Evaluation of Hydrological Softwares in Physiographic Parameters Extraction of Watershed

Subject Areas : natural resorces

Somayeh Soltani-Gerdefaramarzi ¹ , Morteza Gheisouri ² , Aref Saberi ³ , Mohsen Ghasemi ⁴

1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran. *(Corresponding Authors)
2 - M. Sc. of Watershed Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran.
3 - M. Sc. of Watershed Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran
4 - PhD of Water Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran.

Received: 2016-07-25 Accepted : 2017-05-16 Published : 2020-09-22

Keywords: branching ratio, hydrological software, DEM, drainage network,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: Today, many analysis of hydrological studies are applicable using ArcGIS, as a valuable tool for engineering analyzes. Determination of the geometry of the watershed and stream network extraction and analysis of physiographic parameters for morphometric analysis, is the most important step for hydrological applications. Method: Using DEM with 10×10 meter pixel size of Sarbaz watershed, was extracted physiographic parameters such as environment, area, branching ratio and drainage density using software ARCSWAT, HEC-GEO HMS, WMS and ARC HYDRO and was compared with watershed border area. Findings: The results of SPSS showed that they don’t have statistically significant differences in the level of 95% between operations of software. So, the results of Duncan test represented that all softwares are placed in a group. Output parameters of the software in numerical terms was very close. Depending on the expert opinion and ease of use of any of the software can be used to derive physical parameters of watershed. Although the border area of extracted with ARCSWAT, HEC-GEO HMS and ARC HYDRO was closer than WMS with the truth visually. Discussion and Conclusion: Because of pre-processing process required the preparation of DEM in WMS software and the difficulty with this software compared to other software, WMS software less frequently used in hydrological studies. But in hydrological studies such as flood control, sediment and erosion due to consideration of more ranks of stream the WMS software could be more appropriate.

References:

1. Hosseinzadeh, S., and Jahadi-Toroghi, M. 2010. Assessing the Quality and Accuracy of Drainage Morphometric Analyses of Drainage Networks Extracted from Digital Elevation Models: A Case Study on Robate Gharebil Catchment in Northern Khorasan, Journal of Geography and Regional Development, 14:183-212. (In Persian)


2. Lee, J. and Chu, C.J., 1996. Spatial structures of digital terrain models and hydrological feature extraction. IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-Intern Assoc. Hydrological Sciences, 235: 201-206.


3. Ashourlue, D., Motakan, A., Kazemi, A., Hosseini, A., Azadbakht, M., Hajeb, M., and Gholampour, A. 2008. Determination of pixel size for calculating physiographic characteristics of the catchment for topographic maps of Iran 1: 25000, Iranian Journal of Geology, 2(8): 47-54. (In Persian)


4. Nadaf-Sangani, M. Hosseinzadeh, S. and Akbari, M. 2015. The Effect of Different Methods of DEM Preparation on the Morphometric Properties of River Networks, Iranian Journal of Watershed Management Science and Engineering, 9(30): 59-63. (In Persian)


5. Shokouhi, A., and Azizian, A. 2014. Evaluating the Effect of Using Radar Elevation Digital Models and Ground Maps on the Results of Simulation of Geomorphologic Models, Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 6(1): 52-62. (In Persian)


6. Chang, K.T. and Tsai, B.W. 1991. The effect of DEM resolution on slope and aspect mapping, Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Syst., 18, 69–77.


7. Thompson, J., Bell, J., and Butler, C. 2001. Digital elevation model resolution: effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soillandscape modeling. Geoderma, 100: 67–89.


8. McBratney, A., Mendoc-a Santos, M., and Minasny, B., 2003. On digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 117 (1–2): 3–52.


9. Maathuis, B., and Sijmons, K. 2005. DEM from Active Sensors-Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM). International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation. 1-121.


10. Almasi-Nia, M. and Shorbi, M. 2013. Accurate calculation of hydrologic and morphometric parameters of the catchment area using (GIS) and (RS). The first international congress of geosciences. (In Persian)


11. Alarcon, V.J. O'Hara, C. G. McAnally, W. Martin, J. Diaz, J. and Duan, Z. 2006. HSPF-estimated flowrate sensitivity to topographical parameter values for three watersheds in Mississippi. Proceedings American Water Resources Association (AWRA) 2006 Spring Specialty Conference GIS & Water Resources IV. Houston. Texas. May 8-10, 2006.


12. Murphy, P. N. C. Ogilvie, J. Meng, F. and Arp, p. 2007. Stream Network Modeling Using Lidar and Photogrammetric Digital Elevation Models: A Comparsion and Field Verification Processes. 1747- 1754.


13. Michele, Di. 2008. Correlation between channel and hillslope lengths and its effects on the hydrologic response. Journal of Hydrology. 362: 260-273pp.


14. Zorkeflee, A. H., H. Nuramidah, and S. Y. Mohd. 2009. Integrated river basin management (IRBM): Hydrologic modelling using HEC-HMS for sungai kurau basin, Perak. Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Resources, (ICWR'09), River Basin Management Society, pp: 1-7.


15. Chen, C., and Yue, T. 2010. A Method of DEM Construction and Related Error Analysis. Computers and Geosciences, 36(6): 717-725.


16. Chen, Y., Wilson, J. P., Zhu, Q., and Zhou, Q. 2012. Comparison of drainage-constrained methods for DEM generalization. Computers & Geosciences, 48: 41-49.