. On the other hand.20 show the comparison of the daily discharge.73 0.19. 4. According to table 4-5 the model performance is good. However. and 4. Calibration result based best fit objective function After several automatic trials performed by HEC-HMS and manual trial and error iterations.34 PVE(% ) -6.78 NSE 0. monthly and annually daily discharge.78 0.

74 NSE = 0.69 PVE = -6.Figure 4.18 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals 3500 R2 = 0.73 PVE = -6.19 Observed and predicted average daily flows per month in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals 3000 R2 = 0.33% 2500 m3/s 2000 1500 1000 500 January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September 0 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Predicted flow 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.Tanzania 39 .45% 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 01/01/62 01/01/63 01/01/64 01/01/65 01/01/66 01/01/67 01/01/68 01/01/69 01/01/70 01/01/71 01/01/72 Predicted flow Observed flow Figure 4.70 NSE = 0.

60 0.60 0. The comparison of the observed and simulated discharge daily.01 PVE%) Result and discussion 40 . Table 4-6 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance for the validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982) Efficiency criteria Daily Monthly Annually R2 0. 4. while in the others year there is a slight difference.Figure 4.78 NSE = 0. we can see that the model performance range from satisfactory for the daily and monthly resolution to unsatisfactory for the annually daily discharge per year. From this table.46% 800 700 m3/s 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Predicted flow 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Observed flow 4.67 PVE = -6.3.20 Observed and predicted average daily flows per year in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals 900 R2 = 0. Validation of the model The performance of the validation of the model in the downstream is showed in the table 4-6.21.97 -11.23.50 NSE 0.62 0.58 0.3. 1979 and 1982 by far. monthly and annually are illustrated in the figures 4. The model have a good performance for daily and monthly average daily discharge.11 -11.35 -10. The model underpredicts the peak flows in the years 1974.22 and 4.

Tanzania 41 .60 NSE = 0.21 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982) 3500 R2 = 0.62 NSE = 0.11 % 2500 m3/s 2000 1500 1000 500 January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September January May September 0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Predicted flow 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Observed flow Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.97 % 3000 2500 m3/s 2000 1500 1000 500 0 01/01/73 01/01/74 01/01/75 01/01/76 01/01/77 01/01/78 01/01/79 01/01/80 01/01/81 01/01/82 Simulated flow Observed flow Figure 4.60 PVE = -11.22 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982) 3000 R2 = 0.Figure 4.58 PVE = -10.

50 NSE = 0.01 % 800 700 m3/s 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Predicted flow Result and discussion 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Observed flow 42 .Figure 4.35 PVE = -11.23 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982) 1000 2 900 R = 0.

58 and -10.46 for daily average discharge per year. NSE and PVE are 0. The criterias are given by R2.73 and -6. On the other hand.45 for the daily resolution.5. We can also say that the low flow predictions are good. The high flow are underestimated among all the periods. The evaluation perfomance for the validation period the values for R2.11 for daily average discharge per month. • The use of multiple objective functions made the calibration more accurate. 0.70. 0. 0.67 and -6.Tanzania 43 . NSE and PVE are 0. NSE and PVE are 0.74. 0.70. For these reasons.73% for R2. it can be concluded that the hydrological model simulate well the average daily discharge per month and give a satisfactory prediction of low flows. in some years slightly underestimated.64 for monthly daily average discharge and 0.CHAPTER 5 Conclutions and recommendations 5.56 for daily average discharge per year.67. we resolved that the model performance good in the simulation of daily discharge and daily average discharge per month.70 and -0. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. Conclutions • The use of globally available data allows to develop a satisfactory performance of hydrological modelling using HEC-HMS in the data scarce region of Kilombero catchment.69 and -6.78. • Regarding the calibration of the gage station (Ifakara) located in the downstream.33 for daily average discharge per month and 0. low flows are good matched. One locate in the upstream (Mpanga station) and the other in the downstream (Ifakara gage). From these results.71. NSE and PVE respectively. 0.1. 0. 0.60 and -11. 0.62.65 and -4. • The overall efficiency criterias in the calibration period for the gage station located in the upstream are rated as good. the perfomance of the model during the calibration period based on R2.71 and -0. 0. 0.56 in the daily resolution.60. The performance evaluation for the validation period was only satisfactory for the monthly resolution with values of 0. 0.97 for daily discharge and 0. • Two gage stations were used to calibrate and validate the Kilombero catchment.5 and -0.

there are rate as unsatisfactory values. 44 . which also need further analysis and time.• • Based on the overall evaluation. it can be concluded that the model could not be recommended for daily average discharge per year in the upstream. which are underestimated in the downstream and under and over estimated in the upstream. Recommendations • The model can be improved using multiple discharge gage stations. in the downstream site the most sensitive parameters found were the Groundwater 2 coefficients in the Soil Moisture Accounting method in the subbasin W1090 and W860. Therefore. The values of R2. This will make possible to improve the model calibration inside the catchment leading to a more accurate estimation of the model parameters for each subbasin. NSE and PVE are 0. The most sensitive parameters respect to high and low flows in the upstream part are the Groundwater 1 and Groundwater 2 coefficients in the Soil Moisture Accounting method and the Groundwater 2 coefficient in the Linear Reservoir Model. Similarly in the downstream gage the model does not have an acceptable performance in simulating the daily average discharge per year. • The model was built according to daily precipitation and discharge which is the maximum limit for the HEC-HMS. instead all data was gathered from secondary sources such as free available soil datasets. thus the model requires information from field surveys. The efficiency criterias for the validation period found are 0.0.67 respectively for the validation period. no field data was collected. the model could be improved if it is considered hourly rainfall and discharge data. Moreover.30 and -4.35. it resolve that it is necessary to parameterize the model according to varying seasons. Likewise.01 for R2.35 and -11. • The SMA algorithm involves various data. Hence. • Further analysis needs to be carried out in order to make the calibration and validation more accurate. NSE and PVE respectively. • From the evaluation performed in this study. Seasonal parameterization would improve the calibration of the model. the model could not simulate properly the high flows. 5.2. 0.50. For this research.

(2011). Ms thesis. Journal of Hydrology 408/ 178-187 Fischer. (2002) Calibration of conceptual models for use in river forecasting. H. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assesment. (2011) On typical range. Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale. St. Panigrahi. Published in Hydrologic modeling of small watersheds. Preface. 5/446-447. National weather service of USA. 24/ 1537–1547 Choudari. 1/ 7-1. American Geophysical Union. Burges S. Krause. (2005).. B.P.. Boyle. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Valley. Information Science Reference. of Ag. Dept. FORALPS Technical Report 9. P. Cunderlik J (2004) Hydrological model selection for CFCAS project. Eng.Volume 5. University of Western Ontario. (2001).V. B. Lastoria. J. T. Hydrography matching methods for measuring model performance. Soc. Kashaigili J.(2004) Calibration.P and Base. sensivity and normalization of Mean Square Error and NashSutcliffe Efficiency type metrics. Kling. D.H (1998). J. L. (2008) Hydrological Processes on the Land Surface: A Survey of Modelling Approaches. Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin. J. Mich. Chandra. Assessment of water resource risk and vulnerability to change in climate condition.J. Douglas. Cunderlik..Tanzania 45 . Davis. International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences. Hydrol. Bennett. S (2013). J (2011). J. Process.References Anderson.F. Università degli Studi di Trento. Tanzania..Res 47.7-16. H. W10601. Beven. K. University of California. K. (1982) Selection. 50/796-811 Gupta. Usaid/Tanzania. E.. calibration and testing of hydrological models. India. (2010) Preferential flows and travel time distributions: defining adequate hypothesis tests for hydrological process models/. Exploring a water balance method on recharge estimations in the Kilombero. Joseph. Simulation of rainfall-runoff process using HEC-HMS model for Balijore Nala watershed. Beven.. Simonovic S. K. Development and application of a continuous soil moisture accounting algorithm for the Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS). Odisha. Ewen..J (2015) Environmental Flow Assessment of the Kilombero Catchment (Report of Hydrology Component). Am.J.Chapter 11. verification and sensitivy analysis of the HEC-HMS hydrological model.M.

D.Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Index. Ministry of Water of the United Republic of Tanzania. and Sutcliffe J. Rufiji Basin IWRMD Plan: Interim Report II. Meixner. (2001). S.Volume 1. 26(2)/149-158. Moriasi.K. Kachroo R.L. Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS.N.T.V. Mcintyre.G. Knight Z.of the 4th meeting iEMS.. US Army Corps of Engineers (2013). D. Wrem International Inc. S.37(5): 1169-1188.11/597-602. Williams.M(1981). S. Journal Hydrology Engineering. C.. (1970).. T (2006) “Model Evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations”. Yawson D. Binger. In Proc. CY (2009) Textbook of Hydrologic Models.G. (2008). A. 2003. ASAE 46(6): 1539-1551. G.. and Veith. (2015). H. T.J.W. Guinot. M. S. Uppsala.(2006). Kongo D.Hydrological Sciences.. R & Tucker..Model Evaluation Guidelines For Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Arnold. R. User’s Manual. J.. N.pp. Orellana.S. Pechlivanidis I. Xu. Ghosh.50(3)885-900 Moriasi. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.A Discussion of Principles. . (2013) “Calibration and validation of HEC-HMS model for a river basin in Eastern India”.. Van Liew. Wheater. River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models: I. and Veith.M. Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS. J.Maskey. Srinivasan. Mcintyre. and L.R. R.. Trans.M.. Hydrologic simulation on agricultural watersheds: Choosing between two models. T..L.jp/ References 46 . Development of a Computerised Flood Warning Model and Study of Hydrological characteristics of the Lower Rufiji Floodplain and Delta. Wrep UDSM (2003). Volume I: Climate and Hydrologic Modelling and Assesment. Van Liew. R. Van Griensven. Roy.B..iis. Journal of Hydrology 10:282-290.T.Fit-for-purpose analysis of uncertainty using split-sampling evaluations. R. Treatment of precipitation uncertainty in rainfallrunoff modelling: a fuzzy set approach. J. R.ac.Bingner.R.D. American Water Resources Assoc. D.. J. Hydrological Sciences Journal.. Grunwals.. K.G... 1090–1103. Technical Reference.. Jackson BM. Van Liew. 168 pgs. A. W.(2005). Nash.A toolbox for the Identification of Parsimonious Semi-distributed Rainfall-Runoff Models : Application to the upper Lee Catchment. S. Jackson B. Jana. http://hydro. Arnold. M. Harmel.University of Sweden. Garbrecht.. (2004).K .H. V. G. and Price.. Agrawal.. R. Spain. and J. Wagener. Dugas.670-677. Calibration Approaches and Uncertainty Analysis Methods in the Context of Recent Developments in Technology and Applications. J..G. (2011) Catchment Scale Hydrological Modelling: a Review of Model Types. Global NEST Journal 13: 193–214.u-tokyo. Application of linear and nonlinear techniques in river flow forecasting in the Kilombero River basin.W.E. (2008). Cutter A. Arnold. Hauck. Srinivasan. Santhi.S. India. H. Wagener. J. N. Sutcliffe. Hydrological Sciences Journal 53 (5). Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889-898 McCuen.Barcelona. W.D.L. J.. US Army Corps of Engineers (2000)..N. R. Harmel. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. Begam.D. M. R. Pechlivanidis I. R. Wheater.G. Arnold. M. J. (2006). The Water balance of the Betwa Basin.

68 34.07 574.39 367.34 34.66 41.79 55.18 452.71 Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.75 55.02 34.21 457.48 33.52 39.62 68.12 35.47 54.48 39.80 506.73 418.37 57.91 384.30 41.78 51.36 379.01 49.14 71.91 648.80 Ifakara m3/s 332.40 418.83 796.28 365.92 887.Appendices Table A-1 Average discharge per year in the stations Runoff 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Mpanga m3/s 28.52 54.Tanzania 47 .78 448.24 409.90 482.00 44.56 323.75 39.76 737.48 32.43 407.23 744.43 503.

25 2058.01 1031.04 2067.34 grid 18 2246.80 1158.08 1905.61 1050.80 1240.33 1718.28 1941.59 1390.83 1722.48 1472.51 1777.98 1428.07 1516.64 1934.20 1719.78 1298.97 1541.46 1743.48 1712.60 1180.64 1727.24 1519.62 1643.52 1709.14 1478.04 1285.71 1445.24 1519.93 1446.76 1783.92 1363.03 1265.36 1305.28 1557.14 1478.98 2015.95 1327.42 1681.68 1424.10 1836.56 1811.12 1262.95 1176.38 1378.68 1372.18 1619.03 1698.00 1661.08 1511.98 2015.61 1738.66 1463.52 1216.Table A-2 Annual precipitation (Grid 4-13) Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 grid 4 1731.33 1798.99 1898.42 1272.13 1831.42 1347.18 1648.38 1828.88 1578.08 1527.79 1565.54 1686.54 1047.03 1467.88 888.94 1006.41 1526.78 1549.16 1854.11 1480.61 1682.10 1369.63 1341.04 grid 24 2314.72 1402.33 1346.66 1336.55 1350.99 1587.54 1479.80 1526.35 1341.56 grid 22 2051.65 1510.96 1751.47 1059.68 grid 10 1882.49 1543.67 1231.55 1692.75 2057.38 1183.40 1602.70 1064.39 1302.32 1643.71 1486.56 1930.00 1334.73 953.86 1439.92 1553.70 1073.97 1246.24 1307.17 1682.12 1468.15 2053.40 1403.10 1825.77 1931.10 1108.76 1243.96 1525.13 1368.23 1541.34 1458.99 1653.55 1588.03 1152.55 1509.05 1534.10 1314.44 1606.13 1360.19 1334.67 1410.00 1568.54 1159.91 1689.29 1427.20 1719.70 2038.63 1153.90 1427.81 1856.17 1131.30 1183.53 1444.70 1314.72 grid 17 2643.58 1416.77 1615.09 1185.08 1362.24 1495.89 1781.10 1430.00 1227.24 1407.77 2094.16 1464.40 1961.71 grid 9 1602.35 1698.13 1444.64 1479.78 1550.36 1206.11 grid 15 2228.03 1254.40 1961.73 1382.00 826.82 1511.77 1160.49 1239.25 1114.14 1444.40 1406.98 1117.66 1375.35 1543.69 1624.78 2427.53 1339.86 1648.14 1560.71 1341.65 1357.68 1257.51 1361.56 1384.33 Table A-3 Annual precipitation (mm) (Grids 14-24) Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 References grid 14 1499.29 1260.37 2044.22 1875.90 1792.84 1211.21 1293.68 1249.26 2119.76 1284.78 grid 8 1184.46 1726.15 1354.89 1781.58 1434.89 1781.06 1372.05 1442.29 grid 21 1401.26 1277.32 48 .94 1854.08 1334.25 1476.55 1350.52 1342.73 1116.08 1531.17 1529.21 977.52 1649.86 1648.66 1757.05 1621.28 grid 12 1884.07 grid 13 1830.59 1409.61 1382.91 2306.06 1325.52 1485.55 1909.47 1468.87 1415.61 2006.01 1586.40 1338.70 2038.86 1332.97 1541.00 2278.03 1378.99 1326.47 971.40 1388.90 1630.97 1673.53 1346.84 1766.52 1056.94 grid 11 2038.18 1455.89 1493.97 1408.37 1064.05 1971.84 1413.53 1805.27 949.69 1683.97 1710.37 1181.64 1652.35 1341.45 1538.27 1239.45 1538.35 1559.95 1181.63 1408.41 1321.22 1363.42 1090.39 1473.05 1349.64 1389.55 1609.85 1497.62 1331.35 1559.69 1542.25 1510.50 1655.17 1613.73 1443.75 1494.27 1277.72 grid 16 2228.02 1497.14 1233.39 1302.21 1269.85 grid 5 1766.15 1407.85 1551.02 1149.22 1009.07 1666.64 1618.19 1910.11 1480.21 1250.68 1532.92 1347.87 1445.99 1346.43 1698.19 1054.97 960.61 1413.36 1697.92 1553.15 1633.13 1323.

52 1580.13 1376.18 1622.21 1479.18 1308.48 1012.96 1190.72 1580.20 1343.71 1031.72 836.32 1217.16 1277.21 857.28 grid 35 1098.99 1640.07 1324.1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1615.82 1240.92 1120.42 2055.46 1894.79 1212.06 1364.87 1059.47 1362.73 919.16 1016.86 1500.25 1483.63 1192.61 1023.15 1327.94 1857.49 1070.30 1310.06 862.86 991.33 Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.88 1822.Tanzania 49 .09 1899.87 1068.88 854.15 1508.61 1788.22 1522.16 1499.42 1285.05 1071.12 1138.00 1293.65 1712.17 1500.90 895.51 1600.91 1301.78 1378.43 1326.19 1347.55 1209.22 979.94 1112.63 1235.88 1543.96 1318.43 1070.98 1231.04 1004.95 879.90 1350.67 grid 33 1591.87 886.11 1616.27 1106.85 1205.17 1554.02 1904.04 1632.70 1013.61 833.98 1686.34 1771.77 1180.24 1155.40 969.83 984.18 1531.06 1458.51 1361.64 grid 36 1562.34 899.27 1275.29 1852.00 1092.76 1629.29 906.83 1207.76 1347.31 1906.18 1396.22 924.88 1822.46 1670.40 1485.42 1564.81 1255.40 1485.45 Table A-4 Annual precipitation (mm) (Grids 31-36) Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 grid 31 2155.79 1308.47 1414.77 1725.65 1000.93 943.00 1189.55 1211.69 1670.03 972.60 1006.90 2170.05 974.89 1663.97 grid 34 1111.64 888.08 1847.27 1381.42 1345.20 828.73 1994.61 1739.01 954.83 1471.90 1323.05 2086.17 1088.50 918.51 2012.13 1815.91 1576.09 1267.13 1306.05 1617.77 1725.90 2058.57 1617.06 1309.52 1580.08 1107.83 1038.40 1069.13 1309.45 1812.

.

9 0 150 37.4 100 2 300 150 1 200 Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.4 100 2 300 150 1 200 W1090 11.11 0 150 52.77 0 150 W760 2.4 100 2 300 150 1 200 45.4 100 2 300 150 1 200 Subbasin Soil percolation (mm/hr) GW1 storage (mm) GW1 percolation (mm/hr) GW1 coefficient (hr) GW2 storage (mm) GW2 percolation (mm/hr) GW2 coefficient (hr) 47.Table A-5 Initial parameter values for Soil Moisture Accounting Method Tension storage (mm) Max infiltration (mm/hr) Impervious (%) Soil storage (mm) W650 2.25 11.75 0 150 W840 4.25 0 150 48.9 11.Tanzania 51 .05 11.9 0 150 37.4 100 2 300 150 1 200 W980 11.6 11.35 11.4 100 2 300 150 1 200 W860 5.05 11.

.

25 Soil Moisture Accounting .49 Storage coefficient hr 92.16 Storage coefficient hr 144.GW1 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .09 Time of concentration hr 61.Soil storage mm 257.67 mm/hr 0.Tension storage mm 97.00891166 Soil Moisture Accounting .73 Soil Moisture Accounting .25 GW1 initial discharge m3/s 19.GW1 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .GW2 storage coefficient mm 134.GW2 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .98 mm 5.Soil percolation mm/hr 5.24 Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.Table A-6 Optimized parameters per subbasin Catchment Parameter Units Optimized value GW1 initial discharge m3/s 4.3957 Soil Moisture Accounting .2238 Simple surface .Maximum storage Soil Moisture Accounting .33 Soil Moisture Accounting .084 GW2 initial discharge 427.GW1 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .Tanzania 53 .52 Time of concentration hr 96.Soil percolation mm/hr 16.GW2 percolation W1090 2.3 mm 6.Max infiltration mm/hr 7 Soil Moisture Accounting .79 hr 2.GW2 storage coefficient mm hr 2.78 Soil Moisture Accounting .6798 GW2 initial discharge m3/s 0.GW1 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .GW2 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .784 Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient hr 1505.2819 Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient hr 313.2898 mm 587.9694 Soil Moisture Accounting .Max infiltration mm/hr 9.Maximum storage Soil Moisture Accounting .2584 Soil Moisture Accounting .GW1 storage coefficient Soil Moisture Accounting .2 Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient hr 1196.Soil storage mm 137.GW2 percolation W650 mm/hr mm/hr 0.Tension storage mm 118.28 m3/s 3.007842 mm 65.97 hr 573.961 hr 313.GW1 storage coefficient Soil Moisture Accounting .0274 mm/hr 1.48 Simple surface .4 Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient hr 425.016 Soil Moisture Accounting .

Tension storage mm 31.GW1 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .44 hr 2.8812 mm/hr 7 Soil Moisture Accounting .Soil percolation mm/hr 6.0394 mm 36.7353 Soil Moisture Accounting .79 Simple surface .Maximum storage W860 mm/hr mm/hr 0.6 Soil Moisture Accounting .966 mm/hr 22.63 Storage coefficient hr 87.Maximum storage Soil Moisture Accounting .5 Soil Moisture Accounting .5991 Soil Moisture Accounting .6 Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient hr 1551.595 Storage coefficient hr 146.72 Soil Moisture Accounting .6 mm 16.7247 Soil Moisture Accounting .GW2 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .Catchment Parameter Units Optimized value GW1 initial discharge m3/s 6.539 hr 185.Soil storage mm 1076.176 mm 38.GW2 storage coefficient W760 mm 254.GW1 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .GW2 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .GW1 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .8105 GW2 initial discharge m3/s 2.713 hr 473.988 Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient hr 1560.436 GW2 initial discharge m3/s 4.GW1 storage coefficient Soil Moisture Accounting .Soil percolation mm/hr 3.25 Soil Moisture Accounting .46 Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient hr 4426.28 54 .GW2 storage coefficient References 1.Max infiltration mm/hr 5.GW2 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .Tension storage mm 100 Time of concentration hr 85.94 GW1 initial discharge m3/s 71.009 Time of concentration hr 58.GW2 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .01 Soil Moisture Accounting .Max infiltration Simple surface .293 mm/hr 3.0296 Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient hr 714.GW1 storage coefficient Soil Moisture Accounting .GW1 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .1 mm 6.90381 mm 16.Soil storage mm 122.444 hr 2.

Soil storage mm 168.GW2 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .Tension storage mm 100 Time of concentration hr 44.GW2 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .87 hr 2.Catchment Parameter Units Optimized value GW1 initial discharge m3/s 113.105 Soil Moisture Accounting .307 Soil Moisture Accounting .GW1 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .Max infiltration mm/hr 8.183 Time of concentration hr 41.GW2 storage coefficient W980 4.GW1 storage coefficient Soil Moisture Accounting .Max infiltration mm/hr 7 Soil Moisture Accounting .9023 mm/hr 0.47 Storage coefficient hr 66.92 Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient hr 1751.71 GW1 initial discharge m3/s 13.158 mm/hr 2.66 hr 691.37 GW2 initial discharge m3/s 3.3177 mm/hr 3.1274 Soil Moisture Accounting .461 Storage coefficient hr 63.GW2 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .Soil percolation mm/hr 19.541 mm 425.43 Soil Moisture Accounting .678 hr 91.3659 mm 18.19454 mm 371.4921 Soil Moisture Accounting .Tanzania 55 .GW1 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .GW1 storage coefficient Soil Moisture Accounting .5222 hr 3.Tension storage mm 31.GW2 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .GW1 storage Soil Moisture Accounting .6592 Soil Moisture Accounting .1333 mm 3.4 Soil Moisture Accounting .Maximum storage mm 5.GW2 storage coefficient W840 mm Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin.64 Soil Moisture Accounting .86 mm/hr 0.Soil percolation mm/hr 11.Soil storage mm 721.Maximum storage Soil Moisture Accounting .447 GW2 initial discharge m3/s 4.884 Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient hr 2146 Simple surface .8159 Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient hr 97.GW1 percolation Soil Moisture Accounting .3 Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient hr 3082 Simple surface .

References 56 .