Comparison of Different Methods Efficiency for Estimation of Nash Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph Parameters in Flood Simulation (Case Study: Aland-Chay, Gara-Chay, Mahabad-Chay and Zab Rivers)

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.D. in Water Resources Engineering, Urmia University, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Urmia University, Iran.


The Unit Hydrographic Theory, which was first proposed by Sherman in 1932, is used as one of the most important rainfall-runoff methods in hydrology. One of the most efficient models in simulating rainfall-runoff phenomenon is the conceptual model known as Nash Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph. In this model, the number of reservoirs and storage coefficients describes the complete shape of Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (Ahmadin et al., 2010).
The model consists of two parameters including n and k. Different methods have been presented to estimate the mentioned parameters. Inaccurate estimation of the model parameters (n and k) causes an error in simulated hydrograph. Methods such as the moments, the least square and the maximum likelihood are some of the proposed ones (Snyder, 1955; Eagleson et al., 1966). The large number of parameters of these methods has limited their use (Rao and Tirtotjondro, 1995). Thus, the researchers tried to develop a model with lower number of parameters and more acceptable accuracy.
Some researchers such as Aron and White (1982), Collins (1983), Rosso (1984), Hann et al. (1994), Singh (1998), Singh (2000), Singh et al. (2007), and Bhunya et al. (2003) proposed relationships for estimating Nash Model’s parameters. Others, including Bahremand and Mostafazadeh (2010), Ahmadin et al. (2010) and Aslani et al.  (2016) used the proposed relationships and estimated the parameters of Nash model in three different basins of Iran.


1-       Ahmadin, A., Fakheri Fard, A. and Gorbani, M.A., 2010. Comparsion of Hybrid and NashModels for Derivation of Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (Case Study: Lighvan Watershed). Water and Soil Science (Agricultural Science), 21(1), pp. 29-41. (In Persian).
2-       Aron, G. and White, E.L., 1982. Fitting a Gamma distribution over a synthetic unit hydrograph. Water Resources Bulletin. 18(1), pp.95-98.
3-       Aslani M., Fazl Ola R. and Ahmadizadeh, M., 2016. Determination of Nash Conceptual Model Parameter using Auto Calibration in Kasilian Watershed. WatershedManagement Research., 6(12), pp. 21-28. (In Persian).
4-       Bahremand, A.R. and Mostafazadeh, R., 2010. Comparison of different methods for parameter estimation of nash’s instantaneous unit hydrograph in JafarAbad watershed. Watershed Management Researches Journal (Pajouhesh & Sazandegi). 86, pp.42-51. (In Persian).
5-       Bardossy, A., 2007. Calibration of hydrologic model parameters for ungauged catchments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 11, pp.703-710
6-       Bhaskar, N.R., Parida, B.P. and Nayak, A.K., 1997. Flood estimation for ungauged catchments using the GIUH. Water Resource Planning and Management. 123, pp.228-238.
7-       Bobee, B. and Ashkar, F., 1991. The Gamma family and derived distributions applied in hydrology. Water Resources Press, Littleton, CO.
8-       Bhunya, P.K., Mishra, S.K. and Berndtsson, R., 2003. Simplified two-parameter Gamma distribution for derivation of synthetic unit hydrograph. Hydrologic Engineering. 8(4), pp.226-230.
9-       Collins, M.A, 1983. Fitting a Gamma distribution over a synthetic unit hydrograph. Water Resources Bulletin. 18(1), pp.303-304.
10-   Dong, S.H., 2007. Genetic algorithm based parameter estimation of Nash Model. Water Resources Management. 22(4), pp.525-533.
11-   Eagleson, P.S., Mejia, R. and March, F., 1966. Computation of optimum realizable unit hydrographs. Water Resources Research. 2, pp.755-764.
12-   Hann, C.T., Barfield, B.J. and Hayes, J.C, 1994. Design hydrology and sedimentology for small catchment. Academic Press, USA.
13-   Karamoz, M. and Araghinejad, S., 2010. Advanced Hydrology. Amirkabir University Pre. Second Pub.
14-   Nash, J.E. 1957. The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. IASH Publication. 45(3–4). pp.114-121.
15-   Nash, J.E., 1959. Synthetic determination of unit hydrograph parameters. Geophysical Research. 64(1) pp.111-115.
16-   Nourani, V., Singh, V.P. and Delafrouz, H., 2009. Three geomorphological rainfall- runoff models based on the linear reservoir concept. Catena. 76., pp.206-214.
17- Rao, A.R. and Tirtotjondro, W., 1995. Computation of unit hydrographs by a Bayesian method. Journal of Hydrology, 164(1-4), pp.325-344..
18-   Rao, A.R. and Hamed, K.H., 2000. Flood frequency analysis. CRC Press, England.
19-   Rosso, R., 1984. Nash model relation to Horton order ratios. Water Resources Research. 20(7), pp.914-920.
20-   Sahoo, B., Chandarnath, C., Narendra, S.R., Rajendra, S. and Rakesh, K., 2006. Flood estimation by GIUH based Clark and Nash models. Hydrologic Engineering. 11(6), pp.515-525.
21-   Sherman, L.K., 1932. Streamflow from rainfall by the unit-graph method. Engineering News Record. 108, pp.501-505.
22-   Singh, S.L., 1998. Reconstructing a synthetic unit hydrograph into a Gamma distribution. Proceeding of International conference on Integrated water Resources Management, Alexandria University, Egypt.
23-   Singh, S.K., 2000. Transmuting synthetic unit hydrograph into Gamma distribution. Hydrologic Engineering. 5(4), pp.380-385.
24-     Singh, P.K., Bhunya, P.K., Mishra, S.K. and Chaube, U.C., 2007. An extended hybrid model for synthetic unit hydrograph derivation. Journal of Hydrology, 336(3-4), pp.347-360.
25-   Snyder, W.M., 1955. Hydrograph analysis by the method of least squares. Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers. 81, pp.1-24.
26-   Tarazkar, M.H. and Sedghamiz, A., 2008. Comparing monthly discharge forecasting for Karkheh River by using time series and artificial Intelligent traits. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi. 80, pp.51-58. (In Persian).
Volume 43, Issue 1
March 2020
Pages 15-28
  • Receive Date: 20 June 2016
  • Revise Date: 16 September 2017
  • Accept Date: 21 October 2017
  • Publish Date: 20 March 2020