Top > JDR > Implementation of Hydrological Model for the Malino Catchment ...

single-dr.php

JDR Vol.18 No.7 pp. 806-813
(2023)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2023.p0806

Paper:

Views over last 60 days: 174

Implementation of Hydrological Model for the Malino Catchment Area in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia

Ayuko Hirani Saleh*,† ORCID Icon, Akira Tai*, Shinichiro Yano*, and Mukhsan Putra Hatta**

*Department of Maritime Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyushu University
744 Motooka, Nishi, Fukuoka, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan

†Corresponding author

**Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Hasanuddin University
Makassar, Indonesia

Received:
February 22, 2023
Accepted:
June 29, 2023
Published:
October 1, 2023
Creative Commons License
Keywords:
hydrological model, rainfall-runoff, tank model, Malino Catchment Area (MCA), Jeneberang watershed’s continuity planning
Abstract

In South Sulawesi, the development of irrigation may be hindered by the continuing limitations and inadequacies of hydrological data. It is well known that the rainfall monitoring station is more extensive than the river flow monitoring station. Therefore, the Malino Catchment Area was selected to illustrate the theory of four tank components. The 1st tank (tank A) has two horizontal outlets (Qa1 and Qa2) and one vertical outlet (Ia); the 2nd tank (tank B) has one horizontal outlet (Qb) and one vertical outlet (Ib); the 3rd tank (tank C) has the same conceptual structure as tanks A and B; and the 4th tank (tank D) has only one horizontal outlet (Qd). To ensure that the tank model represents vertical and horizontal flows in a watershed region, the flows (Qa1, Qa2, Qb, Qc, and Qd) are predicted to accumulate in one flow, more or less, and must equal the measured discharge (Qo) at the specified time. Rainfall and evapotranspiration data are required to calculate this model. The 264.55 km2 (25902 ha) research area has an elevation range of 400–2400 masl. The findings for land use are dominated by plantations (41.01%), forests (40.79%), rice fields (15.44%), and residential areas (0.96%). In the calibration of the tank model, R2 is evaluated at 0.560% (good) and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency is evaluated at 0.526% (good) to ensure that the model can represent the distribution of water flow components. Additionally, the measurements for the total water flow (Qtotal) were 13702 m3/y with a total rainfall of 3996 mm/y. Furthermore, surface flow accounts for 77.26% of the total runoff water, while intermediate flow accounts for 20.25%.

Cite this article as:
A. Saleh, A. Tai, S. Yano, and M. Hatta, “Implementation of Hydrological Model for the Malino Catchment Area in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.18 No.7, pp. 806-813, 2023.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] M. Sugawara, “Automatic calibration of the tank model,” Hydrol. Sci. Bull., Vol.24, No.3, pp. 375-388, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491876
  2. [2] S. Shikasho and K. Tanaka, “Runoff analysis of low-lying drainage basins in Japan,” J. Irrig. Eng. Rural Plan., Vol.1985, No.8, pp. 5-17, 1985. https://doi.org/10.11408/jierp1982.1985.8_5
  3. [3] T. Fukuda, R. Jayadi, Y. Nakano, and M. Kuroda, “Application of complex tank model for evaluating performance of water operation in a reused water irrigation system,” J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ., Vol.44, Nos.1-2, pp. 189-198, 1999. https://doi.org/10.5109/24320
  4. [4] K. Mizumura, “Runoff prediction by simple tank model using recession curves,” J. Hydraul. Eng., Vol.121, No.11, pp. 812-818, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9429(1995)121:11(812)
  5. [5] Y. Fujihara, H. Tanakamaru, T. Hata, and A. Tada, “Performance evaluation of rainfall-runoff models using multi-objective optimization approach,” Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Hydrol. Water Resour. Asia Pac. Reg., Vol.2, pp. 575-582, 2004.
  6. [6] F. Noto, T. Maruya, Y. Hayase, H. Takimoto, and K. Nakamura, “Evaluation of water resources by snow storage using water balance and tank model method in the Tedori River basin of Japan,” Paddy Water Environ., Vol.11, pp. 113-121, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-011-0297-8
  7. [7] Y. Yokoo, T. Chiba, Y. Shikano, and C. Leong, “Identifying dominant runoff mechanisms and their lumped modeling: A data-based modeling approach,” Hydrol. Res. Lett., Vol.11, No.2, pp. 128-133, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3178/hrl.11.128
  8. [8] K.-U. Kim et al., “Evaluation of the tank model optimized parameter for watershed modeling,” J. Korean Soc. Agric. Eng., Vol.56, No.4, pp. 9-19, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5389/ksae.2014.56.4.009
  9. [9] K. Paik, J. H. Kim, H. S. Kim, and D. R. Lee, “A conceptual rainfall-runoff model considering seasonal variation,” Hydrol. Process., Vol.19, No.19, pp. 3837-3850, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5984
  10. [10] R.-S. Chen, L.-C. Pi, and Y.-H. Huang, “Analysis of rainfall-runoff relation in paddy fields by diffusive tank model,” Hydrol. Process., Vol.17, No.13, pp. 2541-2553, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1266
  11. [11] Y.-K. Hsu, S.-H. Peng, and C.-W. Tsai, “Peak discharge and hydrograph assessments induced by heavy rainfall events using tank model,” MATEC Web Conf., Vol.207, 02001, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201820702001
  12. [12] H. N. Phien and P. S. S. Pradhan, “The tank model in rainfall-runoff modelling,” Water SA, Vol.9, No.3, pp. 93-102, 1983.
  13. [13] K. K. Kuok, S. Harun, and S. M. Shamsuddin, “Global optimization methods for calibration and optimization of the hydrologic tank model’s parameters,” Can. J. Civ. Eng., Vol.1, No.1, pp. 1-14, 2010.
  14. [14] K. K. Kuok, S. Harun, and P. Chiu, “Investigation best number of tanks for hydrological tank model for rural catchment in humid region,” Inst. Eng. Malays., Vol.72, No.4, pp. 1-11, 2011.
  15. [15] K. Musiake and S. Wijesekera, “Stream flow modelling of Sri Lankan catchments (2) – Kalu River Catchment at Putupaula –,” Seisan-Kenkyu, Vol.42, No.11, pp. 645-648, 1990.
  16. [16] T. A. Ngoc, L. V. Chinh, K. Hiramatsu, and M. Harada, “Parameter identification for two conceptual hydrological models of upper Dau Tleng River watershed in Vietnam,” J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ., Vol.56, No.2, pp. 335-341, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5109/20329
  17. [17] B. I. Setiawan, “Optimasi Parameter Tank Model,” Buletin Keteknikan Pertanian, Vol.17, No.1. pp. 8-16, 2003 (in Indonesian).
  18. [18] P. D. H. Ardana and J. Sofiyanto, “Aplikasi Model Hidrograf Regresi Linier dan Model Tangki Dalam Transformasi Curah Hujan Limpasan (Studi Kasus: DAS Tukad Penatu),” ResearchGate, 2013 (in Indonesian). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23303.96163
  19. [19] D. W. Pratiwi, R. Hadiani, and S. Suyanto, “Transformasi Hujan-Debit Berdasarkan Analisis Tank Model Dan GR2M di DAS Dengkeng,” Pros. Semnastek 2016 (in Indonesian).
  20. [20] M. Córdova, G. Carrillo-Rojas, P. Crespo, B. Wilcox, and R. Célleri, “Evaluation of the Penman-Monteith (FAO 56 PM) method for calculating reference evapotranspiration using limited data,” Mt. Res. Dev., Vol.35, No.3, pp. 230-239, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-14-0024.1
  21. [21] D. M. Hamby, “A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models,” Environ. Monit. Assess., Vol.32, No.2, pp. 135-154, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00547132
  22. [22] J. E. Nash and J. V. Sutcliffe, “River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part I – A discussion of principles,” J. Hydrol., Vol.10, No.3, pp. 282-290, 1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
  23. [23] L. Foglia, M. C. Hill, S. W. Mehl, and P. Burlando, “Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and testing of a distributed hydrological model using error-based weighting and one objective function,” Water Resour. Res., Vol.45, No.6, W06427, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007255
  24. [24] G. Suntoro (supervised by T. Sayama), “Development of rainfall runoff model for Bogowonto river basin by using tank model,” ICHARM, 2008.

Creative Commons License  This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Apr. 22, 2024