You are on page 1of 72

[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

[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, the author and UNESCO-IHE do not assume and
hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions,
whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause.
2016 by Karina Sifuentes Alegria.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Dedicated to my
late mother Juana Alegria Flores

Abstract
Hydrologic models are very powerful tools to simulate rainfall-runoff processes which allow to
estimate the availability of water. However, 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. A number of hydrological studies recently conducted
in the Kilombero catchment shows that this basin is getting more attention. Some of these
studies attempted to simulate the hydrological processes in the catchment applying different
modelling techniques. However, due to the lack of observation hydro-climatic data it was not
possible to develop a reliable hydrological model. The aim of this research is to assess the
suitability of globally available data sets in hydrological modelling of the Kilombero catchment.
Among different input data needed to develop the model, the most important are precipitation
and evapotranspiration are obtained from globally available data sources (open source). For this
study, 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). Observed discharge data from two stations are used for calibration and validation
of the model. The data period is from 1961 to 1982. 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. 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. 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). Furthermore, the model is also
good in simulating low flows, but not good enough in peak flows. The peak flows are
underestimated in most of the cases. This study could be considered as a starting point for a
more rigorous calibration of the Kilombero catchment hydrological model, for example use
various sources of global data sources.

KEYWORDS: Hydrological modelling, HEC-HMS, SMA,rainfall-runoff processes,globally


available data, calibration, validation.

ii

Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my research mentor, Dr. Shreedhar
Maskey for the continuous support on my thesis research, for his patient, motivation and
knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. I
express my appreciation to Dr.Michael McClain for his valuable feedback during my research.
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, Jose Vasquez La Cruz, who gave me all the support and
recommendation to fulfill this achievement to study in UNESCO-IHE.
Special thanks to UNESCO-IHE and its staff, who helped me somehow during my stay in the
Netherlands.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends in Peru who supported me providing me
encouragement during my study.

iii

Table of Contents
Abstract

ii

Acknowledgements

iii

List of Figures

vii

List of Tables

viii

Abbreviations

ix

1.

Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Problem definition
1.3. Research objectives
1.4. Research questions
1.5. Research area
1.5.1. Location and topography
1.5.2. Climate and hydrology

1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

2.

Literature Review
2.1. Hydrological models
2.2. Calibration and evaluation of hydrological models
2.2.1. Calibration of hydrological models
2.2.2. Evaluation of hydrological models
2.2.3. Previous studies modelling Kilombero catchment

6
6
7
7
7
8

3.

Data and Methodology


3.1. Data collection and analysis
3.1.1. Topographic map
3.1.2. Evapotranspiration
3.1.3. Precipitation data
3.1.4. Discharge data
3.2. The hydrological model: HEC- HMS
3.2.1. Model Introduction
3.2.2. Hydrological process in HEC-HMS
3.2.3. Calibration of the HEC-HMS models
3.3. Model Set-up
3.3.1. Basin model
3.3.2. Meteorological model
3.3.3. Subbasin elements
3.4. Evaluation of the model performance

10
10
10
11
11
11
13
13
13
16
17
17
19
20
24

4.

Result and discussion


4.1. Sensitivity Analisis
4.1.1. Sensitivity analysis in Mpanga gage.
4.1.2. Sensitivity analysis in Ifakara gage

26
26
26
28

4.2.

4.3.

5.

Calibration and validation on Mpanga gage


4.2.1. Comparison of calibration using differente objective functions
4.2.2. Calibration result based Best fit objective function
4.2.3. Validation of the model
Calibration and validation on Ifakara gage
4.3.1. Comparison of the simulations using different objective functions
4.3.2. Calibration result based best fit objective function
4.3.3. Validation of the model

Conclutions and recommendations


5.1. Conclutions
5.2. Recommendations

References
Appendices

30
30
32
34
36
36
38
40
43
43
44
45

6.

47

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Location of the Kilombero catchment in the Rufiji basin .............................................................. 3
Figure 3.1 Topographic map of Kilombero Basin......................................................................................... 10
Figure 3.2 Precipitation grid on Kilombero Basin ........................................................................................ 11
Figure 3.3 Typical HEC-HMS representation of watershed runoff .............................................................. 14
Figure 3.4 Conceptual schematic of the continuous soil moisture accounting algorithm ............................. 15
Figure 3.5 Schematic of calibration procedure.............................................................................................. 16
Figure 3.6 Kilombero catchment delineated with distribution of subbasins and network ............................ 18
Figure 3.7 Global distribution of leaf are index [ m2/m2] .............................................................................. 21
Figure 4.1 Soil Moisture Accounting GW1 coefficient in hours(Sensitivity analysis) ................................. 27
Figure 4.2 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in hours (Sensitivity analysis) ................................ 27
Figure 4.3 Linear Reservoir GW2 Coefficient in hours (Sensitivity analysis).............................................. 28
Figure 4.4 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W1090 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis)
................................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 4.5 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W860 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis) . 29
Figure 4.6 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using different objective functions .......... 31
Figure 4.7 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga gage using different objective
functions ................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 4.8 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using different objective functions in
Mpanga gage .......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 4.9 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using LogRMSerror ................................. 33
Figure 4.10 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga using LogRMSerror. ......... 33
Figure 4.11 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using in Mpanga gage using
LogRMSerror ......................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 4.12 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982)
................................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 4.13 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Mpanga
gage (1973-1982).................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.14 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Mpanga
gage (1973-1982).................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.15 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using different objective functions .......... 37
Figure 4.16 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Ifakara gage using different objective
functions ............................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.17 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year in Ifakara gage using different
objective functions.................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 4.18 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals ............. 39
Figure 4.19 Observed and predicted average daily flows per month in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared
Residuals ................................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 4.20 Observed and predicted average daily flows per year in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared
Residuals ................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 4.21 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982) . 41
Figure 4.22 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Ifakara
gage (1973-1982).................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4.23 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Ifakara
gage (1973-1982).................................................................................................................... 42

vii

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

viii

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 - Plant - Atmosphere Water
Shuttle radar topography mission
Soil and Water Assessment Tool
United States Geological Survey
Universal Transverse Mercator
World Geodetic System

ix

CHAPTER 1

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

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

For these reasons exposed previously, 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.

1.2. 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, 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.

1.3. 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).

1.4. 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, 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

1.5. Research area


1.5.1. Location and topography

The research area of this study is the 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.
The Kilombero River catchment is located in Morogoro Region and it is geographically
located between longitudes 34.563 and 37.797 east and latitudes 7.654 and 10.023
south. The basin have an extension area of approximately 184,000 km2 and it is the largest of
the nine river basins in Tanzania.
The topography in the catchment area is surrounded by high mountains on both sides.The
Udzungwa Mountains are located in the north and west part of the Kilombero valley. The
difference of altitude in the Kilombero floodplain are from more than 1,800 amsl to about 300
amsl in a few kilometres. (WREM International, 2012).

Figure 1.1 Location of the Kilombero catchment in the Rufiji basin


Source: Environmental Flow Assessment of the Kilombero catchment, 2015

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

rainy season is from December to April while the dry season are between June and September.
(WREM International, 2012).
Temperature and wind
The Kilombero Basin is situated in tropical humid zone and in general has a semi-arid
climate. The temperature varies depending of the topography. In the lowlands and highlands,
the annual mean daily temperature are 24 C and 17 C respectively. The warmest temperature
is registered in December and January (14 C - 21C) and the coldest in July (14 C - 21C).
(WREM International, 2012).
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.
In the table 1-1 we can see the status of the data availability of the river gauging stations in the
Kilombero basin. The largest catchment in the study area (4747 km2 ), which is Mnyera River
is about 155.53 m3/s for April and for the smallest catchment (25 km2) called Udagaji River
catchment is 1.23 m3/s for April. (WREM International, 2012).
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. No.
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
-8.15
36.63
-8.91
35.94
-8.94
35.81
-9.17
35.52
-8.98
35.95
-8.66
36.42
-8.01
36.66
-8.33
36.12
-8.36
36.09
-8.95
36.00
-8.26
37.00
-9.33
34.76
-9.28
34.83
-9.40
34.82
-9.32
34.76
-7.80
36.97
-7.71
36.97
-7.95
36.96
-8.24
36.29
-8.62
35.85
-8.58
37.12
-8.55
35.85
-8.48
-8.42

35.82
35.80

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

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

-8.42
-8.35
-8.35
-8.40
-8.53
-8.45
-8.43

35.80
35.80
35.83
35.87
35.85
35.92
35.90

2000
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996

2002
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

Source: WREM International, 2012

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

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review
2.1. Hydrological models
Hydrological modelling is a tool to estimate the runoff precipitation processes within a
catchment. This tool helps users to simulate the hydrological responses due to different water
management practices and the impacts of these practices in the catchment. (Kadam, 2011).
The hydrological models can be classified in three categories. (Xu, 2009).Lumped, distributed
and semidistributed models. Lumped models, 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.
(Lastoria, 2008).These models are not recommended to for event scale hydrological
processes.Thus, if the interest of the user is only the discharge prediction these models can
simulate satisfactorily. (Pechlivanidis, 2011).
In distributed models, parameters can vary in space at different resolutions. However these kind
of models need a large amount of data. (Cunderlik.J, 2004). 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. (Pechlivanidis, 2011).
Finally the semidistributed models contain parameters that partially change in space. 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. (Orellana et al, 2008).
In this study we use the HEC-HMS 4.0, 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.Several studies have been conducted using the HEC-HMS model in different
regions aroun the world.

Literature Review

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 users 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

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 modeland 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

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

CHAPTER 3

Data and Methodology


3.1. Data collection and analysis
The hydrological model performance depends on the quality and quantity of the data. The basic
data to develop the hydrological model are precipitation and evapotranspiration.
3.1.1. Topographic map

The data was obtained from the USGS in the format of Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The
spatial resolution of the DEM is 90 m by 90m.
The DEM was projected to
WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_37S and used for delineating the catchments. The Kilombero basin
DEM is shown in the Figure 3.1 with the major stream network.( http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/)

Figure 3.1 Topographic map of Kilombero Basin


Source: WREM International, 2012

Data and Methodology

10

3.1.2. Evapotranspiration

The datasets were downloaded from http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/ .The product is called MOD16,
which are datasets from potential evapotranspiration data. This information was calculated
using remote sensing images and algorithms. These datasets are regular 0.5x 0.5of resolution.
For this research, monthly evapotranspiration from 2013 was downloaded.
3.1.3. Precipitation data

The precipitation data is the most important hydrological information necessary to run the
model. The gridded rainfall dataset which is available for the period 1950-1999 on daily
time step and 0.5 o 0.5 o spatial resolution. The dataset was downloaded from the Santa
Clara university website.( http://www.engr.scu.edu/~emaurer/global_data/)

Figure 3.2 Precipitation grid on Kilombero Basin

3.1.4. Discharge data

There are 21 hydrometric stations in Kilombero catchment. These stations provide information
on discharge and sediment transport. Among those hydrometric stations, the discharge data is
available only for seven stations. From these seven stations, only two have consistent
information which could be feasible and useful for modelling the catchment in this research.
In the table 3.1 the gage stations are described.

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

11

Table 3-1 Hydrological (Discharge Measurement) stations in the study area

Gage
Station

Longitude

Latitude

Mpanga

-8.15

36.63

Periods of
data
available
1961-1982

Ifakara

-8.94

35.81

1961-1982

3.2. The hydrological model: HEC- HMS


3.2.1. Model Introduction

The Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS) is a software used to simulate the processes of
dentritic watershed. The software allows to use many procedures such as infiltration events,
unit hydrographs and hydrologic routings. (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2000).
3.2.2. Hydrological process in HEC-HMS
General

The HEC-HMS model needs three main components in order to run the simulation of the
catchment. The basin model which represent the delineation of the catchment. The
meteorological model which uses the rainfall and the evapotranspiration data and the control
specifications that consider the time step of the model simulation. 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. 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).
HEC-HMS Representation of Runoff Process

The figure 3.3 describe the components necessary to predict runoff in a catchment. From this
graph, 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. The direct runoff
is calculated as a combination of two sources: the near surface flow and the overland flow.The
internal processes in the groundwater aquifer are not consider in this model, in this case only
the baseflow is simulated in this model. (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2000).

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

13

Figure 3.3 Typical HEC-HMS representation of watershed runoff

Source: US Army Corps of Engineers, 2000

HEC-HMS uses different models to represent each of the components which has an effect in
the runoff process showed in the figure 3.3. These component are: models that compute runoff
volume, models of direct runoff, model of baseflow and models of channel flow.
Runoff Volume Computation: The different models that compute the runoff volume in the
HEC-HMS are : Initial and constant rate, SCS Curve Number (CN), Gridded SCS CN, Green
and Ampt, Deficit and constant rate, Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) and gridded SMA.
For this study, the Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) was used to model the precipitation on the
pervious surfaces that is subject to losses.This method is an algorithm which is suitable during
a continuous period that simulates wet and dry weather behaviour.This model simulates the
movement of the water through the vegetation, the soil surface, soil profile and the groundwater
layer. The figure 3.4 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. (US
Army Corps of Engineers, 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),
Clarks UH, SCS UH, ModClark and Kinematic wave. For this study the Clark Unit
Hydrograph Model was used to model the transformation of precipitation excess into direct
surface runoff. This model obtains a basin unit hydrograph by simulating two processes to
transform the excess precipitation to runoff which are translation and attenuation. (US Army
Corps of Engineers, 2000).

Data and Methodology

14

Figure 3.4 Conceptual schematic of the continuous soil moisture accounting algorithm
Source: Bennet, 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, exponential recession and lineal reservoir. For this
thesis study, the linear reservoir baseflow model was used. This model represents the movement
and storage of the water through reservoirs. (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2000).

Channnel flow computation: For the simulation of the channel flow there are 8 models
available in the HEC-HMS software. These are: Kinematic wave, Lag, Modified Plus,
Muskingum, Muskingum-Cunge Standard Section, Muskingum-Cunge 8 point section,
Confluence and Bifurcation. For this research, the Muskingum-Cunge model was used. The
Muskingum model is the most common method to use. 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. (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2000)

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

15

3.2.3. Calibration of the HEC-HMS models

The starting point of the calibration procedure is the data collection. Once we have the rainfall
and the observed discharge data sets, 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. (Cunderlik and Simonovic, 2004). The figure
3.5 represents the schematic of calibration procedure.

Figure 3.5 Schematic of calibration procedure

Source: US Army Corps of Engineers, 2000

Once we choose the initial parameters, the HEC-HMs model does different trials of
optimization comparing the observed and simulated hydrograph. After this, if the fit is not
satisfactory, the HEC-HMS will adjust the parameters again using the objective function that it
is selected by the user. After different trials and when the fit is satisfactory the HEC-HMS will
report the best parameters values. In order to compare a computed hydrograph with an observed
hydrograph, the HEC-HMS compute different goodness of fit, which are algorithms. The
objective of these algorithms is to obtain the minimum value of the objective function. (US
Army Corps of Engineers, 2000)
There are 8 objective functions choices available in the last version of the HEC-HMS, which
are: sum of absolute errors, sum of squared residuals, percent error peak, percent error volume,
RMS error, RMS Logerror, time weighted error and peak weighted RMS error. 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.

Data and Methodology

16

Percent error in peak: This objective function only measures the goodness of fit of the
computed-hydrograph peak to the observed peak.

Z = 100|

Log root mean squared error: this objective function compare the observed and
predicted flow but applying a logarithmic transformation in the values.
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, avoiding the cancelling of errors of opposite signs, this is
often used for many to evaluate the hydrological model.
The percent error in peak flow objective function was chosen to ensure the fit of simulated and
observed peak flow and peak stages.
Log RMSerror was used to emphasizes the calibration of the low flows. Through the
logarithmic transformation of the discharge values the peak flows will be flattened and the
influence of the low flows will increase, thus the sensitivity of the model will have an effect
over under or overprediction of the simulated data. (P.Krause el al).

3.3. Model Set-up


An HEC-HMS project must have three components: the basin model, the meteorological model
and the control specifications.
3.3.1. 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.
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.
Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin,Tanzania

17

A threshold area of 4,033 km2 was selected for determining stream network and number of
subbasins. The threshold area define the drainage area required to form a stream. In order to
build a small number of subbasins, we considered many outlet points as part of a subbasin.
Thus, the original number of subbasins given by the HEC-GEOHMS software were modified.
After the adjustments, the final delineation of the subbasins, the outlet of the whole basin
(longitude 37 20' 24.4422"E, latitude -8 30' 46.767" S) and the watershed delineation were
defined.
The final number of subbasins were 8, the smallest and the largest subbasin area were 3,275.954
km2 and 7,211.70 km2 respectively; 7 river reaches and 9 junctions. The HEC-GEOHMS also
processed the basin characteristics such as: longest flow path, basin and river slope, river length,
basin slope, etc. (SeeTable 3.2).
The catchment and the subbasin delineation are showed in the figure 3.6
Table 3-2 Catchment characteristics
Catchment
Area(km2)

W1090

W610

7,211.70

4,333.00

W650

W760

4,046.60

6,175.80

W840
2,805.82

W860
6,884.93

W930
5,400.90

W980
3,275.90

Total
40,134.65

Ifakara
discharge
gage

Mpanga
discharge
gage

Figure 3.6 Kilombero catchment delineated with distribution of subbasins and network

After the physical parameters of basins and streams and subbasins have been extracted. It was
possible to estimate some of the hydrological parameters. The program assisted us estimating

Data and Methodology

18

a number of parameters for the Muskingum-Cunge method given the properties of the river
reaches. (See table 3-3).
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

0.000500

91755.30

R250

0.025

100

0.000576

88257.38

R290

0.025

50

0.000186

59828.62

R300

0.025

50

0.000500

48363.00

R440

0.025

50

0.000120

58312.00

R460

0.025

50

0.002233

63003.00

R470

0.025

300

0.000632

43788.00

R500

0.025

30

0.000865

20532.09

R550

0.025

220

0.000305

80934.30

3.3.2. Meteorological model

The meteorological model prepares the boundary conditions that act on the catchment during a
calibration. This model will also specify the amount of precipitation that every sub-basin will
generate.The evapotranspiration is also included in this part for every sub-basin. (US Army
Corps of Engineers, 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. In this input, 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. (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2000)
There are seven methods in HEC-HMS that can be used to distribute the precipitation over the
basin: frequency storm, gage weights, gridded precipitation, inverse distance, SCS storm,
specified hytograph and standard project storm. 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, which is showed in the table 3-4.
Table 3-5 shows the potential evapotranspiration per month per sub-basin. The
evapotranspiration images per month are attached in the Annex.

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

19

Table 3-4 Gauge weights per subbasin


Grid number
Cathment

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

21

0.210

W650
0.004 0.002

W760

0.116 0.022

W840

0.087 0.262 0.123

W860
0.099

W980
W1090

22

24

31

35

36

0.039

0.276

0.048

0.336 0.058

0.008 0.587 0.103

34

0.390 0.063 0.002 0.335

0.115 0.331 0.144 0.107 0.257


0.093 0.417 0.027

33

0.005 0.129
0.111 0.092

0.328 0.035 0.198 0.119 0.181 0.018

0.121

Table 3-5 Potential evapotranspiration per month per subbasin

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

W650

104.17

87.41

106.51

89.59

87.65

66.91

70.34

82.70

76.78

101.46

87.50

116.65

W760

99.38

85.53

106.99

90.53

88.03

65.19

63.25

80.83

76.06

105.34

95.55

116.76

W840

113.62

103.16

106.43

86.56

85.94

69.43

65.67

82.35

89.43

112.75

101.06

117.25

W860

85.92

82.60

91.90

70.54

68.52

57.87

52.15

67.71

77.18

100.32

98.51

104.11

W980

110.45

98.75

117.47

102.65

96.37

74.64

71.13

90.34

84.87

101.34

93.09

129.88

W1090

103.70

94.29

99.87

78.95

75.57

61.36

56.16

74.74

81.73

100.17

98.92

113.17

3.3.3. 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. (US Army
Corps of Engineers, 2013)
For the canopy values the initial storage (%), max storage (mm) were considered as 0% and 2%
for all the subbasins.
The canopy value was calculated from the Von Hoynigen Huene formula:
S'() = 0.935 + 0.498LAI 0.00575LAI

Where:
LAI= Leaf area index (m2/m2)
For our site the mean leaf area index is 1.75 m2/m2.
Smax = 0.935 +0.498x1.75 0.00575x1.752 =1.78 2 mm

Data and Methodology

20

Figure 3.7 Global distribution of leaf are index [ m2/m2]


Source: http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.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.
(US Army Corps of Engineers, 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. Thus,
when the latter happens the surface runoff will be generated due to the excess precipitation.
(US Army Corps of Engineers, 2013)
The surface initial storage (%) was considered cero and the maximum storage will be calculated
in the calibration part.
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.
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,Tanzania

21

Some physical properties such as soil type, field capacity and saturation hydraulic conductivity
necessary to determine the max infiltration rate were calculated using harmonized world data
soil
database.(http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/External-World-soildatabase/HTML/)
The soil storage was specified as the total storage of water available in the soil profile. Tension
storage which is another component of the upper soil layer parameters values, was derived from
the Soil - Plant - Atmosphere - Water (SPAW) Hydrologic Budget Model is a daily hydrologic
budget
model
for
agricultural
fields
and
ponds.
(http://hydrolab.arsusda.gov/SPAW/SPAWDownload.html). This software can determine the
saturation hydraulic conductivity, the wilting point and the field capacity.
The saturation hydraulic conductivity was considered to be the maximum infiltration rate and
the tension storage was derived from SPAW as the field capacity.
The parameters found for the six catchment which will be calibrated are listed in the table
3.7.These values was used to calculate the Initial parameters in the Soil Moisture Accounting
Method. The percentage of impervious was considered zero from all the basin, considering that
this area is for agricultural activities The initial parameter values are listed in the Appendices.
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

33

33

63

25

25

0.6

Organic
matter (% weight)
Saturation hydraulic
conductivity (mm/hr)
Wilting point (%)

0.33

0.65

0.37

0.32

0.32

2.77

2.75

4.25

5.11

11.9

11.9

19.2

19.8

21

20.7

16.6

16.6

Field capacity (%)

31.5

30.6

32.4

34.9

24.7

24.7

Sand Fraction (%)

Data and Methodology

W860

22

Transformation method
The transformation method selected was the Clark Unit Hydrograph. The time of concentration
and storage coefficient were calculated from the Kirpich formula using the catchment area and
longest flow path.See table 3-8.
Table 3-8 Time of concentration and storage coefficient

Subbasin

Length (m)

Time of
concentration
(hour)

Storage
coefficient
(hr)

W650

87,184.84

0.000149

61.49

92.24

W760

102,665.17

0.000234

58.63

87.94

W840

115,295.54

0.000240

63.46

95.18

W860

158,659.26

0.000214

84.80

127.20

W980

79,600.54

0.000288

44.47

66.71

W1090

183,285.18

0.000206

96.17

144.25

Baseflow method
To compute the baseflow the linear reservoir was selected. Only two groundwater reservoirs
were considered.The discharge baseflow initial parameters was estimated from observed
discharge in the downstream and distributed as initial baseflow in two groundwater reservoirs
layers. These initial parameters values are showed in the table 3-9.
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

W760

20

200

10

400

W840

20

200

10

400

W860

20

200

10

400

W980

20

200

10

400

W1090

20

200

10

400

Control specifications

The control specifications set the time span of the simulation run. The information that should
be included are starting time and date, ending time and date, and computation time step.
Calibration of a HEC-HMS hydrological model for the data scarce region in Kilombero basin,Tanzania

23

For this study, the control specifications were defined based on the available data of
precipitation and discharge. The year 1961 was taken as a warm up period. The years from
1962-1972 were taken as calibration period and year from 1973-1982 as the validation period.
A daily time step was considered for the simulation based on the time interval of the available
data.

3.4. Evaluation of the model performance


As it was mentioned in previous chapter, three differents efficiency criterias were used to assess
the hydrological model, which are numerically described in the following paragraphs.
The Nash- Sutcliffe Efficiency is calculated as:
NSE = 1

5 6
5 5 78

Where,
NSE is Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency, 5 is observed discharge at time t, 6i is simulated
discharge at time t and 5 78 9 is the average observed discharge. (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970).
This efficiency criteria takes values - NSE 1. A value of 1 indicates a perfect fit, while
values below zero means that the mean value of the observed values can be a better predictor
of the model. (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970)
The Coefficient of determination (R2) is given by,
: =;

<

5 5 78

5 5 78

<

6 6 78

6 6 78

Where, 5 and Pi are observed and simulated discharge, 5 78 9 and 6 78 9 are mean observed
and simulated discharge. The range of R2 lies between 0 and 1. A value of zero means that
there are not correlation at all, while a value of 1 represents that the dispersion of the predicted
and observed values are the same. (Krause et al, 2005)

And finally, the percent volume error (PVE) will assess the volume balance between the
observed and simulated runoff. The formula is given by.
6>? =
Data and Methodology

@ABCD8BED

ABCD8BED

ABCD8BED

FG100

24

Where,
Vaverage (s) and Vaverage(o) are average simulated volume and average observed volume
respectively. Positive values means that there are an underestimation of the simulated discharge
whereas negative values denote that the simulated flows are overestimated. The ideal case
would be to have a zero value where the observed and simulated streamflow are the same.
The range adopted in this research for the performance of the model using the different
statistical criterias explained previously are listed in the table 3.10.
Table 3-10 General Perfomance ratings for recommended statistics
NSE

PVE(%)

R2

0.75 to unity

< +-10

0.75 to 1.00

Good

0.65-0.75

+-10 +-15

0.65 to 0.75

Satisfactory

0.50-0.65

+-15 +-25

0.50 to 0.65

Performance Rating
Very good

Unsatisfactory
<0.50
>+-25
< 0.50
Source: Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations, 2006.

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

25

CHAPTER 4

Result and discussion


4.1. 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.
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.
At the beginning, the model run with the base data and the initial parameters that were showed
in the earlier sections. This was followed by varying each input parameter within a range while
keeping the others constant. These outputs can be analysed to determine the variation with
respect to the base output set and this is a measure of sensitivity.
In this item the most sensitive parameters related to high and flow flows in the upstream and
downstream will be show.
4.1.1. Sensitivity analysis in Mpanga gage.

In the following figures 4.1,4.2, 4.3 the most sensitive parameters which affect the peak and
low flows in the upstream are showed.
The most sensitive parameters which affects the peak flows are related to the losses, the Soil
Moisture Accounting GW1 and GW2 coefficient have a strong influence in the peal flows as
we can see from the Figure 4.1 and 4.2.
On the other hand, from the figure 4.3 we can see that the GW2 coefficient of the Linear
Reservoir method, which calculates the baseflow, is the most sensitive parameter related to the
low flows.

Result and discussion

26

Figure 4.1 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 4.2 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
0.8

1.94

3.8

7.79

400

1000

18

observed
discharge

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

27

Figure 4.3 Linear Reservoir GW2 Coefficient in hours (Sensitivity analysis)


350

94.75 hr

189.5 hr

379 hr

758 hr

1517.8 hr

1897.25 hr

3035.6 hr

3794.5 hr

4743.125 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

4.1.2. Sensitivity analysis in Ifakara gage

The HEC-HMS do an automatic sensitivity analysis based on the objetive function chosen.
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.
The most sensitive parameters are the Storage coefficients of the groundwater 2, when the
model simulates the losses in the Soil Moisture Accounting Method, in two catchments (W1090
and W860).
These parameters belong to the cathments which are located in the upper part of the catchment.

Result and discussion

28

Figure 4.4 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W1090 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis)

600 hr
1 hr
0.1 hr

3500

300 hr
0.8 hr
observed

2 hr
0.4 hr

1.5 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 4.5 Soil Moisture Accounting GW2 coefficient in W860 sub-basin in hours (Sensitivity analysis)

3500

3000

0.1 hr
2 hr
500 hr

0.8 hr
8 hr
1000 hr

1 hr
10 hr
observed

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,Tanzania

29

4.2. Calibration and validation on Mpanga gage


4.2.1. Comparison of calibration using differente objective functions

The first part of the calibration was set up in the upstream (gage 10), comparing the observed
flow measured in this site with the predicted flow generated by the model. As a result of it,
seventeen parameters were calibrated for the W840 catchment.
The criteria for model calibration adopted in this research involved three objective functions:
Sum of squared residuals (SQR), log root mean squared error (LogRMSerror) and percent error
in peak flow (PEPF).The performance of the model was evaluated using coefficient of
determination (r2), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and percent volume error (PVE)
The model was calibrated for a 10 period of year (01January 1962- 31December1972), using a
daily time period, with a start and end time of 00:00.
The table 4.1 described the summary of the evaluation performance of the model using three
different objective functions. As we can see from this table, the best fit corresponds to the
LogRMS error objective function, which shows R2 and NSE over 0.65 (good performance
rating) for monthly and annually average daily discharge. The PVE is quite good in all the
temporal resolution. However, the peak flows are underestimated. The figures 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8
show the comparison of the discharges daily, monthly and annually.
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

0.50

0.50

0.47

0.69

0.70

NSE

0.46

0.50

-1.07

0.64

PVE(%)

7.66

-0.56

-64.50

7.58

Result and discussion

PEP

SQR

LogRMS
Error

Annually
SQR

LogRMS
Error

0.65

0.55

0.71

0.65

0.70

-1.30

0.40

0.70

-11.34

-0.64

-64.63

7.66

-0.56

-64.53

PEP

PEP

30

Figure 4.6 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using different objective functions
Efficiency
criteria

350
300
250

LogRMS
Error

SQR

PEP

R2

0.50

0.50

0.47

NSE

0.46

0.50

-1.07

PVE(% )

7.66

-0.56

64.50

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 4.7 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga gage using different objective functions

Efficiency
criteria

250

200

SQR

LogRMS
Error

PEP

R2

0.69

0.70

0.65

NSE

0.64

0.70

-1.30

PVE(% )

7.58

-0.64

-64.63

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

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,Tanzania

31

Figure 4.8 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using different objective functions in Mpanga gage

Efficiency
criteria

120

100

SQR

LogRMS
Error

PEP

R2

0.55

0.71

0.65

NSE

0.40

0.70

-11.34

PVE(% )

7.66

-0.56

-64.53

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

4.2.2. Calibration result based Best fit objective function

After several automatic trials performed by HEC-HMS and manual trial and error iterations.The
best calibration was achieved using the LogRMS error approach, whose efficiency criterias are
summarize in the table 4-2. As we can see from this table, the performance for all the temporal
resolution are satisfactory, specially in the monthly and annually average discharge which are
quite good.
For the monthly daily discharge the values for the R2, NSE and PVE were found to be 0.70,
0.70 and -0.64%. Similarly, the evaluation performance for the annually daily discharge were
0.71, 0.0 and -0.56% for R2, NSE and PVE respectively.
The Figures 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 show daily discharges, monthly and annually daily discharge
average respectively.
Table 4-2 Summary of the statistical analysis of the model performance using LogRMSerror

Efficiency
criteria

Monthly

Annually

R2

0.50

0.70

0.71

NSE

0.50

0.70

0.70

-0.56

-0.64

-0.56

PVE(%)

Result and discussion

Daily

32

Figure 4.9 Observed and predicted flows daily in Mpanga gage using LogRMSerror
350

R2 = 0.50
NSE = 0.50
PVE = -0.56 %

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 4.10 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Mpanga using LogRMSerror.
175

R2 = 0.70
NSE = 0.70
PVE = - 0.64%

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

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

33

Figure 4.11 Observed and predicted average discharge flow per year using in Mpanga gage using LogRMSerror
80

R2 = 0.71
NSE = 0.70
PVE = -0.56%

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

4.2.3. Validation of the model

The model calibration involves running the model for a period of time using the parameters
calibrated in the calibration process. The model was executed for a ten year validation period
(1973-1982). The performance of the model was evaluated using coefficient of determination
(r2), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and percent volume error(PVE).
The performance of the validation of the model in the upstream is showed in the table 4-3.
According to this table, the model performance in the validation period considering daily and
annually time resolution is unsatisfactory. Whereas the monthly resolution parameters such as
R2, NSE and PEV are 0.68, 0.66 and -4.93%, which are considered good. The model
performance underpredicted the peak flows over the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1979, while
the low flows fit quite well. The comparison of the observed and simulated discharge daily,
monthly and annually are illustrated in the figures 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14.
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

0.46

0.67

0.33

NSE

0.45

0.65

0.27

-4.57

-4.73

-4.57

PVE(%)

Result and discussion

34

Figure 4.12 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982)

500

R2
= 0.46
NSE = 0.45
PVE = -4.67 %

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 4.13 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982)

250

R2 = 0.67
NSE = 0.65
PVE = -4.73 %

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

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,Tanzania

35

Figure 4.14 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Mpanga gage (1973-1982)
80

R2
= 0.33
NSE = 0.27
PVE = -4.57 %

70
60

m3/s

50
40
30
20
10
0
1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

Predicted flow

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

Observed flow

4.3. Calibration and validation on Ifakara gage


4.3.1. 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, percent error in peak flow and
LogRMSerror. The summary of the evaluation performance is represented in the table 4-4.
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, monthly and annually. The parameters values:
R2 and NSE are over 0.65, the PVE are under 15% which means that the model performance is
good. Moreover, the table shows that the LogRMSerror approach has very similar values with
SQR, although the R2 and NSE have a slight decrease.
The figures 4.15, 4.16, and 4.17 show the comparison of the daily discharge, monthly and
annually daily discharge.
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

0.70

0.68

0.59

0.74

0.72

0.63

0.78

0.65

0.59

NSE

0.69

0.67

0.47

0.73

0.72

0.50

0.67

0.63

0.34

-6.45

-4.67

-15.08

-6.33

-4.42

-14.77

-6.46

-4.68

-15.10

PVE(%)

Result and discussion

PEP

SQR

Monthly
LogRMS
Error

PEP

SQR

Annually
LogRMS
Error

PEP

36

Figure 4.15 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using different objective functions
3500

3000

2500

Efficiency
criteria

SQR

LogRMS
Error

PEP

R2

0.70

0.68

0.59

NSE

0.69

0.67

0.47

PVE(% )

-6.45

-4.67

-15.08

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 4.16 Observed and predicted average daily flow per month in Ifakara gage using different objective functions
3000

Efficiency
criteria
SQR
R2
0.74
NSE
0.73
PVE(%)
-6.33

2500

m3/s

2000

LogRMS
Error
PEP
0.72
0.63
0.72
0.50
-4.42
-14.77

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

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,Tanzania

37

Figure 4.17 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

0.78

0.65

0.59

NSE

0.67

0.63

0.34

PVE(% )

-6.46

-4.68

-15.10

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

4.3.2. Calibration result based best fit objective function

After several automatic trials performed by HEC-HMS and manual trial and error iterations.The
best calibration was achieved using the Sum of squared residuals, whose efficiency criterias are
summarize in the table 4-5.
According to table 4-5 the model performance is good. However, we can see that the simulated
peak flow do not align with the observed data. On the other hand, the simulated and observed
low flows match quite well in all the temporarily resolutions.All the discharge temporal
resolution have a good performance over 0.65 and the PVE is under 10% which is quite good.
The figures 4.18, 4.19, and 4.20 show the comparison of the daily discharge, monthly and
annually daily discharge.
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

0.70

0.74

0.78

NSE

0.69

0.73

0.67

PVE(%)

-6.45

-6.33

-6.46

38

Figure 4.18 Observed and predicted flows daily in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals
3500

R2 = 0.70
NSE = 0.69
PVE = -6.45%

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 4.19 Observed and predicted average daily flows per month in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals
3000

R2 = 0.74
NSE = 0.73
PVE = -6.33%

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

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

Figure 4.20 Observed and predicted average daily flows per year in Ifakara gage using Sum of Squared Residuals
900

R2
= 0.78
NSE = 0.67
PVE = -6.46%

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

4.3.3. Validation of the model

The performance of the validation of the model in the downstream is showed in the table 4-6.
From this table, 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. The model
have a good performance for daily and monthly average daily discharge. The model underpredicts the peak flows in the years 1974, 1979 and 1982 by far, while in the others year there
is a slight difference.
The comparison of the observed and simulated discharge daily, monthly and annually are
illustrated in the figures 4.21, 4.22 and 4.23.
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

0.60

0.62

0.50

NSE

0.58

0.60

0.35

-10.97

-11.11

-11.01

PVE%)

Result and discussion

40

Figure 4.21 Daily observed and predicted flows for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982)
3500

R2 = 0.60
NSE = 0.58
PVE = -10.97 %

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 4.22 Average daily observed and predicted flows per month for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982)
3000

R2 = 0.62
NSE = 0.60
PVE = -11.11 %

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

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,Tanzania

41

Figure 4.23 Average daily observed and predicted flows per year for entire validation period in Ifakara gage (1973-1982)
1000
2

900

R
= 0.50
NSE = 0.35
PVE = -11.01 %

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

CHAPTER 5

Conclutions and recommendations


5.1. 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.

The use of multiple objective functions made the calibration more accurate.

Two gage stations were used to calibrate and validate the Kilombero catchment. One locate
in the upstream (Mpanga station) and the other in the downstream (Ifakara gage).

The overall efficiency criterias in the calibration period for the gage station located in
the upstream are rated as good. The criterias are given by R2, NSE and PVE are 0.5, 0.5
and -0.56 in the daily resolution; 0.70, 0.70 and -0.64 for monthly daily average
discharge and 0.71, 0.71 and -0.56 for daily average discharge per year. The
performance evaluation for the validation period was only satisfactory for the monthly
resolution with values of 0.67, 0.65 and -4.73% for R2, NSE and PVE respectively. The
high flow are underestimated among all the periods. On the other hand, low flows are
good matched, in some years slightly underestimated.
For these reasons, it can be concluded that the hydrological model simulate well the
average daily discharge per month and give a satisfactory prediction of low flows.

Regarding the calibration of the gage station (Ifakara) located in the downstream, the
perfomance of the model during the calibration period based on R2, NSE and PVE are
0.70, 0.69 and -6.45 for the daily resolution; 0.74, 0.73 and -6.33 for daily average
discharge per month and 0.78, 0.67 and -6.46 for daily average discharge per year. The
evaluation perfomance for the validation period the values for R2, NSE and PVE are
0.60, 0.58 and -10.97 for daily discharge and 0.62, 0.60 and -11.11 for daily average
discharge per month. From these results, we resolved that the model performance good
in the simulation of daily discharge and daily average discharge per month. We can also
say that the low flow predictions are good.

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

43

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. The values of R2,
NSE and PVE are 0.35,0.30 and -4.67 respectively for the validation period. Hence,
there are rate as unsatisfactory values. Similarly in the downstream gage the model does
not have an acceptable performance in simulating the daily average discharge per year.
The efficiency criterias for the validation period found are 0.50, 0.35 and -11.01 for R2,
NSE and PVE respectively. Moreover, the model could not simulate properly the high
flows, which are underestimated in the downstream and under and over estimated in the
upstream.

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. Likewise, 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.

5.2. Recommendations

The model can be improved using multiple discharge gage stations. 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.

The model was built according to daily precipitation and discharge which is the maximum
limit for the HEC-HMS. Therefore, the model could be improved if it is considered hourly
rainfall and discharge data.

The SMA algorithm involves various data, thus the model requires information from field
surveys. For this research, no field data was collected; instead all data was gathered from
secondary sources such as free available soil datasets.

From the evaluation performed in this study, it resolve that it is necessary to parameterize
the model according to varying seasons. Seasonal parameterization would improve the
calibration of the model, which also need further analysis and time.

Further analysis needs to be carried out in order to make the calibration and validation more
accurate.

44

References
Anderson, E. (2002) Calibration of conceptual models for use in river forecasting. National weather service
of USA. 1/ 7-1,7-16.
Bennett, T.H (1998). Development and application of a continuous soil moisture accounting algorithm for
the Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modelling System (HEC-HMS). Ms thesis, Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis.
Beven, J. K. (2001),
Beven, J. K. (2010) Preferential flows and travel time distributions: defining adequate hypothesis tests for
hydrological process models/, Preface, Hydrol. Process. 24/ 15371547
Choudari, K., Panigrahi, B., Chandra. J (2011), Simulation of rainfall-runoff process using HEC-HMS model
for Balijore Nala watershed, Odisha, India, International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences.Volume 5.
Cunderlik J (2004) Hydrological model selection for CFCAS project, Assessment of water resource risk
and vulnerability to change in climate condition, Information Science Reference, University of Western
Ontario.
Cunderlik, J.M., Simonovic S.P.(2004) Calibration, verification and sensitivy analysis of the HEC-HMS
hydrological model.
Douglas, L.J, Burges S.J. (1982) Selection, calibration and testing of hydrological models.Chapter 11.
Published in Hydrologic modeling of small watersheds, Am. Soc. of Ag. Eng., St. Joseph, Mich. 5/446-447.
Ewen, J., (2011). Hydrography matching methods for measuring model performance. Journal of Hydrology
408/ 178-187
Fischer, S (2013), Exploring a water balance method on recharge estimations in the Kilombero, Valley,
Tanzania. 50/796-811
Gupta, H.V., Kling, H. (2011) On typical range, sensivity and normalization of Mean Square Error and NashSutcliffe Efficiency type metrics. American Geophysical Union.Res 47. W10601.
Krause, P., Boyle, D.P and Base,F. (2005), Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model
assesment.
Kashaigili J.J (2015) Environmental Flow Assessment of the Kilombero Catchment (Report of Hydrology
Component), Usaid/Tanzania.
Lastoria, B. (2008) Hydrological Processes on the Land Surface: A Survey of Modelling Approaches.
Universit degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale. FORALPS Technical
Report 9.

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

45

Maskey, S., Guinot, V., and Price, R. K. (2004). Treatment of precipitation uncertainty in rainfallrunoff modelling: a fuzzy set approach. Advances in Water Resources 27 (2004) 889-898
McCuen, R.H, Knight Z., Cutter A.G. (2006).Evaluation of the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Index. Journal
Hydrology Engineering.11/597-602.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W.,Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., and Veith, T.L.(2006).Model
Evaluation Guidelines For Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.50(3)885-900
Moriasi,D.N., Arnold,J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Binger, R.L., Harmel, R.D. and Veith, T (2006) Model
Evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe J.V. (1970). River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models: I.A Discussion
of Principles. Journal of Hydrology 10:282-290.
Orellana,B. Pechlivanidis I.G, Jackson B.M., Mcintyre, N.R., Wheater, H.S, Wagener,T. (2008).A
toolbox for the Identification of Parsimonious Semi-distributed Rainfall-Runoff Models : Application to the
upper Lee Catchment. In Proc.of the 4th meeting iEMS,Barcelona, Spain.pp.670-677.
Pechlivanidis I.G, Jackson BM, Mcintyre, N.R., Wheater, H.S, Wagener,T. (2011) Catchment Scale
Hydrological Modelling: a Review of Model Types, Calibration Approaches and Uncertainty Analysis
Methods in the Context of Recent Developments in Technology and Applications. Global NEST Journal
13: 193214.
Roy,D. , Begam, S., Ghosh, S., Jana, S., (2013) Calibration and validation of HEC-HMS model for a river
basin in Eastern India.
Santhi, C, J. G. Arnold, J. R. Williams, W. A. Dugas, R. Srinivasan, and L. M. Hauck. (2001). Validation of
the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. J. American Water Resources
Assoc.37(5): 1169-1188.
Sutcliffe, J., Agrawal, R & Tucker, J.M(1981). The Water balance of the Betwa Basin, India.Hydrological
Sciences. 26(2)/149-158.
US Army Corps of Engineers (2013), Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS, Users Manual.
US Army Corps of Engineers (2000), Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS, Technical Reference.
Van Liew, M. W., J. G. Arnold, and J. D. Garbrecht. 2003. Hydrologic simulation on agricultural watersheds:
Choosing between two models. Trans. ASAE 46(6): 1539-1551.
Van Griensven, A., Meixner, T., Srinivasan, R., Grunwals, S., (2008).Fit-for-purpose analysis of
uncertainty using split-sampling evaluations. Hydrological Sciences Journal 53 (5), 10901103.
Wrep UDSM (2003), Development of a Computerised Flood Warning Model and Study of Hydrological
characteristics of the Lower Rufiji Floodplain and Delta.
Wrem International Inc. (2015), Rufiji Basin IWRMD Plan: Interim Report II, Volume I: Climate and
Hydrologic Modelling and Assesment, Ministry of Water of the United Republic of Tanzania.
Yawson D.K, Kongo D.M, Kachroo R.K .(2005), Application of linear and nonlinear techniques in river flow
forecasting in the Kilombero River basin. Hydrological Sciences Journal.
Xu, CY (2009) Textbook of Hydrologic Models. Uppsala.University of Sweden.Volume 1. 168 pgs.
http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/
References

46

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
54.79
55.78
51.66
41.00
44.30
41.62
68.75
39.48
39.52
39.75
55.37
57.47
54.01
49.12
35.02
34.48
32.14
71.48
33.34
34.68
34.80

Ifakara
m3/s
332.23
744.76
737.91
648.39
367.73
418.28
365.83
796.36
379.78
448.91
384.90
482.07
574.80
506.24
409.40
418.56
323.18
452.92
887.21
457.43
407.43
503.71

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

47

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
1731.03
1698.81
1856.14
1444.15
1633.59
1409.64
1727.17
1682.27
1239.08
1527.10
1430.03
1467.24
1495.55
1609.47
1468.21
1293.90
1427.96
1751.10
1836.64
1618.56
1384.05
1534.85

grid 5
1766.78
1549.33
1798.99
1346.41
1526.68
1372.18
1648.61
1738.98
1117.05
1349.13
1360.97
1408.93
1446.84
1413.65
1357.80
1158.22
1363.99
1653.32
1643.69
1542.06
1325.96
1525.78

grid 8
1184.90
1630.71
1445.60
1180.41
1321.63
1153.68
1532.30
1183.00
826.06
1372.61
1050.88
888.73
1116.40
1338.42
1090.47
1059.19
1054.15
1354.69
1624.37
1181.47
971.52
1056.71

grid 9
1602.66
1757.53
1805.63
1408.85
1551.59
1390.48
1712.40
1602.76
1284.28
1557.51
1361.66
1375.40
1403.44
1606.53
1444.19
1334.92
1363.55
1692.99
1898.78
1550.08
1334.87
1415.68

grid 10
1882.90
1792.64
1934.82
1511.97
1673.79
1565.94
1854.38
1828.38
1378.00
1568.25
1476.23
1541.35
1543.62
1643.88
1578.61
1382.02
1497.56
1811.77
1931.91
1689.75
1494.05
1621.94

grid 11
2038.99
1587.28
1941.18
1455.64
1652.00
1661.13
1831.19
1910.12
1262.66
1336.68
1424.49
1543.08
1511.52
1485.16
1464.76
1243.12
1468.43
1698.76
1783.01
1586.98
1428.52
1649.28

grid 12
1884.21
1250.89
1781.03
1254.24
1407.87
1445.08
1531.46
1743.01
1031.70
1073.36
1206.71
1341.13
1323.02
1149.54
1159.21
977.42
1272.58
1416.80
1526.95
1327.38
1183.39
1473.07

grid 13
1830.24
1307.51
1777.84
1211.52
1342.03
1265.55
1509.84
1766.17
1131.97
1246.29
1260.40
1388.53
1339.77
1160.09
1185.54
1047.13
1368.34
1458.18
1619.73
1382.14
1233.55
1588.56

grid 22
2051.99
1326.46
1726.00
1334.17
1529.13
1444.25
2058.05
1971.78
1298.08
1362.10
1369.48
1472.26
1277.04
1285.42
1347.03
1152.64
1389.04

grid 24
2314.86
1439.61
2006.71
1486.97
1710.77
1615.26
2119.77
2094.62
1331.58
1434.54
1479.10
1825.25
1510.73
1443.05
1442.36
1305.33
1718.33

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
1499.61
1682.07
1666.49
1239.92
1347.67
1231.89
1493.17
1613.27
1277.72
1402.80
1240.63
1341.33
1346.40
1406.15
1407.00
1227.21
1269.11

grid 15
2228.92
1553.98
2015.97
1541.20
1719.89
1781.40
1961.70
2038.35
1341.55
1350.11
1480.86
1648.35
1559.14
1478.24
1519.39
1302.45
1538.72

grid 16
2228.92
1553.98
2015.97
1541.20
1719.89
1781.40
1961.70
2038.35
1341.55
1350.11
1480.86
1648.35
1559.14
1478.24
1519.39
1302.45
1538.72

grid 17
2643.52
1709.78
2427.22
1875.37
2044.00
2278.04
2067.91
2306.85
1497.03
1378.83
1722.56
1930.08
1905.42
1681.69
1683.65
1510.16
1854.34

grid 18
2246.66
1463.15
2053.07
1516.54
1686.35
1698.55
1909.75
2057.70
1314.53
1346.64
1479.36
1697.14
1560.61
1413.67
1410.68
1257.50
1655.29

grid 21
1401.52
1216.86
1332.94
1006.10
1108.22
1009.29
1427.10
1314.97
960.68
1249.27
949.95
1176.25
1114.70
1064.95
1181.73
953.37
1064.32

48

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982

1615.34
1771.17
1500.91
1301.27
1381.69

1670.88
1822.52
1580.40
1485.77
1725.46

1670.88
1822.52
1580.40
1485.77
1725.46

1894.90
2170.45
1812.61
1739.90
2058.89

1663.42
2055.51
1600.16
1499.94
1857.16

1277.18
1308.24
1155.87
1059.55
1209.21

1479.11
1616.78
1378.96
1318.42
1564.98

1686.05
2086.57
1617.88
1543.09
1899.45

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
2155.90
1350.29
1852.13
1309.91
1576.30
1310.51
2012.31
1906.94
1112.47
1414.27
1275.02
1904.18
1396.13
1376.76
1347.96
1190.04
1632.72
1580.73
1994.22
1522.06
1458.08
1847.67

grid 33
1591.17
1088.20
1343.48
1012.32
1217.87
1068.65
1712.18
1531.40
969.63
1192.61
1023.82
1240.04
1004.16
1016.00
1092.50
918.12
1138.83
1207.79
1308.08
1107.40
1069.13
1306.97

grid 34
1111.00
1189.98
1231.21
857.73
919.61
833.77
1180.85
1205.88
854.05
1071.72
836.65
1000.03
972.01
954.83
1038.20
828.87
886.79
1212.90
1323.27
1106.22
924.60
1006.28

grid 35
1098.47
1362.07
1324.64
888.22
979.06
862.43
1070.09
1267.93
943.71
1031.90
895.05
974.83
984.49
1070.70
1013.95
879.29
906.81
1255.83
1471.92
1120.34
899.86
991.64

grid 36
1562.99
1640.61
1788.51
1361.17
1554.00
1293.76
1629.15
1508.55
1211.86
1500.43
1326.19
1347.15
1327.05
1617.06
1364.42
1285.06
1309.18
1622.13
1815.25
1483.63
1235.42
1345.33

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

49

Table A-5 Initial parameter values for Soil Moisture Accounting Method

Tension
storage
(mm)

Max
infiltration
(mm/hr)

Impervious
(%)

Soil
storage
(mm)

W650

2.77

150

W760

2.75

150

W840

4.25

150

48.6

11.4

100

300

150

200

W860

5.11

150

52.35

11.4

100

300

150

200

W980

11.9

150

37.05

11.4

100

300

150

200

W1090

11.9

150

37.05

11.4

100

300

150

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)

47.25

11.4

100

300

150

200

45.9

11.4

100

300

150

200

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

51

Table A-6 Optimized parameters per subbasin

Catchment

Parameter

Units

Optimized
value

GW1 initial discharge

m3/s

4.6798

GW2 initial discharge

m3/s

0.784

Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient

hr

1505.2

Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient

hr

1196.3

mm

6.0274

mm/hr

1.2898

mm

587.97

hr

573.48

Simple surface - Maximum storage


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
coefficient
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 percolation

W1090

2.25

Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage
coefficient

mm
hr

2.2584

Soil Moisture Accounting - Max infiltration

mm/hr

9.3957

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil percolation

mm/hr

5.016

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil storage

mm

137.78

Soil Moisture Accounting - Tension storage

mm

97.52

Time of concentration

hr

96.16

Storage coefficient

hr

144.25

GW1 initial discharge

m3/s

19.084

GW2 initial discharge

427.28

m3/s

3.2819

Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient

hr

313.4

Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient

hr

425.98

mm

5.2238

Simple surface - Maximum storage


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
coefficient
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 percolation

W650

mm/hr

mm/hr

0.007842

mm

65.961

hr

313.67

mm/hr

0.00891166

Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage
coefficient

mm

134.79

hr

2.9694

Soil Moisture Accounting - Max infiltration

mm/hr

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil percolation

mm/hr

16.33

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil storage

mm

257.73

Soil Moisture Accounting - Tension storage

mm

118.09

Time of concentration

hr

61.49

Storage coefficient

hr

92.24

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

53

Catchment

Parameter

Units

Optimized
value

GW1 initial discharge

m3/s

6.8105

GW2 initial discharge

m3/s

2.0296

Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient

hr

714.46

Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient

hr

4426.1

mm

6.966

mm/hr

22.176

mm

38.539

hr

185.79

Simple surface - Maximum storage


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage coefficient
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage coefficient

W760

mm

254.44

hr

2.8812

mm/hr

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil percolation

mm/hr

6.7353

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil storage

mm

122.72

Soil Moisture Accounting - Tension storage

mm

31.009

Time of concentration

hr

58.63

Storage coefficient

hr

87.94

GW1 initial discharge

m3/s

71.436

GW2 initial discharge

m3/s

4.988

Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient

hr

1560.6

Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient

hr

1551.6

mm

16.293

mm/hr

3.0394

mm

36.713

hr

473.5

Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 percolation


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage coefficient
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage coefficient

References

1.01

Soil Moisture Accounting - Max infiltration

Simple surface - Maximum storage

W860

mm/hr

mm/hr

0.90381

mm

16.444

hr

2.25

Soil Moisture Accounting - Max infiltration

mm/hr

5.5991

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil percolation

mm/hr

3.7247

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil storage

mm

1076.6

Soil Moisture Accounting - Tension storage

mm

100

Time of concentration

hr

85.595

Storage coefficient

hr

146.28

54

Catchment

Parameter

Units

Optimized
value

GW1 initial discharge

m3/s

113.37

GW2 initial discharge

m3/s

3.92

Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient

hr

1751.3

Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient

hr

3082

Simple surface - Maximum storage


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage coefficient
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage coefficient

W980

4.9023

mm/hr

0.541

mm

425.66

hr

691.86

mm/hr

0.19454

mm

371.87

hr

2.6592

Soil Moisture Accounting - Max infiltration

mm/hr

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil percolation

mm/hr

11.4

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil storage

mm

168.43

Soil Moisture Accounting - Tension storage

mm

100

Time of concentration

hr

44.47

Storage coefficient

hr

66.71

GW1 initial discharge

m3/s

13.447

GW2 initial discharge

m3/s

4.8159

Linear Reservoir GW1 coefficient

hr

97.884

Linear Reservoir GW2 coefficient

hr

2146

Simple surface - Maximum storage

mm

5.3177

mm/hr

3.3659

mm

18.678

hr

91.158

mm/hr

2.1333

mm

3.5222

hr

3.4921

Soil Moisture Accounting - Max infiltration

mm/hr

8.1274

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil percolation

mm/hr

19.307

Soil Moisture Accounting - Soil storage

mm

721.64

Soil Moisture Accounting - Tension storage

mm

31.183

Time of concentration

hr

41.461

Storage coefficient

hr

63.105

Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 percolation


Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW1 storage coefficient
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 percolation
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage
Soil Moisture Accounting - GW2 storage coefficient

W840

mm

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

55

References

56

You might also like