UP DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping For Tagoloan River Basin

© University of the Philippines and the Department of Science and Technology 2015
Published by the UP Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry (TCAGP)
College of Engineering
University of the Philippines Diliman
Quezon City
1101 PHILIPPINES
This research work is supported by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Grants-
in-Aid Program and is to be cited as:
UP TCAGP (2015), DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping for Tagoloan River
Basin, Disaster Risk and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation (DREAM) Program, DOST Grants-
in-Aid Program, 97 pp.
The text of this information may be copied and distributed for research and educational
purposes with proper acknowledgment. While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of
this publication, the UP TCAGP disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including without
limitation, liability in negligence) and costs which might incur as a result of the materials in this
publication being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.
For questions/queries regarding this report, contact:
Alfredo Mahar Francisco A. Lagmay, PhD.

Project Leader, Flood Modeling Component, DREAM Program
Quezon City, Philippines 1101
Email: [email protected]
Enrico C. Paringit, Dr. Eng.

Program Leader, DREAM Program
Quezon City, Philippines 1101
E-mail: [email protected]
National Library of the Philippines

ISBN: 978-971-9695-26-4
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 About the DREAM Program ......................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives and Target Outputs .................................................................... 2
1.3 General Methodological Framework .......................................................... 3
1.4 Scope of Work of the Flood Modeling Component ................................... 4
1.5 Limitations .................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Operational Framework ............................................................................... 4
THE TAGOLOAN RIVER BASIN ............................................................................................ 5
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Pre-processing and Data Used ..................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Elevation Data ................................................................................... 10
3.1.1.1 Hydro-corrected SRTM DEM ................................................ 10
3.1.1.2 LiDAR DEM ............................................................................ 10
3.1.2 Land Cover and Soil Type ................................................................. 12
3.1.3 Hydrometry and Rainfall Data ......................................................... 12
3.1.3.1 Hydrometry for different discharge points ......................... 12
3.1.3.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon .......................... 12
3.1.3.1.2 Arch Bridge, Bukidnon .................................. 13
3.1.3.1.3 Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon .......................... 14
3.1.3.2 Rainfall Intensity Duration frequency (RIDF) ........................ 14
3.1.4 Rating Curves .................................................................................... 16
3.1.4.1 Tagoloan Bridge Rating Curve ............................................. 16
3.1.4.2 Arch Bridge Rating Curve ..................................................... 17
3.1.4.3 Mangima Bridge Rating Curve ............................................. 17
3.2 Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model Development ........................................ 18
3.2.1 Watershed Delineation and Basin Model Pre-processing ................ 18
3.2.2 Basin Model Calibration ................................................................... 20
3.3 HEC-HMS Hydrologic Simulations for Discharge
Computations using PAGASA RIDF Curves ................................................. 21
3.3.1 Discharge Computation using Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model ... 21
3.3.2 Discharge Computation using Dr. Horritt’s Method ....................... 21
3.3.2.1 Determination of Catchment Properties ............................. 22
3.3.2.2 HEC-HMS Implementation ................................................... 23
3.3.2.3 Discharge validation against other estimates ....................... 24
3.4 Hazard and Flow Depth Mapping using FLO-2D ......................................... 25
3.4.1 Floodplain Delineation ..................................................................... 25
3.4.2 Flood Model Generation .................................................................. 25
3.4.3 Flow Depth and Hazard Map Simulation ......................................... 29
3.4.4 Hazard Map and Flow Depth Map Creation .................................... 31
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 33
4.1 Efficiency of HEC-HMS Rainfall-Runoff Models
calibrated based on field survey and gauge data ....................................... 34
4.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon HMS Model Calibration Result .............. 34
4.1.2 Arch Bridge, Bukidnon HMS Model Calibration Result ................... 35
4.1.3 Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon HMS Model Calibration Result .............. 36
4.2 Calculated Outflow hydrographs and Discharge Values
for different Rainfall Return Periods ........................................................... 37
Table of Contents
4.2.1 Hydrograph using Rainfall-Runoff Model .................................................... 37
4.2.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon .................................................. 37
4.2.1.2 Arch Bridge, Bukidnon ......................................................... 41
4.2.1.3 Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon .................................................. 44
4.2.2 Discharge Data using Dr. Horritt’s Method ..................................... 47
4.3 Flood Hazard and Flow Depth Maps ........................................................... 48
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 55
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Tagoloan Model Basin Parameters .................................................. 57
Appendix B. Tagoloan Model Reach Parameters ................................................ 70
Appendix C. Arch Model Basin Parameters ......................................................... 74
Appendix D. Arch Model Reach Parameters ........................................................ 75
Appendix E. Mangima Model Basin Parameters .................................................. 76
Appendix F. Mangima Model Reach Parameters ................................................ 89
Appendix G. Tagoloan Discharge from HEC-HMS Simulation .............................. 93
List of Figures
Figure 1. The general methodological framework of the program .............................. 3
Figure 2. The operational framework and specific work flow
of the Flood Modeling Component ............................................................. 4
Figure 3. Tagoloan River Basin Location Map ............................................................ 6
Figure 4. Tagoloan River Basin Soil Map ..................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Tagoloan River Bain Land Cover Map .......................................................... 7
Figure 6. Summary of data needed for the purpose of flood modeling ................... 10
Figure 7. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Tagoloan River Basin
using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology ............................ 11
Figure 8. The 1-meter resolution LiDAR data resampled to a 10-meter raster grid
in GIS software to ensure that values are properly adjusted ......................... 11
Figure 9. Stitched Quickbird images for the Tagoloan floodplain ............................. 12
Figure 10. Tagoloan rainfall and outflow data used for modeling .............................. 13
Figure 11. Arch rainfall and outflow data used for modeling ...................................... 13
Figure 12. Mangima rainfall and outflow data used for modeling .............................. 14
Figure 13. Thiessen Polygon of Rain Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF)
Stations for the whole Philippines ............................................................... 15
Figure 14. Lumbia Rainfall-Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) curves .................... 16
Figure 15. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon ............... 16
Figure 16. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Arch Bridge, Bukidnon ...................... 17
Figure 17. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon .............. 17
Figure 18. The Rainfall-Runoff Basin Model Development Scheme ............................ 18
Figure 19. Tagoloan HEC-HMS Model domain generated by WMS ........................... 19
Figure 20. Location of rain gauge used for the calibration of Tagoloan
HEC-HMS Model ........................................................................................... 20
Figure 21. Different data needed as input for HEC-HMS discharge
simulation using Dr. Horritt’s recommended hydrology method .............. 21
Figure 22. Delineation of upper watershed for
Tagoloan floodplain discharge computation .............................................. 22
Figure 23. HEC-HMS simulation discharge results using Dr. Horritt’s Method .............. 24
Figure 24. Screenshot showing how boundary grid elements are defined by line ....... 26
Figure 25. Screenshots of PTS files when loaded into the FLO-2D program .............. 26
Figure 26. Areal image of Tagoloan floodplain ............................................................ 27
Figure 27. Screenshot of Manning’s n-value rendering ............................................... 28
Figure 28. Flo-2D Mapper Pro General Procedure ....................................................... 29
Figure 29. Tagoloan Floodplain Generated Hazard Maps using FLO-2D Mapper ........ 30
Figure 30. Tagoloan floodplain generated flow depth map using FLO-2D Mapper .... 30
Figure 31. Basic Layout and Elements of the Hazard Maps ......................................... 31
Figure 32. Tagoloan Bridge Outflow Hydrograph produced by the HEC-HMS model
compared with observed outflow ............................................................... 34
Figure 33. Arch Bridge Outflow Hydrograph produced by the HEC-HMS model
compared with observed outflow ............................................................... 35
Figure 34. Mangima Bridge Outflow Hydrograph produced by the
HEC-HMS model compared with observed outflow ................................... 36
Figure 35. Sample DREAM Water Level Forecast ......................................................... 37
Figure 36. Tagoloan Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 5-Year RIDF
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 38
List
Listof
ofFigures
Figures
in HEC-HMS ................................................................................................... 38
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 39
in HEC-HMS ................................................................................................... 39
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 40
Figure 41. Arch Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 5-Year RIDF
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 41
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 41
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 42
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 42
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................. 43
Figure 46. Mangima Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 5-Year RIDF
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 44
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 44
in HEC-HMS .................................................................................................... 45
in HEC-HMS ................................................................................................... 45
in HEC-HMS ................................................................................................... 46
Figure 51. Tagoloan outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia station
5-, 25-, 100-Year RIDF in HEC-HMS ................................................................ 47
Figure 52. 100-year Flood Hazard Map for Tagoloan River Basin ................................ 49
Figure 53. 100-year Flow Depth Map for Tagoloan River Basin ................................... 50
Figure 54. 25-year Flood Hazard Map for Tagoloan River Basin .................................. 51
Figure 55. 25-year Flow Depth Map for Tagoloan River Basin ..................................... 52
Figure 56. 5-year Flood Hazard Map for Tagoloan River Basin .................................... 53
Figure 57. 5-year Flow Depth Map for Tagoloan River Basin ....................................... 54
List of Tables
Table 1. Methods used for the different calculation types
for the hydrologic elements ......................................................................... 19
Table 2. Summary of Tagoloan discharge using the
Lumbia Station Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) .................. 40
Table 3. Summary of Arch Bridge discharge using the Lumbia Station
Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) ............................................. 43
Table 4. Summary of Mangima Bridge discharge using the
Lumbia Station Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) ................... 46
Table 5. Summary of Tagoloan river discharge using the recommended
hydrological method by Dr. Horritt ............................................................. 47
Table 6. Validation of river discharge estimate ......................................................... 48
List of Equations
Equation 1. Rating Curve ................................................................................................. 16
Equation 2. Determination of maximum potential retention using the
average curve number of the catchment ................................................... 23
Equation 3. Lag Time Equation Calibrated for Philippine Setting ................................. 23
Equation 4. Ratio of river discharge of a 5-year rain return
to a 2-year rain return scenario from measured discharge data ............... 24
Equation 5. Discharge validation equation using bankful method ............................... 24
Equation 6. Bankful discharge equation using measurable channel parameters ........ 25
List of Abbreviations
ACDP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

AOI Area of Interest
ARG Automated Rain Gauge
AWLS Automated Water Level Sensor
DAC Data Acquisition Component
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DPC Data Processing Component
DREAM Disaster Risk Exposure and Assessment for Mitigation
DTM Digital Terrain Model
DVC Data Validation Component
FMC Flood Modelling Component
GDS Grid Developer System
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modeling System
LiDAR Light Detecting and Ranging
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
RIDF Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
UP-TCAGP UP Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry
Introduction
1
Introduction
1.1 About the DREAM Program

The UP Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry (UP TCAGP) conducts a re-
search program entitled “Nationwide Disaster Risk and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation
(DREAM) Program” funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Grants-in-
Aid Program. The DREAM Program aims to produce detailed, up-to-date, national elevation
dataset for 3D flood and hazard mapping to address disaster risk reduction and mitigation in
the country.
The DREAM Program consists of four components that operationalize the various stages of
implementation. The Data Acquisition Component (DAC) conducts aerial surveys to collect
Light Detecting and Ranging (LiDAR) data and aerial images in major river basins and priority
areas. The Data Validation Component (DVC) implements ground surveys to validate acquired
LiDAR data, along with bathymetric measurements to gather river discharge data. The Data
Processing Component (DPC) processes and compiles all data generated by the DAC and DVC.
Finally, the Flood Modeling Component (FMC) utilizes compiled data for flood modeling and
simulation.
Overall, the target output is a national elevation dataset suitable for 1:5000 scale mapping,
with 50 centimeter horizontal and vertical accuracies. These accuracies are achieved through
the use of state-of-the-art airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology and ap-
pended with Synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) in some areas. It collects point cloud data at a
rate of 100,000 to 500,000 points per second, and is capable of collecting elevation data at a
rate of 300 to 400 square kilometers per day, per sensor
1.2 Objectives and Target Outputs

The program aims to achieve the following objectives:
a) To acquire a national elevation and resource dataset at sufficient resolution

to produce information necessary to support the different phases of
disaster management,
b) To operationalize the development of flood hazard models that would
produce updated and detailed flood hazard maps for the major river systems
in the country,
c) To develop the capacity to process, produce and analyze various proven
and potential thematic map layers from the 3D data useful for
government agencies,
d) To transfer product development technologies to government agencies
with geospatial information requirements, and,

e) To generate the following outputs
1) flood hazard map
2) digital surface model
3) digital terrain model and
4) orthophotograph.
2
Introduction
1.3 General Methodological Framework

The methodology to accomplish the program’s expected outputs are subdivided into four
(4) major components, as shown in Figure 1. Each component is described in detail in the
following section.
Figure 1. The general methodological framework of the program
3
Introduction
1.4 Scope of Work of the Flood Modeling Component
The scope of work of the Flood Modeling Component is listed as the following:
a) To develop the watershed hydrologic model of the Tagoloan River Basin;
b) To compute the discharge values quantifying the amount of water entering
the floodplain using HEC-HMS;
c) To create flood simulations using hydrologic models of the Tagoloan
floodplain using FLO-2D GDS Pro; and
d) To prepare the static flood hazard and flow depth maps for the
Tagoloan river basin.
1.5 Limitations
This research is limited to the usage of the available data, such as the following:
1. Digital Elevation Models (DEM) surveyed by the Data Acquisition
Component (DAC) and processed by the Data Processing Component (DPC)
2. Outflow data surveyed by the Data Validation and Bathymetric
Component (DVC)
3. Observed Rainfall from ASTI sensors
While the findings of this research could be further used in related-studies, the accuracy of
such is dependent on the accuracy of the available data. Also, this research adapts the limita-
tions of the software used: ArcGIS 10.2, HEC-GeoHMS 10.2 extension, WMS 9.1, HEC-HMS 3.5
1.6 Operational Framework

The flow for the operational framework of the Flood Modeling Component is shown in Figure
2.
Figure 2. The operational framework and specific work flow of the Flood Modeling
Component
4
The Tagoloan River
Basin
5
The Tagoloan River Basin
The Tagoloan River Basin is located in Northern Mindanao. It is considered as the thirteenth
largest river basin in the Philippines. It covers an estimated basin area of 1,704 square kilome-
ters. The location of Tagoloan River Basin is as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Tagoloan River Basin Location Map
The basin consists of the following rivers: Malitbog, Siloo, Titian, Mangima, Alulum, Amusig
and Dila River. It traverses the Tagoloan River, flowing northwest, and drains into the Ma-
cajalar Bay. It encompasses the provinces of Bukidnon and Misamis Oriental.
The land and soil characteristics are important parameters used in assigning the roughness
coefficient for different areas within the river basin. The roughness coefficient, also called
Manning’s coefficient, represents the variable flow of water in different land covers (i.e.
rougher, restricted flow within vegetated areas, smoother flow within channels and fluvial
environments).
The shape files of the soil and land cover were taken from the Bureau of Soils, which is under
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Management, and National Mapping
and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). The soil and land cover of the Tagoloan River
Basin are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
6
The Tagoloan River Basin
Figure 4. Tagoloan River Basin Soil Map
Figure 5. Tagoloan River Bain Land Cover Map
7
Methodology
9
Methodology
3.1 Pre-processing and Data Used

Flood modeling involved several data and parameters to achieve realistic simulations and out-
puts. Figure 6 shows a summary of the data needed to for the research.
Figure 6. Summary of data needed for the purpose of flood modeling
3.1.1 Elevation Data
3.1.1.1 Hydro Corrected SRTM DEM

With the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Digital Elevation Model (SRTM DEM) data as an
input in determining the extent of the delineated water basin, the model was set-up. The
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is a set of elevation values for a range of points within a des-
ignated area. SRTM DEM has a 90 meter spatial mosaic of the entire country. Survey data of
cross sections and profile points were integrated to the SRTM DEM for the hydro-correction.
3.1.1.2 LiDAR DEM

LiDAR was used to generate the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the different floodplains.
DEMs used for flood modeling were already converted to digital terrain models (DTMs) which
only show topography, and are thus cleared of land features such as trees and buildings.
These terrain features would allow water to flow realistically in the models.
Figure 7 shows an image of the DEM generated through LiDAR.
10
Methodology
Figure 7. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Tagoloan River Basin using Light Detection
and Ranging (LiDAR) technology
Elevation points were created from LiDAR DTMs. Since DTMs were provided as 1-meter spa-
tial resolution rasters (while flood models for Tagoloan were created using a 10-meter grid),
the DTM raster had to be resampled to a raster grid with a 10-meter cell size using ArcGIS.
Figure 8. The 1-meter resolution LiDAR data resampled to a 10-meter raster grid in GIS soft-
ware to ensure that values are properly adjusted
11
Methodology
3.1.2 Land Cover and Soil Type

The land and soil characteristics are important parameters used in assigning the roughness
coefficient for different areas within the river basin. The roughness coefficient, also called
Manning’s coefficient, represents the variable flow of water in different land covers (i.e.
rougher, restricted flow within vegetated areas, smoother flow within channels and fluvial
environments).
A general approach was done for the Tagoloan floodplain. Streams were identified against
built-up areas and rice fields. Identification was done visually using stitched Quickbird images
from Google Earth. Areas with different land covers are shown on Figure 9. Different Manning
n-values are assigned to each grid element coinciding with these main classifications during
the modeling phase.
Figure 9. Stitched Quickbird images for the Tagoloan floodplain
3.1.3 Hydrometry and Rainfall Data
3.1.3.1 Hydrometry for different discharge points
3.1.3.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon
The river outflow from the Data Validation Component was used to calibrate the HEC-HMS
model. This was taken from Malitbog, Bukidnon (8°31’3.48”N, 124°49’55.54”E). This was re-
corded during November 9-12, 2013. Peak discharge is 331 cms.
12
Methodology
Figure 10. Tagoloan rainfall and outflow data used for modeling
3.1.3.1.2 Arch Bridge, Bukidnon
The river outflow was computed using the derived rating curve equation. This discharge was
used to calibrate the HEC-HMS model. It was taken from Arch Bridge, Bukidnon (8°32’20.”N,
124°52’55.99”E). The recorded peak discharge is 22.38cms at 09:00 PM, April 14, 2014.
Figure 11. Arch rainfall and outflow data used for modeling
13
Methodology
3.1.3.1.3 Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon
The river outflow was computed using the derived rating curve equation. This discharge
was used to calibrate the HEC-HMS model. It was taken from Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon
(8°22’37.34”N, 124°53’3.66”E). The recorded peak discharge is 135.55 cms at 15:45, January 20,
2014.
Figure 12. Mangima rainfall and outflow data used for modeling
3.1.3.2 Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency

The Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA)
computed Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) values for the Tagoloan Rain Gauge.
This station was chosen based on its proximity to the Tagoloan watershed. The extreme val-
ues for this watershed were computed based on a 26-year record.
Five return periods were used, namely, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year RIDFs. All return periods
are 24 hours long and peaks after 12 hours.
14
Methodology
Figure 13. Thiessen Polygon of Rain Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) Stations for the
whole Philippines
15
Methodology
Figure 14. Lumbia Rainfall-Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) curves

The Tagoloan outflow was computed for the five return periods, namely, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and
100-year RIDFs.
3.1.4 Rating Curves

Rating curves were provided by DVC. This curve gives the relationship between the observed
water levels from the AWLS used and outflow watershed at the said locations.
Rating curves are expressed in the form of Equation 1 with the discharge (Q) as a function of
the gauge height (h) readings from the AWLS and constants (a and n).
Equation 1. Rating Curve

3.1.4.1 Tagoloan Bridge Rating Curve
For Tagoloan Bridge, the rating curve is expressed as Q = 0.0479e1.8583h as shown in Figure
15.
Figure 15. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon
16
Methodology
3.1.4.2 Arch Bridge Rating Curve
For Arch Bridge, the rating curve is expressed as Q= 8E-143e2.6534h as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Arch Bridge, Bukidnon
3.1.4.3 Mangima Bridge Rating Curve
For Mangima Bridge, the rating curve is expressed as Q = 0.0343e3.2099h as shown in Figure
17.
Figure 17. Water level vs. Discharge Curve for Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon
17
Methodology
3.2 Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model Development

3.2.1 Watershed Delineation and Basin Model Pre-processing
The hydrologic model of Tagoloan River Basin was developed using Watershed Modeling Sys-
tem (WMS) version 9.1. The software was developed by Aquaveo, a water resources engineer-
ing consulting firm in United States. WMS is a program capable of various watershed compu-
tations and hydrologic simulations. The hydrologic model development follows the scheme
shown in the Figure 18.
Figure 18. The Rainfall-Runoff Basin Model Development Scheme
Hydro-corrected SRTM DEM was used as the terrain for the basin model. The watershed
delineation and its hydrologic elements, namely the subbasins, junctions and reaches, were
generated using WMS after importing the elevation data and stream networks.
The parameters for the subbasins and reaches were computed after the model domain was
created. There are several methods available for different calculation types for each subba-
sin and reach hydrologic elements. The methods used for this study is shown in Table 1. The
necessary parameter values are determined by the selected methods. The initial abstraction,
curve number, percentage impervious and manning’s coefficient of roughness, n, for each
subbasin were computed based on the soil type, land cover and land use data. The subbasin
time of concentration and storage coefficient were computed based on the analysis of the
topography of the basin.
18
Methodology
Figure 19. Tagoloan HEC-HMS Model domain generated by WMS
Table 1. Methods used for the different calculation types for the hydrologic elements
Hydrologic Element Calculation Type Method
Loss Rate SCS Curve Number
Subbasin Transform Clark’s unit hydrograph
Baseflow Bounded recession
Reach Routing Muskingum-Cunge
19
Methodology
3.2.2 Basin Model Calibration

The basin model made using WMS was exported to Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS)
version 3.5, a software made by the Hydrologic Engineering Center of the US Army Corps of
Engineers, to create the final rainfall-runoff model. The developers described HEC-HMS as a
program designed to simulate the hydrologic processes of a dendritic watershed systems. In
this study, the rainfall-runoff model was developed to calculate inflow from the watershed to
the floodplain.
Precipitation data was taken from automatic rain gauges (ARGs) installed by the Department
of Science and Technology – Advanced Science and Technology Institute (DOST-ASTI). There
is only one (1) ARG located in the watershed. The location of the ARG is seen in Figure 20.
Total rain from Arch Bridge rain gauge is 67.81 mm. It peaked to 6.8 mm on 10, November
2013, 1:20am. The lag time between the peak rainfall and discharge is two days and six hours
and ten minutes.
Figure 20. Location of rain gauge used for the calibration of Tagoloan HEC-HMS Model
The outflow hydrograph for the downstream-most discharge point with field data was also
encoded to the model as a basis for the calibration. Using the said data, HEC-HMS could per-
form rainfall-runoff simulation and the resulting outflow hydrograph was compared with the
observed hydrograph. The values of the parameters were adjusted and optimized in order
for the calculated outflow hydrograph to appear like the observed hydrograph. Acceptable
values of the subbasin and reach parameters from the manual and past literatures were con-
sidered in the calibration.
20
Methodology
3.3 HEC-HMS Hydrologic Simulations for Discharge

Computations using PAGASA RIDF Curves
3.3.1 Discharge Computation using Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model
The calibrated Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model for the Tagoloan River Basin using WMS and
HEC-HMS was used to simulate the flow for the five return periods, namely, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and
100-year RIDFs. Time-series data of the precipitation data using the Lumbia RIDF curves were
encoded to HEC-HMS for the aforementioned return periods, wherein each return period cor-
responds to a scenario. This process was performed for Tagoloan Bridge. The output for each
simulation was an outflow hydrograph from that result, the total inflow to the floodplain and
time difference between the peak outflow and peak precipitation could be determined.
3.3.2 Discharge Computation using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended Hy-

drological Method
The required data to be accumulated for the implementation of Dr. Horrit’s method is shown
on Figure 21.
Figure 21. Different data needed as input for HEC-HMS discharge simulation using Dr. Hor-
ritt’s recommended hydrology method
21
Methodology
Flows from streams were computed using the hydrology method developed by the flood
modeling component with Dr. Matt Horritt, a British hydrologist that specializes in flood re-
search. The methodology was based on an approach developed by CH2M Hill and Horritt Con-
sulting for Taiwan which has been successfully validated in a region with meteorology and
hydrology similar to the Philippines.
3.3.2.1 Determination of Catchment Properties

RADARSAT DTM data for the different areas of the Philippines were compiled with the aid of
ArcMap. RADARSAT satellites provide advance geospatial information and these were pro-
cessed in the forms of shapefiles and layers that are readable and can be analyzed by ArcMap.
These shapefiles are digital vectors that store geometric locations.
The watershed flow length is defined as the longest drainage path within the catchment,
measured from the top of the watershed to the point of the outlet. With the tools provided
by the ArcMap program and the data from RADARSAT DTM, the longest stream was selected
and its geometric property, flow length, was then calculated in the program.
The area of the watershed is determined with the longest stream as the guide. The compiled
RADARSAT data has a shapefile with defined small catchments based on mean elevation.
These parameters were used in determining which catchments, along with the area, belong
in the upper watershed.
Figure 22. Delineation of upper watershed for Tagoloan floodplain discharge computation
22
Methodology
The value of the curve number was obtained using the RADARSAT data that contains infor-
mation of the Philippine national curve number map. An ArcMap tool was used to determine
the average curve number of the area bounded by the upper watershed shapefile. The same
method was implemented in determining the average slope using RADARSAT with slope data
for the whole country.
After determining the curve number (CN), the maximum potential retention (S) was deter-
mined by Equation 2.
Equation 2. Determination of maximum potential retention using the average curve number
of the catchment
The watershed length (L), average slope (Y) and maximum potential retention (S) are used
to estimate the lag time of the upper watershed as illustrated in Equation 3.
Equation 3. Lag Time Equation Calibrated for Philippine Setting
Finally, the final parameter that will be derived is the storm profile. The synoptic station which
covers the majority of the upper watershed was identified. Using the RIDF data, the incremen-
tal values of rainfall in millimeter per 0.1 hour was used as the storm profile.
3.3.2.2 HEC-HMS Implementation
With all the parameters available, HEC-HMS was then utilized. Obtained values from the pre-
vious section were used as input and a brief simulation would result in the tabulation of dis-
charge results per time interval. The maximum discharge and time-to-peak for the whole sim-
ulation as well as the river discharge hydrograph were used for the flood simulation process.
The time series results (discharge per time interval) were stored as HYD files for input in FLO-
2D GDS Pro.
23
Methodology
Figure 23. HEC-HMS simulation discharge results using Dr. Horritt’s Method
3.3.2.3 Discharge validation against other estimates
As a general rule, the river discharge of a 2-year rain return, QMED, should approximately be
equal to the bankful discharge, Qbankful, of the river. This assumes that the river is in equilibri-
um, with its deposition being balanced by erosion. Since the simulations of the river discharge
are done for 5-, 25-, and 100-year rainfall return scenarios, a simple ratio for the 2-year and
5-year return was computed with samples from actual discharge data of different rivers. It
was found out to have a constant of 0.88. This constant, however, should still be continuously
checked and calibrated when necessary.
Equation 4. Ratio of river discharge of a 5-year rain return to a 2-year rain return scenario from
measured discharge data
For the discharge calculation to pass the validation using the bankful method, Equation 5
must be satisfied.
Equation 5. Discharge validation equation using bankful method
The bankful discharge was estimated using channel width (w), channel depth (h), bed slope
(S) and Manning’s constant (n). Derived from the Manning’s Equation, the equation for the
bankful discharge is by Equation 6.
24
Methodology
Equation 6. Bankful discharge equation using measurable channel parameters
3.4 Hazard and Flow Depth Mapping using FLO-2D

3.4.1 Floodplain Delineation
The boundaries of subbasins within the floodplain were delineated based on elevation values
given by the DEM. Each subbasin is marked by ridges dividing catchment areas. These catch-
ments were delineated using a set of ArcMap tools compiled by Al Duncan, a UK Geomatics
Specialist, into a single processing model. The tool allows ArcMap to compute for the flow
direction and acceleration based on the elevations provided by the DEM.
Running the tool creates features representing large, medium-sized, and small streams, as
well as large, medium-sized, and small catchments. For the purpose of this particular model,
the large, medium-sized, and small streams were set to have an area threshold of 100,000sqm,
50,000sqm, and 10,000sqm respectively. These thresholds define the values where the algo-
rithm refers to in delineating a trough in the DEM as a stream feature, i.e. a large stream
feature should drain a catchment area totalling 100,000 sqm to be considered as such. These
values differ from the standard values used (10,000sqm, 1,000 sqm and 100sqm) to limit the
detail of the project, as well as the file sizes, allowing the software to process the data faster.
The tool also shows the direction in which the water is going to flow across the catchment
area. This information was used as the basis for delineating the floodplain. The entire area
of the floodplain was subdivided into several zones in such a way that it can be processed
properly. This was done by grouping the catchments together, taking special account of the
inflows and outflows of water across the entire area. To be able to simulate actual conditions,
all the catchments comprising a particular computational domain were set to have outflows
that merged towards a single point. The area of each subdivision was limited to 250,000 grids
or less to allow for an optimal simulation in FLO-2D GDS Pro. Larger models tend to run longer,
while smaller models may not be as accurate as a large one.
3.4.2 Flood Model Generation

The software used to run the simulation is FLO-2D GDS Pro. It is a GIS integrated software tool
that creates an integrated river and floodplain model by simulating the flow of the water over
a system of square grid elements.
After loading the shapefile of the subcatchment onto FLO-2D, 10 meter by 10 meter grids that
encompassed the entire area of interest were created.
The boundary for the area was set by defining the boundary grid elements. This can either be
25
Methodology
done by defining each element individually, or by drawing a line that traces the boundaries of
the subcatchment. The grid elements inside of the defined boundary were considered as the
computational area in which the simulation will be run.
Figure 24. Screenshot showing how boundary grid elements are defined by line
Elevation data was imported in the form of the DEM gathered through LiDAR. These eleva-
tion points in PTS format were extrapolated into the model, providing an elevation value for
each grid element.
Figure 25. Screenshots of PTS files when loaded into the FLO-2D program
26
Methodology
The floodplain is predominantly composed of rice fields, which have a Manning coefficient
of 0.15. All the inner grid elements were selected and the Manning coefficient of 0.15 was as-
signed. To differentiate the streams from the rest of the floodplain, a shapefile containing all
the streams and rivers in the area were imported into the software. The shapefile was gener-
ated using Al Duncan’s catchment tool for ArcMap. The streams were then traced onto their
corresponding grid elements.
These grid elements were all selected and assigned a Manning coefficient of 0.03. The DEM
and aerial imagery were also used as bases for tracing the streams and rivers.
Figure 26. Areal image of Tagoloan floodplain
27
Methodology
Figure 27. Screenshot of Manning’s n-value rendering
After assigning Manning coefficients for each grid, the infiltration parameters were identified.
Green-Ampt infiltration method by W. Heber Green and G.S Ampt were used for all the mod-
els. The initial saturations applied to the model were 0.99, 0.8, and 0.7 for 100-year, 25-year,
and 5-year rain return periods respectively. These initial saturations were used in the compu-
tation of the infiltration value.
The Green-Ampt infiltration method by W. Heber Green and G.S Ampt method is based on a
simple physical model in which the equation parameter can be related to physical properties
of the soil. Physically, Green and Ampt assumed that the soil was saturated behind the wet-
ting front and that one could define some “effective” matric potential at the wetting front
(Kirkham, 2005). Basically, the system is assumed to consist of a uniformly wetted near-sat-
urated transmission zone above a sharply defined wetting front of constant pressure head
(Diamond & Shanley, 2003).
The next step was to allocate inflow nodes based on the locations of the outlets of the streams
from the upper watershed. The inflow values came from the computed discharges that were
input as hyd files.
Outflow nodes were allocated for the model. These outflow nodes show the locations where
the water received by the watershed is discharged. The water that will remain in the water-
shed will result to flooding on low lying areas.
For the models to be able to simulate actual conditions, the inflow and outflow of each com-
putational domain should be indicated properly. In situations wherein water flows from one
subcatchment to the other, the corresponding models are processed one after the other. The
28
Methodology
outflow generated by the source subcatchment was used as inflow for the subcatchment
area that it flows into.
The standard simulation time used to run each model is the time-to-peak (TP) plus an addition-
al 12 hours. This gives enough time for the water to flow into and out of the model area, illus-
trating the complete process from entry to exit as shown in the hydrograph. The additional
12 hours allows enough time for the water to drain fully into the next subcatchment. After all
the parameters were set, the model was run through FLO-2D GDS Pro.
3.4.3 Flow Depth and Hazard Map Simulation

After running the flood map simulation in FLO-2D GDS Pro, FLO-2D Mapper Pro was used to
read the resulting hazard and flow depth maps. The standard input values for reading the
simulation results are shown on Figure 28.
Figure 28. Flo-2D Mapper Pro General Procedure
In order to produce the hazard maps, set input for low maximum depth as 0.2 m, and vh,
product of maximum velocity and maximum depth ( m2/s ), as greater than or equal to zero.
The program will then compute for the flood inundation and will generate shapefiles for the
hazard and flow depth scenario.
29
Methodology
Figure 29. Tagoloan Floodplain Generated Hazard Maps using FLO-2D Mapper
Figure 30. Tagoloan floodplain generated flow depth map using FLO-2D Mapper
30
Methodology
3.4.4 Hazard Map and Flow Depth Map Creation
The final procedure in creating the maps is to prepare them with the aid of ArcMap. The gen-
erated shapefiles from FLO-2D Mapper Pro were opened in ArcMap. The basic layout of a
hazard map is shown in Figure 31. The same map elements are also found in a flow depth map.
ELEMENTS
1. River Basin Name
2. Hazard/Flow Depth
Shapefile
3. Provincial Inset
4. Philippine Inset
5. Hi-Res image of the
area
6. North Arrow
7. Scale text and Bar
Figure 31. Basic Layout and Elements of the Hazard Maps
31
Results and Discussion
33
4.1 Efficiency of HEC-HMS Rainfall-Runoff Models cali-

brated based on field survey and gauges data
4.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon HMS Model Calibration Result
Figure 32. Tagoloan Bridge Outflow Hydrograph produced by the HEC-HMS model compared
with observed outflow.
After calibrating the Tagoloan HEC-HMS river basin model, its accuracy was measured against
the observed values. The comparison between the two discharge data are shown in Figure 32.
The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) method aggregates the individual differences of these
two measurements. It was identified at 44.9 m3/s.
The Nash-Sutcliffe (E) method was also used to assess the predictive power of the model.
Here the optimal value is 1. The model attained an efficiency coefficient of 0.26.
A positive Percent Bias (PBIAS) indicates a model’s propensity towards under-prediction.

Negative values indicate bias towards over-prediction. Again, the optimal value is 0. In the
model, the PBIAS is 1.09
The Observation Standard Deviation Ratio, RSR, is an error index. A perfect model attains a
value of 0 when the error in the units of the valuable a quantified. The model has an RSR value
of 0.86
34
4.1.2 Arch Bridge, Bukidnon HMS Model Calibration Result
Figure 33. Arch Bridge Outflow Hydrograph produced by the HEC-HMS model compared with
observed outflow
After calibrating the Arch HEC-HMS river basin model, its accuracy was measured against the
observed values. The comparison between the two discharge data are shown in Figure 33.
Here the optimal value is 1. The model attained an efficiency coefficient of -28.34.

model, the PBIAS is -80.18
value of 0 when the error in the units of the valuable a quantified. The model has an RSR value
of 5.42
35
4.1.3 Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon HMS Model Calibration Result
Figure 34. Mangima Bridge Outflow Hydrograph produced by the HEC-HMS model compared
with observed outflow.
After calibrating the Mangima HEC-HMS river basin model, its accuracy was measured against
the observed values. The comparison between the two discharge data are shown in Figure 34.
Here the optimal value is 1. The model attained an efficiency coefficient of 0.04.

model, the PBIAS is -36.29.
value of 0. The model has an RSR value of 0.98.
The calibrated models of the other discharge points are used in flood forecasting. DREAM
Program offers the LGUs and other disaster mitigation agencies a water level forecast tool,
which can be found on the DREAM website.
36
Figure 35. Sample DREAM Water Level Forecast
Given the predicted and real-time actual water level on specific AWLS, possible river flooding
can be monitored and information can be disseminated to LGUs. This will help in the early
evacuation of the probable affected communities. The calibrated models can also be used for
flood inundation mapping.
4.2 Calculated Outflow hydrographs and Discharge

Values for different Rainfall Return Periods
4.2.1 Hydrograph using the Rainfall-Runoff Model
4.2.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon
The outflow of Tagoloan using the Lumbia Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (RIDF)
in 5 different return periods (5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year rainfall time series)
based on PAGASA data are shown in Figures 36-40. The simulation results reveal significant
increase in outflow magnitude as the rainfall intensity increases for a range of durations and
return periods.
37
In the 5-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 5267.4 cms. This occurs after 2 hours and
40 minutes after the peak precipitation of 27.1 mm, as shown on Figure 36.
Figure 36. Tagoloan Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 5-Year RIDF in HEC-HMS
In the 10-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 7205.5 cms. This occurs after 2 hours
and 30 minutes after the peak precipitation of 30.2 mm, as shown on Figure 37.
Figure 37. Tagoloan Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 10-Year RIDF in HEC-
HMS
38
and 10 minutes after the peak precipitation 34.2 mm, as shown on Figure 38.
HMS
after the peak precipitation of 37.2 mm, as shown on Figure 39.
HMS
39
HMS
A summary of the total precipitation, peak rainfall, peak outflow and time to peak of Tagoloan
discharge using the Lumbia Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (RIDF) in five differ-
ent return periods is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Tagoloan discharge using the Lumbia Station Rainfall Intensity Duration
Frequency (RIDF)
Total Precipita- Peak rainfall Peak outflow
RIDF Period Time to Peak
tion (mm) (mm) (cms)
2 hours and 40
5-Year 185.3 27.1 5267.4
minutes
2 hours and 30
10-Year 225 30.2 7205.5
minutes
2 hours and 10
25-Year 275.2 34.2 9958.5
minutes
50-Year 312.4 37.2 12207.8 2 hours
100-Year 349.3 40.2 14420.2 2 hours
40
4.2.1.2 Arch Bridge, Bukidnon
The outflow of Arch using the Lumbia Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (RIDF) in
5 different return periods (5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year rainfall time series)
return periods.
In the 5-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 548.4cms. This occurs after 10 minutes
Figure 41. Arch Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 5-Year RIDF in HEC-HMS
41
42
In the 100-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 1342.4cms. This occurs after 10 min-
utes after the peak precipitation of 40.2 mm, as shown on Figure 45.
A summary of the total precipitation, peak rainfall, peak outflow and time to peak of Arch,
Bridge discharge using the Lumbia Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (RIDF) in five
different return periods is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Arch Bridge discharge using the Lumbia Station Rainfall Intensity Dura-
tion Frequency (RIDF)
5-Year 129.20 27.1 548.4 10 minutes
10-Year 155.99 30.2 734.9 10 minutes
25-Year 189.79 34.2 976.5 10 minutes
50-Year 214.80 37.2 1157.2 10 minutes
100-Year 239.7 40.2 1342.4 10 minutes
43
4.2.1.3 Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon
The outflow of Mangima using the Lumbia Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (RIDF)
in 5 different return periods (5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year rainfall time series)
return periods.
In the 5-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 1358.8 cms. This occurs after 50 minutes
Figure 46. Mangima Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 5-Year RIDF in HEC-HMS
In the 10-year return period graph, the peak outflow is 1728.4 cms. This occurs after 50 min-
Figure 47. Mangima Outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia 10-Year RIDF in HEC-
HMS
44
HMS
HMS
45
HMS
A summary of the total precipitation, peak rainfall, peak outflow and time to peak of Mangima
discharge using the Lumbia Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (RIDF) in five differ-
ent return periods is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of Mangima Bridge discharge using the Lumbia Station Rainfall Intensity
Duration Frequency (RIDF)
5-Year 129.2 27.1 1358.8 50 minutes
10-Year 156 30.2 1728.4 50 minutes
25-Year 189.8 34.2 2265.2 40 minutes
50-Year 214.8 37.2 2669.1 40 minutes
100-Year 239.7 40.2 3064.2 40 minutes
46
4.2.2 Discharge Data using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended Hydrological
Method
The river discharge values using Dr. Horritt’s recommended hydrological method are shown
in Figure 51.
Figure 51. Tagoloan outflow hydrograph generated using the Lumbia station 5-, 25-, 100-Year
RIDF in HEC-HMS
The peak discharge values are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Summary of Tagoloan river discharge using the recommended hydrological method
by Dr. Horritt
RIDF Period Peak discharge (cms) Time-to-peak
5-Year 2,655.4 21 hours, 30 minutes
25-Year 4,682.9 21 hours, 20 minutes
100-Year 6,458.7.3 21 hours, 10 minutes
The comparison of discharge values obtained from HEC-HMS, Q5yr, and from the bankful dis-
charge method, Qbankful, are shown in Table 6. Using values from the DTM of Tagoloan, the
bankful discharge for the river was computed.
47
Table 6. Validation of river discharge estimate using the bankful method
Floodplain Qbankful, cms Q5yr, cms Validation
Tagoloan (1) 2,129.34 2,336.75 Pass
The value from the HEC-HMS discharge estimate was able to satisfy the condition for validat-
ing the computed discharge using the bankful method. The computed value was used for the
discharge point that did not have actual discharge data. The calibrated discharge data were
also used for areas in the floodplain that were modeled. It is recommended, therefore, to use
the actual value of the river discharge for higher-accuracy modeling.
4.3 Flood Hazard and Flow Depth Maps

The following images are the hazard and flow depth maps for the 5-, 25-, and 100-year rain
return scenarios of the Tagoloan river basin.
48
Flood Hazard Maps and Flow Depth Maps
Figure 52. 100-year Flood Hazard Map for Tagoloan River Basin
49
Results and Discussion Figure 53. 100-year Flow Depth Map for Tagoloan River Basin
50
51
52
53
54
Bibliography
• Aquaveo. (2012). Watershed Modeling - HEC HMS Interface. Aquaveo.
• Feldman, A. D. (2000). Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Technical Reference

Manual. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers - Hydrologic Engineering Center.
• FLO-2D Software, I. Flo-2D Reference Manual. FLO-2D Software, Inc.
• Location. (2014, September 15). Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://uplbcfnraa.org/
tagoloanrb/?p=11
• Merwade, V. (2012). Terrain Processing and HMS- Model Development using GeoHMS.
Lafayette, Indiana.
• Santillan, J. (2011). Profile and Cross Section Surveys, Inflow measurement and flood
modeling of Surigao River, Surigao City for Flood Hazard Assessment Purposes. Quezon
City: Training Center for Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry (TCAGP).
• Scharffenberg, W. A., & Fleming, M. J. (2010). Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS

User’s Manual. Davis, California: U.S Army Corps of Engineers - Hydrologic Engineering
Center.
• Tagoloan River Basin. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://rbco.denr.gov.ph/
wp-content/themes/vantage/RB/tagoloan.html
55
Appendix
57
58
Appendix A. Tagoloan Model Basin Parameters
Clark Unit Hydro-
SCS Curve Number Loss Recession Baseflow
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Num- Initial Ab- Imper- Storage Initial Dis-
Curve Concen- Recession Threshold Ratio to
ber straction vious Coeffi- Initial Type charge
Number tration Constant Type Peak
(mm) (%) cient (HR) (M3/S)
Appendix
(HR)
Ration to
100B 14.7725 72.1 0 0.046888 0.07502 Discharge 0.25444 1 0
Peak
Ration to
101B 7.252 77.8 0 0.021666 0.034666 Discharge 0.18641 1 0
Peak
Ration to
102B 17.117 69 0 0.06197 0.0991532 Discharge 0.30592 1 0
Peak
Ration to
103B 11.3805 77 0 0.0525 0.084 Discharge 0.3471 1 0
Peak
Ration to
104B 11.4 77 0 0.02 0.022666 Discharge 0.0318522 1 0
Peak
Ration to
105B 11.1 77.47 0 0.0675 0.108 Discharge 1.1718 1 0
Peak
Ration to
106B 15.675 70.83 0 0.060642 0.097028 Discharge 0.24995 1 0
Peak
Ration to
107B 7.6 77 0 0.031666 0.050666 Discharge 0.33291 1 0
Peak
Ration to
108B 6.873 78.74 0 0.075 0.12 Discharge 0.30609 1 0
Peak
Ration to
109B 10.725 78.04 0 0.024166 0.038666 Discharge 0.32399 1 0
Peak
Ration to
10B 11.3805 78.83 0 0.074166 0.118666 Discharge 0.35952 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydrograph
Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
110B 7.625 64.33 0 0.041666 0.066666 Discharge 0.60182 1 0
Peak
Ration to
111B 11.3805 77 0 0.0725 0.116 Discharge 0.51543 1 0
Peak
Ration to
112B 17.5935 77 0 0.0525 0.084 Discharge 0.97247 1 0
Peak
Ration to
113B 11.3805 77 0 0.068334 0.109334 Discharge 0.29521 1 0
Peak
Ration to
114B 6.7665 68.41 0 0.0525 0.084 Discharge 0.51449 1 0
Peak
Ration to
115B 13.98 77 0 0.04218 0.067486 Discharge 0.95305 1 0
Peak
Ration to
116B 18.344 78.77 0 0.066666 0.106666 Discharge 0.71112 1 0
Peak
Ration to
117B 10.509 64.5 0 0.0675 0.108 Discharge 0.15026 1 0
Peak
Ration to
118B 20.273 67.5 0 0.0325 0.052 Discharge 0.19647 1 0
Peak
Ration to
119B 7.4665 78.38 0 0.115 0.184 Discharge 0.44526 1 0
Peak
Ration to
11B 10.5465 81.25 0 0.0575245 0.0920392 Discharge 0.13734 1 0
Peak
59
60
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix
(HR)
Ration to
120B 13.9555 65.27 0 0.025 0.04 Discharge 0.503 1 0
Peak
Ration to
121B 11.4115 75.75 0 0.081762 0.13082 Discharge 1.6632 1 0
Peak
Ration to
122B 9.2215 77 0 0.096666 0.154666 Discharge 0.3926 1 0
Peak
Ration to
123B 12.4575 78.32 0 0.058334 0.093334 Discharge 1.5135 1 0
Peak
Ration to
124B 11.0865 64.54 0 0.095834 0.153334 Discharge 0.86379 1 0
Peak
Ration to
125B 10.9665 69 0 0.054245 0.086792 Discharge 0.23776 1 0
Peak
Ration to
126B 9.976 73.15 0 0.12375 0.198 Discharge 0.38287 1 0
Peak
Ration to
127B 7.3675 75.36 0 0.028334 0.045334 Discharge 0.31581 1 0
Peak
Ration to
128B 11.3805 77.46 0 0.052778 Discharge 1.3453 1 0
Peak
Ration to
129B 7.3955 77.65 0 0.047734 0.076374 Discharge 0.40924 1 0
Peak
Ration to
12B 7.349 71.8 0 0.031666 0.050666 Discharge 0.87896 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
130B 7.587 77.34 0 0.0275 0.044 Discharge 0.90902 1 0
Peak
Ration to
131B 7.2815 77 0 0.046666 0.074666 Discharge 0.22112 1 0
Peak
Ration to
132B 7.0305 77.53 0 0.0225 0.036 Discharge 0.23191 1 0
Peak
Ration to
133B 8.9875 77.64 0 0.13625 0.218 Discharge 0.99234 1 0
Peak
Ration to
134B 17.289 77 0 0.0525 0.084 Discharge 0.245 1 0
Peak
Ration to
135B 9.746 77.72 0 0.065556 0.104888 Discharge 2.7731 1 0
Peak
Ration to
136B 10.8785 80.6 0 0.051666 0.082666 Discharge 0.32988 1 0
Peak
Ration to
13B 9.259 73.95 0 0.035 0.056 Discharge 0.87013 1 0
Peak
Ration to
14B 11.3805 72.16 0 0.065 0.104 Discharge 1.0173 1 0
Peak
Ration to
15B 14.0065 59.5 0 0.057778 0.0924444 Discharge 0.19148 1 0
Peak
Ration to
16B 7.6125 79.63 0 0.06867 0.109874 Discharge 0.13869 1 0
Peak
61
62
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix
(HR)
Ration to
17B 18.538 60.37 0 0.042222 0.0675556 Discharge 1.883 1 0
Peak
Ration to
18B 11.3805 70.11 0 0.048184 0.077094 Discharge 0.4108 1 0
Peak
Ration to
19B 19.5315 80.45 0 0.0695375 0.11126 Discharge 0.5241 1 0
Peak
Ration to
1B 16.7595 58.41 0 0.035556 0.056888 Discharge 0.33348 1 0
Peak
Ration to
20B 9.5945 77 0 0.144 0.2304 Discharge 0.49589 1 0
Peak
Ration to
21B 10.35 73.12 0 0.03 0.048 Discharge 0.48718 1 0
Peak
Ration to
22B 17.549 77 0 0.0375 0.06 Discharge 0.27808 1 0
Peak
Ration to
23B 11.6695 66.27 0 0.034166 0.054666 Discharge 0.32133 1 0
Peak
Ration to
24B 17.1745 67.27 0 0.0825 0.132 Discharge 0.19062 1 0
Peak
Ration to
25B 10.39 77 0 0.041666 0.066666 Discharge 0.10635 1 0
Peak
Ration to
26B 16.688 66.11 0 0.051666 0.082666 Discharge 0.21675 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
27B 7.587 69.45 0 0.088334 0.141334 Discharge 0.17279 1 0
Peak
Ration to
28B 11.729 72.63 0 0.061666 0.098666 Discharge 1.2345 1 0
Peak
Ration to
29B 8.1535 70.88 0 0.049166 0.078666 Discharge 0.62023 1 0
Peak
Ration to
2B 9.8435 59.14 0 0.058334 0.093334 Discharge 0.39739 1 0
Peak
Ration to
30B 7.587 68.52 0 0.06 0.096 Discharge 0.36509 1 0
Peak
Ration to
31B 10.7 59.66 0 0.050834 0.081334 Discharge 0.44351 1 0
Peak
Ration to
32B 19.957 70.97 0 0.0675 0.108 Discharge 0.43206 1 0
Peak
Ration to
33B 13.3785 60.35 0 0.05 0.08 Discharge 0.24291 1 0
Peak
Ration to
34B 14.9625 77 0 0.048334 0.077334 Discharge 0.22881 1 0
Peak
Ration to
35B 19.0755 68.41 0 0.060834 0.097334 Discharge 0.28458 1 0
Peak
Ration to
36B 18.82 75.7 0 0.025 0.04 Discharge 1.044 1 0
Peak
63
64
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
37B 16.137 72.07 0 0.084166 0.134666 Discharge 0.38242 1 0
Peak
Ration to
38B 11.5725 77 0 0.041666 0.066666 Discharge 0.15885 1 0
Peak
Ration to
39B 7.587 70.36 0 0.043334 0.069334 Discharge 0.18824 1 0
Peak
Ration to
3B 17.246 56 0 0.068334 0.109334 Discharge 0.35094 1 0
Peak
Ration to
40B 12.0355 65.5 0 0.141666 0.22666 Discharge 0.40368 1 0
Peak
Ration to
41B 11.8925 62.93 0 0.0725 0.116 Discharge 0.1934 1 0
Peak
Ration to
42B 7.587 57.11 0 0.0525 0.084 Discharge 0.20145 1 0
Peak
Ration to
43B 8.5935 57.44 0 0.054166 0.086666 Discharge 0.9728 1 0
Peak
Ration to
44B 19.957 61.15 0 0.0525 0.084 Discharge 1.4958 1 0
Peak
Ration to
45B 19.6915 68.7 0 0.065834 0.105334 Discharge 0.51453 1 0
Peak
Ration to
46B 16.9335 77 0 0.060834 0.097334 Discharge 0.39064 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
47B 8.7125 59.56 0 0.058334 0.093334 Discharge 0.12536 1 0
Peak
Ration to
48B 12.0575 67.85 0 0.0375 0.06 Discharge 0.35519 1 0
Peak
Ration to
49B 15.9345 68.11 0 0.0275 0.044 Discharge 0.29034 1 0
Peak
Ration to
4B 7.9115 59.29 0 0.033334 0.053334 Discharge 0.90632 1 0
Peak
Ration to
50B 17.0395 77 0 0.059166 0.094666 Discharge 0.79367 1 0
Peak
Ration to
51B 7.587 74.72 0 0.106666 0.170666 Discharge 0.60023 1 0
Peak
Ration to
52B 19.271 56 0 0.139166 0.22266 Discharge 0.37596 1 0
Peak
Ration to
53B 9.2805 56.33 0 0.071666 0.114666 Discharge 0.17398 1 0
Peak
Ration to
54B 13.713 77 0 0.041666 0.066666 Discharge 0.30069 1 0
Peak
Ration to
55B 7.587 60 0 0.054166 0.086666 Discharge 0.14952 1 0
Peak
Ration to
56B 11.3105 74.46 0 0.064166 0.102666 Discharge 2.1671 1 0
Peak
65
66
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
57B 19.957 67.81 0 0.0325 0.052 Discharge 0.96376 1 0
Peak
Ration to
58B 14.1575 61.45 0 0.095 0.152 Discharge 0.69836 1 0
Peak
Ration to
59B 14.133 76.25 0 0.02 0.025334 Discharge 0.34423 1 0
Peak
Ration to
5B 11.621 59.85 0 0.041666 0.066666 Discharge 0.79547 1 0
Peak
Ration to
60B 8.127 77 0 0.13 0.208 Discharge 0.37576 1 0
Peak
Ration to
61B 18.828 56.86 0 0.024166 0.038666 Discharge 0.17786 1 0
Peak
Ration to
62B 14.86 73.24 0 0.0575 0.092 Discharge 0.63302 1 0
Peak
Ration to
63B 7.5015 64.94 0 0.04 0.064 Discharge 0.694681 1 0
Peak
Ration to
64B 11.047 77 0 0.0275 0.044 Discharge 0.64018 1 0
Peak
Ration to
65B 7.6385 69.19 0 0.059166 0.094666 Discharge 0.92005 1 0
Peak
Ration to
66B 9.3565 56 0 0.046666 0.074666 Discharge 0.13096 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
67B 14.625 64.21 0 0.035 0.056 Discharge 0.38291 1 0
Peak
Ration to
68B 10.948 64.25 0 0.020834 0.033334 Discharge 0.3621 1 0
Peak
Ration to
69B 14.468 68.61 0 0.1475 0.236 Discharge 0.37809 1 0
Peak
Ration to
6B 9.8095 75.76 0 0.038334 0.061334 Discharge 1.5578 1 0
Peak
Ration to
70B 16.466 57.43 0 0.104166 0.166666 Discharge 0.19569 1 0
Peak
Ration to
71B 12.4935 63.09 0 0.053334 0.085334 Discharge 0.3042 1 0
Peak
Ration to
72B 7.587 77.2 0 0.08 0.128 Discharge 0.13922 1 0
Peak
Ration to
73B 7.587 69.69 0 0.099166 0.158666 Discharge 1.5492 1 0
Peak
Ration to
74B 14.047 76.88 0 0.075834 0.121334 Discharge 0.70973 1 0
Peak
Ration to
75B 10.5265 73.08 0 0.071666 0.114666 Discharge 0.58984 1 0
Peak
Ration to
76B 8.4985 63.46 0 0.108334 0.173334 Discharge 0.43541 1 0
Peak
67
68
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
(HR)
Appendix
Ration to
77B 7.4125 69.88 0 0.084166 0.134666 Discharge 0.34149 1 0
Peak
Ration to
78B 7.235 63.71 0 0.030834 0.049334 Discharge 0.73361 1 0
Peak
Ration to
79B 9.252 72.14 0 0.090834 0.145334 Discharge 0.54998 1 0
Peak
Ration to
7B 6.9485 78.33 0 0.028334 0.045334 Discharge 1.7071 1 0
Peak
Ration to
80B 7.587 60.67 0 0.0675 0.108 Discharge 0.56008 1 0
Peak
Ration to
81B 8.4665 67.03 0 0.1325 0.212 Discharge 0.40205 1 0
Peak
Ration to
82B 7.587 77 0 0.035834 0.057334 Discharge 0.9984 1 0
Peak
Ration to
83B 6.8705 77 0 0.0183333 0.029334 Discharge 0.361 1 0
Peak
Ration to
84B 7.587 64.39 0 0.0775 0.124 Discharge 0.56212 1 0
Peak
Ration to
85B 7.3025 77.37 0 0.031666 0.050666 Discharge 0.36713 1 0
Peak
Ration to
86B 6.752 70.7 0 0.051666 0.082666 Discharge 0.277586 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
87B 8.4665 74.93 0 0.073334 0.117334 Discharge 2.3198 1 0
Peak
Ration to
88B 7.587 77.41 0 0.05 0.08 Discharge 0.50369 1 0
Peak
Ration to
89B 6.8705 77.83 0 0.081666 0.130666 Discharge 0.15905 1 0
Peak
Ration to
8B 7.4845 68.83 0 0.0625 0.1 Discharge 0.055935 1 0
Peak
Ration to
90B 7.587 73.3 0 0.04 0.064 Discharge 0.25068 1 0
Peak
Ration to
91B 7.3025 78.52 0 0.02 0.032 Discharge 0.34497 1 0
Peak
Ration to
92B 6.752 77 0 0.0575 0.092 Discharge 0.31831 1 0
Peak
Ration to
93B 8.4665 75 0 0.073334 0.117334 Discharge 0.50782 1 0
Peak
Ration to
94B 7.587 77 0 0.05 0.08 Discharge 0.70437 1 0
Peak
Ration to
95B 6.8705 78.71 0 0.081666 0.130666 Discharge 0.68601 1 0
Peak
Ration to
96B 7.4845 77.24 0 0.0625 0.1 Discharge 0.47708 1 0
Peak
69
70
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
97B 7.587 77 0 0.04 0.064 Discharge 0.43177 1 0
Peak
Ration to
98B 7.3025 77.67 0 0.02 0.032 Discharge 0.16621 1 0
Peak
Ration to
99B 6.752 79 0 0.0575 0.092 Discharge 0.61593 1 0
Peak
Ration to
9B 38.67 77.34 0 0.091666 0.146666 Discharge 0.62599 1 0
Peak
Appendix
Appendix B. Tagoloan Model Reach Parameters

Muskingum Cunge Channel Routing
Reach
Length Man- Side
Number Time Step Method Slope Shape Width
(m) ning's n Slope
136R Automatic Fixed Interval 11463.09 0.00833 0.0024 Trapezoid 30 45
71
Appendix

Reach
Length Man- Side
(m) ning's n Slope
185R Automatic Fixed Interval 26515 0.00311 0.0024 Trapezoid 30 45
72
Appendix

Reach
Length Man- Side
(m) ning's n Slope
73
Appendix

Reach
Number Side
Time Step Method Length (m) Slope Manning's n Shape Width
Slope
74
Appendix C. Arch Model Basin Parameters
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
17B 18.538 60.37 0 0.084444 0.067556 Discharge 1.883 1 0
Peak
Ration to
25B 10.39 77 0 0.083332 0.066666 Discharge 0.10635 1 0
Peak
Ration to
29B 8.1535 70.88 0 0.098332 0.078666 Discharge 0.62023 1 0
Peak
Ration to
2B 9.8435 59.14 0 0.116668 0.093334 Discharge 0.39739 1 0
Peak
Ration to
36B 18.82 75.7 0 0.05 0.04 Discharge 1.044 1 0
Peak
Ration to
3B 17.246 56 0 0.136668 0.109334 Discharge 0.35094 1 0
Peak
Ration to
5B 11.621 59.85 0 0.083332 0.066666 Discharge 0.79547 1 0
Peak
75
Appendix
Appendix D. Arch Model Reach Parameters

Reach
Number Side
Slope
76
Appendix E. Mangima Model Basin Parameters
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
100B 14.7725 86.52 0 0.093776 0.07502 Discharge 0.25444 1 0
Peak
Ration to
101B 7.252 93.36 0 0.043332 0.034666 Discharge 0.18641 1 0
Peak
Ration to
102B 17.117 82.8 0 0.12394 0.099153 Discharge 0.30592 1 0
Peak
Ration to
103B 11.3805 92.4 0 0.105 0.084 Discharge 0.3471 1 0
Peak
Ration to
104B 11.4 92.4 0 0.04 0.022666 Discharge 0.031852 1 0
Peak
Ration to
105B 11.1 92.964 0 0.135 0.108 Discharge 1.1718 1 0
Peak
Ration to
106B 15.675 84.996 0 0.121284 0.097028 Discharge 0.24995 1 0
Peak
Ration to
107B 7.6 92.4 0 0.063332 0.050666 Discharge 0.33291 1 0
Peak
Ration to
108B 6.873 94.488 0 0.15 0.12 Discharge 0.30609 1 0
Peak
Ration to
109B 10.725 93.648 0 0.048332 0.038666 Discharge 0.32399 1 0
Peak
Ration to
10B 11.3805 94.596 0 0.148332 0.118666 Discharge 0.35952 1 0
Peak
77
78
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix
(HR)
Ration to
110B 7.625 77.196 0 0.083332 0.066666 Discharge 0.60182 1 0
Peak
Ration to
111B 11.3805 92.4 0 0.145 0.116 Discharge 0.51543 1 0
Peak
Ration to
112B 17.5935 92.4 0 0.105 0.084 Discharge 0.97247 1 0
Peak
Ration to
113B 11.3805 92.4 0 0.136668 0.109334 Discharge 0.29521 1 0
Peak
Ration to
114B 6.7665 82.092 0 0.105 0.084 Discharge 0.51449 1 0
Peak
Ration to
115B 13.98 92.4 0 0.08436 0.067486 Discharge 0.95305 1 0
Peak
Ration to
116B 18.344 94.524 0 0.133332 0.106666 Discharge 0.71112 1 0
Peak
Ration to
117B 10.509 77.4 0 0.135 0.108 Discharge 0.15026 1 0
Peak
Ration to
118B 20.273 81 0 0.065 0.052 Discharge 0.19647 1 0
Peak
Ration to
119B 7.4665 94.056 0 0.23 0.184 Discharge 0.44526 1 0
Peak
Ration to
11B 10.5465 97.5 0 0.115049 0.092039 Discharge 0.13734 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
120B 13.9555 78.324 0 0.05 0.04 Discharge 0.503 1 0
Peak
Ration to
121B 11.4115 90.9 0 0.163524 0.13082 Discharge 1.6632 1 0
Peak
Ration to
122B 9.2215 92.4 0 0.193332 0.154666 Discharge 0.3926 1 0
Peak
Ration to
123B 12.4575 93.984 0 0.116668 0.093334 Discharge 1.5135 1 0
Peak
Ration to
124B 11.0865 77.448 0 0.191668 0.153334 Discharge 0.86379 1 0
Peak
Ration to
125B 10.9665 82.8 0 0.10849 0.086792 Discharge 0.23776 1 0
Peak
Ration to
126B 9.976 87.78 0 0.2475 0.198 Discharge 0.38287 1 0
Peak
Ration to
127B 7.3675 90.432 0 0.056668 0.045334 Discharge 0.31581 1 0
Peak
Ration to
128B 11.3805 92.952 0 0.105556 0.084444 Discharge 1.3453 1 0
Peak
Ration to
129B 7.3955 93.18 0 0.095468 0.076374 Discharge 0.40924 1 0
Peak
Ration to
12B 7.349 86.16 0 0.063332 0.050666 Discharge 0.87896 1 0
Peak
79
80
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix
(HR)
Ration to
130B 7.587 92.808 0 0.055 0.044 Discharge 0.90902 1 0
Peak
Ration to
131B 7.2815 92.4 0 0.093332 0.074666 Discharge 0.22112 1 0
Peak
Ration to
132B 7.0305 93.036 0 0.045 0.036 Discharge 0.23191 1 0
Peak
Ration to
133B 8.9875 93.168 0 0.2725 0.218 Discharge 0.99234 1 0
Peak
Ration to
134B 17.289 92.4 0 0.105 0.084 Discharge 0.245 1 0
Peak
Ration to
135B 9.746 93.264 0 0.131112 0.104888 Discharge 2.7731 1 0
Peak
Ration to
136B 10.8785 96.72 0 0.103332 0.082666 Discharge 0.32988 1 0
Peak
Ration to
13B 9.259 88.74 0 0.07 0.056 Discharge 0.87013 1 0
Peak
Ration to
14B 11.3805 86.592 0 0.13 0.104 Discharge 1.0173 1 0
Peak
Ration to
15B 14.0065 71.4 0 0.115556 0.092444 Discharge 0.19148 1 0
Peak
Ration to
16B 7.6125 95.556 0 0.13734 0.109874 Discharge 0.13869 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
17B 18.538 72.444 0 0.084444 0.067556 Discharge 1.883 1 0
Peak
Ration to
18B 11.3805 84.132 0 0.096368 0.077094 Discharge 0.4108 1 0
Peak
Ration to
19B 19.5315 96.54 0 0.139075 0.11126 Discharge 0.5241 1 0
Peak
Ration to
1B 16.7595 70.092 0 0.071112 0.056888 Discharge 0.33348 1 0
Peak
Ration to
20B 9.5945 92.4 0 0.288 0.2304 Discharge 0.49589 1 0
Peak
Ration to
21B 10.35 87.744 0 0.06 0.048 Discharge 0.48718 1 0
Peak
Ration to
22B 17.549 92.4 0 0.075 0.06 Discharge 0.27808 1 0
Peak
Ration to
23B 11.6695 79.524 0 0.068332 0.054666 Discharge 0.32133 1 0
Peak
Ration to
24B 17.1745 80.724 0 0.165 0.132 Discharge 0.19062 1 0
Peak
Ration to
25B 10.39 92.4 0 0.083332 0.066666 Discharge 0.10635 1 0
Peak
Ration to
26B 16.688 79.332 0 0.103332 0.082666 Discharge 0.21675 1 0
Peak
81
82
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
27B 7.587 83.34 0 0.176668 0.141334 Discharge 0.17279 1 0
Peak
Ration to
28B 11.729 87.156 0 0.123332 0.098666 Discharge 1.2345 1 0
Peak
Ration to
29B 8.1535 85.056 0 0.098332 0.078666 Discharge 0.62023 1 0
Peak
Ration to
2B 9.8435 70.968 0 0.116668 0.093334 Discharge 0.39739 1 0
Peak
Ration to
30B 7.587 82.224 0 0.12 0.096 Discharge 0.36509 1 0
Peak
Ration to
31B 10.7 71.592 0 0.101668 0.081334 Discharge 0.44351 1 0
Peak
Ration to
32B 19.957 85.164 0 0.135 0.108 Discharge 0.43206 1 0
Peak
Ration to
33B 13.3785 72.42 0 0.1 0.08 Discharge 0.24291 1 0
Peak
Ration to
34B 14.9625 92.4 0 0.096668 0.077334 Discharge 0.22881 1 0
Peak
Ration to
35B 19.0755 82.092 0 0.121668 0.097334 Discharge 0.28458 1 0
Peak
Ration to
36B 18.82 90.84 0 0.05 0.04 Discharge 1.044 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
37B 16.137 86.484 0 0.168332 0.134666 Discharge 0.38242 1 0
Peak
Ration to
38B 11.5725 92.4 0 0.083332 0.066666 Discharge 0.15885 1 0
Peak
Ration to
39B 7.587 84.432 0 0.086668 0.069334 Discharge 0.18824 1 0
Peak
Ration to
3B 17.246 67.2 0 0.136668 0.109334 Discharge 0.35094 1 0
Peak
Ration to
40B 12.0355 78.6 0 0.283332 0.22666 Discharge 0.40368 1 0
Peak
Ration to
41B 11.8925 75.516 0 0.145 0.116 Discharge 0.1934 1 0
Peak
Ration to
42B 7.587 68.532 0 0.105 0.084 Discharge 0.20145 1 0
Peak
Ration to
43B 8.5935 68.928 0 0.108332 0.086666 Discharge 0.9728 1 0
Peak
Ration to
44B 19.957 73.38 0 0.105 0.084 Discharge 1.4958 1 0
Peak
Ration to
45B 19.6915 82.44 0 0.131668 0.105334 Discharge 0.51453 1 0
Peak
Ration to
46B 16.9335 92.4 0 0.121668 0.097334 Discharge 0.39064 1 0
Peak
83
84
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
(HR)
Appendix
Ration to
47B 8.7125 71.472 0 0.116668 0.093334 Discharge 0.12536 1 0
Peak
Ration to
48B 12.0575 81.42 0 0.075 0.06 Discharge 0.35519 1 0
Peak
Ration to
49B 15.9345 81.732 0 0.055 0.044 Discharge 0.29034 1 0
Peak
Ration to
4B 7.9115 71.148 0 0.066668 0.053334 Discharge 0.90632 1 0
Peak
Ration to
50B 17.0395 92.4 0 0.118332 0.094666 Discharge 0.79367 1 0
Peak
Ration to
51B 7.587 89.664 0 0.213332 0.170666 Discharge 0.60023 1 0
Peak
Ration to
52B 19.271 67.2 0 0.278332 0.22266 Discharge 0.37596 1 0
Peak
Ration to
53B 9.2805 67.596 0 0.143332 0.114666 Discharge 0.17398 1 0
Peak
Ration to
54B 13.713 92.4 0 0.083332 0.066666 Discharge 0.30069 1 0
Peak
Ration to
55B 7.587 72 0 0.108332 0.086666 Discharge 0.14952 1 0
Peak
Ration to
56B 11.3105 89.352 0 0.128332 0.102666 Discharge 2.1671 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
57B 19.957 81.372 0 0.065 0.052 Discharge 0.96376 1 0
Peak
Ration to
58B 14.1575 73.74 0 0.19 0.152 Discharge 0.69836 1 0
Peak
Ration to
59B 14.133 91.5 0 0.04 0.025334 Discharge 0.34423 1 0
Peak
Ration to
5B 11.621 71.82 0 0.083332 0.066666 Discharge 0.79547 1 0
Peak
Ration to
60B 8.127 92.4 0 0.26 0.208 Discharge 0.37576 1 0
Peak
Ration to
61B 18.828 68.232 0 0.048332 0.038666 Discharge 0.17786 1 0
Peak
Ration to
62B 14.86 87.888 0 0.115 0.092 Discharge 0.63302 1 0
Peak
Ration to
63B 7.5015 77.928 0 0.08 0.064 Discharge 0.694681 1 0
Peak
Ration to
64B 11.047 92.4 0 0.055 0.044 Discharge 0.64018 1 0
Peak
Ration to
65B 7.6385 83.028 0 0.118332 0.094666 Discharge 0.92005 1 0
Peak
Ration to
66B 9.3565 67.2 0 0.093332 0.074666 Discharge 0.13096 1 0
Peak
85
86
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix
(HR)
Ration to
67B 14.625 77.052 0 0.07 0.056 Discharge 0.38291 1 0
Peak
Ration to
68B 10.948 77.1 0 0.041668 0.033334 Discharge 0.3621 1 0
Peak
Ration to
69B 14.468 82.332 0 0.295 0.236 Discharge 0.37809 1 0
Peak
Ration to
6B 9.8095 90.912 0 0.076668 0.061334 Discharge 1.5578 1 0
Peak
Ration to
70B 16.466 68.916 0 0.208332 0.166666 Discharge 0.19569 1 0
Peak
Ration to
71B 12.4935 75.708 0 0.106668 0.085334 Discharge 0.3042 1 0
Peak
Ration to
72B 7.587 92.64 0 0.16 0.128 Discharge 0.13922 1 0
Peak
Ration to
73B 7.587 83.628 0 0.198332 0.158666 Discharge 1.5492 1 0
Peak
Ration to
74B 14.047 92.256 0 0.151668 0.121334 Discharge 0.70973 1 0
Peak
Ration to
75B 10.5265 87.696 0 0.143332 0.114666 Discharge 0.58984 1 0
Peak
Ration to
76B 8.4985 76.152 0 0.216668 0.173334 Discharge 0.43541 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
77B 7.4125 83.856 0 0.168332 0.134666 Discharge 0.34149 1 0
Peak
Ration to
78B 7.235 76.452 0 0.061668 0.049334 Discharge 0.73361 1 0
Peak
Ration to
79B 9.252 86.568 0 0.181668 0.145334 Discharge 0.54998 1 0
Peak
Ration to
7B 6.9485 93.996 0 0.056668 0.045334 Discharge 1.7071 1 0
Peak
Ration to
80B 7.587 72.804 0 0.135 0.108 Discharge 0.56008 1 0
Peak
Ration to
81B 8.4665 80.436 0 0.265 0.212 Discharge 0.40205 1 0
Peak
Ration to
82B 7.587 92.4 0 0.071668 0.057334 Discharge 0.9984 1 0
Peak
Ration to
83B 6.8705 92.4 0 0.036667 0.029334 Discharge 0.361 1 0
Peak
Ration to
84B 7.587 77.268 0 0.155 0.124 Discharge 0.56212 1 0
Peak
Ration to
85B 7.3025 92.844 0 0.063332 0.050666 Discharge 0.36713 1 0
Peak
Ration to
86B 6.752 84.84 0 0.103332 0.082666 Discharge 0.277586 1 0
Peak
87
88
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix
(HR)
Ration to
87B 8.4665 89.916 0 0.146668 0.117334 Discharge 2.3198 1 0
Peak
Ration to
88B 7.587 92.892 0 0.1 0.08 Discharge 0.50369 1 0
Peak
Ration to
89B 6.8705 93.396 0 0.163332 0.130666 Discharge 0.15905 1 0
Peak
Ration to
8B 7.4845 82.596 0 0.125 0.1 Discharge 0.055935 1 0
Peak
Ration to
90B 7.587 87.96 0 0.08 0.064 Discharge 0.25068 1 0
Peak
Ration to
91B 7.3025 94.224 0 0.04 0.032 Discharge 0.34497 1 0
Peak
Ration to
92B 6.752 92.4 0 0.115 0.092 Discharge 0.31831 1 0
Peak
Ration to
93B 8.4665 90 0 0.146668 0.117334 Discharge 0.50782 1 0
Peak
Ration to
94B 7.587 92.4 0 0.1 0.08 Discharge 0.70437 1 0
Peak
Ration to
95B 6.8705 94.452 0 0.163332 0.130666 Discharge 0.68601 1 0
Peak
Ration to
96B 7.4845 92.688 0 0.125 0.1 Discharge 0.47708 1 0
Peak
Clark Unit Hydro-
graph Transform
Basin
Time of
Appendix

(HR)
Ration to
97B 7.587 92.4 0 0.08 0.064 Discharge 0.43177 1 0
Peak
Ration to
98B 7.3025 93.204 0 0.04 0.032 Discharge 0.16621 1 0
Peak
Ration to
99B 6.752 94.8 0 0.115 0.092 Discharge 0.61593 1 0
Peak
Ration to
9B 38.67 92.808 0 0.183332 0.146666 Discharge 0.62599 1 0
Peak
89
Appendix
Appendix F. Mangima Model Reach Parameters

Reach
Number Side
Slope
136R Automatic Fixed Interval 11463.09 0.00833 0.00312 Trapezoid 0.3 0.45
90
Appendix

Reach
Number Side
Slope
185R Automatic Fixed Interval 26515 0.00311 0.00312 Trapezoid 0.3 0.45
199R Automatic Fixed Interval 23190 0.0054 0.00468 Trapezoid 0.3 0.45
91
Appendix
Reach Muskingum Cunge Channel Routing

Num- Side
ber Time Step Method Length (m) Slope Manning's n Shape Width
Slope
92
Appendix

Reach
Number Side
Slope
93
Appendix
Appendix G. Tagoloan Discharge from HEC-HMS

Simulation
DIRECT FLOW (cms)
Time (hr) 100-yr 25-yr 5-year Time (hr) 100-yr 25-yr 5-year
0 0 0 0 5.8333 0 0 0
0.1667 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
0.3333 0 0 0 6.1667 0 0 0
0.5 0 0 0 6.3333 0 0 0
0.6667 0 0 0 6.5 0 0 0
0.8333 0 0 0 6.6667 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 6.8333 0 0 0
1.1667 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
1.3333 0 0 0 7.1667 0 0 0
1.5 0 0 0 7.3333 0 0 0
1.6667 0 0 0 7.5 0 0 0
1.8333 0 0 0 7.6667 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 7.8333 0 0 0
2.1667 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
2.3333 0 0 0 8.1667 0 0 0
2.5 0 0 0 8.3333 0 0 0
2.6667 0 0 0 8.5 0 0 0
2.8333 0 0 0 8.6667 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 8.8333 0 0 0
3.1667 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
3.3333 0 0 0 9.1667 0 0 0
3.5 0 0 0 9.3333 0 0 0
3.6667 0 0 0 9.5 0 0 0
3.8333 0 0 0 9.6667 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 9.8333 0 0 0
4.1667 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
4.3333 0 0 0 10.167 0 0 0
4.5 0 0 0 10.333 0 0 0
4.6667 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0
4.8333 0 0 0 10.667 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 10.833 0.1 0 0
5.1667 0 0 0 11 0.2 0.1 0
5.3333 0 0 0 11.167 0.7 0.5 0.2
5.5 0 0 0 11.333 1.7 1.1 0.4
5.6667 0 0 0 11.5 3.2 2 0.9
94
Appendix
DIRECT FLOW (cms)

11.667 6.2 4 1.8 18 4874.3 3469.9 1880.1
11.833 12.9 8.4 3.8 18.167 5046.9 3596.1 1952.6
12 28.5 19.1 9.1 18.333 5206.7 3713.4 2020.8
12.167 52.3 35.4 17.3 18.5 5360.8 3826.8 2087.1
12.333 79.5 54.2 26.8 18.667 5507.7 3935.4 2151.1
12.5 111.4 76.2 37.9 18.833 5646.6 4038.5 2212.5
12.667 148.6 101.9 50.9 19 5770 4130.6 2268
12.833 197 135.5 68.1 19.167 5877.9 4211.9 2318
13 257.5 177.6 89.7 19.333 5978.3 4287.9 2365.2
13.167 324.6 224.4 113.9 19.5 6070.9 4358.4 2409.5
13.333 397 275.1 140.2 19.667 6155.3 4423.2 2450.9
13.5 474.3 329.2 168.4 19.833 6226.2 4478.4 2487
13.667 557.7 387.7 199 20 6281.2 4522.3 2517.1
13.833 648.8 451.7 232.6 20.167 6326.6 4559.2 2543.4
14 745.3 519.8 268.5 20.333 6365.2 4591.3 2566.9
14.167 845.8 590.6 306 20.5 6397.7 4618.9 2588
14.333 951 664.9 345.4 20.667 6423.8 4641.8 2606.3
14.5 1062.4 743.5 387.2 20.833 6441.3 4658.5 2621.2
14.667 1183.8 829.4 433 21 6452.1 4670.2 2633.2
14.833 1313.5 921.3 482.1 21.167 6458.3 4678.6 2643.1
15 1447.7 1016.4 533.2 21.333 6458.7 4682.9 2650.8
15.167 1587.3 1115.4 586.3 21.5 6450.6 4681.2 2655.4
15.333 1733.5 1219.1 642 21.667 6427 4668.4 2653.7
15.5 1892.7 1332 702.8 21.833 6390.1 4646 2646.8
15.667 2064.2 1453.8 768.4 22 6347.2 4619.3 2637.4
15.833 2241.5 1579.9 836.5 22.167 6298.6 4588.2 2625.4
16 2425 1710.4 907.2 22.333 6245.8 4554 2611.4
16.167 2614.2 1845 980.1 22.5 6187.7 4515.8 2595
16.333 2812.3 1986.2 1056.8 22.667 6124.2 4473.6 2576.1
16.5 3020.2 2134.5 1137.5 22.833 6057.5 4428.9 2555.6
16.667 3233.6 2286.9 1220.6 23 5987.8 4381.8 2533.5
16.833 3450.4 2441.9 1305.4 23.167 5915 4332.5 2510
17 3668.1 2597.9 1391.1 23.333 5839 4280.7 2484.9
17.167 3881.9 2751.6 1476.1 23.5 5759.1 4225.9 2458
17.333 4089 2900.7 1559 23.667 5676.4 4169 2429.7
17.5 4291.3 3046.8 1640.7 23.833 5591.4 4110.4 2400.1
17.667 4490.9 3191.2 1721.9 24 5503.5 4049.6 2369.3
17.833 4686.6 3333.2 1802.1 24.167 5411.2 3985.5 2336.5
95
Appendix
DIRECT FLOW (cms)

24.333 5312.2 3916.6 2300.9 30.667 1881.1 1437.7 898.7
24.5 5207.9 3843.8 2263 30.833 1830.4 1399.6 875.4
24.667 5100.5 3768.6 2223.7 31 1780.4 1362 852.3
24.833 4989.9 3691.1 2182.9 31.167 1731.4 1325.1 829.6
25 4875.4 3610.7 2140.5 31.333 1684.3 1289.6 807.7
25.167 4754.1 3525.4 2095.2 31.5 1638.6 1255.1 786.4
25.333 4626.9 3435.8 2047.5 31.667 1593.7 1221.1 765.4
25.5 4497.2 3344.2 1998.5 31.833 1549.3 1187.6 744.8
25.667 4365.5 3251 1948.4 32 1505.3 1154.4 724.4
25.833 4234.4 3157.9 1898 32.167 1461.7 1121.6 704.2
26 4106.9 3067.2 1848.7 32.333 1418.6 1089.1 684.3
26.167 3983.6 2979.3 1800.5 32.5 1375.9 1056.9 664.6
26.333 3862.5 2892.7 1752.8 32.667 1333.8 1025.1 645.1
26.5 3743.3 2807.3 1705.5 32.833 1292.9 994.1 626.1
26.667 3626.9 2723.6 1658.8 33 1254.2 964.8 608
26.833 3517 2644.3 1614.2 33.167 1218.2 937.3 590.9
27 3415.6 2570.9 1572.6 33.333 1183.8 911 574.4
27.167 3319.6 2501.2 1532.8 33.5 1150.4 885.4 558.3
27.333 3226.8 2433.7 1493.9 33.667 1117.6 860.3 542.5
27.5 3136.8 2368.1 1455.9 33.833 1085.4 835.7 527.1
27.667 3049.5 2304.3 1418.9 34 1053.8 811.5 512
27.833 2966.1 2243.3 1383.2 34.167 1022.8 787.7 497.1
28 2885.7 2184.3 1348.6 34.333 992.2 764.3 482.5
28.167 2806.9 2126.4 1314.5 34.5 962.2 741.4 468.1
28.333 2729.9 2069.8 1281.1 34.667 933.2 719.1 454.2
28.5 2654.7 2014.4 1248.3 34.833 905.7 698 440.9
28.667 2582.7 1961.3 1216.7 35 879.4 677.8 428.1
28.833 2513.7 1910.2 1186.2 35.167 853.8 658 415.6
29 2446 1860.1 1156.3 35.333 828.8 638.7 403.4
29.167 2379.8 1811 1126.8 35.5 804.1 619.7 391.4
29.333 2315.4 1763.2 1098 35.667 779.8 601 379.6
29.5 2254.5 1717.8 1070.5 35.833 755.9 582.7 368.1
29.667 2197.4 1675.1 1044.5 36 732.3 564.6 356.7
29.833 2142.4 1633.9 1019.2 36.167 709.2 546.8 345.6
30 2088.8 1593.7 994.5 36.333 686.6 529.4 334.7
30.167 2036.1 1554.1 970.2 36.5 665 512.8 324.2
30.333 1983.9 1514.9 946.1 36.667 644.6 497 314.2
30.5 1932.3 1476.1 922.3 36.833 625 481.9 304.6
96
Appendix
DIRECT FLOW (cms)

37 606 467.1 295.2 43.333 187.1 144.2 91
37.167 587.3 452.7 286.1 43.5 181.3 139.7 88.2
37.333 569.1 438.6 277.2 43.667 175.8 135.5 85.5
37.5 551.2 424.9 268.5 43.833 170.5 131.4 83
37.667 533.7 411.4 260 44 165.4 127.4 80.5
37.833 516.5 398.2 251.7 44.167 160.4 123.6 78
38 499.7 385.3 243.6 44.333 155.5 119.8 75.6
38.167 483.6 372.9 235.8 44.5 150.6 116.1 73.3
38.333 468.7 361.4 228.5 44.667 145.9 112.4 71
38.5 454.7 350.6 221.6 44.833 141.3 108.9 68.8
38.667 441.2 340.1 215 45 136.7 105.4 66.6
38.833 428.2 330 208.5 45.167 132.4 102.1 64.5
39 415.5 320.2 202.3 45.333 128.3 98.9 62.5
39.167 403 310.6 196.2 45.5 124.5 96 60.7
39.333 390.8 301.2 190.3 45.667 120.9 93.2 58.9
39.5 378.9 292 184.5 45.833 117.4 90.4 57.1
39.667 367.2 283 178.8 46 113.9 87.8 55.4
39.833 355.8 274.3 173.3 46.167 110.6 85.2 53.8
40 345 265.9 168 46.333 107.3 82.6 52.2
40.167 334.8 258 163 46.5 104.1 80.2 50.6
40.333 325 250.4 158.2 46.667 100.9 77.7 49.1
40.5 315.5 243.1 153.5 46.833 97.9 75.4 47.6
40.667 306.2 235.9 148.9 47 95.1 73.2 46.2
40.833 297.1 228.9 144.5 47.167 92.5 71.2 44.9
41 288.2 222 140.2 47.333 90 69.3 43.7
41.167 279.4 215.3 135.9 47.5 87.7 67.5 42.5
41.333 270.8 208.7 131.8 47.667 85.4 65.7 41.3
41.5 262.4 202.2 127.7 47.833 83.3 64 40.2
41.667 254.2 195.9 123.8 48 81.1 62.3 39.1
41.833 246.6 190 120
42 239.3 184.4 116.5
42.167 232.3 179 113
42.333 225.5 173.7 109.7
42.5 218.7 168.5 106.4
42.667 212.2 163.4 103.2
42.833 205.7 158.5 100
43 199.4 153.6 97
43.167 193.2 148.8 94
97

UP DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping For Tagoloan River Basin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UP DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping For Tagoloan River Basin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UP DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping For Tagoloan River Basin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© University of the Philippines and the Department of Science and Technology 2015

For questions/queries regarding this report, contact:

Alfredo Mahar Francisco A. Lagmay, PhD.

Enrico C. Paringit, Dr. Eng.

National Library of the Philippines

ACDP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

1.1 About the DREAM Program

1.2 Objectives and Target Outputs

a) To acquire a national elevation and resource dataset at sufficient resolution

1.3 General Methodological Framework

Figure 1. The general methodological framework of the program

1.6 Operational Framework

Figure 3. Tagoloan River Basin Location Map

Figure 4. Tagoloan River Basin Soil Map

Figure 5. Tagoloan River Bain Land Cover Map

3.1 Pre-processing and Data Used

Figure 6. Summary of data needed for the purpose of flood modeling

3.1.1 Elevation Data

3.1.1.1 Hydro Corrected SRTM DEM

3.1.1.2 LiDAR DEM

Figure 7 shows an image of the DEM generated through LiDAR.

3.1.2 Land Cover and Soil Type

Figure 9. Stitched Quickbird images for the Tagoloan floodplain

3.1.3 Hydrometry and Rainfall Data

3.1.3.1 Hydrometry for different discharge points

3.1.3.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon

3.1.3.1.2 Arch Bridge, Bukidnon

3.1.3.2 Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency

Figure 14. Lumbia Rainfall-Intensity Duration Frequency (RIDF) curves

3.1.4 Rating Curves

Equation 1. Rating Curve

3.1.4.3 Mangima Bridge Rating Curve

3.2 Rainfall-Runoff Hydrologic Model Development

Figure 18. The Rainfall-Runoff Basin Model Development Scheme

Figure 19. Tagoloan HEC-HMS Model domain generated by WMS

3.2.2 Basin Model Calibration

3.3 HEC-HMS Hydrologic Simulations for Discharge

3.3.2 Discharge Computation using Dr. Horritt’s Recommended Hy-

3.3.2.1 Determination of Catchment Properties

Equation 3. Lag Time Equation Calibrated for Philippine Setting

3.3.2.3 Discharge validation against other estimates

Equation 5. Discharge validation equation using bankful method

Equation 6. Bankful discharge equation using measurable channel parameters

3.4 Hazard and Flow Depth Mapping using FLO-2D

3.4.2 Flood Model Generation

Figure 26. Areal image of Tagoloan floodplain

Figure 27. Screenshot of Manning’s n-value rendering

3.4.3 Flow Depth and Hazard Map Simulation

Figure 28. Flo-2D Mapper Pro General Procedure

Figure 31. Basic Layout and Elements of the Hazard Maps

4.1 Efficiency of HEC-HMS Rainfall-Runoff Models cali-

A positive Percent Bias (PBIAS) indicates a model’s propensity towards under-prediction.

A positive Percent Bias (PBIAS) indicates a model’s propensity towards under-prediction.

A positive Percent Bias (PBIAS) indicates a model’s propensity towards under-prediction.

Figure 35. Sample DREAM Water Level Forecast

4.2 Calculated Outflow hydrographs and Discharge

4.2.1.1 Tagoloan Bridge, Bukidnon

4.2.1.3 Mangima Bridge, Bukidnon

The peak discharge values are summarized in Table 5.