ADDIS ABABA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

IMPACT OF URBAN LAND USE CHANGE ON

STORM WATER DRAINAGE PERFOMANCE: A

CASE STUDY OF WOLISO TOWN

By

YOHANNES WONDIMU DUGUMA

A Thesis Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment to the Requirements for the Award of the

Degree of Master of Science in Water Supply and Sanitary Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND CIVIL ENGINEERING

SEPTEMBER 2021
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis “Impact of urban land use change on storm water

drainage performance a case study of Woliso town” was prepared by me, with the

guidance of my advisor. The work contained herein is my own except where explicitly

stated otherwise in the text, and that this work has not been submitted, in whole or in part,

for any other degree or professional qualification. Part of this Work have been published

in (state previous publication).

Author: Signature, Date:

Witnessed by:

Name of Student Advisor: Signature, Date:

ii
APPROVAL PAGE
This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Mr. Yohannes Wondimu Duguma untitled
“Impact of urban land use change on storm water drainage performance a case study
of Woliso town” and submitted as a partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree of
Master of Science in water Supply and Sanitary Engineering complies with the regulations
of the university and meets the accepted standards with respects to originality, content and
quality.

Signed by Examining Board:

Advisor Signature, Date

External Examiner: Signature, Date:

Internal Examiner: Signature, Date:

Chairperson: Signature, Date:

DGC Chairperson: Signature, Date:

College Dean/Associate Dean for GP: Signature, Date

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank the almighty God for his unspeakable gift, help and protection
during my work.

Secondly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Brook Abate for
the continuous support of my thesis, for his patience and immense knowledge. His
guidance helped in all the time of the study and writing of this thesis. His dynamic vision,
honesty and inspirations had extremely encouraged me. He had qualified me the method
of how to carry out the research and research work performance as clearly as possible. It
was a great pleasure and integrity to work and study under his lovely guidance. I extremely
thankful to him for providing such nice support and he had to advise a busy schedule
management system.

At last but not the least, I would kindly thank my sincere friends and family for their
wonderful encouragement and technical support in particular.

iv
ABSTRACT
Urbanization modifies the land use and changes the runoff condition of the catchments.This
study assessed the impact of land use land cover changes in the urban area of Woliso town
on stormwater runoff generation and evaluate the hydraulic efficiency of existing drainage
condition based on the current level of urbanization. The influence of urbanization were
analyzed by proposing three different duration of land use conditions (-in 2007, 2015, and
2020-). The existing town expansion was started from the new master plan of a town
developed by Oromia urban planning institute in 2007. Hence, in this study, the baseline
duration was started from the period of the new master plan has been developed in (-2007-
). The historical land cover condition raster image data of the study area was acquired from
the USGS global visualization server. The raster image data of the study area classified
using ERDAS imagine 2015 model, both classification techniques (supervised and
unsupervised classification) were used. The hydrological characteristics of the urban
watershed for (-Woliso town-) for three duration were estimated by hydrological modeling
system (HEC-HMS). The soil conservation service (SCS) curve number method was used
for the calculation of effective rainfall for each subbasins. The soil conservation service
SCS unit hydrograph transform method was used to estimate the actual surface runoff
within the subbasins. The kinematic wave model for those of overland flow and the
Muskingum model was selected for channel routing. The result shows that, the urban built
area was increased from the baseline 2007 up to 2015 by 24.65%, and from the baseline
2007 up to 2020 by 43.83%. The potential peak flow generated from the study area
increased as the level of urban built area was increased. for the period between 2007 to
2015 the peak flow generated was increased by 18.37% (82.2m3/s to 100.7m3/s), and from
the baseline 2007 to 2020 the peak flow generated was increased by 27.7% (82.2m3/s to
113.7m3/s) at 0.04 Annual Exceedance Probability(AEP). Based on the current level of
urbanization only 26.3% and 21% of existing drainage have sufficient capacity to carrying
the incoming potential peak flow generated from each sub-catchments and the rest of
73.68% and 79% of existing drainage line are inadequate to convey the incoming potential
peak flow generated from each sub-basin in 10 and 25 years return period respectively.

key words; Urbanization, Runoff, ERDAS imagine and HEC HMS

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ ii

APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF FIGURE.............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF TABLE .............................................................................................................. xii

ABBREVIATION............................................................................................................ xiii

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of Problem ........................................................................................... 2

1.3 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................ 3

1.4 Research Question ................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Significance of the Research ................................................................................ 4

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study ....................................................................... 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 6

2.1 General Hydrological Principle of Watershed ..................................................... 6

2.2 Precipitation Characteristics and Evaluation........................................................ 6

2.3 Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Curve .......................................................... 7

2.4 Design Storm Hyetograph .................................................................................... 8

2.5 Extreme Maximum Distribution Function ........................................................... 9

2.5.1 Normal Distribution ...................................................................................... 9

2.5.2 Two- Parameters Lognormal (LN (2)) Distribution ..................................... 9

2.5.3 Generalized Extreme Value Distribution .................................................... 10

2.5.4 Log Pearson (3) Distribution ...................................................................... 10

vi
 2.6 Goodness the Fit Test ......................................................................................... 10

2.7 Storm Water and Urban Flooding ...................................................................... 11

2.8 Design Flood Analysis ....................................................................................... 11

2.9 Effect of Urbanization on Hydrological Response of Watershed ...................... 13

2.10 Urban Storm Water Drainage ............................................................................. 14

2.11 Urban Storm Water Drainage Model ................................................................. 15

2.12 HMS-Model Development Using Geo HMS ..................................................... 15

2.13 HEC-HMS (Hydrological Modeling System) .................................................... 16

2.13.1 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Curve Number Loss ...... 17

2.13.2 Unit Hydrograph Principle .......................................................................... 18

2.13.3 Muskingum Routing Principle .................................................................... 20

2.14 Ungauged Watershed Flow Determination ........................................................ 20

2.15 Landsat satellite and Bands ................................................................................ 24

2.16 Low Impact Development (LID) controls .......................................................... 26

2.16.1 Bio retention cell ......................................................................................... 26

2.16.2 Infiltration trench ........................................................................................ 27

2.16.3 Permeable pavement ................................................................................... 27

2.16.4 Vegetable swales ......................................................................................... 27

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................. 28

3.1 study area............................................................................................................ 28

3.1.1 Description of Study Area .......................................................................... 28

3.1.2 Geomorphology and Drainage .................................................................... 29

3.1.3 Climate ........................................................................................................ 29

3.2 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................... 29

3.2.1 Primary data collection ............................................................................... 29

vii
 3.2.2 Secondary data collection ........................................................................... 30

3.3 Landsat Image Acquisition Technique ............................................................... 31

3.4 Landsat Image Classification Technique ........................................................... 31

3.4.1 Definition Used in Classification of Land Cover ....................................... 31

3.5 Image Accuracy Assessment .............................................................................. 32

3.6 Curve Number Determination ............................................................................ 33

3.7 Developing Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Curve .................................... 35

3.8 HEC-HMS Model Development ........................................................................ 36

3.9 Watershed Physical Description Using HEC—Geo-HMS ................................ 36

3.9.1 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number Loss Method ................. 38

3.9.2 Channel flow Muskingum routing Method................................................. 39

3.9.3 SCS Unit Hydrograph Transform Method .................................................. 40

3.10 Time of Concentration ....................................................................................... 41

3.11 HEC HMS Model Calibration and Validation ................................................... 42

3.12 Measuring channel Flow using slope area method ............................................ 43

3.13 Evaluate Performance of Existing Drainage condition ...................................... 44

3.14 Estimation Sub Catchment Peak Flow ............................................................... 46

3.15 Estimation sub-catchment time of concentration ............................................... 48

3.16 Estimation Sub Catchment Runoff Coefficient .................................................. 49

3.17 Hydraulic Analysis of Existing Drainage Condition.......................................... 49

3.18 Low impact development modeling techinique ................................................. 50

3.18.1 Infiltration trench ........................................................................................ 50

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 52

4.1 LULC Changes of Woliso Town ....................................................................... 52

4.1.1 Landsat Image Classification ...................................................................... 52

viii
 4.1.2 Land Use Land Cover Change Impact on Hydrological Response ............ 56

4.2 Intensity Duration Frequency Curve (IDF) ........................................................ 58

4.3 HEC-HMS Hydrological Model Parameters...................................................... 60

4.3.1 Sensetivity analysis ..................................................................................... 60

4.3.2 Calibration and Validation of HEC HMS and Parameter Optimization ..... 61

4.3.3 Model Verification ...................................................................................... 63

4.3.4 Rainfall-Runoff Analysis Result for Annual Exceedance Probability

Hytograph .................................................................................................................. 64

4.4 Evaluation Result of Hydraulic Capacity of Existing Drains ........................... 67

4.5 LID applied and performance ............................................................................ 70

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................ 72

5.1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 72

5.2 Recommendation ................................................................................................ 73

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix A Average Daily Precipitation Data of Woliso Gauging Station in (mm) ...... 79

Appendix B Total Monthly and Annual Precipitation Data of Woliso Gauging Station . 80

Appendix C Goodness of Fit Summary Result ................................................................. 81

Appendix D Look up Table of Hydrological Soil Group and LULC type ....................... 82

Appendix E Hydrological Response of W40 sub catchment (in 2007) ............................ 82

Appendix F Hydrological Response of W40 sub catchment (in 2015) ............................ 83

Appendix H Hydrological Response of W40 sub catchment (in 2020)............................ 83

Appendix I Hydrological Response of W50 sub catchment (in 2007) ............................. 84

Appendix J Hydrological Response of W50 sub catchment (in 2015) ............................. 84

Appendix K Hydrological Response of W50 sub catchment (in 2020)............................ 85

Appendix L hydrological response of W60 sub catchment (in 2007) .............................. 85

ix
Appendix M Hydrological Response of W60 sub catchment (in 2015) ........................... 86

Appendix N Hydrological Response of W60 sub catchment (in 2020)............................ 86

Appendix O Sub Catchment Runoff Coefficient Analysis Result .................................... 87

Appendix P Sub Catchment Design Flow Analysis Result (0.04AEP) ............................ 87

Appendix Q Sub Catchment Design Flow Analysis Result (0.1AEP) ............................. 89

Appendix R Slope Area Method Channel Flow Estimation Result .................................. 92

Appendix S Drainage Carrying capacity analysis Result ................................................. 95

x
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2-1 Synthetic unit hydrograph ............................................................................... 19
Figure 2-2 Water surface profile ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-1 Location map of Woliso town ......................................................................... 28
Figure 3-2 Field measure of drainage cross-section and surveying data .......................... 30
Figure 3-3 Flow diagram of SCS curve number estimation ............................................. 34
Figure 3-4 Probability density function to the annual maximum daily rainfall data ........ 35
Figure 3-5 Basin model of HEC Geo HMS ...................................................................... 37
Figure 3-6 Field measuring of flow depth ....................................................................... 44
Figure 3-7 Existing Woliso town drainage network layout .............................................. 46
Figure 3-8 LID control editor in SWMM5 (infiltration trench cell) ................................ 51
Figure 4-1 Land use land cover map of 2007 in left and 2015 in right ............................ 53
Figure 4-2 Land use land cover map................................................................................ 54
Figure 4-3 The Curve Number grid at 2007 in left and 2015 in right ............................. 57
Figure 4-4 Intensity duration frequency curve (IDF) ....................................................... 59
Figure 4-5 HEC-HMS optimized Model Hydrograph of 21 June 2020 .......................... 62
Figure 4-6 Peak flow hydrograph of 0.04 AEP at 2007, 2015, and 2020 (from left to
right) .................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 4-7 Percentage LULC change from the baseline 2007 .......................................... 55
Figure 4-8 Percentage increase in peak discharge from the baseline 2007 ...................... 66
Figure 4-9 Analyed woliso town drainage network section ............................................. 70

xi
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2-1 Eddies loss coefficient value ............................................................................ 24
Table 2-2 Landsat eight bands composition (source USGS website) .............................. 25
Table 4-1 Land Use Land cover change between 2007-2020.......................................... 55
Table 4-2 Composite Curve Number Value of Sub Basin ................................................ 58
Table 4-3 Intensity of rainfall in different return period (2015-2019).............................. 59
Table 4-4 Averaged Hydrological Parameters Intial and calibrated (Optimized) Condition
........................................................................................................................................... 63
Table 4-5 Summary of Statistical Performance Indicator Result ..................................... 64
Table 4-6 Evaluation of hydraulic capacity against potential stormwater flow into
existing drains ................................................................................................................... 67

xii
 ABBREVIATION
AEP………………………… Annual Exceedance probability

CN…………………………. Curve Number

CSA………………………… Central statistics agency

DEM………………………… Digital Elevation Model

ERA ………………………… Ethiopian Road Authority

ERDAS……………………… Earth Resource Development Assessment system

HEC HMS…………………… Hydrologic Engineering Center hydrologic modeling

system

HEC-Geo HMS……………… Hydrologic Engineering Center Geospatial Hydrologic

modeling system

IDF………………………… Intensity Duration Frequency Curve

LID…………………………… Low Impact Development

LULC………………………… Land Use Land Cover

NRCS………………………… Natural Resource conservation service

SCS……………………………Soil conservation Service

UN…………………………… United nation

USGS………………………… United Nation global visualization server

UTM…………………………. Universal transverse mercator

xiii
xiv
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the past decade, Ethiopia is one of rapidly expanded urbanization in Africa due to the
development of the construction and industrial sector. Consequently, this development is
the major cause of the high rate of population growth, According to the 2007 Ethiopian
Population and Housing Census at least 15 million residents are living in the urban centers
and this number, according to the forecast of the UN, will be doubled by the year 2020,
this prediction making Ethiopian urban population the second largest in the region
surpassed only by Nigeria (Tesfaunegn, 2017). However, the major challenge for
administrative are updating the efficiency of infrastructures depending on the level of
urbanization. Among those different infrastructures is stormwater drainage is designed for
a purpose of effectively collecting and conveying excess surface runoff to reduce the effect
of flooding.

The assessment of the impact of urbanization on different aspects broadly defined in

environmental engineering. Such an assessment may include both the reconstruction of
former changes in an urban environment and the forecasting of future threats and needs. It
is particularly useful as a decision-supporting tool for in-town development. It may help
not only to design and control drainage systems, or to assess the flood risk and provide
necessary protection (e.g. Reservoir design and control), but also to analyze the potential
sensitivity of outflow and providing an alternative way of flood risk minimization and
management ways ( low impact development), such as porous pavements (e.g. In parking
lots, playing yards, communications routes ,etc.), green roofs, detention ponds, infiltration
basins depending on the level significance of flood-prone and availability of raw material.

The best of the available techniques for determining the impact of urbanization is the long-
term monitoring of rainfall and runoff in a basin that has been gradually urbanized.
However, catchments for which such measurements are available are very rare, making
this method impracticable in most typical cases. The second approach consists of the
observation of runoff in two basins, similar in basic hydrological characteristics except for
urban development. This method, however, may also be difficult in practice. Another, often

1
applied, the approach is therefore to apply mathematical modeling, combined with
empirical or theoretical tools for parameter identification. (Borys, 2014).

The models used for the analysis of rainfall-runoff transformation have been developed
from very simple ones (e.g. based on the rational method and its modification), in which
all complicated relations describing this transformation are reduced to one governing
equation of very simple structure, through different types of conceptual models, to complex
integrated models, in which each of the processes is considered individually (Chow 1964).
A more complex model should ensure a better agreement between modeled and real
processes, and thus it should lead to better results. However, in practice, what frequently
determines the choice of the model is data availability. The majority of urban basins are
uncontrolled (ungauged), which means that there are no continuous and reliable
measurements, necessary for proper calibration and validation of a model. In such cases, it
is extremely important to choose a model in which as many parameters as possible are
physically based and, therefore, directly measurable or easily determined based on different
types of basin characteristics. Parameters of empirical nature are very difficult to verify in
such a case and should be avoided.

This paper presents selected aspects of basin change due to urbanization in a different time
interval, their influence on runoff generation, their mathematical modeling, and their
capability of stormwater management structure in the case of developing Woliso town.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Woliso town is categorized under 2A grades towns based on Oromia urban planning
institute and the spatial area of that covered by town 1292. 87 hectares as per 2007 CSA
data. however, in 2007 a new master plan of a town was developed by Oromia urban
planning institute, according to the new master plan the town expands to the neighboring
five rural kebeles covering a spatial area of 2515.25 hectares. since the new master plan of
a town was developed in 2007, the town has been expanded rapidly by urbanization. The
new resettlement area included a residential area, governmental institution (including
Ambo University Woliso campus), different construction areas, and a light industrial area.

The major adverse impact of this expansion was changed land cover conditions by
increasing impervious catchment areas. Consequently, these phenomena dynamically

2
changed the hydrological response of urban watersheds by reducing the processes of
interception, evapotranspiration, infiltration, and natural surface retention; so that the
amount of water produced by runoff is much higher. Besides, the rainfall-runoff
transformation proceeds with greater speed and intensity, as the lag time and concentration-
time for the basin decrease, and the flood wave peak increases (Borys et al., 2014). In the
study area more than half of the expansion of a town targeted on the north part of the town
which topographical condition is relatively higher than the existing town condition, this
increases the impact of flood risk in the lowland area of a town condition.

The major challenge in the study area is the lack of infrastructure development including
(roadway, water supply line, and urban stormwater management structure, etc) based on
the growth level of urbanization and residential resettlements. Lack of urban Stormwater
drainage management represents one of the most common sources of compliance from the
residents in Woliso town. The coverage of existing drainage system is inadequate based on
the level of urbanization. Even through, there is no storm water drainage master plan developed
by administration still now. almost all of the drainage lines are constructed near to outlet point
in a fragmented manner. During the intensive rainfall sessions, the lowland urban catchments
devastated by urban flooding due to the overland flow path is extremely large. another
significant problem is due to lack of periodic maintenance and aging of the existing drainage
structure over topping of flood in a road way was frequently happened in the study area.
consequently, crowded traffic activities and the road way structure have been scouring during
summer session .

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this research is to evaluate the impact of urbanization on stormwater
runoff generation and its impact on the hydraulic efficiency of the urban drainage system.
Specific Objective

 To evaluate Spatial land use land cover change through time due to urbanization
 To evaluate the impact of land use land cover change on the hydrological response of
urban watershed.
 To evaluate the hydraulic efficiency of existing storm drainage networks based on the
current level of urbanization.

3
  provide sustainable mitigation measure to minimize runoff occurrence using LID (low
impact development).

1.4 Research Question

To achieve the research objectives and seek answers for the stated problems, the following
major research questions will be designed.

 Does urban land use land cover change is significant based on the duration
scenario developed?
 Does the peak flow and volume of runoff increase significantly in different levels
of urban land use change at 25 years return period rainfall event?
 Does the hydraulic parameters of existing drainage system have sufficient to
carrying incoming peak runoff discharge?

1.5 Significance of the Research

Woliso town is rapidly expanded by urbanization in the last few years due to the huge
development of the construction sector in the town. This phenomenon makes gradual
changes in land use land cover characteristics by increasing the impervious catchments.
Consequently, the runoff generation from surrounding newly developed areas makes a
great adverse impact on the low land urban area of the existing town. Previously, developed
urban stormwater drainage has been designed and constructed poorly without considering
the incoming peak discharge in different Annual Exceedance Probability rainfall event, and
the effect of land-use change impact on the hydrological response of urban watershed. The
finding of this study forecast the effect of land use land cover change on stormwater runoff
generation in the urban area of low stormwater management structure has been developed.
Specifically, for the designer and policymaker, the output of this study enhanced in
decision-making role for planning and designing a new comprehensive stormwater
management Infrastructure based on the future dynamic of urbanization.

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study includes modeling of the rainfall-runoff analysis throughout different scenarios
using HEC-HMS model and calibration and validation of the model for the study area
through observed flow data. The software required long term recorded flow data with high
quality for accurate estimation of hydrological parameters. However, the limitation on the

4
study in urban catchments gauging station is not installed so direct flow measuring
technique on the outlet point of the drainage section is an alternative method applied in this
study. Hence, in this study, eight days’ hourly flow data at the selected outlet point was
taken.

The terrain condition of the town is moderate to gentle slopes north to south direction and
draining towards Ejersa and Kela streams in Southwest and Rebu stream in Southeast of
the town. Hence, the town watershed condition is divided into two main contributed sub
catchments. The scope of this study focuses on sub-catchments from Northeast to the
Southeast part of the town which finally joining Rebu stream. This watershed area was
selected based on the current and past level of urban expansion and the possibility of sub-
catchments devastated by an urban flood.

5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General Hydrological Principle of Watershed
The hydrologic cycle is the central focus of hydrology. The cycle has no beginning or end,
and its many processes occur continuously. The continuous movement of water above and
below the earth’s surface. The sun which drives the watershed radiates solar energy on the
oceans and land water evaporates as vapor into the air. ice and snow can sublimate directly
into water vapor. Evapotranspiration is water transpired from plants and evaporated from
the soil. Rising air currents take the vapor up into the atmosphere where cooler
temperatures cause it to condense into clouds. Air current move clouds around the globe,
cloud particles collide, grow, fall out of the sky as precipitation (Han, 2010). Rain falling
on Earth may enter a water body directly, travel over the land surface from the point of
impact to a watercourse, or infiltrate into the ground. Some rain is intercepted by
vegetation; the intercepted water is temporarily stored on the vegetation until it evaporates
back to the atmosphere. Some rain is stored in surface depressions, with almost all of the
depression storage infiltrating into the ground (McCuen et al., 1998).

2.2 Precipitation Characteristics and Evaluation

Precipitation is part of the atmospheric water and is derived from water vapor. Atmospheric
water mostly exists as vapor. (Han, 2010). Precipitation can take many forms, including
rain, snow, sleet, hail, and mist. Concerning Hydrologic design, only rain and snow are
important. (McCuen et al., 1998).

Precipitation forms at different climatic characteristics and topographical conditions.

Thermal convection (convectional precipitation) form of local whirling thunderstorms and
is typical of the tropics. The air close to the warm earth gets heated and rises due to its low
density cool adiabatically to form a cauliflower-shaped cloud, which finally bursts into a
thunderstorm. Conflict between two air masses (frontal precipitation) form When two air
masses due to contrasting temperatures and densities clash with each other, condensation
and precipitation occur at the surface of contact. Orographic lifting (orographic
precipitation) The mechanical lifting of moist air over mountain barriers, causes heavy
precipitation on the windward side. Cyclonic (cyclonic precipitation) this type of
precipitation is due to the lifting of moist air converging into a low-pressure belt, due to

6
pressure differences created by the unequal heating of the earth’s surface. Here the winds
blow spirally inward counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the
southern hemisphere. There are two main types of cyclone tropical cyclone (also called
hurricane or typhoon) with a comparatively small diameter of 300-1500 km causing high
wind velocity and heavy precipitation, and the extratropical cyclone of large diameter up
to 3000 km causing widespread frontal type precipitation. (Ragunath, 2006). (Han, 2010).

Precipitation express in terms of the depth to which rainfall water would be standing on an
area if all rain collects on it. Thus one centimeter of rainfall over one square kilometer
catchment represents a volume of water ten thousand square meters of water. (Subramanya,
2008). Rainfall is normally measured as an intensity (mm/hour) and representative on a
specific location and often recorded together with duration and frequency. Rainfall
duration refers to the specific time period for which the rainfall lasts. Rainfall frequency is
an expression of the return period of a similar rainfall event with the same magnitude rate
and is normally expressed in years (Davies et al., 2004, Ragunath, 2006).

2.3 Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Curve

During a rainfall event, the intensity is typically the largest at the beginning (i.e., The first
hour) and then diminishes with every hour after that (i.e., The intensity reduces with
duration). This could be illustrated in an intensity duration frequency IDF curve graph. The
rainfall intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) relationship is widely applied in hydraulic and
hydrological engineering for the design of structures that control storm runoff and flooding.
Specifically, during the analysis of the sewer system including stormwater drainage sub-
hourly duration of intensity duration frequency (IDF) curve plays a vital role. For a site
where rainfall measurements are available frequency analysis can be performed for the
development of the IDF relationship (Madsen et al., 2000, Davies et al., 2004).

The method used in developing the intensity duration frequency (IDF) curve is based on
the best fit extreme maximum distribution function historical rainfall data. (Gebeyehu,
2016). This probability distribution is a function representing the probability occurrence of
a random variable by fitting a distribution to a set of hydrological data. (Chow, 1988).
Based on the availability of data and frequency distribution different methodologies are
used to developing intensity duration frequency (IDF) curves. The studies on

7
transformation point rainfall to areal rainfall constructing catchment intensity-duration
frequency (IDF) curves which are based on the spatial correlation structure of rainfall. This
methodology consists, in the main, areal averaging of the parent rainfall and the
transformation of the area-averaged. parent rainfall distribution into the corresponding
extreme value distribution according to the theory of Gumbel (1958). (Sivapalan, 1997).
The study on the Vietnam monsoon region developed an intensity duration frequency curve
based on the existing empirical formulas. According to this study the intensity duration
frequency (IDF) curves for seven stations were constructed by using empirical equations
and the least square method is applied to determine the parameter of four empirical IDF
equations used to represent intensity duration relationships. (Nhat, 2006). Another study
on northern Ethiopia Bahirdar station of rainfall was developed an intensity duration
frequency curve based on simple scaling method. This method was developed intensity
duration frequency curve based on the log-transformed value of the moment of intensities
and the duration. (Gebeyehu, 2016). But the value of intensities in different return period
is significantly higher than the existing regional intensities at different return period
condition.

2.4 Design Storm Hyetograph

Design storm hyetograph represents the time distribution of the total storm depth
determined by annual maximum rainfall data, the design storm hyetograph is optimally
modeled when based on observed storm events that actually produced the annual maximum
rainfall. (Ke Sheng Cheng, 2001). The alternative block method is a simple way of
developing a design hyetograph from the intensity duration frequency (IDF) curve. (Chow,
1988).

The triangular shape of design storm generation particularly suitable for arid and semi-arid regions.
These latter are characterized by specific climatic and hydrological patterns. storm floods are
associated with the sudden occurrence and rapid rise. Flooding happens quickly and durations are
short, often of only a few hours or half a day, and rarely more than one day. The time to peak from
the beginning of the rising limb of the hydrograph may even be as little as 10 minutes. The flood
hydrograph obviously shows a sharp peak, with rising and falling limbs changing suddenly. In this
context, this study assumes a triangular shape to represent the rapid rise and sharp peak of the
rainfall hyetograph. (Mannel et al., 2009). A triangular hyetograph model based on the rainfall

8
Intensity and fraction of storm duration can be constructed. The method of moments is
used for parameter estimation. The fraction of storm duration is interpreted as a non-
exceedance probability. (William et al. H. A., 2003).

2.5 Extreme Maximum Distribution Function

2.5.1 Normal Distribution
Normal distribution is representing real valued random variables whose distribution is not
known. Their importance is partly due to the central limit theorem. it stated that, under
some conditions, the average of many samples (observation) of a random variable with
finite mean and variance is itself a random variable whose distribution converges to a
normal distribution as a number of sample increase. in this study the normal distribution is
used in frequency analysis for fitting empirical distribution to hydro- metrological data. the
probability density function of a normal distribution variable x given by;

𝑥−𝜇 2
1 1/2( )
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝜎√2𝜋 𝑒 𝜎 2-1

𝜇 and 𝜎 represent mean and standard variation of the distribution and the variable x can
take any value in the range of ((−∞, ∞).

2.5.2 Two- Parameters Lognormal (LN (2)) Distribution

In probability theory a log-normal distribution is a continuous probability distribution of a
random variable whose logarithm is normally distributed. Thus if the random variable x is
log normal distribution, then y=ln(x) has normal distribution. Equivalently if y has a normal
distribution then the exponential function of y,x =exp (y), has a log normal distribution. A
random variable which is log normally distributed takes only positive real value. the
probability distribution functions a log normal distributed variable x with two parameters
(LN (2)) is given by;
2
1 [− 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑥−𝑢𝑦 ]
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑥ɑ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 { } 2-2
𝑦 √2𝜋 2𝜎𝑦2

𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑥)−𝜇𝑦
𝑢𝑦 = 2-3
𝜎𝑦

where 𝜇𝑦, 𝜎𝑦 the mean and standard deviation of natural logarithm of x.

9
2.5.3 Generalized Extreme Value Distribution
In probability theory the general extreme value distribution is a family of continuous
probability function developed with extreme value theorem to combine the Gumbel,
Frechet and Weibull families also known as a type one, two and three extreme value
distribution. By the extreme value theorem, the GEV distribution is the only possible limit
distribution of probably normalized maxima of sequence of independent and identically
distributed random variable. the probability density function of the GEV distribution is of
form;
1
−1 𝑥−𝑢 1/𝑘
1 𝑥−𝑢 𝑘 −[1−𝑘( )]
𝑓(𝑥) = ɑ [1 − 𝑘 ( )] 𝑒 ɑ 2-4
ɑ

the range of the variable x depends on the sign of parameters

2.5.4 Log Pearson (3) Distribution

Log Pearson distribution is a family of continuous probability distribution. The probability
density function of a LP(3) distributed random variable is given by;

1 log(𝑥)−𝛾 𝛽−1 {
log 𝑥−𝛾
}
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝜏𝛼𝑥𝛽 [ ] 𝑒 𝛼 2-5
𝛼

2.6 Goodness the Fit Test

The goodness of the fit test measures the compatibility of random sample with a theoretical
probability distribution. The goodness of fit tests is applied in this study for testing the
following null hypothesis;

Ho: The maximum daily rainfall data follow the specific distribution

HA: The maximum daily rainfall data does not follow the specified distribution

The following goodness of the fit tests analyzed by Kolmogorov-Simirnov and Anderson
Darling test used along with the Chi-Square test at 𝛼 level of significance for selection of
the best fit probability distribution.

10
2.7 Storm Water and Urban Flooding
Stormwater is the water draining off a site from the rain that falls on the roof and land, and
everything it carries with it. The soil, organic matter, litter, fertilizers from gardens, and oil
residues from driveways it carries can pollute downstream waterways. Rainwater refers
only to the rain that falls on the roof, which is usually cleaner. (Birhanu, 2018).

Urban flooding is the inundation of land or property in a built environment, particularly in

more densely populated areas, caused by rainfall overwhelming the capacity of drainage
systems, such as storm sewers. Although sometimes triggered by events such as flash
flooding or snowmelt, urban flooding is a condition, characterized by its repetitive and
systemic impacts on communities that can happen regardless of whether or not affected
communities are located within designated floodplains or near any body of water. Urban
flooding is specific in the fact that the cause is a lack of drainage in an urban area. A lot of
the sewerage and drainage network is old and its condition is unknown. They cannot cope
with the volume of water or are blocked by rubbish and by non-biodegradable plastic bags.
Sewers overflow because of illegal connections and the sewer system cannot cope with the
increased volumes. As new developments cover previously permeable ground, the amount
of rainwater running off the surface into drains and sewers increases dramatically
(Mukherjee, 2016).

2.8 Design Flood Analysis

Several methods will be appropriate for predicting peak flood rates and volumes at most
sites. Comparison of hydrologic prediction methods on recurrence interval curves should
be performed in the selection of peak flow rates for a drainage design (ERA, 2013).

The Rational Method provides estimates of peak runoff rates for small urban and rural
watersheds of less than 50 hectares (0.5 square km) and in which natural or man-made
storage is small. It is best suited to the design of urban storm drain systems, small side
ditches and median ditches, and driveway pipes. It shall be used with caution if the time of
concentration exceeds 30 minutes. Rainfall is a necessary input for this method of flow
estimation (ERA,2013, USACE,1994).

11
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service)
developed the runoff curve number method as a means of estimating the amount of rainfall
appearing as runoff. Technical Release 20 (TR20) employs the Runoff Curve Number
Method and a dimensionless unit hydrograph to provide an estimation of peak discharges
and runoff hydrographs from complex watersheds. The procedure allows the designer to
estimate the effect of urbanization, channel storage, flood control storage, and multiple
tributaries. TR 20 can be applied to the design of culverts, bridges, detention ponds,
channel modification, and analysis of flood control reservoirs. Technical Release 55 (TR
55) is a simplified form of TR 20 for use in estimating peak discharges for small watersheds
(urban and rural) whose time of concentration does not exceed 10 hours. The unit
hydrograph used by the SCS method is based upon an analysis of a large number of natural
unit hydrographs from a broad cross-section of geographic locations and hydrologic
regions in the USA (ERA,2013, USACE,1994).

Where stream gauge data are available, stream gauge data can be used to develop peak
discharges. The Ministry of Water & Energy keeps annual stream gauge data. The method
commonly used for estimating the peak discharges is usually the Log-Pearson Type III
distribution. However, as the record length is increased, a Log-Normal distribution or
General Extreme Value (GEV) distribution could also be used. The recent data analysis
demonstrated that GEV can be used to estimate the peak flow in Ethiopia (ERA,2013,
USACE,1994).

Regional regression equations provide estimates of peak discharge for watersheds in

specific geographic regions. Of these possible hydrologic methods based on the available
data, it should be noted that, at present, only the Rational and SCS methods apply to the
whole

Country. Regression equations and derivations from stream gauging (Gumbel, Log
Pearson, General Extreme Value) are often preferred but rely on data not available
(ERA,2013, USACE,1994).

12
2.9 Effect of Urbanization on Hydrological Response of Watershed
Urbanization is an increase in the urbanized land cover. Urban growth according to
spontaneous or unplanned urban development is called urban sprawl. Urban sprawl usually
has negative connotations, associated with the generation or intensification of complex
urban problems, such as land, water, and air pollution, with their consequent negative
impacts on human health. (Claudia M. Vaina, 2019). The development of an urban area
covering the ground with an artificial surface; Such as the construction of building
infrastructure, extensive ground coverage in a city, the paved streets, and car parking. This
development contributes large areas to the impervious surface, which have a direct effect
on its surface hydrology (David et al., 2004, Nibo, 2017).

Imperviousness is an important indicator of the impact of urbanization on stormwater

systems (Lee, 2003). Before a watershed is developed, pervious fallow land can store,
infiltrate, and evapotranspiration a majority of the rainfall. After development, much of
this pervious land is covered over with impervious surfaces that the rainwater cannot pass
through, such as roads, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, and rooftops. besides, much of
this impervious area is directly connected to a drainage system and the rainwater has no
chance to infiltrate by passing over pervious ground (Birhanu, 2018).

The changes of the impervious area determine either by runoff coefficient (C) or SCS curve
number (CN) parameters. Different studies were developed scenarios based on land use
land cover changes affect the hydrological response of watersheds. But this parameter was
determined in those studies by marginalized the study area by mostly dominant land use
type and taken the average value of the curve number. but the precise SCS curve number
value determines using land use land cover raster data and hydrological soil data. This
study accurately determined SCS curve number parameter by using land use land cover
data acquisition from satellite image, And the hydrological soil data extracted from the
Regional soil map.

The increase in impervious areas disrupts the natural water balance by reduced infiltration,
increases runoff, leads to higher flood peaks and volumes within a short duration, and low-
intensity rainfall (Suriya, 2011, Borys et al., 2014). Increasing impervious surfaces and
compaction of soil reduces the capacity of soil to absorb moisture. In fact, the soil

13
infiltration rate decreased with an increase in the bulk density, reduction in the soil organic
matter content, and non-capillary porosity. The study on Changchun in northeast china
proved that the final infiltration rate decreased with increased soil compaction. The final
infiltration rate of non-compacted soil was significantly different from that of severely
compacted soils. Specifically, the infiltration rate of non-compacted soil was 8.84 cm/h,
and the infiltration rate of the severely compacted soil was 1.88cm/h. (WANG et al., 2018).
Consequently, groundwater recharge can be reduced by the reduction of infiltration through the
watershed system. (Butler, 2015).

The evapotranspiration is another significantly hydrological response that affects urban

development watersheds. Several studies revealed that the conversion of forest land or
grassland to urban land leads to a reduction in evapotranspiration in value and an associated
increase in surface flow. Different studies focus on simulating the impact of scenario-based
changes in land use and climate on the hydrologic response including evapotranspiration
of urban watersheds. The results of the climate scenario study showed that the influence of
climate variability is more significant when compared to land-use change. These scenario-
based studies do not try to project the real future changes but are attempts to assess the
implications of possible future changes. This shows that a more emphasis is necessary
towards the development of models which can predict future changes in climate and land
use pattern in more realistic manner. (Dwarakish, 2015).

2.10 Urban Storm Water Drainage

Drainage systems are needed in developed urban areas because of the interaction between
human activity and the natural water cycle. This interaction has two main forms: the
abstraction of water from the natural cycle to provide a water supply for human life, and
the covering of land with impermeable surfaces that divert rainwater away from the local
natural system of drainage. These two types of interaction give rise to two types of water
that require drainage (Davies, 2011).

The first type, wastewater, is water that has been supplied to support life, maintain a
standard of living, and satisfy the needs of the industry. After use, if not drained properly,
it could cause pollution and create health risks. The second type of water requiring
drainage, stormwater, is rainwater (or water resulting from any form of precipitation) that

14
has fallen on a built-up area. If stormwater were not drained properly, it would cause
inconvenience, damage, flooding, and further health risks. It contains some pollutants,
originating from rain, the air, or the catchment surface (Davies, 2011).

The primary purpose of drainage structure is to serve as conveyance structures preventing

water from pooling on the roadway surface. Effective drainage structures prevent overland
runoff from reaching the roadway, as well as drain water from the road surface. A drainage
system will include all the components needed to ensure that the substructure is properly
drained, and may be formed of components such as Open ditches, closed ditches with pipe
drains, Drainage through stormwater drainage pipes, Channels, and culverts (ERA, 2013).

2.11 Urban Storm Water Drainage Model

Stormwater models underpin decision-making processes in stormwater management.
Runoff generation and flow routing models are now well developed and widely adopted
(Dotto, 2010). These models generally consider the major hydrological and hydraulic
processes of urban drainage systems such as interception, infiltration (from pervious
surfaces), depression storage, overland flow, gutter flow, and pipe flow. These computer
models can be used for both storm event modeling and continuous simulation. The
computer model used for urban drainage which have a complex network system of drainage
layout. Storm event modeling which considers the generation of flood hydrographs due to
a storm is important in urban drainage design. The continuous modeling, which deals with
the modeling of the drainage system over a long period, is important in estimating
stormwater yield, which can be reused (Birhanu, 2018). however, the study area network
system is simple and constructed in a fragmented manner and discharged into different
outlet points. hence, the preferable method for this type of drainage layout using the
empirical formula in a separated manner to estimate the accurate design flow of sub-
catchments and performance drainage section.

2.12 HMS-Model Development Using Geo HMS

HEC-Geo HMS has been developed as a geospatial hydrology tool kit for engineers and
hydrologists. The program is an extension of arc view and allows users to visualize spatial
information, document watershed characteristics, perform spatial analysis, delineate sub-
basins and streams, construct inputs to hydrologic models, and assist with report

15
preparation. HEC-Geo HMS provides the connection for translating GIS spatial
information into hydrologic models. The end result of the GIS processing is a spatial
hydrology database that consists of the digital elevation model (DEM), soil types, land use
information, rainfall, etc (Fleming et al., 2010).

HEC-Geo HMS transforms the drainage paths and watershed boundaries into a hydrologic
data structure that represents the watershed response to precipitation. In addition to the
hydrologic data structure, capabilities include the development of grid-based data for linear
quasi-distributed runoff transformation HEC-HMS basin model, physical watershed and
stream characteristics, and background map file. To this end, HEC- Geo HMS generates
tables that are populated with physical characteristics of streams and watersheds. In
general, the user can visualize spatial information, edit watershed characteristics, perform
spatial analysis, delineate sub-basins and streams, develop inputs for hydrologic models
and extract necessary hydrological information for the catchment (Fleming et al., 2010).

2.13 HEC-HMS (Hydrological Modeling System)

Increasing urbanization brings changes in the types of land cover, and these, in turn, cause
several changes within the natural world. One way in which urbanization affects the natural
world is the hydrology of the urbanizing area. Increases in urbanization have been found
to increase the quantity of water flowing overland and decrease the amount of time to reach
peak flow for the overland water Hydrologic models are helpful to predict how changes in
land cover translate into changes in the flow regime of an area (Nibo, 2017).

Program HEC-HMS can provide much of that information including estimates of runoff
volume, peak flow rates, and the timing of flows. The program provides this information
by simulating the behavior of watershed, its channels, and water-control facilities in the
hydrologic system (Fleming et al., 2010). The HEC-HMS program Applications are to
studies, urban flood, flood frequency, flood-loss reduction, flood-warning system planning,
and reservoir design (Ics, 2005). Several types of models are available to simulate the
rainfall-runoff process. One of the first choices to make is between models that are public
domain and those that are proprietary. There are also differences in how models simulate
the rainfall-runoff process over the area of concern. Lumped hydrologic models take an
average over the entire watershed area for parameters, such as Curve Number (CN),

16
precipitation, and initial abstraction. Distributed hydrologic models typically use
parameters values at the same resolution as the data input, and are generally more
complicated and computationally intensive (Beven, 1998).

The two lumped hydrologic models, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Unit
Hydrograph (UH) and, Clark UH, used by the Hydrologic Engineering Center, Hydrologic
Modeling System (HEC-HMS) translated changes in land cover to changes in the quantity
of runoff. The SCS CN model was selected for the loss method to accompany the SCS UH
transform model. The SCS CN loss model converted the precipitation depth into a runoff,
with some amount infiltrating into the soil. The amount of infiltration, or abstraction, was
based upon the average CN, Initial Abstraction, and Percent Impervious Cover parameter
values (Fleming et al., 2010).

The Lag method simply held water within the channel, or reach, until the amount of time
specified had passed. This resulted in the incoming hydrographs ordinates being translated
a specified amount of time. Therefore, the shape of the incoming hydrograph remained
unchanged. The channels, or reaches, within HEC-HMS, were used primarily to link the
output of the upstream watershed to that of the downstream watershed (Nibo, 2017).

2.13.1 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Curve Number Loss

The natural resource conservation service curve number method implements the curve
number methodology for incremental loss. Originally the methodology was intended to
calculate total infiltration during a storm. The program of HEC HMS computes incremental
precipitation during a storm by recalculating the infiltration volume at the end of each time
interval. Infiltration during each time interval is the difference in volume at the end of two
adjacent times. (Fleming et al., 2010).

In NRCS initial abstraction is used as an optional. The initial abstraction defines the amount
of precipitation that must fall before the surface excess result. However, it is not the same
as an initial interception or initial loss. The basic parameter required for this method is
curve number and initial abstraction. The curve number parameters are a function of a
different soil group and land use combination.

17
2.13.2 Unit Hydrograph Principle
The concept of unit hydrograph was first proposed by Sherman in 1932 originally named
unit graph. The unit hydrograph the catchment flow response to a unit (1cm) of effective
rainfall occurring over a given duration. (Han, 2010). The basic principle in-unit
hydrograph effective rainfall is uniformly distributed over the whole catchment and
duration, direct runoff process is linear in superposition and proportionality (if the rainfall
is doubled the runoff is also doubled. Any runoff from a later time can be added to previous
runoff and the rainfall-runoff process is stationary with no change with time. (Han, 2010,
Chow 1988).

To compute the direct runoff hydrograph with unit hydrograph, HEC HMS uses a discrete
representation of excess precipitation in which a pulse of excess precipitation is known for
each time interval.it then solves the discrete convention equation for a linear system
(Han,2010, Chow, 1988, Juraj et al., 2004).

𝑄𝑖 = ∑𝑛≤𝑚
𝑚=1 𝑅𝑚 𝑈𝑖−𝑚+1 2-6

Where 𝑄𝑖 Direct runoff, 𝑈𝑖 unit hydrograph ordinate, 𝑅𝑚 effective rainfall, and “M”
number of rainfall values.

For the case of this study, the catchment is an ungauged watershed so impossible to develop
a unit hydrograph from the observed rainfall-runoff relationship of the catchments.
Whenever rainfall-runoff data not available a synthetic unit hydrograph technique is
normally employed. (Han, 2010).

Synthetic unit hydrograph related to the parameters of the unit hydrograph model to
watershed characteristics. In HEC HMS different synthetic unit hydrograph model is
provided. In this study, SCS dimensionless synthetic unit hydrograph method was selected.

The SCS synthetic unit hydrograph method was derived from the observed rainfall-runoff
data of natural watersheds with different sizes and geographical locations. The derived unit
hydrographs were then made dimensionless and averaged to the obtained standard
dimensionless unit hydrograph as shown in the Figure 2-1.

18
 Figure 2-1 Synthetic unit hydrograph (Source concise hydrology, 2010)
According to SCS unit hydrograph principle unit hydrograph peak discharges a function of
total sub catchment area and the time of peak discharge.

𝐴
𝑈𝑝 = 𝐶 2-7
𝑇𝑝

Where 𝑈𝑝 = UH peak discharge

𝐶 = conversion constant

𝐴 = area of sub catchments

𝑇𝑝 = time to peak UH

The time to peak in synthetic unit hydrograph is expressed as the lag time or delay time
between the time runoff from a rainfall event over a watershed begins until the runoff
reaches its maximum peak (Bruce et al., 2016). Different empirical formulas were
developed to determine the time of peak. But in most literature, the time of the peak is
expressed as 60% of time of concentration in a given watershed.

19
2.13.3 Muskingum Routing Principle
Flow routing is a procedure to estimate downstream hydrograph from the upstream
hydrograph. The routing hydrograph is delay by a time lag (translation) and its attenuated.
This flow routing dividing into river flow routing and reservoir flow routing (Han, 2010).

HEC HMS software provides six different models to estimate flow through the channels.
All of the models require different input parameters although each of them uses the concept
of continuity and momentum equation. Based on the data requirement and simplicity
Muskingum method was selected for this study.

According to the Muskingum routing method, the storage function in a channel reach is
linked with both inflow and outflow.

𝑆 = 𝐾[𝑋𝐼 + (1 − 𝑋)𝑂] 2-8

Where K is the storage time constant for the reach, X is a weighting factor (between 0 to
0.5)

𝐼1 +𝐼2 𝑂1 +𝑂2 𝑆1 +𝑆2

− = 2-9
2 2 ∆𝑡

From water balance equation

𝐼1 +𝐼2 𝑂1 +𝑂2 𝐾[𝑋𝐼2 +(1−𝑋)𝑂2 ]−𝐾[𝑋𝐼1 +(1−𝑋)𝑂1 ]

− = 2-10
2 2 ∆𝑡

Simplified it to get the Muskingum equation

𝑂2 = 𝐶𝑜 𝐼2 + 𝐶1 𝐼1 + 𝐶2 𝑂1 2-11
0.5∆𝑡−𝐾𝑋 𝐾𝑋+0.5∆𝑡 𝐾−𝐾𝑋−0.5∆𝑡
Where 𝐶𝑜 = , 𝐶1 = , 𝐶2 = , and 𝐷 = 𝐾 − 𝐾𝑋 +
𝐷 𝐷 𝐷
0.5∆𝑡 2-12
where I and O Inflow and outflow hydrograph and C1, C2 and C3 and D is adjustment
constants.
2.14 Ungauged Watershed Flow Determination
Hourly flood flow estimation for gauged and ungauged catchments is a prerequisite for
hydrological model calibration (parameter estimation) and validation purposes. The model
parameters are estimated from a nested or an adjacent catchment that is hydrologically

20
similar to the ungauged one. According to the literature, different ungauged flow
determination methods are proposed.

Depth logging equipment consists of a commercially available data logger connected to

the probe. The logger is attached to a capacitance measuring probe, which is an aluminum
tube about 30mm diameter and between 2-3m in length. The length controls the maximum
depth that the logger can record. The logger can be programmed to take depth readings at
a variety of time scale from the minute to days and is capable of storing 114kilobiyte data
(McMahon, 2016).

Another ungauged flow measurement method establishing the relationship between the
nearby gauge over the short period of gauging time that is available during the field project,
concurrent discharge measurements are made at both the candidate and the gauged sites.
These measurements are used to establish a regression equation, which describes the
relationship between them for all flows up to the maximum that has been measured
manually (usually safe wading depth), and the equation allows flow at the candidate site to
be estimated from flow at the gauged site. In this procedure, the candidate site is the
dependent variable in the regression. Observations of discharge at the gauged site are
normally taken from the gauged record or by recording the level at this site and converting
this to discharge using the site rating curve (McMahon, 2016).

For higher discharges, which are generally independent of the catchment geology, the ratio
of discharge is assumed to be equal to the ratio of the catchment area to some power b. The
exponent b varies widely reported value ranges from 0.5 to 0.8. Comparison of higher
discharge at several gauge sites within the catchment may provide some guidance for
selecting the exponents. The exponents depend mainly on the combined effect of the
reduction in the average rainfall intensity with increasing catchment area and the effect of
natural storage in the catchment. The following equation is used to calculate the
relationship between gauging and ungauged watershed (McMahon, 2016).
𝑏
𝐴𝑢
𝑄𝑢 = (𝐴 ) 𝑄𝑔 2-13
𝑔

21
Where 𝑄𝑢 and 𝑄𝑔 are the discharges in (m3/s) at the ungauged and gauged sites
respectively. 𝐴𝑢 and 𝐴𝑔 are the respective area (ha) of the ungauged and gauged catchments
and b is the exponent.

Direct discharge estimation is another method of ungauged watershed flow estimation. In

practice, discharge is estimated as the product of flow velocity and cross-sectional area of
a flow. Flow velocity commercially available. The recommended dividing the cross-
section of flow into ten vertical sections and for each estimating average velocities and five
velocity taken at 0.1,0. 3...0.9 times water depth at a location. Discharge is then computed
by summing the products of the subsection area by the mean velocity for that sub-area.

𝑄 = ∑ 𝑣𝑖 𝐴𝑖 2-14

Where 𝑄 is estimated discharge, 𝑣𝑖 the average measuring velocities for sub-catchment 𝐴𝑖.

Current meter measurements would be made as often as possible so that the discharge
relationship between the ungauged and the gauged sites was established up to the maximum
feasible discharge. Under normal circumstances, this will be restricted to wading depth.
Where a temporary water level recorder is installed at the ungauged site, the current meter
measurements are used to construct the rating curve - a relationship between flow depth
and discharge, which is used to convert the logged depths to discharge. (McMahon, 2016).

Another fundamental method of ungauged watershed flow estimation is the slope area
method. This method through developing the relationship between the stage and flow
(rating curve) can be developed sometimes using the slope area method. The key to the
slope area method is to estimate the longitudinal slope of the free water surface of the
stream using two water level records. Water level loggers need to be located on straight
reach at least equivalent to ten stream widths apart. This distance will ensure that the
measured water slope is representative of the reach. the loggers need to be accurately
common datum and the readings of the water level changes should be made at a suitable
short time steep relative to the rate of rising of the hydrograph. this enables the slope of the
water surface to be determined. It is important that the flow condition to steady flow
condition such that the flow depth and velocity of flow do not change over a short period
of time.

22
The stage discharge relationship for channel controls with a uniform flow is governed by
a manning or Chezy equation. as it applies to the reach of the controlling channel
downstream from a gauge. The manning equation is;

1 1/2
𝑄 = 𝐴𝑅2/3 𝑆𝑓 2-15
𝑛

Where A is the area of cross-section, R hydraulic mean depth, Sf energy slope

The energy slope is derived from Bernoulli’s equation by providing a logger point in
sections one and two below the figure. The length between the two sections is determined
based on the average width of the channel. The elevation bed in both sections expressed
as (Z1 and Z2), the water flow head in both section expressed by (Y1and Y2), the velocity
𝑣2 𝑣2
head between two sections expressed by (2𝑔1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 2𝑔2 ), and the total head loss of water move

from section one to section two expressed by (𝐻𝐿 ). The head loss between the two sections
a function of frictional head loss and eddies head loss. The sum of bed the elevation and
the water flow head is expressed as elevation of water surface from the datum (h1 and h2).

Figure 2-2 Water surface profile

23
From the above diagram the Bernoulli’s equation will be developed as;
𝑣 2 𝑣2
ℎ1 + (2𝑔1 ) = ℎ2 + (2𝑔2 ) + ℎ𝑒 +ℎ𝑓 2-16

By rewriting the above equation;

𝑣 2 𝑣2
ℎ𝑓 = (ℎ1 − ℎ2 ) + [(2𝑔1 ) − (2𝑔2 )] − ℎ𝑒 2-17

The head loss due eddies (ℎ𝑒 ) estimated as:

𝑣 2 𝑣2
ℎ𝑒 = 𝐾𝑒 |(2𝑔1 ) − (2𝑔2 )| 2-18

Where 𝐾𝑒 eddies loss coefficient and the rest is velocity head. The value of the eddy loss
coefficient depending on the channel flow characteristics. In stage-discharge estimation,
the channel flow is characterized as uniform flow. There is no contraction or expansion on
the channel reaches. So the value of the eddies coefficient will be zero. The velocity head
difference between the two sections of the reach is equal to zero. Hence, the head loss
between sections one and two in the above diagram is the difference in water surface
elevation between the two sections.

Table 2-1 Eddies loss coefficient value

Cross Sectional
value of Ke
Characteristics of the
reach expansion contraction
Uniform 0 0
Gradual transition 0.3 0.1
Abrupt transition 0.8 0.6

From the above equation and principles, the energy slope between the two section
estimated as:
𝑆𝑓 = ℎ𝑓 /𝐿 2-19

2.15 Landsat satellite and Bands

The sensor abroad each of the Landsat satellites designed to acquire data in different ranges
of frequencies along the electromagnetic spectrum. The multispectral scanner (mss) carried
on Landsat 1,2,3,4 and 5 collected data in four bands. the thematic mapper (TM) sensor on

24
Landsat 4 and 5 including those found in earlier satellites and also introduced a thermal
and shortwave infrared band. A panchromatic band was added to Landsat 7 Enhanced
thematic mapper plus (ETM+) sensor. While the earlier satellites carried just one sensor.
The Landsat 8 acquires data in 11 bands from two separate sensors (the operational land
imager (OLI) and the thermal infrared sensors (TIRS). (USGS, 2020).

Landsat satellite types launched at different times by modifying the level of wavelength
for each band and also added different bands from visible to infrared wavebands. for
instance, Landsat 8 launched in February 2013 and consists of eleven different bands.

Among the Landsat imager satellite listed in the above, the study area image acquired from
the Landsat 8 satellite. The main reason for the selection of Landsat image 8 a lot of bands
were designed for Landsat 8 relative to the another’s, this enhances to the identification of
the land cover condition of the study area accurately and easily.

Table 2-2 Landsat eight bands composition (source USGS website)

Wavelength Resolution
Bands (micrometers) (meters)
Band 1 0.43-0.45 30
Band 2 0.45-0.51 30
Band 3 0.53-0.59 30
Band 4 0.64-0.67 30
Band 5 0.85-0.88 30
Band 6 1.57-1.65 30
Band 7 2.11-2.29 30
Band 8 0.50-0.68 30
Band 9 1.36-1.38 30
Band 10 10.60-11.19 100
Band 11 11.5-12.51 100

Band one coastal Aerosol, Band two blue, band three green, band four red, Band five near-
infrared, Band six and seven SWIR, band eight panchromatic, band nine cirrus, and band
ten and eleven are thermal infrared. some colors could be produced as composite imageries.
In remote sensing there are three different kinds of composite imaginary are representing
the specific places in the earth. False-color composite imaginary, natural color composite
imaginary, or true-color composite imaginary. False-color composite uses at least one non-

25
visible wavelength but the bands are represented in red green or blue. But the natural or
true color composite image displays the combination of the visible red, green or blue with
corresponding red, green, or blue channels in the computer screen. False-color composite
imaginary bands combination often applied for land cover classification analysis because
this composite image contains near-infrared bands and these bands easily identifying
vegetation areas. Therefore, the false-color composite imaginary is widely used for land
use land cover classification. (Nibo, 2017).

2.16 Low Impact Development (LID) controls

Basically, LID is a land re-development approach to manage storm water. The main goal
of LID is to reduce the negative effects of precipitation flooding waters by maintaining the
pre-development hydrology of a site by decentralizing micro-scale controls. LID practices
effectively reduce water-related problems through infiltration and evaporation of the storm
water resulting environmental, social, and economic benefits (Kim, 2018).The common
LID practices are bio-retention, green roofs, permeable pavements, rain gardens, vegetative
swales, and rain cisterns (a.k.a. Rain barrel) that are used to create a functionally equivalent
hydrologic landscape. Environmentally suitable land, topography, hydrology, geology, soil
type, land use land cover are constraints as input to evaluate assess low impact development
(Nibo, 2017).

2.16.1 Bio retention cell

In the bio retention cell scenario, runoff from the study area was routed through a bio
retention cell in the LID area. Bio retention cells are depressed landscapes into which
runoff is directed and allowed to pond, filter, and infiltrate. Some bio retention cells
modeled by the LID Sizing consist of the design parameters specified. The ponding zone
allows for temporary storage of runoff and promotes percolation into the bio retention mix,
where runoff is also stored in the mix’s pore structure, as well as filtered and bio treated.
The runoff eventually drains into the gravel layer below which provides a third storage
component. A perforated underdrain is located at the top of he gravel storage component
to prevent overflow of the system. The use of bio-retention areas is appropriating in
relatively small catchments, typically in the region of 1000-4000 m2. Several smaller bio-
retention areas can be linked together for larger catchments (Birhanu, 2018).

26
2.16.2 Infiltration trench
Infiltration trenches are engineered structures that provide storage and facilitate infiltration
of runoff into the subsurface. Infiltration trenches are typically long and narrow and filled
with aggregate. Runoff from the study area was routed through an infiltration trench in the
LID area. Infiltration trenches are excavations backfilled with stone aggregate used to
capture runoff and infiltrate it into the ground. They can be simulated as a rectangular, fully
pervious sub-catchment whose depression storage depth equals the equivalent depth of the
pore space available within the trench (Birhanu, 2018).

2.16.3 Permeable pavement

Porous pavement is a paved pervious surface underlain by a gravel storage zone. The
pavement consists of less fine aggregates than traditional concrete or asphalt, and the larger
pore spaces that result allow for temporary storage of runoff. The runoff eventually drains
into the gravel layer below which provides an additional storage component and allows
infiltration into the underlying native soils. The porous pavement modeled by the LID
assumes a pavement thickness (Birhanu, 2018).

2.16.4 Vegetable swales

Consists of a gently sloped, vegetated channel through which runoff is allowed to sheet
flow. The soil underlying the swale is amended with compost to increase its porosity and
infiltration capacity, thereby increasing the storage volume within the underlying soils and
the infiltration rates into the native soil below (Birhanu, 2018).

27
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 study area
3.1.1 Description of Study Area
Woliso town is situated in Oromia National Regional State at a road distance of 115km
southwest of the capital city, Addis Ababa. Woliso town is the capital town of South West
Showa Zone. The current functional development master plan for the town is bounded by
geographical coordinate 8 ̊ 29 ̍ 52.62 ̎ to 8 ̊ 34 ̍ 03.75 ̎ N latitude and 37 ̊ 57 ̍ 51.37 ̎ to 38 ̊
00 ̍ 34.24 ̎ E longitude. The spatial area covers about 1292.87 hectares as per the 2007 CSA
However, according to a new masterplan developed by Oromia Urban Planning Institute
the town expands to the neighboring five rural kebeles covering the spatial area of
2515.25ha and most of the newly expanded area is the northeast part of the existing town.
Oromia Urban Planning Institute is undertaking surveying works to prepare the revised
basic structural plan for future town development through the inclusion of five neighboring
rural kebeles into town administration.

Figure 3-1 Location map of Woliso town

28
3.1.2 Geomorphology and Drainage
Woliso is found in the Ethiopian central plateau and adjacent to the western escarpment of
the main Ethiopian Rift Valley. The town is situated under Gibe Drainage Basin, an
elevation ranging from 1980-2130 meters above sea level (amsl) and a mean elevation of
about 2050m amsl. The terrain of the town area is moderate to gentle slopes north to south,
draining towards Ejersa and Kela streams in south West and Rebu Stream in south East of
the town which finally joins with Walga River and drains to Gibe Drainage Basin.

3.1.3 Climate
Woliso town area experiences sub-humid climatic conditions. The north-easterly wind and
south-westerly wind are those carrying the rain in the project area. Woliso is both on the
leeward side and windward side, and therefore, has rainfall from both directions at the
different seasons for a relatively long period of time. It has one elongated (uni-modal)
rainfall season (from April to September) with peak rainfall in July.
The mean annual rainfall of the town is estimated at 1260mm. The highest seasonal
temperature of the town occurs from February to May while the lowest is observed from
July to September. April is the hottest while August is the coldest month of the year.
Temperature values of 11.1 0C, 24.80 0C, and 18.00 0C are mean minimum, mean
maximum, and mean annual temperature, respectively. (Oromia Water, 2016) .

3.2 Data collection and analysis

3.2.1 Primary data collection
Different types of primary data were obtained for this study and each data were collected
in different materials and methods. Surveying data including the coordinate and inverted
elevation of drainage network was collected by using a GPS instrument. The existing
drainage network cross-section was measured by using tap meters. During intensive
rainfall season (July -August) the Flow depth in the selected outlet point was recorded
using a staff meter.

29
 Figure 3-2 Field measure of drainage cross-section and surveying data

3.2.2 Secondary data collection

The secondary data used for achieving the objective of the research was collected from a
different source. Meteorological data such as rainfall (daily and sub-hourly), maximum and
minimum temperature, and the respective rainfall data with measured flow depth was taken
from Woliso town meteorological station. For this study, sub-hourly precipitation data
were selected due to the hydraulic response of urban watersheds have a short lag time
relative to the natural watershed. Historical Land use land cover data were collected from
the satellite via the USGS Global Visualization server (Glovi’s) at a different acquisition
date depending on the proposed time interval to evaluating the impact of urbanization on
runoff generation and the physiographical catchment characteristics taken from high
resolution (12m*12m) digital elevation model (DEM) freely downloaded
(http://vertex.daac.asf.alaska.edu). The hydrological soil properties of catchment area were
conducted from Ethio soil map by extracting regional geomorphological shapefile. The
Auto CAD file of the existing structural plan of a town was conducted from Woliso town
administrative office.

30
3.3 Landsat Image Acquisition Technique
The original land use land cover image dataset was downloaded from a satellite via USGS
global visualization server (Glove’s). The raster image acquired to date and type of Landsat
used for acquired as specified in the USGS dataset. Hence, based on the required time
interval (from the baseline of 2007) the raster image of Landsat was acquired. It was
necessary to imitate land cover changes from undeveloped state to develop state. Based on
land use land cover change different scenarios were developed to analyze the hydrological
response of watershed.

The Landsat satellite imageries were used to identify the land use land cover changes
classified distribution Woliso catchment over the year of 2007-2020. The Landsat five and
eight datasets were selected to represent the LULC condition in 2007, 2015 and 2020
respectively.

3.4 Landsat Image Classification Technique

The supervised classification method was used for classifying the Landsat image acquired
in 2020 but the rest of images were classified using the unsupervised method by supporting
the supervised classification method. Supervised classification in ERDAS imagine work in
a similar way to unsupervised classification but the main difference in supervised
classification the signature files which are consisting of means and covariance matrices for
each class are created first before running to classification. These signatures are used with
a classifier (usually maximum likelihood) to assign each pixel within the image to a
discrete class. Based on the principle in supervised classification, the signature file of the
image acquired in 2020 was created based on synchronizing the ERDAS imagine 2015
with the google earth worksheet. The unsupervised classification method was done by
supporting the supervised ways using a topographic map of the study area.

3.4.1 Definition Used in Classification of Land Cover

Forest Land; an area which highly dense of trees which includes eucalyptus and
coniferous trees and dense woodland.

Agricultural Land; areas used for crop cultivation and the scattered rural settlements.

31
Urban Built Area; areas which remain buildings, residential area, roads, industrial and
impervious throughout the years.

Open Green Area; the area which is used for lawns, parks, cemeteries, and playground
and the area which categories under open green land express in three ways; poor condition
from the average area of land cover the grassland cover less than 50% percent, fair
condition from the average area of land cover the grassland cover between 50-75% and
good condition from the total area of land cover the grassland cover more than 75%.based
on the real context of the study area open green land under the poor condition.

Highly Dense Residential Area; the areas which residential district by average lot size
less than 0.05 hectares.

Low Residential Area; the areas which residential district by average lot size between 0.1
to 0.135 hectares.

3.5 Image Accuracy Assessment

An artificial image is a combination of various artificial classes built based on specific land
cover acquired from imagery and field spectra. The clustering techniques were applied to
the artificial data set to result in a cluster (Ibrahim et al., 2016). Using ERDAS imagine
2015 accuracy assessment toolbox fifty different random points were selected for each
unsupervised classification as a cluster. For each random point created in ERDAS imagine
2015 an artificial image conducted from the topographic map of the study area prepared in
1995. The total classes used for evaluation of accuracy assessment were thirty different
points corresponding to the random points created by ERDAS imagine 2015.The
combination between classes gathered from the topographic map and clusters from a
random point indicates the accuracy of the classification. The overall accuracy assessment
covered 60% of the total random point created by ERDAS 2015 imagine. Confusion
matrices were used to assess this accuracy as they compare the relationship between the
artificial data as the reference data and the corresponding result of unsupervised
classification. Based on the confusion matrix, the accuracy is then expressed in terms of
Kappa statistic (κ). This statistic value shows the difference between the clustering
accuracy and the chance agreement between the classes and clusters. The result is between

32
0 and 1 where if the result is near to zero indicates that the clustering is not better classified
at the known point.

Κ=[𝑁 ∑𝑐𝑖=1 𝑦𝑖𝑖’ − ∑𝑐𝑖=1(𝑦𝑖 ∗ 𝑦𝑖’ )]/[𝑁 2 − ∑𝑐𝑖=1(𝑦𝑖 ∗ 𝑦𝑖’ ] 3-1

Where c is the number of clusters or classes, 1≤ i ≤ c.

N total number of pixels in the artificial image.

𝑖’ refers cluster corresponding to the classes.

𝑦𝑖𝑖’ is the number of observations in row i and column 𝑖’ in the confusion matrix.

𝑦𝑖 the number of observations in row i in the confusion matrix.

𝑦𝑖’ is the number of observations in column i’ in the confusion matrix.

3.6 Curve Number Determination

The curve number commonly abbreviated as CN, the composite curve number that
represents the entirely different hydrological soil group, the combination of land use
condition in each sub-basin, and the topographical condition of the catchment. The curve
number value ranges from 100 for the water body to about 30 for permeable soil which has
a higher capacity of infiltration rate. The curve number tabulated by the American Soil
Conservative Service (SCS) is based on the land use condition and hydrological soil group
of the catchments. According to the classification of SCS there is four hydrological soil
group.

Group A; deep sand, aggregated silt (very high permeable)

Group B; shallow loess, sandy loam (high permeable)

Group C; clay loam, shallow sandy loam, the soil contains low organic content and soil
usually high in clay (moderate permeable).

Group D; soil that swells significantly when wet, heavy plastic clays and certain saline
soil (low permeable).

To compute the curve number grid, the land use condition and hydrological soil type were
merged using ArcGIS. But before merging the land use and soil type polygon layer, the

33
attribute table for both layers must contain specific column headings. Then the merged
polygon of land use and hydrological soil group of each land use type was created. To
standardize the value of the curve number, a look-up table was prepared based on the
antecedent moisture condition (AMC) of the study area and the type of land use condition.
According to the Ethiopian Road Authority Drainage Design Manual (2013), it is
mentioned to: use dry condition for rainfall region of D1, use wet condition for the
hydrological rainfall region B1 and the rest of the rainfall regions use average antecedent
moisture condition. Since, the study area is under the A2 rainfall region the average
antecedent moisture condition was selected.

The HEC—Geo-HMS utility tools were used for generating the curve number grid. These
tools required look up table related to land use and hydrological soil group to a curve
number value, merged land use and hydrological soil properties and digital elevation model
(DEM). The general description of curve number determination using HEC Geo HMS
expresses in figure 5 flow diagram.

Figure 3-3 Flow diagram of SCS curve number estimation

34
3.7 Developing Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Curve
The automatic fifteen-minute interval recorded rainfall data for five years (2015-2019)
were used for developing the intensity duration frequency curve (IDF). The best fit
probability distribution function was analyzed using easy fit software with maximum
annual daily rainfall data of 29 years from (1987-2016) hence, general extreme value
(GEV) was selected. As mentioned in the Appendix table could be easily identified that
the best fitting distribution function to the study area annual maximum daily rainfall data
is generalized extreme value distribution function. Because of the average value of the rank
in a different method of identifying the best fitting distribution function which includes
Kolmogorov Smirnov, Anderson Darling, and Chi-Squared test the better average rank
value under the general extreme value. The probability density function is a function whose
value at a given sample in sample space (the set of possible values taken by a random
variable) can be interpreted as providing the likelihood that the value of the random
variable would be equal to the sample. The probability density function of annual daily
rainfall data shown below to show the distribution of rainfall data with the random variable
on the general extreme value of the distribution function.

Probability Density Function

0.4

0.36

0.32

0.28

0.24
f(x)

0.2

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0
32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72
x

Histogram Gen. Extreme Value

Figure 3-4 Probability density function to the annual maximum daily rainfall data

35
The design of rainfall calculation is based on the frequency factor method. The formula
used for this analysis is shown here below.

𝑥𝑡 = 𝑥̅ + 𝐾𝑡 𝑠 3-2
̅ Mean sub-hourly maximum rainfall, "𝑠"
Where "𝑥𝑡 " Design rainfall to be calculated, "𝑥"
Mean deviation of maximum sub-hourly rainfall and 𝐾𝑡 frequency factor based on extreme
distribution.

√6 𝑇
𝐾𝑡 = {0.5572 + 𝑙𝑛 [𝑙𝑛 (𝑇−1)]} 3-3
п

Where T respective return period according (Chow, 1988).

3.8 HEC-HMS Model Development
The HEC HMS model is designed to simulate the precipitation-runoff processes of the
dendritic watershed system and with Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) algorithms.it
accounts for the watershed’s soil moisture balance over a long period of time. (Roy et al.,
2013). The HEC HMS package used in this study is a widely known and often applied
engineering tool for simulation of precipitation runoff processes in a large variety of basins
including urban areas. The choice of sub-model applied in the study is based on the
catchment characteristics, quality and the number of available data, and limited
possibilities of parameter verification. hence, the soil conservation service (SCS) curve
number method was selected for loss component, The Muskingum routing method was
selected for channel routing and the soil conservation service (SCS) unit hydrograph
method was selected for transform component.

3.9 Watershed Physical Description Using HEC—Geo-HMS

HEC—Geo-HMS has been developed as a geospatial hydrology toolkit for engineering
and hydrologist with limited GIS experience the program allows users to visualize spatial
information, document watershed characteristics, perform spatial analysis, delineate sub-
basins and streams, construct input to hydrologic model (HEC-HMS) and assisting the
report preparation. (Matthew et al., 2013). In addition to that, the HEC—Geo-HMS model
is used for describing the physical properties of the watershed and the topology of the
stream network. The initial input required from HEC-Geo HMS is the Digital Elevation
Model (DEM). The DEM file used in this study high-resolution capacity (12*12 meters)

36
pixel size was used. The coordinate system finally adopted was WGS 1984 UTM Zone37.
The study area map used the DEM was clipped to the boundaries of this mask. After the
clip and mask tool was performed, the exact boundaries of the catchment were produced.
The standard procedure for the application of HEC- Geo HMS for the development of the
basin model delineation and physical file includes the running of modules in ArcGIS.

Terrain processing involves using the DEM to create a stream network and catchments.
The Processing menu in HEC-Geo HMS is used for terrain processing. Terrain
Preprocessing is the geomorphological analysis of DEM has accomplished through terrain
Preprocessing. A terrain model is used as an input to derive a final stream and sub-basin
delineation. The physical characteristics analysis is done using HEC-Geo HMS.

Figure 3-5 Basin model of HEC Geo HMS

37
3.9.1 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number Loss Method
The soil conservation service curve number implements the curve number methodology
for incremental loss analysis. Originally this method was used to determine the total
infiltration during storm events (William, 2010). The SCS curve number relied on the
relationship between hydrological soil type and land cover condition to determine how
much rainfall would become intercepted by soil and how much rainfall would become
excess precipitation. While sub-basin elements conceptually represented infiltration,
surface runoff, and sub-surface process which includes intersecting and percolation. The
actual infiltration calculation is performed using the SCS loss method. According to the
SCS loss method in HEC HMS components, three parameters are required to determine
loss due to land cover condition and hydrological soil properties. These are curve number,
initial abstraction, and percentage of impervious in each sub-basin. According to soil
conservation service (SCS) method precipitation excess as a function of cumulative
precipitation, soil cover, land use, and antecedent moisture condition. The method
emphasis that the ratio of cumulative precipitation (𝐹𝑎 ) to potential maximum retention of
each sub-basin (S) equal to the ratio of cumulative effective rainfall (𝑃𝑒 ) to cumulative
total rainfall decreased by initial loss(𝐼𝑎 ).

𝐹𝑎 𝑃𝑒
= 3-4
𝑆 𝑃−𝐼𝑎

Thus, take in account the instantaneous water balance in each sub-basin.

𝑃 = 𝐼𝑎 + 𝐹𝑎 + 𝑃𝑒 3-5
One eventually obtained:

(𝑃(𝑡)−𝐼𝑎 )2
𝑃𝑒 𝑡 = 3-6
𝑃(𝑡)+𝐼𝑎 +𝑆

Until the accumulated rainfall exceeds the initial abstraction the excess precipitation would
be zero. The SCS suggest the empirical relation for initial loss as;

𝐼𝑎 = 𝑚𝑆 3-7
Usually the value of “m” 0.2 (SCS). Therefore, the cumulative excess precipitation at a
time t expressed as;

38
 (𝑃(𝑡)−𝑚.𝑆)2
𝑃𝑒 (𝑡) = 3-8
𝑃(𝑡)+(1−𝑚).𝑆

The potential maximum retention of the basin “S” which is a measure of the basin’s
capacity to abstract and retain the storm precipitation is related to the basin characteristics
through a parameter dimensionless curve number analysis in the previous topic.

100
𝑆 = 254( 𝐶𝑁 − 1) 3-9

3.9.2 Channel flow Muskingum routing Method

The Muskingum routing method simple conservation of mass approach to route flow
through the stream reach. However, it does not assume that the water surface is level. By
assuming linear, but non-level water surface it is possible to account for increased storage
during the rising side of flood wave and decrease storage during the falling side. (William,
2010). The Muskingum K parameter value expresses the travel time of flood through the
channel or reach. (William, 2010), (Borys, 2014).it expressed by;

∆𝑥
𝐾= 3-10
𝐶

Where "∆𝑥" is the length of cross-section. “c” is the flood wave velocity (flood wave
celerity) which can have calculated based on channel rating curve;

1 𝑑𝑄
𝑐= 3-11
𝐵 𝑑𝑌
𝑑𝑄
In which “B” width of water surface, and the channel rating curve with respect to
𝑑𝑌
discharge and flow depth. As an alternative the if the rating curve is not available the flood
wave celerity is expressed based on average cross-sectional velocity. (Borys, 2014).

𝑐 ≈ (1.33 − 1.67)𝑣 3-12

The parameter “X” of Muskingum expressed
𝑄𝑜
𝑋 = 0.5(1 − 𝐵𝑆 ) 3-13
𝑜 𝑐∆𝑥

Where B is top width of flow area, 𝑆𝑜 bed slope, ”c” flood wave speed (flood wave
celerity), ∆𝑥 the length of channel reach, and 𝑄𝑜 is the reference discharge. The reference
discharge can be calculated from the inflow hydrograph as an average value between the

39
base flow and peak flow. (Feldman, 2000). The Muskingum “X” the weighted between
inflow and outflow influence it ranges from 0.0 to o.5. in the practical application a value
of 0.0 result is maximum attenuation and 0.5 is no attenuation. (William, 2010). In most of
the stream, reach required an intermediate value found through calibration.

3.9.3 SCS Unit Hydrograph Transform Method

The unit hydrograph is the catchment flow response to a unit of effective rainfall occurring
over a given duration. (Han, 2010). Originally proposed by Sherman in 1932 and the basic
principle used in unit hydrograph “ The basin outflow resulting from one unit of direct
runoff generating uniformly over the drainage area at uniform rainfall rate during a
specified period of rainfall duration”. (Feldman, 2000). The runoff process is linear, so the
runoff from greater or less than one unit is simply multiple of the unit runoff hydrograph.
(Nibo, 2017), (Han, 2010).in HEC HMS the unit hydrograph model is solved using the
following equation. (Nibo, 2017).

𝑄𝑖 = ∑𝑛≤𝑚
𝑚=1 𝑅𝑚 𝑈𝑖−𝑚+1 3-14

Where 𝑄𝑖 Direct runoff, 𝑈𝑖 unit hydrograph ordinate, 𝑅𝑚 effective rainfall, and “M”
number of rainfall values.

The basic assumption is used in the hydrological model to simulate rainfall to direct runoff
the unit hydrograph method.

1. Effective rainfall is uniformly distributed over the whole catchment and duration.
2. Direct runoff is linear in superposition and proportionality (if rainfall is doubled,
the runoff is doubled.
3. The rainfall-runoff process is stationary (no change with time). (Han, 2010).

In the HEC HMS program, the SCS unit hydrograph method is used to simulate the
transformation process of excess precipitation to direct runoff. The simulation processes
are done by defining the time difference between the center of mass of excess precipitation
and the peak of the unit hydrograph. Hence, the HEC HMS program computed
dimensionless unit hydrograph using the known value of unit precipitation depth and the
time required for peak hydrograph (lag time).

40
3.10 Time of Concentration
Time of concentration is the time required for runoff travel time from the hydraulically
most distant point in the watershed to the outlet. The hydraulically most distance point is
the point with the longest travel time to the watershed outlet. The estimation of time of
concentration in the gauged and ungauged watershed. In a gauged watershed the time of
concentration is determined by using rainfall and runoff hydrograph. In the case of an
ungauged basin, the time of concentration estimated using the following methodologies;
(a) estimate through empirical formulas (b) estimate based on the formulas that include the
flow velocity and distinguished the overland and the channel flow and (c) estimate using
hydrodynamic models with different complexities although this method is the most
physical based, the results are highly sensitive to the resolution of DEM used and Manning
roughness coefficient. (Nagy, 2016).

The most common recommended method used for ungauged watershed time of
concentration determination methods is under (a) and (b) in the above expression. Among
different researchers, Ven Te Chow has developed the empirical formula based on the data
of twenty basins in Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska with
the drainage area ranging from 0.012- 18.5 km2 and the average basin slope from 0.5-9%.
The aforementioned physical characteristics of the watershed in Ven Te chow very similar
to the study area hence, In the study area time concentration was estimated through
empirical formulas developed by Van Te chow in (1962).

𝑇𝑐 = 0.1602. 𝐿0.64
𝑤 .𝑆
−0.32
3-15

Where 𝐿𝑤 length of main water line in km, S basin slope in (m/km).

Based on the relationship between the time of concentration and lag time (delay time
between the time of runoff from a rainfall event over the watershed begins until runoff
reaches its maximum peak) within an approximate uniform distribution of runoff the lag
time is 60% of concentration time. When runoff is not uniformly distributed, the watershed
can be sub-divided into areas with a nearly uniform flow and applied the above relationship
for each sub-area.

41
3.11 HEC HMS Model Calibration and Validation
The model calibration and is a systematic way of adjusting the model parameters value
until the model result match acceptable to the observed data. The objective function is the
quantitative measure of the observed and simulated match.in HEC HMS models, this
function measures the degree of variation between the computed and observed hydrograph.
The calibration process in HEC HMS finds the optimal parameter values that minimize the
objective value. Further, the calibration estimates some model parameters that can be
estimated through observation or measurement, or have not direct physical meaning. (Juraj
et al., 2004). Calibration is done either manually or automatically (optimization). In the
automatic calibration model parameters are iteratively adjusted until the value of the
selective objective function is minimized.

In HEC HMS model there are five objective functions available in the optimization
manager. (Juraj et al., 2004).

 Peak weighted root mean square error (PWRMSE); using a weighted factor the
PWRMSE measure gives greater overall weight to error near to the peak discharge.

2 𝑄𝑜 (𝑡)+𝑄𝐴
𝑃𝑊𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = √∑𝑛𝑡=1(𝑄𝑜 (𝑡) − 𝑄𝑚 (𝑡)) ∗ 3-16
2𝑄𝐴

Where 𝑄𝑜 (𝑡), 𝑄𝑚 (𝑡) is the observed and modeled flow at a time (t). 𝑄𝐴 the average
observed flow.

 Sum of squared residuals (SSR); SSR measure gives greater weighted to the large
errors and less value for a small error.

2
𝑆𝑆𝑅 = ∑𝑛𝑡=1(𝑄𝑜 (𝑡) − 𝑄𝑚 (𝑡)) 3-17
 Sum of absolute residual (SAR); the SAR function gives equal weight to both small
and larger errors.

𝑆𝐴𝑅 = |∑𝑛𝑡=1 𝑄𝑜 (𝑡) − 𝑄𝑚 (𝑡)| 3-18

 Percentage error in peak flow (PEPF); the PEPF measure only consider the
magnitude of computed peak flow and does not account for total volume and or
time of peak.

42
 𝑄𝑜 (𝑡)𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘−𝑄𝑚 (𝑡)𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘
𝑃𝐸𝑃𝐹 = 100 | | 3-19
𝑄𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘

 Percentage error in volume (PEV); the PEV function only considers the computed
volume and does not account for the magnitude or timing of peak flow.

𝑉𝑜 −𝑉𝑚
𝑃𝐸𝑉 = 100 | | 3-20
𝑉𝑜

3.12 Measuring channel Flow using slope area method

The HEC HMS model calibration and validation requires gauged streamflow data but in
the case of the study area there is no gauging station. Even through, no gauging stations
are installed, direct measurement of streamflow was conducted to get observed data.
Hence, in this study slope area method was selected to estimate stream flow at the outlet
point.

The slope area method estimates flow through the channel. The basic principle used during
measuring the longitudinal slope of the free water surface of the stream using two water
level recorders. To do this satisfactorily, two water level loggers need to be located on a
straight reach at least equivalent to ten times the width of the channel flow. This distance
was ensured the measured water slope is representative of the reach. The loggers need to
be accurately surveyed to a common datum and the readings of water level changes should
be made at a suitable short time steep relative to the rate of rising of the hydrograph. In this
study, the fifteen-minute time steep data was recorded and converted to average hourly
data during intensive rainfall season (July and August).

This enables to determine the accurate slope of water level (energy slope). In principle
slope area method is recommended for steady flow type because the flow depth and the
velocity does not change over a short period of time. in natural channels variability in flow
depth and velocity at lower flow conditions, this phenomenon created unsteady flow
conditions in the natural channel. but in the case of channel flow (drainage) line slope area
method are more recommended than other methods, because variability in flow depth and
velocity are didn’t occur in a short period of time. For the study area, the logger’s point is
provided in the drainage section near the outlet point to get the accurate channel flow. The
selected drainage section conveyed all excess precipitation from the upstream side
watershed and cover one-third of the total catchment study areas. Based on the

43
aforementioned principle flow measurement under the slope area method the average
hourly flow is measured at the drainage section near to outlet point. The procedure followed
up during calculation was selected reach, measure cross-sections, measure slope, estimate
manning’s n, and finally calculated channel flow using the manning equation. The detailed
calculation is under the appendix part.

Figure 3-6 Field measuring of flow depth

The discharge is calculated using manning equation;

1 1/2
𝑄 = 𝐴𝑅2/3 𝑆𝑓 3-21
𝑛

Where A is the area of cross-section, R hydraulic mean depth, Sf energy slope

3.13 Evaluate Performance of Existing Drainage condition

Evaluating the performance of drainage infrastructure involves the determination of the
size of storm drainage system components required to convey design floods. The
magnitude of this design flood was selected based on the level of service that a specific
piece of infrastructure should be provided (what are the consequence of flooding and how
often is flooding acceptable). This was expressed in terms of frequency of reoccurrence
either as a probability of flow exceedance or recurrence interval between the event of
similar magnitude. The acceptable methodology for the calculation of design flow
magnitude consists of either empirical peak runoff method or hydraulic simulation model.
44
In this study empirical peak discharge method was selected due to the level of existing
drainage coverage are very small and not complexed network system. In the case of a
complex networked drainage system, a hydraulic simulation model will be recommended.
Hence, there are several empirical peak discharge estimation methods that can be used to
estimate runoff characteristics for a site or drainage sub-basin. Depending on the
parameters that describe the land use upstream of the drainage infrastructures (total area of
the sub-catchment, percentage of drainage area covered by impervious, soil type, and the
vegetation cover of the specific catchment) the suitable method empirical formula was
selected. Hence, depending on the parameters listed above the rational peak flow
determination method was selected for this study. the hydraulic capacity of each drainage
layout was analyzed based on the manning’s empirical formula. According to the principle
of manning’s hydraulic capacity of a drainage channel is dependent on the size, shape,
slope, surface roughness of the channel section, and grade of the channel.

The total sub-catchments were analyzed under this study in a place where already
conveyance system (drainage system) were provided. So eleven sub-catchments, 19
junctions (analysis point) and six thousand six hundred seventy-one meters of existing
drainages segments were analyzed in the study area. Almost all of the drainage layout
shapes are rectangular, and trapezoidal shape. Most of this conveyance system is provided
in a roadway and they have been short in length and did not interconnect each other. But
the total impervious drainage area covered from which runoff generates larger relative to
the existing drainage layout. These due to the existing drainage layout constructed before
anxieties expanded of an existing town topography condition. Consequently, the overland
flow path exceeded the maximum recommended value. According to ERA drainage
manual report (2013), the selecting maximum overland flow path in the urban area shall
not be exceeded 60m.

The hydraulic capacity of the existing drains was evaluated based on the corresponding
contributing sub-catchment potential stormwater flow (peak flow) and the carrying
capacity of each drains. The capacity of drains was evaluated based on the single section
analysis (slope area) method. These methods evaluate based on the manning’s equation for
the normal depth of flow given the discharge. The parameters required for flow estimation
were length channel, channel slope, Manning roughness, and cross-sectional area of the
45
drains. the criteria for adopting the equation implicitly assumes the existence of steady and
uniform flow. According to the Ethiopia road authority (ERA) drainage manual single
section method is often used to design artificial channels for uniform flow as a first
approximation.

Figure 3-7 Existing Woliso town drainage network layout (source: Woliso town
administrative office)

3.14 Estimation Sub Catchment Peak Flow

The rational method is the most accurate for estimating the design peak runoff for the area
up to 50-65 hectares. This method while first introduced in 1989 and still widely used. even
though it has come under frequent criticism for its simplistic approach. (ERA, 2013).
According to ERA drainage manual, some precautions shall be considered when applying
the rational method.

 Applying the rational method clearly define the boundary of the catchment area.
Field inspection of the area should also be made to determine if natural drainage
divides have been alerted. Hence, using a countor map of the study area and field

46
 inspection during the rainy season the boundary of each sub-catchments was
defined.
 In determine the runoff coefficient C catchment value for the catchment area,
thought shall be given to future change in the land use might occur during the
service life of the proposed facilities that could result in an inadequate drainage
system. Also, the effect of upstream detention structure must be taken into account.
The goal of this study evaluates the carrying capacity of the existing drainage
system based on the current land use condition of a town and provide the optimal
design value to minimize the risk of runoff that is overturned from the drainage
system. So that for the current performance evaluation the existing land use
condition or existing runoff coefficient were used but for optimizing the capacity
of the existing drainage system, future changes in land use was considered.

The rational formula estimates the peak rate at any location in the catchment area as a
function of the catchment area, runoff coefficient, and the main rainfall intensity for a
duration equal to the time of concentration.

𝑄 = 0.00278𝐶𝐶𝑓 𝐼𝐴 3-22

Where “A” is the catchment of a tributary to the design location (at the junction of each
conduit), “C” runoff coefficient representing the ratio of runoff to rainfall, “I” average
rainfall intensity for a duration of the time of concentration, 𝐶𝑓 frequency factor based on
the recurrence interval and “Q” maximum rate of runoff, (m3/s).

The idea behind the rational method expressed above is that for spatially and temporally
uniform rainfall intensity which continuous indefinitely, the runoff at the outlet of the
catchment increase until the time concentration when the whole catchment is contributing
flows to the outlet. But the time of concentration at different drainage junction is change
as the drainage routing length increased. In this study to determine the flow throughout
different drainage sections modified rational peak flow determination method was used.
this method consists of the combination of a rainstorm profile with an incremental time
area diagram. The given a rainstorm profile in which the average rainfall intensities within
successive time increments are i1,i2,i3. The successive rainfall ordinates of the runoff
hydrograph can be written as:

47
 𝑄1 = 0.278𝐶𝑖1 𝐴1

𝑄2 = 0.2678(𝐶𝑖1 𝐴2 + 𝐶𝑖2 𝐴1 )

𝑄3 = 0.2678(𝐶𝑖3 𝐴1 + 𝐶𝑖2 𝐴2 + 𝐶𝑖1 𝐴3 ) … … ….etc 3-23

3.15 Estimation sub-catchment time of concentration

Time of concentration (Tc) is used in a rational method to determine the critical runoff
duration which can be computed with an appropriate rainfall intensity duration (IDF)
developed in the previous section with established the required rainfall intensity. The Tc is
the time required for water to flow from the most remote point of the basin to the location
being peak flow analyzed. This time measure is taken to be the critical time by many flood
estimation approach.

For the specific drainage basin, the time of concentration consists of an inlet time plus the
time of flow in a closed conduit or open channel to a design point. Inlet time is the time
required for runoff to flow over the surface to the nearest inlet point.

0.00032𝐿0.77
𝑡𝑒 = 3-24
𝑆 0.385

Where L is the length of overland flow in meters from the critical point to the mouth of the
drain. S average basin slope (m/m).

In the drainage system, the overland flow path is not perpendicular to the contour shown
on the available mapping. often, the land will be graded and swales and streets will
intercept the flow that reduces the time of concentration. (ERA, 2013).

The channel flow time can be estimated from the hydraulic properties of the conduit or
channel it is reasonable to assume the flow through the channel are uniform flow hence the
manning equation was considered.
𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 3-25
𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

Where flow velocity is manning’s velocity and the channel length is the total length of the
channel up to the required junction.

48
3.16 Estimation Sub Catchment Runoff Coefficient
The runoff coefficient (C) is the variable of rational method least susceptible to the precise
determination and requires judgment and understanding on the part of the analysis.it is
often described to develop a composite runoff coefficient based on the percentage
distribution of different types of land use conditions. in this study, the composite runoff
coefficient determined through classifying each land-use type in precise supervision using
a topographic map of a town (auto cad file) and google earth. The pervious land cover
runoff coefficient (C) is a function of a hydrological soil group and average basin slope of
the catchments. For instance, the runoff value in specific residential area which mixed
whith previous area the composite runoff coefficient determined;

𝐶 = 0.65(%𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎) + 𝐶𝑝 (%𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎)

Where 𝐶𝑝 pervious runoff coefficient depends on the hydrological soil group and average
basin slope. The value of 0.65 emphasizes the 65% of the average rainfall rate accumulation
in the catchment. In consideration of this, it may appear odd that the peak outflow rate
should be linked by a constant average inflow rate.

3.17 Hydraulic Analysis of Existing Drainage Condition

The hydraulic analysis of existing drainage routing based on the sub-catchments runoff
result and the characteristics of the drainage system to determine the flood level throughout
the system. Almost all of the existing drainage layout is open channel flow. In open channel
flow or free water surface flow which predominated in the stormwater drainage system. In
this study, the capacity of each drainage was evaluated based on the whole conduit carrying
capacity (surcharging flow condition). Manning equation is more convenient to work
within open channel flow calculation. The manning equation is applicable for a given depth
of flow in a channel with a steady, uniform flow.
2 1
1
𝑄 = 𝐴 (𝑛) 𝑅 3 𝑆 2 3-26

Where A is cross-sectional area analyzed drainage (m2)

n is manning’s roughness coefficient,

R is mean hydraulic

49
 S channel slope (m/m)

3.18 Low impact development modeling techinique

The purpose of LID is to reduce and/or eliminate the altered areas of the post development
hydrograph, as shown by the shaded areas by reducing the peak discharge rate, volume,
and duration of flow through the use of site design and stormwater quality control
measures. The benefits of reduced storm water runoff volume include reduced pollutant
loadings and increased groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration rates. LID practices
are designed to capture surface runoff, providing detention, infiltration, evapotranspiration,
or some combination of the three. SWMM LID features are attributes of individual
subcatchments. SWMM allows the user for placing LID controls:
 Create a new subcatchment dedicated exclusively to a single LID control; or

 Place one or more LID controls within an existing subcatchment, displacing an

equal.

Five common types of LID (bio retention cells, vegetative swales, rain barrel, and porous
pavement and infiltration trenches) are programmed in SWMM and are accessed through
simple dialog boxes. The LID technologies were programmed using algorithms that
already existed in the SWMM engine and generic LID unit is represented by a number of
vertical layers (Rossman, 2010).

3.18.1 Infiltration trench

Infiltration trenches are engineered structures that provide storage and facilitate infiltration
of runoff into the subsurface. Infiltration trenches are typically long and narrow and filled
with aggregate. This LID control selected for the study area based on the availability of
raw material. Infiltration trenches are excavations backfilled with stone aggregate used to
capture runoff and infiltrate it into the ground. They can be simulated as a rectangular, fully
pervious sub-catchment whose depression storage depth equals the equivalent depth of the
pore space available within the trench.

50
Figure 3-8 LID control editor in SWMM5 (infiltration trench cell)

51
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 LULC Changes of Woliso Town
4.1.1 Landsat Image Classification
The land cover map of the study area for the years 2007, 2015, and 2020 derived from the
classified Landsat image using ERDAS image 2015. Additionally, ERDAS imagine 2015
used to assess the accuracy of the classified map. The overall accuracy assessment of land
cover maps in 2007 and 2015 expressed by kappa statistics values which are 0.64 and 0.73
respectively. The kappa statistical value of ˂40% as poor, 40-55% fair, 55-70% good, 70-
85% very good, and ˃85 as excellent. Based on the kappa statistics result the accuracy of
unsupervised classification in 2007 was categorized under good accuracy value. The
remaining 2015 unsupervised classification was categorized under very good accuracy
values. And the rest of the 2020 map of the study area classified based on the principle of
supervised classification using synchronizing the ERDAS image 2015 with google earth
worksheet.

52
 Figure 4-1 Land use land cover map of 2007 in left and 2015 in right and 2020 at bottom
According to the aforementioned classification land use land cover map of 2007, most of
the northeast and southern part of the study area dominated by agricultural and open green
land areas and the northwest and northeast part of the study area covered by urban built
areas.

According to the revealed land use land cover map of 2015, there is a small change of land
cover from the baseline of 2007. But in some sense, the north part of the study area is more
densified by urban built areas. The most open green lands have been planned to be used
for a different purpose in the future including residential resettlement and different
industrial and private boarding school and universities. The remaining open green lands an
area which already proposed for a purpose playground or recreational area and cemetery
areas. But the area covers by agricultural land reduced relative to the baseline 2007 land
use land cover condition due to most previous agricultural land merged to the new master
plan of a town.

53
 Figure 4-2 Land use land cover map
The land use land cover map of 2020 more expresses each specific areas of land use
condition practices in the study area. According to the map revealed most of the land use
was dominated by urban built areas which are separately expressed as residential with high
and low density and commercial and service area. The northern part of a town condition
which dynamically changes land use conditions from open green land and agricultural land
to highly dense residential area. Most of the northeastern part of a town is dominated by
less dense residential areas. The western part of a town is mostly dominated by commercial
and service area. According to the land use definition expressed in the previous chapter
highly dense residential areas an area which averages a lot less than 0.05 hectares and
lowers dense residential district an area which average lot size between 0.1 and 0.135
hectares. The overall land-use changes from 2007 up to 2020 are expressed in the Table 4-
1.

54
Table 4-1 Land Use Land cover proportion of 2007,2015 and 2020

LULC 2007 LULC 2015 LULC 2020

LULC Type Area (Ha) Area (%) Area (Ha) Area (%) Area Area
(Ha) (%)
Urban Built 304.74 37.505 379.878 46.753 438.322 53.946
Area
Open Green 137.25 16.891 161.247 19.84 134.559 16.560
Land 5
Agricultura 113.13 13.923 69.165 8.512 60.66 7.4656
l Land
Mixed 257.4 31.679 202.23 24.88 178.978 22.027
Forest Land

Among different land use land cover conditions, the area cover by agricultural and mixed
forest land decreased dynamically. The urban built area increased from the baseline 2007
to 2015 and 2020. The overall percentage change of land-use from the baseline 2007
revealed in the figure4-3.`

50
40
30
20
Percentage (%)

10
0
-10 Urban Built Area Open Green Land Agricultural Land Mixed Forest Land

-20
-30
-40
-50
-60

Percentage change of LULC in 2015 Percentage change of LULC in 2020

Figure 4-3 Percentage LULC change from the baseline 2007

Based on the land use land cover condition aforementioned, from the baseline of 2007 the
land level of developmental (impervious area) increase in a linear manner. The changes

55
from undeveloped state to development state significantly increase the level
imperviousness of the basin. One of the purposes for evaluation of the land cover changes
to explore the effect of increasing the impervious area on hydrological response urban
watershed. The analysis is based on the basic relationship between land cover condition,
non-dimensionless curve number value, and the capacity of surface retention values. The
dimensionless curve number changes due to land cover changes express in the next topic.

4.1.2 Land Use Land Cover Change Impact on Hydrological Response

The main purpose of land cover change evaluation in this study was to explore the
relationship between the changes in land cover, dimensionless curve number, retention
capacity, and initial infiltration capacity of the watershed. Hence, those parameters
significantly change the hydrologic response of watersheds. the curve number value
between the range of (0-100), if the value near to one hundred the area either more covered
by impervious area or under hydrological soil group C or D. based on the hydrological soil
group of the study area and land cover condition the curve number value determined for
each land cover condition. The HEC—Geo-HMS utility toolbox is responsible for
analyzing the curve number value developed at different duration scenario was developed.

56
Figure 4-4 The Curve Number grid at 2007 in left and 2015 in right and 2020 at bottom
According to the curve number grid revealed in the Fig 13, the maximum curve number
value for the specific polygon which has its land use and hydrologic soil properties was 86
and the minimum curve number value for the specific polygons are which have its land-
use condition and hydrological soil group was 76 the remaining polygon under the range
of 76-86 values.

The curve number grid of 2015 land use show in the Fig.14 map (scenario B) increased
from the previous 2007 (scenario A) values due to impervious land cover condition. This
increased the hydrological response of watersheds significantly and this effect is due to the
value of the curve number increased.

At existing condition 2020 (scenario C), the curve number grid was the same as the 2015
curve number grid value by maximum and minimum value but the composite curve number
value of 2020 (scenario C) increased. The curve number grid generated express the value
of specific polygon values, however, to determine the composite curve number value of
each sub-catchment expressed;
𝐶𝑁𝑖 𝐴𝑖
𝐶𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 = ∑ 4-1
𝐴𝑇

57
𝐶𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 the composite curve number for each sub basin, 𝐶𝑁𝑖 curve number value for
each subdivision polygon, 𝐴𝑖 area of sub division polygon and 𝐴𝑇 sub basin total area.

This composite curve number value for each sub basin computed automatically using the
HEC Geo HMS an arc GIS extension software. The average composite curve number value
for each sub basin expressed in below table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Composite Curve Number Value of Sub Basin

CN value in
Sub Basin 2007 CN value in 2015 CN value in 2020

W-1 80.711 83.2279 88.365

W-2 83.075 85.4925 89.7697

W-3 78.2459 79.699 80.465

4.2 Intensity Duration Frequency Curve (IDF)

The rainfall intensity duration frequency (IDF) relationship is one of the most commonly
used tools in water resource engineering either for planning, designing and operating of
water resource projects or for various project against floods (Nhat, 2006). In this study to
evaluate sub hourly potential peak flow generated from each subbasin of study area, and
precipitation depth in different annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) intensity duration
frequence curve should be required.

The study area gauge station has been five years of fully recording fifteen-minutes rainfall
data. From the given fifteen-minute data converted into hourly and sub-hourly rainfall
data. The main reason was that the sub-hourly and hourly rainfall data are the driving
factors to reach to develop the IDF curve. In most literature reviews, it was normal and
recommended to consider the number of years with full sub-hourly and hourly rainfall
recorded data. The intention was mainly to reach reliable results and findings at the
development of the IDF relationships and curves of the study area (Woliso town).
Therefore, there were no missing sub-hourly and hourly rainfall data in the 12 months of
the 5 years.

58
Table 4-3 Intensity of rainfall in different return period

Duration
(hr) Return period
2 5 10 25 50 100
15 82.028 100.804 120.629 145.630 164.169 182.607
60 29.755 36.237 43.082 51.713 58.113 64.478
90 21.403 25.700 30.237 35.958 40.200 44.420
120 15.608 19.020 22.622 27.165 30.534 33.884
150 14.107 17.013 20.081 23.950 26.819 29.673
180 12.497 15.172 17.996 21.557 24.198 26.825
360 7.388 10.910 14.629 19.319 22.797 26.256
720 3.623 4.488 5.402 6.555 7.410 8.260

Using the best-fitting probability distribution function with annual maximum daily rainfall
data of Woliso gauging station explained in section 3.9 general extreme value was selected
and the maximum sub-hourly rainfall data listed in table 5.

The determination of design rainfall for 2,5,10,25,50 and 100 years return period were
considered to have permissible rainfall in any specific return period condition.

Intensity Frequance Duration Curve For Woliso Guage Station

200.000
2 Years
180.000
5 Years
160.000
10 Years
140.000
Intensity in mm/hr

120.000 25 Years

100.000 50 Years
80.000
100
60.000 Years

40.000

20.000

0.000
15 60 90 120 150 180
Duration in minute

Figure 4-5 Intensity duration frequency curve (IDF)

59
4.3 HEC-HMS Hydrological Model Parameters
The HEC-HMS project containing different basin model, metrological model, time series
model, and control specification model. The basin model was created in HEC—Geo-HMS
imported to the basin model manager of HEC-HMS and the value of the initial parameters
filled. The metrological model created in the HEC-HMS model is used to simulate the
hydro metrological condition of the basin to different time series precipitation gages. The
metrological model was created for this study in two different ways specified hyetograph
and frequency storm method. The specified hyetograph method is used for a purpose of
model calibration and validation. The frequency storm method is used to simulate the
hydrological response of watersheds in different AEP values. The gage created populated
with the data using the time window of the corresponding control specification. The control
specification is contains the starting and ending of simulation time. Once the setup of these
three components was completed the run configuration tool identifies which basin model,
metrological model, and control specification are responsible for simulation.

The hydrological model parameter used were prepared for the initial model condition. The
optimal parameter values were created after model calibration and parameter estimation.
The initial hydrological parameters in the curve number loss method, initial abstraction,
curve number, and the percentage imprevious value of each sub-basin. SCS transform
method only considers the lag time for peak hydrograph. In urban watershed. The baseflow
is not included in this analysis. because It is not critical in most urban watersheds. (USACE,
2017).

4.3.1 Sensetivity analysis

The parameters were selected based on the sensitivity analysis and reducing uncertainty
during estimating parameters value using different empirical formulas. The data used for
evaluating the sensitivity of parameters was July 21 rainfall-runoff events. Among all
parameters, the SCS transform lag time and Muskingum (K,X) were more sensitive. The
transform lag time sensitivity was moderate to highly change the value of peak flow
hydrograph. Increasing or decreasing lag time by 5% and 10% simulated peak flow
increase or decrease by 14.6% and 18.1%. The Muskingum X value from the baseline (0.5
to 0.3) more significant changes the time and magnitude of attenuation hydrograph. the

60
Muskingum K value (average travel time through the reach) was estimated based on the
cross-sectional and flow through the reach. the cross-section characteristics of reach were
not uniform throughout the length of reach, this makes uncertainty in flow rate. However,
the accurate parameter value found through model calibration.

4.3.2 Calibration and Validation of HEC HMS and Parameter Optimization

The model calibration and validation process monitored rainfall through the basin and the
recorded streamflow at the outlet point was required. But because of no flow gages installed
in most urban watersheds direct measurement of flow depth was conducted for this study.
The flow depth was conducted for eight different days. The five-day data were used for
model calibration purposes and the remaining three-day data were used for validation
purposes. The event is exceptionally suitable for the rainfall-runoff calibration in terms of
its magnitude and spatial extent. The average AEP value of data used to refine the
parameter value ( model calibration) was between the 0.1-0.04 AEP value. The magnitude
of AEP of historical events used for calibration should be consistent with the intended
application of the model. (USACE, 2017). The peak flow hydrograph among the eight-day
measured data observed on 21 July 2020 And the basin model was able to produce model
fitting the observed flow hydrograph very well. The simulated peak hydrograph fairly well
matched to observed peak hydrograph but there are difference of time of peak later on than
the observed peak flow. The graph comparison between observed and modeled hydrograph
is expressed the Figure 4-6.

61
 120

100

80
FLOW (CMS)

60

40

20

0
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00
TIME (HOUR)

Simulated Flow Observed Flow

Figure 4-6 HEC-HMS optimized Model Hydrograph of 21 June 2020

The parameter estimates resulting from the calibration of five-day data which July
16,21,22,24 and 26 2020 event data. The value was averaged and verified using the
observed precipitation and flow data of July 30, Augest 26, and 27 2020 events. The
optimized parameter value of five days rainfall data and observed flow expressed in the
appendex part and the average optimized parameter value of five days is expressed in
Table 4-4.

62
Table 4-4 Averaged Hydrological Parameters Intial and calibrated (Optimized) Condition

Averaged Optimized
Parameters Initial Parameter Values Parameter Values
Muskingum K in
(hr.) 0.77 0.827
Muskingum X 0.5 0.4622
Initial abstraction
scale factor 1 1.0978
Curve number scale
factor 1 0.8297
Lag time for W40
in (min) 36 38.426
Lag time for W50
in (min) 39 39.5645
Lag time for W60
in (min) 28 28.4085

4.3.3 Model Verification

Model verification is a process of testing the model’s ability to simulate observed data
other than those used in model calibration purposes. Then the quantitative measure of the
match expresses the level of variation between computed and observed hydrograph. The
data used for verification purposes were recorded flow and rainfall events of July 30,
Augest 26, and 27. However, The statistical performance evaluation was analyzed based
on the average value of three days of storm events data illustrated in the above.

The statistical performance evaluation mentioned in the previous chapter were analyzed
based on the comparison of the observed hydrograph in three-day data used for model
validation purpose and simulated hydrograph.

The value of each statistical performance evaluation was done for a single recorded date of
data. Hence, The average values were used as the overall performance indicator of the
model. The overall three days analysis result is expressed in the appendix part. However,
the average value of the statistical performance indicator is expressed in the table 4-5. The
diffference between the observed and simulated weight in peak discharge and the volume
difference between the observed to simulated is not exceeded twenty percents. hence the

63
result was under good performance. however, the maginitude of computed peak flow and
equal weight to both small and larger error is slightily higher.

Table 4-5 Summary of Statistical Performance Indicator Result

Events PWRMSE PEPF (%) PEV (%) SAR

Average
performance
indicator of
model 10.264 26.84 12.66 27.322
4.3.4 Rainfall-Runoff Analysis Result for Annual Exceedance Probability
Hytograph
The aim of HEC-HMS in this study simulating the hydrological response of watershed
based on different land-use conditions developed in the above section. The overall
information required for simulation of rainfall-runoff analysis categories in three different
forms. metrological model data developed based on 12 hours duration storm of 0.04 AEP
value. The basin model parameters were developed through optimized subbasin parameters
value and direct from the land-use change response of subbasin. The overall result of the
hydrological response of watershed is revealed in the appendix part. However, regarding
evaluating the performance of the existing flood control structure the hydrological peak
flow at different land-use conditions was analyzed.

The peak flow simulated for 0.04 AEP values selected for evaluating the impact of land
cover change on the hydrological response of watershed. Hence, the peak flow produced
of 0.04 AEP was 82.2 m3/s, 100.7m3/s, and 113.7m3/s at the outlet point for the land cover
condition of 2007,2015, and 2020 respectively. The summarized result graph is expressed
in the figure 16 the peak flow produced of 0.04 AEP was 82.2 m3/s, 100.7m3/s, and
113.7m3/s at the outlet point for the land cover condition of 2007,2015, and 2020
respectively.

64
 120

100
TOTAL RUNOFF (CMS)

80

60

40

20

0
Time 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00
TIME IN (HOUR)

2007 2015 2020

Figure 4-7 Peak flow hydrograph of 0.04 AEP at 2007, 2015, and 2020
As shown on the Fig. 4-7, in the first phase scenario from (2007 to 2015) using the 25 years
return period 12 hours storm events, the peak flow hydrograph increased by 18.37%
(82.2m3/s to 100.7m3/s), and in the second phase scenario from (2007 to 2020) using 25
years return period 12 hours storm events, the peak flow increased by 27.7% (82.2m3/s to
113.7m3/s). The main reason for increasing the peak flow in the above two scenarios due
to the level of urbanization was increased from the baseline of 2007.

The contribution of peak flow from each hydrological sub-basin created by HEC-HMS is
depending on individual land use land cover change from the baseline 2007 up till now. In
the W40 sub-basin, the peak flow in 2007, 2015, and 2020 were 26.6m3/s, 35.1m3/s, and
40.4m3/s. in W50 the peak flow at 2007, 2015, and 2020 were 52.7m3/s, 62.7 and 69.6m3/s.
in W60 the peak flow at 2007, 2015, and 2020 were 15.1m3/s , 16.3m3/s, and 20.5m3/s.

The total area covered under subbasin W50 395.1ha, which highly densifying urban built
area. The area covered under W50 is the central part of the existing topographic condition
of a town, from the starting 2007 baseline duration scenario, this area is dominated by
different residential with high dense, commercial, and service areas. Hence, the peak flow
generated from W50 subbasin from the baseline duration scenario 2007 up to 2020

65
increased by 24.2%, and almost all of the existing stormwater management structures were
constructed in this subbassin. The dynamic land use land cover changes have been revealed
in W40 subbasin, most of the land use land cover condition of W40 subbasin in 2007 is
agricultural land and open green land. However, since 2007 the land cover condition was
dynamically changed because the new master plan of a town was included in this area
under a functional town master plan. Different public institutions including private schools
and residential areas were developed. Hence, the peak flow generated from W40 subbasin
increased by 34.1% from the baseline duration scenario which indicated the percentage
incremental in peak discharge is higher relative to the rest of the subbasin.

40

35

30
Percentage(%)

25

20

15

10

0
W1 W2 W3

% Increase in Peak Discharge in 2015 % Increase in Peak Discharge in 2020

Figure 4-8 Percentage increase in peak discharge from the baseline 2007
The terrain condition of the basin is another factor for increasing peak discharge generate
from each subbasin, the average basin slope of W1 subbasin is 10.7% and the W2 subbasin
average slope is 7.2%. This indicated the average slope of W1 subbasin higher than the W2
subbasin. hence, average basin slope is another factor for the increasing percentage of peak
flow in W1 subbasin.

In the study area, the major challenges lack stormwater protection structure development
depending on the level of resettlement in the new area. For instance, the initial runoff
generated from W1 subbasin flow throughout the natural channel and during intensive

66
rainfall session most of the residential and commercial center near to the natural channel
devastated by flooding.

In the study area, the only stormwater management structure that already exists in the town
is an urban drainage line in which collect rainwater and drain to the stream. Most of the
existing drainage layout is very fragmented and short in length constructed near to the
outlet point. Based on the current level of existing stormwater management facilities and
the magnitude of peak discharge simulated in section 4.7, the capacity of each stormmwater
management structure is analyzed in the next part of the study.

4.4 Evaluation Result of Hydraulic Capacity of Existing Drains

The hydraulic capacity of 19 drain segments equivalent to 6.718km in length were analyzed
in this study. The total drain segments analyzed in these studies are based on the existing
drain coverage and significance of the flood-prone area. The detailed analyzed result is
presented in table 4-6.

Table 4-6 Evaluation of hydraulic capacity against potential stormwater flow into
existing drains

Potential storm
water flow into Potential storm
Existing existing water flow into Difference Difference
designed drains(0.1AEP existing in in
capacity of or 10 year drains(0.04AEP or magnitude magnitude
Drain drains return period) 25 years return (0.1AEP) (0.04AEP)
s code (m3/s) (m3/s) period) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
J1 16.938 8.835 11.726 8.103 5.212
J2 5.162 8.233 11.805 -3.071 -6.643
J3 4.471 7.553 10.018 -3.081 -5.547
J4 12.650 7.145 10.065 5.505 2.585
J5 1.517 2.508 3.330 -0.991 -1.813
J6 2.553 2.824 3.933 -0.270 -1.380
J7 2.805 2.531 3.359 0.274 -0.554
J8 2.525 6.967 9.254 -4.442 -6.729
J9 6.404 8.779 11.660 -2.375 -5.256
J10 4.566 11.877 15.774 -7.311 -11.208
J11 4.518 10.650 14.138 -6.131 -9.620
J12 2.057 5.198 6.902 -3.141 -4.846
J13 1.929 5.377 7.133 -3.448 -5.205
J14 18.674 3.590 4.753 15.085 13.921

67
 J15 2.127 3.051 4.051 -0.923 -1.923
J16 1.032 1.500 1.991 -0.468 -0.959
LINK
15-16 14.434 4.551 6.042 9.883 8.392
J17 1.424 2.071 1.889 -0.647 -0.465
J18 1.584 3.747 3.419 -2.163 -1.835

According to the the result in Table 4-6, the hydraulic capacity of the existing drains against
the potential stormwater generate from the contributing watershed were compared. The
result revealed a difference in magnitude between the hydraulic capacity of the existing
drains and potential stormwater generate indicated the level of performance of each drain.
The negative value indicated the existing urban drainage inadequate to convey the
stormwater generated from the corresponding contributing watersheds resulting in flash
flooding and infrastructure degradation. The positive values indicated the existing drainage
cross-section has sufficient capacity to convey the maximum potential stormwater
generated from each sub-catchment.

The result was revealed 26.3% of existing stormwater drain have sufficient capacity to
convey the incoming potential peak flow generate from each sub-catchments and the
remaining 73.68% of existing stormwater drainage inadequate to convey the stormwater
generated from the corresponding contributing watershed for 0.1 annual exceedance
probability (10 years return period precipitation depth).

The result was revealed 21% of existing stormwater drain have sufficient capacity to
convey the incoming potential peak flow generate from each sub-catchments and the
remaining 79% of existing stormwater drainage inadequate to convey the stormwater
generated from the corresponding contributing watershed for 0.04 annual exceedance
probability (25 years return period precipitation depth).

The analysis point under J1, J2, J3, and J4,J5 and J6 are drainage section in the main road
area and the length of J1, J2, J3, and J4 are 739, 110, 116 and 129m respectively. The
length of J1 has expressed the distance between the inlet point to the first junction in the
drainage section, the length of J2 is expressed as the distance between the first junction up
to the second junction in the drainage section, etc. The catchment area which contributed
peak discharge for this drainage section under the categories of obbi to a commercial bank
68
of Ethiopia. Based on varying concentration-time and contributed area throughout the
drainage section, potential stormwater (peak flow) generated from each sub-catchments
estimated in a separated manner. The total area under this sub-catchments covered 58.56
hectares and among the total area, 57.77 hectares directly contributed to the inlet point of
the drainage section. Hence the total overland flow path of the catchments is 2320.37m but
according to the Ethiopian road authority (ERA) drainage manual the recommended
maximum overland flow path in urban areas not above 60m. However, the result in a given
sub-catchment overland flow path is extremely high, this indicated the existing drainage
coverage is completely not comparable to sub-catchments total area. During intensive
rainfall season in most the lowland part of the residential area devastated by floods because
the overland flow through the natural channel is incapable of the magnitude of excess
stormwater generated from the highland part of sub-catchments.

The analysis point under J10, J11, J12 are drainage section near to kidanemiret primary
school and the length of J10, J11, J12 are 311.31, 59.36, and 196.46m respectively. The
contributed sub-catchment area under categories of the highly densified residential area
from ersha sebel to kidanemiret primary school. The total sub-catchment area which
contributed to the above drainage section is 15.887 hectares and the maximum overland
flow path is 600.49m. This drainage section inadequate carrying capacity throughout the
junction of the drainage section in both scenarios (which ten years return period and
twenty-five years return period condition). The overland flow path length indicated the
coverage existing drainage is insufficient with the total contributed catchment areas.

The analysis point under J8, J9, J10, and J11 are the largest drainage section in town located
in Ethiopian Development Bank up to woliso primary health center. The length between
the inlet point to the first analysis point (J8) is 570m, the length between the J8 to J9 is
600m, the length between J9 to J10 is 520m and the length between J10 to J11 is 320
meters. The area which contributed to the above drainage section is categorized under the
commercial and highly densified area. The sub-catchments area contributed to the above
drainage section vary throughout the length of the ditch. However, the total area up to the
last analysis point is covered 79.033 hectares. The total overland flow path length of
2110m. According to the analysis result, all of the drainage section is inadequate carrying
capacity for incoming peak flow in both annual exceedance probability.
69
The rest of the drainage sections are more fragmented contain a single section drainage
layout and are constructed near the outlet point. Hence, the carrying capacity of each
drainage section was analyzed in a single section based on the average cross-sectional area
of the ditch.

Figure 4-9 Analyed woliso town drainage network section

4.5 LID applied and performance

The best alternative LID control for woliso town developed based on the performance
evaluation result of existing drainage network of study area discussed in section 4.8.
according to the analysis result three sub catchment area generate maximum potential peak
discharge which cause flooding in drainage section. hence the LID proposed in those sub
catchment. the total area proposed for LID development 1700 square meters.

70
 Figure 4-10 Sub catchment area LID proposed
The overall performance of proposed infiltration trench expressed in table 4-5.

Table 4-7 Performance evaluation result of low impact development

Sub LID Total Infiltration Surface Initial Final

catchment control inflow loss (mm) overflow storage storage
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Catchment_1 Infiltration 6969.4 118.58 5483.97 107.14 304.55

trench

Catchment_2 Infiltration 4596.52 124.28 3501.46 107.14 285.37

trench

Catchment_3 Infiltration 2589.13 137.21 1640.54 107.14 285.37

trench

71
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
This study assessed the land use land cover changes in the urban area of woliso by
proposing three different duration scenarios of land cover conditions (in 2007, 2015, and
2020). The existing town expansion was started from the new master plan of a town
developed by Oromia urban planning institute in 2007. Hence, in this study, the baseline
duration scenario was selected from the 2007 year. The historical land cover condition
raster image data of the study area was acquired from USGS global visualization server.
The raster image data of the study area classified using ERDAS imaginary 2015 model,
both classification technique (supervised and unsupervised classification) was used in this
study. according to the classification result, the urban built area was increased from the
baseline 2007 up to 2015 by 24.65% and from the baseline 2007 up to 2020 by 43.83%.

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of land use land cover change
on the hydrological response of the urban watershed of the study area. According to the
evaluation result, the urban built area was increased and the rest of the historical land cover
condition (open green land, agricultural land, and mixed forest land) of the study area was
decreased from the baseline 2007. The major impact of urban development had resulted in
increased peak flow and runoff volume and decrease the time of peak flow.in this study,
the hydrological characteristics of the urban watershed (Woliso town) estimated using
hydrological modeling system (HEC-HMS), the soil conservative service (SCS) curve
number method was used for calculation of effective rainfall, SCS unit hydrograph
transform method was used to estimate the actual surface runoff within sub-basin.
However, the study area catchment is an ungagged watershed so impossible to develop a
unit hydrograph from the observed rainfall-runoff relationship of the catchment. Hence, In
HEC HMS different synthetic unit hydrograph model is provided, in this study SCS
dimensionless synthetic unit hydrograph method was selected. The kinematic wave model
for those of overland flow and the Muskingum model was selected for channel routing.

According to the analysis result, the potential peak flow generated from the study area
increased as the land use land cover change by increasing urban built area. According to
the duration scenario developed from the baseline of 2007 to 2015 the peak flow generated

72
increased by 18.37% (82.2m3/s to 100.7m3/s), and from the baseline 2007 to 2020 the peak
flow generated increased by 27.7% (82.2m3/s to 113.7m3/s). based on the duration scenario
the land use condition of the study area increased the urban built area by 24.65% and
43.83% from the baseline year 2007 to 2015 and 2020 respectively.

The major adverse impact of changes in the hydrological response of urban watersheds is
to reduce the efficiency or performance of stormwater management structures. In the study
area, the only stormwater management structure developed is the drainage line. Most of
the existing drainage lines are constructed near the central part of the town. however,
according to the analysis result, significant land cover changes occur in the north part of
the town, an area dominated by agricultural land before the baseline duration scenario
(2007 year) and there is no stormwater management structure was developed still yet in
that area.

The performance analysis was done on 19 different sections of the drainage line. Each
section of drainage line varying their contributed area and time of concentration. According
to the analysis result in ten years return period intensity of rainfall, 26.3% of existing
drainage have sufficient capacity to carrying the incoming potential peak flow generated
from each sub-catchments and the rest of 73.68% of existing drainage line are inadequate
to convey the incoming potential peak flow generated from each sub-basin. In twenty-five
years return period condition only 21% of existing drainage has sufficient capacity to
conveyed the potential peak flow generated from each sub-basin and the rest of 79% of
existing drainage inadequate to conveyed the incoming potential peak flow.

5.2 Recommendation
The existing management practices of stormwater generated from the urban watershed of
Woliso town were evaluated in this study however, the scale of existing infrastructure is
very low in coverage with the current level of rapid urban expansion. According to the
current context, only 23% of the catchment area is covered by a stormwater management
structure. Most of the existing drainage sections constructed near the central part of a town
topographic condition, some of structure are passing through the private compound,
constructed in a very fragmented manner and constructed near to the outlet point
consequently, the overland flow path through the natural channel is dominated routing

73
type. hence, the environmental impact and economic damage due to urban flooding are
very high. The new comparable stormwater management infrastructure should be designed
and implemented in the study area based on the current and future context of urban
expansion trend. Before the new comprehensive stormwater management infrastructure
designs, the selection of the best alternative storm water management structure based on
the available fund, topographic condition of a town and level future trend of urbanization
need further studies.

The main problem in the existing drainage system is underestimated the incoming peak
flow from the contributed area. During design of stormwater management infrastructure,
the boundary of contributed sub-catchment is clearly defined first. In the determination of
runoff coefficient value for each sub-catchment thought shall be given to the future changes
in land use that might occur during service life proposed infrastructure.

The existing drainage system lay on the main road of Addis Ababa to Jimma reduce their
functionality due to direct dumping of solid waste into the drainage system. Hence, it is
advisable to undertake comprehensive cleaning and maintenance work on the existing
storm drain system along with the approach road storm drain system development and
providing integrated solid waste management infrastructure with stormwater management.

74
REFERENCES
Bajracharya, A. R. (2016). Effect of urbanization on storm water runoff a case study of
kathmandu metropolitan city, Nepal. Journal of the Institute of Engineering. Vol.
11 (1), pp 36-49.

Beven, (1998). Distributed modeling in Hydrology using Application of Topo Model

concepts.Journal of Applied Hydrology. (13), pp 616-631.

Birhanu, E. (2018). Performance assessment of storm water drainage systems (Case study
of Debere Berehan Town). (Ethiopia, Addis Ababa unversity Msc Thesis). Addis
Ababa.

Borys, O. K.-B. (2014). Impact of Urbanization on Stormwater Runoff from a Small

urban catchment Gdansk Małomiejska Basin Case Study.Journal of Hydro
Engineering and Envernmental Science.Vol. 6 (3-4), pp 141-162.

Bruce et al., M. M. (2016). Estimation of waterhed lag time and time of concentration for
the kansas city area. (The Unversity of Kansas Department of Transportation
Final Report) Report No.Ks-16-01.

Butler, C. G. ( 2015). Measuring And Modeling The Impact Of Roadway Runoff Head
Water Tributary Of The Cabaha River.(US, Aunburn Unversity Msc Thesis),
Alabama, Aunburn.

Chow, D. R. (1988). Applied Hydrology (Vol.second edition). Mcgraw hill book

company. New Delhi .

Claudia M. Vaina, S. O. (2019). Land use land cover detection and urban sprawl analysis.
International Journal of emerging technology and Advanced technology.Vol. 4 (3)
pp 136-148

Dagnachew et al., a. b. (2019). Evaluation the hydraulic capacity of existing drain system
and the managment challenges of stormwater in Addis Ababa. (Addis Ababa
Unversity Msc Thesis), Addis Ababa.

75
Davies et al., D. B. (2004). Urban drainage (Vol. second edition). Spon press. England
London.

Dotto, C. B. (2010). Stormwater quality models: performance and sensitivity analysis.

Journal of Water Science and Technology.Vol 3 (11), pp 17-26.

Dwarakish, G. (2015). Impact Of land use change on hydrological system:A Review Of

Current Modelling Approaches. Hydrosphare review Article.Vol 7 (5), pp 32-41

Feldman, A. (2000). Hydrologic modelling system HEC HMS technical reference

mannual.(Vol. project volume 3). Institute of Water Resource.Washingiton.

Gebeyehu, S. (2016). Development of Intensity Duration Frequency(IDF) Curves for

Bahir Dar City from Daily Rainfall Data by Using Simple Scaling Method.(Addis
Ababa Unversity Msc thesis). Addis Ababa.

Han, D. (2010). Concise hydrology. Ventus publishing APS. London

Ibrahim et al., E. S. (2016). Assessment of unsupervised classification techniques for

intertiadal sediment. Journal of Envirnmental Engineering. (2), pp 44-56.

Ics, M. e. (2005). stochastic modelling of extreme floodings on the american rivers on

folsom dam appendex C 72 hours precipitation frequence relationship and
uncertinity analysiss (Vol.Project volume 5). Institute of Water
Resource.Washingiton.

Juraj et al., M. S. (2004). Calibration, Validation and sensetivity analysis of HEC HMS
Hydrologic model CFCAS Project:Assessment of water resource risk and
valnerability to changing climate condition. Wastern press.Report
No.047.Toronto.

Lee, J. G. (2003). Estimation of Urban Imperviousness and its Impacts on Storm Water
Systems. journal of water resources planning and management Vol.11 (8), pp
127-138.

76
Madsen et al., H. (2001). Regional estimation of rainfall intensity-duration-frequency
curves using generalized least squares regression of partial duration series
statistics. Journal of Water resource reasearch.Vol. 38 (11), pp 1239

Mannel et al., E. H. (2009). Triangular model for the generatin of synethetic hyetograph.
Hydrological Science Journal.(2), pp 44-61.

Mukherjee, D. (2016). Effect of urbanization on flood - a review with recent flood in

chennai (india). International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research
Technology. Vol 21 (114), pp 222-235.

NAGY, E. (2016). Comparing methods for computing the time of concentration in a

midium sized hungarian catchment. Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering.Vol. 24
(4), pp 8-14.

Nhat, L. M. (2006). Establishmentof intensity duration frequency curves for precipitation

in monsoon area of veitnam. Journal of water resource Engineering.(3), pp 14-19.

Nibo, F. (2017). Adopting landscape infrastructure to integrated urban stormwater and

wastewater management system (case study of kebena watershed). (Addis Ababa
Unversity Msc Thesis), Addis Ababa.

Oromia Water, M. a. (2016). Inception Report Woliso Town Water Supply & Sanitation
Project. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ragunath, H. (2006). Hydrology principle, analysis and design. New age international (P)
limited publishers. New Delhi.

Roy et al., D. S. (2013). Calibration and validation of HEC HMS model for a river basin
in eastern india. ARPN Journal of Engineering and applied sciences.Vol.8 (1), pp
52-61.

Sivapalan, M. (1997). Transformation of point rainfall to areal rainfall: Intensity duration

frequency curve. Journal of Hydrology.(204), pp 150-167.

Subramanya, K. (2008). Engineering Hydrology. (T. Edition, Ed.) New Delhe: Tata Mc
Grew -hill Publishing Company Limeted. New Dehli.

77
Suriya, S. (2011). Impact of urbanization on flooding: The Thirusoolam sub watershed –
A case study. Journal of Hydrology, (412-413), pp.210-219.

USGS. (2020). https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/bandpass-wavelengths-all-landsat-

sensors.

78
Appendix A Average Daily Precipitation Data of Woliso Gauging
Station in (mm)
Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
1987 0 0.94 6.72 3.12 4.04 5.63 8.33 8.64 3.78 0.39 0 0.11
1988 0.67 1.04 0.34 1.05 1.49 6.54 10.86 12 9.79 3.57 0 0
1989 0.75 1.12 2.95 4.03 1.5 7.43 7.15 7.19 5.68 1.31 0 1.21
1990 0.42 4.54 1.12 2.83 2.96 5.68 6.27 11.96 4.96 0.81 0 0.01
1991 0.43 1.71 2.45 0.14 3.04 4.94 7.63 8.02 4.67 0.15 0 0.36
1992 1.27 2.91 2.64 3.2 1.83 6.59 7.81 10.58 5.11 2.93 0.26 0.3
1993 0.64 1.43 0.28 6.4 5.61 8.3 7.54 8.83 9.01 2.55 0.42 0
1994 0.02 0 2.85 1.74 2.33 4.84 13.07 6.33 4.02 0 0.08 0
1995 0 0.74 1.42 4.68 4.27 4.42 6.35 8.59 3.17 0.85 0 0.29
1996 2.49 0 4.7 3.77 3.09 9.89 10.18 9.11 3.38 0.55 0.3 0
1997 0.38 0 1.79 3.47 0.96 5.12 10.53 6.29 2.31 2.5 1.02 0
1998 1.88 1.6 2.23 2.79 5.25 5.72 7.95 9.17 5.67 2.7 0.2 0
1999 0.28 0 0.88 0.6 4.89 6.59 9.06 11.5 6.38 5.79 0 0
2000 0 0 0.05 3.53 3.5 4.01 10.19 8.2 5.7 0.99 0.52 0.41
2001 0.36 0.3 2.25 1.45 2.57 4.73 10.86 5.73 3.69 1.14 0.21 0
2002 0.79 0.94 2.65 1.96 1.9 8.1 8.72 8.1 2.42 0 0 0.72
2003 1.01 0.2 2.16 5.24 0.59 6.22 10.53 6.64 3.83 0.68 0.47 1.03
2004 1.77 1.16 1.57 3.09 1.61 6.94 9.15 7.64 5.81 1.25 0.27 0
2005 2.04 0 2.41 3.51 2.27 6.16 7.42 8.29 5.27 1.61 0.55 0
2006 0.07 2.11 2.82 3.16 3.25 6.74 10.05 10.6 5.82 0.67 0.59 0
2007 0.7 1.88 0.68 0.8 4.7 7.81 7.42 8.09 5.49 0.82 0 0
2008 0 0.04 0.1 1.48 3.95 6.12 10.52 8.19 5.62 1.58 3 0
2009 0.54 0.06 1.38 1.26 2.08 2.5 7.41 9.38 3.71 2.8 0.11 1.03
2010 0.39 1.74 0.78 3.07 5.13 7.42 9.28 11.65 5.76 0 0 0.91
2011 0.22 0.04 1.15 2.09 4.24 6.51 7.56 9.1 5.36 0 1 0
2012 0 0 0.98 2.71 1.95 5.72 5.66 6.47 6.35 1.14 0.1 0.2
2013 0 0.24 3.38 3.38 3.61 5.27 12.19 9.2 5.18 3.8 0.89 0
2014 0.36 0.17 1.59 1.3 5.78 4.6 8.46 6.37 4.28 3.04 0.48 0.18
2015 0 3.38 1.31 3.38 4.99 6.58 7.45 6.35 4.67 0.01 0.1 3.38
2016 0.72 0 2.03 7.17 5.13 4.95 4.62 10.15 3.38 1.42 3.38 3.38

79
 Appendix B Total Monthly and Annual Precipitation Data of Woliso
Gauging Station
Total
Yearly
Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. PCP

1987 0 26.2 208.4 93.7 125.3 169 258 268 113.3 12.1 0 3.38 1277.37
1988 20.8 30.1 10.4 31.5 46.3 196 337 372 293.6 110.6 0 0 1448.4
1989 23.3 31.3 91.4 121 46.6 223 222 223 170.4 40.7 0 37.5 1229.5
1990 12.9 127.2 34.6 85 91.9 171 194 371 148.7 25.1 0 0.2 1261.2
1991 13.3 47.9 76 4.3 94.12 148 237 249 140.2 4.7 0 11.1 1024.9
1992 39.3 84.4 81.7 95.9 56.6 198 242 328 153.4 90.9 7.7 9.2 1387.1
1993 19.9 40 8.8 192 173.8 249 234 274 270.2 79.1 12.7 0 1553.1
1994 0.5 0 88.2 52.1 72.3 145 405 196 120.5 0 2.5 0 1082.5
1995 0 20.6 44.1 141 132.4 133 197 266 95.1 26.2 0 9.1 1063.7
1996 77.2 0 145.6 113 95.9 297 316 282 101.5 16.9 8.9 0 1453.6
1997 11.9 0 55.4 104 29.7 154 327 195 69.3 77.6 30.7 0 1053.88
1998 58.2 44.7 69.2 83.6 162.7 172 246 284 170.2 83.6 6.1 0 1380.6
1999 8.7 0 27.4 17.9 151.7 198 281 357 191.4 179.4 0 0 1411.57
2000 0 0 1.4 106 108.4 120 316 254 170.9 30.8 15.6 12.6 1136.1
2001 11.1 8.3 69.9 43.6 79.8 142 337 178 110.7 35.2 6.3 0 1021.2
2002 24.6 26.3 82.1 58.9 58.9 243 270 251 72.5 0 0 22.2 1110
2003 31.2 5.6 66.9 157 18.2 187 326 206 114.9 21.2 14 31.9 1179.8
2004 55 33.6 48.7 92.6 50 208 284 237 174.2 38.8 8.2 0 1229.8
2005 63.3 0 74.7 105 70.3 185 230 257 158.1 49.9 16.4 0 1209.9
2006 2.1 59 87.5 94.7 100.9 202 312 329 174.6 20.9 17.8 0 1400
2007 21.6 52.6 21.1 24 145.7 234 230 251 164.6 25.4 0 0 1170.2
2008 0 1.1 3.2 44.5 122.3 184 326 254 168.5 49 89.9 0 1242.2
2009 16.7 1.6 42.8 37.9 64.4 74.9 230 291 111.4 86.8 3.38 31.83 992.12
2010 12 48.7 24.2 92.2 159.2 223 288 361 172.9 0 0 28.2 1408.67
2011 5.3 1.2 35.7 62.7 131.5 195 234 282 160.9 0 30 0 1139.18
2012 0 0 30.3 81.4 60.6 172 176 201 190.6 35.2 3 6.2 955
2013 0 6.7 104.9 102 112 158 378 285 155.4 117.9 26.6 0 1445.95
2014 11.1 4.8 49.4 39 179.1 138 262 197 128.5 94.3 14.5 5.7 1123.9
2015 0 94.73 40.5 102 154.7 198 231 197 140.1 0.2 3.1 104.9 1264.91
2016 22.3 0 62.9 215 159.1 148 143 315 101.5 43.98 101.5 104.9 1417.86

80
Appendix C Goodness of Fit Summary Result
Chi-
# Distribution Kolmogorov Anderson Squared
Smirnov Darling
Statistic Rank Statistic Rank Statistic Rank
1 Beta 0.11528 10 0.24096 1 2.4272 18
2 Burr 0.12253 23 0.26846 15 3.1007 35
3 Burr (4P) 0.10742 4 0.30463 23 2.032 14
4 Cauchy 0.1224 22 0.77713 41 5.6975 44
5 Chi-Squared 0.11627 16 0.32407 27 3.0064 27
6 Chi-Squared (2P) 0.13443 32 0.33227 28 0.50215 10
7 Dagum 0.11735 17 0.28115 19 3.0243 33
8 Dagum (4P) 0.46458 56 9.7601 56 15.273 51
9 Erlang 0.15601 42 0.46316 38 0.89501 13
10 Erlang (3P) 0.11003 8 0.2552 11 3.0037 25
11 Error 0.1213 21 0.26595 14 2.4749 21
12 Error Function 0.9984 59 326.17 60 N/A
13 Exponential 0.4625 3 8.7661 9 50.786 6
14 Exponential (2P) 0.29337 52 3.5361 47 7.3733 46
15 Fatigue Life 0.12253 24 0.28724 21 0.1833 2
16 Fatigue Life (3P) 0.10734 46 0.25392 51 3.0105 29
17 Frechet 0.20641 49 1.0236 42 0.18336 38
18 Frechet (3P) 0.1455 38 0.39095 35 0.23233 4
19 Gamma 0.11197 11 0.24954 5 3.0044 26
20 Gamma (3P) 0.10918 6 0.25485 10 3.0025 24
21 Gen. Extreme Value 0.11528 1 0.24096 4 0.172 3

81
Appendix D Look up Table of Hydrological Soil Group and LULC type

Object
object name ID Luvalue A B C D
Open urban
land 1 9 49 69 79 84
Residential
high density 2 11 77 85 90 92
Commercial
and service
area 3 18 89 92 94 95
Residential
low density 4 19 54 70 80 85
Mixed forest
land 5 21 57 66 73 76
Agricultural
land 6 23 65 70 74 80

Appendix E Hydrological Response of W40 sub catchment (in 2007)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 1.09 1.09 0 0 0 0
2:00 1.28 1.28 0 0 0 0
3:00 1.55 1.55 0 0 0 0
4:00 2.9 2.9 0 0 0 0
5:00 4.07 4.07 0 0 0 0
6:00 2.22 2.21 0.02 0 0 0
7:00 51.71 27.24 24.47 26.6 0 26.6
8:00 0.39 0.11 0.28 11.7 0 11.7
9:00 3.37 0.93 2.44 5.5 0 5.5
10:00 1.75 0.46 1.29 3.2 0 3.2
11:00 1.4 0.36 1.04 2.2 0 2.2
12:00 1.18 0.3 0.88 1.7 0 1.7

82
Appendix F Hydrological Response of W40 sub catchment (in 2015)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 2:09 0.91 0.18 0.2 0 0.2
2:00 6:43 1.06 0.22 0.3 0 0.3
3:00 13:12 1.29 0.26 0.4 0 0.4
4:00 21:36 2.41 0.49 0.7 0 0.7
5:00 1:40 3.38 0.7 1 0 1
6:00 5:16 1.73 0.5 0.9 0 0.9
7:00 17:02 19.68 32.03 35.1 0 35.1
8:00 9:21 0.08 0.32 15.3 0 15.3
9:00 8:52 0.63 2.74 6.7 0 6.7
10:00 18:00 0.31 1.44 3.7 0 3.7
11:00 9:36 0.24 1.16 2.5 0 2.5
12:00 4:19 0.2 0.98 1.8 0 1.8

Appendix H Hydrological Response of W40 sub catchment (in 2020)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 1.09 0.8 0.29 0.3 0 0.3
2:00 1.28 0.94 0.34 0.5 0 0.5
3:00 1.55 1.14 0.42 0.6 0 0.6
4:00 2.9 2.12 0.78 1.1 0 1.1
5:00 4.07 2.91 1.17 1.7 0 1.7
6:00 2.22 1.41 0.82 1.5 0 1.5
7:00 51.71 15.02 36.7 40.4 0 40.4
8:00 0.39 0.05 0.34 17.5 0 17.5
9:00 3.37 0.45 2.92 7.5 0 7.5
10:00 1.75 0.22 1.53 4 0 4
11:00 1.4 0.17 1.23 2.6 0 2.6
12:00 1.18 0.14 1.03 1.9 0 1.9

83
Appendix I Hydrological Response of W50 sub catchment (in 2007)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 1.09 0.91 0.18 0.3 0 0.3
2:00 1.28 1.07 0.21 0.5 0 0.5
3:00 1.55 1.3 0.25 0.6 0 0.6
4:00 2.9 2.43 0.47 1 0 1
5:00 4.07 3.41 0.67 1.5 0 1.5
6:00 2.22 1.75 0.48 1.4 0 1.4
7:00 51.71 20.01 31.7 52.7 0 52.7
8:00 0.39 0.08 0.32 24.2 0 24.2
9:00 3.37 0.64 2.73 10.6 0 10.6
10:00 1.75 0.32 1.43 5.9 0 5.9
11:00 1.4 0.25 1.15 3.8 0 3.8
12:00 1.18 0.2 0.97 2.8 0 2.8

Appendix J Hydrological Response of W50 sub catchment (in 2015)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 2:09 0.78 0.31 0.5 0 0.5
2:00 6:43 0.91 0.37 0.8 0 0.8
3:00 13:12 1.11 0.45 1.1 0 1.1
4:00 21:36 2.06 0.84 1.8 0 1.8
5:00 1:40 2.8 1.27 2.8 0 2.8
6:00 5:16 1.35 0.88 2.6 0 2.6
7:00 17:02 14.16 37.55 62.7 0 62.7
8:00 9:21 0.05 0.34 28.7 0 28.7
9:00 8:52 0.42 2.95 12.1 0 12.1
10:00 18:00 0.21 1.54 6.5 0 6.5
11:00 9:36 0.16 1.24 4.2 0 4.2
12:00 4:19 0.13 1.04 3.1 0 3.1

84
Appendix K Hydrological Response of W50 sub catchment (in 2020)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 1.09 0.65 0.44 0.7 0 0.7
2:00 1.28 0.76 0.52 1.2 0 1.2
3:00 1.55 0.92 0.63 1.5 0 1.5
4:00 2.9 1.72 1.18 2.5 0 2.5
5:00 4.07 2.22 1.85 4.1 0 4.1
6:00 2.22 1.03 1.19 3.6 0 3.6
7:00 51.71 10.22 41.49 69.6 0 69.6
8:00 0.39 0.03 0.36 31.8 0 31.8
9:00 3.37 0.29 3.08 13.1 0 13.1
10:00 1.75 0.14 1.61 6.9 0 6.9
11:00 1.4 0.11 1.29 4.4 0 4.4
12:00 1.18 0.09 1.09 3.2 0 3.2

Appendix L hydrological response of W60 sub catchment (in 2007)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 1.09 1.09 0 0 0 0
2:00 1.28 1.28 0 0 0 0
3:00 1.55 1.55 0 0 0 0
4:00 2.9 2.9 0 0 0 0
5:00 4.07 4.07 0 0 0 0
6:00 2.22 2.22 0 0 0 0
7:00 51.71 30.26 21.45 15.1 0 15.1
8:00 0.39 0.13 0.26 4.4 0 4.4
9:00 3.37 1.09 2.28 2.5 0 2.5
10:00 1.75 0.54 1.21 1.5 0 1.5
11:00 1.4 0.42 0.98 1 0 1
12:00 1.18 0.35 0.83 0.8 0 0.8

85
Appendix M Hydrological Response of W60 sub catchment (in 2015)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 2:09 1.09 0 0 0 0
2:00 6:43 1.28 0 0 0 0
3:00 13:12 1.55 0 0 0 0
4:00 21:36 2.9 0 0 0 0
5:00 1:40 4.07 0 0 0 0
6:00 5:16 2.22 0 0 0 0
7:00 17:02 28.61 23.1 16.3 0 16.3
8:00 9:21 0.12 0.27 4.8 0 4.8
9:00 8:52 1 2.37 2.6 0 2.6
10:00 18:00 0.5 1.25 1.5 0 1.5
11:00 9:36 0.39 1.01 1.1 0 1.1
12:00 4:19 0.32 0.86 0.9 0 0.9

Appendix N Hydrological Response of W60 sub catchment (in 2020)

Direct Base Total

Precip Loss Excess Flow flow Flow in
Time (mm) (m) (mm) (m^3/s) (m^3/s) (m^3/s)
0:00 0 0 0
1:00 1.09 0.96 0.13 0.1 0 0.1
2:00 1.28 1.12 0.15 0.1 0 0.1
3:00 1.55 1.37 0.19 0.2 0 0.2
4:00 2.9 2.55 0.35 0.3 0 0.3
5:00 4.07 3.59 0.49 0.4 0 0.4
6:00 2.22 1.91 0.31 0.3 0 0.3
7:00 51.71 22.77 28.95 20.5 0 20.5
8:00 0.39 0.09 0.3 5.9 0 5.9
9:00 3.37 0.76 2.61 3 0 3
10:00 1.75 0.38 1.37 1.7 0 1.7
11:00 1.4 0.29 1.11 1.2 0 1.2
12:00 1.18 0.24 0.94 1 0 1

86
Appendix O Sub Catchment Runoff Coefficient Analysis Result
C value
Sub C value of of Composite
catchment Pervious Impervious % of impervious pervious C sub
ID area (ha) area (ha) impervious area area catchment
S1 45.117 33.916 42.91 0.75 0.2 0.436005
S2 18.43 39.344 68.1 0.6 0.25 0.4886
S3 2.287 11.3348 83.21 0.65 0.2 0.574445
S4 0 8.953 100 0.65 0.2 0.65
S5 2.265 18.1 88.89 0.65 0.2 0.600005
S6 5.57 12.997 70 0.65 0.2 0.515
S7 0 7.911 100 0.65 0.2 0.65
S8 10.27 7.81 43.2 0.6 0.2 0.3728
S9 6.33 5.81 47.8 0.75 0.2 0.4629
S10 0 6.531 100 0.7 0.2 0.7
S11 0 20.892 100 0.75 0.2 0.75

Appendix P Sub Catchment Design Flow Analysis Result (0.04AEP)

0.04AE
SUB CATCHMENT FROM OBBI TO COMMERTIAL BANK BURKA BRANCH P

Condui Analyze Runoff

t d point Intensity Total coefficen Peak
Channel length (junction Concentratio in dischargin t (C) flow
type (m) ) n time (min) (mm/hr) g area (ha) value (m3/s)
Trapizoida 127.086
l 739 J1 23.885 6 57.7774 0.5227 11.726
Rectangula
r 110 J2 28.502 117.45 58.243 0.5227 11.805
Rectangula
r 116 J3 33.172 107.704 58.243 0.5227 10.018
Rectangula
r 129.3 J4 36.238 101.305 58.561 0.5227 10.065

87
SUB CATCHMENT FROM ERSHASEBIL TO KIDENEMIRET PRIMARY SCHOOL
0.04AEP

Condui Analyze Intensit Runoff

t d point y in Total coefficen
Peak
Channel length (junctio Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin t (C)
flow
type (m) n ID) n time (min) ) g area (ha) value
(m3/s)
Rectangula 3.33013
r 311.31 J5 18.04 139.28 13.6218 0.574445 5
Rectangula
r 59.36 J6 20.365 134.43 15.887 0.574445 3.933
Rectangula 3.35910
r 196.46 J7 27.059 120.46 15.887 0.574445 4

SUB CATCHMENT FROM POLY TECHNIQUE TO WOLISO HEALTH CENTER 0.04AEP

Condui Intensit Runoff

t y in Total coefficen
Peak
Channel length Analyze Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin t (C)flow
type (m) d point n time (min) ) g area (ha) value(m3/s)
Trapezoida 9.25399
l 386.49 J8 9.191 157.75 44.033 0.436005 6
Trapezoida 11.6600
l 640 J9 10.909 154.17 56.77 0.436005 5
Trapezoida
l 246.42 J10 12.997 149.81 79.033 0.436005 15.7736
Rectangula 14.1384
r 216.61 J11 20.434 134.28 79.033 0.436005 4

SUBCATCHMENT FROM WOLISO HOTEL TO FRAOL HOTEL 0.04AEP

Analyze Runoff Peak

Condui d point Intensit Total coefficen flow
Channel t length (junction Concentratio y in dischargin t (C) (m3/s
type (m) ) n time (min) (mm/hr) g area (ha) value )
Rectangula
r 366.79 J12 15.701 144.166 20.892 0.75 6.902
Rectangula
r 373.58 J13 30.388 113.51 27.423 0.75 7.133
Trapizoidal 735.74 J14 48.538 75.63 27.423 0.75 4.753

88
 0.004AE
SUBCATCHMENT FROM CIVIL SERVICE COLLEGE TO AYETU PRIMARY SCHOOL P

Condui Analyze Intensit Runoff

t d point y in Total coefficie Peak
Channel length (junction Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin nt (C) flow
type (m) ) n time (min) ) g area (ha) value (m3/s)
Rectangul
ar 288.42 J15 18.349 138.64 18.567 0.515 4.051
Rectangul
ar 304.79 J16 24.066 126.71 7.911 0.65 1.991
Rectangul
ar 203.44 LINK 28.576 99.84 6.042

0.004AE
SUBCATCHMENT FROM WOLISO LIBEEN PRIMARY SCHOOL TO MILITARY CAMUP P

Condui Analyze Intensit Runoff

t d point y in Total coefficie Peak
Channel length (junction Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin nt (C) flow
type (m) ) n time (min) ) g area (ha) value (m3/s)
Rectangul 91.705
ar 664.06 J17 31.784 6 18.08 0.3728 1.889
Rectangul
ar 110.4 J18 38.579 79.996 30.22 0.4629 3.419

Appendix Q Sub Catchment Design Flow Analysis Result (0.1AEP)

SUB CATCHMENT FROM OBBI TO COMMERTIAL BANK BURKA BRANCH
0.1AEP

Condui Analyze Intensit Runoff

t d point y in Total coefficie Peak
Channel length (junction Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin nt (C) flow
type (m) ) n time (min) ) g area (ha) value (m3/s)
Trapezoid 105.31
al 739 J1 23.885 7 57.7774 0.5227 8.835
Rectangul
ar 110 J2 28.502 97.36 58.243 0.5227 8.233
Rectangul
ar 116 J3 33.172 89.31 58.243 0.5227 7.553
Rectangul
ar 129.3 J4 36.238 84.03 58.561 0.5227 7.145

89
SUB CATCHMENT FROM
ERSHASEBIL TO KIDENEMIRET
PRIMARY SCHOOL
0.1AEP

Condu Analyze Intensit Total Runoff

it d point Concentrati y in dischargincoeffice
Channel length (junctio on time (mm/hr g area nt (C) Peak flow
type (m) n ID) (min) ) (ha) value (m3/s)
Rectangul 0.57444 2.5081218
ar 311.31 J5 18.04 115.39 13.6218 5 16
Rectangul 0.57444 2.8238007
ar 59.36 J6 20.365 111.39 15.887 5 7
Rectangul 0.57444 2.5312551
ar 196.46 J7 27.059 99.85 15.887 5 12

SUB CATCHMENT FROM POLY TECHNIQUE TO WOLISO HEALTH CENTER 0.1AEP

Condu Intensit Total Runoff

it Concentrati y in dischargin coeffice
Channel length Analyze on time (mm/hr g area nt (C) Peak flow
type (m) d point (min) ) (ha) value (m3/s)
Trapizoida 0.43600 6.9669615
l 386.49 J8 9.191 130.64 44.033 5 85
Trapizoida 0.43600 8.7787106
l 640 J9 10.909 127.68 56.77 5 99
Trapizoida 0.43600 11.876793
l 246.42 J10 12.997 124.08 79.033 5 93
Rectangul 0.43600 10.649678
ar 216.61 J11 20.434 111.26 79.033 5 37

SUBCATCHMENT FROM WOLISO HOTEL TO FRAOL HOTEL 0.1AEP

Condui Analyze Intensit Runoff

t d point y in Total coeffice Peak
Channel length (junction Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin nt (C) flow
type (m) ) n time (min) ) g area (ha) value (m3/s)
Rectangul
ar 366.79 J12 15.701 119.42 20.892 0.75 5.198
Rectangul
ar 373.58 J13 30.388 94.11 27.423 0.75 5.377
Trapizoida
l 735.74 J14 48.538 62.83 27.423 0.75 3.590

90
 SUBCATCHMENT FROM CIVIL SERVICE COLLEGE TO AYETU PRIMARY SCHOOL 0.1AEP

Condui Analyze Intensit Runoff

t d point y in Total coeffice Peak
Channel length (junction Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin nt (C) flow
type (m) ) n time (min) ) g area (ha) value (m3/s)
Rectangul
ar 288.42 J15 18.349 114.86 18.567 0.515 3.051
Rectangul
ar 304.79 J16 24.066 105 7.911 0.65 1.500
Rectangul
ar 203.44 LINK 28.576 97.23 4.551

SUBCATCHMENT FROM WOLISO LIBEEN PRIMARY SCHOOL TO MILITARY CAMUP 0.1AEP

Condui Analyze Intensit Runoff

t d point y in Total coeffice Peak
Channel length (junction Concentratio (mm/hr dischargin nt (C) flow
type (m) ) n time (min) ) g area (ha) value (m3/s)
Rectangul
ar 664.06 J17 31.784 110.6 18.08 0.3728 2.071
Rectangul
ar 110.4 J18 38.579 96.42 30.22 0.4629 3.747

91
 Upper Lower
Observed Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Section Section Upper Lower
Time section section Water Water Change Energy Upper Lower Section Section Hydraulic Hydraulic Roughness Section Section Mean Discharge Discharge
Observed Interval channel channel Length Surface Surface In slope Upper Lower Section Section Wet Wet Mean Mean coefficient Channel Channel Conveyance Through at outlet
Date (hours) width width (m) Elevation Elevation Elevation (m/m) depth depth Area Area Perimeter Perimeter Depth Depth "n" conveyance conveyance of Channel Channel point
12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.96 2051.64 0.32 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.21 0.12 1.86 1.53 0.11 0.08 0.02 3.02 1.40 2.06 0.38 3.44
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.96 2051.63 0.33 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.11 1.86 1.51 0.11 0.07 0.02 3.02 1.16 1.87 0.35 3.18
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.96 2051.63 0.33 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.11 1.86 1.51 0.11 0.07 0.02 3.02 1.16 1.87 0.35 3.18
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.06 2051.73 0.33 0.04 0.23 0.18 0.37 0.24 2.06 1.70 0.18 0.14 0.02 7.29 3.96 5.37 1.01 9.20
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.04 2051.69 0.35 0.04 0.21 0.14 0.34 0.19 2.02 1.64 0.17 0.12 0.02 6.35 2.90 4.29 0.82 7.47
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.03 2051.96 0.07 0.01 0.20 0.41 0.32 0.55 2.00 2.17 0.16 0.26 0.02 5.89 13.91 9.05 0.78 7.08
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.00 2051.69 0.31 0.03 0.17 0.14 0.27 0.19 1.94 1.63 0.14 0.12 0.02 4.59 2.81 3.59 0.65 5.91
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.66 2052.35 0.31 0.03 0.83 0.80 1.33 1.08 3.26 2.95 0.41 0.37 0.02 45.60 34.53 39.68 7.17 65.33
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.60 2052.28 0.32 0.03 0.77 0.73 1.23 0.99 3.14 2.81 0.39 0.35 0.02 41.25 30.62 35.54 6.52 59.45
9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.59 2052.28 0.31 0.03 0.76 0.73 1.22 0.99 3.12 2.81 0.39 0.35 0.02 40.54 30.62 35.23 6.36 58.01
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.59 2052.27 0.32 0.03 0.76 0.72 1.22 0.97 3.12 2.79 0.39 0.35 0.02 40.54 30.07 34.91 6.41 58.40
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.56 2052.25 0.31 0.03 0.73 0.70 1.17 0.95 3.06 2.75 0.38 0.34 0.02 38.40 28.97 33.35 6.02 54.91
16/06/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.55 2052.25 0.30 0.03 0.72 0.70 1.15 0.95 3.04 2.75 0.38 0.34 0.02 37.69 28.97 33.04 5.87 53.52
12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.37 2051.93 0.44 0.05 0.54 0.38 0.86 0.51 2.68 2.10 0.32 0.24 0.02 25.38 12.25 17.63 3.82 34.78
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.73 2052.26 0.47 0.05 0.90 0.71 1.44 0.96 3.40 2.77 0.42 0.35 0.02 50.74 29.52 38.70 8.61 78.46
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.66 2052.19 0.47 0.05 0.83 0.64 1.33 0.86 3.26 2.63 0.41 0.33 0.02 45.60 25.70 34.23 7.61 69.40
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.93 2052.64 0.29 0.03 1.10 1.09 1.76 1.47 3.80 3.53 0.46 0.42 0.02 65.83 51.31 58.12 10.15 92.55

92
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.77 2052.45 0.32 0.03 0.94 0.90 1.50 1.22 3.48 3.15 0.43 0.39 0.02 53.72 40.22 46.48 8.53 77.76
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.50 2052.18 0.32 0.03 0.67 0.63 1.07 0.85 2.94 2.61 0.36 0.33 0.02 34.18 25.16 29.33 5.38 49.06
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.50 2052.16 0.34 0.04 0.67 0.61 1.07 0.82 2.94 2.57 0.36 0.32 0.02 34.18 24.09 28.70 5.43 49.48
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.51 2052.18 0.33 0.03 0.68 0.63 1.09 0.85 2.96 2.61 0.37 0.33 0.02 34.88 25.16 29.63 5.52 50.32
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.54 2052.21 0.33 0.03 0.71 0.66 1.14 0.89 3.02 2.67 0.38 0.33 0.02 36.99 26.78 31.47 5.87 53.46
Appendix R Slope Area Method Channel Flow Estimation Result

9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.53 2052.18 0.35 0.04 0.70 0.63 1.12 0.85 3.00 2.61 0.37 0.33 0.02 36.28 25.16 30.21 5.80 52.86
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.53 2052.18 0.35 0.04 0.70 0.63 1.12 0.85 3.00 2.61 0.37 0.33 0.02 36.28 25.16 30.21 5.80 52.86
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.51 2052.17 0.34 0.04 0.68 0.62 1.09 0.84 2.96 2.59 0.37 0.32 0.02 34.88 24.63 29.31 5.54 50.53
21/07/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.51 2052.15 0.36 0.04 0.68 0.60 1.09 0.81 2.96 2.55 0.37 0.32 0.02 34.88 23.56 28.67 5.58 50.86
12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.66 2052.35 0.31 0.03 0.83 0.80 1.33 1.08 3.26 2.95 0.41 0.37 0.02 45.60 34.53 39.68 7.17 65.33
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.66 2052.35 0.31 0.03 0.83 0.80 1.33 1.08 3.26 2.95 0.41 0.37 0.02 45.60 34.53 39.68 7.17 65.33
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.65 2052.35 0.30 0.03 0.82 0.80 1.31 1.08 3.24 2.95 0.40 0.37 0.02 44.87 34.53 39.36 6.99 63.75
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.63 2052.28 0.35 0.04 0.80 0.73 1.28 0.99 3.20 2.81 0.40 0.35 0.02 43.42 30.62 36.46 7.00 63.79
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.62 2052.29 0.33 0.03 0.79 0.74 1.26 1.00 3.18 2.83 0.40 0.35 0.02 42.69 31.18 36.48 6.80 61.97
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.62 2052.27 0.35 0.04 0.79 0.72 1.26 0.97 3.18 2.79 0.40 0.35 0.02 42.69 30.07 35.83 6.88 62.68
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.60 2052.27 0.33 0.03 0.77 0.72 1.23 0.97 3.14 2.79 0.39 0.35 0.02 41.25 30.07 35.22 6.56 59.83
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.58 2052.26 0.32 0.03 0.75 0.71 1.20 0.96 3.10 2.77 0.39 0.35 0.02 39.82 29.52 34.28 6.29 57.35
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.53 2052.23 0.30 0.03 0.70 0.68 1.12 0.92 3.00 2.71 0.37 0.34 0.02 36.28 27.87 31.80 5.65 51.50
9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.38 2051.98 0.40 0.04 0.55 0.43 0.88 0.58 2.70 2.21 0.33 0.26 0.02 26.04 14.87 19.68 4.04 36.80
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.60 2052.26 0.34 0.04 0.77 0.71 1.23 0.96 3.14 2.77 0.39 0.35 0.02 41.25 29.52 34.90 6.60 60.17
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.60 2052.26 0.34 0.04 0.77 0.71 1.23 0.96 3.14 2.77 0.39 0.35 0.02 41.25 29.52 34.90 6.60 60.17
22/07/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.60 2052.26 0.34 0.04 0.77 0.71 1.23 0.96 3.14 2.77 0.39 0.35 0.02 41.25 29.52 34.90 6.60 60.17
 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.97 2051.66 0.31 0.03 0.14 0.11 0.22 0.15 1.88 1.57 0.12 0.09 0.02 3.39 1.93 2.55 0.46 4.20
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.97 2051.65 0.32 0.03 0.14 0.10 0.22 0.14 1.88 1.55 0.12 0.09 0.02 3.39 1.66 2.37 0.43 3.96
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.96 2051.65 0.31 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.21 0.14 1.86 1.55 0.11 0.09 0.02 3.02 1.66 2.23 0.40 3.68
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.17 2051.81 0.36 0.04 0.34 0.26 0.54 0.35 2.28 1.87 0.24 0.19 0.02 13.07 7.19 9.69 1.89 17.20
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.16 2051.77 0.39 0.04 0.33 0.22 0.53 0.30 2.26 1.79 0.23 0.17 0.02 12.51 5.60 8.37 1.70 15.46
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.16 2051.76 0.40 0.04 0.33 0.21 0.53 0.28 2.26 1.77 0.23 0.16 0.02 12.51 5.22 8.08 1.66 15.12
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.14 2051.76 0.38 0.04 0.31 0.21 0.50 0.28 2.22 1.77 0.22 0.16 0.02 11.41 5.22 7.72 1.54 14.07
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.30 2051.95 0.35 0.04 0.47 0.40 0.75 0.54 2.54 2.15 0.30 0.25 0.02 20.87 13.43 16.74 3.21 29.29
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.24 2051.93 0.31 0.03 0.41 0.38 0.66 0.51 2.42 2.11 0.27 0.24 0.02 17.17 12.48 14.64 2.64 24.10
9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.20 2051.88 0.32 0.03 0.37 0.33 0.59 0.45 2.34 2.01 0.25 0.22 0.02 14.79 10.19 12.28 2.25 20.54
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.20 2051.88 0.32 0.03 0.37 0.33 0.59 0.45 2.34 2.01 0.25 0.22 0.02 14.79 10.19 12.28 2.25 20.54
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.24 2051.93 0.31 0.03 0.41 0.38 0.66 0.51 2.42 2.11 0.27 0.24 0.02 17.17 12.48 14.64 2.64 24.10
24/07/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.25 2051.93 0.32 0.03 0.42 0.38 0.67 0.51 2.44 2.11 0.28 0.24 0.02 17.77 12.48 14.89 2.73 24.92
12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.95 2051.64 0.31 0.03 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.12 1.84 1.53 0.10 0.08 0.02 2.66 1.40 1.93 0.35 3.18
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.95 2051.64 0.31 0.03 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.12 1.84 1.53 0.10 0.08 0.02 2.66 1.40 1.93 0.35 3.18
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.94 2051.62 0.32 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.09 1.82 1.49 0.10 0.06 0.02 2.32 0.94 1.47 0.27 2.47
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.94 2051.61 0.33 0.03 0.11 0.06 0.18 0.08 1.82 1.47 0.10 0.06 0.02 2.32 0.73 1.30 0.24 2.21
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.92 2051.61 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.08 1.78 1.47 0.08 0.06 0.02 1.68 0.73 1.11 0.20 1.83
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.92 2051.61 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.08 1.78 1.47 0.08 0.06 0.02 1.68 0.73 1.11 0.20 1.83
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.21 2051.90 0.31 0.03 0.38 0.35 0.61 0.47 2.36 2.05 0.26 0.23 0.02 15.38 11.10 13.06 2.36 21.51
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.20 2051.90 0.30 0.03 0.37 0.35 0.59 0.47 2.34 2.05 0.25 0.23 0.02 14.79 11.10 12.81 2.28 20.75

93
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.20 2051.90 0.30 0.03 0.37 0.35 0.59 0.47 2.34 2.05 0.25 0.23 0.02 14.79 11.10 12.81 2.28 20.75
9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.20 2051.89 0.31 0.03 0.37 0.34 0.59 0.46 2.34 2.03 0.25 0.23 0.02 14.79 10.64 12.55 2.27 20.66
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.17 2051.85 0.32 0.03 0.34 0.30 0.54 0.41 2.28 1.95 0.24 0.21 0.02 13.07 8.87 10.77 1.98 18.02
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.16 2051.83 0.33 0.03 0.33 0.28 0.53 0.38 2.26 1.91 0.23 0.20 0.02 12.51 8.02 10.02 1.87 17.01
26/07/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.14 2051.82 0.32 0.03 0.31 0.27 0.50 0.36 2.22 1.89 0.22 0.19 0.02 11.41 7.60 9.31 1.71 15.58
12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.94 2051.63 0.31 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.18 0.11 1.82 1.51 0.10 0.07 0.02 2.32 1.16 1.64 0.30 2.70
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.94 2051.63 0.31 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.18 0.11 1.82 1.51 0.10 0.07 0.02 2.32 1.16 1.64 0.30 2.70
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.92 2051.62 0.30 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.09 1.78 1.49 0.08 0.06 0.02 1.68 0.94 1.26 0.22 2.03
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.04 2051.62 0.42 0.04 0.21 0.07 0.34 0.09 2.02 1.49 0.17 0.06 0.02 6.35 0.94 2.44 0.51 4.68
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.36 2051.98 0.38 0.04 0.53 0.43 0.85 0.58 2.66 2.21 0.32 0.26 0.02 24.72 14.87 19.18 3.84 34.96
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.39 2051.99 0.40 0.04 0.56 0.44 0.90 0.59 2.72 2.23 0.33 0.27 0.02 26.70 15.36 20.25 4.16 37.88
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.33 2051.98 0.35 0.04 0.50 0.43 0.80 0.58 2.60 2.21 0.31 0.26 0.02 22.78 14.87 18.41 3.53 32.20
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.30 2051.96 0.34 0.04 0.47 0.41 0.75 0.55 2.54 2.17 0.30 0.26 0.02 20.87 13.91 17.04 3.22 29.37
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.35 2052.02 0.33 0.03 0.52 0.47 0.83 0.63 2.64 2.29 0.32 0.28 0.02 24.07 16.85 20.14 3.75 34.21
9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.45 2052.10 0.35 0.04 0.62 0.55 0.99 0.74 2.84 2.45 0.35 0.30 0.02 30.74 20.93 25.36 4.87 44.37
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.45 2052.10 0.35 0.04 0.62 0.55 0.99 0.74 2.84 2.45 0.35 0.30 0.02 30.74 20.93 25.36 4.87 44.37
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.43 2052.07 0.36 0.04 0.60 0.52 0.96 0.70 2.80 2.39 0.34 0.29 0.02 29.38 19.38 23.86 4.65 42.34
30/07/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.43 2052.07 0.36 0.04 0.60 0.52 0.96 0.70 2.80 2.39 0.34 0.29 0.02 29.38 19.38 23.86 4.65 42.34
 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.90 2051.59 0.31 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.05 1.74 1.43 0.06 0.04 0.02 1.12 0.38 0.65 0.12 1.07
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.90 2051.59 0.31 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.05 1.74 1.43 0.06 0.04 0.02 1.12 0.38 0.65 0.12 1.07
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.03 2051.70 0.33 0.03 0.20 0.15 0.32 0.20 2.00 1.65 0.16 0.12 0.02 5.89 3.12 4.29 0.80 7.29
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.02 2051.69 0.33 0.03 0.19 0.14 0.30 0.19 1.98 1.63 0.15 0.12 0.02 5.44 2.81 3.91 0.73 6.64
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.99 2051.66 0.33 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.26 0.15 1.92 1.57 0.13 0.09 0.02 4.17 1.93 2.83 0.53 4.81
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.93 2051.62 0.31 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.16 0.09 1.80 1.49 0.09 0.06 0.02 1.99 0.94 1.37 0.25 2.25
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.33 2052.01 0.32 0.03 0.50 0.46 0.80 0.62 2.60 2.27 0.31 0.27 0.02 22.78 16.35 19.30 3.54 32.28
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.29 2051.96 0.33 0.03 0.46 0.41 0.74 0.55 2.52 2.17 0.29 0.26 0.02 20.24 13.91 16.78 3.13 28.50
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.31 2051.99 0.32 0.03 0.48 0.44 0.77 0.59 2.56 2.23 0.30 0.27 0.02 21.50 15.36 18.17 3.34 30.40
9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.30 2051.97 0.33 0.03 0.47 0.42 0.75 0.57 2.54 2.19 0.30 0.26 0.02 20.87 14.39 17.33 3.23 29.44
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.16 2051.84 0.32 0.03 0.33 0.29 0.53 0.39 2.26 1.93 0.23 0.20 0.02 12.51 8.44 10.28 1.89 17.19
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.14 2051.71 0.43 0.05 0.31 0.16 0.50 0.22 2.22 1.67 0.22 0.13 0.02 11.41 3.45 6.27 1.33 12.17
26/08/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.08 2051.73 0.35 0.04 0.25 0.18 0.40 0.24 2.10 1.71 0.19 0.14 0.02 8.27 4.13 5.85 1.12 10.23
12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.88 2051.58 0.30 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.04 1.70 1.41 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.65 0.24 0.39 0.07 0.64
1:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.91 2051.59 0.31 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.05 1.75 1.43 0.07 0.04 0.02 1.26 0.38 0.69 0.13 1.15
2:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.05 2051.76 0.29 0.03 0.22 0.21 0.35 0.28 2.04 1.77 0.17 0.16 0.02 6.81 5.22 5.97 1.04 9.50
3:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.33 2052.02 0.31 0.03 0.50 0.47 0.80 0.63 2.60 2.29 0.31 0.28 0.02 22.78 16.85 19.59 3.54 32.25
4:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.03 2051.70 0.33 0.04 0.20 0.15 0.32 0.20 2.00 1.64 0.16 0.12 0.02 5.89 2.96 4.18 0.78 7.15
5:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.02 2051.66 0.36 0.04 0.19 0.11 0.30 0.15 1.98 1.57 0.15 0.09 0.02 5.44 1.93 3.24 0.63 5.74
6:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2052.02 2051.66 0.36 0.04 0.19 0.11 0.30 0.15 1.98 1.57 0.15 0.09 0.02 5.44 1.93 3.24 0.63 5.74
7:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.96 2051.64 0.32 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.21 0.12 1.86 1.53 0.11 0.08 0.02 3.02 1.40 2.06 0.38 3.44

94
8:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.92 2051.61 0.31 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.08 1.78 1.47 0.08 0.06 0.02 1.68 0.73 1.11 0.20 1.83
9:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.92 2051.60 0.32 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.07 1.78 1.45 0.08 0.05 0.02 1.68 0.55 0.96 0.18 1.60
10:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.90 2051.58 0.32 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.04 1.74 1.41 0.06 0.03 0.02 1.12 0.24 0.52 0.09 0.86
11:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.90 2051.58 0.32 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.04 1.74 1.41 0.06 0.03 0.02 1.12 0.24 0.52 0.09 0.86
27/08/2020 12:00 1.60 1.35 9.50 2051.90 2051.58 0.32 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.04 1.74 1.41 0.06 0.03 0.02 1.12 0.24 0.52 0.09 0.86
 Upper Lower Cross
Conduit Conduit longitudinal conduit conduit Difference Average sectional Perimeter Hydraulic Velocity Flow
sub catchment conduit Shape average average slope of Conduit inverted inverted in slope of area of of mean from time Discharge
ID ID characteristics width depth trapezoidal length(m) elevation elevation elevation conduit Condit conduit depth manning’s (Tf) in (cms)

8 trapezoidal 0.55 0.6 0.75 570 2056.7 2055.1 1.6 0.003 1 2.05 0.488 2.525 3.762 2.5253753

9 trapezoidal 0.65 0.6 0.75 600 2055.1 2046.7 8.4 0.014 1.1 2.15 0.512 5.822 1.718 6.4042085

10 trapezoidal 0.65 0.6 0.75 520 2046.7 2043 3.7 0.007 1.1 2.15 0.512 4.151 2.088 4.5656292
1 11 rectangular 0.84 0.75 320 2043 2027 16 0.050 0.63 2.34 0.269 0.717 7.437 4.5182
21 trapezoidal 1.6 0.65 1.365 739 2059.16 2048.97 10.19 0.014 2.48725 3.799739 0.655 6.810 1.809 16.9376
22 rectangular 1 1.3 110 2048.97 2047.83 1.14 0.010 1.3 3.6 0.361 0.397 4.617 5.1624
23 rectangular 0.9 1.2 116 2047.83 2046.34 1.49 0.013 1.08 3.3 0.327 0.414 4.670 4.4715
2 24 rectangular 1.2 1.5 129.3 2046.34 2043 3.34 0.026 1.8 4.2 0.429 0.703 3.066 12.6498

95
31 rectangular 0.925 0.5 311.31 2060.88 2057.09 3.79 0.012 0.4625 1.925 0.240 0.328 15.818 1.5171
32 rectangular 0.8 0.75 59.36 2057.09 2056 1.09 0.018 0.6 2.3 0.261 0.426 2.325 2.5534
Appendix S Drainage Carrying capacity analysis Result

3 33 rectangular 0.775 0.74 196.46 2056 2051.07 4.93 0.025 0.5735 2.255 0.254 0.489 6.694 2.8052
4 41 rectangular 0.925 0.775 288.42 2058.48 2056.24 2.24 0.008 0.71688 2.475 0.290 0.297 16.198 2.1274
5 51 rectangular 0.66 0.65 304.79 2058.5 2056.24 2.26 0.007 0.429 1.96 0.219 0.241 21.116 1.0321
56 link_45 rectangular 1.6 1.2 203.44 2056.24 2051.07 5.17 0.025 1.92 4 0.480 0.752 4.510 14.4337
71 rectangular 0.7 0.55 664.06 2066 2054 12 0.018 0.385 1.8 0.214 0.370 29.926 1.4238
8 81 rectangular 0.9 0.65 110.4 2054 2053.2 0.8 0.007 0.585 2.2 0.266 0.271 6.795 1.5840
91 rectangular 0.7 0.65 366.79 2040.32 2031.2 9.12 0.025 0.455 2 0.228 0.452 13.524 2.0567
101 rectangular 0.7 0.65 373.58 2031.2 2023.03 8.17 0.022 0.455 2 0.2275 0.42393 14.687 1.9288913
9 112 trapezoidal 1.8 1.4 0.688 735.74 2023.03 2009.84 13.19 0.018 2.7632 5.198679 0.532 0.676 18.144 18.6742