You are on page 1of 24

2010

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

HydroEurope Team 9
1/10/2010

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Introduction
The Var river catchment is located in the south of France close to the city of Nice. The Var catchment has
an area of about 2822 km2 and elevation from 3000 m in the mountains to 0 m at the mouth to the
Mediterranean Sea. In November 1994 the Var River experienced a heavy flood with a peak discharge of
3500 m3/s. The high flows in the river had destroyed two weirs and lead to a serious flooding in the areas
and damages on the infrastructures such as bridges and roads.

Objectives
The objective of this report is to carry out a hydrological analysis for the Var River basin. The objectives
include:
 To perform a frequency analysis
 To obtain an average rainfall using different methods
 To determine the rainfall losses
 To establish a unit hydrograph
 To obtain surface runoff
 To perform the flow propagation

Frequency Analysis
Hydrologic Frequency Analysis is the method used for evaluation of the probability of the hydrologic
events, which are averaged out in statistical viewpoints, either greater than or of a specific magnitude
within a certain area, that will occur within a certain period. In this report, we include the frequency
analysis based on the discharges as well as the rainfall recorded. In this case, we two approached of
frequency analysis were used: the first with according to Kleibulls law and the latter with the aid of the
probability software Ax.

Discharge Frequency Analysis: Kleibulls Law


With the Kleibulls Law, a daily and monthly average discharge analysis was carried out.
With daily average discharge data
With the daily recorded discharge data, a frequency analysis can be carried out. Firstly, the maximum
recorded daily average discharges were retrieved annually (Table 1) and followed by sorted all the
maximum yearly records in a descending order (Table 2). There were missing records between the Years
1977 till Year 1984. Therefore the records from year 1974 till year 1984 were not included in the analysis.
In addition, the return period and the percentage of probability of each record were determined. The
following tables show the corresponding information.

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
However, the main objective of the frequency analysis is to find out the return period of the recorded
maximum discharge, therefore, we only considered the discharge records (as tabulated in Table 3) before
the occurrence of the highest discharge so as to obtain a more accurate frequency analysis.
Year

Qm (m /s)

1974
164.00
1975
223.00
1976
530.00
1977
0.00
1978
0.00
1979
0.00
1980
0.00
1981
0.00
1982
0.00
1983
0.00
1984
0.00
1985
481.00
1986
351.00
1987
352.00
1988
714.00
1989
207.00
1990
84.90
1991
778.00
1992
190.00
1993
1,050.00
1994
1,460.00
1995
193.00
1996
916.00
1997
459.00
1998
219.00
1999
248.00
2000
652.00
Table 1: Annually
records of maximum
daily record

Qo (m /s)

T (Year)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

1,460.00
17.00
1,050.00
8.50
916.00
5.67
778.00
4.25
714.00
3.40
652.00
2.83
481.00
2.43
459.00
2.13
352.00
1.89
351.00
1.70
248.00
1.55
219.00
1.42
207.00
1.31
193.00
1.21
190.00
1.13
84.90
1.06
Table 2: Sorted records

P (%)

5.88
11.76
17.65
23.53
29.41
35.29
41.18
47.06
52.94
58.82
64.71
70.59
76.47
82.35
88.24
94.12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Qo (m /s)

T (Year)

P (%)

1050
10.00
10.00
778
5.00
20.00
714
3.33
30.00
481
2.50
40.00
352
2.00
50.00
351
1.67
60.00
207
1.43
70.00
190
1.25
80.00
84.9
1.11
90.00
Table 3: Sorted records excluding
year after maximum

The data in table 3 were plotted in a scattered graph and was fitted using different regression method
such as Exponential and Polynomial Second Order. Thus, the following results were obtained whereby R
Squared of each method was determined. Figure 1 and 2 illustrated the fitted graph with different
methods respectively.

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Frequency Analysis: Polynomial 2nd
Order

Frequency Analysis: Exponential


Data

Expon. (Data)

12

12

10

10

Return Period (T)

Return Period (T)

y = 0.851e0.002x
R = 0.976

8
6
4
2
0

Data

Poly. (Data)

y = 1E-05x2 - 0.005x + 1.880


R = 0.975

8
6
4
2
0

500

1000
Discharge (Qo)

1500

1000
Discharge (Qo)

1500
nd

Figure 1: Frequency Analysis: Exponential (Daily)

Method
Exponential
Polynomial 2nd Order

500

Figure 2: Frequency Analysis: Polynomial 2 Order (Daily)

R Squared
0.9769
0.9758

Return Period (Year)


21.1
15.5

Table 4: Curve Fitting Results (Daily Discharge Analysis)

With monthly average discharge data


In another hand, we are also interested in finding the frequency based on maximum recorded monthly
discharge. Therefore, the maximum amounts monthly discharges were found annually (Table 5) and
subsequently were sorted out in a descending order. Same as the daily discharge analysis, there were
missing records between Years 1974 till year 1984; therefore we only considered the discharge
information after the Year of 1984.
The return period and the percentage of probability of each discharge were also determined, which
tabulated as the following Table 6. However, in order to determine the return period of the highest
discharges recorded, we only considered the discharge records before the occurrence of the highest
discharge to obtain a more accurate frequency analysis as tabulated in Table 7.
3

YEAR

Q (m3/s)

Qo (m /s)

T (Year)

P (%)

1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986

86.9
81.9
156
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
128
110

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

276
207
163
131
128
110
108
105
97.5
90.5
88.3
87.7
79.5

17.00
8.50
5.67
4.25
3.40
2.83
2.43
2.13
1.89
1.70
1.55
1.42
1.31

5.88
11.76
17.65
23.53
29.41
35.29
41.18
47.06
52.94
58.82
64.71
70.59
76.47

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Qo (m /s)

T (Year)

P (%)

207
10.00
10.00
131
5.00
20.00
128
3.33
30.00
110
2.50
40.00
108
2.00
50.00
105
1.67
60.00
90.5
1.43
70.00
88.3
1.25
80.00
38.3
1.11
90.00
Table 7: Sorted records excluding
year after maximum

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
1987
105
1988
131
1989
88.3
1990
38.3
1991
108
1992
90.5
1993
207
1994
276
1995
77.9
1996
163
1997
97.5
1998
87.7
1999
79.5
2000
73.5
Table 5: Annually
records of maximum
monthly record

14
15
16

77.9
1.21
82.35
73.5
1.13
88.24
38.3
1.06
94.12
Table 6: Sorted records

The data in table 6 were plotted in a scattered graph and was fitted using different regression method
such as Exponential and Polynomial Second Order. Thus, the following results were obtained whereby R
Squared of each method was determined. Figure 3 and 4 illustrated the fitted graph with different
methods respectively.

Frequency Analysis: Polynomial 2nd


Order

Frequency Analysis: Exponential


Data

12

Expon. (Data)

10

y = 0.454e0.014x
R = 0.870

8
6

Data

12
Return Period (T)

Return Period (T)

4
2
0

y=

10

Poly. (Data)

0.0003x2 -

0.026x + 1.322
R = 0.958

8
6
4
2
0

100
200
Discharge (Qo)

300

Figure 3: Frequency Analysis: Exponential (Monthly)

100
200
Discharge (Qo)

300
nd

Figure 4: Frequency Analysis: Polynomial 2 Order (Monthly)

Table 8: Curve Fitting Results (Monthly Discharge Analysis)

Method
Exponential
Polynomial 2nd Order

R Squared
0.8707
0.9580

Return Period (Year)


27.8
16.8

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Discharge Frequency Analysis with Ax Software
With the Ax probability software, there are several function can be used in the frequency analysis such as
Normal, LogNormal, Gumbel, Exponential, Gamma and Double Gamma function. The parameters of all
the functions are calculated with the methods of momentums and the maximum verisimilitude.
Therefore, we have carried out a frequency analysis with the comparison of different functions on a daily
and monthly average discharge records.
With daily average discharge data
Firstly, the annually data (Table 3) were introduced into the software. Thus frequency analyses with
different functions were executed and the following results were obtained. From the results, it showed
that the best fitted function would be the Exponential Function with a minimum error (Figure 5). With
the obtained function, the results were extrapolated as shown in the following Figure 6.

Figure 5: (Left)Frequency Analysis with Ax software (Daily); (Right) Exponential function graph

From the daily discharge record, it found that the


maximum discharge is recorded as 1460m3/s with
corresponded to the day event on 5th November 1994.
Therefore, by interpolating this value with the function
determined, we obtained the return period of 24.1 year.

Figure 6:Extrapolated results for the exponential function

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
With comparison the both method of frequency analysis between the Kleibulls Law and the Ax Software
on the daily average discharge data, it can be conclude that both approached achieved a similar results.
Table 9 summarized the results of both methods.
Method
Kleibulls Law
Ax probability software

Function
Exponential
Exponential

Return Period (Year)


21.1
24.1

Table 9: Comparison of different methods on the daily discharge frequency analysis

With monthly average discharge data


Same as the daily discharge analysis, the annually data of the maximum monthly discharges (Table 7)
were introduced into the software. Thus frequency analyses with different functions were executed and
the following results were obtained. From the results, it showed that the best fitted function would be
the Gumbel Function with a minimum error (Figure 7).

Figure 7: (Left)Frequency Analysis with Ax software (Monthly); (Right) Gumbel function graph

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
With the obtained function, the results were extrapolated as shown in the following Figure 10.

From the monthly discharge record, it found that the


maximum discharge is recorded as 276m3/s. Therefore, by
interpolating this value with the function determined, we
obtained the return period of more that 140 year.

Figure 8:Extrapolated results for the Gumbel function

With comparison the both method of frequency analysis between the Kleibulls Law and the Ax Software
on the monthly discharge data, it can be conclude that both approaches obtained a very different results.
It can be conclude that the result obtained from the Ax probabability software is not applicable in our
case study due to overly estimated return period. This overestimation can be explained that could be
due to the extremely high rainfall event that happened in the particular month. Or may be the available
data are insufficient for extrapolation. Table 10 summarized the results of both methods.
Method
Kleibulls Law
Ax probability software

Function
Exponential
Gumbel

Return Period (Year)


27.8
104.0

Table 10: Comparison of different methods on the daily discharge frequency analysis

Rainfall Frequency Analysis


The rainfall frequency analysis was carried out based on the data from three rainfall stations consist of
Nice Airport, St Dalmes Selvage and St Sauveur Tinee.
In order to carried out the rainfall frequency analysis, the same step is repeated as we did in the
discharge analysis whereby first of all the maximum precipitation of each year (From Year 1950 till Year
1993) is retrieved and followed by sorted out in a descending order. The Table 11 below tabulated the
rainfall information and the corresponding return period. As to study the return period of the most
serious rainfall occurred in 1994, we exclude the rainfall data from 1994 in the analysis.
m
1
2
3
4
5

Nice
191.40
146.80
137.10
126.00
117.80

St Dalmes Selvage
145.50
140.00
134.00
132.50
128.40

St Sauveur Tinee
123.50
118.00
108.00
101.20
100.70

Average
112.50
110.93
101.33
96.73
90.50

Return Period (T)


45.00
22.50
15.00
11.25
9.00

P (%)
2.22
4.44
6.67
8.89
11.11

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

117.40
117.60
100.00
84.83
7.50
104.20
112.80
89.80
84.03
6.43
93.10
111.60
88.60
83.63
5.63
90.80
111.40
85.00
80.27
5.00
88.10
109.40
84.50
80.17
4.50
87.40
103.60
83.50
79.67
4.09
85.00
100.40
82.50
77.27
3.75
84.80
100.20
81.00
76.95
3.46
80.60
96.60
80.49
75.67
3.21
75.60
92.70
80.00
72.10
3.00
75.50
92.40
79.40
71.77
2.81
75.30
89.30
78.50
70.63
2.65
74.80
88.70
76.80
69.37
2.50
68.80
87.30
76.00
66.90
2.37
66.90
86.70
72.00
65.60
2.25
66.10
86.40
71.00
65.27
2.14
65.70
83.70
70.10
63.47
2.05
62.80
82.40
70.00
59.97
1.96
62.00
75.60
67.00
59.53
1.88
61.40
73.70
67.00
58.40
1.80
61.10
73.60
66.00
58.37
1.73
60.00
72.00
65.70
57.63
1.67
59.00
71.50
62.30
56.83
1.61
58.60
70.00
60.00
52.33
1.55
57.80
68.30
58.60
51.33
1.50
57.10
67.40
58.00
50.60
1.45
57.00
66.80
56.00
49.90
1.41
53.90
66.70
55.30
49.63
1.36
53.40
60.70
53.00
49.50
1.32
50.40
60.00
53.00
48.90
1.29
49.70
58.00
52.70
48.10
1.25
47.70
57.20
52.60
48.07
1.22
45.20
56.80
52.00
47.97
1.18
44.60
56.40
51.00
46.23
1.15
42.50
55.40
50.00
44.53
1.13
40.80
55.00
46.50
39.43
1.10
40.50
45.20
39.50
39.07
1.07
40.20
45.00
38.00
38.23
1.05
34.90
42.00
36.50
37.83
1.02
Table 11: Return Period of the corresponding maximum daily precipitation

13.33
15.56
17.78
20.00
22.22
24.44
26.67
28.89
31.11
33.33
35.56
37.78
40.00
42.22
44.44
46.67
48.89
51.11
53.33
55.56
57.78
60.00
62.22
64.44
66.67
68.89
71.11
73.33
75.56
77.78
80.00
82.22
84.44
86.67
88.89
91.11
93.33
95.56
97.78

From the above tabulated table, it is also possible to obtain the return period for the rainfall event on 5th
November 1994. For instance, in table following summarizes the return period for the average rainfall
obtained using different method.
Method
Average Rainfall(mm) Return Period (Year)
Arithmetic Mean
99.62
13.6
Thiessen Polygon
103.18
16.4

10

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
In another hand, with the information tabulated in table 11, we perform the rainfall analysis with the aid
of the Ax probability software. The following outcomes were observed.
Nice Airport
From the following figure, it illustrates the results for the rainfall analysis of Nice Airport. With the aid of
Ax Probability software, the rainfall analysis was executed. In the Nice Airport station, the best function
to describe the rainfall pattern would be the Double Gumbel function whereby minimum error was found
with this function. Besides that in Figure 9, there was also a plot of the Double Gumbel Function as well
as an extrapolation table.

Figure 9: (Left)Rainfall Analysis with Ax software; Double Gumbel function graph (Right top), Extrapolation of
Double Gumbel function (Right bottom) for Nice Airport

10

11

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
St Dalmes Selvage
From the following figure, it illustrates the results for the rainfall analysis of St Dalmes Selvage Station.
With the aid of Ax Probability software, the rainfall analysis was executed. In the St Dalmes Selvage
Station., the best function to describe the rainfall pattern would be the Gamma function whereby
minimum error was found with this function. Besides that in Figure 10, there was also a plot of the
Gamma Function as well as an extrapolation table.

Figure 10: (Left)Rainfall Analysis with Ax software, Gamma function graph (Right top), Extrapolation of Gamma
function (Right bottom) for St. Dalmes Selvage

11

12

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
St Sauveur Tinee
From the following figure, it illustrates the results for the rainfall analysis of St Sauveur Tinee Station.
With the aid of Ax Probability software, the rainfall analysis was executed. In the St Sauveur Tinee
Station, the best function to describe the rainfall pattern would be the Gamma function whereby
minimum error was found with this function. Besides that in Figure 11, there was also a plot of the
Gamma Function as well as an extrapolation table.

Figure 11: (Left)Rainfall Analysis with Ax software, Gamma function graph (Right top), Extrapolation of Gamma
function (Right bottom) for St. Sauveur Tinee

12

13

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Average of the three station
We have also average out the rainfall recorded in all three stations and the following outcome is
observed. In the averaged rainfall, the best function to describe the rainfall pattern would be the Gamma
function. In Figure 12, there was also a plot of the Gamma Function as well as an extrapolation table.

Figure 12: (Left)Rainfall Analysis with Ax software, Gamma function graph (Right top), Extrapolation of Gamma
function (Right bottom) for the averaged rainfall from three station

13

14

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Average Rainfall
In order to find out the average rainfall over the basin, there several approaches could be used such as
the Arithmetic Mean, Thiessen Polygon, Isohyetal Method, Kriging Method asn IDW method.
In this report, there are two methods used in the hydrological assessment. They are the arithmetic mean
method and the theissen polygon method. In each methods two different approximations were carried
out which includes the approximation for the entire basin and approximation of each sub basin.

Arithmetic Mean Method


A straight arithmetic average is the simplest method to estimate the mean rainfall on the water basin.
This method achieved good estimation if the gauges are numerous and uniformly distributed over the
entire basin.
         


         

Thiessen Polygon Method


When gauges are nonuniformly distributed over a watershed, the thiessen polygon method can improve
estimated of precipitation amounts over the entire area. Polygons are formed from the perpendicular
bisectors of lines joining nearby gauges. The watershed area within each polygon is determined and is
used to apportion the rainfall amount of the gauge in the center of the polygon. It is assumed that the
depth of water recorded by rain gauge located within the polygon represents the depth of rain over the
entire area of the polygon. The results obtained are usually more accurate than the arithmetic average
when the number of gauges on a watershed is limited and when one or more gauges are located outside
the watershed boundary.
The Thiessen method allows for non uniform distribution of gauges but assumes linear variation of
precipitation between gauges. Once the area-weighing coefficients are determined for each station, the
value is fixed and the method is as simple to apply as the arithmetic method. Table following showed the
weighted coefficient of each rain gauge station for each sub catchment while Figure 13 illustrates the
boundary area of each rainfall station to the sub catchment.
SUB/STA
ST1
ST2
ST3
ST4
ST5
ST6
Tine
0
0.056 0.005 0.003 0.489 0.448
Vsubie
0
0.217
0
0
0
0.783
Upper Var
0
0.021 0.066 0.373 0.538 0.002
Estron
0.078 0.059 0.453 0.41
0
0
Lower Var 0.646 0.354
0
0
0
0
Table 12: Weighted Coefficient of Thiessen Polygon for each sub catchment

In Figure16, it illustrates the estimated average rainfall from both methods: Arithmetic Mean and
Thiessen Polygon Method.
Arithmetic Mean Method Thiessen Polygon Method
Total Precipitation (3/11/1994-6/11/1994)
138.27mm
145.63mm
Precipitation for day 5/11/1994
99.62mm (72% of total)
103.18mm (70.8% of total)

14

06/11/94 0:00

05/11/94 21:00

05/11/94 18:00

05/11/94 15:00

05/11/94 12:00

05/11/94 9:00

05/11/94 6:00

05/11/94 3:00

05/11/94 0:00

04/11/94 21:00

AVER

04/11/94 18:00

04/11/94 15:00

04/11/94 12:00

04/11/94 9:00

04/11/94 6:00

04/11/94 3:00

04/11/94 0:00

03/11/94 21:00

03/11/94 18:00

03/11/94 15:00

03/11/94 12:00

P (mm)

15
Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9

Figure 13:Thiessen Polygon Method for Var Catchment

Average Rainfall

14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
TPM

Time (hr)

Figure 14:Average Rainfall with Arithmetric Method and Thiessen Polygon Method

15

16

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Rainfall Losses: SCS Method
Rainfall losses always must be counted after the precipitation phase. The losses include interception,
depression storage and infiltration. Normally, infiltration contributes the greatest loss to a rainfall event,
and therefore most of the rainfall loss method focused only on Infiltration model whereby the other
losses such as evapotranspiration and depression storage were not considered in the case study. In this
Var River Basin, we employed SCS Curve Number (CN) method as the rainfall loss model.
The SCS curve number method is a simple, widely used and efficient method for determining the
approximate amount of runoff from a rainfall event in a particular area. The runoff curve number is based
on the area's hydrologic soil group, land use, treatment and hydrologic condition.
In order to determine the curve number of each sub basin, a weighted curve number method is used. A
weighted curve number is a weighted average based upon the area of each land cover type. Each curve
number is multiplied by the area of its respective land cover type. Table following tabulated the weighted
Curve Number used for each sub basin.
Soil use

Tine

Vsubie

Upper Var

Estron

Lower Var

Area (km )
Artificial surfaces
Agricultural areas
Forest and semi natural areas
Wetlands
Water bodies

1.80
2.34
2.43
5.67
13.05
35.91
734.13
376.74
1048.14
0.00
0.00
1.62
0.36
0.09
0.00
Weighted Curve Number for each Sub basin
Curve Number II
45.32
46.13
46.05
Curve Number III (Correction factor)
65.59
66.32
66.26
Table 13: Weighted Curve Number

General
CN

1.80
34.65
416.43
0.09
0.00

15.30
32.85
99.45
0.00
3.33

81.00
72.00
45.00
100.00
100.00

47.22
67.30

55.74
74.34

46.58

A correction factor is applied to the curve number with the following formula.
23

10 0.13

Approximation for Entire Basin


For the effective rainfall approximation for the entire basin, the calculation is made based on average
rainfall obtained with Arithmetic Mean Method and Thiessen Polygon Method.

16

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Effective Rainfall
01/03/00 0:00

24/02/00 0:00

18/02/00 0:00

12/02/00 0:00

06/02/00 0:00

31/01/00 0:00

25/01/00 0:00

19/01/00 0:00

13/01/00 0:00

07/01/00 0:00

01/01/00 0:00

Time (hr)

P (mm)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Effective Rainfall mm (Arithmetic)

Effective Rainfall mm (Thiessen)

Figure 15:SCS method Effective Rainfall obtained with Arithmetic and Thiessen Method

Approximation for Each Sub catchment


The following figure graphs the effective rainfall that obtained for each sub catchment. Besides that, in
the graph, it also shows the average effective rainfall from all the sub catchment.

Effective Rainfall for each sub catchment


16.00
14.00

SC1

12.00
Pe (mm)

SC2

10.00
8.00

SC3

6.00

SC4

4.00

SC5

2.00

TAVER

06/11/94 0:00

05/11/94 18:00

05/11/94 12:00

Time (hr)

05/11/94 6:00

05/11/94 0:00

04/11/94 18:00

04/11/94 12:00

04/11/94 6:00

04/11/94 0:00

03/11/94 18:00

0.00
03/11/94 12:00

17

Figure 16:SCS method Effective Rainfall obtained Thiessen Method for each sub basin

17

18

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Unit Hydrograph
The unit hydrograph method is used to calculate the direct runoff hydrograph at the watershed outlet
given the rainfall excess produced by a storm event. This method is categorized as a lumped method
whereby the physical characteristics of the watershed are not taken into account directly in the runoff
calculation. However, these characteristic are combined into a mathematical procedure named as unit
hydrograph.
A conceptual direct runoff hydrograph resulting from a rainfall excess of unit depth and constant
intensity for a particular watershed is called a unit hydrograph. The unit depth is normally defined as 1cm
in the SI unit system. The unit hydrograph influences the shape of the runoff hydrograph generated by
the model, particularly the peak rate of discharge. However, it does not affect the volume of runoff which
is determined by curve number.
In general, a unit hygrographs shape varies by watershed based on many factors, including: Watershed
size, slope, and length; Geomorphic and geologic characteristics; Amount of storage and the degree of
urbanization.
The method used to calculate the time of concentration is the average of the two methods of Kirpich and
Passini which the formulas are as following:
"# 0.066 %

&

).**

; ,- 
(

/
&
" 0.108
; 1   2
0

Where S=sub catchment area in km2; L=Length of longest path in km, I= Slope in m/m

Unit hydrograph for the entire catchment


The following table shows the characteristic of the unit hydrograph for the whole catchment:
2

A (km )
2833.41
L (m)
124910.57
S
0.03
tc (h)
10.51
tr (h)
6.31
de (h)
1.00
tp (h)
6.81
qp
86.59
3
(m /s/mm)
Table 14: Unit Hydrograph Characteristic

18

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Unit Hydrograph
140

q (m3/s/mm)

19

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

10

t (h)

12

14

16

18

20

22

Figure 18: Unit Hydrograph

Unit hydrograph for each sub catchment


The following table shows the characteristic of the unit hydrograph for the each sub catchment:
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
2
A (km )
747.48
393.54
1,090.22
450.86
151.31
L (m)
70969.62
48,448.22
87,893.04
62,249.59
37,017.53
S
0.035
0.055
0.030
0.027
0.031
tc (h)
7.02
5.11
8.22
6.99
5.16
tr (h)
4.21
3.07
4.93
4.19
3.09
de (h)
5.30
4.52
5.74
5.29
4.54
de (h)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
tp (h)
4.71
3.57
5.43
4.69
3.59
qp
32.99
22.96
41.73
19.98
8.76
3
(m /s/mm)
Table 15: Unit Hydrograph Characteristic for each sub catchment

19

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Unit Hydrograph of each sub catchment
45
40
35
30

q (m3/s/mm)

20

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

SC1

10

12

SC2

14 16
t (h)

SC3

18

20

22

SC4

24

26

28

SC5

Figure 19: Unit Hydrograph for each sub catchment

20

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Surface Runoff
In order to find the surface runoff, the following formula is used:
4

34 5 16 74869:
6#:

Approximation of the Entire Basin


The following Figure 20 and Table 16 compared the calculated discharge and the measured discharge for
the entire water basin.

4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

Measured

11/6/1994 21:00

11/6/1994 9:00

11/6/1994 3:00

11/6/1994 15:00

Time (hr)

11/5/1994 21:00

11/5/1994 15:00

11/5/1994 9:00

11/5/1994 3:00

11/4/1994 21:00

11/4/1994 15:00

0
11/4/1994 9:00

Q (m3/s)

21

SCS Calculated

Figure 20: Comparison of Measured and Calculated discharge for the whole basin

V (m )
3

Qp (m /s)

Measured

Calculated

226,125,000.0
0
3680

210,455,441.9
9
3,935.01

Table 15: Comparison of Measured and Calculated discharge and volume for the whole basin

21

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9
Approximation of the sum of all sub catchments
The following Figure21, compare the measured discharge and the calculated discharge by summing up
the results from each sub catchment. Also, the table 16 provides the numerical values of discharge and
volume.
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
Q (m3/s)

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

MEASURED

07/11/94 0:00

06/11/94 12:00

t (hr)

06/11/94 0:00

05/11/94 12:00

05/11/94 0:00

04/11/94 12:00

0
04/11/94 0:00

22

CALCULATED

Figure 21: Comparison of Measured and Calculated discharge graph for the whole basin with summing up
information of each sub basin

V (m )
3

Qp (m /s)

Mea.
226,125,000.0
0
3680

Cal.
217257842.8
3824.31

Table 16: Comparison of Measured and Calculated discharge and volume for the whole basin with summing up
information of each sub basin

22

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9

Flood Propagation: Muskingum Method


The Muskingum method is a hydrologic river routing technique based on the equation of continuity.
Given the inow at the upstream end of a river reach, the outow at the downstream end is expressed as
0:

0;

<

3:

3;

: < ;


where I is the inow rate to the reach, Q the outow; S the volume of water stored, and at the time
increment. The subscripts 1 and 2 denote the values of the respective terms at the beginning and end of
the time interval considered. The storage within the reach is modeled by
1 < ?@A

 ,>?0

Where S = reach storage, I = inflow discharge, O = outflow discharge, K = storage constant, X = weighting
factor.
Combining equations 1 and 2 and simplifying results:
@; B) 0; B: 0: B; @:
Where;
,? < 0.5
B)
, < ,? 0.5
B:

,? 0.5
, < ,? 0.5

B;

, < ,? < 0.5


, < ,? 0.5

The following graph illustrated the graph after routing with Muskingum Method:

Flood Routing

MEASURED

After routing

07/11/94 0:00

06/11/94 12:00

t (hr)

06/11/94 0:00

05/11/94 12:00

05/11/94 0:00

04/11/94 12:00

4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
04/11/94 0:00

Q (m3/s)

23

23

Hydrological Analysis: The Var River Catchment

TEAM 9

Comparison of all method


The following Figure illustrates the comparison of hydrograph from all method used.

Hydrograph
4,000
3,500
3,000
Q (m3/s)

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

MEASURED

Arithmetic Mean

Thiessen Polygon

Sum of sub basins

07/11/94 0:00

06/11/94 12:00

t (hr)

06/11/94 0:00

05/11/94 12:00

05/11/94 0:00

04/11/94 12:00

0
04/11/94 0:00

24

After routing

References
Chow, V.T. (1975) Hydrologie modeling. Selected Works in Water Resources, IWRA, March.
Cunge, J A (1969) On the subject of a flood propagation method (Muskingum method) J Hydr Res IAHR, 7,
pp205-30
Jimenez, M., Domimguez, R., y Cruz, M. (1997). Manual de operacin del programa AX.EXE. CENAPRED,
Mxico, 32 pp.
Nana, L. y Gmez, M. (204). Ingeniera Hidrolgica. Grupo Editorial Universitario, Espaa, 278 pp.

24