Comparative assessment of two distributed watershed …webhome.auburn.edu/~kalinla/papers/HP2006.pdfct [LT 1] is the inﬁltration capacity, Ft [L] is the cumulative depth of the water

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSESHydrol Process 20 2285ndash2307 (2006)Published online 24 April 2006 in Wiley InterScience (wwwintersciencewileycom) DOI 101002hyp6063

Comparative assessment of two distributed watershedmodels with application to a small watershed

Latif Kalin and Mohamed H HantushUS EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory 26 W Martin Luther King Dr Cincinnati OH 45268 USA

Abstract

Distributed watershed models are beneficial tools for the assessment of management practices on runoff and water-induced erosion This paper evaluates by application to an experimental watershed two promising distributedwatershed-scale sediment models in detail the Kinematic Runoff and Erosion (KINEROS-2) model and the GriddedSurface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model The physics behind each model are to some extent similarthough they have different watershed conceptualizations KINEROS-2 was calibrated using three rainfall events andvalidated over four separate rainfall events Parameters estimated by this calibration process were adapted to GSSHAWith these parameters GSSHA generated larger and retarded flow hydrographs A 30 reduction in both plane andchannel roughness in GSSHA along with the assumption of Green-Ampt conductivity KG-A D Ks where Ks is thesaturated conductivity resulted in almost identical hydrographs Sediment parameters not common in both models werecalibrated independently of KINEROS-2 A comparative discussion of simulation results is presented Even thoughGSSHArsquos flow component slightly overperformed KINEROS-2 the latter outperformed GSSHA in simulations forsediment transport In spite of the fact that KINEROS-2 is not geared toward continuous-time simulations simulationsperformed with both models over a 1 month period generated comparable results Copyright 2006 John Wiley ampSons Ltd

KEY WORDS runoff sediment watershed distributed model GSSHA KINEROS-2

INTRODUCTION

Sediment yield has important implications for water quality and water resources Sediments may serve ascarriers for pesticides radioactive materials and nutrients giving rise to water quality issues Studies haveshown that total suspended sediment concentrations are positively correlated with total phosphorus and nitrateconcentrations Often sediments in surface waterbodies are contaminated by chemicals that tend to sorb tofine-grained organic and inorganic soil particles Estimates of sediment yield are required for a wide spectrumof problems dealing with dams and reservoirs fate and transport of pollutants in surface waters design ofstable channels protection of fish and other aquatic life watershed management and for environmental impactstatements Changes in sediment dynamics such as scour and erosion of channel bed and banks depositionof fine particles and resuspension of solids in the suspended sediment load of the water column can havesignificant effects on the aquatic ecosystem health

Models are extensively used by water resources planners water quality managers engineers and scientists tounderstand the important processes and interactions that affect the water quality of waterbodies to evaluate theeffectiveness of various control strategies and perform costndashbenefit analysis Distributed models are favouredover lumped ones for development of detailed total maximum daily loadings and best management practice(BMP) implementations The availability of high-power computers has relaxed the burden of extensivecomputationally demanding simulations Although subject to scrutiny the general consensus is that physically

Correspondence to Latif Kalin US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory 26 W Martin Luther King Dr CincinnatiOH 45268 USA E-mail kalinlatifepagov

Received 14 June 2004Copyright 2006 John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Accepted 12 May 2005

2286 L KALIN AND M H HANTUSH

based models are superior to empirical models since model parameters have physical meanings and can bemeasured in the field When measurements are not available model parameters can still be deduced frompublished data in literature based on topography soil and land-use maps The limitations of lumped empiricalmodels can be listed as (Downer et al 2003) (i) simplified descriptions of physical processes (ii) lack ofverifiable results (iii) inability to use the model outside the range of calibration and (iv) lack of spatialheterogeneity However Woolhiser (1996) cautions against overselling models By referring to physicallybased models he states that

we should be able to estimate the parameters a priori or measure them in the field yet such estimateshave a great deal of uncertainty Further it is more difficult to calibrate physically based models becausethey are overparameterized

Numerous watershed-scale hydrologic models are available and many of them have been compiledand summarized in several studies (eg Singh 1995 Shoemaker et al 1997 Ward and Benaman 1999Fitzpatrick et al 2001 SAAESD 2001 Singh and Frevert 2002ab Singh and Woolhiser 2002 Kalinand Hantush 2003 USGS-SMIC database httpsmigusgsgovsmic Register of Ecological Models meta-database httpecowizuni-kasseldeecobashtml) The existence of so many models raises the question ofwhat model to use for a particular application Several studies have presented qualitative comparisons ofwatershed models that may help in the initial screening of models (Ward and Benaman 1999 Fitzpatricket al 2001 Borah and Bera 2003 Kalin and Hantush 2003) However most of these studies signify theimportance of comparative assessment of watershed models in a quantitative framework Although there areseveral efforts in the literature comparing distributed and lumped models (eg Loague and Freeze 1985Michaud and Sorooshian 1994 Refsgaard and Knudsen 1996) to our knowledge no study was carried outon an intercomparison of distributed models until recently In a recent study called the Distributed ModelIntercomparison Project (DMIP) simulations from 12 different models performed with the same data set werecompared with observed data (Reed et al 2004) The whole 298th issue of Journal of Hydrology is dedicatedto the results of this project

In this paper two distributed models with proven track records are investigated the Kinematic Runoff andErosion (KINEROS-2) model (Smith et al 1995a) and the Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis(GSSHA) model (Downer and Ogden 2002) Both models are commonly used and are promising withmany applications in peer-reviewed literature GSSHA is supported by the US Army Engineer Research andDevelopment Center and is embedded into the Watershed Modeling System (WMS Nelson 2001) KINEROS-2 was developed by US Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists and is one of the two models under theAutomated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) system (Semmens et al 2002) which is supportedby both the USDA and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Both models are physically basedand rely on relatively similar inputs The KINEROS-2 model was calibrated and then validated over severalevents The calibration parameters are then adapted to GSSHA and the two models are compared based ontheir performances on modelling flow and sediment movement Long-term simulations are performed withGSSHA utilizing the same model parameters This study differs from DMIP (Reed et al 2004) on two majorpoints (i) neither KINEROS-2 nor GSSHA was part of DMIP and (ii) all the DMIP participants were originalmodel developers Thus our study provides an independent evaluation of the two models other than those ofthe model developers

Successful applications of KINEROS-2 and its older version KINEROS (Woolhiser et al 1990) have beenreported in the literature Michaud and Sorooshian (1994) compared the accuracy in flow simulations of theKINEROS model with a simple distributed model and with a simple lumped model both being based on theSoil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number method They found that without calibration KINEROS wasmore accurate than the other two When calibration was performed model accuracies were comparable in allthree models Smith et al (1995b) discussed the KINEROS and EUROSEM (Morgan et al 1992) models byconsidering flow and sediment transport Their discussion was rather qualitative as they essentially compared

Copyright 2006 John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Hydrol Process 20 2285ndash2307 (2006)

COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTED WATERSHED MODELS 2287

the two models conceptually by presenting the model formulations and catchment topography descriptionsSmith et al (1999) calibrated and validated KINEROS-2 on a split set of runoff and sediment data over asmall watershed in the Netherlands They obtained relatively good results Ziegler et al (2000 2001) employedKINEROS-2 to estimate erosion from unpaved mountain roads Kalin et al (2003) applied KINEROS to twosmall experimental USDA watersheds and investigated the effect of geomorphologic resolution on flow andsediment transport In another study Kalin et al (2004ab) employed KINEROS to identify high- and low-sediment-generating areas in a watershed by generating unit sedimentographs and using linear optimizationapproaches

Various applications of the GSSHA model and its predecessor CASC2D can be found in peer-reviewedliterature most of them by model developers Ogden et al (2000) studied the 1997 flash flood of FortCollins CO with CASC2D Senarath et al (2000) used an automated calibration algorithm ie shuffledcomplex evolution (Duan et al 1992) to calibrate CASC2D on Goodwin Creek Watershed MississippiMolnar and Julien (2000) analysed the effect of grid size on surface runoff modelling by calibrating CASC2Don 21 km2 Goodwin Creek watershed and extending its results to a larger 560 km2 watershed havingsimilar physical characteristics Ogden and Heilig (2001) investigated the effectiveness of sediment transportformulation in CASC2D by applying it to the Goodwin Creek watershed Downer et al (2002) exploredthe potentials of CASC2D by applying it to four different watersheds having different runoff-generatingmechanisms Downer and Ogden (2003) examined GSSHArsquos ability to predict surface water runoff and soilmoistures in an unsaturated zone by application to a small watershed

KINEROS-2 is conceptually different from GSSHA KINEROS-2 divides the watershed into a cascade ofelements of planes and channel segments and flow and sediment are routed from one plane to the otherRunoff and concentrated channel flows are routed using a one-dimensional kinematic wave approximationGSSHA however divides the watershed into cells and solves the two-dimensional diffusive wave equationto simulate runoff and channel flow The erosion and sediment transport module is more physically basedin KINEROS-2 whereas it is based on empirical relationships and Yangrsquos unit stream power method (Yang1973) in GSSHA This paper compares the performances and identifies the relative weaknesses and strengthsof both models by application to a gauged agricultural watershed The results may be used to guide futureapplications of the models to different watersheds

THE KINEROS-2 MODEL

KINEROS-2 is a distributed event-oriented physically based model describing the processes of surface runoffand erosion from small agricultural and urban watersheds (Smith et al 1995a) The watershed is representedby a cascade of planes and channels in which flow and sediments are routed from one plane to another andultimately to the channels The elements (planes or channels) allow rainfall infiltration runoff and erosionparameters to vary spatially This model may be used to determine the effects of various artificial featuressuch as urban development small detention reservoirs or lined channels on flood hydrographs and sedimentyield

When rainfall rate exceeds the infiltration capacity Hortonian overland flow begins KINEROS-2 uses ageneralized SmithndashParlange model (Smith and Parlange 1978) to estimate infiltration (Parlange et al 1982)

fct D Ks

1 C ω

eωFt[GChi] 1

1

in which fct [LT1] is the infiltration capacity Ft [L] is the cumulative depth of the water infiltrated intothe soil [L3L3] is the soil porosity i is the initial soil moisture content prior to the storm ω is a parameterbetween zero and one Ks [LT1] is the soil saturated hydraulic conductivity G [L] is the net capillary driveparameter and h [L] is the flow depth



KINEROS-2 assumes one-dimensional flow in each plane and solves the continuity equation with akinematic wave approximation

parth

parttC ˛mhm1 parth

partxD qLx t 2

where t [T] is time x [L] is the distance along the slope direction qL [LT1] is the lateral inflow rate and ˛and m are parameters related to slope surface roughness and flow regime The unit flow discharge q [L2T1]is related to flow depth with the expression q D ˛hm Once the flow enters a channel it is routed with a similarfashion to Equation (2)

The sediment transport equation is described by the following mass balance equation

part

parttAC C part

partxQC ex t D qsx t 3

in which C [L3L3] is the volumetric sediment concentration A [L2] is the channel cross-section area (foroverland flow it is equal to the flow depth h [L]) Q [L3T1] is the channel discharge (for overland flowit is equal to the discharge per unit width [L2T1]) e [L2T1] is the sediment erosion rate as given below(for overland flow it is [LT1]) and qs [L3T1L1] is the rate of lateral sediment inflow for channels InKINEROS-2 sediment erosiondeposition rate e is composed of rainfall splash erosion rate gs and hydraulicerosion rate gh

e D gs C gh 4

Rainfall splash erosion is given bygs D cfechhr2 r gt f

D 0 r f5

in which cf [TL1] is a positive constant ch [L1] is damping coefficient for splash erosion r [LT1] israinfall rate and f [LT1] is the infiltration rate The exponential term represents the reduction in splasherosion caused by increasing depth of water (Smith et al 1995a) In channel flow this term is usually equalto zero the accumulating water depth absorbs nearly all the imparted energy by the raindrops Thereforesplash erosion in channels is neglected in KINEROS-2 The hydraulic erosion represents the rate of exchangeof sediment between the flowing water and the soil over which it flows Such interplay between the shearforce of water on the loose soil or channel bed and the tendency of the soil particles to settle under the forceof gravity may be described by this first-order rate expression

gh D cgCŁ CA 6

where CŁ [L3L3] is the volumetric sediment concentration at equilibrium transport capacity and cg [T1] isa transfer rate coefficient For sheet flow A D h This relationship assumes that deposition occurs if C exceedsequilibrium saturation CŁ The transfer rate coefficient cg is usually very high for fine noncohesive materialand very low for cohesive material Several expressions for CŁ are available in the literature (eg Woolhiseret al 1990) KINEROS-2 employs the Engelund and Hansen (1967) formula

Data

The data used in this study come from the small USDA-operated experimental watershed named W-2which is located near Treynor Iowa The watershed is approximately 13ETH6 ha Figure 1 depicts the locationand topography of this watershed This watershed is one of the four experimental watersheds establishedby the USDA in 1964 to determine the effect of various soil conservation practices on runoff and water-induced erosion Runoff and sediment load have been measured since then There are two rain gauges (115and 116) around the watershed W-2 has a rolling topography defined by gently sloping ridges steep sideslopes and alluvial valleys with incised channels that normally end at an active gully head typical of the



N

Des Moines

No 1151220

1200

1220

1200

1180

1160

1180

1200

1220

No 116

Treynor

Iowa

Figure 1 Study watershed elevation is in feet

deep loess soil in MLRA 107 (Kramer et al 1990) Slopes usually change from 2 to 4 on the ridges andvalleys and 12 to 16 on the side slopes An average slope of about 8ETH4 is estimated using first-ordersoil survey maps The major soil types are well-drained Typic Hapludolls Typic Udorthents and CumulicHapludolls (MarshallndashMononandashIda and Napier series) classified as fine-silty mixed mesics The surface soilsconsist of silt loam (SL) and silty clay loam (SCL) textures that are very prone to erosion requiring suitableconservation practices to prevent soil loss (Chung et al 1999) The cropped portions of the watersheds coverthe ridges side slopes and toe slopes The regional geology is characterized by a thick layer of loess overlyingglacial till that together overlie bedrock The loess thickness ranges from 3 m in the valleys to 27 m on theridges Bromegrass was maintained on the major drainage ways of the alluvial valleys Corn has been growncontinuously on W-2 since 1964

Calibration and validation of KINEROS-2

Three events for model calibration and four events for model validation were selected (Figure 2)Calibrations were performed manually by visually comparing computed and observed hydrographs andsedimentographs Mean values were used for effective capillary drive G pore size distribution index andporosity as shown in Table I The G values are computed from

G D b2 C 3

1 C 37

in which b [L] is the bubbling pressure Interception depth I was set to 2 mm when there is crop and zerootherwise The model was almost insensitive to cf for all events thus we fixed it at 100 sm1

Table II shows the calibrated parameters In the table nc and np are channel and plane Manningrsquos roughnessrespectively Si is initial relative saturation defined as i and d50 microm is the median particle size diameterAt the end of each row the NashndashSutcliffe efficiencies (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970) are given for both flowand sediment We assumed that Si equal to the wilting point (Si D 0ETH27 for SL and 0ETH44 for SCL) wasrepresentative of dry conditions The first three events shown in bold are for calibration and the rest are forvalidation purposes Entries shown in italic will be explained shortly



68

83

610

83

612

83

614

83

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

525

82

527

82

529

82

531

82

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

821

81

823

81

825

81

827

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

67

80

69

80

611

80

613

80

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

73

81

75

81

77

81

79

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

824

75

826

75

828

75

830

75

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

728

81

730

81

81

81

83

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)

Figure 2 Rainfall hyetographs of calibration (andashc) and verification (dndashg) events

Table I Fixed soil parameters in KINEROS-2 simulations (Rawls et al 1982)

Soil type G (cm)a b (cm)

Silt loam (SL) 34ETH0 0ETH21 0ETH50 20ETH8Silty clay loam (SCL) 54ETH8 0ETH15 0ETH47 32ETH6

a Computed using Equation (7)

Table II KINEROS-2 model parameters for calibration and validation events

nc np Ks mm h1 Si cg

s1d50

(microm)NashndashSutcliffe

efficiency

SL SCL SL SCL Flow Sediment

13 Jun 1983 0middot05 0middot05 6middot0 0middot9 0middot27 0middot44 0middot15 7 0middot91 0middot9630 May 1982 0middot05 0middot05 6middot0 0middot9 0middot91 0middot88 0middot15 7 0middot68 0middot7726 Aug 1981 0middot05 0middot12 6middot0 0middot9 0middot76 0middot78 0middot05 7 0middot46 0middot3912 Jun 1980 0ETH05 0ETH05 6ETH0 0ETH9 0ETH27 0ETH44 0ETH15 7 0ETH90 0778 Jul 1981 0ETH05 0ETH12 6ETH0 0ETH9 0ETH27 0ETH44 0ETH10 7 0ETH27 0138 Jul 1981 Even if Sr is used for Si flow is overestimated8 Jul 1981 12 (6 eth 2) 1ETH8 (0ETH9 eth 2) 0ETH88 0ETH9329 Aug 1975 0ETH05 0ETH12 6ETH0 0ETH9 0ETH27 0ETH44 0ETH05 7 0ETH51 17ETH5329 Aug 1975 0ETH01 0ETH961 Aug 1981 0ETH05 0ETH12 6ETH0 0ETH9 0ETH27 0ETH44 0ETH05 7 0ETH21 0ETH93

The model outputs and subsequent observed values considered for model calibration are (i) time to peakflow to calibrate for nc and np (ii) flow volume and peak flow to calibrate for Si and Ks and (iii) totalsediment yield and peak sediment discharge to calibrate for d50 and cg Sensitivity studies performed overW-2 with KINEROS-2 (Hantush and Kalin 2005) formed the base of this systematic calibration approach



Different np values are used depending on crop availability (Table II) Similarly we reduced cg systematicallywith the growing season (Table II) We should mention that although Si varies for each soil in Table II bothsoils have the same effective relative saturation Si which is related to Si through Si D Si Sr1 SrThe rationale behind this was to have the same wetness level in both soils It is not possible to assert thatthe calibrated parameters are optimal since calibration was carried manually rather than automated Yet thisrequires substantial additional work such as modification of the KINEROS-2 source code which is beyondthe scope of this study

Figure 3 shows the observed and computed hydrographs and sedimentographs for calibration events Themodel performs quite well for calibration events with acceptable NashndashSutcliffe efficiencies as listed inTable II where positive values are generally deemed acceptable and with values above 0ETH5 being good Therelatively best performance is with 13 June 1983 which corresponds to a dry soil condition with no crops onthe field The model fit for the event on 26 August 1981 is acceptable but it is not as good as 13 June 1983and 30 May 1982 This event corresponds to a late growing season Two smaller rainfall events are observedapproximately 3 days and 1 day before the start of this event (Figure 2c) The temperature during this spanis mild with a high of 28ETH3 degC and an average of 20ETH8 degC This explains the relatively large calibrated initialmoisture Note that a better fit for flow led to a better fit for sediment yield

The relative antecedent saturation Si is a highly sensitive parameter in KINEROS-2 and could have asignificant influence on the predictive model output uncertainty (Hantush and Kalin 2005) Further amongall the parameters it is the most dynamic one ie it is highly dependent on local climate conditions prior tothe simulation event Therefore to minimize its effect validation events have been selected in such a way thatthey all have dry initial conditions Figure 4 shows simulated hydrographs and sedimentographs of validationevents along with observed data The best performance is observed for the event on 12 June 1980 bothfor flow Nashflow D 0ETH90 and sediment Nashsed D 0ETH77 At the beginning of this event the soil is dry andthere is no crop on the field whereas other events belong to growing seasons It is clearly seen from boththe calibration and the validation simulations that KINEROS-2 performs better during events when the soil isinitially dry and there is no crop on the field The simulated flow hydrograph of 29 August 1975 is comparableto observed data Nashflow D 0ETH51 Yet the model significantly overestimates sediment This brings the issue

6131983

0

1

2

3

4

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s) computed

observed

5301982

0

01

02

03

04

05

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

8261981

000

005

010

015

020

025

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

iem

ent (

kgs

)

8261981

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

Figure 3 Computed and observed hydrographs and sedimentographs with KINEROS-2 for calibration events



6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80

Figure 4 Observed and simulated hydrographs and sedimentographs with KINEROS-2 for validation events

of sediment availability It can be speculated that the large storm event that happened approximately 4 daysearlier (Figure 2f) had probably removed most of the loose soils and therefore reduced sediment poolsavailable for transport for this event KINEROS-2 does not consider this phenomenon We assumed a dryinitial condition for this event (ie Si D 0ETH27 for SL and 0ETH44 for SCL) despite the considerable amount ofrainfall observed approximately 4 days prior to this event (Figure 2f) On a hot (gt32ETH2 degC) cloudless windyday with low humidity a full corn canopy can use up to a 13 mm of water per day (Bauder et al 2003)



During the previous 4 days of the event of 29 August 1975 the weather was dry relatively windy and hotwith a high of 37ETH8 degC and an average of 25 degC Also temperature was above 32ETH2 degC for 15 h during this4 day period Thus considering high water consumption by corn and high evapotranspiration (ET) due to hotweather it is reasonable to assume a dry initial condition for this event

The model estimated peak and volume of flow and sediment very closely to observed data during the event1 August 1981 However the simulated hydrograph and sedimentograph are delayed approximately 8 mincompared with observed data (Figure 4) Contrary to 1 August 1981 KINEROS-2 estimates the hydrographand sedimentograph timings closely during the event of 8 July 1981 but overestimates both flow and sedimentHowever the overestimation of sediment is likely due to overestimation of flow (Figure 4)

Results from validation events suggest that with the exception of 12 June 1980 KINEROS-2 showsinconsistencies in simulating both flow and sediment These inconsistencies are pertinent to events whenthere is crop on the field To see whether these differences could be attributed to parameter uncertainties ofcropping practices we experimented with some of the parameters to match observed values The secondaryentries shown in italics in Table II correspond to these parameters with apparently higher Nashflow andNashsed values Since KINEROS-2 overestimated flow during 8 July 1981 we tried two scenarios to lowerflow (i) reducing Si and (ii) increasing Ks Even reducing Si to its residual value Sr did not prevent KINEROS-2 from overestimating the flow With the latter scenario we had to double the Ks values of each soil typeto have a good match This modification resulted in Nashflow D 0ETH88 and Nashsed D 0ETH93 Ks values reportedin the literature have very high coefficients of variation for most soils (eg 2ETH75 for SL Carsel and Parrish1988) Thus such variations in model performance between different events may up to some scale beattributed to parameter uncertainties An increase in Ks can probably also be expected with growing crop dueto micro-channels produced by growing roots For instance Nearing et al (1996) found a 58 increase inthe GreenndashAmpt (GndashA) conductivity for conventional corn management compared with fallow conditionsfor hydrologic soil groups B and C The dominant soil type in our study watershed is B However we shouldmention that their study was based on comparison of flow generated by the WEPP model (Laflen et al 1991)with flow computed by SCS curve number method (USDA-SCS 1985)

For 29 August 1975 we had to reduce the erosion parameters cg and cf by 80 to have a good agreementbetween observed and simulated values Nashsed D 0ETH96 KINEROS-2 is more sensitive to d50 than cg andcf (Hantush and Kalin 2005) meaning that d50 should probably be the adjusted parameter However d50

is less likely to vary between events compared with cg and cf In an application of KINEROS-2 to a 41 hawatershed in the Netherlands with 10 rainfall events Smith et al (1999) reported highly varied values forcg (0ETH05 to 1ETH00) and cf (10 to 20 000) further raising the issue of sediment availability Recalibration of1 August 1981 resulted in unrealistic parameter values Based on rainfall records the soil is expected to bevery dry prior to this event (Figure 2g) Therefore Si is kept at its minimum and since it is the month ofAugust interception depth cannot be zero To have a good match with observed data np had to be reducedto 0ETH02 Such a small value in an agricultural field in the middle of the growing season is impossible Theincongruity observed in this event might be due to (i) potential measurement errors or (ii) spatial variation ofrainfall observed even at this small scale

Discussion

The calibration and validation exercise performed over the W-2 watershed shows that KINEROS-2 is areliable model for event-based simulations It is less reliable under wet initial conditions owing to difficultiesin estimation of initial moisture contents If good estimates of initial moisture contents are available such asthrough remote sensing then this handicap can be overcome It also performs more poorly when there is cropon the field Recalibrated parameters for some of the validation events are within acceptable ranges

In studies with replicated treatments relatively large amounts of variability between replicates have beenobserved (Bryan 1981 Simanton and Renard 1982 Johnson et al 1984 Mueller et al 1984 Nyhan et al1984) Wendt et al (1986) examined the variability in runoff and soil loss from 40 essentially uniform



experimental plots for 25 natural rainfall events and found that the coefficient of variation ranged from 7 to109 in measured flow and from 18 to 91 in measured soil loss Nearing (1998) by referring to theseresults states

these were for all practical purposes replicated plots that would be modeled with identical model inputparameters and thus which would result in a single prediction value for each storm for all the plots Theimplication of the study of Wendt et al (1986) for erosion prediction is that there is a limit to the accuracyof deterministic models because of the variation in soil erosion rates which may be considered random froma practical standpoint This is true irrespective of model type whether empirical or physically based

Thus in light of these observations the results we obtained for both flow and sediment can be deemedacceptable

Beven (1989) states that calibration to match a single event is not difficult where a loss function and arouting function are all that is needed However the calibrated data set has to be validated over additionalevents The difficulty lies in the estimation of initial soil moisture content which depends primarily on priorrainfall events Like all physically based models KINEROS-2 requires the initial estimation of soil moisturewhich is usually not available Sensitivity analysis shows how important the selection of the initial soilmoisture content is in the KINEROS-2 model (Hantush and Kalin 2005) A means to overcome the effect ofthe initial soil moisture is to perform continuous simulations where none of the critical processes is ignored inthe water balance and the soil moisture is redistributed between the storms ie during rainfall hiatus AlthoughKINEROS-2 considers soil moisture redistribution it ignores ET Therefore it is not suitable for continuoussimulations since a true water balance is not possible In the next section the GSSHA model having bothevent and continuous simulation capabilities is investigated The flow and sediment results are comparedwith KINEROS-2 by running the event module of GSSHA with the same events employed in KINEROS-2 simulations Later long-term continuous-time simulations are performed over the same watershed withGSSHA and the results are discussed For comparison purposes KINEROS-2 is also run for the same periodalthough as pointed out earlier it is not geared toward long-term simulations

THE GSSHA MODEL

GSSHA (Downer and Ogden 2002) is a reformulation and enhancement of CASC2D (Ogden and Julien2002) The CASC2D model was initiated at Colorado State University by Pierre Julien as a two-dimensionaloverland flow routing model In its final form it is a distributed-parameter physically based watershed modelBoth single-event and continuous simulations are possible The watershed is divided into cells and the waterand sediment are routed from one cell to another in two principal dimensions It uses one-dimensional andtwo-dimensional diffusive wave flow routing at channels and overland planes respectively

parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth

partx Sfy D S0y parth

party9

in which qx and qy [LT1] are unit flow discharges Sfx and Sfy are the friction slopes and S0x and S0y are theland surface slopes in the -x and -y directions respectively Again flow discharge and flow depth are relatedthrough the equation q D ˛hm

Although only Hortonian flows were modelled by employing the GndashA infiltration model in the initialversions GSSHA considers other runoff-generating mechanisms such as lateral saturated groundwater flowexfiltration streamndashgroundwater interaction etc GSSHA offers three options for computation of infiltration



GndashA GndashA with redistribution (Ogden and Saghafian 1997) and the full Richards equation The latter requiresa tremendous amount of simulation time and is very sensitive to time step and horizontal and vertical cellsizes

A modified Kilinc and Richardson equation (Julien 1995) is used to compute sediment transport capacityat plane cells The potential sediment transport rate is computed in the x and y directions as

qsi D 25 500q2ETH035i S1ETH664

fiKCP

0ETH1510

where qs (ton m1 s1) is sediment unit discharge q m2 s1 is unit flow discharge Sf is friction slope andK (soil erodibility factor) C (cropping factor) and P (conservation factor) are the universal soil loss equation(USLE) soil parameters The index i represents the two principal directions x and y therefore sedimenttransport capacity is computed in both directions

Each cell can either be eroded or aggraded depending on the sediment in suspension and potential sedimentrates This determination is made for three particle sizes silt clay and sand If sediments in suspension areunable to satisfy the potential transport rate then erosion occurs If the potential transport rate is unable totransport the sediment already in suspension then deposition occurs A trap efficiency measure is used todetermine how much material is deposited (Johnson et al 2000)

TEj D 1 exwjuy 11

where TEj is the trap efficiency for the jth particle size ranging from zero to one x (m) is the grid cell sizewj m s1 is the fall velocity of the jth particle size u m s1 is the overland flow velocity and y (m) isthe overland flow depth The use of trapping efficiency allows for the deposition of larger particles beforesmaller ones

Yangrsquos unit stream power method (Yang 1973) is used for routing sand-sized particles in stream channelsThis routing formulation is limited to trapezoidal channels Silt and clay particles are assumed to be alwaysin suspension and therefore transported as wash load More details on the theory and equations used can befound in Johnson et al (2000) and Downer and Ogden (2002)

COMPARISON OF KINEROS-2 WITH GSSHA

Each model has a different watershed conceptualization (Figures 5 and 6) GSSHA divides the watershed intocells having uniform topographic soil and land-use properties and flow and sediments are routed through thesecells in a cascading fashion in two principal directions (see Equations (8)ndash(10)) Conversely KINEROS-2divides the watershed into subwatersheds or transects and channel segments having uniform properties Flowand sediment routing are essentially one-dimensional Heterogeneities can be better represented in both modelsby considering smaller model units GSSHA may require much longer simulation times depending on whatis simulated KINEROS-2 on the other hand entails relatively less data and effort The use of a diffusivewave approximation to the full Saint Venant equations in GSSHA is an improvement over the kinematicwave approach utilized in KINEROS-2 It allows simulation of backwater effects KINEROS-2 is limited toHortonian flow and is not suitable for long-term simulations because it lacks an ET component which isimportant for the mass balance of the water cycle On the other hand GSSHA can handle various runoff-generating mechanisms In general the flow component of GSSHA is broader than that of KINEROS-2since it involves less simplification GSSHArsquos sediment component is based on semi-empirical relationshipswhereas KINEROS-2 employs a more physically based approach

In what follows KINEROS-2 and GSSHA are compared quantitatively based on their performances onmodelling flow and sediment movement by performing simulations with each model over the W-2 watershedDifferences in model performances and parameters are discussed



Figure 5 Watershed conceptualization in GSSHA

Approach

KINEROS-2 has already been calibrated and validated for the W-2 watershed in the previous section Thefixed parameters for the two soil types SL and SCL used in those simulations were G(34 54ETH8 cm) (0ETH210ETH15) and (0ETH50 0ETH47) The two values given in parentheses represent the different soil types SL and SCLrespectively Other parameters are listed in Table II We employed the same parameters where applicableover GSSHA with the same calibration and validation events

Flow simulations

The parameters common to both models are np nc I and Si The values used in KINEROS-2 were substituted directly into GSSHA as default values for these parameters Other parameters wereadjusted accordingly The infiltration scheme in GSSHA is the GndashA model whereas KINEROS-2 usesthe SmithndashParlange infiltration model which in fact is a generalization of the former The GndashA wetting-front capillary head f needs to be provided in GSSHA We approximated f as equal to the effectivenet capillary drive parameter G of KINEROS-2 We followed the common practice of approximating GndashAhydraulic conductivity KGndashA as Ks2 based on the findings of Bouwer (1966) Figure 7 shows the simulationresults from the two models for flow in conjunction with observed data It is clear that both models performdifferently when similar parameters are used as inputs The general trend is that GSSHA generates morerunoff with higher peaks and later responses than KINEROS-2 One possible rationale for the difference inresponse times might be the different watershed conceptualizations involved in each model Flow routing inGSSHA is only in xndashy directions (Figure 5) In other words flow from a cell is allowed only in the four



4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L

L = average length of overland flowA = watershed area

14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6

Figure 6 Watershed conceptualization in KINEROS-2

principal directions Diagonal neighbouring cells cannot be receivers which well might be the reality Thisresults in overestimation of the travel lengths of water particles which might theoretically be up to 41 in thecase where flow directions are all diagonal On the other hand the travel paths used to compute the averagetravel lengths of each element in KINEROS-2 were determined based on the D-8 methodology using theTOPAZ algorithm (Garbrecht and Martz 1999) which allows flow in eight directions Considering the factthat flow in the study watershed is mostly diagonal the overestimation of travel lengths by GSSHA resultedin a longer travel time leading to retarded peaks

Note that the results presented in Figure 7 are based on simulations with the parameters calibrated forKINEROS-2 Therefore we recalibrated some of the GSSHA parameters for the same three events We hadto reduce the channel and plane roughness by 30 to come up with reasonable match in hydrograph timingswith observed data Naturally reduction in roughness causes higher peaks To compensate this effect weincreased the KGndashA values from Ks2 to Ks Figure 8 compares the hydrographs after these modificationsIn the figure the first three events represent calibration events and the rest represent validation events usedin KINEROS-2 Both models perform equally and have analogous flow responses except for the event26 August 1981 GSSHA in contrast to KINEROS-2 generates the first peak observed at approximately50 min If the soil hydraulic conductivities are doubled in 8 July 1981 as we experimented with KINEROS-2 the improvement in the simulated hydrograph of GSSHA Nashflow D 0ETH99 would be more significantthan the improvement observed in KINEROS-2 Nashflow D 0ETH88 (results not shown in figure) GSSHA hasproduced higher NashndashSutcliffe efficiencies than KINEROS-2 in most events (Table III) Overall we canconclude that GSSHA has a slight edge over KINEROS-2 when flow simulations are concerned

Erosion simulations

GSSHA requires silt and sand percentages for sediment computations The median particle sizes d50 thatwe used in GSSHA model are 0ETH25 mm for sand 0ETH009 mm for silt and 0ETH001 mm for clay Based on thesevalues compositions of each soil class were determined as (0ETH3 0) sand and (65ETH7 76) silt so that theoverall average d50 is 7 microm which is the value we used in KINEROS-2 Again the values in the parentheses



61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60

time (min) time (min)

time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)

KINEROS-2GSSHAobserved

53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4

Figure 7 Comparison of hydrographs generated with GSSHA and KINEROS-2 based on KINEROS-2 calibrated parameters

are for SL and SCL respectively The sediment routine in GSSHA is based on the USLE concept whichrequires three key parameters K (soil erodibility factor) C (cropping management factor) and P (conservationpractice factor) It is not possible to infer estimates of these parameters from the KINEROS-2 soil parameterscg and cf Therefore by keeping the KP product constant C was calibrated for each event since it is onlythe product of K C and P that matters The K values used in GSSHA are 0ETH48 for SL and 0ETH37 for SCLThe P factor was 0ETH5 when there is crop and 1ETH3 when there is no crop Calibrated C values which variedamong different events are shown in Table IV

Our purpose here is to evaluate model performances in simulating sediment transport and this requiresminimizing errors in flow simulations In general observed and KINEROS-2- and GSSHA- generated flowsare comparable with the exception of 8 July 1981 (Figure 8) As discussed earlier doubling the soil hydraulicconductivities for this event gives almost perfect results thus this was used for simulations of 8 July 1981Figure 9 compares the sedimentographs obtained by KINEROS-2 and GSSHA under this setting In all casesGSSHA generates narrower sedimentographs than KINEROS-2 generates This cannot be attributed to flowsince such a clear trend is not reflected in Figure 8 GSSHA does not allow deposition of sediments inchannels In contrast KINEROS-2 limits the sediment transport rate by employing transport capacity whichis the relationship developed by Engelund and Hansen (1967) As the flow increases GSSHA keeps generating



61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


Figure 8 Comparison of flow hydrographs generated with GSSHA and KINEROS-2 GSSHA is recalibrated

Table III Summary of Nash-Sutcliffe statistics for KINEROS-2 and GSSHA

13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975

29 Aug 1975(recalib)

1 Aug1981

FlowKINEROS-2 0ETH91 0ETH68 0ETH46 0ETH90 0ETH27 0ETH88 0ETH51 mdash 0ETH21GSSHA 0ETH96 0ETH70 0ETH89 0ETH89 1ETH59 0ETH99 0ETH70 mdash 0ETH04

SedimentKINEROS-2 0ETH96 0ETH77 0ETH39 0ETH77 0ETH13 0ETH93 17ETH53 0ETH96 0ETH93GSSHA 0ETH77 0ETH53 0ETH84 0ETH41 5ETH54 0ETH54 mdash 0ETH83 0ETH74

more and more sediment as sediment discharge is related to flow to the power of 2 However the maximumsediment discharge restraint in KINEROS-2 limits such an increase which is more eminent when flow is atits highest Therefore the slopes of the sedimentographs near the peaks generated by GSSHA are steeperthan those generated by KINEROS-2 When both models are calibrated to match the peaks this results innarrower sedimentographs in GSSHA compared with KINEROS-2



Table IV Estimated crop management factors C after calibration of GSSHA model

13 Jun 1983 30 May 1982 26 Aug 1981 12 Jun 1980 8 Jul 1981 29 Aug 1975 1 Aug 1981

000023 0ETH00092 0ETH00130 0ETH00032 0ETH00020 0ETH00012 0ETH00020

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)

Figure 9 Comparison of sedimentographs generated with GSSHA (solid lines) and KINEROS-2 (dashed lines) Observed data are shownas hollow circles

It is clear both from Figure 9 and Table III that in this watershed the sediment component of GSSHAis not as good as KINEROS-2 even though we calibrated the C parameter for each event independentlyIt is interesting to note that the erosion parameters cf and cg found after calibration of KINEROS-2 arewell above the recommended values given in Woolhiser et al (1990) and the calibrated C parameters forGSSHA are well below the literature values Smith et al (1999) also reported very high values for the cg andcf parameters This implies that when the recommended values are used GSSHA significantly overestimateserosion compared with KINEROS-2 Slope is an important factor in both modelsrsquo erosion formulation Thesmaller the computational element (which is the grid size for GSSHA and the average length of overland flowplanes in KINEROS-2) the greater the computed erosion This occurs because as the element size increasesthe tendency of smoothing the topography increases this results in loss of areas with steep slopes meaninga reduction in erosion For KINEROS-2 simulations we divided the study watershed into 23 subwatersheds



which was shown to be optimal by Kalin et al (2003) For GSSHA simulations we used 3706 grid cells torepresent the watershed Thus far fewer elements are used in KINEROS-2 than in GSSHA leading to lossof local slope information in the former and overly estimated cg and cf values A detailed discussion on theeffect of grid size on sediment transport can be found in Rosalia (2002)

One of the deficiencies of GSSHA is that erosion in channels is not transport limited GSSHA can generatesediment that has a volume larger than what the flow can carry This is physically impossible howeverbecause of the empirical nature of GSSHArsquos sediment component there is no formulation in GSSHA toprevent this from happening once sediment reaches the channels (Downer personal communication) Whenwe initially used the literature values for the C K and P parameters we observed this effect Eventually wehad to reduce the C values dramatically to get more realistic results This suggests that the sediment routinein KINEROS-2 is more robust than the routine used in GSSHA since it is more physically based

Long-term simulations

Here we investigate the long-term simulation capabilities of the GSSHA model over the W-2 watershed Inorder to perform long-term simulations in GSSHA in addition to rainfall data hydrometeorological data arerequired for the entire period of the simulation The data required are hourly values of barometric pressurerelative humidity total sky cover wind speed dry-bulb temperature direct radiation and global radiationThese data can be supplied in three different formats to GSSHA WES SAMSON and NOAAndashNCDCsurface airways format WES is the simplest and the preferred format whereas NOAAndashNCDC is the leastrecommended SAMSON data are used in this study which can be purchased from National Climatic DataCenter (NCDC) on a CD-ROM The closest station to the W-2 watershed was in Omaha Nebraska

GSSHA offers two options for infiltration calculations during long-term simulations the Richards equation(RE Richards 1931) and GndashA with redistribution (GAR Ogden and Saghafian 1997) which is basically asimplification of the RE In Hortonian basins the GAR method produces comparable results to the RE (Downerand Ogden 2003) However when Hortonian flow is not the dominant stream flow-generating mechanismGAR may produce erroneous results and the RE should be used (Downer and Ogden 2003) Since W-2 is aHortonian watershed (Kalin et al 2003) we used GAR to simulate a period from 17 May to 17 June 1984No significant event is recorded after 17 June 1984

The precipitation data used in this long-term simulation are shown in Figure 10 The last rainfall eventbefore 17 May 1984 was on 6 May 1984 Therefore we assumed dry initial conditions for both soil types(SL and SCL) The first 7 days of the simulation were used as a warm-up period and thus the results in thatperiod are disregarded to reduce the effect of initial moisture content

The parameters used in the simulation and their values are shown in Table V In the table r is theresidual water content w is the wilting-point water content i is the initial water content and f is thewetting-front capillary pressure head Other parameters are as defined before The values listed in Table Vare selected in such a way that they are close to the values used in event-based simulations For instancethe USLE C parameter was taken as the average of the values corresponding to the events of 13 June 1983

Figure 10 Rainfall histogram used in the long-term simulations of GSSHA



30 May 1982 and 12 June 1980 in single-event simulations Using KGndashA D Ks as worked out for single-event simulations resulted in significant underestimation of flow Therefore we employed the conventionallyutilized KGndashA D Ks2 In single-event calibrations initial moisture content has to be estimated relativelyaccurately When performing calibration any overestimation of initial water content results in overestimationof hydraulic conductivity and vice versa In other words they compensate the effect of each other on runoffIn continuous long-term simulations however the effect of initial water content is more considerable at theearlier stages and decays with time Therefore this interaction can be reduced by using a warm-up periodand KGndashA can be estimated more realistically When the soil moisture is redistributed owing to ET lossesthe moisture content can fall below the field capacity or wilting point w We assumed the initial moisturecontent i D w in single-event simulations Thus to compensate the moisture deficit due to moisture contentbelow w a smaller KGndashA needs to be used as opposed to the case of calibrating KGndashA for the single-eventcase

Ten events are recorded between the periods 24 May and 17 June 1984 Figure 11 shows the hydrographs ofthe first eight events The last two events occurring on 16 and 17 June 1984 are not shown in the graph sinceGSSHA estimated no flow during those two events although significant flow is observed in both events (peakdischarge is 0ETH39 m3 s1 on 16 June 1984 and 0ETH42 m3 s1 on 17 June 1984) Simulations were performedwith the RE option by adjusting the parameters accordingly (results not shown) to explore whether this mightbe linked to the infiltration routine used GSSHA was still unable to generate any flow during the last two

Table V Parameters used in GSSHA long-term simulations

KGndashA mm h1 r w i f (cm) K C P np nc

SCL 0ETH45 0ETH47 0ETH08 0ETH21 0ETH21 54ETH8 0ETH15 0ETH370ETH0005 1ETH3 0ETH035 0ETH035

SL 3ETH00 0ETH50 0ETH03 0ETH13 0ETH13 34ETH0 0ETH21 0ETH48

00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8

Figure 11 Observed (hollow circles) and simulated (solid line) hydrographs from the long-term simulations of GSSHA



0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33

Figure 12 Observed (hollow circles) and computed (solid line) sedimentographs from the long-term simulations of GSSHA

events The observed flows during these two events are smaller than the observed flows of the other eventsThus either GSSHA has difficulty in generating small events or there is an anomaly in the rainfall dataduring that time interval such as inappropriate representation of the rainfall pattern Estimated and observedflow hydrographs conform well GSSHA was able to simulate peak values reasonably well albeit that itunderestimated or completely missed most of the smaller flows

Figure 12 shows the observed and GSSHA-generated sedimentographs Sediment data were not availablefor 2 June 1984 and therefore are not shown The overall performance is acceptable From the figuretwo conclusions can be drawn (i) GSSHA initially underestimates sediment and overestimates later in thesimulation period or (ii) GSSHA underestimates sediment for smaller events and overestimates during largerevents Based on the results available it is hard to tell which one represents the reality One noteworthyobservation is that the falling limbs are well represented for the 12 and 14 June 1984 events

Even though KINEROS-2 is not suitable for long-term simulations we ran the model for the same periodfor completeness of the comparison of the two models Figures 13 and 14 respectively compare the flowhydrographs and the sedimentographs generated by the two models It is seen from the figures that KINEROS-2 generates larger flow and sediment values during the initial periods of the simulation but generates smallervalues later in the period Also during the late period it generates retarded hydrographs and sedimentographsSurprisingly KINEROS-2 appears to have better performance than GSSHA in continuous-time simulation ofsediment transport later in the period especially when the total sediment yield is considered

Note

It is known that in numerical solutions involving finite difference schemes as the grid size decreasesso the time interval required should also decrease to maintain numerical stability In fact this is reflectedin the Courant condition as a stability criterion which can be stated as U lt xt where U is velocityand t and x are time and space increments respectively (Chapra 1997) The grid size used for W-2in GSSHA simulations was 10 m This is an unusually small grid size for such simulations In fact 5 m



00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

Figure 13 Comparison of GSSHA and KINEROS-2 long-term simulations for flow

0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33

Figure 14 Comparison of GSSHA and KINEROS-2 long-term simulations for sediment

horizontal resolution digital elevation model data are also available for this area but we decided to use 10 mbecause of the interaction between t and x Using a grid size coarser than 10 m would lead to inaccuraterepresentation of the watershed since it is only 13ETH6 ha In a review of several watershed-scale hydrologic andnon-point-source pollution models Borah (2002) refers to a study on CASC2D the older version of GSSHA



where Molnar and Julien (2000) found that the required time step was about 5 s for a 150 m grid sizeThis number decreased to 1 s when the grid size was reduced to 30 m The smallest time interval allowed byGSSHA is 1 s which is the value used in our simulations The use of the 10 m grid size may have contributedto the discrepancies observed

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper addresses numerical evaluation of two physically based runoff and sediment transport models ieKINEROS-2 and GSSHA The results highlighted difficulties in the application of both models in real water-sheds The purpose was demonstration of a strategy for quantitative model comparison and model calibrationand validation The models were applied to a USDA experimental agricultural watershed Both models arepromising distributed hydrologic loading models KINEROS-2 is suitable for small agricultural watershedslt100 km2 and is one of the two models in the newly developed AGWA (Semmens et al 2002) modellingsystem which is supported by both the USEPA and the USDA It is suitable for event-based simulationssince it does not have a complete soil moisture accounting component The sediment component is physicallybased and has a track record of successful applications in the literature KINEROS-2 was calibrated for threeevents and the calibrated parameters were validated for four events The overall model performance was good

The GSSHA simulation for the same events using the parameters used in KINEROS-2 resulted in retardedhydrographs with larger values than KINEROS-2 generated The retardations in GSSHA-generated hydro-graphs were not much of a surprise as the two models have quite different watershed conceptualizationsThe grid representation of the watershed by GSSHA evidently resulted in overestimation of flow lengthsas flow from a cell is not allowed to move to a neighbouring diagonal cell which well might be the caseA 30 reduction of channel and plane roughness along with the assumption of KGndashA D Ks contrary toBouwerrsquos (1966) recommendation of KGndashA D Ks2 produced hydrographs analogous with KINEROS-2-generated hydrographs for most events These estimated parameter values are clearly artefacts due to differentmodel conceptualizations Without model intercomparison there would probably be no way of identifyingthat the GSSHA calibrated parameters are artefacts The NashndashSutcliffe efficiency measures revealed that theflow component of GSSHA is slightly more reliable than KINEROS-2 Conversely KINEROS-2 was morerobust in simulating erosion and sediment transport The advantage of GSSHA over KINEROS-2 howeveris that in addition to single event simulation capabilities it has more complete continuous-time simulationcapabilities KINEROS-2 is essentially event based

Long-term continuous simulations performed over W-2 with GSSHA using the GAR infiltration optionproduced hydrographs comparable to observed data except for two events that are at the end of the simulationperiod GSSHA was unable to generate runoff during those two events though observed data indicatedconsiderable flow The performance of sediment results was acceptable In some events the falling limbsof the sedimentographs were well represented Contrary to single-event simulations satisfactory results wereobtained by reducing the effective saturated hydraulic conductivity by one half Despite the fact that it isevent based simulation over the same period with KINEROS-2 generated reasonable results

Although KINEROS-2 has all the potential to be modified for continuous-time simulations at this stage toour knowledge no such efforts exist Both modelsrsquo capability to simulate for BMP is limited This applicationshowed that the limits and merits of models can only be identified through numerical evaluation on selectedwatersheds Future efforts concerned with watershed model evaluation may benefit from migrating fromqualitative analysis to quantitative evaluation using real watershed data

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The USEPA through its Office of Research and Development funded the research described here throughin-house efforts and in part by an appointment to the Postgraduate Research Program at the National Risk



Management Research Laboratory administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education throughan interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and the USEPA

REFERENCES

Bauder T Waskom R Schneekloth J Alldredge J 2003 Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin XCM574A FebruaryBeven KJ 1989 Changing ideas in hydrologymdashthe case of the physically-based models Journal of Hydrology 105 157ndash172Borah DK 2002 Watershed scale non-point source pollution models mathematical bases In 2002 ASAE Annual International MeetingCIGR

World Congress Chicago IL paper no 022091Borah DK Bera M 2003 Watershed-scale hydrologic and nonpoint-source pollution models review of mathematical bases Transactions

of the ASAE 46(6) 1553ndash1566Bouwer H 1966 Rapid field measurement of air entry value and hydraulic conductivity of soil as significant parameters in flow system

analysis Water Resources Research 2 729ndash738Bryan RB 1981 Soil erosion under simulated rainfall in the field and laboratory variability of erosion under controlled conditions In

Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement Walling Tacconi (eds) IAHS Publication No 133 IAHS Press Wallingford 391ndash404Carsel RF Parrish RS 1988 Developing joint probability distributions of soil water retention characteristics Water Resources Research

24(5) 755ndash769Chapra SC 1997 In Surface-Water Quality Modeling McGraw-HillChung SW Gassman PW Kramer LA Williams JR Gu R 1999 Validation of EPIC for two watersheds in southwest Iowa Journal of

Environmental Quality 28 971ndash979Downer CW Ogden FL 2002 GSSHA userrsquos manual gridded surface subsurface hydrologic analysis version 1ETH43 for WMS 6ETH1 ERDC

Technical Report Engineering Research and Development Center Vicksburg MSDowner CW Ogden FL 2003 Prediction of runoff and soil moistures at the watershed scale effects of model complexity and parameter

assignment Water Resources Research 39(3) 11ndash113Downer CW Ogden FL Martin WD Harmon RS 2002 Theory development and application of the surface water hydrologic model

CASC2D Hydrological Processes 16 255ndash275Downer CW Jorgeson J Ogden FL Julien PY Martin WD Edris E Harmon RS Meselhe E Nelson J 2003 The case for physically-based

distributed hydrologic modeling approaches for the US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects In Proceedings of the US ArmyCorps of Engineers Hydraulics and Hydrology Conference Portland OR 12ndash15 May

Duan Q Sorooshian S Gupta V 1992 Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models Water ResourcesResearch 28(4) 1015ndash1031

Engelund F Hansen E 1967 A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams Teknisk Vorlag CopenhagenFitzpatrick J Imhoff J Burgess E Brashear R (eds) 2001 Water quality models a survey and assessment Water Environment Research

Foundation Project 99-WSM-5 Alexandria VAGarbrecht J Martz LW 1999 An automated digital landscape analysis tool for topographic evaluation drainage identification watershed

segmentation and sub-catchment parameterization Report GRL 99-1 Grazinglands Research Laboratory USDA Agricultural ResearchService El Reno OK

Hantush MM Kalin L 2005 Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of runoff and sediment yield in a small agricultural watershed withKINEROS-2 Hydrological Sciences Journal 50(6) 1151ndash1172

Johnson BE Julien PY Molnar DK Watson CC 2000 The two dimensional upland erosion model CASC2D-SED Journal of the AmericanWater Resources Association 36 31ndash42

Johnson GW Savabi MR Loomis SA 1984 Rangeland erosion measurements for the USLE Transactions of ASAE 27 1313ndash1320Julien PY 1995 Erosion and Sedimentation Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge New York NY 280 ppKalin L Hantush MM 2003 Evaluation of sediment transport models and comparative application of two watershed models EPA Report

No EPA600R-03139 USEPA-NRMRL Cincinnati OHKalin L Govindaraju RS Hantush MM 2003 Effect of geomorphologic resolution on runoff hydrograph and sedimentograph Journal of

Hydrology 276 89ndash111Kalin L Govindaraju RS Hantush MM 2004a Development and application of a methodology for sediment source identification I A

modified unit sedimentograph approach Journal of Hydrological Engineering 9(3) 184ndash193Kalin L Govindaraju RS Hantush MM 2004b Development and application of a methodology for sediment source identification II

Optimization approach Journal of Hydrological Engineering 9(3) 194ndash207Kramer LA Alberts EE Hjelmfelt AT Gebhardt MR 1990 Effect of soil conservation systems on groundwater nitrate levels from three

corn-cropped watersheds in southwest Iowa In Proceedings of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences Kansas City MOLaflen LM Lane LJ Foster GR 1991 WEPP a new generation of erosion prediction technology Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

46 34ndash38Loague KM Feeze RA 1985 A comparison of rainfall-runoff modeling techniques on small upland catchments Water Resources Research

21(2) 229ndash248Michaud J Sorooshian S 1994 Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed Water

Resources Research 30(3) 593ndash605Molnar DK Julien PY 2000 Grid size effects on surface water modeling Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 5 8ndash16Morgan RPC Quinton JN Rickson RJ 1992 EUROSEM documentation manual Silsoe College Silsoe Bedford UKMueller DH Wendt RC Daniel TC 1984 Soil and water losses as affected by tillage and manure application Soil Science Society of

America Journal 48 896ndash900



Nash JE Sutcliffe JV 1970 River flow forecasting through conceptual models part 1mdasha discussion of principles Journal of Hydrology10 282ndash290

Nearing MA 1998 Why soil erosion models over-predict small soil losses and under-predict large soil losses Catena 32 15ndash22Nearing MA Liu BY Risse LM Zhang X 1996 Curve numbers and GreenndashAmpt effective hydraulic conductivities Water Resources

Bulletin 32 125ndash136Nelson EJ 2001 WMS C6ETH1 HTML document Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory Brigham Young University Provo UTNyhan JW Depoorter GL Drennon BJ Simanton JR Foster GR 1984 Erosion of earth covers used in shallow land and burial at Los

Alamos New Mexico Journal of Environmental Quality 13 361ndash366Ogden FL Heilig A 2001 Two-dimensional watershed-scale erosion modeling with CASC2D In Landscape Erosion and Evolution

Modeling Harmon RS Doe III WW (eds) Kluwer Academic New YorkOgden FL Julien PY 2002 CASC2D A two-dimensional physically-based Hortonian hydrologic model In Mathematical Models of Small

Watershed Hydrology and Applications Singh VJ Freverts D (eds) Water Resources Publications Littleton COOgden FL Saghafian B 1997 Green and Ampt infiltration with redistribution Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 123

386ndash393Ogden FL Sharif HO Senarath SUS Smith JA Baeck ML Richardson Jr 2000 Hydrologic analysis of the Fort Collins Colorado flash

flood of 1997 Journal of Hydrology 228 82ndash100Parlange JY Lisle I Braddock RD Smith RE 1982 The three-parameter infiltration equation Soil Science 133(6) 337ndash341Rawls WJ Brakensiek DL Saxton KE 1982 Estimation of soil water properties Transactions of ASAE 25 1316ndash1320Reed S Koren V Smith M Zhang Z Moreda F Seo DJ DMIP Participants 2004 Overall distributed model intercomparison project

results Journal of Hydrology 298 27ndash60Refsgaard JC Knudsen J 1996 Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models Water Resources

Research 32(7) 2189ndash2202Richards LA 1931 Capillary conduction of liquids in porous mediums Physics 1 318ndash333Rosalia RS 2002 GIS-based upland erosion modeling geovisualization and grid size effects on erosion simulations with CASC2D-SED PhD

thesis Colorado State University Fort Collins COSAAESD 2001 Agricultural Non-point Source Water Quality Models Their Use and Application Parsons JE Thomas DL Huffman RL

(eds) Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 398 httpwwwcalsncsuedusaaesdscsblist2000htm [accessed Feb 8th 2006]Semmens DJ Miller SN Hernandez M Miller WP Goodrich DC Kepner WG 2002 Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment

(AGWA)mdasha GIS-based Hydrologic modeling tool documentation and user manual US Department of Agriculture Agricultural ResearchService ARS-1446

Senarath SUS Ogden FL Downer CW Sharif HO 2000 On the calibration and verification of two-dimensional distributed Hortoniancontinuous watershed models Water Resources Research 36 1495ndash1510

Shoemaker L Lahlou M Bryer M Kumar D Kratt K 1997 Compendium of tools for watershed assessment and TMDL development ReportEPA841-B-97-006 Office of Water US Environmental Protection Agency Washington DC

Simanton JR Renard KG 1982 Seasonal change in infiltration and erosion from USLE plots in southeastern Arizona Hydrology and WaterResources in Arizona and the Southwest 12 37ndash46

Singh VP (ed) 1995 Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology Water Resources Publications Littleton COSingh VP Frevert DK 2002a Mathematical Models of Large Watershed Hydrology Water Resources Publications Littleton COSingh VP Frevert DK 2002b Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications Water Resources Publications

Littleton COSingh VP Woolhiser DA 2002 Mathematical modeling of watershed hydrology Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 7(4) 270ndash292Smith RE Parlange JY 1978 A parameter-efficient hydrologic infiltration model Water Resources Research 14(3) 533ndash538Smith RE Goodrich DC Woolhiser DA Unkrich CL 1995a KINEROSmdasha kinematic runoff and erosion model In Computer Models of

Watershed Hydrology Singh VP (ed) 1995 Water Resources Publications Littleton CO 697ndash732Smith RE Goodrich DC Quinton JN 1995b Dynamic distributed simulation of watershed erosion the KINEROS-2 and EUROSEM

models Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(5) 517ndash520Smith RE Goodrich DC Unkrich CL 1999 Simulation of selected events on the Catsop Catchment by KINEROS-2 a report for the GCTE

Conference on catchment scale erosion models Catena 37 457ndash475USDA-SCS 1985 National Engineering Handbook Section 4 Hydrology US Government Printing Office Washington DCWard GH Benaman J 1999 Models for TMDL application in Texas watercourses screening and model review Online report CRWR-99-7

Center for Research in Water Resources The University of Texas at Austin Austin Texas 78712 httpwwwcrwrutexasedureportspdf1999rpt99-7pdf [accessed Feb 8th 2006]

Wendt RC Alberts EE Hjelmfelt Jr AT 1986 Variability of runoff and soil loss from fallow experimental plots Soil Science Society ofAmerica Journal 50 730ndash736

Woolhiser DA 1996 Search for physically based runoff modelmdasha hydrologic El Dorado Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 3 122ndash129Woolhiser DA Smith RE Goodrich DC 1990 KINEROSmdasha kinematic runoff and erosion model documentation and user manual USDA-

ARS ARS-77Yang CT 1973 Incipient motion and sediment transport Journal of Hydraulic Division ASCE 99(HY10) 1679ndash1704Ziegler AD Sutherland RA Giambelluca TW 2000 Partitioning total erosion on unpaved roads into splash and hydraulic components the

role of interstorm surface preparation and dynamic erodibility Water Resources Research 36(9) 2787ndash2791Ziegler AD Giambelluca TW Sutherland RA 2001 Erosion prediction on unpaved mountain roads in northern Thailand validation of

dynamic erodibility modeling using KINEROS-2 Hydrological Processes 15 337ndash358



based models are superior to empirical models since model parameters have physical meanings and can bemeasured in the field When measurements are not available model parameters can still be deduced frompublished data in literature based on topography soil and land-use maps The limitations of lumped empiricalmodels can be listed as (Downer et al 2003) (i) simplified descriptions of physical processes (ii) lack ofverifiable results (iii) inability to use the model outside the range of calibration and (iv) lack of spatialheterogeneity However Woolhiser (1996) cautions against overselling models By referring to physicallybased models he states that

we should be able to estimate the parameters a priori or measure them in the field yet such estimateshave a great deal of uncertainty Further it is more difficult to calibrate physically based models becausethey are overparameterized

Numerous watershed-scale hydrologic models are available and many of them have been compiledand summarized in several studies (eg Singh 1995 Shoemaker et al 1997 Ward and Benaman 1999Fitzpatrick et al 2001 SAAESD 2001 Singh and Frevert 2002ab Singh and Woolhiser 2002 Kalinand Hantush 2003 USGS-SMIC database httpsmigusgsgovsmic Register of Ecological Models meta-database httpecowizuni-kasseldeecobashtml) The existence of so many models raises the question ofwhat model to use for a particular application Several studies have presented qualitative comparisons ofwatershed models that may help in the initial screening of models (Ward and Benaman 1999 Fitzpatricket al 2001 Borah and Bera 2003 Kalin and Hantush 2003) However most of these studies signify theimportance of comparative assessment of watershed models in a quantitative framework Although there areseveral efforts in the literature comparing distributed and lumped models (eg Loague and Freeze 1985Michaud and Sorooshian 1994 Refsgaard and Knudsen 1996) to our knowledge no study was carried outon an intercomparison of distributed models until recently In a recent study called the Distributed ModelIntercomparison Project (DMIP) simulations from 12 different models performed with the same data set werecompared with observed data (Reed et al 2004) The whole 298th issue of Journal of Hydrology is dedicatedto the results of this project

In this paper two distributed models with proven track records are investigated the Kinematic Runoff andErosion (KINEROS-2) model (Smith et al 1995a) and the Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis(GSSHA) model (Downer and Ogden 2002) Both models are commonly used and are promising withmany applications in peer-reviewed literature GSSHA is supported by the US Army Engineer Research andDevelopment Center and is embedded into the Watershed Modeling System (WMS Nelson 2001) KINEROS-2 was developed by US Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists and is one of the two models under theAutomated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) system (Semmens et al 2002) which is supportedby both the USDA and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Both models are physically basedand rely on relatively similar inputs The KINEROS-2 model was calibrated and then validated over severalevents The calibration parameters are then adapted to GSSHA and the two models are compared based ontheir performances on modelling flow and sediment movement Long-term simulations are performed withGSSHA utilizing the same model parameters This study differs from DMIP (Reed et al 2004) on two majorpoints (i) neither KINEROS-2 nor GSSHA was part of DMIP and (ii) all the DMIP participants were originalmodel developers Thus our study provides an independent evaluation of the two models other than those ofthe model developers

Successful applications of KINEROS-2 and its older version KINEROS (Woolhiser et al 1990) have beenreported in the literature Michaud and Sorooshian (1994) compared the accuracy in flow simulations of theKINEROS model with a simple distributed model and with a simple lumped model both being based on theSoil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number method They found that without calibration KINEROS wasmore accurate than the other two When calibration was performed model accuracies were comparable in allthree models Smith et al (1995b) discussed the KINEROS and EUROSEM (Morgan et al 1992) models byconsidering flow and sediment transport Their discussion was rather qualitative as they essentially compared






THE KINEROS-2 MODEL



fct D Ks

1 C ω

eωFt[GChi] 1

1





parth

parttC ˛mhm1 parth

partxD qLx t 2



part

parttAC C part



e D gs C gh 4


D 0 r f5


gh D cgCŁ CA 6


Data




N

Des Moines

No 1151220

1200

1220

1200

1180

1160

1180

1200

1220

No 116

Treynor

Iowa





G D b2 C 3

1 C 37





68

83

610

83

612

83

614

83

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

525

82

527

82

529

82

531

82

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

821

81

823

81

825

81

827

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

67

80

69

80

611

80

613

80

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

73

81

75

81

77

81

79

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

824

75

826

75

828

75

830

75

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

728

81

730

81

81

81

83

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)








s1d50


efficiency









6131983

0

1

2

3

4

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s) computed

observed

5301982

0

01

02

03

04

05

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

8261981

000

005

010

015

020

025

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

iem

ent (

kgs

)

8261981

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)




6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80










Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES






























































THE KINEROS-2 MODEL



fct D Ks

1 C ω

eωFt[GChi] 1

1





parth

parttC ˛mhm1 parth

partxD qLx t 2



part

parttAC C part



e D gs C gh 4


D 0 r f5


gh D cgCŁ CA 6


Data




N

Des Moines

No 1151220

1200

1220

1200

1180

1160

1180

1200

1220

No 116

Treynor

Iowa





G D b2 C 3

1 C 37





68

83

610

83

612

83

614

83

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

525

82

527

82

529

82

531

82

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

821

81

823

81

825

81

827

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

67

80

69

80

611

80

613

80

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

73

81

75

81

77

81

79

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

824

75

826

75

828

75

830

75

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

728

81

730

81

81

81

83

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)








s1d50


efficiency









6131983

0

1

2

3

4

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s) computed

observed

5301982

0

01

02

03

04

05

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

8261981

000

005

010

015

020

025

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

iem

ent (

kgs

)

8261981

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)




6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80










Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES




























































parth

parttC ˛mhm1 parth

partxD qLx t 2



part

parttAC C part



e D gs C gh 4


D 0 r f5


gh D cgCŁ CA 6


Data




N

Des Moines

No 1151220

1200

1220

1200

1180

1160

1180

1200

1220

No 116

Treynor

Iowa





G D b2 C 3

1 C 37





68

83

610

83

612

83

614

83

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

525

82

527

82

529

82

531

82

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

821

81

823

81

825

81

827

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

67

80

69

80

611

80

613

80

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

73

81

75

81

77

81

79

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

824

75

826

75

828

75

830

75

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

728

81

730

81

81

81

83

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)








s1d50


efficiency









6131983

0

1

2

3

4

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s) computed

observed

5301982

0

01

02

03

04

05

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

8261981

000

005

010

015

020

025

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

iem

ent (

kgs

)

8261981

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)




6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80










Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































N

Des Moines

No 1151220

1200

1220

1200

1180

1160

1180

1200

1220

No 116

Treynor

Iowa





G D b2 C 3

1 C 37





68

83

610

83

612

83

614

83

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

525

82

527

82

529

82

531

82

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

821

81

823

81

825

81

827

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

67

80

69

80

611

80

613

80

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

73

81

75

81

77

81

79

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

824

75

826

75

828

75

830

75

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

728

81

730

81

81

81

83

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)








s1d50


efficiency









6131983

0

1

2

3

4

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s) computed

observed

5301982

0

01

02

03

04

05

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

8261981

000

005

010

015

020

025

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

iem

ent (

kgs

)

8261981

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)




6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80










Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































68

83

610

83

612

83

614

83

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

525

82

527

82

529

82

531

82

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

821

81

823

81

825

81

827

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

67

80

69

80

611

80

613

80

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

73

81

75

81

77

81

79

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

824

75

826

75

828

75

830

75

i (cm

hou

r)

0

5

10

728

81

730

81

81

81

83

81

i (cm

hou

r)

0

10

20

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)








s1d50


efficiency









6131983

0

1

2

3

4

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s) computed

observed

5301982

0

01

02

03

04

05

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

8261981

000

005

010

015

020

025

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

iem

ent (

kgs

)

8261981

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)




6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80










Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES






























































6131983

0

1

2

3

4

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s) computed

observed

5301982

0

01

02

03

04

05

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

8261981

000

005

010

015

020

025

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

6131983

0

100

200

300

400

50 80 110 140 170

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)

5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

iem

ent (

kgs

)

8261981

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50 100 150 200

time (min)

Sed

imen

t (kg

s)




6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80










Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































6121980

0

1

2

3

4

5

time (min)

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

flow

(m

3 s)

computed

observed

6121980

0

100

200

300

400

500

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

781981

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)

781981

0

50

100

150

200

250

160 180 200 220 240 260

time (min)se

dim

ent (

kgs

)

8291975

00

05

10

15

20

25

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

8291975

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

811981

100

time (min)

811981

0

20

40

60

80

100

time (min)

sedi

men

t (kg

s)

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80 1000 20 40 60 80










Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES
































































Discussion









THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES































































THE GSSHA MODEL


parth

parttC partqx

partxC partqy

partyD r f 8

Sfx D S0x parth


party9








fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES






























































fiKCP

0ETH1510



TEj D 1 exwjuy 11









Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES




























































Approach


Flow simulations




4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































4

515

13

314

102

11

7

61

8

12

9

L

w = A L


14 15

5

12 13 10

4

3

2

11

7

1

89

6




Erosion simulations




61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































61383

0

1

2

3

4

5

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200


82681

00

01

02

03

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

570881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

0

1

2

3

30 60 90 120 150

0 20 40 60 80 100

80181

0

1

2

3

4






61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































61383

0

1

2

3

4

60 90 120 150

time (min)

0 20 40 60


time (min)

time (min)


53082

00

01

02

03

04

05

40 80 120 160 200

82681

000

005

010

015

020

025

30 80 130 180

61280

0

1

2

3

4

5 70881

0

2

4

6

170 190 210 230 250 270

82975

00

05

10

15

20

25

30 60 90 120 150

80181

0

1

2

3

4

40200 60 80 100

flow (m3s)

flow (m3s)




13 Jun1983

30 May1982

26 Aug1981

12 Jun1980

8 Jul1981

8 Jul 1981(recalib)

29 Aug1975


1 Aug1981









6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES






























































6131983

0

100

200

300

400

60 90 120 150

time (min)

seddisch(kgs)


5301982

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

40 80 120 160 200

time (min)

82681

0

1

2

3

4

5

30 80 130 180

time (min)

61280

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60

time (min)

70881

0

50

100

150

200

200 220 240 260

time (min)

82975

0

5

10

15

20

40 80 120 160

time (min)

8181

0

25

50

75

100

0

180

25 50 75 100

time (min)





















00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES











































































00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES

































































00

02

04

06

08

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

00

03

06

09

12

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

00

06

12

18

24

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

90

1

2

3

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

8




0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































0

20

40

60

525

04

3

525

13

7

525

23

1

525

32

5

525

41

9

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

`

0

30

60

90

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

300

600

900

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33





Note




00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES



























































00

04

08

12

524

20

52

524

22

55

525

05

7

525

30

0

525

50

2

flow

(m

3 s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

00

05

10

15

20

62

043

62

126

62

209

62

252

62

336

64

233

1

65

143

65

356

65

608

65

821

lsquo

00

03

06

09

12

15

612

44

8

612

63

6

612

82

4

612

10

12

612

12

00

flow

(m

3 s)

0

1

2

3

612

20

24

612

22

00

612

23

36

613

11

3

613

24

9

614

19

12

614

20

58

614

22

45

615

03

1

615

21

80

1

2

3

0

1

2

3


0

30

60

90

120

525

04

3

525

14

8

525

25

2

525

35

7

525

50

2

sedi

men

t di

scha

rge

(kg

s)

KINEROS-2

GSSHA

observed

lsquo

0

40

80

120

160

65

000

65

021

65

043

65

104

65

126

0

100

200

300

400

612

53

1

612

54

9

612

60

7

612

62

5

612

64

3

0

500

1000

1500

612

21

07

612

21

28

612

21

50

612

22

12

612

22

33

sedi

men

t dis

char

ge (

kgs

)

0

400

800

1200

1600

614

20

34

614

21

03

614

21

33

614

22

03

614

22

33











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES

































































ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS





REFERENCES




























































REFERENCES























































































Documents

Comparative assessment of two distributed watershed …webhome.auburn.edu/~kalinla/papers/HP2006.pdfct [LT 1] is the inﬁltration capacity, Ft [L] is the cumulative depth of the water