HYDROLOGICAL MODELING OF A MAYBAR WATERSHED USING

Arc SWAT, AWASH BASIN, AMHARA REGION

M. Sc THESIS

TESFA YIMER

ARBAMINICH,ETHIOPIA
MAY 2015
HYDROLOGICAL MODELING OF A MAYBAR WATERSHED USING
Arc SWAT, AWASH BASIN, AMHARA REGION

TESFA YIMER

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE AND IRRIGATION ENGINEERING,

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HYDROLOGY

SUPERVISOR: - Dr. Ing. BOGALE GEBEREMARIAM

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

MAY 2015
 CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certify that he has read the Thesis entitled: Hydrological Modeling of a
Maybar Watershed Using ArcSWAT, Awash Basin, Amhara Region’’ and hereby
recommend for acceptance by the Arba-Minch University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Engineering)

_______________
Dr-Ing. Bogale Gebremariam
(Supervisor)

i
 DECLARATION
I TESFA YIMER Declare that the content of this thesis is entirely my own work, with the
exception of references and maps which has been attributed to their authors or sources. Any
part of to be copied or publication of this thesis for commercial purpose, or for financial
purpose, is not allowed without my permission. I grant to Arba Minch University the right to
archive, reproduce and distribute the thesis in any forms for educational purpose maintained
by AMU.

Tesfa Yimer (Author)

tesfa.yimer.7@gmail.com

Signature ……………………….

ii
 APPROVAL PAGE
This thesis entitled with “Hydrological Modeling of a Maybar Watershed Using Arc
SWAT, Awash Basin, Amhara Region‟‟ has been approved by the following examiners in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Hydrology.
SUBMITTED BY:
Tesfa Yimer ……………………….. ………………….
Name Signature Date
APPROVED BY:
Dr. In. Bogale Gebremariam ………………… ...…………………
Supervisor Signature Date
……………………………… ………………… ………………
External Examiner Signature Date
……………………………… …………………. ……………………
Internal Examiner Signature Date
…………………………… ……………………. ………………….
Chairman Signature Date
Mr. Alemayehu Kassaye ………………….. ……………………
Department Head Signature Date
Mr. Demelash Wondimagegnehu …...……………… ……………………
Coordinator Signature Date
…………………………. …………… ……………………
SGS Signature Date

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and for most I am ever grateful to the almighty God, without his support this piece of
work would never have been accomplished.

My sincere thanks go to my major advisor, Dr-Ing. Bogale Geberemariam, for his sympathy,
encouragements, and endless support from proposal to main thesis friendly.

Very special thanks to Dr. Giza and Dr. Tadele, from water and land resource center
(WALRIS), Adet Agricultural Research Center respectively for their idea support and data
providing.

I am thankful to WALRIS, for allowing me to work at the Maybar research site and
providing long term hydrological, meteorological and spatial data. My special thanks also
belong to SARC (Sirinka Agricultural Research Center) for their fantastic support of
transport facility during filed visit.

My heartfelt thanks to my family specially (Mam &Dad) and my best friends for their
valuable support and encouragement.

iv
 ABSTRACT
The main objective of the study was to model the hydrology of Maybar watershed using the
SWAT model in order to understand hydrological fluxes of Watershed and to evaluate the
performance of SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN for simulating stream flow. The Arc SWAT
interface implemented in the ArcGIS software was used to delineate the sub-basin, combine
the data layers and edit the model database. The watershed was discretizing into 14 sub basins.
89 HRU was created on the watershed by a threshold combination of 20% land use, 10% soil
and a 20 % slope. EDC values for seven soil types were assigned based on the topographic
index of the watershed. The hydro- meteorological data collected from nearby stations and the
missed data filed by arithmetic mean and simple interpolations. Sensitivity analysis was
conducted for both SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN. The sensitivity result showed ALPHA_BF &
CANMEX are the most sensitive parameters for SWAT-WB &SWAT-CN respectively. The
models were calibrated and validated on Maybar watershed using SUFI-2 and GLUE for
SWAT-WB &SWAT-CN. SUFI-2 gives good result compared to GLUE. SWAT-WB was
performed slightly better during calibration than SWAT-CN (NSE of 0.91 &0.87) respectively.
In the validation period SWAT-WB was also performed better than SWAT-CN (NSE of
0.85&0.78) respectively. All sources of uncertainty captured by bracketing more than 33% for
SWAT-WB & 51% of SWAT-CN. Base- flow (64.2%-71.46%) is an important component of
the total discharge compared to surface runoff in the study area. Based on the statistical
indicators, the evaluation indicates that SWAT-WB &SWAT-CN had very good performance
for both month calibration and validation period in Maybar watershed. The statistical result
revealed that if properly calibrated SWAT-WB can be used more effectively than SWAT-CN
in Monsoonal climate like Ethiopia.

Keywords: Hydrological modeling, Hydrological flux, SWAT-WB, SWAT-CN,

saturation excess, infiltration excess, ArcGIS, Arc SWAT, GLUE, SUFI2.

v
 Table of Contents

CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... i
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................................... ii
APPROVAL PAGE ................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.......................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... xi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE ....................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 3
1.3. Significance of the study ............................................................................................ 4
1.4. Research Questions .................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................. 5
1.6. Thesis organization .................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................... 6
2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Hydrological Process.................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Hydrologic modeling.................................................................................................. 7
2.3. Introduction of SWAT model .................................................................................. 10
2.3.1. Comparison of Arc SWAT-CN and Arc SWAT-WB runoff approach model..... 11
2.3.2. Basic Features of SWAT ...................................................................................... 12
2.3.3. Basic Modeling Method of Arc SWAT ................................................................ 12
2.4. Model calibration and validation ............................................................................. 13
2.5. Model Performance Assessment .............................................................................. 14
2.6. State of the Research ................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................ 16
3. Material and Methods ...................................................................................................... 16

vi
3.1. Study Area ................................................................................................................ 16
3.1.1. Location and Topography ................................................................................. 16
3.1.2. Soils................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.3. Geology ............................................................................................................. 19
3.1.4. Agro Climate and Land Use ............................................................................. 20
3.1.5. Hydrology of Korisheleko River ...................................................................... 20
3.2. Data collection and preparation................................................................................ 21
3.2.1. Data Acquisition ............................................................................................... 21
3.2.2. Model Input Data .............................................................................................. 21
3.2.2.1. Digital Elevation Model ................................................................................ 22
3.2.2.2. Land Use and Land Cover ............................................................................. 22
3.2.2.3. Soil ................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.2.4. Stream Flow Data .......................................................................................... 26
3.2.2.5. Weather Data ................................................................................................. 26
3.2.3. Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 29
3.2.3.1. Filling missing data ....................................................................................... 29
3.2.3.2. Checking consistency and homogeneity ....................................................... 30
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................... 33
4. Hydrological Modeling.................................................................................................... 33
4.1. SWAT (soil and water assessment tool) .................................................................. 33
4.2. Reasons for selecting the SWAT model .................................................................. 33
4.3. Hydrologic Water Balance ....................................................................................... 34
4.3.1. SWAT-CN Method............................................................................................... 35
4.3.2. Water Balance Approach Used by SWAT-WB ................................................... 41
4.4. Model Setup ............................................................................................................. 43
4.4.1. Watershed Delineation ......................................................................................... 43
4.4.2. Hydrologic Response Units Analysis ................................................................... 44
4.4.3. Weather Data Definition ....................................................................................... 45
4.5. Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................. 45
4.6. Uncertainties Analysis.............................................................................................. 47
4.7. Model Calibration and Validation ............................................................................ 49

vii
 4.8. Model Performance Evaluation ................................................................................ 51
4.9. General methodology ............................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................... 55
5. Result and Discussion ...................................................................................................... 55
5.1. Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................... 55
5.2. Model calibration ..................................................................................................... 57
5.3. Validation of model .................................................................................................. 61
5.4. Water balance components of Maybar watershed.................................................... 68
5.5. Comparison of SWAT-CN and SWAT-WB approach ............................................ 72
5.6. Discussion of the Study ............................................................................................ 74
CHAPTER SIX ....................................................................................................................... 77
6. Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................... 77
6.1. Conclusion................................................................................................................ 77
6.2. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 79
References ............................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 86
Appendix1. Symbols and description of Weather Generator parameters (WGEN) used by
the SWAT model................................................................................................................. 86
Appendix2: Parameters used for Weather Generator in SWAT Model .............................. 87
Appendix 3: Soils parameters and legend used in SWAT model ....................................... 89
Appendix4: Soils parameter values used in SWAT model. ................................................ 90
Appendix5: Average monthly flow (m3/day) of the Maybar watershed. ............................ 91
Appendix6: Monthly average Rainfall of Maybar station. ................................................. 92
Appendix7: Monthly average rainfall of Kombolcha station.............................................. 93
Appendix 8 Summary information for the selected Meteorological stations...................... 94
Appendix9: Double max curve (DMC) of Rainfall in Maybar and Kombolcha station. .... 95

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure3. 1Location Map of Maybar watershed....................................................................... 17
Figure 3. 2 the slope map of Maybar watershed, classified by the SWAT model based on
watershed the slope chacterization based on the slope by (Weigel, 1986). ............................ 18
Figure3. 3 digital elevation map of Maybar watershed. ........................................................ 22
Figure3. 4 SWAT land use class Map of Maybar watershed. ................................................ 23
Figure3. 5 soil map and SWAT soil class of Maybar Watershed ........................................... 24
Figure3. 6 Mean monthly flow distribution of Korisheleko River gauging station located in
the out late of Maybar watershed for the period of 1989-2013. ............................................. 26
Figure3. 7 total rainfall distribution of selected meteorological stations (Kombolcha &
Maybar) for the period of 1989-2013. .................................................................................... 27
Figure3. 8 Mean monthly temperature distribution of each year for selected meteorological
station for period of 1989-2013. ............................................................................................. 28
Figure3. Mean monthly temperature of Maybar and Kombolcha station from 1989-2013... 28
Figure3. 10 Doublstationscurve plot made two stations of rainfall from 1989-2013. ............ 31
Figure 3. 11 homogeneity test of Maybar Rainfall station data……………………………..32
Figure 3. 12 probabilities of rejecting homogeneity of Maybar rainfall station data. ............ 32
Figure4. 1 SWAT hydrologic cycle consideration: source (Neitsch et al, .2001)…………...34
Figure4. 2 Map of runoff source area delineated using GPS (Solid black line) superimposed
on topographic index which is developed from 10m by 10m DEM (Baybil. K. H. et al, 2010)
................................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure4. 3 sub basin discretization map of Maybar watershed. .............................................. 44
Figure4. 4 showing the link between S, T (orange), iSWAT (green) ,and SUFI-2 (yellow)
(SWAT-CUP 2012-user manual). ........................................................................................... 50
Figure4. 5 Interface of GLUE & SWmanual(SWAT-CUP 2012-user mannual). .................. 50
Figure4. 6 The general framework of the study. ..................................................................... 54
Figure 5. 1 Time series of monthly calibration result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-WB
model from 1991 to 2005 with warm up periods from (1989-1990)……………………….61
Figure 5. 2 Time series of monthly calibration result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-CN
model from 1991 to 2005 with t (one year warms up periods from (1989-1990). ................. 61

ix
Figure 5. 3 Time series of monthly validation result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-WB
model from 2006 to 2013. ....................................................................................................... 63
Figure 5. 4 Time series of monthly validation result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-CN
model from 2006 to 2013. ....................................................................................................... 63
Figure 5. 5 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow for the calibration period by SWAT-
WB model from (1991-2005). ................................................................................................ 64
Figure 5. 6 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow for the calibration period by SWAT-
CN model from (1991-2005). ................................................................................................. 64
Figure 5. 7 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow for the validation period by SWAT-
WB model from (2006-2013). ................................................................................................ 65
Figure 5. 8 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow for the validation period by SWAT-
CN model from (2006-2013). ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 5. 9 SWAT-WB monthly calibration result for Korisheleko Riveruncertainty 95%
prediction uncertainty intervals along with the measured discharge. ..................................... 67
Figure 5. 10 SWAT-CN monthly calibration result for Korisheleko River showing the 95%
prediction uncertainty intervals along with the measured discharge. ..................................... 67
Figure 5. 11 Base flow contribution of observed stream flow. ............................................... 70
Figure 5. 12 comparison base flow separated from SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN in the
calibration period. ................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 5. 13 observed and simulated mean monthly annual floe hydrograph of SWAT-WB &
SWAT-CN runoff approach Model. ....................................................................................... 73

x
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3. 1 watershed slope chacterization based on the slope (Weigel, 1986). ...................... 18
Table 3. 3: land use name and SWAT land use code with their area of the watershed. ......... 23
Table 3. 4 soil label code and SWAT soil code with their area of the watershed. ................. 25
Table 3. 5 The soil labels and their descriptions (Weigel, 1986). .......................................... 25
Table 4. 1 Sensitivity classes as per Lenhart et al., (2002)…………………………………..47
Table 4. 2 General performance rating for recommended statistics for monthly time steps
(Moriasi, 2007). ...................................................................................................................... 53
Table 5. 1 The most relative sensitive parameter value of SWAT-WB model……………...56
Table 5. 2 The most relative sensitive parameters of SWAT-CN model. .............................. 57
Table 5. 3 SWAT flow sensitive parameters and fitted value after calibration Using SUFI-2.
................................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 5. 4 SWAT flow sensitive parameters and fitted values after calibration using GLUE
algorithm. ................................................................................................................................ 59
Table 5. 5 Monthly calculated values of model performance measure criteria for SWAT-WB
&SWAT-CN. .......................................................................................................................... 66
Table 5. 6 uncertainty evaluation of SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN by SUFI-2 & GLUE
algorithm. ................................................................................................................................ 68
Table 5. 7 Water balance components of annual average Basins over the calibration and
validation period. .................................................................................................................... 69

xi
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CN Curve Number
DEM Digital Elevation Model
GLUE Generalized Likely-hood Uncertainty Estimation
HEC-HMS Hydrological Engineering Center-hydrologic modeling system
HRU Hydrological Response Unit
NBDC Nile Basin Development Challenge
NSE Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency
RMS Rain Water Management System
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
RWM Rain Water Management
SCE-UA Shuffled Complex Evolutionary Algorithm
SCRP Soil conservation Research Program
SCS Soil Conservation Science
SUF1,2 Sequential Uncertainty fitting
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool
USDA United State Development of Agriculture
USDA-SCS United State Development of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Science
US-ACE United States Armey Crops of Engineer
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
WB Water Balance
WALIRS Water and Land Resource Center
WXGEN Weather Generato

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction
1.1. Background

Water is an essential element for life. The demand of water resource potential is growing
fast. This increasing in demand for water resource potential needs a sustainable management
of water catchments and better understanding of the water budget and movement (Surur,
2010).

Watershed models simulate natural processes of the flow of water, sediment, chemicals,
nutrients, and microbial organisms within watersheds, as well as quantify the impact of
human activities on these processes (Butcher, 2008). These models play an important role in
predicting water quantity and water quality, two key elements in watershed resources study.
Researchers and engineers use model predictions to make decisions on engineering projects
such as flood control, wetland restoration, and dam operation. Modeling hydrology related
parameters, like river discharge, can help to implement the necessary measures for an
optimal water management. For example, the effects of water conservation measures can be
studied or simulated including a model. Model results can play an important role in policy
making or can generate new findings in understanding the physical processes. The lack of
decision support tools and limitation of data concerning weather, hydrological, topography,
soil and land use are factors that significantly hinder research and development in the
different watershed area. In recent years, physical based distributed watershed models are
increasingly used to implement alternative management strategies in the areas of water
resources allocation, flood control, impact of land use change and climate change, and finally
environmental pollution control (Setegn S. G., 2010) .

SWAT, like any water quality model, must first accurately simulate hydrologic processes
before it can be used to model pollutant transport. Many different approaches to modeling
hydrologic processes have been presented in the scientific literature over the past several
decades, but SWAT has been using two methods to model surface runoff: the curve number

1
(CN) and the Green-Ampt routine. While the Green-Ampt method is a well-accepted,
physically-based infiltration excess, rainfall-runoff model, it can be difficult to use in data
scarce regions. The empirical CN method enjoys much wider use in the SWAT model, due to
its ease of use and simplifying assumptions.

SWAT has produced favorable model results when evaluated on watersheds with a range of
conditions in the Ethiopian highland (Easton et al, .2011; White, 2009; White et at, .2011;
Setegn. S. G, Ragahavan Srinivasan, Bijan Dargahi, 2008) etc. SWAT- CN and most other
watershed models have been developed for temperate climates where rainfall is generally
well distributed throughout the year. Temperate models assume that there is a nearly unique
relationship between precipitation amounts, or intensity and runoff generated. Previous work
in Ethiopia high land has shown that for a given amount of rain, runoff volumes will vary
throughout the rainy season. Less runoff is generated at the beginning of the rainy season as
compared to the same rain event at the end of the season, an observation that invalidates the
underlying assumption of the CN method that rainfall is the sole factor in runoff generation
(Liu et al., 2008). (White, 2009 and Easton, et al. 2011) recently modified SWAT to SWAT-
WB for more successfully and effectively model hydrological processes in monsoonal
climates like Ethiopia. The assumption of SWAT-WB is saturation excess is the driving force
for runoff mechanisms. SWAT-WB is more in tune with the runoff processes that occur in
the Ethiopian highlands than other models that base their runoff prediction on the NRCS
curve number method (Geremewu, 2013).

Maybar watershed lies within the north eastern escarpment of the Central Ethiopian Highland
in the Awash Basin. Mapper has been chosen because works the best of the remaining SCRP
(Soil Conservation Research Program) and it provided qualitatively and quantitatively better
data from the very beginning in 1981 until today. There is a need for hydrological research of
the Maybar watershed that can support improved catchment management programs that can
better safeguard the alarming degradation of soil and water resources in the Ethiopian
highlands (Junker, 2012). The study was intended to investigate the hydrology of the
catchment using physically based, conceptual, computationally efficient and semi distributed
model SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) to access the hydrological response from a
catchment locally known as „Maybar Watershed‟ located in the Awash Basin. This study

2
used the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT-CN) and SWAT-WB to understand the
hydrological process of Maybar watershed so as estimate major hydrological fluxes. The
performance of SWAT-CN &SWAT-WB was evaluated for simulating the hydrology of
Maybar watershed.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Hydrological models are an effective tool to predict hydrology-related processes and the
effects of manipulation to these hydrology-related parameters (Junker, 2012). Different land
and rainwater management practices have been implemented in the Ethiopian highlands.
However the rural poor communities still remain without sustainable agricultural
productivity and livelihood incomes (Taffese, 2012). The major reason for losses of soil
fertility has been land degradation. This happens in most of the watershed because of lack of
effective land and rainwater management practices. In the previous efforts of rainwater
management system (RMS) hydrological response of catchments and the potential water
resources are not properly understood. Hence, modeling the hydrology of watersheds is
required for effective rainwater management strategy. Watershed runoff must be predicted to
carry out any water & land resource management activities in the same. Because it is very
rare case that the recorded of historical flow, stage or precipitation satisfies the information
needed, in addition the study of the hydrologic dynamics of climate change and land use
change requires the use of hydrological modeling.

Most hydrological models developed in the tropical climate of the world (Liu et al., 2008).
SWAT is one of the hydrological models to simulate the hydrology of the watershed. But
temperate models assume that there is a nearly unique relationship between precipitation
amounts, or intensity and runoff generated. Ethiopia located in a monsoonal climate of the
world and rainfall is not uniformly distributed. SWAT-CN has been tested in temperate
world and in Ethiopia, but its use more efficient in tropical climate which is rainfall
uniformly distributed (White, 2011). For monsoonal climate modified saturation excess water
balance (SWAT-WB) model has been developed. Maybar watershed has been selected by
SCRP with long term hydrological and meteorological data from 1981 to know. The
watershed is good representatives for the highlands of Ethiopia and used for testing different

3
hydrological models. This makes the key to model the hydrology of Maybar watershed and
identifying the best SWAT runoff approach model for the watershed.

1.3. Significance of the study

NBDC (Nile basin development challenge) program aimed to improving the resilience of
rural livelihood in the Ethiopian highlands through a landscape approach to rainwater
management (RWM), with special focus on Blue Nile (Abay) river basin. In order to achieve
this goal the SCRP project watersheds are selected in the upper Nile Basin and near Nile
Basin (Awash Basin). Adopting different hydrological model for gauged catchment of SCRP
watershed is vital to hydrological process estimation of ungagged catchment in the highlands
of Ethiopia. This research leads to additional research on watershed homogeneity
(regionalization) between gauged and ungagged watershed in the highlands of Ethiopia. It is
significant for adopting different soil and water management practice in ungagged catchment.
The best and the recommended of SWAT runoff approach for simulating the hydrology of
Maybar watershed was decide and it can applicable for the highland of Ethiopia in the
ungagged catchment.

1.4. Research Questions

The main and specific objectives of this study are derived from research questions
relevant to the water resources development and management of the study area.
Therefore, the current study shall address the following research questions.

1. What hydrological flux occurring in both SWAT runoff approach model are
governing hydrological process of Maybar watershed?
2. Which better from the two SWAT runoff approach estimate the hydrological fluxes?
3. What parameters are occurring in both SWATs runoff approach model are governing
for stream flow of Maybar watershed?
4. Which SWAT runoff approach model for runoff generation has to be selected in
order to estimate the river flow and hydrological fluxes of Mayabr with greater
performance?

4
 1.5. Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study was to model the hydrology of Maybar watershed using
SWAT model. More specifically the following objectives will be addressed in this study:

1. To estimate key hydrological fluxes.

2. To assess sensitivity of two SWAT runoff approach model parameters in
simulating stream flow
3. To calibrate& validate to simulate stream flow in the Maybar watershed.
4. To evaluate the performance of SWAT-WB and SAWT-CN runoff approach
model for simulation stream flow

1.6. Thesis organization

Chapter one deals with the overall introduction to the theoretical background of the study, the
problem statement, objective of the study and research questions of the study are discussed

Chapter two notifies the reader about hydrological process, hydrological modeling; abut
SWAT model and its modeling system, model calibration, validation and performance
analysis and finally informs about the state of research.

Chapter three deals about Materials and methods by giving an overall brief description of the
study area and abut data collection and preparations of model input.

Chapter four states about hydrological modeling and model setup, sensitivity analysis,
uncertainty analysis, model calibration and validation as well as model performance
evaluation, and finally about flow chart about general Methodology.

Chapter five the main part of research study details the results from SWAT-CN and
SWATWB. Estimation of water balance components was done in the watershed. Comparison
of models by using different objective functions and subjective criteria was done. The
general discussion about the study was also done.

Finally, in Chapter six the conclusions based on the model results are stated. This also
includes recommendations farther and future research.

5
 CHAPTER TWO

2. Literature Review
2.1. Hydrological Process

Hydrologic process can be defined as the natural system in which water moves between land,
atmosphere and the ocean cyclically. These cycles and the consequences of which now
threaten the living existence of the hydrologic process of any typical watershed. Hydrologic
cycle is composed of several natural processes which have interactions and they can be
represented or simplified using a mathematical model. The following are the processes that
are represented in hydrological cycle; precipitation, interception (including utilization by
ecosystems, man and irrigation), absorption into earth materials and uptake by plants
(including percolation), water movement from shallow to deep aquifers, surface flow,
subsurface flow and water losses in the form of evaporation, transpiration and seepage. The
runoff comprises all the surface and shallow subsurface water flows caused by precipitation
events. The surface runoff always occurs if more water is applied to the soil than it can
absorb by infiltration. Overland flow can be grouped into three different classes, being
distinguished by three physical processes (Morgan, 2005) cited in (Junker, 2012). The first
type is the Hortonian overland flow (named after scientist Robert E. Horton, who made the
first detailed studies of this type of runoff), which occurs if the rainfall intensity is higher
than the soil infiltration rate. This phenomenon often occurs during heavy rainstorms.

The second type of surface runoff occurs if the soil is saturated and as a consequence further
uptake of water by soil is not possible. Soil saturation is the result of periods with much rain.
After the soil reaches a saturated state, following rainfall events cause runoff. Furthermore,
soil properties (depth, particle distribution, texture) have effects on the absolute water storage
capacity of the soil. Basically sandy soils usually have a lower storage capacity whereup on
the soil depth always plays an important role. Logically the absolute capacity decreases due
to less soil depth and consequently runoff occurs more often on shallow soils.

6
The third type of runoff is caused by deposition of silt-sized particles transported by the
Hortonian overland flow. These particles can form an impermeable crust that reduces the
infiltration rate of the soil dramatically. Subsequent rainfall events then cause surface runoff.
Stream flow includes not only overland runoff, but also subsurface runoff. In hydrology
stream flow is generated by the three component's surface (and shallow subsurface) flow,
interflow and groundwater flow. The three components can also be distinguished regarding
their time of response to the precipitation events. In this case they are separated into two
classes, the fast reacting flows (surface flow, fast interflow and rain directly falling into
flowing water) and the slow reacting flows or so called base flows (groundwater flow or slow
interflow). Applied to river discharge this means that only during rainfall events and short
periods of time right after the events runoff contributes to discharge. In the days after the
event the precipitation water actually still contributes to river discharge, but not as direct
surface or subsurface flow (runoff) instead as slow interflow. This leads to the need of
separating river discharge into base flow and runoff.

2.2. Hydrologic modeling

Models are representations of systems or processes. Some models are actually a miniature
physical representation of natural systems. Sometimes, series of equations are used to
represent the systems, thus forming mathematical models. The number, form, and
interconnections of these equations in a model can range from very simple to highly
sophisticated. The equations within the mathematical models can be produced from basic
physical laws or from statistical analysis of observed data (empirical equations) (Butcher,
2008).

Watershed models simulate natural processes of the flow of water, sediment, chemicals,
nutrients, and microbial organisms within watersheds, as well as quantify the impact of
human activities on these processes (Butcher, 2008). These models play an important role in
predicting water quantity and water quality, two key elements in watershed resources study.
Researchers and engineers use model predictions to make decisions on engineering projects
such as flood control, wetland restoration, and dam operation (Mishra, 2008) On the basis of
process description the hydrolinto models can be classifieintoto three main categories
(Cunderlik, j, 2003 cited in (Geremewu, 2013, p. 9))

7
Lumped models: Parameters of lumped hydrologic models do not vary spatially within the
basin and thus, basin response is evaluated only at the outlet, without explicitly accounting
for the response of individual sub-basins. The parameters often do not represent physical
features of hydrologic processes and usually involve a certain degree of empiricism. These
models are not usually applicable to the event-scale processes. If the interest is primarily in
the discharge prediction only, then these models can provide just as good simulations as
complex physically based models.

Distributed models: Parameters of distributed models are fully allowed to vary in space at a
resolution usually chosen by the user. Distributed modeling approach attempts to incorporate
data concerning the spatial distribution of parameter variables together with computational
algorithms to evaluate the influence of this distribution of simulated precipitation-runoff
behavior. Distributed models generally require large amounts of (often unavailable) data.
However, the governing physical processes are modeled in detail, and if properly applied,
they can provide the highest degree of accuracy (Howard, 2008, p. 2).

Semi-distributed models: Parameters of semi-distributed (simplified distributed) models are

partially allowed to vary in space by dividing the basin into a number of smaller sub-basins.
The main advantage of these models is that their structure is more physically-based than the
structure of lumped models, and they are less demanding on input data than fully distributed
models (Geremewu, 2013, p. 9).

Hydrologic models can be further divided into event-driven models, continuous-process

models, or models capable of simulating both short-term and continuous events (Tamu,
2010). Event-driven models are designed to simulate individual precipitation-runoff events.
Their emphasis is placed on infiltration and surface runoff. Typically, event models have no
provision for moisture recovery between storm events and, therefore, are not suited for the
simulation of dry-weather flows. On the other hand, continuous-process models simulate
instead a longer period, predicting watershed response both during and between precipitation
events. They are suited for simulation of daily, monthly or seasonal stream flow, usually for
long-term runoff-volume forecasting and for estimates of water yield. Generally for this
study, semi-distributed models are selected because of their structure is more physically-
based than the structure of lumped model, and they are less demanding on input data than

8
fully distributed models (Geremewu, 2013, p. 9) . According to parameter features and main
functions, current hydrologic modeling environments are classified as (Tamu, 2010).

A. Distributed models
3D-CatchPhysically based-distributed models contain equations that describe the physical
interaction of different components of the water and energy balance. Model parameters relate
these abstract physical laws (or scale-dependent approximations of these laws) to the specific
basin in hand. They take an explicit account of spatial variability of processes, input,
boundary conditions, and system (watershed) characteristics such as topography, vegetation,
land use, soil characteristics, rainfall, and evaporation etc. Conceptual Multilayer Model
(ArcEGMO), Bochum Water Balance Model (BWBM), CEQUEAU, Central Valley
Groundwater and Surface water model (C2VGSM), Dynamic Watershed Simulation Model
(DWSM), Hydrological River Basin Environment Assessment Model (Hydro BEAM),
Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM), Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model, Version 2
(KINEROS2), Physically-Based Distributed Erosion Model (MEFIDIS), One-Dimensional
Numerical Model (SVAT-HYCY), Storm Water Management Model (SWMM).

B. Lumped and Parametric Models.

They are catchment oriented, use relatively simple input because they lump spatial/ temporal
heterogeneity, data requirement is less, easily applicable and interfaced with GIS. These
models may be too general in applicability or too site specific. graphology-Based
Hydrological Model (GBHM), Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), Hydrologic
Simulation Model (HSIMHYD), Integrated Hydro Meteorological Model (IHMM), Illinois
Urban Catchment Runoff Simulation (ILUCAT), Large Basin Runoff Model (LBRM),
Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Toolbox (RRMT) & Monte-Carlo Analysis (RRMT&MCAT),
Soil Conservation Service Curve Number Model (SCS-CN), SIRMODII, Soil-Plant-Air-
Water System (SPAW), Hydrograph Simulation Model (SYN-HYD), Utah Energy Balance
Snowmelt Model (UEB), Hydrological Model and Forecasting System (WATFLOOD),
Watershed Bounded Network Simulation Model (WBNM), Mathematical Model for
Rainfall-Runoff Transformation (WISTOO)

9
C. Environmental Models

Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Models (AGNPS 98), Areal Nonpoint Source
Watershed Environmental Simulation (ANSWERS), Erosion Productivity-Impact Calculator/
Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC), Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran
(HSPF), LOAD Estimator (LOADEST), Illinois Least-Cost Sewer System Design Model
(ILSD), Illinois Urban Storm Runoff Model (IUSR), Water Quality/Solute Transport (OTIS),
Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), Large Scale Catchment Model, formerly CALSIM
(WRIMS).

D. Monthly Water Balance Model.

Monthly water balance models have been utilized for long range stream flow forecasting,
evaluation of seasonal and geographical patterns of water supply and irrigation demand and
recently employed to explore the impact of climate change. Two-Parameter Water Balance
Model (TPWBM), Truckee - Carson Water Operations Model, Water Balance Simulation
Model (WASMOD).

E. Real Time Flow Forecasting Models

National Weather Service River Forecast System (NWSRFS), Watershed Bounded Network
Model (WBNM2007). Though there are many hydrologic models and they are constantly
improving, models are just a type of tool, and can be used in combination with many other
assessment techniques.

2.3. Introduction of SWAT model

Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is a river basin, or watershed scale model
developed by Dr. Jeff Arnold in 1985 for the USDA Agricultural Research Service. SWAT
was developed to predict the impact of land management practices on water, sediment and
agricultural chemical yields in large complex watersheds with varying soils, land use and
management conditions over long periods of time. Arc SWAT, a version of SWAT
integrated with a Geographic Information System allows the user to prepare SWAT input and
run the model within the framework of ArcGIS.

10
 2.3.1. Comparison of Arc SWAT-CN and Arc SWAT-WB runoff approach
model

SWAT- CN and most other watershed models have been developed for temperate climates
where rainfall is generally well distributed throughout the year. Running models developed
in the temperate climate for Ethiopia conditions with a monsoonal climate are problematic.
Temperate models assume that there is a nearly unique relationship between precipitation
amounts, or intensity and runoff generated (White et al, .2011). This is not the case for
Ethiopia as demonstrated by the results of (Liu et al, . 2008) where for three watersheds with
more than 16 years of record, the rainfall relationship was far from unique. The first rains
after the dry season all infiltrate and nearly no runoff is generated. As the rainfall season
progresses more and more rainfall becomes runoff. Since the intensity of the rain did not
affect the runoff amounts for a given storm, the runoff mechanism is saturation excess runoff
(Liu et al, . 2008). Water balance models are consistent with the saturation excess runoff
process because the runoff is related to the available watershed storage capacity and the
amount of precipitation.

The implementation of water balances into runoff calculations in the Blue Nile basin is not a
novel concept. These water balance models are typically computed with monthly or yearly
values because the models are generally not capable of separating base- inter- and the surface
runoff flow. However, to truly model erosion and sediment transport, large events must be
captured by the model and daily simulations are required to do so. Thus SWAT-WB not only
maintains a water balance, but also calculates the interflow and the base flow component and
also gives a reasonable prediction of peak flows. SWAT-WB is therefore more likely to
capture sediment transport than either SWAT-CN or water budget models with monthly time
steps. SWAT-WB is more in tune with the runoff processes that occur in the Ethiopian
highlands than other models that base their runoff prediction on the NRCS curve number
method. The calculations that serve as a foundation for NRCS curve number technique
assume that the moisture condition in the soil can be determined by taking into account the
five days previous rainfall events. As indicated above, the moisture content in monsoonal
climates is changing during the first 500 mm of effective precipitation, or approximately 1-2
months. SWAT-WB, on the other hand, determines the runoff volume simply by calculating
the available storage in each soil profile. This value is not dependent only upon the five
11
previous days „rainfall (as the CN method is), but instead allows for progressive saturation as
the rainy season continues (Liu et al, . 2008).

2.3.2. Basic Features of SWAT

SWAT is a continuous time, long-term yield spatially discrete model. The model is not
designated for single-event flood routing. Compared to other modeling environment, SWAT
has some unique features (through quoted from SWAT Manual, (Neitsch et al, . 2005).

I. SWAT is process based. Rather than incorporating regression equations to describe

the relationship between input and output variables, SWAT requires specific
information about weather, soil properties, and topography, vegetation, and land
management practices occurring in the watershed. The physical processes associated
with water movement, sediment, crop growth, nutrient cycling, etc. are directly
modeled by SWAT using input data.
II. SWAT uses readily available inputs. While SWAT can be used to study more
specialized processes such as bacteria transport, the minimum data required to make
a run are commonly available from the government agencies, such as precipitation
and temperature data.
III. SWAT is computationally efficient. Simulation of very large basin or a variety of
management strategies can be performed without excessive investment of time or
money.
IV. SWAT enables users to study long-term impacts. Many of the problems currently
addressed by users involve the gradual buildup of the pollutants and the impact on
downstream water bodies. To study these types of problems, results are needed from
runs without output spanning several decades (Wang, Y, 2011).

2.3.3. Basic Modeling Method of Arc SWAT

SWAT splits hydrological simulations of a watershed into two major phases: the land phase
and the routing phase (Neitsch et al, . 2005). The land phase of the hydrological cycle
controls the amount of water, sediment, nutrient, and pesticide loadings to the main channel
in each sub watershed, while the routing phase considers the movement of water, sediment
and agricultural chemicals through the channel network to the watershed outlet (Neitsch et al,

12
. 2005). In SWAT, watersheds are divided into sub basins and each sub basin is further
divided into numbers of Hydrologic Response Units (HRU). The division of the sub basins is
determined by geological location and connection of the streams. The classification of HRU
is determined by soil types, land used condition, and elements related to vegetation and
landscape characteristics. Each HRU is spatially independent. Water generated from HURs
contributes to reaches through the most upstream end of the main river within the sub basin.
Sub basins are spatially connected by river reaches. Water contributed to each sub basin is
then conveyed through reaches along the stream network. The land phase generally
represents the water cycles within sub basins and the routing phase represents the water flow
among sub basins (Wang, Y, 2011).

2.4. Model calibration and validation

In hydrologic simulation there are two main exercises that must be successfully achieved
before using the model; these are calibration and validation of the model. Calibration is an
iterative exercise used to establish the most suitable parameter in modeling studies. The
exercise is vital because reliable values for some parameter can only be founded by
calibration (Beven.K, 1989). The model parameter changed during calibration is broadly
classified into physical and process parameters. Physical parameters represent measurable
properties of the basin such as area and slope of the basin. On the other hand, the process
parameter represents watershed characteristics that are not directly measurable e.g. deep
percolations. These require prior knowledge of the watershed properties and behavior to be
able to specify the initial parameter of the model (Sang, 2005).There are three methods of
calibration that can be applied in model simulation. These are manual, automatic and a
combination of the two methods (Refsgaard, 1996).Manual calibration implies parameter
assessment through a number of simulation runs. Good graphical representation of the
simulation results is a prerequisite for this method. It is subjective to the modeler‟s
assessment and can be time consuming. Automatic calibrations involve the use of numerical
algorithms, which find extreme of a given numerical objective function. The purpose of
automatic parameter is to search through as many combinations of experimentation
parameter levels as possible. The method is fast and less subjective. A combination of the
two methods involves initial adjustment of parameter values by trial and error to delineate

13
rough orders of magnitude of the parameter followed by a fine adjustment using automatic
optimization within the delineated range of physical realistic values (Refsgaard, 1996).

Model validation is the process of demonstrating that a given site specific model is capable
of making sufficiently accurate simulation. This implies the application of the model without
changing the parameter values that were set during calibration. According to (Refsgaard,
1996), there are four hierarchal schemes for systematic validation of hydrologic models:
these are split sample test, differential-split sample test, proxy-basin test and proxy-basin
differential split-sample test. The validation hydrograph is compared with the observed
hydrograph for the validation period; if the fit is acceptable then the model prediction is
valid.

2.5. Model Performance Assessment

During calibration and validation of hydrological model it is necessary to assess the

performance of the model. This is done by statistically comparing the model output and
observed values using various statistical measures (Refsgaard, 1996). These measures
include coefficient of determination (R2), Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) and root mean
square error (RMSE) etc. The R2 is a measure of the proportion of the total variance of
observed data explained by predictive data, a perfect fit also being one with a lower limit of
zero and the upper limit of infinity.It tells us whether the model is over predicting (a value
under one) or under predicting ( a value over one ). The NSE tells us how well the model is
performing in predication, a value of one indicates a perfect one to one relationship and any
negative value tells us that the model is worse at predicting observed data than when using
the mean of observed values to predict the data.

2.6. State of the Research

Within SCRP-program several analyses were made to evaluate the collected data and to
complete the understanding of processes occurring in this area. Weigel (1986) focused on the
soils in the Maybar area, their distribution and properties. Bosshart (1996, 1997, and 1999)
was concerned with the hydrological conditions of the catchment area. Junker (2012) applied
AGNPS (Evaluation of the AnnAGNPS model used for river discharge and sediment yield
predictions in a micro scale catchment in the highlands of Ethiopia.

14
Modified Thornthwaite and Mather Water balance model was tested by (Collick et al, .2008)
for small watershed in the upper Blue Nile basin and (Steenhuis et al, .2008) for the whole
Nile basin. This water balance model was also tested in Maybar watershed by Haymanot,
2009 and Tegenu et al, .2012. Hymanote Kebede Byiable (2009) conducted the thesis on
Modeling rainfall-runoff relationship and assessing impacts of soil conservation research
program intervention on soil physical and chemical properties of Maybar research unit,
wollo, Ethiopia. The author was used modified Thornthwaite & Mather water balance model
so as to simulate the hydrology of Maybar watershed by installing 29 piezometers and
conclude that saturation excess is the driving force for runoff mechanisms in Maybar
watershed (Tegnu et al, .2012) Watershed Hydrology of the (Semi) Humid Ethiopian
Highlands, Cornell Master‟s program in Integrated Watershed Management and Hydrology,
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. They were select three watersheds from the highlands of Ethiopia such
as, Maybar, Anditid & Anjni so as to know the rainfall runoff relationship. The result
revealed that direct runoff is generated either from saturated areas at the lower and less
steep portion of the hill slope or areas of exposed bedrock.

Generally in the highlands of Ethiopia the following author‟s ass water balance model. (Click
et al, .2009) A simple semi distributed water balance model for the Ethiopian highlands.
Hydrological Processes23: 3718– 3727. (White, 2009) , assessed the development and
application of physically based landscape water balance for Gumara watershed. The main
objective of the study was improving SWAT performance in areas dominated by the
saturation excess runoff process. Comparison of model validation resulted in better SWAT-
WB performance. The authors concluded that replacing CN with water balance routine in a
monsoonal watershed improved SWAT for modeling daily stream flow. (White et al, .2011)
Development and application of a physically based landscape water balance in the SWAT
model. To compare this new water balance SWAT (SWAT-WB) to the original CN-based
SWAT (SWAT-CN), two watersheds were initialized; one in the headwaters of the Blue Nile
in Ethiopia. Results show that water balance provides results equal to or better than the CN.

15
 CHAPTER THREE

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Study Area
3.1.1. Location and Topography

The study area consists of the Korisheleko catchment, which is found in the Maybar
Watershed. It is the first of the SCRP research sites established and is located in the
northeastern part of the central Ethiopian highlands situated in the Southern Wollo
administrative region, approximately 20 km south-southeast of Dessie town. The gauging
station located at the lower end of watershed of Korisheleko river and lies at 39o39‟E and
10o51‟N. Figure 3.1 shows the location map of Maybar watershed.

16
Figure3. 1Location Map of Maybar watershed

The area is characterized by highly rugged topography with steep slopes ranging between
2530 and 2860 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l), a 330 meter altitude difference within a
112.8 ha catchment area. A wide range of slope angles is characteristic for Maybar
watershed. Around the station, on the western border and in the upper part of the catchment,
called Attarimask, the slopes are not very steep (<15°). But there are also slopes, those are
steep to very steep (35-55°) (Bayabil, 2009). Figure 3.2 showed the slope map of Maybar
watershed classified by ArcSWAT based on the classification of (Weigel, 1986).

17
Figure 3. 2 the slope map of Maybar watershed, classified by the SWAT model based on
watershed the slope characterization based on the slope by (Weigel, 1986).

Table 3. 1 watershed slope characterization based on the slope (Weigel, 1986).

Slope class
[%] [o] Description Area (ha) Coverage (%)
6.1-13.0 3.5 – 7.4 Sloping 6.8 6
13.1 – 25.0 7.5 – 14.0 Moderately steep 22.5 20
25.1 – 55.0 14.1– 28.8 Steep 42.9 38
>55.0 > 28.8 Very steep 40.6 36

3.1.2. Soils

(Weigel, 1986), Published a detailed soil study of the Maybar area in 1986. Weigel did the
soil survey at “a very intensive level” (Weigel, 1986) by applying results of other soil studies
of similar altitudinal belts in the Ethiopian Highlands to the Maybar area. Trough soil pits,
chemical laboratory analysis and field measurements the detailed soil map of the Korisheleko
catchment area was produced. The soil types in Maybar research unit have developed from
the Alkali-olive basalts and tuffs of the Ashangi group, which are part of the tertiary volcanic
trap series. Table 1.3 clearly indicates that the watershed area is dominated by shallow depth

18
soils classified as Phaeozems and Phaeozems associated with Lithosols and covering more
than 93% of the total area in the watershed (Weigel, 1986). Weigel contributed to a good
understanding of the soils in Maybar area and built up a valuable database. He mainly
differentiated four soil types: Gleysols, Regosols, Fluvisols and Phaeozemes, some of the
latter were associated with Lithosols. Some characteristics are given in Table 1.5. Figure 1.5
on page 22 shows the spatial soil distribution. Haplic Phaeozem is the main soil type. A main
characteristic of the soils in Maybar is the high surface stone cover; estimations in the field
led up to 40% stone cover.

Table 3. 1 soil types and their area share of the watershed.

Soil type Area (ha) Share (%)

Phaeozems associated with Lithosols 63.2 56.0
Phaeozems 42.4 37.6
Gleysols 2.8 2.5
Fluvisols 2.5 2.2

3.1.3. Geology

Geologically the underground is of alkali-olivine basalts and tuffs that are part of the
volcanic trap series. The relief is characterized by steep slopes and flatter areas in the valley
bottoms and depressions led to a characteristic soil distribution. On the slope, soil erosion
caused shallow soils, whereas in the foot slopes and the flatter area accumulation led to deep
soils (Weigel, 1986). The area is part of the far margin and the tectonics are dominated by
graben faulting. According to the same authors, Colluvial or Alluvial deposits derived from
these basalts from the parent material of the soil. Weigel (1986) indicated that the
distribution of soils in the Maybar area is primarily controlled by geomorphic forms (relief)
and the history of land use and soil erosion with climate and geological parent materials
having no recognizable impact on soil distribution. Since runoff exceeds the infiltration rate
on the steep slopes, erosion processes dominate over the process of accumulation.

19
 3.1.4. Agro Climate and Land Use

The Maybar research watershed receives an average annual rainfall of 1370mm, of which
only 1148 mm is effective rainfall (rainfall contributing directly to runoff and recharge). The
area is typical for the “Dega” thermal zone. The rainfall pattern commonly follows a bi-
modal distribution: the first rainy season, the shorter of the seasons, around mid-March to
April and the second often begins around June/July and ends usually in September (SCRP,
2001). The Maybar area is known to be a low agricultural potential, intensively cultivated,
oxen-plowed cereal belt of the north-eastern escarpment region of the central Ethiopian
highlands (Bosshart, 1997). According to (Bayabil, 2009)), approximately 60% of the total
catchment area is cultivated whereas 20% is woodland and the remaining 20% is grassland.
There exists two cropping seasons and the predominant crops are cereals and maize, hence
there exists two cropping seasons: the first, “Belg”, is the small rainy season in spring and the
second, “Kremt”, the main rainy season during the summer and autumn. During the “Belg”
season cereals are predominantly planted while in the “kremt” season pulses are dominant
(SCRP, 2000).
The maximum and minimum temperatures were measured with a thermometer twice daily
1.5m above ground. Based on the data from (SCRP, 2000), the lowest mean monthly
temperature occurs in January (14.3°C) and the highest mean monthly temperature in June
(19.5°C). Mean annual daily air temperature is 16.4°C; it ranges from 7.2°C in November to
26.3°C in June. Evapotranspiration (ET) is the sum of plant transpiration and surface
evaporation and was measured by a Piche tube evaporimeter.
The wind measurements are only done qualitatively. The staff of Maybar research unit
described the wind velocity only with fixed expressions (no wind, weak, and medium, strong,
very strong). Wind strength was estimated 1m above ground with a simple thread fixed on a
nail.

3.1.5. Hydrology of Korisheleko River

The Korisheleko River, the main river in a Korisheleko catchment in Maybar, is the main
inlet to Lake Maybar, which is approximately 0.5 KM below the gauging station. The whole
of the Maybar watershed drains to Borkena River ultimately flowing to the Awash River
basin, a sub catchment of the central rift valley. At the outlet of the Maybar watershed, the

20
sediment yield and the river discharge were recorded by a hydrometric gauging station
(limnigraph, type Ott R16). An artificial cross section with concrete steps was built and a
stage-discharge relationship was calculated according to the study of (Bosshart, 1996). The
limnigraph recorded water level changes continuously on a chart role and provided the water
level for further discharge volume calculations. The mean annual suspended sediment rate
has been estimated to be 951 tons/year, which is approximately 8.4tons/ha/year, and has an
average annual river discharge of 407 mm (Bayabil, 2009). Based on data from 1981 to 1993
the mean annual discharge of Korisheleko River is 385‟648m3and the mean annual
suspended sediment yield is 1402t. This leads to a mean soil loss of 12.43t/ha. Maybar and
Hunde Lafto show higher sediment yields and concentrations compared to the other SCRP
stations. The reason is the variability of the rainfall distribution which limits, if rain is rare,
the development of permanent vegetation. As a consequence the soils are prone to severe
gully erosion which leads to high sediment yields. Annual soil loss value varies greatly
between 27.3t/ha in 1985 and 1.75t/ha cited in 1987 (Junker, 2012).

3.2. Data collection and preparation

3.2.1. Data Acquisition

For this study, various data were used that includes topographic data (DEM), Land use and
land cover data, soil data, hydrological data, daily data of climatic variables (daily data of
precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and solar
radiation).

3.2.2. Model Input Data

SWAT is highly data intensive model and has different components. Hydrologic components
of the model work on the water balance equation, which is based on surface runoff,
precipitation, percolation, evapotranspiration, and return flow data. Weather is one of the
model components that need data on precipitation, air temperature, solar radiation, wind
speed, and relative humidity data. Thus, the data required for the model are spatial data
(DEM, soil data, land use data), weather data (precipitation, air temperature, solar radiation,
wind speed, and relative humidity data). For calibrating the model and also for validation
purposes, river discharge is required on the outlet of the watershed.

21
 3.2.2.1. Digital Elevation Model

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data were required to calculate the flow accumulation,
stream networks, and watershed delineation using SWAT watershed Delineator tools. A 2 m
by 2 m resolution DEM was provided by land and water resource center (WALIRS). This
data were projected to Transverse Mercator (UTM) on spheroid of WGS84 and it was in
raster format to fit into the model requirement. Figure 1.3 shows the digital elevation model
of Maybar watershed were projected to universal transverse Mercator (UTM).

Figure3. 3 digital elevation map of Maybar watershed.

3.2.2.2. Land Use and Land Cover

The land use is one of the most important factors that affect runoff, evapotranspiration and
surface erosion in a catchment. It is one of the highly influencing the hydrological properties
of the watershed and the main input of SWAT model to describe the hydrological response
units (HRU) of the watershed.The land use/cover map gives the spatial extent and
classification of the various land use/ cover classes in the study area. The land use/cover data
combined with the soil cover data generates the hydrologic characteristics of the basin or the
study area, which in turn determines the excess precipitation, recharge to the ground water
system and the storage in the soil layers. The land use data were obtained from land and

22
water resource center (WALRIS). Figure 3.4 showed the reclassified land use map of Maybar
watershed.

Figure3. 4 SWAT land use class Map of Maybar watershed.

Table 3. 2: land use name and SWAT land use code with their area of the watershed.

Objected ID Land use Name LUSWAT code Area (ha)

0 Settlement URLD 0.44
1 Cultivated land AGRC 47.92
2 Dense woody vegetation FRSE 8.33
3 Open field/grass land RNGE 18.08
4 Open shrubs RNGB 16.68
5 Open woody vegetation FRST 21.8

3.2.2.3. Soil

Soil data is one of the major input data for the SWAT model with inclusive and chemical
properties. The SWAT model requires soil physical and chemical properties such as soil

23
texture, available water content, hydraulic conductivity, bulk density and organic carbon
content for different layers of each soil type.
The soil map used in this research was taken from the study made by Wegil (1986). The soils
were classified based on the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) method of soil
classification (SCRP, 2000). Based on this there are seven different soil types in the
watershed. Basic physical properties (percentage sand, clay, and silt; soil texture class; soil
texture class; the percentage of carbon and profile thickness), derived soil properties
(hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, available water capacity, and soil organic matter
content) and the basic properties of each profile of the seven different soils in the watershed
were obtained from wegil (1986) mentioned in appendix (3). These data were obtained from
land and water resource center (WALRIS) and SCRP data base. Figure 3.5 showed the land
use data map of Maybar watershed.

Figure3. 5 soil map and SWAT soil class of Maybar Watershed

24
Table 3. 3 soil label code and SWAT soil code with their area of the watershed.

Objected ID Soil Name Area (ha)

0 GM 3.15
1 Hh1 48.23
2 Hh2 24.45
3 Hh3 16.65
4 Hh4 14.73
5 Je 4.03
6 Re 1.96

Table 3. 4 The soil labels and their descriptions (Weigel, 1986).

Soil type Label Soil mapping Descriptions

units
Phaeozems A Hh1ls Hapllic phaeozems very shallow (10-
associated with 25 cm), very stony, (sandy) clay
Lithosols loams.
B Hh2ls Hapllic phaeozems shallow to very
shallow (10-50 cm) stony phase,
(sandy) clay loams.
Phaeozems C Hh2s Hapllic phaeozems shallow (25-50
cm) stony phase, clay loams.
D Hh3s Hapllic phaeozems moderately deep
(50-100 cm) stony phase, (sandy)
clay loams.
E Hh4s Hapllic phaeozems deep to very deep
(> 100 cm) stony phase, (sandy) clay
loams.
Regosols G Re2s Eutric regosols very shallow to deep
(10-100 cm) stony phase, clay loams.
Gleysols H Gm1w Mollic Gleysols water table during
growing periods with in < 20 cm of
the surface, clay loams.
I Gm2v Mollic Gleysols water table during
growing periods within 20-50 cm of
the surface, clay loams.

25
 3.2.2.4. Stream Flow Data

Discharge was measured with a flume installed in the Korisheleko River using two methods:
float-actuated recorder and manual recording. The measured stream flow data on Maybar
watershed were required for calibrating and validating the model. Stream flow data were
available for one Station. The stations had data ranging in time from 1981 to 2013 with
incomplete data in 1994, 1996, and 1999, 2007&2010 hydrological year. Stream flow data
were obtained from land and water resource center (WALRIS). Figure 3.6 showed the
hydrograph of Korisheleko river flow.

Figure3. 6 Mean monthly flow distribution of Korisheleko River gauging station located in
the out late of Maybar watershed for the period of 1989-2013.

3.2.2.5. Weather Data

Weather data are among the main demanding input data for the SWAT simulation. The
weather input data required for SWAT simulation include daily data of precipitation,
maximum and minimum temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and solar radiation. The
data were obtained from land and water resource center (WALRIS) and the ministry of
meteorological agency (MOMA).
For this study two stations were used, the station where Maybar & Kombolcha class1 station.
Kombolcha class1 station was used as weather generator. In Maybar station relative
humidity, sunshine hour and wind speed data are not available and not full. Kombolcha

26
station was a good representation for the rest data which is not available in Maybar research
unit.
At Maybar station daily maximum and minimum air and soil temperatures, wind direction,
wind strength, and evaporation (using piche tube evaporimeter) have been collecting twice
per day at 8:00 A.M and 18:00 P.M. Rainfall data was monitored via two procedures: (1)
using automatic rain gauge which uses chart role (one chart role for one month) and (2) using
manual rain gauges near the office (climatic station). Summary information about selected
meteorological stations was described on appendex 9.

I Rainfall
Rainfall data of Maybar were collected with a pluviometer (Lamprecht type 1509-20), with a
rainfall inclinometer and daily rain gauges. According to SCRP (2000) the mean monthly
rainfall amount exceeds 100mm during the months of rainy seasons. Further, based on the
data from 1981 to 1994, the mean annual rainfall is 1211mm, falling on average of 142 days
per year. The mean monthly minimum is 20mm in November and the maximum of the mean
monthly rainfall (288mm) is in August. More recent calculations of mean annual rainfall
result in a mean value of 1331mm rainfall. Figure 3.7 sowed total monthly rainfall
distribution of selected stations.

Figure3. 7 total rainfall distribution of selected meteorological stations (Kombolcha &

Maybar) for the period of 1989-2013.

27
I Temperature
The maximum and minimum temperature of Maybar was measured with a thermometer
twice daily 1.5m above ground. Maybar station is class three station only rainfall and soil and
air temperature measured. The data were obtained from WALRIS (Water and Land Resource
center). Temperature data of Kombolcha weather station were obtained from the Ministry of
Meteorological Agency (MOMA).

Figure3. 8 Mean monthly temperature distribution of each year for selected meteorological
station for period of 1989-2013.

Figure3. 9 Mean monthly temperatures of Maybar and Kombolcha station from 1989-2013.

28
 III Solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity data

SWAT used solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity to calculate the potential
evapotranspiration (PET) as the model for this particular project used Penman Monteith
approach for PET calculation. The meteorological station found in Maybar watershed has no
data on solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity. Hence, the data from the 1989 to
2013 were taken from the nearby station Kombolcha class 1 meteorological station. This
station is located 23km away from the watershed. The data were obtained from the national
meteorological agency. Daily solar radiation was calculated from the daily sunshine hour
data using the Angstrom-Prescott equation which is simple empirical formulae that relates
short-wave radiation with other physical factors, such as extraterrestrial radiation, optical air
mass, and turbidity, water vapor content of the air, the amount and type of cloud cover (Njau,
1996; Persuad et al., 1997) cited in (Ashagre, 2009).

Rs = Ra (αs + BS* n/N) ----------------------------------------- (1)

Where Rs is the solar or short wave radiation in [MJm-2day-1], Ra is the daily total
extraterrestrial radiation in [MJm-2day-1], n is actual duration of sunshine (hour), N is
maximum possible duration of sunshine or daylight hours (since Ethiopia is near the Equator,
N is assumed to be 12), n/N is relative sunshine duration, as and bs are constants which
depend on the location, season, and state of the atmosphere.

3.2.3. Data analysis

Hydrological data analysis where include data quality checking, filling missing data,
Checking consistency and homogeneity of data.

3.2.3.1. Filling missing data

In the analysis of hydrological data and meteorological data the stations were required to
have daily records for the required period of simulation (1989-2013) years. It may so happen
that a particular rain gauge was not operated for a part of a month or year (since it was
broken or for some other reason) hence it becomes necessary to supplement the missing

29
records. In this research, the mean value of the entire period (arithmetic mean) and simple
interpolation was used to fill the missed records for the stations of data.

3.2.3.2. Checking consistency and homogeneity

I. Data consistency

A consistent record is one where the characteristics of the record have not changed with time.
Adjusting for gage consistency involves the estimation of an effect rather than a missing
value. An inconsistent record may result from any one of a number of events; specifically, an
adjustment may be necessary due to changes in observation procedures, changes in exposure
of the gage, changes in land use that make it unreasonable to maintain the gage at the old
location, and where vandalism frequently occurs.
Double-mass-curve analysis is the method that is used to check for an inconsistency in a gage
record. The method for checking consistency of a hydrological or meteorological record is
considered to be an essential tool for analysis purposes. For this particular study DMC was
plotting cumulative values of observed time series of the station versus hydrological year in
the X-direction. The data series, which is an inconsistency, adjusted to consistent values by
proportionality. There for the station to be adjusted for consistency of the recorded using
equation.

Si = ------------------------------------------------------------- (2)

Where,
Si, is the slope of section i,
𝜟Yi, is the change in the cumulative catchment for gage Y between the
endpoints of the section i,
𝜟Xi is the change in the cumulative catchment for the sum of the regional
gages between the endpoints of sections i.
A time series observational data are relatively consistent and homogenous if the periodic data
are proportional to an appropriate simultaneous period. The double mass curve for rainfall
data of Maybar & Kombolcha station described in figure 3.10. The DMC of rainfall for each
station was described in appendix (8).

30
Figure3. 9 Double mass curve plot made for two stations of rainfall from 1989-2013.

II. Homogeneity

Homogeneity of the data was checked by using RANBOW software. In Rainbow the test of
homogeneity is based on the cumulative deviation from the mean. The following figure
shows the homogeneity test of Maybar rainfall station (figure 3.11 & figures 3.12). The result
revealed that the data were homogeneous. The probability of rejecting homogeneity showed
that, range of cumulative deviation accepted at 99% & 95% but rejected at 90% of
probability. For maximum cumulative deviation (99, 95 &90) % of probability were
accepted. The measured of homogeneity assure that the observations are almost from
the same population.

31
Figure 3. 11 homogeneity test of Maybar Rainfall station data.

Figure 3. 12 probabilities of rejecting homogeneity of Maybar rainfall station data.

32
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. Hydrological Modeling
4.1. SWAT (soil and water assessment tool)

SWAT is physically based, conceptual and computationally efficient model that operates on
a daily time step at basin scale (Arnold, et al. 1998). SWAT model has been applied in
various catchment areas ranging from 0.015 km2 (Chanasyk et al., 2003) to as large as
491,700 km2 (Arnold et al., 2000) and its accuracy increases as the catchment area is small.
It was designed to predict the impact of land management practices on water, sediment and
agricultural chemical yields in large, complex watersheds with varying soils, land use and
management conditions over long periods of time (Neitsch et al, .2005). SWAT uses a two-
level disaggregation scheme; a preliminary sub basin identification is carried out based on
topographic criteria, followed by further discretization using land use and soil type
considerations. Areas with the same soil type and land use form a Hydrologic Response Unit
(HRU), a basic computational unit assumed to be homogeneous in hydrologic response to
land cover change. The watershed needs first to be divided into sub-basins, each containing a
main channel and a specific combination of land use, soil type and management practices,
which will allow the specification of hydrological response units (HRU). Water balance
computations are performed at this level of spatial discretization, and contributions of each
HRU are then averaged out to represent water yield to the main channel. Water is then routed
to the outlet of the watershed.

4.2. Reasons for selecting the SWAT model

The reasons behind for selecting the SWAT model for this study area;
The model was applied for modeling, watershed in different parts of the world.
The model simulates the major hydrological process in the watersheds
It is less demanding on input data, and
It is readily and freely available.

33
A major limitation of the large area hydrologic modeling of SWAT is the spatial detail
required to correctly simulate environmental processes. For example, it is difficult to capture
the spatial variability associated with precipitation within a watershed. Another limitation is
data files can be difficult to manipulate and can contain several missing records. The model
simulations can only be as accurate as the input data. The third limitation is that, the SWAT
model does not simulate detailed event-based flood and sediment routing (Geremewu, 2013).

4.3. Hydrologic Water Balance

Water balance is the key for the simulation of hydrology within a watershed: the land phase
and the routing phase. The land phase of the hydrological cycle controls the amount of water,
sediment, nutrient, and pesticide loadings to the main channel in each sub watershed. While
the routing phase considers the movement of water, sediment and agricultural chemicals
through the channel network to the watershed outlet. The land phase generally represents the
water cycles within sub basins and the routing phase represents the water flow among sub
basins

Figure4. 1 SWAT hydrologic cycle consideration: source (Neitsch et al, .2001):

34
The land phase of the hydrologic cycle is modeled in SWAT based on the water balance
equation (Neitsch, et al, 2005):

∑ ------------------3

Where; SWt is the final water content (mm H2O), SWo is the initial soil water content on
day i (mm H2O), t is time, days, Rday is the amount of precipitation on day i (mm H2O),
Qsurf is the amount of surface runoff on day i (mm H2O), Ea is the actual
evapotranspiration on day i (mm H2O), Wseep is the amount of water entering the vadose
(unsaturated) zone from the Soil profile on day i (mm H2O), Qgw is the amount of return
flow on day i (mm H2O).

The model reflects differences in evapotranspiration for various land use and soil type in the
subdivision of watersheds. The runoff was predicted separated from each HRU and routed to
obtain the total yield for the watershed. Hence, increase the accuracy and gives a better
physical description of water balance. In this particular research, both SWAT soil
conservation service curve numbers (SWAT-CN) and water balance (SWAT-WB) method
were used.

4.3.1. SWAT-CN Method

I. Surface Runoff

SWAT 2009 uses the concept of infiltration excess runoff for SWAT-CN (USDA – NRCS,
1972) method of simulation. This is based on the assumption that Hortonian flow is the
driving force behind surface runoff production. It assumes the runoff occurs whenever the
rainfall intensity is greater than the rate of infiltration. This process is very important in areas
where significant soil crusting and/or surface sealing occurs during storm events, in irrigated
fields, in urban areas and more generally during very high rainfall intensity storms. For
estimation of surface runoff, SWAT uses two methods based on the above assumption. The
soil conservation curve number method and Green and Ampt (1911) infiltration method. For
this particular research, the soil conservation services (SCS) curve number were used. This is
because we do not have hydrological and meteorological data collected at sub-daily scale for

35
Green and Ampt infiltration method. In this method, land use and soil properties are lumped
into a single parameter (White, et al, 2009). SWAT also uses the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) soil classification based on infiltration properties of the soil
(Neitsch, et al, 2005) into four groups (A, B, C, D) having high, moderate, low and very low
infiltration rate respectively. In the classification, a soil group has similar runoff potential
under similar storm and cover conditions. To determine CN, the model then defines an
antecedent moisture condition based on Curve Number Antecedent Moisture condition (CN –
AMC) (USDA – NRCS, 1972) based on the soil moisture content calculated by the model
(Neitsch, et al, 2005):
. The retention parameter (S) then determined using the daily CN value.

S =25.49[ -10] ----------------------------------------------------- (4)

The direct runoff is determined by integrating the above empirical model with SCS runoff
equations.

Qsurf = --------------------------------------------------- (5)

Where Qsurf is the surface runoff or rainfall excess (mm H2O), Pday is precipitation depth for
the day (mmH2O), S is the retention parameter (mm) and I a is the initial abstraction which
usually approximated as 0.2S.
II. Peak runoff rate

The peak discharge or the peak surface runoff rate is the maximum volume flow rate passing
a particular location during a storm event. SWAT calculates the peak runoff rate with the
modified rational method. In the rational method it, assumed that a rainfall of intensity I
begins at a time t=0 and continues indefinitely, the rate of runoff will increase until the time
of concentration, t=tconc. The modified rational method is mathematically expressed as:

Qpeak = --------------------------------------------- (6)

Where: qpeak is the peak runoff rate (m3/s) ,a tc is the fraction of daily rainfall that occurs
during the time of concentration ,Qsurf is the surface runoff (mm),Area is the sub-basin area
(km2).tconc is the time of concentration (hr) ,and 3.6 is the conversion factor.

36
SWAT estimates the value of α using the following equation:

αtc= 1-exp[2*tconc*ln(1-α0,5)] -------------------------------------- (7)

Where; tconc is the concentration (hr), and α0.5 is the fraction of daily falling in the half-hour
highest intensity rainfall.

III. Time of concentration

The time of concentration, tconc, is a time within which the entire sub-basin area is discharged
at the outlet point. It is calculated by summing up both the overland flow time of the furthest
point in the sub basin to reach a stream channel (toh) and the upstream channel flow time
needed to reach the outlet point (tch).

tconc =tov+ tch --------------------------------------------------------------- (8)

The overland flow (tov) is computed as:

tov = ---------------------------------------------------------- (9)

Where: Lslp is the average sub basin slope length (m), Vov is the overland flow velocity
(m/s), and 3600 is a unit conversion factor.

The overland flow velocity for a unit width along the slope is calculated by using the

manning‟s equation. Vov = ----------------------------------------------- (10)

Where: qov is the average overland flow rate (m3/s)

Slp is the average slope of the sub-basin (m/m),

N is manning‟s roughness coefficient of the sub-basin.

Assuming an average flow rate of 6.35 mm/hr and substituting the equation of Vov into tov,
the simplified equations of the overland flow becomes.

37
 tov = -------------------------------------------------------------- (11)

Channel flow time is computed as”

tch= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (12)

Where: Lc is average flow channel length (km),

Vc is the average flow velocity (m/s), and 3.6 is a unit conversion factor.

The average flow channel length is calculated as:

Lc =√ -------------------------------------------------------------------- (13)

Where: L is the channel length from the furthest point to the sub-basin outlet (km), Lcen is the
distance along the channel to the sub basin centroid (km) and bottom width to depth ratio of
10:1, channel flow times becomes:

Tch = ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (14)

Where: tch is the time of concentration for the channel flow (hr.),

L is the channel length from the most distance points to the sub-basin outlet (km), n is
Manning‟s roughness coefficient for the channel, Area is the sub basin area (km 2), and Slpch
is the channel slope (m/m)

IV. Surface Runoff lags

In lag sub basin with a time concentration greater than 1 day, only a portion of the surface
runoff will reach the main channel on the day it is generated .SWAT incorporates a surface
runoff storage feature to large part of the surface runoff release to the main channel .once
surface runoff is calculated, the amount of surface runoff release to the main channel is
calculated as

Q = (Q‟ +Q )*(1-exp[ ] ----------------------------------------------------(15)

surf surf surf,i-1

38
Where: Qsurf is the amount of surface runoff discharged to the main channel in a day (mm),

Q‟surf, i-1 is the surface runoff stored or lagged from the previous day (mm).

Surlag is the surface runoff lag coefficient, and tcoc is the time of concentration for the sub
basin (hrs).

V. Potential Evapotranspiration

There are many methods that are developed to estimate potential evapotranspiration (PET).
SWAT computes potential evapotranspiration (PET) using three methods; the Priestley-
Taylor method (Priestley and Taylor, 1972), the Hargreaves method (Hargreaves, 2003) and
the Penman-Monteith method (Monteith, 1965) cited in (Setegn S. G., 2010) . The methods
have various data needs of climate variables. Penman- Monteith (1965) method requires solar
radiation, air temperature, relative humidity and wind sped; Priestley-Taylor method (1972)
requires solar radiation, air temperature and relative humidity; whereas Hargreaves (2003)
method requires an air temperature only. For this particular study Penman-Monteith was
adopted to estimate potential evapotranspiration.

) )
)
Eto = )
---------------------------- (16)

Where:
Eto = daily reference crop evapotranspiration [mm day-1]
Rn = net radiations flux [MJm-2 day-1]
G = heat flux density in the soil, it is very small and can be neglected [MJ m-2 day-1]
T = mean daily air temperature [OC]
Y= psychometric constant [KPA oC-1]
U = wind speed measured at 2 m height [ms-1]
es = saturation vapor pressure ea = es x [KPa]

RH = relative humidity [%]

es-ea = saturation vapor pressure deficit [KPa]
Δ = slope of the saturation vapor pressure curve [KPaoC-1]

39
 VI. Ground Water Flow

To simulate the ground water, SWAT partitions groundwater into two aquifer systems: a
shallow, unconfined aquifer, which contributes return flow to streams within the watershed
and a deep, confined aquifer which contributes return flow to streams outside the watershed.
In SWAT the water balance for a shallow aquifer is calculated as:

aqsh,I = aqsh,i-1 + Wrchg –Qgw – Wrevap – Wdeep – Wpump,sh ------------------------- (17)

Where, aqsh, i is the amount of water stored in the shallow aquifer on day i (mm), aqsh, i-1is
the amount of water stored in the shallow aquifer on day i-1 (mm), Wrchrg is the amount of
recharge entering the aquifer on day i (mm), Qgw is the ground water flow, or base flow, or
return flow, into the main channel on day i (mm), W revap is the amount of water moving in to
the soil zone in response to water deficiencies on day i (mm), W deep is the amount of water
percolating from the shallow aquifer in to the deep aquifer on day i (mm), and Wpump,sh is the
amount of water removed from the shallow aquifer by pumping on day i (mm).

VII. Flow Routing Phase

The second component of the simulation of the hydrology of a watershed is the routing phase
of the hydrologic cycle. Two options are available to route the flow in the channel network:
the variable storage and Muskingum methods. In this research, flow was routed through
stream networks of the watershed from upland areas to the main channel by variable storage
routing. The variable storage method uses a simple continuity equation in routing the storage
volume, whereas the Muskingum routing method models the storage volume in a channel
length as a combination of wedge and prism storages. The equation of the variable storage
routing is given by:

ΔVstored= Vin– Vout --------------------------------------------------------------- (18)

Where: ΔVstored is the change in volume of storage during the time step (m3 water), V is the
volume of inflow during the time step (m3 water), and Vout is the volume of outflow during
the time step (m3 water).

The calculation can be further specified as:

40
 Vstored, 2-Vstored, 1 = {[qin, 1-qin, 2]-[qout, 1+qout, 2] ----------------------------- (19)

Where; qin, 1is the inflow rate at the beginning of time step (m3/s), q in, 2 is inflow rate at
the end of time step (m3/s), qout,1 is the outflow rate at the beginning of time step (m3/s),
qout,2 is the outflow rate at the end of time step (m3/s), Δt is the length of the time step (s),
Vstored,2 is the storage volume at the end of time step (m3H2O), Vstored,1 is the storage
volume at the beginning of time step (m3H2O).

The volume of water in the channel was divided by the outflow rate to compute the travel
time.

TT= = = --------------------------------------------------------------------

(20)

4.3.2. Water Balance Approach Used by SWAT-WB

In saturation excess flow runoff volume depending on the areal extent of saturation within a
watershed and the rainfall depth, but it‟s independent of rainfall intensity (White et al, .2009).
But for infiltration excess rainfall volume dependent on rainfall intensity and will not occur
at low intensities. SWAT-WB is appropriate for engineering design for monsoonal climate
like Ethiopia. The inherent soil moisture routines are used by SWAT-WB to determine the
degree of saturation-deficit for each soil profile for each day of the simulation.

This saturation-deficit (in mm H2O) is termed the available soil storage, τ: ɽ = EDC (ε-θ).
Where EDC is the effective depth of the soil profile (unit less) ranges from (0 to 1), ε is the
total soil porosity (mm), and θ is the volumetric soil moisture for each day (mm). The
porosity is a constant value for each soil type, whereas θ varies by the day and is determined
by SWAT‟s soil moisture routines. The effective profile used in calculating the saturation
deficit.

Q ={ ----------------------------------------------------- (21)

41
Where Q is surface runoff (mm) and P is precipitation (mm). The available storage, τ, is
calculated each day prior to the start of any rain event. Once precipitation starts, a portion of
the rain, equal in volume to τ, will infiltrate the soil. However, if the rain event is less than,
the soil will not be saturated and there will not be surface runoff as a result SWAT-WB is no
longer reliant upon the CN method (White et al, .2009).

I, Topographic index

Topographic Index (TI) maps are grids derived from digital elevation models (DEMs). It
computes topographic indices for each grid cell based on upslope contributing area per unit
length of contour and topographic slope of the cell. As a result, bottomlands, with large
upslope contributing areas, have higher topographic index values and are prone to saturation.
Topographic index was the base for assigning EDC values of each soil type. By selecting
EDC values to the available storage, the amount of water able to infiltrate each day has been
controlled by the EDC. EDC values were spatially varied in such a way that low values are
assigned to areas with a high likelihood of saturation, and higher EDCs values used in areas
where not much surface runoff is generated via saturation excess (White et al, .2009). This
spatially adjusted available storage is then used to determine what portion of rainfall events
will infiltrate and what portion will runoff (White et al, .2009). Areas which have a high
topographic index provide low EDC value and low infiltration and consequently we expect
high runoff. But areas which have a low topographic index provide high EDC value for each
soil type and we expect low runoff because of high infiltration.

II Runoff Source Area in the watershed

Saturation excess runoff from gently sloping saturated areas was verified as the major runoff
mechanism in the watershed (Bayabil. K. H, 2009). According to Haymanote clearly indicate
that as the slope increases the runoff coefficient decreases, and this implies that areas with
the steepest slope in the watershed have the least runoff coefficient compared with mid-slope

and gentle-slope areas. Haymanote (2009) conclude that based on both test plot data and

piezometric data most surface runoff was generated from saturated areas at the lower
portions of the hill slopes, while the upper hill slopes were mainly infiltration zones.

42
Infiltrated water on the hill slopes became interflow and flowed downhill to gently sloping
areas which were then saturated and produced surface runoff. Figure 4.2 sowed Map of
runoff source area.

Figure4. 2 Map of runoff source area delineated using GPS (Solid black line) superimposed
on topographic index which is developed from 10m by 10m DEM (Baybil. K. H. et al, 2010)

4.4. Model Setup

4.4.1. Watershed Delineation

The watershed and sub watershed delineation was performed using 2m by 2m resolution
DEM data obtained from land and water resource center (WALRIS). The delineation was
performed using Arc SWAT model watershed delineation function in the form of predefined
streams and watershed delineated by ArcGIS. First, the SWAT project set up should create.
The watershed delineation process consists of six major steps of pre-defined streams and
watersheds. This includes DEM setup, Dem projection setup, streams defined (predefined
streams), and predefined watershed data set, create streams and outlet, and calculation of sub
basin parameters. The watershed was discrete into 14 sub basins based on the 33 % threshold

43
value of the total area of the watershed by using Arc GIS software. Figure 4.3: shows the sub
basin map of the watershed.

Figure4. 3 sub basin discretization map of Maybar watershed.

4.4.2. Hydrologic Response Units Analysis

The sub watersheds divide into HRUs by assigning the threshold values of land use and land
cover, soil and slope percentage. The SWAT user‟s manual suggests that a 20 % land use
threshold, 10 % soil threshold and 20 % slope threshold are adequate for most modeling
applications. Therefore, for this study, HRU definition was accounting for 20% land use,
10% soil and 20% slope threshold combination were used. Based on the threshold
combination the watershed classified into 89 hydrological responses unites (HRU) which
have the same runoff producing unites, In general the threshold level used to eliminate the
minor land use and land covers in sub basin, minor soil within a land use and land cover area
and minor slope classes within a soil with specific land use and land cover area. Land use,
soil and slope characterization for the Maybar watershed was performed using commands
from the HRU analysis menu on the Arc SWAT Toolbar. These tools allowed loading land
use and soil maps which are in raster format into the current project, evaluates slope

44
characteristics and determining the land use/soil/slope class combinations in the delineated
sub watersheds.

4.4.3. Weather Data Definition

The WXGEN weather generator model included in SWAT was used to fill in gaps in
measured records. This weather generator was developed for U.S. The WXGEN weather
generator was provided with all the necessary statistical information from the meteorological
records of the watershed. This model generates precipitation using Markov chain-skewed or
Markov Chain-exponential model (Williams, 1995). First order Markov – chain is used to
determine whether a day was dry or wet. Exponential or skewed distribution is used to
generate Precipitation amount whenever a wet day occurs (Neitsch et al., 2005). The
WXGEN model was provided using pcpSTAT.exe and dew02.exe (which include humidity
data) based on Kombolcha meteorological data as input information. The parameters needed
for the weather generator are listed in Appendix 1. These statistical values were calculated
from the meteorological data available in the Kombolcha station. Other meteorological data
(daily precipitation, daily minimum and maximum air temperature, daily relative humidity,
daily solar radiation and daily wind speed) including the corresponding location table were
prepared according to the SWAT format and integrated into the model using the weather data
input wizard.

4.5. Sensitivity Analysis

Calibration is necessary to optimize the values of the model parameters which help to reduce
the uncertainty in the model outputs. There are several parameters which affect a complex
hydrological modeling. However, such type of model with a multiple parameters, the
difficult task is to determine which parameters are to be calibrated. And most of the values of
these parameters are not exactly known. This can be for many reasons. Spatial variability,
measurement error, incompleteness in descriptions of both the elements and processes
present in the system are some of the reasons (Holvoet et al., 2004). Therefore, optimizing
internal parameters of a model is an important task in order to achieve a well representative
hydrological model. This kind of task is called model calibration which is usually supported
by sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis helps to determine the sensitivity of parameters

45
by comparing the output variance due to input variability. It also facilitates selecting
important and influential parameters for a model calibration by indicating the parameters that
shows higher sensitivity to the output due to the input variability. Therefore, the number
parameters that can be involved in calibration will be less in number and influence. It also
evaluates the model capacity and helps to understand the behavior of the system being
modeled. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the influence, a set of parameters
had on predicting total flow. The analysis was carried out to identify the SWAT‟s hydrologic
sensitive parameters by comparing their relative sensitiveness. It was performed on twenty-
six different SWAT parameters. Then the model parameters used in the sensitivity analysis of
stream flow were selected and the method algorithm for analysis was defined. In this project
the Latin Hypercube One factor At a Time (LHOAT) sensitivity analysis method was used. It
is a combination of the One-factor-At-a-Time (OAT) design for simulation and Latin
Hypercube (LH) sampling. It basically has the same concept as that of Monte Carlo
simulation except the sampling method which is used by LH-OAT is stratified sampling
rather than random sampling.

By applying default lower and upper boundary parameter values, the parameters were tested
for sensitivity analysis for the simulation of the stream flow. „Average criteria‟ options have
been selected for „sensitivity analysis output‟. Finally the sensitivity analyses were run for
the Maybar station. In the analysis, the sensitive parameters of the stream flow of the basin
were identified. The parameters, which resulted from the analysis, were ranked according to
the magnitudes of response variable sensitivity to each of the model parameters, which divide
high and low sensitivities (Table 2.1). The method used to determine the dominant
hydrological parameters and to reduce the number of model parameters which will be used in
calibration. However, parameters that had been not evaluated during sensitivity analysis have
to be modified during calibration so that the simulated flow model parameters fit that of the
observed stream flow parameters. Modifying parameters other than those identified during
sensitivity analysis were carried out by investigating the type of error which occurs in
simulated variables. The sensitivity analyses were carried out for a period of 25 years, which
included both the calibration and validation period from January 1st, 1989 to December 31st,
2013.

46
The level of significance was identified based on the study of Lenhart et al., (2002) that
considers their mean index (I). The study classify as very high sensitive for those parameters
having /I/ greater or equal to 1, high sensitive for those having 0.2 less or equal to /I/ less
than 1, medium sensitive for those having 0.05 less or equal to /I/ less than 0.2 and small to
negligible for those having /I/ less than 0.05. Hence, parameters having an index value
greater or equal to 0.05 are considered as sensitive parameters and used in calibration.
Parameters having an index value less than 0.05 does not significantly affect the result.

Table 4. 1 Sensitivity classes as per Lenhart et al., (2002).

Class Index Sensitivity

I 0.00 <=/I/<0.05 Small to negligible
II 0.05<=/I/<0.2 Medium
III 0.2 <=/I/<1 High
IV /I/ >=1 Very high

4.6. Uncertainties Analysis

Another issue with the calibration of watershed models is that of uncertainty in the
predictions.
Watershed models suffer from large model uncertainties. Source of uncertainties are:
A) Random or systematic error in the input data,
B) Random or systematic error in recorded output data,
C) Error due to non-optimal parameter values,
D) Error due to incomplete or biased structure.
During calibrations only error source (C) is minimized whereas the disagreement between
simulated and recorded output is due to all four error sources. The objective of calibration is
therefore to reduce error source (c) until it is insignificant compared with the error source (A)
& (B). The packages like SWAT-CUP can help decrease modeler uncertainty by removing
some probable sources of modeling and calibration errors

47
Conceptual Basis of the SUFI-2 Uncertainty Analysis Routine

In SUFI-2, uncertainty of input parameters are depicted as uniform distributions, while model
output uncertainty is quantified by the 95% prediction uncertainty (95PPU) calculated at the
2.5% and 97.5% levels of the cumulative distribution of output variables obtained through
Latin hypercube sampling. SUFI-2 starts by assuming a large parameter uncertainty, so that
the measured data initially fall within the 95PPU, then decrease this uncertainty in steps until
two rules are satisfied:

(1) The 95PPU band brackets „„most of the observations‟‟ and

(2) The average distance between the upper (at 97.5% level) and the lower (at 2.5% level)
parts of the 95PPU and the standard deviation of the measured data (R-factor) is „„small‟‟.
Quantification of the two rules is somewhat problem dependent. If measurements are of high
quality, then 80–100% of the measured data should be bracketed by the 95PPU, while a low
quality data may contain many outliers and it may be sufficient to account only for 50% of
the data in the 95PPU. For the second rule we require that the average distance between the
upper and the lower 95PPU be smaller than the standard deviation of the measured data (R-
factor).

The ideal situation would be to account for 100% of the observed data in the 95PPU while at
the same time have an R-factor close to zero. But this is seldom the case because of
measurement errors, conceptual model uncertainty, and non-uniqueness issues. To answer
the question of “when a model is calibrated” remains a problem dependent and subjective
issue. The values of the % bracketed data, R-factor, as well as the R2 and NS between the
observation and the best simulation (i.e., the simulation with the smallest value of the
objective function) determine the strength of a calibrated model (Abbaspour, 2006). A
balance between the two rules ensures bracketing most of the data within the 95PPU, while
seeking the smallest possible uncertainty band. We use the above two measures to quantify
the strength of calibration and accounting of the combined parameter, model, and input
uncertainties.

48
 4.7. Model Calibration and Validation

Model calibration is a process of adjusting model parameters within a suitable range to

achieve agreement between observed and simulated flows, while model validation is a
process of evaluating the calibrated model parameters to determine the most matching model
parameters (Surur, 2010). Following the sensitivity analysis result, model calibration can
obtain optimum values for sensitive parameters. SWAT provides three options for
calibration: auto-calibration, manual calibration and combination of these two methods
(Surur, 2010). First, some model parameters were adjusted by manual calibration. In this
procedure, parameter values were adjusted by changing one or two parameters at a time
within the allowable ranges either by replacement the initial value or addition or by
multiplication of the initial value as per designed in the interface.

SWAT-CUP

Automated model calibration requires that the uncertain model parameters are systematically
changed, the model is run, and the required outputs (corresponding to measured data) extract
from the model output files. The main function of an interface is to provide a link between
the input/output of a calibration program and the model Orkodjo, 2014. The simplest way of
handling the file exchange is through text file formats. SWAT-CUP is an interface that was
developed for SWAT. Using this generic interface, any calibration/uncertainty or sensitivity
program can easily be linked to SWAT. There are three optimization methods in SWAT-
CUP: the Generalized Likeli-hood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE), the Pa-rameter Solution
(ParaSol), Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) and Markov Chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC). For this particular study GLUE and SUFI-2 optimization algorithm were used to
calibrate the model parameter (SWAT-CUP 2012-user manual). The selection was based on
the algorithm tested on Lake Tana basin (Setegn. S. G et al, .2008), SUFI2& GLUE was
given better results.

Sequential Uncertainty Fitting SUFI-2

SWAT-CUP is an interface that was developed for SWAT. Using this generic interface, any
calibration/uncertainty or sensitivity program can easily be linked to SWAT. A schematic of
the linkage between SWAT and SUFI2 is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

49
Figure4. 4 showing the link between S, T (orange), iSWAT (green) ,and SUFI-2 (yellow) (SWAT-
CUP 2012-user manual).

The entire algorithm is run by two batch files: SUFI2_pre.bat and SUFI2_post.bat

Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) The Generalized Likelihood

Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) was introduced partly to allow for the possible non-
uniqueness (or equifinality) of parameter sets during the estimation of model parameters in
over-parameterized models.

Figure4. 5 Interface of GLUE & SWmanual(SWAT-CUP 2012-user mannual).

50
Validation is the task of demonstrating that the model is a reasonable representation of the
actual system: that it reproduces the system behavior with enough fidelity to satisfy analysis
objectives. Whereas model verification techniques are generally the approach taken to model
validation is likely to be much more specific to the model, and system, in question. Indeed,
just as model development will be influenced by the objectives of the performance study, so
will model validation is. A model is usually developed to analyze a particular problem and
may therefore represent different parts of the system at different levels of abstraction. As a
result, the model may have different levels of validity for different parts of the system across
the full spectrum of system behavior.

The validation will be done thereafter to evaluate the performance of the model with
calibrated parameters to simulate the hydrological functioning of the watershed over another
time period that has not been used in the calibration phase. The validation hydrograph is
compared with the observed hydrograph for the validation period; if the fit is acceptable then
the model prediction is valid.

4.8. Model Performance Evaluation

To evaluate the model simulation outputs in relative to the observed data, model performance
evaluation is necessary. There are various methods to evaluate the model performance during
the calibration and validation periods. For this study, three methods were used: coefficient of
determination (R2), Nash - Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Root mean square error (RMSE),
percentage of biased (PBIAS) and standard deviation ratio.

I. Coefficient of determination (R2)

The R2 is a measure of the proportion of the total variance of observed data explained by
predictive data, a perfect fit also being one with a lower limit of zero and the upper limit of
infinity. It tells us whether the model is over predicting (a value under one) or under
predicting (a value over one).

51
 ∑ ( )( )
R2 = [ ] ----------------------------------------- (22)

[∑ ( ) ∑ ( ) ]

II. Nash - Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)

The NSE tells us how well the model is performing in predication, a value of one indicates a
perfect one to one relationship and any negative value tells us that the model is worse at
predicting observed data than when using the mean of observed values to predict the data.

NSE = 1- ∑ ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (23)

∑ ( )

III. Relative volume error (RVE)

The relative volume error is used for quantifying the volume error. This RVE can vary
between -∞ to +∞ but performs best when the value of zero is generated since no difference
between simulated and observed discharge occur. A relative volume error less than +5% or -
5% indicates that a model performs well while relative volume error between +5% &+10%
and -5% &-10% indicates a model with reasonable performance.

∑( )
RVE = [ ∑
]*100% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (24)

IV. Root means square error (RMSE)

RMSE =√ ∑ [ ) ( ) ] ------------------------------------------- (25)

V. RMSE-observations standard deviation ratio (RSR)

RSR varies from the optimal of 0, which indicates zero RMSE or residual variation and
therefore perfect model simulation, to a large positive value. The lower RSR value indicates
the lower the RMSE and the better the model simulation performance. RSR can be calculated

52
by dividing the root mean square error with a standard deviation of the observed flow
(STDobs).

RSR = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (26)

VI. Percentage bias (PBIAS)

Percent bias measures the average tendency of the simulated data to be larger or smaller than
the observations. The optimum value is zero, where low magnitude values indicate better
simulations. Positive values indicate model underestimation and negative values indicate
model over estimation.

∑ | |
PBIAS = 100* ∑
--------------------------------------------------------------- (27)

Where: is observed flow (cms), is predicted flow (cms) is average observed

flow (cms),

is average predicted flow(cms).

Table 4. 2 General performance rating for recommended statistics for monthly time steps
(Moriasi, 2007).

Performance R2 NSE RSR PBIAS (%)

Very good 0.75<R2<1 0.75<R2<1 0<RSR<0.50 PBIAS<±10

Good 0.65<R2<0.75 0.65<R2<0.75 0.50<RSR<0.6 ±10<

PBIAS±15

Satisfactory 0.50<R2<0.65 0.50<R2<0.65 0.6<RSR<0.70 ±15<

PBIAS±25

Unsatisfactory R2<0.50 R2<0.50 NSE <0.5 PBIAS > ±25

53
 4.9. General methodology

The general framework of the study summarized as follows:

Land use,
Met. Data Hydro.data
DEM & Soil
data

Model development

Arc Project
SWAT-CN SWAT200 modification SWAT-WB
9 for use
SWAT-WB

Observed Calibration
flow

Validation Legend

Model performance Data

evaluation and
comparison
Process

Hydrological flux
estimation and Output
recommended model

Figure4. 6 The general framework of the study.

54
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. Result and Discussion

The main results of this study include four components: (i) flow parameter sensitivity
analysis, (ii) SWAT-CN and SWAT-WB model calibration and validation for flow at the
Korisheleko river of Maybar watershed using manual and SWAT-CUP calibration methods,
(iii) analysis of base flow and other hydrological components (iv) comparison of the
performance of SWAT-WB and SWAT-CN model for simulation of stream flow and (V)
General discussion of the study.

5.1. Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis was performed on flow parameters of SWAT on daily time steps with
observed data of the Korisheleko river gauging station. For this analysis all SWAT
parameters were considered and only 7 parameters were identified for both (SWAT-CN &
SWAT-WB) to have significant influence in controlling the stream flow in the watershed. In
this study, we have evaluated the relative sensitivity values found in the parameter estimation
process for SWAT-WB. The most sensitive parameters for SWAT-WB were: Base flow
Alpha Factor (days) ALPHA_BF, threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for “revap”
to occur (REVAPMN. gw) [mm H2O] [days], soil evaporation compensation factor (ESCO),
Initial soil depth (SOL_Z), available water capacity (Sol_Awc) [mm WATER/mm soil],
threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for return flow to occur (GWQMN. gw) [mm
H2O] and soil hydraulic conductivity (SOL_K). These sensitive parameters were considered
for SWAT-WB model calibration. The remaining parameters had no significant effect on
stream flow simulations. Table 5.1 indicates that parameters that resulting greater relative
means the sensitivity value of stream flow.

In the case of SWAT-CN we have found different the relative sensitivity values found in the
parameter estimation process. The most sensitive parameters were: Maximum canopy storage
(CANMX), soil evaporation compensation factor (ESCO), initial SCS Curve Number II
value (CN2), available water capacity (Sol_Awc) [mm WATER/mm soil], threshold depth of

55
water in the shallow aquifer for “revap” to occur (REVAPMN. gw) [mm H2O], [days], total
soil depth (SOL_Z) [mm] and threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for return flow
to occur (GWQMN. gw) [mm H2O]. These sensitive parameters were considered for model
calibration. The remaining parameters had no significant effect on stream flow simulations.
Changes in their values do not cause significant changes in the model output. Table 5.2
indicates that parameters that resulting greater relative means the sensitivity value of stream
flow.

Table 5. 1 The most relative sensitive parameter value of SWAT-WB model.

Rank Parameter Sensitive Min Max Relative Imet Class

parameter sensitive
Code value

1 Base flow Alpha Factor ALPHA_BF 0 1 0.21 v High

(Days) ALPHA_BF

2 Threshold water for (REVAPMN) -100 100 0.0876 a Medium

water in the shallow
aquifer for flow
"revapmn” percolation to
the deep aquifer to occur
3 Soil Evaporation ESCO 0 1 0.0825 v Medium
Compensation Factor
4 Initial soil depth (mm) SOL_Z -25% 25% 0.0629 r Medium
5 Soil available water SOL_AWC -25% 25% 0.0553 r Medium
content
6 Threshold water depth in GWGMN -1000 1000 0.0531 a Medium
the Shallow aquifer for
flow
7 Hydraulic conductivity SOL_K -25% 25% 0.0520 r Medium

56
Table 5. 2 The most relative sensitive parameters of SWAT-CN model.

Rank Parameter Sensitive Min Max Relative Imet Class

sensitive
parameter
value
Code
1 Max. canopy storage CANMX 0 1 0.25 v High
2 Soil Evaporation ESCO 0 1 0.0876 v Medium
Compensation
Factor
3 Initial curve number CN2 -25% 25% 0.075 r Medium
4 Soil available water SOL-AWC -25% 25% r Medium
capacity
5 Threshold water for (REVAPMN) -100 100 0.059 a Medium
water in the shallow
aquifer for flow
"revamp”
percolation to the
deep aquifer to occur
6 Initial soil depth SOL-Z -25% 25% 0.058 r Medium
(mm)
7 Threshold water GWGMN -1000 1000 0.0576 a Medium
depth in the shallow
aquifer for flow

Imet: means variation methods available in auto-calibration procedure (v: Replacement of

initial parameter by value, a: Adding value to initial parameter, r: Multiplying initial
parameter by value in percentage (Fadil, 2011)

5.2. Model calibration

SWAT is not a parametric model requiring a formal calibration procedure to optimize the
parameter values using simulated vs. observed results (S.S.Panhalkar, 2014).Calibration was

57
done for sensitive flow parameters of SWAT with observed average monthly stream flow
data of Korisheleko River. First, some sensitivity flow parameters were adjusted by a manual
calibration procedure based on the available information in literatures. In this procedure, the
values of the parameters were varied iteratively within the allowable ranges until the
simulated flow as close as possible to observed stream flow. Then, calibration was
proceeding by using SWAT-CUP. The calibration process was conducted by using two
method of SWAT-CUP calibration algorithm, the Generalized Likeli-hood Uncertainty
Estimation (GLUE) and Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2). The degree to which
uncertainties are accounted for is quantified by a P-factor for which is the percentage of
measured data bracketed by the 95% prediction uncertainty (95PPU).

Calibration was conducted based on seven most flow sensitive parameters for both SAWT-
WB & SWAT-CN model. Form the two methods of SWAT-CUP calibration algorithm
SUFI-2 was better calibrated the stream flow than GLUE. Therefore, for this study SUFI-2
calibration algorithm were used for validation by using the fitted values of sensitive
parameters for both SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN. The hydrological fluxes and uncertainty
analysis of each model was evaluated by the fitted parameters obtained by the SUFI-2
algorithm. The graphic description of SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN model showed that the
predicted stream flow had a very good agreement with observed flow. Based on calculation
of performance criteria and predicted hydrological component by the two models SWAT-
WB model slightly better than SWAT-CN model for predicting stream flow. Figure 5.1 &
5.2 showed that the graphical description of simulated with the observed stream flow of
Maybar watershed for SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN respectively for calibration period. Table
5.3 and table 5.4 showed the fitted values of sensitive parameters by GLUE & SUFI-2
SWAT-CUP calibration algorithm for both SWAT-WB & SAWT-CN. For SWAT-WB
runoff process approach model EDC values are assigned for seven soil types. The
topographic index map was required to assign the EDC value. From the topographic index
map 2 and 19 are minimum and maximum topographic index for Maybar watershed
respectively (see in figure 2.2 on page39). Based on topographic index the effective soil
depth, soil depth coefficient (EDC) values were adjusted to be 0.46 to 0.98. The lower and
upper boundaries of EDC values were 0 to 1. The relationship between the topographic index
and EDC are high topographic index can produce a lot of runoff and have an EDC value

58
approaching zero, and areas with a low topographic index the area does not produce high
runoff and EDC approaches to one.

Table 5. 3 SWAT flow sensitive parameters and fitted value after calibration Using SUFI-2.

SWAT-WB SWAT-CN

Parameter Min Max Fitted Parameter Min Max Fitted

code value Code value
1 v- 0 1 0.62 v-CANMX 0 10 6.48
ALPHA_BF
2 a- -100 100 -40 v-ESCO 0 1 0.34
REVAPMN
3 v-ESCO 0 1 0.20 r-CN2 -25% 25% -11.2%
4 r-SOL_Z -25% 25% 24.9% r- -25% 25% 6.74%
SOL_AWC
5 r-SOL_AWC -25% 25% 1.7% a- -100 100 -76.70
REVAPMN
6 a-GWGMN -1000 1000 989.4 r-SOL_Z -25% 25% 24,98%
7 r-SOL_K -25% 25% 20.5% a-GWGMN -1000 1000 552.74

Table 5. 4 SWAT flow sensitive parameters and fitted values after calibration using GLUE
algorithm.

SWAT-WB SWAT-CN

Parameter Min Max Fitted Parameter Min Max Fitted

code value Code value
1 v- 0 1 0.41 v-CANMX 0 10 4.10
ALPHA_BF
2 a- -100 100 -76.9 v-ESCO 0 1 0.11
REVAPMN
3 v-ESCO 0 1 0.20 r-CN2 -25% 25% -21.75%
4 r-SOL_K -25% 25% 7.73% r- -25% 25% -14.99%

59
 SOL_AWC
5 r-SOL_AWC -25% 25% 0.98% a- -100 100 -23.11
REVAPMN
6 a-GWGMN -1000 1000 735 r-SOL_Z -25% 25% 24%
7 r-SOL_K -25% 25% -21.7% a-GWGMN -1000 1000 735.00

The calibration results of Maybar watershed demonstrate that NSE for monthly stream flow
values 0.91 for SWAT-WB & 0.87 for SWAT-CN method. Based on the model performance
criteria, the model simulated the stream flow trend as very good performance. The R2 value
of 0.92 for SWAT-WB& 0.86 for SWAT-CN with very good performance, simulated the
stream flow of the two models. The relative volume error was -2.67 for SWAT-WB and -7.5
for SWAT-CN. According to relative volume error criteria SWAT-WB model; performs
well, but for SWAT-CN a model with reasonable performance. The residual variations are
0.37 for SWAT-WB & 0.36 for SWAT-CN. Based on model performance criteria of RSR
both SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN fitted very good performance. The other performance
measure was percentage bias (PBIAS), based on the calculation 2.67 for SWAT-WB & 7.497
for SWAT-CN. Based on the range of PBIAS (Moriasi, 2007).2.67 and 7.497 lies on the
range of PBIAS ±10 which is very good performance. This indicated that the two models
slightly underestimate the stream flow. The general description of model performance
calculations showed in Table (5.5).

60
Figure 5. 1 Time series of monthly calibration result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-WB
model from 1991 to 2005 with warm up periods from (1989-1990).

Figure 5. 2 Time series of monthly calibration result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-CN
model from 1991 to 2005 with t (one year warms up periods from (1989-1990).

5.3. Validation of model

Proper validation of the calibrated model is essential to understand its performance without
change in input files except climatic parameters.

61
Validation process using an independent set of observed data is necessary to compare the
degree of the certainty of the model prediction. Model performance in calibration and
validation periods may not be similar. Recent studies revealed that there are a number of
difficulties of climate model validation. That is because of the complexity of the nature of the
climate and time dependent uncertainties of the modeling data set. Another reason is the
hydrologic condition in the calibration period may not be the same as the hydrologic
condition during the validation period (Beven, 2006; Liu and Gupta, 2007; Zhang et al.,
2009a, cited in (Orkodjo, 2014). The validation was carried out using the calibrated
parameters. For model validation the remaining observed stream flow data on the
Korisheleko River from 01 January 2006 to 31 December 2013 were used. In the validation
process, the model was run with input parameters set during the calibration process without
any change. The validation period has also shown a very good agreement between monthly
measured and simulated flows (Figure 3.3 for SWAT-WB and figure 3.4 for SWAT-CN).
From the validation result the performance of the two models had slight differences to predict
the stream flow. The graphical description indicated that SWAT-WB has very good
performance for validating the observed data without any adjustments the observed data
compared to SWAT-CN.

The validation result showed that the Nash-Sutcliffe simulation efficiency (ENS) 0.86 for
SWAT-WB & 0.78 for SWAT-CN method. Based on the model performance criteria, the
model simulated the stream flow trend as very good performance. The coefficient of
determinations (R2) value of 0.91 for SWAT-WB& 0.86 for SWAT-CN with very good
performance simulated the stream flow of the two models. The relative volume error was
0.260 for SWAT-WB and 0.280 for SWAT-CN. According to relative volume error criteria
SWAT-WB model; performs well, but for SWAT-CN a model with reasonable performance.
The residual variations are 0.45 for SWAT-WB & 0.37 for SWAT-CN. Based on model
performance criteria of RSR both SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN fitted very good performance.
The other performance measure was percentage bias (PBIAS), based on the calculation -
0.260 for SWAT-WB & 0.280 for SWAT-CN. Based on the range of PBIAS (Moriasi,
2007).0.260 and 0.280 lies on the range of PBIAS < ±10 which is very good performance.
This indicated that the two models slightly overestimate the stream flow in the validation
period.

62
Figure 5. 3 Time series of monthly validation result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-WB
model from 2006 to 2013.

Figure 5. 4 Time series of monthly validation result for Korisheleko River by SWAT-CN
model from 2006 to 2013.

63
Figure 5. 5 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow for the calibration period by SWAT-
WB model from (1991-2005).

Figure 5. 6 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow in the calibration period by SWAT-
CN model from (1991-2005).

64
Figure 5. 7 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow in the validation period by SWAT-
WB model from (2006-2013).

Figure 5. 8 Scatter plot of simulated and observed flow by SWAT model in the validation
period from (2006-2013).

In general, the model performance assessment indicated a good correlation and agreement
between the monthly measured and simulated flows. The scatter plot of the values of the
measured and the simulated monthly stream flows data has also shown a fair linear
correlation between the two datasets of the SWAT-WB and SWAT-CN model.

65
Table 5. 5 Monthly calculated values of model performance measure criteria for SWAT-WB
&SWAT-CN.

Objective function Korisheleko River

SWAT-WB SWAT-CN
Calibration Validation Calibration Validation
R2 SUFI-2 0.92 0.91 0.88 0.858
GLUE 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.86
NSE SUFI-2 0.91 0.85 0.87 0.78
GLUE 0.87 0.83 0.87 0.85
RMSE SUFI-2 0.0185 0.03076 0.024 0.036
GLUE 0.0175 0.028 0.035 0.042
PBIAS SUFI-2 2.67 -0.26033 7.497 -0.286
GLUE 5.6 -0.2032 6.53 -0.295
RVE SUFI-2 -2.67 0.260 -7.4974 0.286
GLUE -5.6 0.203 -6.53 0.295
RSR SUFI-2 0.37 0.45 0.36 0.372
GLUE 0.29 0.39 0.35 0.365

I. Model uncertainty

The 95PPU as calculated represents a combined model prediction uncertainty, including

parameter uncertainty resulting from the non-uniqueness of effective model parameters,
conceptual model uncertainties, and input (i.e., rainfall) uncertainties. In SUFI-2, the
combined effect of all uncertainties is depicted by the final estimates of parameter
uncertainties. The idea is that given all the uncertainties, a more precise estimation of the
parameter ranges cannot be made. Figure 3.9 &3.10 illustrates the 95PPU intervals of the last
iteration for an extract of the calibration and validation period at the station Korisheleko
River. In the initial iteration, 71% for SWAT-WB and 65% for SWAT-CN of the observed
monthly runoff values were within the 95PPU, but the R-factor was quite large (1.41 &1. 38)
for SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN respectively indicating large model uncertainty. In subsequent
iterations for the calibration period the R-factor decreased to 0.29% & 0.51%for SWAT-WB
& SWAT-CN respectively, but the 95PPU bracketed only 33% & 54% of the observed

66
discharge values for SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN respectively. Hence, striking a balance
between these two measures provides a final calibration result. The model can suffer
conceptual uncertainties, in addition of all types of water use and especially the irrigation
use, which mostly have local importance currently are not accounted in the model.

Figure 5. 9 SWAT-WB monthly calibration result for Korisheleko River uncertainty 95%
prediction uncertainty intervals along with the measured discharge.

Figure 5. 10 SWAT-CN monthly calibration result for Korisheleko River showing the 95%
prediction uncertainty intervals along with the measured discharge.

67
Table 5. 6 uncertainty evaluation of SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN by SUFI-2 & GLUE
algorithm.

Objective function Algorithms SWAT-WB SWAT-CN

P-factor SUFI-2 0.33 0.51

GLUE 0.79 0.64

r-factor SUFI-2 0.29 0.54

GLUE 0.90 0.80

5.4. Water balance components of Maybar watershed

The hydrologic components in SWAT include surface runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration,
lateral flow, tile drainage, percolation/deep seepage, consumptive use through pumping (if
any), shallow aquifer contribution to stream flow for a nearby stream (base flow) and
recharge by seepage from surface water bodies The main hydrological fluxes on Maybar
watershed was estimated by using both SWAT-WB and SWAT-CN within calibration and
validation period. Table 3.6 lists the simulated water balance components on an annual
average basis for the Maybar watershed over the calibration and validation period for both
SWAT-WB and SWAT-CN.

The results indicated that during calibration 29.5% & 25.2 % of the annual precipitation is
lost by evapotranspiration in the watershed by using SWAT-CN & SWAT-WB respectively
as compared to 29.81% and 24.9 % using SWAT-CN & SWAT-WB during the validation
period respectively. The comparison of this reported range revels that the model had slightly
underestimated the evapotranspiration component. Surface runoff contributes 4.8% for
stream flow in SWAT-CN and 1.9 % for SWAT-WB of the water yield during calibration
period. During validation period surface runoff contributes for stream flow 5.3% for SAWT-
CN and 1.8% for SWAT-WB. Whereas the ground water contributes 18.7% for SWAT-CN
and 16.53% for SWAT-WB of water yield during calibration. The ratio of the simulated
average annual surface runoff to average annual precipitation varies between 1.8 & 1.9 for

68
SWAT-WB & 4.5 to 4.8 for SWAT-CN which indicates that the component is slightly
underestimated. In case of validation ground water contribute to stream flow 16.8% for
SWAT-CN and 11.6% for SWAT-WB. The average difference between the observed and
simulated annual total flow is 4% for SWAT-WB & 7% for SWAT-CN which confirms a
good model calibration for monthly time steps.

Table 5. 7 Water balance components of annual average Basins over the calibration and
validation period.

Hydrological SWAT-WB SWAT-CN

parameter
Calibration Validation Calibration Validation

mm % mm % mm % mm %

Rainfall (mm) 1293 100 1119.4 100 1293 100 1119.4 100

Sur-Q 24.27 1.9 20.48 1.8 62.03 4.8 59.78 5.3

latQ 632.37 48.9 546.96 48.9 563.58 43.6 480.80 43

GW-Q 213.76 16.5 130.26 11.6 242.17 18.7 187.86 16.8

shalAQ 46.62 3.6 48.86 4.4 19.01 1.47 19.91 1.78

Deep AQR 15.53 1.2 13.66 1.2 14.43 1.1 12.37 1.10

Total AGR 310.51 24.0 273..16 24.4 288.53 22.3 247.31 22.1

TLOSS 0.123 0.01 0.19 0.02 3.38 0.26 2.93 0.26

WYLD 870.17 67.3 697.50 62.3 864.41 66.85 725.51 64.8

ET 325.3 25.2 278.2 24.9 381.5 29.5 333.7 29.93

PET 1110.0 85.8 1163.3 103.9 1143 88.4 1176 109.6

69
 PERC 310.78 24.0 0.19 24.4 285.41 22.1 244.76 21.86

ET = evapotranspiration, SURQ = surface runoff, LATQ = lateral flow into streams, GW_Q
= groundwater contribution to stream flow, WYLD = SURQ + LATQ + GW_Q - LOSSES,
PERC = percolation below the root zone (groundwater recharge). PET = potential
evapotranspiration, DeepAQR = deep aquifer recharge, shalAQ = REVAP (SHAL AQ =>
SOIL/PLANTS), Total AQR = total aquifer recharge, PERC = Percolation out of soil.

I. Base flow separation

The base flows were evaluated on a daily basis for Maybar river flow. The stream flow data
were partitioned into flow, base flow and direct runoff by using web- based Hydrological
Analyst Tool (WHAT). On an annual basis, the measured flow of the korisheleko river gauge
station is estimated as 64.2% base flow &35. 8 % direct runoff over the all simulation
periods.

Figure 5. 11 Base flow contribution of observed stream flow.

The calculation indicates the importance of base flow for total river discharge and base flow
is high contributor for stream flow. In calibration period the simulated flow of Korisheleko

70
River is estimated as (71.46) % base flow for SWAT-WB and for SWAT-CN the simulated
base flow becomes (70.11) %. Direct runoff contribution to stream flow was estimated as
29.89% for SWAT-CN & 28.54% for SWAT-WB. The result revealed that base flow is high
contributor for stream flow in SWAT-WB than SWAT-CN. Figure 5.12 showed the
comparison of base flow separated web- based Hydrological Analyst Tool (WHAT).

Figure 5. 112 comparison base flow separated from SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN in the
calibration period.

Table 5.8 comparison of base flow separated in calibration period for two SWAT
runoff approach model.

Base flow Units Observed Simulated flow Simulated flow

separation flow (1991- (1991-2005) by (1991-2005) by
component 2005) SWAT-WB SWAT-WB
Mean Total flow cfs 75.10 75.68 79.89
% 100 100 100
Mean Direct cfs 25.23 21.60 23.88
runoff % 33.59 28.54 29.89
Mean Base flow cfs 49.87 54.08 56.01
% 66.41 71.46 70.11

71
 5.5. Comparison of SWAT-CN and SWAT-WB approach
SWAT-CN assumes the runoff occurs whenever the rainfall intensity is greater than the rate
of infiltration. In SWAT-WB Method, once the soil in the area saturates to the surface, any
additional rainfall that falls irrespective of intensity becomes an overland flow (Taffese et al,
. 2014). The result of the two models was compared by using their performance to predict
stream flow before and after calibration and the estimation ability of hydrological fluxes.
Before calibration SWAT-WB model was better performed than SWAT-CN according to
model performance criteria, R2 (0.658, 0.654) & NSE (-1.391,-1.526) for SWAT-WB and
SWAT-CN respectively. Table 5.9 showed the statistical report of performance criteria for
SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN runoff approach model.

Table 5. 1 The models efficiency before calibration.

Criteria SWAT-WB SWAT-CN

R2 0.658 0.654

NSE -1.391 -1.526

In all cases, the result shows fair prediction for SWAT-WB approach than SWAT-CN. The
comparison observed and calibrated flow indicated that there was very good agreement
between observed and calibrated flow and yield higher model efficiency. The result of the
two models was compared for Maybar watershed with short term records and long term
records, there is slightly difference of predicted flow. The stream flow predicted by SWAT-
WB slightly very good agreement with the observed flow compared to SWAT-CN. The
statistical report of performance criteria after calibration showed in (Table 5.5) for two
models in calibration period and validation period. Based on the performance measurement
criteria SWAT-WB can predict the stream flow with very good agreement than SAWT-CN.
The percent proportion of observed with simulated very narrow in SWAT-WB model. The
result revealed that base flow is high contributor for stream flow in SWAT-WB (71.46) than
SWAT-CN (70.11). SWAT-WB was performed slightly better during calibration than
SWAT-CN (NSE of 0.91 &0. 87, respectively). In the validation period SWAT-WB was also

72
performed better than SWAT-CN (NSE of 0.85&0.78, respectively. All sources of
uncertainty captured by bracketing more than (33% for SWAT-WB & 51% for SWAT-CN).

The comparison of monthly, the annual catchment flow of Maybar watershed was also
presented by classifying the season into wet and dry season. The wet season flow occurs
between July to September and the dry season flow occurs between Decembers to June.
Figure 5.13 showed that the hydrograph drawn with two peaks, from December to June (peak
month of April) and from June to December (peak flow month of August). The monthly
annual peak flow occur in wet season was August for observed, SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN
(0.058m3/S, 0.59m3/s & 0.59m3/s) respectively. The lowest flow month occur in dry season
for observed, SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN was June. The mean monthly, annual lowest flow
for observed, SWAT-WB &SWAT-CN was (0.000667) m3/s. The monthly annual peak flow
occur in dry season was April for observed, SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN (0.008m3/S,
0.008m3/s 0.007m3/s) respectively. In both wet and dry monthly annual average flows in
Maybar Watershed , the SWAT-WB model result is better simulated the stream flow
than SWAT-CN, and good hydrological fit.

Figure 5. 13 observed and simulated mean monthly, annual flow hydrograph of SWAT-
WB & SWAT-CN runoff approach Model.

73
 5.6. Discussion of the Study
Modeling the hydrology of Maybar watershed by different model is considerable importance
for adopting rain water management intervention of Ethiopian highland. Rainfall-runoff
models like AnnAGNPS (Junker, 2012) and simple water balance model (Biable. K. H,
2009) was tested in different period. Modeling the hydrology of Maybar watershed by
SWAT-WB and SWAT-CN and recommending the best model was the main concept of this
study. Maybe watershed is characterized by saturating (produced runoff) in the flat areas near
the river whiles the hill side where unsaturated with a perched water table that respond
rapidly to the rainfall (Biable. K. H; Tegenu, .2012). As the result the rainfall runoff
relationship in the watershed is not linear. According to the study of rainfall runoff
relationship (Liu et al, .2008) Rainfall is not uniformly distributed in the whole season in
Maybar watershed.

In this particular study water balance, based soil and water assessment tool (SWAT-WB) and
SWAT-CN runoff approach model predicts the water balance components of Maybar
watershed. According to sensitivity result, both modes had differing sensitive parameter for
stream flow. Base flow Alpha Factor (days) ALPHA_BF, threshold depth of water in the
shallow aquifer for “revap” to occur (REVAPMN. gw) [mm H2O] [das] where the most
sensitive parameter for SWAT-WB model. This is not surprising because since SWAT-WB
applicable in saturation excess runoff mechanisms ground water component should be
sensitive parameter. Saturation excess runoff mechanisms not affected by high intensity of
rainfall as the result, intensive rainfall runoff parameters should not be governing parameter
for saturation excess runoff. But SWAT-CN developed in temperate climate by assuming
rainfall uniformly distributed through out the season. The model predicts runoff by sensitive
parameters of Maximum canopy storage (CANMX), soil evaporation compensation factor
(ESCO), initial SCS Curve Number II value (CN2). Those parameters can affect high
intensive rainfall produced runoff.

Both models estimate stream flow with very good performance of (R2 0.92, NSE 0.91) for
SWAT-WB and (R2 0.88, NSE 0.87) for SWAT-CN. This result agreed with the past rainfall-
runoff models predicted, AnnAGNPS (Junker, 2012) performed (R2 0.99, NSE 0.99) and
simple water balance model (Biable. K. H, 2009) performed (R2 0.88, NSE 0.86). But the

74
limitation of the past tested models were, discharge during some dray season (base flow) was
over predicted ,and it does not catch the recession curve well after peak runoff events, and
under predict peak runoff periods during wet season. This should be because of expansion of
saturated area; which the model cannot simulate. But Arc SWAT model simulated the stream
flow with reasonable peak flow predictions. According to model performance statistics result
SWAT-WB runoff process model well performed than SWAT-CN. This is because of the
runoff mechanism of the watershed. Maybar watershed characterized by saturation excess
flow and SWAT-WB was most applicable for saturation excess flow (White et al, .2011).

We hope that packages like SWAT-CUP was helping to decrease modeler uncertainty by
removing some probable sources of modeling and calibration errors. On a final note, it is
highly desirable to separate quantitatively the effect of different uncertainties on model
outputs, but this was very difficult to do. The combined effect, however, should always be
quantified on model outputs. According to SUFI-2 SWAT-cup calibration Algorithm the
95PPU bracketed only 33% & 54% of the observed discharge values for SWAT-WB &
SWAT-CN respectively. But the model can suffer conceptual uncertainties, in addition of all
types of water use and especially the irrigation use, which mostly have local importance
currently are not accounted in the model. For example, irrigation water use, domestic
consumptions of water and animal use of water were not considered to model the hydrology
of the watershed.

Hydrological fluxes of the watershed were estimated by two models. The main water balance
components of the watershed include: the total amount of precipitation falling on the
watershed during the time step, actual evapotranspiration from the basin and the net amount
of water that leaves the watershed and contributes to stream flow in the reach (water yield).
The water yield includes surface runoff contribution to stream flow, lateral flow contribution
to stream flow (water flowing laterally within the soil profile that enters the main channel),
groundwater contribution to stream flow (water from the shallow aquifer that returns to the
reach) minus the transmission losses (water lost from tributary channels in the HRU via
transmission through the bed and becomes recharged of the shallow aquifer during the time
step). SWAT-WB predicted high surface runoff in the gently sloping saturated area. This
indicates that in that area ground water is the most contributor of stream flow. Babel. K. H,

75
2009 conclude that saturation excess runoff from gently sloping saturated area was verified
as the major runoff mechanisms in the watershed.The ratio of the simulated average annual
surface runoff to average annual precipitation varies between 1.8 & 1.9 for SWAT-WB & 4.5
to 4.8 for SWAT-CN which indicates that the component is slightly underestimated.
According to the result, both models estimate hydrological fluxes more or less in different
proportions, especially the difference was high in surface runoff and ground water
component. The model result showed SWAT-WB predicts as ground water is the highest
contributor to stream flow relative to surface runoff. This showed that the Runoff process in
the area is saturation excess rather than infiltration excess.

High surface runoff estimated in SWAT-CN than SWAT-WB. This is because SWAT-CN
considers the rain fall distributes well to the season and changed to runoff without further
infiltration. The ground water component was estimated in fewer amounts than SWAT-WB.
The other reason was soil type surveyed in the watershed dominated by group A and Group
B soil type‟s which have the high infiltration capacity and low infiltration excess runoff
rather produced saturation excess flow. The base flow was separated in both models and
compared separated base flow in the calibration period. The previous studies, (Junker, 2012)
revealed that 74% to 84% base flow contributed the stream flow. Our base flow result was
agreed with the previous studies. The stream flow was contributed by 75% for SWAT-WB
and 70% for SWAT-CN of base flow.

Hydrological simulation of the watershed can be very important for effective land and
rainwater management schemes in the watershed and the highlands of Ethiopia which have
the same catchment characteristics. Despite data uncertainty, the SWAT-WB and SWAT-CN
model produced very good simulation results for monthly time steps. The calibrated model
can be used for further analysis of the effect of climate and land use change as well as other
different management scenarios on stream flow. According to the statistical result of
performance criteria and ability of modeling or simulating the hydrology of Maybar
watershed SWAT-WB performs better and recommended than SWAT-CN runoff approach
model. The study revealed that if properly calibrated SWAT-WB can be used more
effectively than SWAT-CN in the highlands of Ethiopia and Monsoonal climate of the world.

76
 CHAPTER SIX

6. Conclusion and Recommendation

6.1. Conclusion

Hydrological models are an effective tool to predict hydrology related processes and the
effect of manipulation to these hydrology related parameters. SWAT 2009 uses the concept
of infiltration excess runoff for SWAT-CN method of simulation. This is based on the
assumption that Hortonian flow is the driving force behind surface runoff production. It
assumes the runoff occurs whenever the rainfall intensity is greater than the rate of
infiltration. SWAT-WB assumes saturation excess is the driving force for runoff. In
saturation excess flow runoff volume depending on the areal extent of saturation within a
watershed and the rainfall depth, but it‟s independent of rainfall intensity.

The main objective of the study was to model the hydrology of Maybar watershed using
SWAT model. In particular, the study analysis, the key hydrological fluxes of the watershed
and the performance of SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN model for simulation of stream flow.

The watershed was discrete into 14 sub basins based on the 33 % threshold value of the total
area of the watershed by using Arc Hydro tool 9 GIS extension software. The EDC values of
seven soil types assigned based on topographic maps of the watershed. EDC values were
spatially varied in such a way that low values are assigned to areas with a high likelihood of
saturation, and higher EDCs values used in areas where not much surface runoff is generated
via saturation excess. Areas which have a high topographic index provide low EDC value
and low infiltration and consequently we expect high runoff. But areas which have a low
topographic index provide high EDC value for each soil type and we expect low runoff
because of high infiltration. For this study, HRU definition was accounting for 20% land use,
10% soil and 20% slope threshold combination were used. Based on the threshold
combination the watershed classified into 89 hydrological responses unite (HRU) which have
the same runoff producing unites.

77
The sensitivity result showed ALPHA_BF & CANMEX are the most sensitive parameters
for SWAT-WB &SWAT-CN respectively. Despite data uncertainty, the SWAT-WB
&SWAT- CN model produced good simulation results for monthly time steps.

The SWATSWAT-WB & SWAT-CN model was successfully calibrated and validated in
Maybar watershed using different algorithms. SUFI-2 & GLUE algorithms gave very good
results in minimizing the differences between observed and simulated flow in the Maybar
watershed. From the two algorithms SUFI2 gave better simulation result than GLUE
algorithm. SWAT-WB & SWAT-CN models showed very good correlation between
observed and simulated monthly average river discharge. SWAT-WB was performed slightly
better during calibration than SWAT-CN (NSE of 0.91 &0. 87, respectively). In the
validation period SWAT-WB was also performed better than SWAT-CN (NSE of
0.85&0.78, respectively. All sources of uncertainty captured by bracketing more than (33%
for SWAT-WB & 51% for SWAT-CN) of the observed data. The hydrological water balance
analysis showed that base flow (64.2% -71.6%) is an important component of the total
discharge within the study area that contributes more than the surface runoff. In calibration
period the simulated flow of Korisheleko River is estimated as (71.46) % base flow for
SWAT-WB and for SWAT-CN the simulated base flow becomes (70.11) %. Direct runoff
contribution to stream flow was estimated as 29.89% for SWAT-CN & 28.54% for SWAT-
WB. The result revealed that base flow is high contributor for stream flow in SWAT-WB
than SWAT-CN. Ground water is the highest contributor to stream flow in Maybar
watershed. More than 25% of losses in the watershed are through evapotranspiration. The
statistical result revealed that if properly calibrated and by considering all sources of
uncertainties SWAT-WB can be used more effectively than SWAT-CN in Monsoonal
climate like Ethiopia.

78
6.2. Recommendations

 The result from sensitivity analysis showed that the runoff is most sensitive to the
groundwater parameters. Thus, for further accuracy of the model a detailed study of
the groundwater properties (the groundwater depth, the alpha factor etc. are essential.
 The performance of the model should evaluate further on parameter transferability of
the model using ungagged catchment.
 In this area ground water model integrated with a hydrological model could be
applied to predict the effect of the ground water system on hydrological water
balance.
 The other thing which is highly recommended is that the weather stations should be
improved both in quality and quantity in order to improve the performance of the
model. Hence, it is highly recommended to establish good meteorological class a
stations.

79
References
Abbaspour. K. C and Schol. J. (2006). Calibration and uncertainty issues of a hydrological
model (SWAT), Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology:
Duibendorf, Switzerland.
Arnold, J.G., R. S. Muttaih, R. Srinivasan, and P.M. Allen. (2000). Regional Estimating of
Base Flow and Ground Water Recharge in the Mississippi River Basin. 227: 21-40
Arnold, J.G., R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttaih and J. R. Williams. (1998). Large area hydrologic
modeling and assessment part I: model development. J. American Water Resources
Association 34(1):73-89.
Ashagre, B. B. (2009). SWAT to identify watershed management options: Master thesis
.(Anjeni watershed, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia).
Bayabil. H.K., (2009). Modeling rainfall runoff relationships at Maybar watershed, Wollo,
Ethiopia. Master Thesis, Integrated Watershed Management and Hydrology Program,
Cornell University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia and Ithaca, NY, USA.
Bayabil K.H,Seifu A. Tilahun, Amy S. Collick, Birru Yitaferu, and Tammo S. Steenhuis.
(2010). Are runoff processes ecologically or topographically driven in the (sub)
humid Ethiopian highlands? The case of the Maybar watershed. Ecohydrology,DOI:
10.1002/eco.170.

Bosshart. (1997). Measurement of River Discharge for the SCRP Research Catchments:
Gauging Station Profiles. Research Report 31. Soil Conservation Research Programme,
University of Berne, Switzerland:
Bosshart. (1996). Measurement of River Discharge for the SCRP Research catchments.
Methodology and Theoretical Background Research Report. 29: Soil Conservation
Research Ethiopia. University of Berne. Switzerland:
Beven.K. (1989). Changing Ideas in Hydrology the case of Physically-Based Models. Journal
of Hydrology105 (1-2):157-172.

Butcher, J. (2008). Watershed Modeling.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad200. Retrieved August 12,
2014,from http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000

80
Chanasyk, D. S., V. S. Baron, E. Mapfumo. (2003). Patterns and simulation of soil
water under different grazing management systems in central Alberta.

Collick AS, Easton ZM, Ashagrie T, Biruk B, Tilahun S, Adgo E, Awulachew SB, Zeleke G,
Steenhuis TS. (2009). A simple semidistributed water balance model for the
Ethiopian highlands. Hydrological Processes23: 3718– 3727

Conway, D. (1997). A water balance model of the Upper Blue Nile in Ethiopia. Hydrological
Sciences. 42(2): 265-285.
Easton, Z. M., M. T. Walter, D. R. Fuka, E. D. White, and T. S and Steenhuis. (2011). "A
simple concept for calibrating runoff thresholds in quasi-distributed variable source
area watershed models." Hydrol. Process 25 (2011): 3131– 3143.
Fadil, A. (2011). Hydrologic Modeling of the Bouregreg Watershed. Journal of Geographic
Information System, 2011, 3, 279-289, 285.

Geremewu, A. A. (2013). Assessing the Impact of Land Cover Change on Hydrology of

Watershed. Ethiopia: Universidade Nova.
Green, W.H. and Ampt, G.A. (1911). Studies in Soil Physics The Flow of Air and Water
Through Soils. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4:1-12.
Hargreaves, G.H., Allen, R.G. (2003). History and evaluation of Hargreaves
evapotranspiration equation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE 129 (1), 53–63.
Holvoet, K. vanGriensven, A. Seuntjens P, and Vanrolleghem, P.A. (2004). Hydrodynamic
modeling with SWAT for predicting dynamic behavior of pesticides. Water and
Environment Management Series, Young Scientist 2004, 211-21.
Howard, S. a. (2008). Hydrological Modeling in Arid and Smi-Arid Areas. London:
Cambridge University.

Hurni H., Tato K., Zeleke G. (2005). The Implications of Changes in Population, Land Use,
and Land Management for Surface Runoff in the Upper Nile Basin Area of Ethiopia.
Mountain Research and Development. 25(2)147-154
Junker, L. (2012). Evaluation of the AnnAGNPS model used for river discharge and
sediment yield predictions in a microscale catchment in the Highlands of Ethiopia.
Master Thesis, 15-17.

81
Lenhart, T. K. Eckhardt, N. Fohrer, H. -G. Frede, (2002). Comparison of two different
approaches of sensitivity analysis Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27 (2002),
Elsevier Science Ltd., 645–654pp.
Liu, BM, AS Collick, G Zeleke, E Adgo, ZM Easton and TS Steenhuis. (2008). Rainfall
Discharge Relationships for a Monsoonal Climate in the Ethiopian Highlands.
Hydrological Processes 22 (7): 1059-1067
Mishra, N. (2008). Macroscale Hydrological Modelling. India: Andhra University.

Monteith JL. (1965). Evaporation and the environment. In The State and Movement of Water
in Living Organisims, XIXth Symposium of the Society of Experimental Biology.
Cambridge University Press: Swansea; 205– 234

Morgan RPC. (2005). Soil Erosion and Conservation. 3rd edition. National Soil Resources

Institute. Cranfield University, UK.

Moriasi. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in

Watershed simulations Vol. 50 (3), 850-900pp. American society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers ISSN 0001-235.

Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry and J.R. Williams. (2001). Soil and Water Assessment
Tool User‟s Manual, Version 2000.
Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry, and J.R. Williams. (2002). Soil and Water
Assessment Tool User‟s Manual, Version 2000. Grassland, Soil and Water Research
Laboratory, Temple, Texas GSWRL Report 02-02 Blackland Research and Extension
Center, Temple, Texas BRC Report 02-06. Texas Water Resources Institute, College
Station, Texas TWRI Report TR-192.
Neistch J. R., Arnold J. G., Kiniry J. R., Srinivasan R. and Williams J. R., (2004).
Input/Output File Documentation Version 2005. Grassland, Soil and Water Research
Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Blackland Research Center, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, Temple, Texas 76502
Neitsch, S.l., Arnold, J.G., and William‟s, J.R. (2005). soil and water assessment tool,
Theoretical documentation: version 2005.Temple, TX. USDA Agricultural Research
Service &TexasA& M Black land research center.

82
Njau E. C., 1996. Generalized Derivation of the Angstrom and Angstrom-Prescott Equations.
Renewable Energy, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 105-108.
Orkodjo, T. P. (2014). Impact of Land Use/ Land Cover Change on Catchment. Ethiopia:
Arbaminich University.
Persaud N., Lesolle D., Ouattara M. (1997). The coefficients of the Angstrijm-Prescott
equation for estimating global irradiance from hours of bright sunshine in Botswana
and Niger. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (88) 27-35.
Priestley, C. H. B. and Taylor. R. J. (1972). On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and
Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters. Division of Atmospheric Physics,
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Aspendale, Victoria,
Australia
Refsgaard, J. a. (1996). Constriction, calibration and validation of hydrological models; In M.
B. Abott and C. J. Refsgaard (editors) distributed hydrological modeling. Klumer
Academic publisher.

Sang, J. K. (2005). Modeling the Impact of Change in Land Use Climate and Reservoire
Storage on Flooding tornado Basin. 13.

Setegn, S. G. (2010). Modeling, hydrological & hydro dynamic processes in Lake Tana
basin, Ethiopia. Doctoral Thesis, TRITA-LWR PhD Thesis 1057, 10-15.

Setegn.S.G, Ragahavan Srinivasan, Bijan Dargahi. (2008). Hydrological Modelling in the

Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia Using SWAT Model. The Open Hydrology Journal, 49-
62.

S. S. Panhalkar. (2014). Hydrological modeling using SWAT model. The Egyptian Journal
of Remote Sensing and Space, 8.

Surur, A. (2010). Simulated Impact of land use dynamics on hydrology during a 20-year
period of Beles Basin in Ethiopia. Master thesis: Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH).

83
SCRP. (2000). Area of Maybar, Wello, Ethiopia: Long-term Monitoring of the Agricultural
Environment 1981-1994. Soil Conservation Research Program. University of Berne,
Switzerland.

SCRP. (2001). Area of Anjeni, Gojam, Ethiopia: Long-term Monitoring of the Agricultural
Environment 1984-1994. Soil Conservation Research Program: University of Berne,
Switzerland.

Taffese, T and Zemadim, B. (2014). Hydrological modeling of a catchment using SWAT.

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).Bamako
.Mali.
Taffese, T. (2012). Physically based rainfall runoff modeling in the northern Ethiopian
highlands: -the case of Mizewa Watershed. Master Thesis, 31-35.
Tamu. (2010). Hydrologic Models Inventory‖, http://hydrologicmodels.tamu.edu/models.htm.
Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://hydrologicmodels.tamu.edu/models.htm:
http://hydrologicalmodels.tamu.edu

Tegenu A. Engda, Haimanote K. Bayabil, Elias S. Legesse, Essayas K. Ayana, Seifu A.

Tilahun. Amy S. Collick, Zachary M. Easton, Alon Rimmer, Seleshi B. Awulachew,
Tammo S. Steenhuis. (2012). Watershed Hydrology of the (Semi) Humid Ethiopian
Highlands. Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY USA. International Water Management Institute, 15-25.

USDA-SCS (United States Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service),

(1972). National Engineering Handbook Section 4 Hydrology, Chapters 4-10.

Wang, Y. (2011). Calibrating Shenandoah Watershed SWAT Model using a Non-Linear

Ground Water Aligorithim. Mary Land: University of Mary Land.

Weigel, G. (1986). The Soils of Maybar Area. Soil Conservation Research Program (SCRP).
Berne, Switzerland: University of Berne.
White, Zachary M. Easton, Daniel R. Fuka, Amy S. Collick, Matthew McCartney, Seleshi
Bekele Awulachew,and Tammo S. Steenhuis. (2011). A Water Balance-Based Soil
and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for Improved Performance in the Ethiopian

84
 Highlands. Dept. of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University,
Ithaca NY, 14853 USA, 157..

White, E. D. (2009). Development and Application of Physically Based Land scape Water
Balance in The SWAT model. In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science. Cornell University.

White, Zarch M.Easton,Dan R.Fuka,Tammos.Steenhuis. (2009). SWAT-WB Theortical

Documentation. Dept. of biological and environmental engineering, Cornell
university, Ithaka, NY. Soil and water lab, 3-4.

Williams, J.R., (1995). Chapter 25: The EPIC model. In: V.P. Singh (eds.), Computer models
of Watershed hydrology, pp. 909-1000.

85
 Appendix
Appendix1. Symbols and description of Weather Generator parameters (WGEN) used
by the SWAT model

S.No Symbol Description

1 TMPMX Average or mean daily maximum air temperature for month (ᵒc)

2 TMPMN Average or mean daily minimum air temperature for month (ᵒc)

3 TMPSTDMX Standard deviation of daily maximum air temperature for month (ᵒc)

4 TMPSTDMN Standard deviation for daily minimum air temperature for month (ᵒc)

5 PCPMM Average or mean total monthly precipitation (mm H2O).

6 PCPSTD Standard deviation for daily precipitation for month (mm H2O/day).

7 PCPSKW Skew coefficient for daily precipitation in month.

8 PR_W1 Probability of a wet day following a dry day in the month

9 PR_W2 Probability of a wet day following a wet day in the month

10 PCPD Average number of days of precipitation in month.

11 SOLARAV Average daily solar radiation for month (MJ/m2/day)

12 DEWPT Average daily dew point temperature in month (ᵒc)

13 WNDAV Average daily wind speeds in a month (m/s)

86
Appendix2: Parameters used for Weather Generator in SWAT Model

WGN Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

parameter

tmpmx 24.56 26.32 26.93 27.45 28.91 30.61 28.02 26.93 26.49 25.76 25.22 24.58

tmpmn 10.49 11.16 12.77 13.87 14.21 15.27 15.26 14.99 13.87 10.73 8.91 8.92

tmpstmx 2.28 2.24 2.15 2.18 1.91 1.44 2.04 1.69 1.67 1.40 1.53 1.93

tmpstdmn 3.11 3.11 2.54 1.76 1.61 1.64 1.60 1.04 1.38 2.46 2.66 3.21

pcpmm 26.69 18.28 66.29 95.86 52.50 27.52 293.66 251.68 105.89 43.86 20.36 18.82

pcpstd 3.74 2.62 5.68 7.23 4.95 3.06 13.05 10.31 6.81 4.99 3.75 2.95

pcpskw 7.72 5.81 4.16 3.23 5.00 5.44 2.17 1.68 3.26 6.36 8.01 7.70

pr_w(1) 0.10 0.07 0.18 0.23 0.17 0.13 0.66 0.63 0.44 0.10 0.04 0.08

pr_w(2) 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.65 0.55 0.63 0.82 0.82 0.60 0.57 0.52 0.52

pcpd 5.48 4.20 9.88 11.88 8.64 7.04 24.04 23.96 16.28 6.44 2.52 3.96

rainhhmx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

87
solarav 18.85 20.96 21.16 21.88 22.55 20.63 18.14 18.97 19.68 20.69 20.52 19.50

dewpt 12.07 12.14 13.00 13.33 11.74 10.86 14.56 15.26 14.40 11.74 10.66 10.81

windav 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.95 1.11 1.02 0.84 0.66 0.61 0.67 0.73

tmpmx 3.58 3.54 3.90 3.96 3.50 2.60 3.08 3.99 4.44 3.66 3.33 3.40

tmpmn 2.95 2.98 2.84 2.57 2.51 1.75 -0.46 1.01 3.01 2.86 2.77 2.87

tmpmx 2.32 2.42 1.78 1.19 1.51 0.90 -4.00 -1.97 1.59 2.05 2.21 2.34

tmpmn 1.69 1.86 0.71 -0.19 0.51 0.05 -7.54 -4.95 0.17 1.25 1.65 1.80

tmpmx 1.06 1.30 -0.35 -1.57 -0.49 -0.80 -11.08 -7.93 -1.25 0.44 1.09 1.27

tmpmn 0.43 0.74 -1.41 -2.95 -1.48 -1.64 -14.62 -10.91 -2.67 -0.36 0.53 0.73

tmpstmx -0.20 0.18 -2.48 -4.33 -2.48 -2.49 -18.16 -13.89 -4.10 -1.17 -0.02 0.20

tmpstdmn -0.83 -0.38 -3.54 -5.72 -3.48 -3.34 -21.71 -16.87 -5.52 -1.97 -0.58 -0.33

88
Appendix 3: Soils parameters and legend used in SWAT model

Symbol Description

2NLAYERS Number of layers in the soil (min 1 max 10)

HYDGRP Soil hydrographic group (A, B, C, D)

SOL_ZMX Maximum root depth of the soil profile

ANION_EXCL Fraction of porosity from which an ions are exchanged

SOL_CRK Crack volume potential of soil

TEXTURE Texture of the layer

SOIL_Z Minimum depth from soil surface to bottom of layer

SOL_BD Moist bulk density

SOL_AWC Available water capacity of soil surface to bottom of the layer

SOL_K Saturated hydraulic conductivity

SOL_CBN Organic carbon content

CLAY Clay content

SILT Silt content

SAND Sand content

ROCK Rock fragmented content

SOL_ALB Moist soil albedo

USLE_K Soil erodibility factor (K)

89
Appendix4: Soils parameter values used in SWAT model.

Stone content
ESC(Y/mm/h)
density(g/cm3)
Hydrologic
soil groups
Soil layers

depth(cm)

Sand ratio
Clay ratio

Silt ratio
K factor

WP (%)
FC (%)
Soil ID

Layer

Bulk

(%)
PH
Hh1 A 1st 100 1.15 0.0328 0.3 0.27 0.43 122 0.28 0.27 37% 6.1
layer 0

Hh2 B 1st 200 1.04 0.0328 0.2 0.18 0.59 122 0.28 0.25 14% 6.6
layer 3

Hh3 B 1st 200 1 0.0197 0.3 0.35 0.26 122 0.32 0.24 4% 6.6
layer 9
2nd 800 1 0.0197 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.32 24% 6.6
layer

B 1st 200 1.15 0.0315 0.3 0.22 0.45 122 0.3 0.17 19% 6.6
Hh4 layer 3
2nd 500 1.11 0.0315 0.4 0.23 0.35 0.6 0.4 0.27 3% 6.5
layer 2
3rd 750 1.11 0.0315 0.5 0.23 0.22 0.6 0.4 0.17 50% 6.5
layer 5
Je 1st 150 1.08 0.0302 0.3 0.3 0.35 122.4 0.32 0.20 19% 6.6
layer 5
2nd 1300 1.18 0.0302 0.3 0.3 0.32 3.6 0.4 0.28 30% 6.4
C
layer 8

90
 Re C 1st 300 1.2 0.0368 0.2 0.21 0.55 1.5 0.2 0.17 0% 6.5
layer 4 8
nd
2 100 1.1 0.0368 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.2 0.14 0% 6.4
layer 0 5
Gm D 1st 300 1 0.0328 0.3 0.34 0.33 2.3 0.3 0.10 0% 6.8
layer 3 2
1st 700 1 0.0328 0.5 0.2 0.3 2.3 0.3 0.1 6% 6.8
layer 2

Appendix5: Average monthly flow (m3/day) of the Maybar watershed.

year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1989 0.0 17.9 0.0 621.3 181.4 94.7 485.0 3383.8 1869. 533.1 148.4 579.
0 4
1990 285.7 1270. 555. 1389. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 7
1991 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1246.2 2465.2 1413. 743.7 258.0 260.
7 5
1992 307.0 318.9 405. 559.2 346.7 174. 440.1 5474.0 3401. 1758.5 565.7 1074
6 1 8
1993 1690. 711.7 975. 1227. 2658.5 668. 1000.1 2487.7 3044. 1672.1 540.5 402.
5 6 7 7 9
2
1994 276.9 261.8 318. 672.0 412.8 167. 1968.5 8485.6 3627. 220.4 100.7 58.1
3 0 6
1995 175.1 175.0 260. 3602. 885.4 404. 2151.5 5656.8 1140. 589.6 402.9 442.
2 6 7 7 3
1996 276.9 253.9 318. 672.0 412.8 167. 1968.5 5014.4 1962. 889.0 448.1 339.
3 0 9 3
1997 176.6 184.1 393. 201.9 178.1 272. 1722.4 2328.5 665.9 1485.1 3152. 1186
3 7 3
1998 1120. 1169 777. 332.0 279.5 174. 5529.7 4948.4 1963. 1352.4 480.5 174.
6 1 2 1
2
1999 276.9 261.8 318. 672.0 412.8 0.0 3162.1 8034.6 3629. 2219.1 733.7 292.
3 1 2
2000 162.8 6.0 16.8 10.7 188.2 174. 3782.4 8226.1 2684. 1467.9 658.4 1294
1 8
2001 526.6 198.6 118 635.1 549.8 416. 3133.1 8123.0 2130. 578.4 258.0 174.
1 5 2 1
2002 174.1 174.1 174. 1044. 402.9 319. 2204.4 4371.0 1740. 381.1 174.1 174.
1 1 0 8 1

91
2003 181.6 180.2 187. 199.3 174.1 174. 653.3 4006.1 2720. 722.6 273.2 256.
0 1 5 3
2004 174.1 174.1 174. 611.6 174.1 175. 1434.0 5131.0 747.7 1276.3 296.1 174.
1 3 1
2005 174.1 174.1 706. 393.8 928.3 224. 4314.8 4271.8 1670. 620.8 235.1 174.
5 6 2 1
2006 211.0 174.1 493. 2021. 1010.3 319. 2412.9 6544.5 4096. 793.8 273.2 199.
9 3 0 0 3
2007 211.0 174.1 493. 2021. 1010.3 319. 2412.9 6544.5 4096. 793.8 273.2 199.
9 3 0 0 3
2008 276.9 261.8 318. 672.0 412.8 167. 1968.5 5014.4 1962. 889.0 448.1 339.
3 0 9 3
2009 177.8 174.1 174. 116.0 181.9 42.4 594.4 1689.7 1624. 365.7 726.5 196.
1 7 2
2010 169.7 161.6 11.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 2401.8 5418.6 1795. 218.4 96.5 218.
8 4
2011 108.3 235.1 189. 98.3 203.6 40.6 1010.4 10258 1962. 889.0 448.1 339.
1 9 3
2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 352.9 213.2 0.0 1072.2 4746.9 1152. 220.1 51.3 0.0
6
2013 0.0 0.0 9.7 479.2 113.1 0.0 2105.7 4637.8 582.9 211.0 174.1 106.
7

Appendix6: Monthly average Rainfall of Maybar station.

year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1989 1.34 2.70 3.35 5.05 1.33 0.94 8.14 10.56 4.86 1.22 0.13 6.39
1990 1.14 6.16 4.17 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1991 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 9.26 7.50 4.74 0.93 0.01 1.11
1992 2.43 2.04 2.81 3.31 1.08 0.74 4.87 9.76 5.53 1.39 1.56 1.04
1993 4.72 0.29 1.84 6.40 5.70 0.27 8.88 6.53 6.61 3.48 0.00 0.11
1994 0.05 0.73 2.89 1.81 2.32 1.30 14.07 13.49 6.68 0.55 1.39 0.01
1995 0.08 1.30 2.60 12.24 1.53 1.12 10.16 11.80 3.49 0.74 0.00 4.87
1996 1.29 0.99 2.34 3.25 1.83 1.09 9.77 10.49 3.76 2.18 0.81 1.01
1997 1.55 0.00 5.52 2.17 0.85 2.56 0.00 4.31 1.79 7.29 7.25 0.00
1998 7.39 2.76 1.33 2.27 3.13 0.05 18.38 9.49 4.03 3.92 0.01 0.00
1999 1.47 0.00 1.77 1.04 2.10 0.95 15.32 14.57 4.78 5.33 0.45 0.03
2000 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.17 2.47 1.70 14.43 13.50 4.19 3.25 2.09 4.02
2001 0.99 0.77 7.36 3.25 1.83 1.09 9.77 10.49 3.76 2.18 0.81 1.01

92
2002 1.29 1.03 2.34 3.25 1.83 1.09 9.77 10.49 3.76 2.18 0.81 1.01
2003 1.29 1.03 2.34 3.25 1.83 1.09 9.77 10.49 3.76 2.18 0.81 1.01
2004 1.25 1.52 1.65 5.19 0.51 2.51 10.45 9.66 3.60 3.85 1.18 1.08
2005 1.43 0.19 6.17 3.54 5.21 1.93 13.57 10.60 4.10 1.28 0.50 0.00
2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.62 6.26 8.35 4.12 0.64 0.04 0.49
2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.62 6.26 8.35 4.12 0.64 0.04 0.49
2008 1.12 2.15 2.20 3.69 1.03 1.12 10.87 10.01 5.19 1.56 0.54 0.00
2009 1.29 0.99 2.34 3.25 1.83 1.09 9.77 10.49 3.76 2.18 0.81 1.01
2010 1.28 0.42 1.13 1.20 0.37 1.58 13.72 12.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
2011 0.00 0.00 2.58 4.10 3.05 0.87 10.45 23.79 3.87 2.18 0.81 1.01
2012 0.00 0.00 0.77 1.38 2.15 0.26 0.95 11.24 1.45 0.99 0.00 0.00
2013 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.16 1.51 2.11 10.91 10.62 1.72 0.43 0.00 0.00

Appendix7: Monthly average rainfall of Kombolcha station.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1989 0.38 1.56 3.75 5.51 0.07 0.62 7.74 8.05 5.80 0.77 0.00 3.36

1990 0.67 3.54 3.98 3.83 0.16 0.00 6.24 3.72 7.05 0.25 0.00 0.00

1991 0.13 1.25 3.08 0.51 1.79 0.92 5.66 6.60 3.87 0.86 0.00 1.12

1992 2.67 0.63 1.59 4.58 0.88 0.20 5.63 6.72 4.98 2.66 1.84 1.58

1993 1.49 0.17 1.20 8.00 5.84 0.16 8.28 5.01 7.55 1.35 0.00 0.25

1994 0.00 0.00 1.74 1.70 2.77 1.02 14.08 10.70 5.15 0.07 1.23 0.06

1995 0.00 1.05 1.55 6.97 2.56 1.00 9.17 8.40 2.68 0.98 0.00 1.44

1996 1.56 0.12 4.51 4.45 4.03 2.06 5.30 11.19 1.24 0.27 1.91 0.06

1997 1.08 0.00 2.06 2.30 0.44 3.47 7.57 6.98 1.73 4.99 2.90 0.00

1998 3.08 3.27 1.17 4.15 1.59 0.10 15.49 8.01 3.82 2.47 0.00 0.00

1999 1.75 0.14 0.73 0.63 0.17 0.36 12.07 10.59 3.64 3.93 0.06 0.06

93
 2000 0.00 0.00 0.20 4.43 2.28 1.41 10.54 11.59 3.98 1.85 1.95 1.24

2001 0.16 0.10 4.51 1.11 1.38 1.56 11.27 7.59 3.84 0.23 0.03 0.29

2002 0.58 0.21 1.90 2.74 0.67 0.35 8.98 8.22 2.89 0.50 0.00 2.01

2003 2.09 0.93 2.42 2.70 0.19 1.27 6.74 8.69 4.98 0.01 0.43 1.94

2004 0.41 0.40 1.28 4.25 0.48 0.93 7.73 7.72 2.75 2.15 1.34 0.18

2005 0.60 0.16 2.45 2.23 2.79 0.70 11.05 9.48 1.36 0.57 0.22 0.00

2006 0.28 0.00 3.93 2.90 1.43 0.49 10.75 8.94 4.68 2.00 0.04 0.21

2007 0.28 0.00 3.93 2.90 1.43 0.49 10.75 8.94 4.68 2.00 0.04 0.21

2008 1.31 1.21 1.69 3.83 0.48 1.24 10.35 5.66 3.08 0.70 0.22 0.00

2009 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.60 1.70 0.98 9.51 6.75 2.29 1.53 2.52 0.00

2010 0.76 0.41 0.55 0.45 0.55 1.15 11.94 10.34 1.94 2.04 0.38 1.02

2011 0.00 1.13 2.28 3.42 3.47 0.53 11.74 3.47 1.93 0.38 0.51 0.37

2012 0.48 0.00 1.63 0.85 4.22 0.68 8.97 10.92 3.02 0.54 1.38 0.00

2013 0.01 0.00 3.52 5.90 1.10 1.67 9.16 8.44 1.76 0.02 0.00 0.01

Appendix 8 Summary information for the selected Meteorological stations

No Station name Longitude(UTM) Latitude(UTM) Altitude(m) Type of data

1 Maybar 571924.13 1215686.76 2510 Rainfall and
temperature,
1 Kombolcha 578362.12 122534 1857 Rainfall,
temperature, relative
humidity, sunshine
hours, wind speed

94
Appendix9: Double max curve (DMC) of Rainfall in Maybar and Kombolcha station.

95