See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226560407

Derivation of Unit Hydrograph from GIUH Analysis for a Himalayan River

Article  in  Water Resources Management · January 2003

DOI: 10.1023/A:1025884903120

CITATIONS READS

54 578

2 authors:

Vikrant Jain Rajiv Sinha

Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
61 PUBLICATIONS   1,600 CITATIONS    205 PUBLICATIONS   4,691 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structure and Tectonics of the Himalaya View project

Sub-surface stratigraphy and chronology of the Ghaggar-Hakra plains: linkage of landscape evolution and cultural heritage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vikrant Jain on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Water Resources Management 17: 355–375, 2003.
355
© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Derivation of Unit Hydrograph from GIUH

Analysis for a Himalayan River

VIKRANT JAIN and R. SINHA∗

Engineering Geology Group, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur 208016, India
(∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: rsinha@iitk.ac.in)

(Received: 16 April 2002; accepted: 26 May 2003)

Abstract. Unit Hydrograph (UH) is the most popular and widely used method for predicting flood
hydrograph resulting from a known storm in a basin area. However, the non-availability of UH due
to poor network of raingauge stations in flood prone Indian river basins is a major concern. The com-
putation of Horton’s ratios and their application in generating the Geomorphological Instantaneous
Unit Hydrograph (GIUH) can provide a solution for ungauged rivers. A detailed drainage network
analysis was carried out for a 5th order flood- prone Himalayan river system in order to highlight its
significance in flood management program. The equations for GIUH of 5th order stream were derived
through Markov Chain analysis. The GIUH model for the 5th order stream was used to derive the first
ever analytical UH of the river. Further, it was applied to determine the 50-yr return period flood. The
50-yr return period flood matches with the result of flood frequency analysis based on observed peak
discharge data. This drainage network analysis and application of GIUH can provide a significant
contribution towards flood management program.

Key words: GIUH, unit hydrograph, Himalayan rivers, flood, geomorphometry

1. Introduction
Geomorphometry-hydrology relationship provides the geomorphological control
on basin hydrology. The role of basin geomorphology in controlling the hydro-
logical response of a river basin is known for a long time. Earlier works (Bar-
low, 1915; Strange, 1928; Inglis and Desouza, 1929; Snyder, 1938; Horton, 1945;
Taylor and Schwartz, 1952) have provided an understanding of basin geomorphol-
ogy-hydrology relationship through empirical relations. Snyder (1938) proposed
that catchment area, shape of basin, topography, channel slope, stream density
and channel storage affects the shape of hydrograph. On that basis, he proposed
an empirical equation of unit hydrograph (called synthetic unit hydrograph-SUH)
based on catchment area, shape of the basin and averaging out other parameters
with a coefficient. Further advancement was made by different workers notably
by Clark (1945), Nash (1960) and Koutsoyiannis and Xanthopoulos (1989). Clark
(1945) incorporated the storage characteristics of river basin during determina-
tion of unit hydrograph (UH) and showed the influence of shape of drainage area
356 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

upon the shape of the hydrograph. Nash (1960) correlated the Instantaneous Unit
Hydrograph (IUH) with seven different topographical characteristics (viz. basin
area, length of longest stream to the catchment boundary, two different measure of
the main channel slope, overland slope, variation in the overland slope and mean
stream intervals) for 90 stations in 23 river basins in Britain based on regression
analysis and derived a general equation for IUH. Koutsoyiannis and Xanthopoulos
(1989) highlighted the advantage of parametric approaches for derivation of unit
hydrograph in order to establish a relationship between the UH and catchment
characteristics. However, these relationships are characterised by some constants,
which represent the ‘ensemble average’ of geomorphological control on the river
discharge. Significant progress has been made in the recent years towards the
‘quantitative assessment’ of geomorphologic control on the basin hydrology not-
ably after Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes’s (1979) theoretical model of Geomorpho-
logical Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (GIUH), through which a river hydrograph
can be determined from the input of Horton’s morphometric parameters and aver-
age channel velocity. Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979) provided a set of basic
equations for a 3rd order basin. This quantitative understanding opened a new
dimension in the hydrological analysis, specially for the ungauged river basin. This
GIUH model has been used successfully for rainfall-runoff analysis of some river
basins in Venezuela and Puerto-Rico (Valdes et al., 1979; Rodriguez-Iturbe et al.,
1979).
The Himalayan river basins are one of the worst flood affected regions in the
world (Agarwal and Narain, 1996). The flood management in these basins through
conventional methods such as hydrograph analysis or runoff models is difficult
due to absence of adequate number of raingauge stations. The application of the
GIUH to derive the unit hydrograph of river basin can therefore provide a suitable
approach. Further, the GIUH provides the hydrological response of a river basin on
the basis of its physical characteristics defined by Horton’s morphometric ratios.
This approach has an advantage over traditional methods in that the effects of the
morphometric characteristics on basin hydrology are well-understood. Further, the
hydrological response of smaller sub-basins can also be obtained using the GIUH
approach, and hence, the contribution of different tributaries to flood hazard in
river basin can be analysed. Again, the comparison of GIUH for two different river
basins would provide a better comparison between hydrological responses of the
basins having distinctive morphometric characteristics. On the other hand, SUHs
are based on coefficients, which are region specific, and hence, it is difficult to
compare two river basins on the basis of SUH only.
Recently, some workers have used the functional relationship of the GIUH
developed by Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979) to estimate the values of hy-
drograph peak (qp ) and time to peak (tp ) of UH for the rivers in western Indian
(Bhaskar and Devulapalli, 1991; Jain et al., 2000). The morphometric paramet-
ers were computed using the ARCINFO GIS software and taken as input for the
estimation of qp and tp . These hydrograph parameters were further used for the
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 357

Figure 1. Location map and drainage network of Baghmati River basin.

evaluation of Clark Model parameters to finally compute IUH of the basin. How-
ever, a proper derivation of GIUH for higher order streams and its validation were
not carried out in this study.
This paper presents the derivation of 5th order GIUH equations and develop-
ment of a unit hydrograph for an ungauged 5th order Himalayan river draining
the north Bihar Plains, eastern India. This is followed by computation of 50-yr
return period flood from GIUH, which has been validated from flood frequency
358 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

analysis. The plains of north Bihar in eastern India are severely affected by regular
and extensive floods (Kale, 1997; Sinha and Jain, 1998). Considering this fact, a
river draining the north Bihar plains, namely, the Baghmati River has been chosen
for the present study (Fig. 1). The Baghmati River causes havoc due to severity
of floods every year. The total damage during a period of 20 years (1971–1990) is
of the order of a whopping Rs. 600 million. In the absence of raingauge stations
in the upstream mountainous basin area lying in Nepal, it is difficult to derive the
unit hydrograph for Baghmati River for any site in the plains (GFCC, 1991). A
Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) is normally used by the Ganga Flood Control
Commission, the parameters for which are based from neighbouring river basins
i.e. Son basin, Middle Gangetic plains, Lower Gangetic plains and Mahanadi Basin
(GFCC, 1991). The existing SUH therefore does not provide good estimate of the
flood discharge. This poses a great difficulty in designing of hydraulic structures
on the river and/or development of flood forecasting and warning systems based on
rainfall. Keeping this in view, the GIUH model for the Baghmati River presented
in this paper should serve as a significant contribution.

2. The Baghmati River: Hydrology and Flood Characteristics

The Baghmati River is a foothills-fed river (Sinha and Friend, 1994), originating
from the Nepal Himalaya at an elevation of 1500 m and draining around 8440 km2
area. Out of this, 4720 km2 of area (about 56% of the total area) lies in Nepal and
rest in north Bihar. The average annual rainfall in the river basin is about 1250 mm
and almost 85% of the rainfall occurs in the monsoon season (June-September)
itself (GFCC, 1991). Because of this sudden increase in rainfall, the channels of
Baghmati River system receive exceptionally high discharge during the monsoon
season. Figure 2 shows a plot of peak discharge values for the upstream (Dheng-
bridge, 1970–89) and downstream (Hayaghat, 1956–89) stations (see Fig. 1 for
location). The available data suggest that the peak discharges at both the stations
are quite variable and unpredictable. Table I summarizes the flood hydrology of the
Baghmati River at Dhengbridge and Hayaghat stations. The most probable flood,
mean annual flood and 50-yr, 100-yr return period flood were computed through
flood frequency analysis using Gumbel’s probability distribution. Further details
on morphology, hydrology and fluvial dynamics of the Baghmati river are available
from GFCC (1991), Sinha and Friend (1994), Sinha (1998), Sinha and Jain (1998)
and Jain and Sinha (2003, in press-a).

3. Data Used and Approach for Present Work

Hydrological data was obtained from various agencies in India viz. Central Wa-
ter Commission (CWC), Ganga Flood Control Commission (GFCC), Patna, and
Center for Water Resource Station (CWRS), Patna to study the hydrological char-
acteristics of the Baghmati river. For morphometric analysis, a detailed drainage
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 359

Figure 2. Peak discharge variation in Baghmati River at Dhengbridge and Hayaghat.

Table I. Hydrological characteristics of the Baghmati River

Parameter Dhengbridge (u/s) Hayaghat (d/s)

(m3 /sec) (m3 /sec)

Average Annual Discharge (Qm ) 156 189

Bankfull discharge (Qb ) 1100 870
Max. Observed Discharge (Qobs ) 3033 2617
Most probable flood (Qmp ) (T= 1.58 yrs.) 1155 834
Mean annual flood (Qma ) (T=2.33 yrs.) 1473 1076
Flood Discharge (T=50 years) 3298 2606
Flood Discharge (T=100 years) 3681 2927

map was prepared using the Survey of India topographic sheets of 1:50,000 scale
and it was sub-divided into different sub-basins for morphometric analysis (Fig.
1). Morphometric analysis involved the computation of stream number, average
stream length and average stream area of different sub-basins of the Baghmati
basin following Strahler’s ordering (1956) scheme. These parameters were used
to determine the Horton’s Raito (Table II). The results of morphometric analysis
(Table III) were used to develop the Geomorphologic Instantaneous Unit Hydro-
graph (GIUH) for the Baghmati basin. The results of the GIUH analysis were
360 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

Table II. Morphometric parameters (after Horton, 1971)

Parameter Definition Relationships

Bifurcation Ratio (RB ) Ratio of number of streams RB = Nu−1 / Nu

Nu = no. of streams of order u
Length Ratio (RL ) Ratio of average length of RL = L̄u / L̄u−1
streams L̄u = Avg. length of streams of order u
Area Ratio (RA ) Ratio of average area of RA = Āu / Āu−1
streams Āu = Avg. basin area of streams of order u

Table III. Geomorphometric parameters of the Baghmati River Basin

Sub-basin Equivalent to Bifurcation ratio Length ratio Area ratio

I – 3.000 1.655 3.510

II – 3.292 1.442 3.788
III I+II 3.417 1.501 3.863
IV III+. . . 4.207 1.979 5.051
V – 2.767 1.396 3.334
VI IV+V 3.122 1.729 3.684
VII VI+. . . 3.272 2.102 3.803
VIII VII+. . . 3.330 2.001 4.472
IX VIII+. . . 3.356 2.684 4.781
X – 2.833 2.677 5.277
XI – 2.250 3.734 3.420
XII IX+X+XI 3.531 3.073 5.336
XIII XII+. . . 3.531 3.681 5.411
XIV – 3.536 2.727 4.754
XV XIII+XIV+. . . 3.506 2.767 5.102

used in computing the Unit Hydrograph (UH) of the Baghmati River at Dheng-
bridge station (Figure 1). A 50-yr return period flood was calculated from this UH.
This 50-yr return period flood was compared with the results of flood frequency
analysis, carried out with the observed peak discharge data from 1956 to 1990.

4. Derivation of GIUH for Baghmati River

The Geomorphologic Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (GIUH) is defined as the
probability density function for the time of arrival of a randomly chosen drop to
the trapping state (Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes, 1979). The general equation of
GIUH is a function of Horton’s numbers i.e. Bifurcation Ratio (RB ), Area Ratio
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 361

(RA ), Length Ratio (RL ), Length of highest order stream (L
) and mean velocity
of streamflow (v) (Table II). In order to understand the geomorphometrical control
on river hydrology and to develop the Unit Hydrograph (UH) of Baghmati River,
the GIUH was derived for the Baghmati River. In deriving the GIUH of a river
basin, it is assumed that excess rainfall of unit volume is uniformly distributed
over the basin and is instantaneously imposed upon it.
The general equation of GIUH for an Nth order stream will be expressed as
(after Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes, 1979),

dθN+2 (t)

N
dφi(N+2) (t)
= θi (0) (1)
dt i=1
dt

where:
θN (t) State probability, defined as probability that the process (drop) is
found in state (N+2) at time interval ‘t’.
θi (0) Initial state probability, defined as probability that the process starts
at state ‘i’
φi(N+2) (t) Interval transition probability from state ‘i’ to state N+2, defined as
probability that process (drop) entered state ‘i’ at time ‘t’.
The final stage is taken as N+2 for stream of order N because of exponential
distribution of mean waiting time. The general equations of GIUH are based on
Semi Markov process (Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes, 1979). In a Semi Markov
process, mean waiting time is assumed to be governed by exponential distribution.
However, for highest order stream, the exponential distribution does not apply well,
as its origin shifts from zero value. Therefore, the highest order stream (
=N)
is divided into two parts (
a and
b ) where
a (=N) receive all discharge from
lower order stream and
b (=N+1) receives all discharge from
a and finally these
volume of water is collected at the trapping state (=N+2) at the outlet of the basin
From geomorphometric analysis, the Baghmati River works out to be a 5th order
stream (see Fig. 1). For the 5th order stream, the GIUH equation for the Baghmati
River will be expressed from equation 1 as,

dθ7 (t) dφ17 (t) dφ27 (t) dφ37 (t)

= θ1 (0). + θ2 (0). + θ3 (0). + θ4 (0).
dt dt dt dt
(2)
dφ47 (t) dφ57 (t)
+ θ5 (0).
dt dt

Solving the above equation would involve determination of transition state prob-
ability (φ iN ) and initial state probability (θ N (0)). The derivation of these paramet-
ers was initiated with the generation of probability matrices for the Baghmati River.
The following sections discuss the computation of these parameters.
362 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

4.1. CALCULATION OF TRANSITION STATE PROBABILITY (φiN )

The transform of interval transition probability matrix φ(t) and the transition rate
matrix are given as (Howard, 1971)
φ e (t) = [sI - A]–1 and A = (P - I) (3)
Where, s is a transformation parameter, I is the identity matrix, A is the trans-
ition rate matrix, P is the transition matrix,  is the inverse of mean waiting time
matrix. The P and  matrix for Baghmati River were determined according to
Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979). The final matrix [sI - A]–1 is given as:
[sI-A]−1 =
 
 a λ1 .p12 .ab −h.c −d.α −e(β + λ4 .d.α) −e.j −2.λ5 .e.j/s 
 
0 b λ2 .p23 .bc −d.γ −e(θ + λ4 .d.γ ) −e.k −2.λ5 .e.k/s 
0 −e.i −e.l −2.λ5 .e.l/s 
 0 c λ4 .p34 .c.d 
0 0 0 d λ4 .d.e −e.m −2.λ5 .e.m/s  (4)
 
0 0 0 0 e 2.λ5 .e2 (2.λ5 .e)2 /s 
0 
 0 0 0 0 e 2.λ5 .e/s 
0 0 0 0 0 0 1/s 

where:
a = 1/(s + λ1 ); b = 1/(s + λ2 ); c = 1/(s + λ3 );

d = 1/(s + λ4 ); e = 1/(s + 2λ5 );

−λ1 p14 λ1 λ2 p24 p12 −λ1 p15 λ1 λ2 p25 p12

f = − g= − ;
s + λ1 (s + λ1 )(s + λ2 ) s + λ1 (s + λ1 )(s + λ2 )
−λ1 p13 λ1 λ2 p12 p23 −λ3 p35 λ3 λ4 p34
h= − i= − ;
s + λ1 (s + λ1 )(s + λ2 ) s + λ3 (s + λ3 )(s + λ4 )
   
2λ5 λ4 γ 2λ5 λ4 γ
j= β+ . k= θ+
(s + 2λ5 ) s + λ4 (s + 2λ5 ) s + λ4

2λ5 i 2λ4 λ5
l= ; m=−
(s + 2λ5 ) (s + λ4 )(s + 2λ5 )
λ3 p34 h λ3 p35 h
α=f + ; β =g+
(s + λ3 ) s + λ3
−λ2 p24 λ2 λ3 p23 p24 −λ2 p25 λ2 λ3 p23 p35
γ = − θ= −
s + λ2 (s + λ2 )(s + λ3 ) s + λ2 (s + λ2 )(s + λ3 )

In partial fraction expansion form, the matrix [sI-A]−1 can be represented as,
[sI -A ]−1 =
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 363
1 1 1 1 1
[aij ] + [bij ] + + [cij ] + [dij ] + [eij ]+
s s + λ1 s + λ2 s + λ3 s + λ4
(5)
1 1
[fij ] + [gij ]
(s + 2λ5 ) 2 s + 2λ5
Where aij , bij , cij , dij , eij , fij and gij are the coefficients, whose values are de-
termined later.
Hence, with the use of Equation 3, the interval transition probability matrix
through inverse exponential transformation is given as,
φij (t) = [aij ] + e−λ1 t [bij ] + e −λ2 t [cij ] + e −λ3 t [dij ]

+ e −λ4 t [eij ] + e −2λ5 t t[fij ] + e −2λ5 t [gij ] (6)

For the GIUH computation, the elements φi7 (t) of matrix φ(t), i = 1,5 are
needed which represent the probability for a randomly chosen drop in state i to
reach the outlet (N=7) at time t. Hence, for solving the values of φi7 (t) form Equa-
tion 6, the values of ai7 , bi7 , ci7 , di7 , ei7 , fi7 , gi7 were determined, which came out
as the function of transition probability (pij ) and inverse of mean waiting time (λi ).
Computation of these two parameters is discussed in the following subsections.

4.1.1. Calculation of Transition Probability (pij )

Transition probabilities (pij ) defined as the probability that a drop goes from a
stream of order i to a stream of order j . Therefore it can be defined as
number of streams of order 1 draining into order i
p1i = ; i = 2, 3, 4, 5. (7)
total number of stream of order 1
As for the Equations 5 and 6, the computation of following transition probabilit-
ies is needed for the 5th order Baghmati River – p12 , p13 , p14 , p15 , p23 , p24 , p25 , p34
and p35. The value of pij was determined according to procedure adopted in Rodri-
guez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979) and all the transition probabilities were derived and
expressed in Table IV.

4.1.2. Calculation of Mean Waiting Time (λ−1

i )

The waiting time of a drop in a state of order i is assumed to be a random vari-

able exponentially distributed with parameter λi , where λi is the inverse of the
mean waiting time. Thus λ−1 i is the mean time spent by a drop in state ‘i’ when
consideration has been made of both the time spent as overland flow and the time
spent as streamflow. The importance of the overland waiting time appears to be
rather smaller than that of the stream waiting time, as the drops draining directly
by overland flow are considerably fewer in number. Therefore, λi is expressed as
the inverse of the mean waiting time in streams of order i. (Rodriguez-Iturbe and
Valdes, 1979).
364 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

Table IV. Transition probabilites (pij ) for the Baghmati River

7 + 6R 6 − 6R 5 − 3R 4 − 6R 3 + 4R 2 + 4R − 2
4RB B B B B B B
p12 = 7 − 4R 6 − 4R 5 − 2R 4 + 2R 3 + 2R 2 − R
8RB B B B B B B
6 − 5R 5 + 2R 4 − 2R 3 + 5R 2 − 2R
2RB B B B B B
p13 = 6 − 4R 5 − 4R 4 − 2R 3 + 2R 2 + 2R − 1
8RB B B B B B

RB6 − 2R 5 − R 4 + R 3 + 2R 2 + R − 2
B B B B B
p14 = 6 5 4 3 2
8RB − 4RB − 4RB − 2RB + 2RB + 2RB − 1
7 − 3R 6 + R 5 + 2R 4 + R 3 − R 2 − 3R + 2
RB B B B B B B
p15 = 7 6 5 4 3 2
8RB − 4RB − 4RB − 2RB + 2RB + 2RB − RB
3 + 2R 2 − 2
RB
p23 = B
3 −R
2RB B
3 − 2R 2 − R + 2
RB B B
p24 = 3 − 2R 2 − 2R + 1
4RB B B
3 + R 2 + 3R − 2
RB − 3RB B B
p25 = 4 − 2R 3 − 2R 2 + R
4RB B B B
2 + 2R − 2
RB B
p34 = 2 −R
2RB B
2 − 3R + 2
RB B
p35 = 2 −R
2RB B

λi can be determined as a function of either L̄1 or L
.. As the measurement of

length of first order stream (L1 ) is more dependent on the scale, the percentage of
error remains higher for first order streams. Hence, λi has been taken as a function
of L
. For the analysis of the Baghmati River, the mathematical expression of λ5
will be given as,
λ5 = ν/L̄
(=5) (8)
where v is the average velocity in the basin area and L
is the length of 5th order
stream in Baghmati River basin.
The mean waiting time for lower order streams can thus be expressed as,
ν ν L̄5
λ4 = = ∗ ; or λ4 = λ5 .RL ; (9)
L̄4 L̄5 L̄4

Similarly, λ3 = λ5 .RL2 ; λ2 = λ5 .RL3 ; and λ1 = λ5 .RL4 (10)

where RL is the Length Ratio (see Table II for definition).

DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 365

The expression of mean waiting time assumes that for a given rainfall-runoff
event, the velocity at any moment is approximately the same throughout the whole
drainage network (Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes, 1979). The assumption is based
on the pioneer work of Leopold (1953) and Leopold and Maddock (1953) and has
been experimentally validated by many workers (Langbein, 1964; Carlston, 1969;
Calkins and Dunne, 1970; Pilgrim, 1966, 1976, 1977).

4.2. COMPUTATION OF INITIAL STATE PROBABILITY [θi (0)]

Initial state probability is defined as the probability that the drop starts its travel in
a stream of order i. For 5th order Baghmati River, the initial state probability will
be given as,
A∗i
θi (0) = (11)
AT
where A∗i (i = 1,2,3,4,5) represents the sub-basin area for order i draining directly
into a stream of order i and AT is the total basin area.
Initial state probability is determined through the calculation for all orders. For
first order sub-basin, total area draining directly into stream of order 1 will be given
as,

A∗1 = N1 Ā1 (12)

Where N1 is the number of 1st order streams and Ā1 is average area of 1st order
sub-basins.
However, for θ 2 (0), θ 3 (0), θ 4 (0) and θ 5 (0) different procedure will be adopted.
Basin area of streams of order 1 draining directly into stream of order 2 will be
given as, N1 p12
Further, number of streams is expressed as bifurcation ratio as,
N1 N2 N3 N4
N1 = . . . = RB4
N2 N3 N4 N5 (= 1)
Similarly, N2 = RB3 , N3 = RB2 , N4 = RB
Therefore,

N1 p12 = RB4 (p12 ) (13)

Thus, the area draining directly into second order streams will be given by,

A∗2 = N2 Ā2 − Ā1 (RB4 p12 ) = RB3 Ā2 − Ā1 (RB4 p12 ) (14)

Where, Ā2 average area of 2nd order sub-basins.

Similarly, A∗i , i = 3, 4, 5 were determined, and finally the values of initial state
probability are given in the Table V.
366 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

Table V. Initial state probabilities [θi (0)] for the Baghmati River

N1 Ā1
θ1 (0) =
A5
   
RB 3 RB 4
θ2 (0) = − p12
RA RA
     
RB 2 RB 3 RB 4
θ3 (0) = − p23 − p13
RA RA RA
       
RB RB 2 RB 3 RB 4
θ4 (0) = − p34 − p24 − p14
RA RA RA RA
       
RB RB 2 RB 3 RB 4
θ5 (0) = 1 − − p35 − p25 − p15
RA RA RA RA

4.3. FINAL GIUH EQUATION FOR THE BAGHMATI RIVER

From the general GIUH equation of Baghmati River (Eq. 2), it follows that the
GIUH is a function of initial state probability [θ i (0)] and transitional state probab-
ility (φ ij ) i.e.

GIUH = f {θi (0), φij }

It follows from the equations of φ ij (equation 6) and θ i (0) (Table V), that

θi (0) = f {RB , RA , pij } (15)

φij = f {RB , pij , λi } (16)

Where from Table IV, pij = f {RB }

and from equation 9 and 10, λi = f {v, L̄
(=5) , RL }
Hence,

GIUH = f {RA , RB , RL , ν, L5 } (17)

It follows, therefore, that the GIUH is essentially a function of geomorphomet-

ric parameters of the basin and its stream velocity.
The GIUH at Dhengbridge station of Baghmati River was computed through a
computer program, the code for which was written in C. The morphometric values
at Dhengbridge site were obtained from the geomorphometric analysis (Table III).
Rodriguez-Iturbe et al. (1979) suggested that constant velocity corresponding to
peak discharge (maximum stage) value provides right value of hydrograph peak
(qp ) and time to peak (tp ) of GIUH, as most of the flow remains concentrated
around peak velocity in a histogram of the velocity distribution of whole period
of outflow. Hence, the average stream velocity at maximum stage of 71 meter
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 367

from the available 1988 data at Dhengbridge was taken as 1.63 m/sec (5.87 km/hr)
(from stage-velocity, stage-discharge curves, CWC, Patna). This maximum stage
was corresponding to discharge of 1256 cumecs with a return period of 1.9 years,
which is in between the values of most probable flood (1155 cumecs, T=1.58 yrs)
and mean annual flood (1473 cumecs, T=2.33 years) (Table I). The ordinate values
of GIUH were obtained at different time intervals, through the GIUH equations.
These values were plotted to obtain the GIUH of the river at Dhengbridge. The
peak discharge and time to peak of the geomorphic IUH were obtained as 175. 86
cumecs and 10 hrs respectively (Fig. 3a). It was noted that functional relationship
obtained through regression analysis after Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979)
provides approximately same value of qp and tp , these function relationship are
expressed as:
qp = 1.31.L−1 0.43

.RL .ν (18)

tp = 0.44.L
.RB0.55 .RA−0.55.RL−0.38 .ν −1 (19)

After substituting the values of Horton’s morphometric ratio, length of max-

imum order channel (80.75 km) and average channel velocity (1.63 m/sec), the
value of qp and tp was obtained as 175.44 cumecs and 10.5 hrs respectively. How-
ever, further hydrologic analysis and its validation can not be carried out with
these functional relationships alone. The 1-hr unit hydrograph (UH) was generated
from GIUH from 1-hr time lag method for further hydrological analysis . The peak
discharge and time to peak of the 1-hr UH were computed as 175.67 cumecs and
11 hours respectively (Fig. 3b).

5. Validation of GIUH Approach and Further Applications

The real validation of any hydrograph model should normally be done with the ob-
served storm data. Unfortunately, no storm data is available from upstream reaches
of the Baghmati River basin falling in Nepal (56% of the basin area), and therefore,
such validation of GIUH was not possible. The approach followed in the present
study was to calculate 50-yr return period flood through GIUH of Baghmati River
for the Dhengbridge station and compare it with the 50-yr return period flood ob-
tained through flood frequency data that is based on observed peak discharge data.
The 50-yr return period flood from geomorphologic UH was computed through a
methodology developed by Centre Water Commission (CWC, 1985).

5.1. COMPUTATION OF 50- YR RETURN PERIOD FLOOD FROM THE

GEOMORPHOLOGIC UH

The estimation of the 50-yr flood from the geomorphologic UH as per the method
adopted by Center Water Commission (CWC) for the middle Ganga plain (CWC,
1985) includes different steps.
368 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

Figure 3. (a) GIUH and (b) 1-hr unit hydrograph (UH) of the Baghmati River at Dhengbridge
station.
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 369

Step 1: Estimation of Design Storm Duration (TD ):

The value of TD was determined for specific time to peak (tp ) value using standard
table for Indian river basins (CWC, 1985).

For tp = 11 hours, TD = 18 hours.

Step 2: Estimation of Point Rainfall and Areal Rainfall

The 50-yr 24-h point rainfall for Baghmati River system is 34.6 cm (GFCC, 1991).
As the design storm duration comes out to be 18-h, the 50-yr 18-h rainfall for
Baghmati River system was deduced using conversion factors from standard tables
(CWC, 1985).

50-yr 18-h point rainfall = 0.94 * 34.6 cm = 32.5 cm

50-yr 18-h areal rainfall = 0.72*32.5 cm = 23.4 cm

(0.94 is the ratio of 24-h point rainfall to 18-h point rainfall for the middle Ganga
plain. The factor 0.72 is the areal reduction factor corresponding to the basin area
more than 2200 (the river basin upto Dhengbridge station is 3790 km2 ) for TD =
18 hours.)

Step 3: Time Distribution of Areal Rainfall and Estimation of Effective Rainfall

The 50-yr 18-h areal rainfall of 23.4 cm was distributed using the distribution
coefficients (CWC, 1985). In this process, the 1-h rainfall increments and effective
rainfall units were determined (Table VI) using a design loss rate of 0.3 cm/hr (after
GFCC, 1991; CWC, 1988). Distribution coefficient in the table indicates that about
39% of 18 hour rainfall (corresponding to a return of 50 years) of 23.4 cm occurs
during first 1 hours, 52% during the next 1 hours and so on.

Step 4: Estimation of Base Flow

Base flow in the region was taken as 0.05 cumecs km−2 (GFCC, 1991). Taking the
basin area upto Dhengbridge as 3790 km2 , the total base flow for the basin worked
out to be 189.5 (0.05*3790) cumecs or 190 cumecs.

Step 5: Estimation of 50-yr Flood

For the estimation of the peak discharge, the effective rainfall units were rearranged
against the ordinates such that the maximum effective rainfall was placed against
the maximum 1-h UH ordinate, the next lower value of effective rainfall against
the next lower value of 1-h UH ordinate and so on (Table VI). Summation of the
product of 1-h UH ordinate and the rainfall gives the total direct runoff in which
the base flow is added to obtain the value of 50-yr design flood (Table VI). The
370 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

Table VI. Computation of 50-year return period flood from geomorphic UH

Duration Distribution Storm 1-hr rainfall 1-hr effective 1-hr UG Direct

(hr) coefficient rainfall increments rainfall Ordinate runoff
(cm) (cm) (cm) (m3 sec−1 ) (m3 sec−1 )
[A] [B] [C] [D] = [Ci -Ci−1 ] [E] [F] [G] = [F*E]

1 0.39 9.13 9.13 8.83 175.67 1550.46

2 0.52 12.17 3.04 2.74 174.53 478.56
3 0.61 14.27 2.11 1.81 174.15 314.51
4 0.67 15.68 1.40 1.10 170.55 188.29
5 0.71 16.61 0.94 0.64 170.17 108.23
6 0.74 17.32 0.70 0.40 165.24 66.43
7 0.79 18.49 1.17 0.87 162.40 141.29
8 0.81 18.95 0.47 0.17 158.80 26.68
9 0.85 19.89 0.94 0.64 151.41 96.30
10 0.87 20.36 0.47 0.17 150.65 25.31
11 0.89 20.83 0.47 0.17 143.26 24.07
12 0.90 21.06 0.23 0.00 134.73 0.00
13 0.92 21.53 0.47 0.17 134.55 22.60
14 0.94 22.00 0.47 0.17 126.02 21.17
15 0.96 22.46 0.47 0.17 117.68 19.77
16 0.97 22.70 0.23 0.00 114.46 0.00
17 0.99 23.17 0.47 0.17 108.96 18.31
18 1 23.40 0.23 0.00 100.25 0.00
3101.97
Base Flow 190
Total Runoff 3291.97

50-yr return period flood through geomorphologic UH is 3292 cumecs. This value
closely matches with the 50-yr return period flood (3298 cumecs) obtained from
flood frequency analysis of observed peak discharge data.
Further work is continuing to analyse the influence of individual morphomet-
ric parameters on flood characteristics and to evaluate the relative contribution of
individual sub-basins using the GIUH approach. Our preliminary results suggest
that out of the three Horton’s morphometric ratios, RL influences the Qp and tp
most significantly. Our analysis predicts higher Qp for sub-basins with higher RL .
This is corroborated by field observations and alternative approaches (GFCC, 1991,
Jain and Sinha, in press-b). For example, the Lakhandei river with a high RL
(9.29) causes much more extensive flooding then Lalbakeya river (RL = 2.73) and
this demonstrates the influence of particular morphometric parameters on flooding
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 371

Figure 4. GIUH at different values of average channel velocity.

behaviour of individual sub-basins. The details of this work are being presented
elsewhere.

5.2. EFFECT OF VELOCITY PARAMETER ON THE GIUH

The stage-velocity curve shows variation in average channel velocity from 0.5
(during lean period) to 1.63 (during peak discharge time) m sec−1 . Thus, in order
to analyse the effect of average channel velocity on GIUH, four graphs were gener-
ated for the velocity of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m sec−1 , while keeping the geomorphic
parameters fixed (Fig 4). Lower velocity values are corresponding to low stage
indicating the lean period. Higher velocity values indicate higher stage period.
Variation in GIUH parameters with respect to velocity reflects the dynamic beha-
viour of hydrological response of Baghmati river basin in different periods. Figure
4 shows that increase in average channel velocity causes significant increase in the
peak of hydrograph (qp ) with less time to peak (tp ). Thus, even though the general
form of GIUH is expressed by average channel velocity at peak discharge, Figure
4 provides a complete dynamic hydrologic response of Baghmati river system.

5.3. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING SUH

The presently available UH, i.e. SUH for this site generated by GFCC is based on
three physiographic parameters, namely area (A), length of the longest stream and
372 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

Figure 5. Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) of the Baghmati River at Dhengbridge station
(after GFCC, 1991).

equivalent stream slope (Seq ) (Fig. 5). The equivalent stream slope (Seq ) is defined
as,


Seq = Li (Di−1 + Di )/L2 (20)

where Li = length of ith segment in km; Di−1 , Di = redeuced levels of the river at
(i-1) and ith locations along the longest stream.
The current SUH shows its steep rising limb followed by gentler recession limb,
suggesting a sudden increase in discharge after a rainfall event. Similar shape is
shown by geomorphologic UH suggesting the similar initiation of hydrological re-
sponse. The peaks of the hydrograph of these two hydrographs also match closely.
However, time to peak is significantly different which is 11 hours for geomorphic
DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 373

IUH and 26 hours for SUH. The parameters of the SUH i.e. qp and tp are not
directly validated with any data. Only validation is through computation of 50 yr
return period flood (after GFCC, 1991), which show significant departure from the
observed data, whereas a similar validation of geomorphic UH indicates a better
match. The 50-year flood obtained from SUH comes out to be much higher (3779
cumecs, after GFCC, 1991) than the 50-year flood from the observed data (3298
cumecs after flood frequency analysis, see Table I). Though, no explanation is
available for this large difference, the present SUH is the only available UH for
this river basin. On the other hand, the 50-yr flood derived from GIUH analysis
(3292 cumecs) closely matches with the 50-yr flood from the observed data. The
analysis indicates the validity of GIUH model in Baghmati River basin.
Further, velocity analysis on GIUH shows that same UH can not be considered
for the different time period. It is noted that qp and tp of geomorphologic UH varies
from 215 to 54 cumecs and 9 to 34 hours in the case of high velocity (peak dis-
charge period) to low velocity during (lean period) (see Fig 4). It agrees well with
the observation of Rodriguez-Iturbe et al. (1979) that different unit hydrographs
can be obtained in the same basin when performing the estimation to different
rainfall and their corresponding hydrographs. Thus, the dynamic nature of the geo-
morphic IUH represents the variation in hydrologic response of the Baghmati river
basin for different time period.

6. Conclusions
The geomorphic UH of the 5th order Baghmati river basin presented in this paper
is the first analytically determined UH of any Himalayan river. An empirically
generated SUH based on coefficients from neighbouring river basin has been in use
in the region. Our study demonstrates that the GIUH provide a better estimation
of qp and tp compared to empirically derived SUH. Our results are validated by
comparison with the results of flood frequency analysis based on observed data.
The geomorphic UH of the Baghmati river utilizes the morphometric para-
meters and stream velocity as the input parameters and it provides a quantitative
understanding of geomorphological influence on the river hydrology. Apart from its
utility for ungauged stations, the GIUH approach provides additional information
about the effect of individual morphometric parameter on flood discharge. Further,
the effect of velocity on GIUH reflects the dynamics of hydrological response of
a basin. Thus, apart from getting the better estimation of hydrological response of
river basin, the GIUH provides an understanding of the hydrological response and
its variability in space and time. The successful application of GIUH approach has
opened the possibility to derive the unit hydrograph of often ungauged Himalayan
rivers and offers a sound approach for flood management in the region.
374 V. JAIN AND R. SINHA

References

Agarwal, A. and Narain, S.: 1996, Floods, Floodplains and Environmental Myths, State of India’s
Environment: A Citizen Report, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.
Barlow, 1915 (cited in Subramanya, K, 1994).
Bhaskar, N. R. and Devulapalli, R. S.: 1991, ‘Run-off Modelling Geomorphological Instantaneous
Unit Hydrograph and ARC/INFO Geographical Information system’, D. B. Stafford (ed.), Proc.
Civil Engineering applications of remote sensing and GIS, Published by ASCE.
Calkins, D. and Dunne, T.: 1970, ‘A salt tracing method for measuring channel velocities in small
mountain streams’, J. Hydrol. 11, 379–392.
Carlston, C. W., 1969, ‘Downstream variations in the hydraulic geometry of streams: Special
emphasis on mean velocity’, Amer. J. Sci. 267, 499–509.
Clark, C. O.: 1945, ‘Storage and the Unit Hydrograph’, Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 110, 1419–1488.
CWC: 1985, Flood Estimation Report for Middle Ganga Plains (sub zone-1f), Central Water
Commission Report Number GP\10\1984, New Delhi.
CWC: 1988, Workshop for Application of Reports on Sone Basin, Middle Gangetic Plains, Lower
Gangetic Plains and Mahanadi Basin for Design Flood Estimation for Small and Medium
Catchments in Bihar 1988, Central Water Commission Publication No. 32/88.
GFCC: 1991, Comprehensive Plan of Flood Management for the Ganga Sub-Basin, Part II/9 – The
Baghmati River System, (Unpublished), Ganga Flood Control Commission, Ministry of Water
Resources, Government of India.
Horton, R. E.: 1945, ‘Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: Hydrophysical
approach to quantitative morphology, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 56, 275–370.
Howard, R. A.: 1971, Dynamic Probability Systems, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New-York.
Inglis and Desouza: 1929, (cited in Subramanya, K, 1994).
Jain, S. K., Singh, R. D. and Seth, S. M.: 2000, ‘Design flood estimation using GIS supported GIUH
approach’, Water Res. Manage. 14, 369–376.
Jain, V. and Sinha, R.: 2003, ‘Hyperavulsive-anabranching Baghmati river system, north Bihar plains,
eastern India’, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 47(1), 101–116.
Jain, V. and Sinha, R.: ‘Fluvial dynamics of an anabranching river system in Himalayan foreland
basin, north Bihar Plains, India’, Geomorphology (in press-a).
Jain, V. and Sinha, R.: ‘Geomorphological manifestation of the flood hazard’, Geocarto Interna-
tional, (in press-b).
Koutsoyiannis, D. and Xanthopoulos, T.: 1989, ‘On the parametric approach to Unit Hydrograph
identification’, Water Res. Manage. 3, 107–128.
Kale, V.S.: 1997, ‘Flood studies in India: A brief review’, J. Geolog. Soc. India 49, 359–370.
Langbein, W. B.: 1964, ‘Geometry of river channels’, J. Hydr. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. HY2,
301–311.
Leopold, L. B.: 1953, ‘Downstream change of velocity in rivers’, Amer. J. Sci. 251, 606–624.
Leopold, L. B. and Maddock, T.: 1953, ‘The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some
physiographic implications’, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 252, 1–57.
Nash, J. E.: 1960, ‘A Unit Hydrograph study, with particular reference to British catchments’, Proc.
Inst. Civil Engg. 17, 249–282.
Pilgrim, D. H.: 1966, ‘Radioactive tracing of storm runoff on a small catchment’, J. Hydrol. 4,
289–305.
Pilgrim, D. H.: 1976, ‘Travel time and nonlinearity of flood runoff from tracer measurements on a
small watershed’, Water Res. Res. 12(3), 487–496.
Pilgrim, D. H.: 1977, ‘Isochrones of travel time and distribution of flood storage from a tracer study
on a small watershed’, Water Res. Res. 13(3), 587–595.
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. and Valdes, J. B.: 1979, ‘The geomorphologic structure of hydrologic response’,
Water Res. Res. 15(6), 1409–1420.
 DERIVATION OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH FROM GIUH ANALYSIS 375

Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Devoto, G. and Valdes, J. B.: 1979, ‘Discharge response analysis and hydrologic
similarity: The interrelation between the geomorphologic IUH and the storm characteristics’,
Water Res. Res. 15(6), 1435–1444.
Sinha, R.: 1998, ‘On the Controls of Fluvial Hazards in the North Bihar Plains, Eastern India’, in
Maund, J. G. and Eddleston, M. (eds), Geohazards in Engineering Geology, Geological Society
London, Engineering Geology Sp. Pub., 15, 35–40.
Sinha, R. and Friend, P. F.: 1994, ‘River systems and their sediment flux, Indo-Gangetic plains,
northern Bihar, India’, Sedimentology 41, 825–845.
Sinha, R. and Jain, V.: 1998, ‘Flood Hazards of North Bihar Rivers, Indo-Gangetic Plains’, in V. S.
Kale (ed.), Flood Studies in India, Geological Society of India, 41, 27–52.
Strahler, A. N.: 1956, ‘Quantitative slope analysis’, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 67, 571–596.
Strange: 1928, (cited in Subramanya, K., 1994).
Snyder, F. F.: 1938, ‘Synthetic Unitgraphs’, Transactions of American Geophysics Union, 19th
Annual Meeting, Part 2, p. 447.
Taylor, A. B. and Schwartz, H. E.: 1952, ‘Unit-hydrograph lag and peak flow related to basin
characteristics’, Transact. Amer. Geophys. Union 33, 235–246.
Valdes, J. B., Fiallo, Y. and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I.: 1979, ‘A rainfall-runoff analysis of the geomorpho-
logic IUH’, Water Res. Res. 15(6), 1421–1434.

View publication stats