Identification of Relationships among Morphometric

Parameters and QSWAT Model Output

International Conference on SWAT, University of Natural

Resources and Life Sciences, BOKU, Vienna, Austria,

July 17-19, 2019

Rohit Goyal and Priyamitra Munoth

Department of Civil Engineering

Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur

India

1. Introduction

2. Study Area

3. Materials and Methods

4. Results

5. Conclusions

References

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

• To understand the characteristics of any hydrological system like

topography, slope, runoff characteristics, surface water potential

etc. the hydro morphological analysis is the first step.

• The drainage map is typically the first map that is generated in any

watershed-development project (Pakhmode et al., 2003) and the

morphology of a catchment has a strong relationship with the

transformation process of rainfall into runoff (Saravanan and

Manjula 2015).

• At present the automated extraction of topographic parameters

from Digital elevation Modal (DEM) using Geographical

information system (GIS) and hydrological models are recognized

as a viable alternative to traditional surveys and manual evaluation

of topographic maps (Salih et al., 2017; Ehsani et al., 2010).

• Hydrological Models have been developed for estimating various

geomorphological and hydrological variables of any watershed.

• Among these models, The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)

has been widely used and successfully applied to several rivers

basins across the globe.

• Understanding the relationships between morphometric and

hydrological parameters would enable to recognize the dominant

variables acting on a particular basin.

• Therefore the objective of present work is to identify various

drainage and hydrological parameters and to understand the

relationship among them for the Upper Tapi River Sub-basin, India.

2. STUDY AREA

• The study area covers the Upper part of Tapi Basin from Multai

(Madhya Pradesh), the origin of Tapi River up to Hathnur Reservoir

(Maharashtra State) known as Upper Tapi river sub-basin.

• The Upper Tapi river, travels a distance of about 350km till it drains

into Hathnur Reservoir from Multai. The catchment area of Upper

Tapi river sub-basin is about 10,600 km2.

• The annual average rainfall of the area is around 833mm.

• Discharge is monitored at Burhanpur gauge station.

• The main land use types in the watershed are Agriculture, Forest

and Rangeland.

• The elevation ranges from 188m to 1166m above mean sea level

Study Area Map

3. Materials and Methods

Data Type Resolution Source

Digital Elevation Model

(DEM)

90m Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

(SRTM)

http://www2.ipl.nasa.gov/srtm/

Soil Data 1km FAO-UNESCO global soil map

http:/www.fao.org/nr/land/soils/digital-

soil-map-of-the-world

Rainfall Data

Temperature, Relative

Humidity, Solar

Radiation, Wind speed

0.5ox 0.5o Indian Meteorological Department (IMD)

http://www.imdpune.gov.in

0.35o x 0.35o Global weather Data (CFSR data)

https://globalweather.tamu.edu/

Discharge

and Sediment

Observed India WRIS portal

http:/www.india-wris.nrsc.gov.in

Land use 30m LANDSAT ETM+

https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/

Table 1: Input Data

Calculation of Morphometric Parameter’s

Identify Sinks Filled Sinks DEM without Sinks

Flow Direction Flow Accumulation Threshold Stream Grid

Stream Network Stream Order Stream lengths Other Parameters

DEM

Define Pour Point Watershed Delineation

Morphometric

parameterFormula Reference

Linear AspectsStream order (Su) Hierarchical rank Strahler (1964)

Stream length (Lu)Length of

stream(Lu=Lu1+Lu2…Lun)Horton (1945)

Mean stream length (Lsm)Lsm =Lu/Nu

Where (Nu) = Stream NumberStrahler (1964)

Stream length ratio(Lur) Lur = Lsm / Lsm-1 Horton (1945)

Bifurcation ratio (Rbf) Rbf = Nu / Nu + 1 Schumn (1956)

Mean bifurcation ratio(Rbf)Average of bifurcation ratios of all

ordersStrahler (1957)

Length of overland flow (Lg) Lg = 1/2Dd Horton (1945)

Basin length (Lb) Lb = 1.321A0.568 Nookaratnam (2005)

Basin Perimeter (P)Outer boundary measured with

GIS softwareSchumn (1956)

Aerial AspectsDrainage density (Dd) Dd = Lu /A Horton (1932)

Basin Area (A) Area measured with GIS software Strahler (1964)

Stream frequency (Fs) Fs = Nu / A Horton (1932)

Texture ratio (Rt) Rt= Nu / p Horton (1932)

Infiltration Number ( If) If = Dd × Fs Zavoiance (1985)

Form factor (Rf) Rf = A/Lb2 Horton (1932)

Shape factor (Bs) Bs = Lb2/A Nookaratnam (2005)

Circulatory ratio (Rc) Rc = 4 x π x A /P2 Miller (1953)

Elongation ratio (Re) Re =(4 x A / π )0.5/ Lb Schumn (1956)

Compactness constant (Cc) Cc = 0.2821P/A0.5 Horton (1945)

Constant channel

maintenance(C)C = 1 / Dd Schumn (1956)

Relief Aspects

Ruggedness Number (Rn)Rn = Dd * (H /1000)

Where (H)= Basin relief in (m)Strahler (1957)

Relief Ratio Rhl = H / Lb Schumn (1956)

QSWAT Model development

4. Results and Discussions ❑ Linear Morphometric parameters of Upper Tapi River Sub-Basin

Sub

Watersheds

(SW)

No. of Streams

of each Order (Nu)Stream Length of each Order (Lu) (km)

1 2 3 4 5 Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

SW1

13 7 3 1 0 24 72 35 13 5 0 125SW2

10 5 4 0 0 19 40 24 30 0 0 94SW3

10 4 5 0 0 19 49 23 29 0 0 101SW4

50 27 4 1 0 82 224 133 18 90 0 465SW5

25 12 12 0 0 49 120 51 64 0 0 235SW6

26 11 7 1 0 45 75 47 26 21 0 169SW7

12 4 6 0 0 22 37 31 23 0 0 91SW8

24 12 9 0 0 45 86 55 34 0 0 175SW9

21 11 2 2 1 37 114 109 31 5 49 308SW10

30 14 5 0 1 50 163 62 75 0 46 346SW11

10 5 0 1 1 17 64 20 17 7 24 132SW12

60 34 5 1 1 101 256 166 30 2 66 520SW13

11 6 2 0 1 20 32 27 10 0 14 83SW14

29 19 4 0 1 53 161 103 33 0 39 336Upper

Tapi River

Sub-Basin331 171 68 7 6 583 1493 886 433 130 238 3180

Sub

Watersheds

(SW)

Mean

Bifurcation ratios

(Rbf )

Length of overland flow (Lg)

(km)

Basin length (Lb)

(km)

Basin Perimeter (P)

(km)

SW1 2.4 1.79 41.9 148.5

SW2

1.63 1.72 35.46 142.5

SW3

1.65 1.67 36.31 169.8

SW4

4.2 1.92 93.14 331.5

SW5

1.54 1.92 63 245.7

SW6

3.64 2 53.08 193.9

SW7

1.84 1.79 35.02 159

SW8

1.67 1.72 50.08 187.4

SW9

2.84 1.51 63.31 262.9

SW10

1.57 1.42 66.89 282.5

SW11

1.16 1.38 37.83 164

SW12

3.93 1.66 91.03 328.4

SW13

1.88 1.51 30.34 104.4

SW14

3.53 1.43 64.86 244.7

Upper Tapi

River

Sub-Bain

3.82 1.66 255.36 1057.78

Aerial and Relief aspects of Upper Tapi River Sub-Basin

Morphometric

parameters

SW

1

SW

2

SW

3

SW

4

SW

5

SW

6

SW

7

SW

8

SW

9

SW

10

SW

11

SW

12

SW

13

SW

14

Upper

Tapi

River

Sub

Basin

Drainage density

(Dd)

0.28 0.29 0.3 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.29 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.3 0.33 0.35 0.3

Basin Area (A)

(km2)

440 328 342 1794 901 667 320 602 909 1001 367 1723 249 949 10595

Stream

frequency (Fs)

0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06

Texture ratio

(Rt) 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.25 0.2 0.23 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.18 0.1 0.31 0.19 0.22 0.55

Infiltration

Number ( If)

0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02

Form factor

(Rf)

0.25 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.26 0.21 0.27 0.23 0.16

Shape factor

(Bs)

4 3.85 3.85 4.76 4.35 4.17 3.85 4.17 4.35 4.55 3.85 4.76 3.7 4.35 6.25

Morphometric

parameters

SW

1

SW

2

SW

3

SW

4

SW

5

SW

6

SW

7

SW

8

SW

9

SW

10

SW

11

SW1

2

SW

13

SW1

4

Upper

Tapi

River

Sub

Basin

Circulatory ratio

(Rc)

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.2 0.29 0.2 0.12

Elongation ratio

(Re) 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.51 0.54 0.55 0.58 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.57 0.51 0.59 0.54 0.45

Compactness

constant (Cc)

2 2.22 2.59 2.21 2.31 2.12 2.5 2.15 2.46 2.52 2.41 2.23 1.87 2.24 2.9

Constant

channel

maintenance(C)

3.57 3.45 3.33 3.85 3.85 4 3.57 3.45 3.03 2.86 2.78 3.33 3.03 2.86 3.33

Relief(m) 417 416 800 500 877 890 631 702 665 772 312 627 482 487 978

Ruggedness

Number (Rn)

0.12 0.12 0.24 0.13 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.27 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.29

Relief Ratio 9.9 11.7 22.0 5.37 13.9 16.7 18.0 14.0 10.5 11.5 8.25 6.89 15.89 7.51 3.83

Analysis of QSWAT Output

Parameter Min Value Max Value Calibrated Values

r_CN2.mgt -0.1 0.1 -0.015

v_GWQMN.gw 0 5000 2287

v_ESCO.hru 0 1 0.9

r_SOL_AWC(..).sol 0.02 0.2 0.14

v_GW_REVAP.gw 0.02 0.2 0.02

v_REVAPMN.gw 0 500 412

Parameters used in calibration and their calibrated values

Variable Application Year P-factor R-factor R2 NSE PBIAS

Discharge

Calibration 1991-2005 0.67 0.29 0.75 0.75 1.1

Validation 2006-2013 0.66 0.31 0.90 0.89 -7.2

Performance evaluation of developed model

Observed and Simulated Discharge (m3/sec) for calibration period

Observed and Simulated Discharge (m3/sec) for validation period

Sub

Watersheds

QSWAT Output

SURQ

(mm)

ET

(mm)

PET

(mm)

GWQ

(mm)

PERC

(mm)

SW

(mm)

SYLD

(t/ha)

WYLD

(mm)

SW1 448.46 444.76 1749.59 193.31 266.67 944.65 57.05 667.53

SW2 269.59 428.03 1781.68 114.34 197.15 843.82 35.52 411.32

SW3 334.45 459.79 1686.72 231.58 292.97 827.84 21.02 619.87

SW4 222.58 423.23 1697.89 81.24 165.19 919.1 27.6 321.16

SW5 438 420.81 1729.62 269.03 337.66 671.97 5.4 767.32

SW6 464.47 384.39 1744.97 277.04 347.13 551.39 30.62 802.02

SW7 323 377.61 1808.83 104.38 185.21 719.11 69..44 449.17

SW8 196.08 386.51 1882.73 48.19 136.06 667.24 56..47 266.35

SW9 419.09 450.38 1736.3 199.17 272.15 887.97 39.74 662.38

SW10 485.19 457.71 1709.9 243.49 312.13 891.09 17.3 729.27

SW11 292.7 444.91 1760.27 220.54 293.72 954.25 42.55 735.86

SW12 465.63 406.39 1808.77 106.79 189.11 813.67 51.52 419.2

SW13 352.95 362.17 1842.78 18.27 81.48 1044.33 199.18 384.23

SW14 254.76 375.03 1859.41 10.11 85.37 943.9 125.07 274.23

Upper Tapi

River

Sub-Basin

336.11 417.3 1764.3 221.98 221.9 834.3 47.31 512.44

Hydrological parameters from QSWAT Model

Relationships among Morphometric Parameters and

QSWAT Output

Morphometric

ParameterQSWAT Output

SURQ ET PET GWQ PERC SW SYLD WYLD

Dd 0.09 0.40 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.71 0.30 0.0

Fs 0.58 0.97 0.92 0.80 0.75 0.0 0.50 0.81

Rt 0.0 0.07 0.02 0.0 0.03 0.07 0.0 0.05

If 0.14 0.59 0.57 0.48 0.53 0.04 0.70 0.34

Rf 0.0 0.07 0.16 0.24 0.05 0.09 0.20 0.0

Bs 0.0 0.04 0.10 0.20 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.0

Rc 0.0 0.30 0.25 0.42 0.30 0.18 0.46 0.09

Re 0.0 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.03 0.06 0.14 0.0

Cc 0.0 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.11 0.02 0.22 0.05

C 0.1 0.36 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.74 0.33 0.02

Relief 0.14 0.0 0.07 0.30 0.18 0.53 0.15 0.10

Rn 0.19 0.04 0.05 0.23 0.13 0.24 0.09 0.09

Relief Ratio 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.21 0.04 0.18 0.0 0.05

R2 values for Morphometric parameters and QSWAT Output

5. Conclusions • The drainage basin analysis is important in any hydrological

investigation like assessment of groundwater potential, groundwater

management, and environmental assessment.

• From the morphometric analyses, it can be concluded that the Upper

Tapi River basin is elongated in shape and not prone to flood.

• The low drainage density of the basin, indicating permeable strata

and moderate runoff.

• This is favourable for groundwater recharge, thus pointing to

potential areas for groundwater development, which is further

confirmed by the low value of the circulatory ratio.

• The moderate bifurcation ratio indicates a strong relief and a wide

variety of soils and geology.

• The morphometric analysis helps in better understanding the nature

of landforms, slope, drainage system, runoff and hydrological

characteristic of the Upper Tapi river basin.

• Integration of morphometric parameters, GIS and QSWAT model

have been done in this study to overcome the challenge of scarcity

of observed data.

• In the absence of observed data, relationship between hydrological

and morphometric parameters could be used to gauge the

effectiveness of output of the SWAT model.

• The study reveals that Stream frequency (Fs), Infiltration Number

(If), and Circulatory ratio (Rc) are well correlated with hydrological

variables.

References • Abbaspour, K.C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bonger, K., Mieleitner, J., Zobrist, J., and

Srinivasan, R. (2007). Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine Thur watershed using

SWAT. Journal of Hydrology, 333 (2), 413-430.

• Abbaspour, K.C., (2011). SWAT-CUP4: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Programs A User Manual.

EAWAG Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology 1-103.

• Abbaspour, K.C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi, S., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., and Kløve, B., (2015). A

continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a

high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. Journal of Hydrology 524, 733–752.

• Arnold J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams. J.R. (1998). Large area hydrologic modeling and

assessment part I: Model development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34:73-

89.

• Arnold J.G., et al., (2015) Hydrological Processes and Model Representation: Impact of Soft Data on

Calibration. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineering 58(6):1637-1660. doi

10.13031/trans.58.10726.

• Horton, R.E. (1945). Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; Hydrophysical

approach to quantitative morphology. Bulletin of Geological Society of America, 56, 275-370.

• Horton, R. E. (1932). Drainage basin characteristics, Trans. Am. Geophys. Unon.13: 350-361.

• Strahler, A. (1957). Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transaction AGU38, 913–920.

• Strahler, A. N. (1964). Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In:

Chow V.T. (ed.), Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

• Schumn, S.A. (1956). Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth,Amboy, New

Jersey. Geological Society of America, Bulletin. 67, 597–646.

• Zavoiance, I. (1985). Morphometry of drainage basins (Developments in water science), Elsevier

Science, New York, USA.

Thank you