This study compared simulated and observed runoff hydrographs to evaluate the adequacy of the estimated parameters. Figure 2 shows some example cases of the Panungyo basin (#15), whose basic information is summarized in Table 2. As can be seen in Figure 2, there was no significant difference between the simulated and observed hydrographs. This result confirms that the parameters were properly estimated.
Close modal
Table 2
Information and estimated parameters for the rainfall events as examples
| Category | Event #1 | Event #2 | Event #3 | Event #4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start of the rainfall event | 4 July 1997, 14:00 | 12 July 2009, 0:00 | 14 July 2009, 1:00 | 9 July 2017, 23:00 |
| End of the rainfall event | 5 July 1997, 12:00 | 12 July 2009, 18:00 | 15 July 2009, 1:00 | 11 July 2017, 6:00 |
| Duration (h) | 23 | 19 | 25 | 32 |
| Total rainfall (mm) | 60 | 176.3 | 124.9 | 100.8 |
| Peak velocity (m/s) | 1.6 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 1.9 |
| Peak discharge (m3/s) | 388.2 | 1,861.2 | 1,391.1 | 675.2 |
| Peak time (h) | 28.0 | 19.0 | 28.0 | 34.0 |
| Time of concentration (h) | 14.1 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 11.7 |
| Storage coefficient (h) | 19.5 | 9.7 | 10.5 | 17.4 |
| Category | Event #1 | Event #2 | Event #3 | Event #4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start of the rainfall event | 4 July 1997, 14:00 | 12 July 2009, 0:00 | 14 July 2009, 1:00 | 9 July 2017, 23:00 |
| End of the rainfall event | 5 July 1997, 12:00 | 12 July 2009, 18:00 | 15 July 2009, 1:00 | 11 July 2017, 6:00 |
| Duration (h) | 23 | 19 | 25 | 32 |
| Total rainfall (mm) | 60 | 176.3 | 124.9 | 100.8 |
| Peak velocity (m/s) | 1.6 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 1.9 |
| Peak discharge (m3/s) | 388.2 | 1,861.2 | 1,391.1 | 675.2 |
| Peak time (h) | 28.0 | 19.0 | 28.0 | 34.0 |
| Time of concentration (h) | 14.1 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 11.7 |
| Storage coefficient (h) | 19.5 | 9.7 | 10.5 | 17.4 |
Figure 2
Comparison of the simulated hydrograph and observation data (Observed: discharge converted from the observed water level using the rating curve; Observed*: discharge calculated by multiplying the flow velocity and the cross-sectional area). (a) Event #1, (b) Event #2, (c) Event #3 and (d) Event #4.
Figure 2
Comparison of the simulated hydrograph and observation data (Observed: discharge converted from the observed water level using the rating curve; Observed*: discharge calculated by multiplying the flow velocity and the cross-sectional area). (a) Event #1, (b) Event #2, (c) Event #3 and (d) Event #4.