i

i
ii
 iii

Dr. Radwan Abdullah Al-

DEDICATION

To my Father, Mother,
Brothers and Sisters
They are the ones who have given me all the support, encouragement, and love to
overcome all difficulties.

Warqaa
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise and thanksgiving be to God Almighty, for he is above all the best and the best. I

thank him for achieving what I aspire to in completing my master’s degree.

I extend my great thanks and appreciation to my supervisor, Prof. Nidal Adeeb Hadadin

for his follow-up, and guidance.

I would express my gratefulness to the members of the examination committee Prof.

Ahmad I. Al-Jamrah, Dr. Khaldoun Shatanawi, and Prof. Rakad Ta’any, for their

fruitful discussions.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my parents, brothers,

and sisters for their support, encouragement, and continuous assistance while studying.

I would extend my great thanks and appreciation to Dr. Mohammad Ezz-Aldeen (the

University of Mosul previously), Dr. Abdulwahd Ali (Salahaddin University-Erbil), and

Dr. Rasha Mohammad (the University of Mosul) for their continuous support and for

giving me their valuable information throughout the study period. I would like to thank

my colleague, Eng. Qusay Yousef Abu-Afifeh, for his help and all continuous support,

and thank all my friends.

Warqaa
 v

LIST OF CONTENTS

COMMITTEE DECISION ............................................................................................. I

DEDICATION ..............................................................................................................III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................ IV
LIST OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... V
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ IX
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... XII
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ XIII
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH .............................................................................. 5
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................ 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 7
2.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT SOURCES .......................................................................... 7
2.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND DEPOSITION ................................................................ 8
2.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT YIELD MODELLING ........................................................ 10
2.4 SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL (SWAT) MODEL ....................................... 12
2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................................. 16
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................... 27
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 27
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 27
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SWAT PROGRAM ................................................................. 27
3.3 AVAILABLE DATA.................................................................................................. 29
3.4 MODEL PERFORMANCES EVALUATION .................................................................. 30
3.5 MODEL CALIBRATION ............................................................................................ 31
3.6 SURFACE RUNOFF .................................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................... 34
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 34
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 34
4.1 INPUT DATA FOR SWAT MODEL ............................................................................ 34
4.1.1 DEM (Digital Elevation Model) ..................................................................... 34
4.1.2 Classification of Land use .............................................................................. 36
4.1.3 Soil Classification ........................................................................................... 37
 vi

4.1.4 Slope Discretization ........................................................................................ 39

4.1.5 The Daily Weather Data ................................................................................. 39
4.2 MODEL CALIBRATION ............................................................................................ 42
4.3.1 Catchment used in Calibration........................................................................ 42
4.3.2 SWAT Calibration .......................................................................................... 43
4.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................ 50
4.3 SURFACE RUNOFF .................................................................................................. 51
4.4 SEDIMENT PRODUCTION......................................................................................... 55
4.5 CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................. 59
4.6 RUNOFF AND SEDIMENT YIELD RELATIONSHIP ...................................................... 62
4.7 COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES: ....................................... 64
CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................... 68
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................. 68
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 68
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS: ............................................................................................. 69
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 71
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 75
A. CURVE NUMBER TABLES ........................................................................................ 75
B. WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................. 79
C. THE SURFACE RUNOFF RESULTS ............................................................................. 83
D. RESULTS OF THE SEDIMENT PRODUCTION............................................................... 90
E. SAMPLE OF CALCULATIONS FOR SWEEDY VALLEY ............................................... 104
ABSTRACT IN ARABIC......................................................................................... 106
 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1: Location of the study area using SWAT 10.2. .............................................. 3

Figure 2. 1: The relationship between the speed of the surface runoff and particle
erosion, transport, and deposition ……………………………………………………….8

Figure 2. 2: Sediment transport capacity and supply curves . .......................................... 9

Figure 2. 3: Relationship between the drainage area and the sediment delivery ratio.... 10

Figure 4. 1: DEM and streams network of the study area, using SWAT 10.2…………35

Figure 4. 2: Land use for the study area, using SWAT 10.2 .......................................... 36

Figure 4. 3: The distribution of soil for the study area, using SWAT 10.2 .................... 37

Figure 4. 4: Land slope for the study area, using SWAT 10.2 ....................................... 39

Figure 4. 5: Total annual precipitation records for Mosul station (1985-2019),.. .......... 41

Figure 4. 6: Total annual precipitation records for Mosul dam station (1985-2019). .... 41

Figure 4. 7: The area of calibration valley and flow distribution, using SWAT 10.2 .... 42

Figure 4. 8: Measured and estimated results for runoff depth ........................................ 48

Figure 4. 9: Measured and estimated results for sediment concentration ....................... 49

Figure 4. 10: Measured and estimated results for sediment amount .............................. 49

Figure 4. 11: The average monthly surface runoff depth for Sweedy valley (1985-2019)
........................................................................................................................................ 52

Figure 4. 12: The average monthly surface runoff depth for Crnold valley (1985-2019)
........................................................................................................................................ 52

Figure 4. 13: The average monthly surface runoff depth for Alsalam valley (1985-2019)
........................................................................................................................................ 53

Figure 4. 14: The average annual surface runoff depth for Sweedy valley(1985-2019).53

Figure 4. 15: The average annual surface runoff depth for Crnold valley (1985-2019). 54

Figure 4. 16: The average annual surface runoff depth for Alsalam valley (1985-2019)
........................................................................................................................................ 54

Figure 4. 17: The average monthly of sediment load for Sweedy valley (1985-2019) .. 56
 viii

Figure 4. 18: The average monthly of sediment load for Crnold valley (1985-2019) .... 57

Figure 4. 19: The average monthly of sediment load for Alsalam valley (1985-2019)..57

Figure 4. 20: The average annual of sediment load for Sweedy valley (1985-2019) ..... 58

Figure 4. 21: The average annual of sediment load for Crnold valley (1985-2019) ...... 58

Figure 4. 22: The average annual of sediment load for Alsalam valley (1985-2019) .... 59

Figure 4. 23: Watershed delineation process and distribution of sub-basins of the study
area .................................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 4. 24: surface runoff-sediment yield relationship for Sweedy valley.................. 62

Figure 4. 25: Surface runoff-sediment yield relationship for Crnold valley .................. 63

Figure 4. 26: Surface runoff-sediment yield relationship for Alsalam valley ................ 63

Figure 4. 27: Percentage of Sediment Load for the studied valleys ............................... 67

Figure C. 1: The average monthly precipitation in the basins………………………….83

Figure C. 2: The average annual precipitation in the basins ........................................... 85

 ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4. 1: Soil Database of the Study Area.. ................................................................. 38

Table 4. 2: Data of Climatic Stations .............................................................................. 40

Table 4. 3: The results of statistical standards in changing (n)....................................... 44

Table 4. 4: The results of statistical standards in changing (CH_K) .............................. 44

Table 4. 5: The results of statistical standards in changing (SOL_K) ............................ 45

Table 4. 6: The results of statistical standards in changing (CN) ................................... 45

Table 4. 7: The results of statistical standards in changing (Spcon)............................... 46

Table 4. 8: The results of statistical standards in changing (Spexp)............................... 46

Table 4. 9: Values of the statistical parameters for Model calibration ........................... 47

Table 4. 10: Measured and estimated runoff and sediment results for calibration valley
........................................................................................................................................ 48

Table 4. 11: The annual sediment and sediment volume results for each valley ........... 55

Table 4. 12: Main valleys characteristics from SWAT and Hydrological Simulation
Model .............................................................................................................................. 61

Table 4. 13: Summarized results of this study compared with previous studies ............ 65

Table A. 1: Table A.1: Runoff Curve Numbers for Agricultural Lands……………….75

Table A. 2: Runoff Curve Numbers for Other Agricultural Lands ................................ 76

Table A. 3: Runoff Curve Numbers for Arid and Semiarid Rangelands ........................ 77

Table A. 4: Description and Curve Numbers ................................................................. 78

Table B. 1: Parameters of Sweedy Valley sub-basins………………………………….79

Table B. 2: Parameters of Crnold Valley Sub-basin ....................................................... 80

Table B. 3: Parameters of Alsalam Valley Sub-basin .................................................... 80

Table B. 4: Land-use Distribution in the Sweedy Valley watershed .............................. 81

Table B. 5: Land-use Distribution in the Crnold Valley watershed ............................... 81

Table B. 6: Land-use Distribution in the Alsalam Valley watershed ............................. 81

 x

Table B. 7: Soil Distribution in the Sweedy Valley watershed ...................................... 81

Table B. 8: Soil Distribution in the Crnold and Alsalam Valleys watersheds................ 82

Table B. 9: Slope Distribution in the Sweedy Valley ..................................................... 82

Table B. 10: Slope Distribution in the Crnold Valley .................................................... 82

Table B. 11: Slope Distribution in the Alsalam Valley .................................................. 82

Table C. 1: The average monthly precipitation in the basins…………………………..83

Table C. 2: The average annual precipitation in the basins ............................................ 84

Table C. 3: Average Monthly in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Sweedy Valley (Area 447.5 km2) ................................................................................... 85

Table C. 4: Average Monthly in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Crnold Valley (Area 75.27 km2) ..................................................................................... 86

Table C. 5: Average Monthly in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Alsalam Valley (Area 45.26 km2)................................................................................... 86

Table C. 6: Average Annual in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for Sweedy
Valley (Area 447.5 km2) ................................................................................................. 87

Table C. 7: Average Annual in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for Crnold
Valley (Area 75.27 km2) ................................................................................................. 88

Table C. 8: Average Annual in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Alsalam Valley (Area 45.26 km2)................................................................................... 89

Table D. 1: Average Monthly Sediment Results for Sweedy Valley…………………..90

Table D. 2: Average Monthly Sediment Results for Crnold Valley ............................... 90

Table D. 3: Average Monthly Sediment Results for Alsalam Valley ............................ 91

Table D. 4: Average Annual Sediment Results for Sweedy Valley ............................... 92

Table D. 5: Average Annual Sediment Results for Crnold Valley ................................. 93

Table D. 6: Average Annual Sediment Results for Alsalam Valley .............................. 94

Table D. 7: The channel deposition at 1988 for Sweedy valley ..................................... 95

Table D. 8: The channel deposition at 1988 for Crnold valley....................................... 96

Table D. 9: The channel deposition at 1988 for Alsalam valley .................................... 96

 xi

Table D. 10: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley ................................................... 97

Table D. 11: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley ................................................... 98

Table D. 12: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley ................................................... 99

Table D. 13: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley ................................................. 100

Table D. 14: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley ................................................. 101

Table D. 15: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley ................................................. 102

Table D. 16: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley ................................................. 103

 xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION MEANING
Areal Non-Point Source Watershed Environmental
ANSWERS
Response Simulation
ANN Artificial Neural Network
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
ASTER
Radiometer.
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
AGWA Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment
CFRG Roughness coefficient of soil grains
CN Curve Number
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DWSM Dynamic Watershed Simulation Model
ESA European Space Agency
Gs Sediment specific weight
GIS Geographic Information System
GDEM Global Digital Elevation Model
Hydrologic Engineering Centre’s Hydrologic Modelling
HEC-HMS
System
HRU Hydrological Response Unit
HWSD Harmonized World Soil Database
IOA Index of Agreement
LISEM Limburg Soil Erosion Model
MCM Million Cubic Meter
MUSLE Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation
MDR Mosul Dam Reservoir
NSE Nash-Sutcliff efficiency
RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
RMSE The root means square error
R2 Coefficient of determination
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool
Sed The sediment yield on a given day
SMBA The dam of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah
TIN Two irregular triangular networks
TE Trap efficiency
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation
UCL University Catholique de Louvain
WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project
WMS Watershed Modeling System
 xiii

ESTIMATION OF SEDIMENT YIELD IN MOSUL DAM AT THE

NORTHERN REGION OF IRAQ USING HYDROLOGICAL
SIMULATION MODEL

By
Warqaa Thanoon Aness Alnuaimi

Supervisor
Dr. Nidal Adeeb Hadadin, Prof.

ABSTRACT

Rivers and watersheds carry large amounts of sediments that could accumulate behind
hydraulic structures, which can cause various problems. In this research, the study area
is Mosul Dam reservoir, which is the largest dam in Iraq. It is the fourth largest dam in
the Middle East, and the storage capacity of the reservoir entails an assessment of
sedimentation rate, it also has the issue of sediment accumulation to the lake.

The study aims to estimate the surface runoff and sediment entering the lake from three
major valleys located into the right bank of the reservoir of the dam. And determine the
effect and sensitivity analysis of parameters (n), (SOL_K), (CH_K), (CN), (Spcon), and
(Spexp) on values of the estimated runoff and sediment. Therefore, Daily, monthly and
yearly simulations were conducted, using the SWAT (Soil & Water Assessment Tool)
Model for 35 years (1985-2019). The model was calibrated using Fayda valley, which
was located at the reservoir's left side. The model performance was evaluated by
applying various tools like RMSE, R2, IOA, and MAE, where the results were
acceptable.

The results of the current study show that the average annual precipitation for 35 years
was 362.66 mm. The curve number (CN) for the study area was (91, 80, and 77) for the
Sweedy, Crnold, and Alsalam valleys respectively. The depth of average runoff is
(91.18, 61.51, and 60.30 mm) and the volume of the runoff is (40.8, 4.63, and 2.73
MCM/year) for Sweedy, Crnold, and Al Salam valleys, respectively. While the
summation of total sediment loads, entering the reservoir of the dam is (111.4×103,
14.24×103, and 7.34×103 ton/year) for the same valleys. The primary provider of
sediments to the right side of the reservoir dam is the Sweedy Valley with a maximum
sediment load of 84% of the total sediment average entering the dam lake from three
major valleys. To reduce the proportion of sediment, it is recommended to increase the
vegetation cover in the valleys.
 1

CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Hydrology is known to be the science of water properties that is specialized in

understanding the distribution, circulation, and properties of water on the earth. It is also

concerned with the environmental impacts related to the water in all neighborhoods.

Determining the quantities of water and its distribution in the region where the

hydrological properties depend on climate, weather, wind impact, maximum and

minimum temperatures, humidity, distribution, and amount of rain.

Due to the amount of rain and its distribution during the rainy season, familiarization

has been initiated to establish various water facilities for storing surface runoff water

such as dams. Dams are used in various projects most notably in irrigation of

agricultural areas and generating electrical energy depending on the size of the dam and

the amount of water available in the area.

One of the main difficulties to hydraulic structures is the accumulation of sediment

transport upstream of the structure. Hence, it is important to estimate the amount of

these deposits and the negative impacts they have on these structures in order to

maintain the stability of hydraulic structures.

 2

1.2. Study Area

Mosul Dam is an important dam in Iraq. It is the largest Dam of Iraq, known as Saddam

Dam earlier. It is the fourth largest dam of the Middle East and was built during 1980s

for irrigation, flood control, water supply, and hydropower. Similar to other dams,

Mosul Dam also have the issue of sediment accumulation to the lake.

Mosul Dam is located at Tigris River of north Iraq which is approximately 60 km

northwest to Mosul city at 36°37'44"N latitude and 42°49'23"E longitude (Issa et al.,

2015). The reservoir has the water surface area of about 380 km². At the maximum

operating level of 330 m above mean sea level, its storage capacity is 11.11 billion m3

with (8.16 × 109 and 2.95 × 109) m3 of live storage and dead storage (Issa et al., 2015).

The Dam height is 113 meters and 3.4 km lengthy earth-fill embankment including a

clay-core and crest width is 10 m. The service spillway is located on the east side of the

dam, which is kept under control by five radial gates, and it has a maximum release

capacity of 12400 m³/sec on a maximum pool level. The key inflow coming to reservoir

is basically from River Tigris (Sissakian et al., 2014).

The area of study includes three tributary valleys, which are responsible to feed the

reservoir from the right side (northwest). The major valleys Sweedy, Crnold, and

Alsalam were chosen to estimate their effects in transporting sediments resulting from

erosion during precipitation and runoff to the Mosul Dam Lake. The Fayda valley have

been used for the purpose of calibration. It is flowing to the left side of Mosul Dam and

is located in northwest of Mosul city. The area of Fayda valley is 106.8 km2, which is

allocated for calibrating the model in order to provide field measurements for runoff and

sediments because of the similarities in climate, geology, and hydrology to being

extremely close to the study area (Al-Naqib and Al-Taiee, 1987) as shown in Figure

(1.1).
 3

Figure 1. 1: Location of the study area using SWAT 10.2, and (Mahmood
and Khaleel, 2018)

Figure 1. 2: Location of the study area using SWAT 10.2, and (Mahmood and Khaleel,
2018)
 4

The Sweedy valley is the largest space valley consisting of 470-km2 area. It is located to

north of pumping station for the Al-Jazeera northern irrigation project in, which the

station suffers of sediment gathering near it that affects its work and efficiency.

The second valley is Crnold, which is located to the north of Ain Zalah Mountain

having a total area of approximately 78.3 km2. The third valley is Alsalam with total

area equals to 51.4 km2, which is located to the south of Ain Zalah Mountain and north

of Batmeh Mountain (Fadhil, 2013).

The distribution of soil classification of Sweedy valley is total 63% silt loam, 27% silt

clay loam and rest 10% is clay soil in which 4% of the valley area is pastureland and the

remaining 96% of the area is covered with a winter wheat crop. As far as Crnold valley

is concerned, the soil classification is 25.6% clay, 64% silt loam, and rest 10.4% is silt

clay loam out of which 67.3% is area covered with winter wheat and vegetables and the

remaining 32.7% is pasturelands. However, for valley Alsalam, the soil classification is,

20.9% silt clay loam, 68.4% silt loam and the remaining 10.7% is clay soil while in

Valley Alsalam, 45.2% is covered with agricultural lands, 46.2% is covered with wheat

crop, and rest 8.6% is pasturelands (Ezz-Aldeen et al., 2012).

The study area topography ranged from a flat area suitable for agriculture at a rate with

3.7% slope for a Sweedy valley. For the Crnold valley, between a mountainous region

to flatlands having an average rate of slope 2.2%. While for valley Alsalam, which is

within a mountainous region and a large percentage of the area is not suitable for

agriculture having a rate of slope 5.3%. The highest level among the three valleys

reached 780 m (AMSL) was the Sweedy valley and as far as the lowest level is

concerned, it is 270 m (AMSL) at valley Alsalam outlet (Fadhil, 2013).

 5

The dam area is located within the northern moderate zone, which is subjected to an

increase and uniform distribution of the amount of precipitation during the winter

months and the month of March in the region, which has a clear effect on the wheat, and

barley products cultivated in the region (Yaqoob, 2010). As for the rest of the spring

and autumn months, the difference between the two periods of precipitation was

extremely small considering the amount of precipitation ranges between (450 ˗ 1500)

mm/year at a rate of 800 mm/year, temperatures vary between (0 – 50) ˚C and the

relative humidity is less than 30% in summer increasing to 80% in winter. The

quantities of evaporation increase gradually after the month of January, the highest

evaporation values are in the months of June and July after that the amounts of

evaporation decreases considerably and the annual amount of potential evaporation is

estimated to be 2.1 m (Yaqoob, 2010).

1.3. Importance of the research

The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are located in the Middle East region of Iraq so it is

known as the country of Mesopotamia. Due to the upsurge in demand and climate

changes, the region is presently facing lot of water shortage problems (Al-Ansari et al.,

2013). The actual storage capacities of the reservoirs are measured with the help of

procedures and assessments of the sedimentation rate in it. Mosul Reservoir is the

largest and furthermost significant strategic project of Iraq and the storage capacity of

the reservoir entails an assessment of sedimentation rate .

The reservoir (Mosul) was operated in year 1986 and till now, no comprehensive study

has been done to see sedimentation appearances and estimate its useful lifetime.

Therefore, it is important to conduct a study on sediments and their accumulation in the

reservoir to suggest appropriate techniques for sediment mitigation.

 6

The main structure of the Mosul dam project is a pumping station at it as it is placed

Sweedy valley south, which is considered as one of the utmost significant and biggest

valleys in the study area. The main purpose of the station is to provide irrigation water

and one problem of the station is sediment accumulation to the intake structure in the

approach and suction pipes, which is upsetting the pumping effectiveness, capacity and

challenging the smooth continuation of the station's operations. The entrances to the

station were clogged during 1991 and also in 2005, which resulted into the suspension

of the station for number of days due to the gathering of sediments in the inlets

highlighting the importance of sedimentation problems within the reservoir

(Mohammed, 2001; Issa et al., 2013).

1.4. Objectives of the study

The main objectives of the present study are:

1. To calculate the runoff amount and sediment yield, which comes from Sweedy,

Crnold, and Alsalam valleys to the reservoir with the help of the SWAT (Soil and

Water Assessment Tool) Model

2. To determine the effect and sensitivity analysis of Manning coefficient of

roughness (n), SOL_K (Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity), CH_K (Effective

Hydraulic Conductivity in main Channel, curve number (CN), Linear parameter

(Spcon), and Exponent parameter (Spexp) on values of the estimated runoff and

sediment transport.

3. To find an equation between sediments and runoff for each of the study valleys.

4. To compare the results of study obtained from the (SWAT) model with the

previous studies by other investigators.

5. To determine the valleys, which cause the maximum load of sediment and

suggest mitigation measures.

 7

CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Erosion and Sediment Sources

Rivers and natural channels are rarely in equilibrium, which shows that the quantity of

sediment inflowing to river is nearly equal to amount of sediment going out of it. This

state can be the result of several factors and important one of which is the release and

sediment amount in river.

If the average amount of sediments entering the river is less than what comes out of it,

then a phenomenon called abstraction will occur. This phenomenon is caused by the

process of erosion that occurs at the bottom and sides of the river, which leads to a

decrease in the bed level. If the average amount of sediments, entering the river is

greater than that coming out of it. Then a phenomenon called aggradation will occur due

to the deposition process in which the river will be unable to carry the sediments

coming from the land surrounding the river and therefore leads to a rise in the level of

the riverbed.

When precipitation falls, the process of separating the soil grains and trying to transport

them due to the energy possessed by the surface runoff occurs leading to soil erosion

and dredging. On the other hand, when the speed of the surface runoff that carries the

soil grains entering the tanks is decreased, the potential energy that carries the

sediments decreases and therefore leads to sedimentation. The relationship between the

speed of the surface runoff, particle erosion and transport are presented in Fig (2.1).
 8

Figure 2. 1: The relationship between the speed of the surface runoff and particle
erosion, transport, and deposition (Physical geology, net)

The clay and the soft silt are subjected to more erosion when the flow velocity increases

due to the presence of coherent bonds between the particles that requires extremely high

speed to erode it. During floods or other high-flow events, even large rocks can be

classified as sediments shows Fig (2.1) (Fondriest, 2020). There are also non-corrosive

areas during floods; these areas are of high greenness that holds soil in plant roots.

2.2 Sediment Transport and Deposition

There are sediment deposits everywhere from watersheds and valleys to rivers and dam

reservoirs. The sediment transport rate depends on the current-carrying capacity and the

possibility to use the materials in the watershed (Julian, 1998). The size of settable and

sediment particles vary according to the system and nature of the water. When the

velocity of the flowing water is extremely high, the larger particles settle. Soft rocks and

small particles erode faster and are easier to transport where the sediments coming
 9

from, the river collect at a certain point called the estuaries. Most rivers that are exposed

to the sediment collection are the low rivers as shown in Figure (2.2).

Figure 2. 2: Sediment transport capacity and supply curves (Julien, 1998)

The sediment load is the sediment transported which includes the total load of all

particles per unit of time (Fondriest, 2020) and according to its movement; it is divided

into three types:

1. Bed load: coarse particles such as gravel, stones and rocks that move down the

river and the waterway in which, the movement is neither continuous nor

uniform.

2. Suspended Load: particles are present in the water whether the water is flowing

or not and it requires moving water, these molecules are organic and inorganic.

3. Dissolved load: the particles of this load will not fall to the bottom of the river

when the flow velocity is extremely low. The particles remain in permanent
 10

suspension because of their size, which is considerably small; also, these

particles could be organic and inorganic.

Another phenomenon to be mentioned is Sediment yield, which is the amount of

total sediment particles that reach a watershed outlet. The ratio of erosion at the

place of flow and the production of sediments in the watershed is considered as the

ratio of sediment delivery. The ratio of sediment delivery decreases when the size of

the catchment area increases as can be seen in Figure (2.3) (Yarbrough, 2014).

Figure 2. 3: Relationship between the drainage area and the sediment delivery
ratio (Yarbrough, 2014)

2.3 Erosion and Sediment Yield Modelling

Generally, the sediments transported with the surface and rivers water are estimated by

field measurements of their concentrations and measurements of water discharge in

many seasonal rivers particularly in the Middle East regions. These measurements are

very few if not rare. Therefore, hydrological models are used to estimate these

measurements. The simulations of surface runoff and sediment transport with it are
 11

considered as difficult problems due to the large number of variables affecting this

process. Its expansion and interaction between each other such as precipitation and its

properties as well as soil properties such as land cover, land use and many influencing

factors including climatic factors.

There are many programs approved to estimate surface runoff and productivity of

sediments transported with it. Some of these programs are related to individual storms

and some of them includes continuous simulations for a period that may be a full rainy

season or for several consecutive years. Models that estimate the surface and sediment

flow by individual storms are includes:

1. ANSWERS (Areal Non-Point Source Watershed Environmental Response

Simulation)

2. LISEM (Limburg Soil Erosion Model)

There are other models where simulations are continuous for the rainy season or

consecutive years which includes:

1. WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project)

2. HEC-HMS (Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling System)

3. DWSM (Dynamic Watershed Simulation Model)

4. AGWA (Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment)

5. SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool).

Methods to estimate sediments are as follows:

1. USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation) is used to determine the soil loss annual

rate (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978).

 12

2. RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) (Renard et al., 1991).

3. MUSLE (Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation) is used to determine the

annual rate of soil-loss or sediment loading of individual storms (Williams,

1980).

There is sufficient proof of measured sediment yield by these methods and that’s why

these models are used in numerous regions of the world (Kothyari et al., 1997).

2.4 Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model

Soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model is associated with the GIS program. This

model is an incessant and physically circulated simulation model invented by the USDA

(United States Department of Agriculture). Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is

generally applied for calculating the total amount of sediments that transfer to the

watershed.

The SWAT model is actually based on two very important methods for determining

surface runoff: The first one is (Green and Ampt, 1911); Green-Ampt model which

finds the infiltration amount firstly and as a result of which the residual precipitation

will become the surface runoff. Lots of information is required regarding the soil of the

study area for this method and also measurements of depths of precipitation against time

like hourly depth. This method also needs information about the precipitation falling

intensity, which is not available with the meteorological stations of the study area.

The other method is the Soil Conservation Service – Curve Number (SCS-CN) which is

the most widely used method to estimate the surface runoff depth. This method has been

developed to link the surface runoff from precipitation to the soil types.

Surface runoff can be associated with soil cover complexes and precipitation from a

parameter known as the curve number (CN) shown in Appendix A. The SCS-CN
 13

depends on number of factors like soil’s permeability, the land use and antecedent water

conditions of soil.

The SCS curve number equation (Al-Afeshat, 2019):

(𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 )2
𝑄𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓 = 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑃 > 𝐼ₐ (2.1)
(𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 + 𝑆)

𝐼ₐ = 0.2 × 𝑆 (2.2)

1000
𝑆= − 10 (2.3)
𝐶𝑁

where,
Qsurf: The surface runoff (mm)
P : The precipitation depth (mm)
Ia: The initial abstractions include the infiltration before the runoff, the
interception, and the stored water in the soil (mm)
S: The retention coefficient (mm)
CN: Is the value of the curve number, it is at a maximum value of 100 for water
surfaces
The peak runoff rate is measured with the modified rational method:

𝐶×𝐼×𝐴
𝑄= (2.4)
3.6

where,

Q : Maximum rate of runoff (m3/s)

C: Runoff coefficient

I: Precipitation intensity (mm/hr)

A: Area (km2)

Time concentration was estimated from the beginning of the precipitation and the

formation of the surface inside the secondary basins and then the mainstream until the
 14

water reaches the port, that the concentration-time is calculated from the following

formula (Al-Adwan, 2018):

𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐 = 𝑡𝑜𝑣 + 𝑡𝑐ℎ (2.5)

where,

tconc: Total concentration-time (hr)

tₒᵥ: Concentration-time of secondary basins relative to runoff (hr)

tch: Mainstream concentration-time (hr)

The concentration-time for surface runoff is found from the following equation:

Lₛₗₚ
tₒᵥ = (2.6)
3600 × νₒᵥ

where,

Lₛₗₚ: The length of the basin (m)

νov: Surface runoff velocity (m/s)

As for the concentration-time of the channel or waterway, it can be estimated from the

following equation:

Lc
t ch = (2.7)
3.6 × νc

where,

Lc: The sub-basin’s average flow channel length

νc: The average channel velocity (m/s)

The SWAT model is dependent on the estimation of the total amount of sediments using

Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE), this method represents the use of the

general formula for soil loss developed by Williams (1995).

Developing formula for soil loss, MUSLE replaces the precipitation coefficient with a

surface clearance factor. This improves the estimation of the productivity of sediments
 15

and enables estimating sediments for each rainstorm. The precipitation amount is

decided by the moisture content of the rainstorm and the energy of precipitation.

General formula developed for soil loss (Williams, 1995) is as follows:

0.56
𝑆𝑒𝑑 = 11.8 × (𝑄𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓 × 𝑞𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 × 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎ℎ𝑟𝑢 ) × 𝐾𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑒 × 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑒 × 𝐿 𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑒 × 𝑃𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑒 × 𝐶𝐹𝑅𝐺 (2.8)

where,

Sed: The sediment yield on a given day (metric tons)

areahru: HRU area (ha)

Kusle: The USLE erodibility factor (tons/ha)

Cusle: The USLE cover and management factor

LSusle: The USLE slope length factor (topographic factor)

Pusle: The USLE practice factor

CFRG: The coarse fragment factor

In sediment transport, two currencies of degradation and sedimentation is computed by

SWAT with the help of same channel dimensions for the whole population. There are

two components of Sediment transport, first is landscape component and the other one

is channel component.

In channel component, sides of the channel and erosive force are exposed to the current

below the layer deposits and the formation of the channel bank. The SWAT model uses

the easy stream power equation (hypothetical method) given by Bagnold (1977) to

estimate the maximum sediment amount that water can transport.

 16

2.5 Previous studies

There are several previous studies conducted to estimate sediment and runoff :

Smith and Dragovich (2007) conducted a study to estimate the amount of sediments

produced from the catchment at the headwaters of the Loglan River. The study area was

(53.5 km2) which is located at a distance of (12 km) south of the city of Orange in

Australia with the average annual rate of falls being approximately (903 mm). The work

of the two researchers in the study were to understand the parameters controlling the

release of fine sediments from the gabions and the most effective way to reduce them

because its an important part of the maintenance and management of the stream. Also

they tracked and measured the sediments at the al-Jabiya crossing in addition to

intensive tracking and measurement of sediments in a sub-catchment area of (1.6 km2)

for a period of approximately two years from winter (2005) to the end of (2006). The

study found that the walls of the main canal in the jabiya supply a significant amount of

fine sediments especially in the high drainage to the Jabiya port which confirms the

need for better management of the canal to reduce the sediment supply.

Alansi, et. al. (2009) estimated flow forecasting of Upper Bernam humid tropical river

basin with the assistance of the SWAT Model. The basin is the foremost source of

irrigation and the water supply for agriculture purpose which is situated in southeast

Perak and northeast Selangor in Malaysia. It was seen that the use of land has swiftly

changed during the period of the study. From (1981-2004), the calibration was

performed, whereas (2005-2007) period was used for the validation purpose of both

forecasting of the flow and simulation. The annual results were (0.65 and 0.82) for the

Nash-Sutcliffe simulation efficiency (NSE) and Coefficient of Determination (R2)

during the calibration stage, while the monthly results were (0.81 and 0.62).
 17

Furthermore, for the purpose of annual and monthly validation, (R2) and (NSE) were

(0.99, 0.93, 0.98 and 0.92). For forecasting validation, the values for (R2) and (NSE)

were (0.88, 0.78, 0.86 and 0.74). The results showed an growth in annual flow depth

from (8% to 39%) due to the changes in land-use and throughout high flow months, it

increases from (16% to 59%). Whereas, for year (2020), the streamflow forecasting

was seen to be optimal during low flow months of the study area.

Adwubi, et. al. (2009) conducted a study in northern Ghana where many dams are

established in that region due to water scarcity. Many of these reservoirs dry up in the

dry season and thus affecting the local neighborhoods in their basin. It was found that

the accumulation of silt that reduces the capacity of the reservoirs is the main reason for

their drought. The objectives of the study were to estimate the annual amount of silt for

four reservoirs by using the bathymetry survey which involved taking soil samples and

also to estimate the amount of sedimentation and its relationship to the catchment. The

results showed that the annual amount of silt was (1272, 3518, 2764 and 6135) tons for

the Doba, Dua, Zebella and Kumbalcoco tanks respectively. The results found that with

the increase in the collection area, the sediment concentration decreases. Likewise, all

reservoirs have lost the dead storage capacity that is supposed to run out at the end of

the designed life time of the dams.

Jain, et. al. (2010) proposed that for runoff and sediment yield simulation from the

watershed, SWAT is applied to a portion of the Satlug River basin which is placed

between Suni and Kasol in the Himalayan western region in Pakistan. The results

presented that the monthly sediment yield and (R²) value for daily and during

calibration was found to be (0.38 and 0.33). The monthly sediment yield during the

validation period and (R²) value for daily was calculated as (0.47 and 0.26). The results
 18

showed that the (R²) value for daily simulation is lower as compared to monthly values

which shows that the daily flow estimates were not as precise as compared to monthly

estimates. The reason behind this is that monthly totals incline to smooth the data which

as a result upsurges the value of (R²).

Fadil, et. al. (2011) emphsized to define the basin and also its sub-components to edit

the model database and combine its data layers by applying the SWAT model on

Bouregreg basin that is situated at north-central of Morocco. Autocalibration method

was applied which is based upon Shuffled Complex Evolution Algorithm for the period

(1989 to 1997) and it is validated for the period (1998 to 2005). For calibration and also

for validation periods in Bouregreg watershed, the SWAT model performed well. With

the simulated and observed monthly mean river discharge with R² and Nash coefficient

of (0.8), the results were impressive. The inflow of Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah

(SMBA) dam was proficiently reproduced with value of (R²) of (0.9) and the water

balance components were properly assessed. The results demonstrated that the model

was correctly calibrated.

Hadadin, et. al. (2012) conducted a study aimed to apply synthetic hydrographs (sub-

integral, SCS, Snyder, Modified Talbort, TR-20 and routing unit hydrograph methods)

for assessing peak releases from limited hydrological data and estimating six techniques

reliability to precisely evaluate storm-water runoff. The study was carried out on

watersheds of Rashadia in southeastern desert of Jordan. The areas of watersheds

ranged from (43 km2 to 423 km2). A comparison made between the six methods showed

that the minor difference from the average of (5.6%) was found by using TR-20 method

and the maximum deviation of (17.8%) was obtained by using sub-integral method.
 19

Dessu and Melesse (2012) evaluated the SWAT Model by using it on Mara River basin

which is portioned between Tanzania as well as Kenya of long-term precipitation-runoff

simulation. The potentials of extending gauge precipitation data by using satellite, the

precipitation estimates were examined. Monthly satellite precipitation measurements

were overvalued and lacking of the variability of observed precipitation for substituting

the gauge precipitation in the proposed simulated model. For the purpose of alternative

model components and hydrologic parameters which were applied in SWAT,

Sensitivity and Uncertainty analysis were reported. In Mara River basin, the mean

sensitivity indices of the SWAT parameters varied with and without observed discharge

data. Moreover, manual calculations of individual parameters specified that in sub-

basins of Mara River basin there was presence of heterogeneous response. The SWAT

model was validated as well as calibrated with discharge data of (10 years). The R2 and

NSE, calibration and validation results were (0.43, 0.44) and (0.68, 0.69). Two years of

flow frequency analysis and moving time window reflected that SWAT performance

were utmost relied on abundance and quality of discharge data in Mara River basin. The

results exhibited that SWAT model is proficient enough to simulate the process of rain

runoff in the Mara River basin.

Ezz-Aldeen, et. al. (2012) used SWAT Model to calculate the load of sediment on the

right bank side of Mosul Dam reservoir (MDR) during (1988-2008) by the three key

valleys. The results demonstrated that the average annual sediment load is (42.7 × 103

tons). The researchers found that these three valleys contribute a huge amount of

sediment load which arrives the reservoir. The operations of the Mosul dam can be

affected by Sediment buildup and it may result into shortage of lifespan of dam.
 20

Fadhil (2013) applied Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model which works

with GIS to measure the volume of runoff of surface and sediments amount as well as

concetration inflowing from three valleys placed on MDR right side. Estimated volume

of surface runoff and sediments was the study period from (1994 to 2012). The results

of the average loading of sediments arriving to the lake from the valleys of Sweedy,

Crnold and Al Salam during the study period were (17.4, 1.5 and 1.1 × 103) (tons,

respectively, that is) and the total loads for the weight of incoming sediments for the

tank during the period whose volume reached (380 × 103 tons).

Ezz-Aldeen, et. al. (2013) applied SWAT model to measure the sediment yield and

daily runoff from seven valleys that arrive the MDR from the left side. The researchers

found that for the study period (1988-2008), average annual water flow was (13.8 × 106

m3) and the average annual yield of sediment was (702 × 106 tons) from these valleys.

Results vary over time and between valleys according to soil type, watershed

topography, watershed area, as well as other influencing factors.

Issa, et. al. (2013) used bathymetric surveys for measuring the distribution of sediment

in the reservoir. Using Arc/GIS program, two irregular triangular networks (TIN) were

created from the depth survey of 2011 and the topographic map of 1983. The results of

the comparison between both maps reflected the presence of sedimentation volume in

upper region part of the reservoir, at this place where the Tigris River arrives,

sedimentation volumed was the highest and slowly retreated towards Mosul Dam site.

The maximum thickness of sedimentation inside the tank was (17.6 m). In the 2011

survey, the bad slope of the Tigris River changed from (0.65 m.km-1) within the

reservoir area prior the dam construction to (0.71 m.km-1). Reservoir experienced an

erosion upto the depth of (9.6 m) in areas within the middle and lower parts.
 21

Al-Ansari, et. al. (2013) composed fifty-six samples from Mosul reservoir bottom

covering most part of the reservoirs area. The results found that they were containing

(15% sand, 3.8% gravel, 55.5% silt and 25.7% clay). The sediments distribution were,

silt portion signifies the maximum or (77%) of the reservior bottom sediments which

followed by clay (13.5%) and sand (9.5%). In the northern zone of Mosul reservoir,

sand percentages were the highest, the place where the River Tigris arrives to reservoir

and declines slowly to dam. Likewise, silt percentage falls to the dam site, on the other

hand, the finer fraction i.e. clay upsurges. The mean sizes and average median of the

sediments were (0.0146 and 0.142 mm). The sediments were badly sorted from nearly

symmetrical in the skewness and in leptokurtic, also, very leptokurtic to democratic. It

is found that the hydrodynamics and geometry of the Mosul reservoir and the River

Tigris entrance location together with the tributary valleys side have played very

significant part in the distribution of sediment and their characteristics.

Saadallah (2014) applied SWAT model to calculate surface flow and also sediment

flowing in Tigris River from the Al-Khoser River, one important seasonal tributaries

that flow into Tigris River within Nineveh Governorate in northern Iraq. The researcher

relied on several statistical tests, namely (R2), (NSE) and Index of Agreement (IOA).

The statistical tests results which are the approved tests themselves, showed excellent

performance as their results were (0.97, 0.89 and 0.72) for (R2), (IOA) and (NSE)

respectively. In general, the annual average for the surface was (22.3 ×106 m3) for

simulated years from (1991-2011). The researcher concluded that the annual sediments

carried to the Tigris River ranged between (8.4 × 103 and 930 × 103 tons) for the years

(1993) and (2008) respectively at an average of (157.4 × 103 tons) annual during the

simulation period. Sediment concentrations ranged between (1.45 and 8.95 kg/m3) for

the years (2000) and (2001) with precipitation depth of (275 and 368 mm) respectively.
 22

Issa, et. al. (2015) determined the TE of the MDR for period (1986 to 2011) by

applying six different experimental methods. They took monthly operating data for

inflows and outflows and then, water heights of the MDR to calculate the monthly and

long-term TE. The researcher analyzed the results with the help of deep-sea survey data

which was collected in (2011) after (25 years) dam operation. The researcher concluded

that all methods demonstrated close results and results were very near to depth survey

results to evaluate the deposited sediments volumr, which was giving an error of (0.37)

percentage. Furthermore, the result considered provided good agreement if these are

compared with long-term TE as for the monthly approved data, the percentage error is

between (3.229) percent to (1.674) percent and it is (4.862) percent to (−2.477) percent

for the total period data. It is supposed that this work will be helpful for others to

practice this technique in different reservoir .

Zende (2015) applied SWAT model to measure runoff and sediment yield of the Kerala

river basin placed in the Peninsular India semi-arid region for the period (1998-2011).

Annual runoff was a maximum of (2245.12 MCM) (787.60 mm precipitation, in 2009)

and minimum of (554.61 MCM) (232.55 mm precipitation, in 2003) and sediment yield

was a maximum of (16822.28 m³) (749.02 mm precipitation, in 2004) and minimum of

(2204.31 MCM) (232.55 mm precipitation, in 2003).

Mohammad, et. al. (2016) simulated the flow and sediment in the MDR by using the

HEC-RAS 4.1 model. Simulation period ranges from (1986 to 2011) estimated loads of

sediment by taking into condideration available measurements. The model is calibrated

for sediment considerations and flow, indicating decent model performance results for

sedimentation and flow simulation. Moreover, (R2) were (0.87) for observed and

predicted level comparison. The results showed that the whole sediment load was (1.13
 23

km³), a value near to the measured values (1,143 km³) found from earlier bathymetric

survey. Additionally, the model showed that during the first five years of operation of

dam, most of the sediment (80.7%) was deposited. The results showed that in the upper

part of the reservoir, coarse sediments carried by the flow of the Tigris River were

deposited, while the fine sediments were placed with the flow path of reservoir.

Mustafa, et. al. (2016) used the SWAT model to measure sediment load-carrying and

yearly runoff from the main valleys at Haditha Dam reservoir left bank of Iraq. The

results showed that entire sediment amount from all valleys were near to (2.56×106

tons). Due to the surface runoff of nearby (167.79×106 m³), the minimum annual entire

sediment load was nearby (8.62×10³ ton) in the year (2007), while maximum annual

entire sediment load was nearby (488.22×10³ ton) in the year (1988).

Mohammad, et. al. (2016) applied SWAT model and WEPP models to measure

sediment load and annual runoff volume for Duhok Dam Reservoir Duhok/ Iraq north.

The results depicted that for the study period of (1988-2011), an average annual runoff

and sediment load were (13.7 MCM) and (120.4×10³ ton) for SWAT model and WEPP

model. The results showed that models presented reasonable results as compared to

measured values.

Rafiei, et. al. (2016) used SWAT model in the basin of Vietnam Aluoi district to

establish a hydrological model. It was found that between September and November,

there was uppermost average monthly surface runoff (700 to 765 mm) which caused

extreme soil erosion and sedimentation. During May, the monthly mean of actual

evapotranspiration was highest and it was lowest in December. The model was

calibrated an (R²) coefficient larger than (0.7) in monthly and daily scales and Nash-

Sutcliff. As far as yearly scale is concerned, the crop yield was calibrated inside the
 24

model and also validated with root means square error (RMSE) less than (2.4 ton/ha)

which exhibited the good performance of the model.

Hallouz, et. al. (2018) used SWAT model combined with Geographic Information

System (ArcGIS) to simulate the discharge and sediment concentration for the period

(2004-2009) in Wadi Haraz’s basin of Algeria. Calibration was executed with the help

of SWAT-CUP model. The results of validation outputs and calibration for monthly

simulation displayed a decent model performance for discharges. Harraz valley is

divided into sub-valleys and the average annual sediments of the Harraz valley are

estimated at (54.24 tons/year).

Al-Adwan (2018) evaluated the sediment yield in the Wadi Al-Arab Dam in Jordan.

The SWAT model was applied to forecast the sedimentation in simulation period of

(2003 to 2014) which includes (3 years) of warm-up. The watershed area of (263 km²)

was divided into (21) watershed which was further divided into (288) Hydrological

response unit (HRU). The results exhibited that with a rate of (0.093 MCM), reservoir

volume storage decreases yearly which shows that since the construction of the dam, the

accumulated sediments are (3 MCM) aproximately.

Mahmood and Khaleel (2018) estimated the sediment load using three methods, where

they applied the (MATLAB) program to program the Toffaletti and Einstein methods

and the Bagnold method in the SWAT program for three main valleys flowing into

MDR right bank of study period (1988-2016). Annual prepared sediment load from

valleys to the lake ranged from (1.08×103 - 27.32×103) for the Bagnold, (0.08×104 -

10.41×104) for the Toffaletti and (0.44×105 - 28.66×105) tons for the Einstein methods

over the study period. Swedish valley is known as the key provider of sediments on the

right bank for the dam lake at a rate of near (89%).

 25

Al-Afeshat (2019) applied the Watershed Modelling System (WMS) model to The

Coastal Side Wadis at Aqaba city in Jordan which was carried out using newly updated

Intensity duration Frequency (IDF) curves to predict surface runoff volume and runoff

hydrograph for the 19 Wadi stations from (1997 to 2018). Storm events of return

periods were for (50, 100 and 200) years. The results of the model were the maximum

runoff volume and the peak flow of Wadi Mabrouk for the (100) years return period

was estimated to be (0.92 MCM) and (77.07 m³/s). SWAT model was applied to

measure sediment yield which was determined to be (1.23 tons/h).

Kassem, et. al. (2020) applied SWAT and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models in

streamflow predicting problems at Asmawa and Khanis gauge stations for the Khazir

River lie in Iraq Kurdistan region and developed a model known as hybrid SWAT-

ANN which was used for predicting day-to-day streamflow. For the purpose of

calibration and as well as validation of the models, the dailyflow existing for (12) years

from (2004 to 2015) was segregated in two sets. A hybrid (SWAT-ANN) model was

found by combining SWAT and the ANN tools. SWAT-ANN model of Khazir River

results were comparative. It showed a good agreement with (R2) of (0.85 and 0.86) for

Khanis and Asmawa stations. The RMSE values for the above-mentioned stations were

found to be (0.050 and 0.045). Using a hybrid SWAT-ANN model, (R²) and RMSE for

Asmawa and Khanis stations was more efficient as compared to SWAT model in

predicting the daily streamflow of basin.

Mohammad, et. al. (2020) applied HEC-RAS 5.01, two-dimensional (2-D) model at the

MDR for the study period from (1986 to 2011), to study, analyze and evaluate the

pumping rates effects and also flow depth on the flow velocity distribution and flow

strength. They took pumping station as a case study and specified that station has the
 26

problem of sediment accumulation around and inside its suction pipes and intake. They

measured the key sources of flow to reservoir are runoff from the valleys and the Tigris

River. They concluded that medium depth velocity model exhibited that the highest

flow velocity increased from (75 to 4) times the usual speed at the time of functioning

of pumping station within the designed whole capacity range (100% to 25% of its entire

capacity), when there was no pumping depend upon the depth of flow and Pumping

rate. At full pumping capacity, the flow energy varied from near (zero to 400 times) and

short flow depth. They emphasized that the model’s performance is better in measuring

the entire sedimentation load and inverted layer level as compared to sedimentation and

erosion areas for various studied reservoir bottom sections.

 27

CHAPTER THREE

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

In the present study, SWAT (Soil and Water assessment tool) 10.2 model is used for

calculating sediment yield and surface runoff. This hydrological model has following

components: surface runoff, weather, return flow, evapotranspiration, infiltration,

transmission losses, pond and reservoir storage, crop growth and irrigation, flow of

groundwater, nutrient and the pesticide loading, reach routing and also water transfer.

SWAT is also known as a watershed hydrological transport model. and is an ArcMap

toolbar and is the key element of Esri's Arc-GIS suite for geospatial processing

programs, which is applied firstly to view, create, edit and analyze the geospatial data.

The GIS (Geographic Information System) system intends for capturing, manipulate,

store, manage, analyze, and present geographic or spatial data.

3.2 Description of the SWAT program

the form (SWAT) in the form of a toolbar in the (GIS) program consisting of six lists

each of contains a set of options. The following steps explain making the menus and

running the form:

1. A new project is created and then a map, DEM (Digital Elevation Model) is

added for describing watershed, its outlets as well as flow paths for the study

area through the Watershed Delineator list.

2. Land use and soil type digital maps are created; to create HRUs (Hydrological

Response Units) for forest area through the Hydrological Response Unit

Analysis list (HRU Analysis) which is defined as a common ground area in the
 28

sub-basin containing an exclusive type of soil type, slope and ground cover. The

definition of HRUs in ArcSWAT is attained by:

a. Land use data: land use map of Iraq northern region was used with the

similar projection using research schedule as the watershed DEM map and

then reclassification.

b. Soil data: Soil map of northern Iraq was used with the same projection of

watersheds.

c. Slope classification: By means of multiple slope categories to categorise

slope into total five categories.

d. All these data are doubled and categorized in the catchment area. The

recommended range is (10-20%) when using HRUs with multiple HRUs.

The choice of the land use rate above the sub-basin area shall be (15%) as

well as for the slope and soil.

3. For each watershed, several HRUs are created.

4. The required climatic data is entered through the (Write Input Tables) list which

includes precipitation data, relative humidity, minimum and maximum

temperatures, radiation of solar and also wind speeds which are in the form of

(Text File) and then creating simulation Tables. The data is obtained from the

meteorological station were the station's location is also added. The model then

generates weather database for catchment area.

5. Through the list (Edit SWAT Input), the database is updated by entering data

associated to study area soil type and land use to modify the data firstly installed

in the form. There is also possibility of changing the simulation accounts method
 29

and change its coefficients in addition to modifying the data related to secondary

basins.

Through the simulation menu (SWAT Simulation) that contains the option (Run

SWAT) opens the (Setup and Run SWAT Model Simulation) window through, which

the form was executed and the time interval entry, the start and end dates of the

simulation where the simulation period is chosen from 1/1/1985 to 31/12/2019. This list

comprises options for starting output display window and one more window for

changing the entire variables with the help of which the calibration process takes place.

3.3 Available Data

In this stage, various data types and maps desirable to be made available and used in the

program prior to starting of simulation, these were:

1. DEM (Digital Elevation Map) along with 30 m resolution obtainable by ASTER

(Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) and

GDEM (Global Digital Elevation Model).

2. Land use map provided by the ESA (European Space Agency) and UCL

(University Catholique de Louvain).

3. Soil types map comprising soil depth data made available by HWSD

(Harmonized World Soil Database) from Globcover 2009-L4-V2.3.

4. Topography map

5. The daily climatic data like wind speed, precipitation, relative humidity, solar

radiation and temperature for the period from 1985 to 2019 were adopted for

meteorological stations nearby to study area, precisely Mosul Station as well as

Mosul Dam Station (The Iraqi General Weather Service).

 30

3.4 Model Performances Evaluation

Several statistical criteria are used to assess the model's performance, the following

criteria were chosen accordingly:

1. Coefficient of determination (R2):

The coefficient of determination is generally known as the proportion of dependent

variable variance that is foreseeable from the independent variable. Coefficient of

determination is taken in those statistical models where important purpose is either

the forecast of future results or the testing of hypotheses, which are based on some

other associated information. This information varies between (0 and 1).

2. Index of Agreement (IOA):

A standard measure of models’ prediction error degree was ranges from (0 - 1). The

agreement index signifies the ratio of the mean squared error to the potential error.

Agreement value of (1) specifies the exact match and (0) value shows no agreement

at all. The agreement index can reveal additional and proportional differences in

means observed and simulated discrepancies.

3. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE):

Root mean square error is a regularly applied measure of the deviations between

model predicted values and the recorded values. Root mean square error signifies

the second sample moment square root of deviations between model predicted

values and recorded values above mentioned deviations quadratic mean. As per

this, the best model always has a lowest value.

4. Mean Absolute Error (MAE):

The MAE is a measure of two continuous variables differences i.e. predicted values

and recorded values. It is basically the mean vertical distance of every point and
 31

identity line, likewise the mean horizontal distance between every point and

identity line. As per this, the best model always has a lowest value.

3.5 Model Calibration

When the values of the SWAT models are not acceptable according to values of

aforementioned statistical criteria’s, manual calibration should be done by changing

some parameters in SWAT model.

Manual calibration of the SWAT model was done by varying the parameters of

Manning Coefficient of roughness (n), SOL_K (Saturated hydraulic conductivity),

CH_K (Effective Hydraulic Conductivity in Main Channel), Curve Number (CN),

SPEXP (Exponent Parameter) and SPCON (Linear Parameter) in sediment transfer

equation, which are affecting runoff and sedimentation according to the following steps:

1. Change the value of CN and the other parameters being fixed by (+5%), then the

results of surface runoff, sediment concentrations and accumulated sediments

are compared with the measured results by finding R2, IOA, RSME and MAE.

2. Repeat the first step by changing of the value of CN (+10%, +15% and +20%)

and (˗5%, ˗10%, ˗15% and ˗20%) within the acceptable limits of CN.

3. Choose the best value CN based on results of the R2, IOA, RSME and MAE.

4. Repeat the steps (1-3) by changing of the parameters (n, CH_K and SOL _ K)

separately.

5. The value of the (Spcon) which affect the sediment directly has been changed,

the SWAT results were compared with measured values by R2, IOA, RSME and

MAE and the best value is determined.

6. Repeat the step (5) for the (Spexp) and determine the best value according to the

values R2, IOA, RSME and MAE.

 32

7. Combine the effect of above parameters together by entering the specified

values for each parameter in a single execution, and the parameters are changed

by reducing them until the best results are obtained for R2, IOA, RSME and

MAE.

3.6 Surface runoff

The SWAT model was basically used to measure identified watersheds runoff. The

following steps show that SWAT works on the procedure:

 Use of the DEM digital elevation map to identify watersheds

 Using the categorization of landuse and also soil type map

 Apply the necessary climatic data to run the model such as precipitation,

humidity, temperature, wind speed and solar radiation.

 Finding the Curve Number for the basin using SCS-CN Method

 Finding the Retention factor (S)

 Determination of runoff depth (Qsurf) from the influence of daily (Rday)

precipitation records using the SCS method.

 The concentration-time (tconc) is estimated from the onset of precipitation and the

formation of runoff inside the secondary basins and then the mainstream until

the water reaches the outlet.

 33

3.7 Sediment modeling

The SWAT model uses the MUSLE (Modified global soil loss equation) which was

given by Wischmeier and Smith (1965) by modifying the USLE (Universal soil loss

equation) to estimate sediment total amount that is delivered to the watershed. The

following steps show that SWAT works on the procedure:

 Assessing the soil erosion factor (Kusle) and it is a rate of soil loss each unit

erosion index for the particular soil that was estimated on a land plot.

 Cusle (Cover and Management Factor) is a ratio of soil lost in cultivated land to

soil lost in uncultivated land. It changes during the plant growth phase, which

SWAT updates Cusle daily.

 Determining Support Practice Factor (Pusle) is ratio of the soil loss in special

local loss conditions in naturally cultivated land, which is taken as a function of

use of land and is mostly used in agricultural lands. The parameter value

depends on the gradient of the surface topography, slope, method of cultivation

and roughness of the ground.

 Determining Topographic Factor (LSusle) is represents the Slope Length factor

Lusle and the Slope Steepness factor Susle which are usually taken as a single

parameter.

 Determining Coarse Fragment Factor (CFRG).

 After determining all the factors of the MUSLE equation adopted in SWAT by

which the sediment yield of a rainstorm (Sed) unit (HRU) (tones) is then

determined.
 34

CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction

This part comprises an explanation of the research of the study areas Sweedy, Crnold

and Alsalam valleys describing the soil type, climate data and land use for the area.

Calibration the SWAT model and verify its performance in estimating the depth of

sediment load and runoff. The SWAT model was implemented for the study area to

measure the sediments load and runoff for the period of (1/1/1985 - 31/12/2019). It also

includes identifying valleys that cause the maximum load of sediments and comparing

them with previous studies conducted on the mentioned region. The bitmaps used in the

SWAT model with resolution of 30m. UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR is

the coordinating system that has been used in modeling.

4.1 Input Data for SWAT model

4.1.1 DEM (Digital Elevation Model)

A digital terrain’s surface elevation model map has been entered of the study area. It is

an important input to the model as it disturbs the delineation of watersheds, HRUs and

various sub-basins. Therefore, reducing the DEM resolution will lead to great

differences in the output. The highest elevation within the DEM is (779 m) and the

lowest elevation is (311 m). Figure (4.1) displays the DEM (Digital elevation model)

map of present research area.

 35

Figure 4. 1: DEM and streams network of the study area, using SWAT 10.2
 36

4.1.2 Classification of Land use

The map comprises a numeric code for the purpose of designating every type of land

use for total cells. The program determines the area of all land use types in percentage

for instance if the land is used for agriculture, used for construction and the water area

of land. Pasture (PAST) is the most widespread land use after classification with

(38.81% and 48.44%) for the Sweedy and Crnold valleys area respectively and Range-

Grasses (RNGE) is the most widespread land use with (57.7%) of the Alsalam valley

area as shown in Appendix B, Tables (B.4) to (B.6). Figure 4.2 displays a map of land

use for the study area.

Figure 4. 2: Land use for the study area, using SWAT 10.2
 37

4.1.3 Soil Classification

The SWAT model adopted map to recognize the data and types of soil for the study

area. It comprises a database of whole data required to simulate the SWAT model as

can be noted in Table (4.1). Soil type clay (3276) (Green color) as shown in Figure (4.3)

is the predominant type of soil with (78.5%) of the Sweedy valley area and Soil type

clay loam (3323) (Brown color) is the predominant type of soil with (81.5% and 100%)

for the Crnold and Alsalam valleys respectively as shown in Appendix B the soil

distribution tables for each valley; Table B.7 and Table B.8.

Figure 4. 3: The distribution of soil for the study area, using SWAT 10.2
 38

Table 4. 1: Soil Database of the Study Area, (University of Mosul)

Organic Hydraulic
Global Hydraulic Deep Density Humidity Clay Silt Sand Gravel K
Texture Material Conductivity (K)
Code Soil Group USLE
(cm) (gm/cm3) (m/m) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (mm/hr)

3108 B loam 30 1.4 0.1 1.26 21.5 37.5 41 6.53 0.15 83

clay
3108 D 100 1.36 0.15 0.33 27 36 37 3.63 0.17 41
loam
3276 D clay 100 1.21 0.13 0.45 57 28 15 4.03 0.16 21
clay
3191 D 100 1.28 0.12 0.54 42.6 30.44 26.96 7.8 0.15 44.6
loam
clay
3277 D 100 1.26 0.12 0.44 46.21 30.77 23.02 5.43 0.15 37
loam
clay
3279 D 100 1.26 0.13 0.41 48 30.4 21.6 3.93 0.15 39.6
loam
clay
3298 D 100 1.29 0.15 0.39 39.9 30.8 29.3 9.22 0.16 35.2
loam
clay
3323 D 100 1.34 0.15 0.33 30.49 36.25 33.26 6.3 0.17 48.7
loam
 39

4.1.4 Slope Discretization

The slope was discretized using the multiple slope option, the number of the slope of

five classes where from 0-5 as can be seen in Appendix of B, Tables B.9 to B. 11. Fig

(4.4) displays the land slope of the study area.

Figure 4. 4: Land slope for the study area, using SWAT 10.2

4.1.5 The Daily Weather Data

The daily climatic data were obtained from two meteorological climatic stations close to

the study area, such as Mosul Station and Mosul Dam weather Station as shown in

Table (4.2). The stations data were applied for producing the required database for

SWAT model and used for continuous everyday simulation of sediments and surface

runoff for the time period of (1985-2019). The daily database comprised the wind

speed, precipitation, solar radiation, relative humidity, and minimum and maximum

temperatures. Scheduled data on climate was made in the specific format essential for
 40

the purpose of SWAT database of weather. Required data to be changed in text files so

that it can enter in the SWAT climate database.

Table 4. 2: Data of Climatic Stations

Station
SWAT ID Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)
Name

Mosul 329959 36.31 43.25 223

Mosul Dam 329956 36.61 42.83 317

Precipitation

The daily precipitation records obtained from the meteorological stations were arranged

according to the water year (the period between October 1 of a year and September 30

of the following year according to the US Geological Survey) during the period (1985 -

2019). Figures (4.5) and (4.6) show total annual precipitation records for stations Mosul

and Mosul dam from the water year (1985/1986) to the water year (2018/2019) in both

stations. Figure (4.5) also shows that the wettest years were on (1988 and 2019) and the

driest year was on (2017) while Figure (4.6) shows that the wettest year was on (1996)

and the driest year on (2017). The average annual precipitation for 35 years was 362.37

and 352.81 mm for Mosul and Mosul dam stations respectively.

 41

700

600

500
Annual Precipitation (mm)

400

300

200

100

Year

Figure 4. 5: Total annual precipitation records for Mosul station (1985-2019), (The
Iraqi General Weather Service)

900

800

700

600
Annual Precipitation (mm)

500

400

300

200

100

Year

Figure 4. 6: Total annual precipitation records for Mosul dam station (1985-2019),
(The Iraqi General Weather Service)
 42

4.2 Model Calibration

4.3.1 Catchment used in Calibration

The area northwest of Mosul which is part of the valleys that flows to Mosul Dam Lake

left side were used for calibrating model to provide real data for surface runoff and

sediment load. The researchers (Al-Naqib and Al-taiee, 1987) established a station to

measure the sediment load and surface runoff to valley outlet. Height level of the

required catchment area lies from 316.6 m to 1033 m, the total area for the Fayda valley

was 106.3 km2 and outlet Coordinates were Latitude 36°43'35"N and Longitude

42°55'10"E. as shown in Figure (4.7)

Figure 4. 7: The area of calibration valley and flow distribution, using SWAT 10.2
 43

4.3.2 SWAT Calibration

Manual calibration of the SWAT model was done by changing various parameters of (n,

CH_K, SOL_K, CN, Spcon and Spexp). Where each parameter was changed separately

by fixing the other parameters. The SWAT results were used to compare it with

measured data by using the equations 4.1 to 4.4. The results of changing the (n, CH_K,

and SOL_K) parameters, showed that there is no effect of each one on surface runoff,

while their effect was very little on sediment values. Therefore, they were neglected in

the calibration as shown in the results of the statistical standards in Tables (4.3) to (4.5).

The statistical criteria’s that used in evaluate the model's performance are IOA (Index of

Agreement), Coefficient of determination (R2), MAE (Mean absolute error) and RMSE

(Root mean square error), all models are expressed by equations.

The R2, RMSE and MAE equations (Kassem, 2020):

2
∑𝑛
𝑖=1(𝑋ᵣ−𝑋՟ᵣ)×(𝑋ₛ−𝑋՟ₛ)
𝑅² = [ ] (4.1)
√∑𝑛 𝑛
𝑖=1(𝑋ᵣ−𝑋՟ᵣ)²×∑𝑖=1(𝑋ₛ−𝑋՟ₛ)²

1
𝑅𝑆𝑀𝐸 = √(𝑛 × ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑋ᵣ − 𝑋ₛ)²) (4.2)

1
𝑀𝐴𝐸 = 𝑛 × ∑𝑛𝑖=1|𝑋ᵣ − 𝑋ₛ| (4.3)

The IOA equation (Saadallah, 2014):

∑𝑛
𝑖=1(𝑋ᵣ−𝑋ₛ)
2
𝐼𝑂𝐴 = 1 − 𝑛 2 (4.4)
∑𝑖=1(|𝑋ᵣ−𝑋՟ᵣ|+|𝑋ₛ−𝑋՟ᵣ|)

where,

Xᵣ: measured data value

X͞ᵣ: Average measured data values

Xₛ: The value of the results obtained from the model

X͞ₛ: Average values of the results obtained from the model

n: The number of data points

 44

Table 4. 3: The results of statistical standards in changing (n)

The Runoff Sediment concentrations Sediment Load

ratio
R2 IOA RSME MAE R2 IOA RSME MAE R2 IOA RSME MAE
+20% 0.95 0.99 2.46 2.02 0.84 0.56 0.23 0.21 0.93 0.66 418.7 357.3
+15% 0.95 0.99 2.44 1.99 0.82 0.57 0.22 0.21 0.92 0.67 411.9 351.3
+10% 0.95 0.99 2.24 1.72 0.79 0.58 0.21 0.20 0.91 0.68 394.9 334.5
+5% 0.95 0.99 2.28 1.84 0.81 0.59 0.21 0.20 0.91 0.71 379.1 322.8
0 0.95 0.99 2.25 1.73 0.80 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.74 361.3 307.3
-5% 0.95 0.99 2.24 1.73 0.78 0.61 0.20 0.18 0.91 0.75 353.8 300.5
-10% 0.95 0.99 2.24 1.74 0.81 0.64 0.19 0.18 0.91 0.77 337.2 286.3
-15% 0.95 0.99 2.24 1.75 0.78 0.64 0.18 0.17 0.91 0.78 328.4 278.5
-20% 0.94 0.99 2.23 1.81 0.78 0.66 0.17 0.16 0.90 0.81 309.9 261.6

Table 4. 4: The results of statistical standards in changing (CH_K)

The Runoff Sediment concentrations Sediment Load

ratio R2
IOA RSME MAE R 2
IOA RSME MAE R 2
IOA RSME MAE
+20% 0.94 0.99 2.48 1.84 0.78 0.60 0.21 0.19 0.90 0.68 394.2 331.9
+15% 0.95 0.99 2.39 1.68 0.79 0.60 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.70 383.6 324.0
+10% 0.95 0.99 2.32 1.68 0.79 0.60 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.71 378.5 320.7
+5% 0.95 0.99 2.27 1.71 0.80 0.60 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.72 371.7 315.2
0 0.95 0.99 2.25 1.73 0.80 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.74 361.3 307.3
-5% 0.95 0.99 2.24 1.75 0.81 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.92 0.74 357.5 304.4
-10% 0.95 0.99 2.26 1.80 0.79 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.76 348.5 297.6
-15% 0.95 0.99 2.17 1.74 0.79 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.75 349.0 296.9
-20% 0.95 0.99 2.21 1.82 0.82 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.92 0.76 342.6 292.5
 45

Table 4. 5: The results of statistical standards in changing (SOL_K)

The runoff Sediment concentrations Sediment Load

ratioR 2
IOA RSME MAE R 2
IOA RSME MAE R 2
IOA RSME MAE
+20% 0.95 0.99 2.05 1.65 0.80 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.92 0.76 345.3 293.3
+15% 0.95 0.99 2.08 1.66 0.82 0.61 0.20 0.18 0.92 0.76 347.1 295.6
+10% 0.95 0.99 2.12 1.69 0.79 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.92 0.75 352.3 298.9
+5% 0.95 0.99 2.17 1.68 0.79 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.74 356.9 303.6
0 0.95 0.99 2.25 1.73 0.80 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.74 361.3 307.3
-5% 0.94 0.99 2.33 1.78 0.80 0.60 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.72 369.5 314.3
-10% 0.94 0.99 2.41 1.83 0.79 0.60 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.72 371.9 316.3
-15% 0.94 0.99 2.52 1.89 0.79 0.60 0.21 0.19 0.90 0.71 379.6 323.3
-20% 0.93 0.99 2.63 1.94 0.79 0.60 0.21 0.19 0.90 0.70 385.0 327.5

For the CN, it was also increased and decreased until the acceptable results for surface

runoff and sediments were obtained, depending on the results of the statistical standards

(R2, IOA, RSME and MAE) its effect was obvious. As shown in the Table (4.6) where

the best results were at +10%, +15% and +20%

Table 4. 6: The results of statistical standards in changing (CN)

The runoff Sediment concentrations Sediment Load

ratio R2 IOA RSME MAE R2 IOA RSME MAE R2 IOA RSME MAE
+20% 0.96 0.98 4.67 3.30 0.90 0.65 0.18 0.17 0.97 0.93 196.3 174.4

+15% 0.96 0.98 3.98 2.59 0.87 0.65 0.18 0.17 0.96 0.91 227.5 200.4
+10% 0.96 0.99 2.71 2.30 0.84 0.64 0.19 0.18 0.94 0.85 278.3 237.7
+5% 0.95 0.99 2.40 2.18 0.83 0.62 0.19 0.18 0.93 0.81 313.3 268.7
0 0.95 0.99 2.25 1.73 0.80 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.74 361.3 307.3
-5% 0.94 0.99 2.99 2.51 0.79 0.59 0.21 0.20 0.90 0.66 418.8 353.0
-10% 0.94 0.97 4.17 3.78 0.77 0.57 0.22 0.20 0.89 0.61 469.4 392.9
-15% 0.93 0.95 4.92 4.47 0.75 0.55 0.23 0.21 0.88 0.58 495.4 415.7
-20% 0.91 0.94 5.56 5.08 0.77 0.55 0.23 0.22 0.91 0.94 509.6 430.5
 46

For the parameters (Spcon and Spexp), each one was changed separately, as well as the

other parameters were fixed. The results of the statistical criteria for each parameter

showed a significant effect on the sediment load. As shown in the Tables (4.7), and

(4.8), the best results are when (Spcon = 0.0002 and Spexp = 1.7).

Table 4. 7: The results of statistical standards in changing (Spcon)

Values Sediment concentrations Sediment Load

of
(Spcon) R2 IOA RSME MAE R2 IOA RSME MAE

0.0001 0.80 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.74 361.3 307.3

0.0002 0.80 0.94 0.06 0.05 0.91 0.97 140.39 96.52

0.0003 0.80 0.69 0.22 0.19 0.91 0.86 403.77 311.85

0.0004 0.80 0.46 0.42 0.38 0.85 0.88 241.4 217.7

0.0005 0.80 0.34 0.61 0.57 0.91 0.59 1101.1 808.5

Table 4. 8: The results of statistical standards in changing (Spexp)

Values Sediment concentrations Sediment Load

of
(Spexp) R2 IOA RSME MAE R2 IOA RSME MAE
1 0.80 0.61 0.20 0.19 0.91 0.74 361.3 307.3

1.3 0.80 0.72 0.15 0.14 0.90 0.87 264.8 225.2

1.5 0.80 0.83 0.12 0.10 0.90 0.93 200.6 156.9

1.7 0.79 0.90 0.10 0.06 0.89 0.96 172.5 114.1

1.9 0.78 0.89 0.11 0.10 0.89 0.94 233.9 174.5

 47

After calibration stage, the appropriate values for the parameters (CN, Spcon and

Spexp) have been chosen; then the effects of them were combined together on the

results of surface runoff and sedimentation values. The results become acceptable after

changing these parameters again, as shown in the Table (4.9). Where the CN value was

changed from +15% to +10%, Spcon from 0.0002 to 0.0001 and Spexp from 1.7 to 1.6,

which gave better results for statistical criteria than changing each parameter alone,

meaning that it is a highly efficient SWAT model for estimating runoff and sediment.

The CN value of Fayda valley before the calibration was 73, while after adding +10%

the value became 80.

Table 4. 9: Values of the statistical parameters for Model calibration

Subject R2 IOA RSME MAE

Runoff depth 0.96 0.97 2.71 2.30

Sediment
0.85 0.92 0.08 0.06
concentration
Sediment
0.93 0.96 172.2 140.6
Amount

Table (4. 10) shows measured and estimated runoff and sediment results. Figures (4.8)

to (4.10) indicate the measured and estimated results for runoff depth, sediment

concentration and sediment amount.

 48

Table 4. 10: Measured and estimated runoff and sediment results for calibration
valley

Sediment
Runoff Depth (mm) Sediment Amount (ton)
Sample Concentration (mg/L)
Date
Measured Estimated Measured Estimated Measured Estimated

13/1/1988 12.33 10.57 0.455 0.314 299.1 352.7

17/1/1988 21.27 26.01 0.528 0.526 1199 1454

4/2/1988 1.62 0.68 0.171 0.049 29.6 3.55

17/2/1988 11.16 10.14 0.298 0.301 355.1 324.2

9/3/1988 15.9 18.92 0.43 0.442 743.8 888.3

30

25
Runoff Depth (mm)

20

15
Measured
Estimated
10

0
13/01/1988 17/01/1988 04/02/1988 17/02/1988 09/03/1988
Day

Figure 4. 8: Measured and estimated results for runoff depth

 49

0.6

Sediment Concentration (mg/L)

0.5

0.4

0.3
Measured
Estimated
0.2

0.1

0
13/01/1988 17/01/1988 04/02/1988 17/02/1988 09/03/1988
Day

Figure 4. 9: Measured and estimated results for sediment concentration

1600

1400
Sediment Amount (ton)

1200

1000

800
Measured
600 Estimated

400

200

0
13/01/1988 17/01/1988 04/02/1988 17/02/1988 09/03/1988

Day

Figure 4. 10: Measured and estimated results for sediment amount

 50

4.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis model explains that how with variations in the input variables,

output (target) variables are affected. This model is actually a way to foresee the

consequence of a decision at a certain range of the variables. This technique of

sensitivity analysis is applied within precise restrictions that may depend upon one or

more input variables (Kenton, 2019). The target and input i.e., independent and

dependent variables are entirely examined when sensitivity analysis is done. The target

should be noted how it was affected by changing the input variables.

In this study, the input parameter are (CN, n, CH_K, SOL_K, Spcon and Spexp), while

the output data are runoff, sediment concentrations and sediment Amount. When

changing the input (n, CH_K and SOL_K) by adding and decreasing by percentages

(5%, 10%, 15% and 20%), while the surface runoff did not increase or decrease less

than (-1%), meaning that they had no effect of these (n, CH_K) parameters, While the

SOL_K less than (2%) on the surface runoff. As well as for sediment load and

concentrations, their effect was very little, between (-1% and -6%) for increase and the

decrease cases for (n, CH_K) parameters. While the (SOL_K) less than (2%) for

increase and the decrease cases on sediment load and concentrations.

Changing of the (CN) by adding or decreasing in percentages (5%, 10%, 15% and

20%), noticed that high effect on the surface run-off, sediment load and concentration.

When the (CN) is changing (5%), the surface runoff was increases or decrease by more

than (8%). While the sediment concentrations was increases or decrease by more than

(3%). The sediment load was increases or decrease by more than (11%).

Changing the value of (Spcon and Spexp), they had no effect on the surface runoff, But

in the concentrations and sediment load when changing the value of (Spcon) (0.0001)

affected by more than (12%). While the value of (Spexp) when changed of (0.2) its
 51

effect on sediment concentrations more than (25%), and sediment load more than

(50%).

4.3 Surface Runoff

After the completion of calibration, the model was used to calculate the runoff depth

resulting from the effect of precipitation on the valleys of the present research area. The

mean annual precipitation for 35 years was 362.66 mm, which was very closely to the

average annual precipitation for Mosul and Mosul dam stations (362.37 and 352.81

mm) respectively.

The maximum value of monthly precipitation was 68.97 mm in December and annual

797 mm in year 1996. As shown in Appendix C, Tables C.1, C.2, Fig C.1 and C.2. The

runoff was calculated with the help of SCS curve number method where the mean for

35 years of the runoff depth for Sweedy, Crnold and Alsalam valleys were (91.18, 61.51

and 60.30 mm /year) respectively. While the average runoff volume (40.8, 4.63 and

2.73 MCM/year) for the curve number (91, 80 and 77) for the three valleys. As shown

in Appendix C, Tables (C.3) to (C. 8)

The depth of annual runoff is found from the following equation:

𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑜𝑢𝑡 (𝑚³/𝑠)×60×60×24×365

𝑅𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ(𝑚𝑚) = × 1000 (4.4)
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑘𝑚2 )×10⁶

The Figures (4.11), (4.12) and (4.13) show the average monthly surface runoff for

Sweedy, Crnold and Alsalam valleys. It is found that monthly maximum surface runoff

depth occurs in February were it reaches (18.07, 11.9 and 12.86 mm) for the three

valleys.
 52

20
18
16
surface Runoff depth (mm)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month

Figure 4. 11: The average monthly surface runoff depth for Sweedy valley (1985-
2019)

14

12
Surface Runoff depth (mm)

10

0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Month

Figure 4. 12: The average monthly surface runoff depth for Crnold valley (1985-

2019)
 53

14

12

Surface Runoff depth (mm) 10

0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Month

Figure 4. 13: The average monthly surface runoff depth for Alsalam valley (1985-
2019)

When considering the annual basis, the runoff depth reached its maximum value of 329

mm in the year 1996 for Sweedy valley, 270 mm in 1993 for Crnold valley and 261.6

mm in 1998 for Alsalam valley. As shown in Figures (4.14), (4.15) and (4.16)

350

300
Surface Runoff depth (mm)

250

200

150

100

50

Year

Figure 4. 14: The average annual surface runoff depth for Sweedy valley(1985-
2019)
 54

300

250
Surface Runoff depth (mm)

200

150

100

50

Year

Figure 4. 15: The average annual surface runoff depth for Crnold valley (1985-
2019)

300

250
Surface Runoff depth (mm)

200

150

100

50

Year

Figure 4. 16: The average annual surface runoff depth for Alsalam valley (1985-
2019)
 55

4.4 Sediment Production

The SWAT applies MUSLE equation to calculate the sediment yield. The total

summation annual sediment yield for 35 years (443.85, 176.47 and 124.12 ton/ha), and

at an annual average (12.68, 5.04 and 3.71 ton/ha) for Sweedy, Crnold and Alsalam

valleys respectively. The SWAT estimates the transport of sediments reaching the dam

reservoir the total sum sediment load (ton/year) for 35 years, its maximum value and

volume (m3/year) that will reach the dam reservoir at the valleys outlets, are shown in

Table (4.5).

The volume of the sediments was found from the following equation:

𝑆𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑡𝑜𝑛/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑚³/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟) = (4.5)
2.65

Where, the sediment specific gravity (Gs) was 2.65

Table 4. 11: The annual sediment and sediment volume results for each valley

Total sum Maximum Total sum Maximum

Sediments sediment volume volume
Valleys
load load sediment sediment
(ton/year) (ton/year) (m3/year) (m3/year)

Sweedy 111.4×103 32.45×103 42.04×103 12.25×103

Crnold 14.24×103 5.89×103 5.37×103 2.22×103

Alsalam 7.34×103 3.43×103 2.77×103 1.29×103

Tables (D.1) to (D.6) in appendix D shows that the monthly and annual values of

sediment production, volume of sediment for each valley.

As shown in Table (4.5), SWAT identified the Sweedy valley watershed as an area with

high sediment productivity. The highest production of sediment was reached in

 56

February (1.17×103, 1.86×102 and 1.08×102 ton) for Sweedy, Crnold and Alsalam

valleys respectively. In addition, the year 1998-recorded maximum for production of

sediments occurred in all valleys. Tables (D.7) to (D.9) in appendix D shows that the

channel deposition in 1998. Figures (4.17), (4.18) and (4.19) demonstrates the average

monthly, and Figures (4.20), (4.21) and (4.22) demonstrates the average annual of

sediment load for each valley.

1400

1200
Sediments load (ton)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Figure 4. 17: The average monthly of sediment load for Sweedy valley (1985-2019)
 57

200

180
Sediment load (ton) 160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Figure 4. 18: The average monthly of sediment load for Crnold valley (1985-2019)

120

100
Sediment load (ton)

80

60

40

20

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Figure 4. 19: The average monthly of sediment load for Alsalam valley (1985-2019)
 58

35000

30000

25000
Sediment load (ton)

20000

15000

10000

5000

Year

Figure 4. 20: The average annual of sediment load for Sweedy valley (1985-2019)

7000

6000
Sediment load (ton)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Year

Figure 4. 21: The average annual of sediment load for Crnold valley (1985-2019)
 59

4000

3500

3000
Sediment load (ton)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Year

Figure 4. 22: The average annual of sediment load for Alsalam valley (1985-2019)

4.5 Catchment characteristics

The total area of the three studied valleys in this thesis forms 568.03 km2 with the

watershed from the Sweedy valley being the greatest with an area of 447.5 km2, which

is approximately 79% of the total study area. Second valley was the Crnold valley with

an area of 75.27 km2, which consists of approximately 13% of the total area. Finally, the

Third valley was Alsalam valley having an area of 45.26 km2, which is equivalent of

around 8% of the study area (SWAT output) as tabulated in Table (4.6). The topography

of the watershed contains three main valleys of which each valley is separated into

numerous sub-basins. Numbers of sub-basins in Sweedy, Crnold and Alsalam valleys

were 29, 15 and 15 respectively and the Hydrologic Response Units HRUs for each

valley were 901, 304 and 221 units respectively as shown in Appendix B, Tables B.1 to

B. 3. Fig 4.23 depicts Watershed Delineation Process and Distribution of Sub-basins of

the Study Area.

 60

Figure 4. 23: Watershed delineation process and distribution of sub-basins of

the study area

Figure 4. 23: Watershed delineation process and distribution of sub-basins of the

study area
 61

Table 4. 12: Main valleys characteristics from SWAT and Hydrological Simulation
Model

Valleys
Characteristic
Sweedy Crnold Alsalam
Coordinates
Latitude 36º 49’ 58’’ 36º 48’ 52’’ 36º 43’ 53’’
Longitude 41º 50’ 12’’ 42º 29’ 11’’ 42º 44’ 2’’
447.5 75.27 45.26
Area (km2)
(79%) (13%) (8%)
Main Stream Length (km) 37.6 20.8 8.3
Slope (m/m) 4.3% 2% 4%
Width (m) 14 5.5 4.2
Elevation Max. 779 453 529
(m) Min. 311 314 319
Number of Sub-basins 29 15 15
Number of Soil Classes 5 2 1
Number of Land use Classes 6 6 5
Number of Slope Classes 5 5 5
Number of HRUs 901 304 221
Before calibration 83 73 70
CN
After calibration 91 80 77
Average annual runoff depth
91.18 61.51 60.30
(mm/year)
Average annual runoff
40.80 4.63 2.73
volume (MCM/year)
Average Annual Flow (m3/s) 1.29 0.15 0.09

Maximum annual Sediment

102 53.15 57.29
Yield in year 1998 (ton/ha)
Average annual Sediment
3.18×103 0.41×103 0.21×103
Load (ton/year)
Total sum annual of Sediment
111.4×103 14.24×103 7.34×103
Load (ton/year)
Deposition (%) 84% 11% 6%
Total average annual
362.66
precipitation (mm)
 62

4.6 Runoff and Sediment Yield Relationship

Mathematical relationships were found in the annual runoff and also annual sediment

yield for studied valleys. The equations efficiency was proved by using the coefficient

of determination (R2) values are 0.80, 0.77, and 0.82 for the Sweedy, Crnold, and

Alsalam valleys respectively.

The Sweedy valley Equation:

𝑄ₛ = 49.7 × 𝑄1.14 4.6

The Crnold valley Equation:

𝑄ₛ = 26 × 𝑄1.02 4.7

The Alsalam valley Equation:

𝑄ₛ = 25.4 × 𝑄1.32 4.8

Where Q represents the runoff (mm) and Qs represents the annual sediment yield

(ton/ha). This means that the annual sediment yield for a catchment area can be obtained

using these equations with a known value of mean runoff. Figures (4.24), (4.25), and

(4.26) illustrate the Surface Runoff-Sediment Yield Relationship for each valley

respectively.

60
Sediment Yield (ton/ha)

50 Qₛ = 49.7×Q1.14
40 R² = 0.80
30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Surface Runoff depth (mm)

Figure 4. 24: surface runoff-sediment yield relationship for Sweedy valley
 63

20
18
16 Qₛ = 26×Q1.02
Sediment Yield (ton/ha) 14 R² = 0.77
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Surface Runoff depth (mm)

Figure 4. 25: Surface runoff-sediment yield relationship for Crnold valley

18

16

14
Qₛ = 25.4×Q1.32
12
R² = 0.82
Sediment Yield (ton/ha)

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Surface Runoff depth (mm)

Figure 4. 26: Surface runoff-sediment yield relationship for Alsalam valley

 64

4.7 Comparison of the results with previous studies:

Many investigators applied different models and methods in their studies regarding the

runoff and sediment production. The present study results were required to be compared

with the previous results as shown in Table (4.13).

The researcher Fadhil (2013) used the WEPP for the current study area to estimate

sediment load that reaches the Mosul Dam reservoir for the period (1994-2012). Al-

Khoser River was used for calibrating this model. The model performance was

evaluated using model efficiency (Nash) and the correlation coefficient showed good

results and did not mention the details of changing any of the parameters during the

calibration. The researcher obtained results that prove that the maximum surface runoff

was in 1996 for a Sweedy valley, for the Crnold and Alsalam valleys in 1994. The

maximum sediment concentration in 2006 was for the valleys of Sweedy and Crnold,

while the maximum sediment concentration occurred in 1995, was at valley Alsalam,

The researcher Mahmood and Khaleel (2018) applied the MATLAB program to

estimate the load of the sediment by Toffaletti as well as Einstein methods. The SWAT

program was used to estimate the sediment load by the Bagnold method that enters the

Mosul Dam reservoir for the current study area and the period (1988-2016). The

calibration of the model on the AI-Khoser River was also by changing the values of the

curve number (CN), where the researchers obtained the best results when the (CN)

value was reduced (-4%). They evaluated the model performance with the help of

statistical criteria like NSE (Nash and Sutcliffe Model Efficiency), R2 (Regression

coefficient), and IOA (Index of Agreement) which depicted good results. Both

researchers reached the maximum surface run-off in 1993 and 2016 and the maximum

sediment load in 2016 in all valleys.

 65

The researcher Ezz-Aldeen, et.al (2012) applied the SWAT model for the period from

1988 to 2008 to estimate the load of sediment entering the Mosul Dam reservoir. The

model calibration on the Al-Khoser River was seasonal tributaries, which were feeding

the Tigris River. The model performance was estimated with the help of the Nash-

Sutcliffe coefficient, R2 (determination coefficient) and E (model efficiency) depicted

good outcomes and did not mention the details of changing any of the parameters

during the calibration. The researcher obtained results that prove that a large load of

sediment arrives in the reservoir from all of these valleys, and its accumulation affects

the operation of the dam. The maximum surface run-off was in 1993 and the maximum

sediment concentration in 1988 in all valleys.

All of the conducted studies confirmed that, the Sweedy valley contributes to bring

maximum sediment loads to the dam compared to the Crnold and Alsalam valley.

Table 4. 13: Summarized results of this study compared with previous studies

This Study Fadhil Mahmood and Ezz-Aldeen

Parameter
(2021) (2013) Khaleel (2018) (2012)
Study period 1985-2019 1994-2012 1988-2016 1988-2008
SWAT-
The used software SWAT WEPP SWAT
MATLAB
Average Sweedy 40.8 19.2 13.6 20.6
annual
runoff
Crnold 4.6 3.4 1.37 3.1
Volume
×106
(m3/year) Alsalam 2.7 1.1 1.08 0.8

Sweedy 111.4 330.5 792.21 747.5

Sum annual
of sediment
Crnold 14.24 29.2 31.45 104.3
load
×103 tons
Alsalam 7.34 20.5 34 45.9
 66

4.8 Results Discussion

The SWAT model results, average for 35 years of the depth of surface runoff (1985-

2019) is (91.2, 61.5 and 60.3 mm) for Sweedy, Crnold, and Al Salam valleys,

respectively. While the average volume of surface runoff is (40.8, 4.6, and 2.7 MCM)

for the same valleys, for the 35 years

The results of the summation of total loads and volume of sediments for 35 years

entering the reservoir of the dam is (111.4×103, 14.24×103 and 7.34×103 tons) and

(42.04×103, 5.37×103 and 2.77×103 m3/year) for Sweedy, Crnold and Al Salam valleys,

respectively. Also the summation of total sediment yield (443.85, 176.47 and 124.12

tons/ha) for each valley, the results show that the maximum sediment production occurs

in 1998, which was (102.04, 53.15 and 57.29 tons/ha) for Sweedy, Crnold and Alsalam

valleys respectively.

Maximum annual surface runoff of Sweedy valley occurred in 1996, while for Crnold

valley occurred in 1993 and Al Salam valleys occurred in 1998. The maximum annual

sediment load for all valleys occurred in 1998 although the maximum annual sediment

load was expected for Sweedy valley in 1996 and Crnold valley in 1993 the same years

in which the maximum surface runoff occurred.

Sweedy valley caused the maximum sediment load by 84% from the total load average

of three valleys (3.8×103 ton/year) resulting from the study area, where the average

(3.18×103, 0.41×103 and 0.21×103 ton/year) for each valley was respectively. This is

because the area of a Sweedy valley is greater than the Crnold valley and Al Salam

valley. In general, precipitation amount, overtime distribution, intensity, land cover /

land use, soil texture, valley slope and flow velocity all played major roles in increasing

runoff and thus sediments.

 67

Figure (4.27) shows the percentages for estimating the sediment load of each valley.

5%
11%

Sweedy
Crnold
Alsalam

84%

Figure 4. 27: Percentage of Sediment Load for the studied valleys

This study indicates, despite the scientific progress in preparing many models which

used for calculating surface runoff, sediments, and the difference in results between

these programs which used by researchers.

 68

CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

The following conclusions are extracted from the present study:

 The SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model effectively applied to

measure runoff amount and also sediments of Mosul Dam during the simulation

period from 1985 to 2019. The topography of the watershed was segregated into

three important valleys and every valley was segregated into various sub basins.

The number of sub basins in Sweedy valley was 29, in the Crnold valley was 15

and in the Alsalam valley was 15.

 The model’s output showed that, the mean annual precipitation over the present

study region was 362.66 mm throughout the study period. The average surface

runoff depth reaching the dam lake for 35 years was (91.18, 61.51, and 60.30

mm/year) for the Sweedy, the Crnold, and the Alsalam valleys. While the

average runoff volume stood at (40.8, 4.63, and 2.73 MCM/year).

 The calculated CN values for the study area were (91, 80, and 77) for Sweedy,

Crnold, and Alsalam valleys respectively.

 The summation of 35 years total sediment load reaching the dam lake was

(111.4×103, 14.24×103, and 7.34×103 ton/year) for the Sweedy, Crnold, and

Alsalam valleys respectively.

 The summation of sediment yield for 35 years was (443.85, 176.47, and 124.12

tons/ha), while the maximum sediment production was (102.04, 53.15, and

57.29 tons/ha) occurred in the year 1998 for Sweedy, Crnold, and Alsalam

valleys respectively.
 69

 Sensitivity analysis proved that the effect of runoff is significant when changing

the parameter (CN), as at (+10%) for (CN), it changed by (18%), while sediment

concentrations changed by (5%), and the sediment load was (24%). The effect of

(n, CH_K, and SOL_K) parameters on runoff and sediment production at +10%

for the parameter was very little, i.e. between (-9% ˗ 3%). The effect of

changing the parameters of (Spcon and Spexp) was direct on the production of

sludge only, where the effect of changing them was very large more than (20%).

 A mathematical relationship between surface run-off and sediment productivity

for each valley, and by using the coefficient of determination (R2), which values

are (0.80, 0.77, and 0.82) for the Sweedy, Crnold, and Alsalam, the efficiency of

the equations was proved.

 The sediment load results estimated by (SAWT) model compared with the
results of the researchers (Fadhil, 2013), (Mahmood and Khaleel 2018), and

(Ezz-Aldeen, et.al 2012). The comparison showed that there was a variation in

the estimation of sediment load.

 The Sweedy valley (the largest valley) is the key valley, which provides
sediments from Lake Dam's right side resulting in 84% of the average total

sediment load from the entire study area. In general, the amount of precipitation

distribution over time, intensity, land cover use, soil texture, valley slope, and

flow velocity all played major roles in increasing runoffs leading to sediments.

5.2 Recommendations:

 The necessity of conducting field measurements of the study area.

 The necessity of keeping meteorological stations nearby to study area because of

the importance of the location.

 70

 Estimation of sediment load and surface runoff in SWAT model, however, the

necessary calibration of the model should be made with the help of

measurements of field and also giving the data required for making of a model

as it delivers extensive results regarding the water flow, sediments and also

water quality.

 To prevent soil erosion various mitigation techniques can be utilized such as

increasing vegetation in places with high yields of sediment and checking dam's

forestation.

 Using the SWAT_CUP program to calibrate the model if field data is available

 Using the genetic algorithm (GA), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and

Watershed Modeling System (WMA) for the study area.

 71

REFERENCES

Al-Adwan, S. (2018). Estimation of The Sediment Yield at Wadi Al-Arab Dam

Using Hydrological Assessment Tool Models. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Adwubi, A., Amegashie, B. K., Agyare, W. A., Tamene, L., Odai, S. N., Quansah, C.,
& Vlek, P. (2009). Assessing sediment inputs to small reservoirs in Upper
East Region, Ghana. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management, 14(4),
279-287.

Al-Afeshat, A. F. S. (2019). Hydrological analysis of wadis draining to the Gulf of

aqaba using hydrological simulation models. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Alansi, A., Amin, M., Abdul Halim, G., Shafri, H., & Aimrun, W. (2009). Validation
of SWAT model for stream flow simulation and forecasting in Upper
Bernam humid tropical river basin, Malaysia. Hydrology And Earth System
Sciences Discussions, 6(6), 7581-7609.

Al-Ansari, N., Issa, I. E., Sherwani, G., & Knutsson, S. (2013). Sedimentation in the
mosul reservoir of northern Iraq. Journal of Environmental Hydrology, 21(7),
1-10.
Al-Naqib, Q. S., & Al-Taiee, M. Th. (1987). The effect of the suspended sediment
load transported by Fayda and Baqaq wadies on Saddam lake as related to
watershed characteristics. For Assistant lecturer in Engineering College
University of Mosul.
Bagnold, R. A. (1977). Bedload Transport in Natural Rivers. Water Resources Res.
13, 303-312.
Dessu, S. B., & Melesse, A. M. (2012). Modelling the precipitation–runoff process of
the Mara River basin using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool.
Hydrological Processes, 26(26), 4038-4049.

Ezz-Aldeen, M., Al-Ansari, N., & Knutsson, S. (2012). Sediment delivery from right
bank valleys to Mosul reservoir, Iraq. Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences/Bioinfo publications, 3(1), 50-53..
Ezz-Aldeen, M., Al-Ansari, N. A., & Knutsson, S. (2013). Application of swat model
to estimate the sediment load from the left bank of Mosul Dam. Journal
Advanced Science and Engineering Research, 3(1), 47-61.
Fadhil, R. (2013). Estimation of the sediment load transported by the west bank
valleys Mosul dam lake. Al-Rafidain Engineering, 21(5), 28-40.
Ferguson, B. K. (1998). Introduction to stormwater: concept, purpose, design. John
Wiley & Sons.
Fondriest, 2020. from: https://www.fondriest.com
 72

Green, W. H., & Ampt, G. (1911). Studies on Soil Phyics. The Journal of Agricultural
Science, 4(1), 1-24.
Hadadin, N., Shawash, S., Tarawneh, Z., Banihani, Q., & Hamdi, M. R. (2012). Spatial
hydrological analysis for water harvesting potential using ArcGIS model:
the case of the north-eastern desert, Jordan. Water policy, 14(3), 524-538.
Hallouz, F., Meddi, M., Mahé, G., Alirahmani, S., & Keddar, A. (2018). Modeling of
discharge and sediment transport through the SWAT model in the basin of
Harraza (Northwest of Algeria). Water Science, 32(1), 79-88.
Issa, I. E., Al-Ansari, N., Knutsson, S., & Sherwany, G. (2015). Monitoring and
evaluating the sedimentation process in Mosul Dam Reservoir using trap
efficiency approaches. Engineering, 7(4), 190-202.
Issa, I. E., Al-Ansari, N., & Knutsson, S. (2013). Changes in bed morphology of
Mosul dam reservoir. Journal of Advanced Science and Engineering
Research, 3(2), 86-95.
Jain, S. K., Tyagi, J., & Singh, V. (2010). Simulation of runoff and sediment yield for
a Himalayan watershed using SWAT model. Journal of Water Resource and
Protection, 2(3), 267.
Julien, P. Y. (1998). Erosion and Sedimentation. Cambridge University Press.
Kassem, A. A., Raheem, A. M., Khidir, K. M., & Alkattan, M. (2020). Predicting of
daily Khazir basin flow using SWAT and hybrid SWAT-ANN models. Ain
Shams Engineering Journal, 11(2), 435-443.
Kassem, A. A. (2020). Prediction of Al-Khazir River Basin Flow Using Different
Models. PhD. Thesis, College of Engineering at Salahaddin University-Erbil.
Kenton, W. (2019). Sensitivity Analysis. Preuzeto Lipanj, 26.
Kothyari, U. C., & Jain, S. K. (1997). Sediment yield estimation using GIS.
Hydrological sciences journal, 42(6), 833-843.
Mahmood, M. Q., & Khaleel, M. S. (2018). A Computer Program for Estimating the
Sediment Load Entering the Right Side of Mosul Dam Reservoir. Tikrit
Journal of Engineering Sciences, 25(1), 60-68.
Mohammad, M. E., Al-Ansari, N., & Knutsson, S. (2016). Annual runoff and
sediment in Duhok reservoir watershed using SWAT and WEPP models.
Engineering, 8(7), 410-422.
Mohammad, M. E., Al‐Ansari, N., Issa, I. E., & Knutsson, S. (2016). Sediment in
Mosul Dam reservoir using the HEC‐RAS model. Lakes & Reservoirs:
Research & Management, 21(3), 235-244.
Mohammad, M. E., Al‐Ansari, N., Knutsson, S., & Laue, J. (2020). A numerical study
of pumping effects on flow velocity distributions in Mosul Dam reservoir
using the HEC‐RAS model. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management,
25(1), 72-83.
 73

Mohammed, Y. T. A.-B. (2001). Evaluation of Sediment Accumulation at the

Intakes of the Main Pumping Station of North Al-Jazira Irrigation Project.
MSc. thesis, College of Engineering, Mosul University, Iraq.
Mustafa, A. S., Sulaiman, S. O., & Hussein, O. M. (2016). Application of swat model
for sediment loads from valleys transmitted to Haditha reservoir. Journal of
Engineering, 22(1), 184-197.
Physical geology, net. Physical Geography.net. from:
http://www.physicalgeography.net
Rafiei Emam, A., Kappas, M., Hoang Khanh Nguyen, L., & Renchin, T. (2016).
Hydrological modeling in an ungauged basin of Central Vietnam using
SWAT model. Hydrology And Earth System Sciences Discussions, 1-33.
Renard, K. G., Foster, G. R., Weesies, G. A., & Porter, J. P. (1991). RUSLE: Revised
universal soil loss equation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(1),
30-33.
Saadallah, A. M. (2014). Applying a Geographic Information System to Estimating
the Sediment Load of the Tigris River from the Khosr River. M.Sc. Thesis,
College of Engineering, University of Mosul.
Sissakian, V., Al-Ansari, N., & Knutsson, S. (2014). Karstification effect on the
stability of Mosul dam and its assessment, north Iraq. Engineering, 6(2), 84-
92.
Smith, H. G., & Dragovich, D. (2007). Sediment supply from small upland
catchments: possible implications of headwater channel restoration for
stream management. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Australian
Stream Management Conference. Australian Rivers: Making a difference.
Charles Sturt University, Thurgoona, New South Wales.

NRCS, U. (1986). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds TR-55. USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service Conservation Engeneering Division, Technical
Release, 55, 164..

Williams, J. (1980). Spnm, a model for predicting sediment, phosphorus, and

nitrogen yields from agricultural basins 1. JAWRA Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 16(5), 843-848.

Williams, J. R., (1995), Chapter 25: The EPIC Model, pp. 909-1000. In “Computer
Models of Watershed hydrology”, by V.P. Singh (ed.). Water Resources
Publications.
Wischmeier, W. a. D. S. (1965). Predicting precipitation erosion losses from
cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. Agricultural handbook, no. 282.
Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting precipitation erosion losses: a
guide to conservation planning: Department of Agriculture, Science and
Education Administration.
 74

Yaqoob M., L. (2010). Affect Mosul Dam Lake of climates in Mousl city before and
after construct. Al-Rafidain Engineering Journal (AREJ), 18(4), 22-32.

Yarbrough, L. D. (2014). Use of revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) and
historical imagery for claims of sedimentation of lakes and streams.
Environmental forensics, 15(3), 244-255.
Zende, A. M., & Nagarajan, R. (2015). Sediment yield estimate of river basin using
SWAT model in semi-arid region of Peninsular India. Engineering Geology
for Society and Territory-Volume 3 (pp. 543-546): Springer.
 75

APPENDIX

A. Curve Number Tables

Table A. 1: Table A.1: Runoff Curve Numbers for Agricultural Lands

Source: (NRCS, 1986)

 76

Table A. 2: Runoff Curve Numbers for Other Agricultural Lands

Source: (NRCS, 1986)

 77

Table A. 3: Runoff Curve Numbers for Arid and Semiarid Rangelands

Source: (NRCS, 1986)

 78

Table A. 4: Description and Curve Numbers

Source: (NRCS, 1986)

 79

B. Watershed Characteristics

Table B. 1: Parameters of Sweedy Valley sub-basins

Elevation Area
Sub-basin #HRUs
(m) (km2)
1 524.2 69 39.1
2 523.5 35 11.0
3 471.8 26 62.1
4 518.5 34 26.1
5 478.9 25 16.6
6 472.6 35 10.7
7 469.8 45 13.6
8 455.3 50 35.7
9 444.4 29 19.3
10 435.6 20 9.6
11 450.1 30 121.6
12 391.7 1 0.0
13 444.5 49 65.9
14 443.1 30 10.2
15 409.9 23 77.7
16 441.2 25 10.5
17 407.0 23 90.7
18 435.2 20 12.6
19 408.2 25 119.2
20 410.0 24 165.8
21 375.2 19 285.8
22 419.1 25 23.5
23 426.9 25 30.6
24 384.7 41 336.7
25 366.4 49 391.4
26 428.3 44 26.2
27 430.5 43 22.5
28 318.0 12 447.5
29 342.1 25 424.9
 80

Table B. 2: Parameters of Crnold Valley Sub-basin

Elevation Area
Sub-basin #HRUs
(m) (km2)
1 397.2 38 4.9
2 412.6 39 20.8
3 381.9 14 25.7
4 376.8 23 35.4
5 394.2 15 3.2
6 368.6 12 16.9
7 379.0 14 2.9
8 346.6 19 75.3
9 360.8 24 64.4
10 344.8 19 7.7
11 363.4 20 3.2
12 375.0 18 13.3
13 386.0 15 5.7
14 371.4 20 3.5
15 382.3 14 3.1

Table B. 3: Parameters of Alsalam Valley Sub-basin

Elevation Area
Sub-basin #HRUs
(m) (km2)
1 400.3 15 6.4
2 369.4 14 45.3
3 344.7 13 37.8
4 340.6 10 24.0
5 342.9 10 13.6
6 390.7 15 3.2
7 350.9 9 10.3
8 381.1 18 3.6
9 363.9 25 10.1
10 402.7 19 6.5
11 376.3 20 13.2
12 417.4 10 2.7
13 439.6 14 3.8
14 440.7 10 5.0
15 425.4 19 4.9
 81

Table B. 4: Land-use Distribution in the Sweedy Valley watershed

LU Description Area (ha) %Area

WWHT Winter Wheat 3470.7 7.8
WBAR Winter Barley 12554.2 28.1
PAST Pasture 17369.6 38.8
WPAS Winter Pasture 1648.5 3.7
RNGE Range-Grasses 8564.6 19.1
BARR Barren 1145.1 2.6

Table B. 5: Land-use Distribution in the Crnold Valley watershed

LU Description Area (ha) %Area

WWHT Winter Wheat 115.3 1.5
WBAR Winter Barley 122.3 1.6
PAST Pasture 3646.2 48.4
WPAS Winter Pasture 714.6 9.5
RNGE Range-Grasses 2437.8 32.4
BARR Barren 491.0 6.5

Table B. 6: Land-use Distribution in the Alsalam Valley watershed

LU Description Area (ha) %Area

WBAR Winter Barley 26.7 0.6
PAST Pasture 1560.6 34.5
WPAS Winter Pasture 66.9 1.5
RNGE Range-Grasses 2611.1 57.7
BARR Barren 260.6 5.8
WBAR Winter Barley 26.7 0.6

Table B. 7: Soil Distribution in the Sweedy Valley watershed

Soil Type Area (ha) %Area

3191 1348.7 3.0
3276 35108.1 78.5
3277 4428.3 9.9
3298 418.0 0.9
3323 3449.6 7.7
 82

Table B. 8: Soil Distribution in the Crnold and Alsalam Valleys watersheds

Valley Soil Type Area [ha] %Area

3276 1393.6 18.5
Crnold
3323 6133.6 81.5
Alsalam 3323 4526.0 100.0

Table B. 9: Slope Distribution in the Sweedy Valley

Slope Area (ha) %Area

0-1 695.5 1.6
10-15 8543.0 19.1
1-5 13057.0 29.2
15-9999 3623.3 8.1
5-10 18833.9 42.1

Table B. 10: Slope Distribution in the Crnold Valley

Slope Area (ha) %Area

0-1 191.6 2.6
10-15 789.9 10.5
1-5 3209.8 42.6
15-9999 154.9 2.1
5-10 3181.0 42.3

Table B. 11: Slope Distribution in the Alsalam Valley

Slope Area (ha) %Area

0-1 67.6 1.5
10-15 807.3 17.8
1-5 1304.3 28.8
15-9999 480.7 10.6
5-10 1866.1 41.2
 83

C. The Surface runoff Results

Table C. 1: The average monthly precipitation in the basins

Month Precipitation (mm)

Oct 15.33
Nov 36.3
Dec 68.97
Jan 59.6
Feb 65.1
Mar 61.17
Apr 39.05
May 15.21
Jun 0.71
Jul 0.06
Aug 0
Sep 0.63
Min. 0
Max. 68.97
Average 30.18

80

70

60
Precipitation (mm)

50

40

30

20

10

0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month

Figure C. 1: The average monthly precipitation in the basins

 84

Table C. 2: The average annual precipitation in the basins

Year Precipitation (mm)

1985 301.4
1986 373
1987 336
1988 657
1989 320.6
1990 256.6
1991 404.6
1992 577.1
1993 626.1
1994 478
1995 300
1996 797
1997 325
1998 519.5
1999 166
2000 286
2001 338
2002 370
2003 320
2004 249
2005 268
2006 378
2007 223.5
2008 216.9
2009 216
2010 216
2011 273.6
2012 280.1
2013 393
2014 384.6
2015 288.8
2016 258
2017 161
2018 590
2019 544.7
Min. 161
Max. 797
Average 362.66
 85

900
800
700
600
Precipitation (mm)

500
400
300
200
100
0

Year

Figure C. 2: The average annual precipitation in the basins

Table C. 3: Average Monthly in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Sweedy Valley (Area 447.5 km2)

Runoff Volume
Month In Flow(m3/s) Out Flow (m3/s) Surface Runoff (mm)
(MCM)
Oct 0.41 0.41 2.44 1.09
Nov 0.61 0.61 3.55 1.59
Dec 2.04 2.04 12.23 5.47
Jan 1.59 1.59 9.60 4.26
Feb 3.32 3.32 18.07 8.08
Mar 2.22 2.22 13.27 5.94
Apr 1.84 1.84 10.64 4.76
May 1.46 1.46 8.73 3.91
Jun 0.85 0.85 4.94 2.21
Jul 0.64 0.64 3.82 1.71
Aug 0.46 0.46 2.75 1.23
Sep 0.32 0.32 1.85 0.83
Min. 0.32 0.32 1.85 0.83

Max. 3.32 3.32 18.07 8.08

Average 1.31 1.31 7.66 3.42

 86

Table C. 4: Average Monthly in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Crnold Valley (Area 75.27 km2)

Out Flow Surface Runoff Runoff Volume

Month In Flow(m3/s)
(m3/s) (mm) (MCM)
Oct 0.02 0.03 0.90 0.07
Nov 0.03 0.03 0.90 0.07
Dec 0.19 0.17 6.17 0.46
Jan 0.15 0.13 4.71 0.35
Feb 0.39 0.37 11.90 0.90
Mar 0.24 0.23 8.05 0.61
Apr 0.24 0.24 8.23 0.62
May 0.23 0.23 8.24 0.62
Jun 0.14 0.16 5.44 0.41
Jul 0.09 0.11 3.82 0.29
Aug 0.05 0.07 2.33 0.18
Sep 0.02 0.04 1.27 0.10
Min. 0.02 0.03 0.90 0.07
Max. 0.39 0.37 11.90 0.90

Average 0.15 0.15 5.16 0.39

Table C. 5: Average Monthly in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Alsalam Valley (Area 45.26 km2)

Out Flow Surface Runoff Runoff Volume

Month In Flow(m3/s)
(m3/s) (mm) (MCM)
Oct 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.04
Nov 0.02 0.02 0.92 0.04
Dec 0.11 0.11 6.31 0.29
Jan 0.09 0.08 4.42 0.23
Feb 0.24 0.24 12.86 0.58
Mar 0.15 0.15 8.78 0.40
Apr 0.15 0.15 8.57 0.39
May 0.13 0.13 7.53 0.34
Jun 0.07 0.08 4.40 0.20
Jul 0.04 0.05 2.84 0.13
Aug 0.02 0.03 1.71 0.08
Sep 0.01 0.02 1.05 0.05
Min. 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.04
Max. 0.24 0.24 12.86 0.58

Average 0.09 0.09 5.01 0.23

 87

Table C. 6: Average Annual in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Sweedy Valley (Area 447.5 km2)

In Flow Out Flow Surface Runoff Runoff Volume

Year
(m3/s) (m3/s) (mm) (MCM)
1985 1.19 1.19 83.7 37.5
1986 0.77 0.77 54.2 24.3
1987 0.49 0.49 34.8 15.6
1988 3.48 3.48 245.2 109.7
1989 1.50 1.50 105.5 47.2
1990 0.82 0.82 58.0 26.0
1991 1.68 1.68 118.3 52.9
1992 2.10 2.10 147.9 66.2
1993 3.93 3.93 276.9 123.9
1994 1.29 1.29 90.7 40.6
1995 1.20 1.20 84.5 37.8
1996 4.67 4.67 329.0 147.2
1997 1.02 1.02 72.0 32.2
1998 4.50 4.50 316.8 141.8
1999 0.11 0.11 7.6 3.4
2000 0.21 0.20 14.4 6.5
2001 1.23 1.23 86.8 38.9
2002 0.79 0.79 55.5 24.8
2003 0.52 0.52 36.7 16.4
2004 0.54 0.54 37.9 17.0
2005 0.72 0.72 50.5 22.6
2006 1.02 1.02 72.0 32.2
2007 0.42 0.42 29.7 13.3
2008 0.42 0.42 29.7 13.3
2009 0.33 0.33 23.0 10.3
2010 0.47 0.47 33.2 14.9
2011 0.67 0.67 47.4 21.2
2012 0.47 0.47 32.9 14.7
2013 1.62 1.62 113.8 50.9
2014 1.23 1.23 86.6 38.8
2015 0.78 0.78 55.2 24.7
2016 0.66 0.66 46.7 20.9
2017 0.28 0.28 20.0 9.0
2018 1.24 1.24 87.2 39.0
2019 2.93 2.93 206.6 92.5
Min. 0.11 0.11 7.6 3.4
Max. 4.67 4.67 329.0 147.2
Average 1.29 1.29 91.2 40.8
 88

Table C. 7: Average Annual in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Crnold Valley (Area 75.27 km2)

In Flow Out Flow Surface Runoff Volume

Year
(m3/s) (m3/s) Runoff (mm) (MCM)
1985 0.13 0.13 53.5 4.0
1986 0.07 0.07 28.7 2.2
1987 0.04 0.04 16.3 1.2
1988 0.43 0.42 177.1 13.3
1989 0.20 0.20 84.5 6.4
1990 0.10 0.11 44.7 3.4
1991 0.18 0.18 75.6 5.7
1992 0.23 0.23 94.7 7.1
1993 0.64 0.64 270.0 20.3
1994 0.13 0.13 52.4 3.9
1995 0.12 0.12 49.6 3.7
1996 0.49 0.48 201.3 15.2
1997 0.24 0.25 103.1 7.8
1998 0.64 0.64 267.3 20.1
1999 0.01 0.01 5.3 0.4
2000 0.02 0.02 9.1 0.7
2001 0.10 0.10 42.5 3.2
2002 0.05 0.05 20.1 1.5
2003 0.05 0.05 23.0 1.7
2004 0.04 0.04 18.7 1.4
2005 0.06 0.06 23.7 1.8
2006 0.08 0.08 32.4 2.4
2007 0.05 0.05 21.3 1.6
2008 0.02 0.02 7.7 0.6
2009 0.03 0.03 12.9 1.0
2010 0.04 0.04 18.1 1.4
2011 0.05 0.05 21.8 1.6
2012 0.03 0.03 12.2 0.9
2013 0.19 0.19 79.1 6.0
2014 0.10 0.10 41.7 3.1
2015 0.07 0.07 27.5 2.1
2016 0.07 0.07 31.0 2.3
2017 0.03 0.03 13.6 1.0
2018 0.10 0.09 39.1 2.9
2019 0.31 0.32 133.4 10.0
Min. 0.01 0.01 5.3 0.4
Max. 0.64 0.64 270.0 20.3
Average 0.15 0.15 61.5 4.6
 89

Table C. 8: Average Annual in Flow, out Flow, Surface Runoff and Volume for
Alsalam Valley (Area 45.26 km2)

In Flow Out Flow Surface Runoff Runoff Volume

Year
(m3/s) (m3/s) (mm) (MCM)
1985 0.07 0.07 47.9 2.2
1986 0.04 0.04 29.5 1.3
1987 0.03 0.03 19.0 0.9
1988 0.24 0.24 166.3 7.5
1989 0.11 0.11 78.6 3.6
1990 0.06 0.06 44.7 2.0
1991 0.10 0.10 71.1 3.2
1992 0.14 0.14 95.5 4.3
1993 0.37 0.36 254.1 11.5
1994 0.07 0.07 51.5 2.3
1995 0.07 0.07 49.1 2.2
1996 0.27 0.27 188.5 8.5
1997 0.15 0.15 103.9 4.7
1998 0.37 0.38 261.6 11.8
1999 0.01 0.01 8.2 0.4
2000 0.02 0.02 13.3 0.6
2001 0.05 0.06 38.9 1.8
2002 0.03 0.03 23.3 1.1
2003 0.04 0.04 24.9 1.1
2004 0.03 0.03 20.1 0.9
2005 0.03 0.03 23.9 1.1
2006 0.05 0.04 31.2 1.4
2007 0.04 0.04 25.1 1.1
2008 0.01 0.01 8.6 0.4
2009 0.02 0.02 12.0 0.5
2010 0.03 0.03 20.7 0.9
2011 0.03 0.03 22.5 1.0
2012 0.02 0.02 14.0 0.6
2013 0.11 0.11 78.7 3.6
2014 0.06 0.06 40.4 1.8
2015 0.04 0.04 29.8 1.3
2016 0.04 0.04 31.0 1.4
2017 0.03 0.03 18.6 0.8
2018 0.07 0.07 45.3 2.1
2019 0.17 0.17 118.7 5.4
Min. 0.01 0.01 8.2 0.4
Max. 0.37 0.38 261.6 11.8
Average 0.09 0.09 60.3 2.7
 90

D. Results of the Sediment Production

Sediment Yield and Sediment transported reaching the dam lake.
Table D. 1: Average Monthly Sediment Results for Sweedy Valley

Sed. Yield
Sed. In Sed. Load Deposition Sed. Con. VOL. Sed.
Month (MUSLE)
(ton) (out) (ton) (ton) (Mg/l) (m3/year)
(ton/ha)
Jan 5094.5 273.1 4821.4 6.12 103.1 1.90
Feb 13027.2 1174.3 11852.9 8.66 443.1 4.48
Mar 5894.8 363.8 5530.9 9.52 137.3 2.13
Apr 2819.4 248.8 2570.6 9.58 93.9 1.00
May 876.2 120.2 756.0 8.68 45.4 0.27
Jun 28.0 23.1 4.9 7.17 8.7 0.00
Jul 16.6 14.3 2.3 5.91 5.4 0.00
Aug 9.2 8.3 0.9 4.68 3.1 0.00
Sep 4.6 4.3 0.3 3.63 1.6 0.00
Oct 907.5 42.3 865.2 3.01 16.0 0.32
Nov 1779.6 87.1 1692.5 3.11 32.9 0.65
Dec 5935.8 822.9 5112.9 5.11 310.5 1.89
Total 36393.3 3182.6 33210.7 75.20 1201.0 12.64
Min. 4.6 4.3 0.3 3.01 1.6 0.00
Max. 13027.2 1174.3 11852.9 9.58 443.1 4.48
Average 3032.8 265.2 2767.6 6.27 100.1 1.05

Table D. 2: Average Monthly Sediment Results for Crnold Valley

Sed. Yield
Sed. In Sed. load Deposition Sed. Con. VOL. Sed.
Month (MUSLE)
(ton) (out) (ton) (ton) (Mg/l) (m3/year)
(ton/ha)
Jan 247.4 35.6 211.8 7.90 13.4 0.68
Feb 889.8 186.5 703.3 11.36 70.4 2.04
Mar 257.1 27.9 229.2 12.37 10.5 0.71
Apr 167.0 29.1 137.9 13.61 11.0 0.39
May 82.8 28.9 53.9 12.48 10.9 0.16
Jun 6.5 7.5 -1.1 9.32 2.8 0.00
Jul 2.8 4.0 -1.1 6.34 1.5 0.00
Aug 0.9 1.5 -0.6 3.87 0.6 0.00
Sep 0.4 0.5 -0.1 2.20 0.2 0.00
Oct 34.9 1.1 33.8 1.60 0.4 0.10
Nov 67.6 1.3 66.3 2.32 0.5 0.20
Dec 335.1 83.0 252.2 5.58 31.3 0.75
Total 2092.3 406.8 1685.5 88.96 153.5 5.03
Min. 0.4 0.5 -1.1 1.60 0.2 0.00
Max. 889.8 186.5 703.3 13.61 70.4 2.04
Average 174.4 33.9 140.5 7.41 12.8 0.42
 91

Table D. 3: Average Monthly Sediment Results for Alsalam Valley

Sed. Yield
Sed. In Sed. load Deposition Sed. Con. VOL. Sed.
Month (MUSLE)
(ton) (out) (ton) (ton) (Mg/l) (m3/year)
(ton/ha)
Jan 464.4 12.9 451.4 8.69 4.9 0.42
Feb 2125.9 107.9 2018.0 12.93 40.7 1.92
Mar 425.2 14.5 410.8 13.42 5.5 0.38
Apr 329.3 13.6 315.7 14.19 5.1 0.28
May 155.6 12.5 143.1 11.91 4.7 0.12
Jun 4.8 3.7 1.1 8.30 1.4 0.00
Jul 1.9 1.5 0.4 5.57 0.6 0.00
Aug 0.5 0.5 0.1 3.45 0.2 0.00
Sep 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.15 0.1 0.00
Oct 44.0 0.4 43.6 1.57 0.1 0.03
Nov 87.7 0.5 87.2 2.45 0.2 0.06
Dec 574.5 41.6 532.9 6.47 15.7 0.48
Total 4214.0 209.8 4004.3 91.08 79.2 3.69
Min. 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.57 0.1 0.00
Max. 2125.9 107.9 2018.0 14.19 40.7 1.92
Average 351.2 17.5 333.7 7.59 6.6 0.31
 92

Table D. 4: Average Annual Sediment Results for Sweedy Valley

Sed.
Sed. load
Sed. In Deposition Sed. Con. VOL. Sed. Yield
Year (out) (ton)
(ton) ×103 (ton) ×103 (Mg/l) (m3/year) (MUSLE)
×103
(ton/ha)
1985 29.83 1.96 27.88 7.17 737.7 11.05
1986 17.61 0.72 16.89 4.79 270.7 6.35
1987 11.37 0.49 10.88 4.02 185.4 4.36
1988 71.98 5.59 66.39 13.88 2110.6 24.10
1989 22.25 1.47 20.78 8.84 554.3 7.94
1990 6.67 0.45 6.23 6.75 168.1 2.82
1991 56.50 3.67 52.83 6.55 1383.8 20.36
1992 52.38 2.70 49.68 10.72 1020.0 18.68
1993 94.86 5.61 89.25 14.50 2117.0 34.29
1994 16.77 1.34 15.43 8.65 506.0 6.37
1995 22.50 1.56 20.94 7.70 587.2 8.10
1996 144.20 25.01 119.19 9.22 9437.7 42.20
1997 7.75 0.66 7.10 7.62 247.8 3.32
1998 300.10 32.45 267.65 7.26 12245.3 102.04
1999 0.17 0.01 0.17 1.65 2.7 0.22
2000 0.99 0.04 0.95 2.56 15.0 0.86
2001 29.98 2.40 27.58 6.82 906.8 10.06
2002 23.26 1.76 21.50 4.55 665.7 8.34
2003 14.86 0.63 14.23 4.26 237.7 5.98
2004 9.16 0.45 8.71 4.53 169.9 3.58
2005 18.82 0.81 18.01 4.07 305.9 6.58
2006 32.30 2.08 30.22 5.75 784.5 11.93
2007 2.82 0.24 2.58 3.96 90.5 1.26
2008 21.97 0.61 21.36 1.78 231.0 8.07
2009 7.55 0.18 7.37 3.27 66.3 2.93
2010 8.62 0.44 8.18 4.06 167.6 3.28
2011 9.92 1.43 8.48 4.36 541.1 3.28
2012 16.31 1.11 15.20 2.87 418.9 6.00
2013 50.07 2.67 47.40 7.51 1007.5 18.93
2014 39.47 3.08 36.39 6.29 1161.9 13.91
2015 22.23 0.76 21.47 4.92 285.5 7.88
2016 7.75 0.52 7.23 5.27 197.0 2.97
2017 1.30 0.20 1.10 2.88 74.0 0.88
2018 28.48 2.79 25.69 6.38 1054.0 9.71
2019 72.98 5.52 67.46 12.80 2082.6 25.22
Total 1273.79 111.40 1162.39 218.22 42037.6 443.85
Min. 0.17 0.01 0.17 1.65 2.7 0.22
Max. 300.10 32.45 267.65 14.50 12245.3 102.04
Average 36.39 3.18 33.21 6.23 1201.1 12.68
 93

Table D. 5: Average Annual Sediment Results for Crnold Valley

Sed. load Sed. Yield

Sed. In Deposition Sed. Con. VOL. Sed.
Year (out) (ton) (MUSLE)
(ton) ×103 (ton) ×103 (Mg/l) (m3/year)
×103 (ton/ha)
1985 1.26 0.11 1.15 8.44 40.7 3.54
1986 0.66 0.05 0.61 5.13 17.0 1.96
1987 0.47 0.01 0.47 4.03 2.4 1.45
1988 3.13 0.78 2.35 20.05 294.1 7.56
1989 1.13 0.18 0.95 12.20 67.4 2.80
1990 0.45 0.04 0.41 7.42 13.8 1.00
1991 3.14 0.34 2.80 7.37 129.1 8.59
1992 2.33 0.25 2.09 13.65 92.8 6.37
1993 7.83 1.85 5.98 25.11 698.9 17.07
1994 0.74 0.06 0.67 8.89 24.2 2.27
1995 0.75 0.06 0.69 8.02 22.5 2.28
1996 9.18 2.85 6.33 10.56 1076.6 18.30
1997 0.59 0.17 0.42 13.40 65.4 1.31
1998 24.69 5.89 18.80 9.36 2224.2 53.15
1999 0.05 0.00 0.05 1.20 0.3 0.16
2000 0.18 0.00 0.18 2.44 1.0 0.40
2001 0.80 0.07 0.73 6.94 26.3 2.80
2002 0.62 0.02 0.61 3.88 6.9 2.20
2003 0.47 0.02 0.45 4.36 8.7 1.54
2004 0.31 0.01 0.30 3.85 3.5 1.20
2005 0.45 0.03 0.42 4.32 10.6 1.63
2006 0.90 0.04 0.86 5.90 15.5 3.14
2007 0.25 0.01 0.24 4.01 5.3 0.49
2008 0.47 0.01 0.45 1.70 5.3 1.86
2009 0.15 0.00 0.15 2.75 1.8 0.94
2010 0.26 0.01 0.25 3.67 3.5 0.91
2011 0.37 0.02 0.35 4.16 7.1 1.06
2012 0.45 0.01 0.44 2.50 4.5 1.59
2013 3.59 0.63 2.96 8.89 238.0 8.80
2014 1.36 0.07 1.30 7.02 25.1 3.85
2015 0.84 0.03 0.81 5.49 10.9 2.41
2016 0.34 0.02 0.32 5.44 7.8 1.07
2017 0.17 0.01 0.16 2.80 2.8 0.31
2018 1.20 0.06 1.14 7.12 22.0 3.31
2019 3.66 0.52 3.14 15.69 196.7 9.15
Total 73.23 14.24 58.99 257.77 5372.3 176.47
Min. 0.05 0.00 0.05 1.20 0.3 0.16
Max. 24.69 5.89 18.80 25.11 2224.2 53.15
Average 2.09 0.41 1.69 7.36 153.5 5.04
 94

Table D. 6: Average Annual Sediment Results for Alsalam Valley

Sed.
Sed. load
Sed. In Deposition Sed. Con. VOL. Sed. Yield
Year (out) (ton)
(ton) ×103 (ton) ×103 (Mg/l) (m3/year) (MUSLE)
×103
(ton/ha)
1985 2.10 0.05 2.05 7.84 19.01 1.78
1986 0.87 0.02 0.86 5.43 6.76 0.64
1987 0.47 0.01 0.47 4.28 2.02 0.37
1988 3.37 0.35 3.02 19.64 131.06 2.64
1989 1.35 0.09 1.26 11.65 34.90 1.15
1990 0.76 0.03 0.74 7.42 10.31 0.65
1991 6.94 0.16 6.79 7.54 59.25 6.50
1992 3.32 0.15 3.17 13.24 55.36 3.09
1993 18.17 0.79 17.38 24.96 298.94 15.95
1994 1.15 0.03 1.11 9.09 11.94 0.97
1995 1.02 0.04 0.98 7.97 13.46 1.01
1996 16.34 1.42 14.92 10.98 536.23 13.48
1997 1.11 0.12 0.99 14.00 44.15 0.85
1998 63.30 3.43 59.88 9.64 1292.45 57.29
1999 0.14 0.00 0.14 1.84 0.44 0.08
2000 0.44 0.00 0.44 3.23 1.15 0.26
2001 0.78 0.02 0.76 6.79 7.92 0.81
2002 0.82 0.01 0.81 4.32 3.80 0.62
2003 0.58 0.01 0.57 4.70 3.62 0.41
2004 0.34 0.01 0.34 4.00 2.01 0.27
2005 0.57 0.01 0.56 4.36 4.66 0.47
2006 1.16 0.02 1.15 5.72 5.77 0.87
2007 0.45 0.01 0.43 4.58 4.91 0.35
2008 0.66 0.00 0.65 1.97 1.65 0.44
2009 0.18 0.00 0.17 2.61 0.88 0.12
2010 0.30 0.01 0.29 4.05 2.33 0.26
2011 0.34 0.01 0.33 4.43 3.33 0.30
2012 0.56 0.00 0.55 3.07 1.54 0.42
2013 7.87 0.24 7.63 9.52 89.17 7.73
2014 1.63 0.03 1.60 7.31 10.24 1.24
2015 1.18 0.01 1.17 5.58 5.42 0.87
2016 0.61 0.01 0.59 5.68 5.01 0.61
2017 0.40 0.01 0.39 3.57 2.52 0.29
2018 1.49 0.03 1.46 7.67 13.03 1.33
2019 6.75 0.23 6.53 14.95 85.13 5.66
Total 147.49 7.34 140.15 263.58 2770.35 124.12
Min. 0.14 0.00 0.14 1.84 0.44 0.08
Max. 63.30 3.43 59.88 24.96 1292.45 57.29
Average 4.21 0.21 4.00 7.53 79.15 3.71
 95

Table D. 7: The channel deposition at 1988 for Sweedy valley

Sed. In Sed. load Deposition

Sub-basin Area
Year (ton) (out) (ton) (ton)
Number (km2)
×103 ×103 ×103
1 1988 39.1 356.7 356.7 0.0
2 1988 11.0 108.8 108.8 0.0
3 1988 62.1 582.9 6.4 576.5
4 1988 26.1 315.8 315.8 0.0
5 1988 16.6 100.8 100.8 0.0
6 1988 10.7 75.4 75.4 0.0
7 1988 13.6 109.0 109.0 0.0
8 1988 35.7 235.6 3.4 232.2
9 1988 19.3 209.2 209.2 0.0
10 1988 9.6 111.0 111.0 0.0
11 1988 121.6 668.1 13.3 654.8
12 1988 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 1988 65.9 286.2 6.7 279.5
14 1988 10.2 106.2 106.2 0.0
15 1988 77.7 122.6 6.3 116.3
16 1988 10.5 104.5 104.5 0.0
17 1988 90.7 140.5 11.1 129.4
18 1988 12.6 140.8 140.8 0.0
19 1988 119.2 337.9 14.0 323.9
20 1988 165.8 510.5 22.2 488.3
21 1988 285.8 43.4 33.5 9.8
22 1988 23.5 267.2 267.2 0.0
23 1988 30.6 362.6 362.6 0.0
24 1988 336.7 612.0 38.3 573.7
25 1988 391.4 585.5 48.6 536.9
26 1988 26.2 295.4 295.4 0.0
27 1988 22.5 259.2 259.2 0.0
28 1988 447.5 300.1 32.5 267.7
29 1988 424.9 385.7 40.8 344.9
Total 7733.5 3199.5 4534.0
Min. 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max. 668.1 362.6 305.5
Average 269.2 101.3 167.9
 96

Table D. 8: The channel deposition at 1988 for Crnold valley

Sub-basin Area Sed. In Sed. load Deposition

Year
Number (km2) (ton) ×103 (out) (ton) ×103 (ton) ×103
1 1998 4.9 18.8 18.8 0.0
2 1998 20.8 155.0 155.0 0.0
3 1998 25.7 176.1 1.0 175.1
4 1998 35.4 40.9 2.1 38.8
5 1998 3.2 14.3 14.3 0.0
6 1998 16.9 13.9 1.0 13.0
7 1998 2.9 10.6 10.6 0.0
8 1998 75.3 24.7 5.9 18.8
9 1998 64.4 68.3 5.2 63.1
10 1998 7.7 33.0 0.5 32.5
11 1998 3.2 12.9 12.9 0.0
12 1998 13.3 53.3 0.4 52.9
13 1998 5.7 23.8 23.8 0.0
14 1998 3.5 14.7 14.7 0.0
15 1998 3.1 11.7 11.7 0.0
Total 671.9 277.8 394.2
Min. 10.6 0.4 10.2
Max. 176.1 155.0 21.1
Average 44.8 18.5 26.3

Table D. 9: The channel deposition at 1988 for Alsalam valley

Sub-basin Area Sed. In Sed. load Deposition

Year
Number (km2) (ton) ×103 (out) (ton) ×103 (ton) ×103
1 1998 6.4 51.8 51.8 0.0
2 1998 45.3 63.3 3.4 59.9
3 1998 37.8 5.8 3.9 1.9
4 1998 24.0 1.7 1.7 0.0
5 1998 13.6 18.8 0.3 18.5
6 1998 3.2 17.7 17.7 0.0
7 1998 10.3 47.7 0.5 47.2
8 1998 3.6 16.7 16.7 0.0
9 1998 10.1 49.7 0.5 49.2
10 1998 6.5 30.3 30.3 0.0
11 1998 13.2 80.0 0.8 79.2
12 1998 2.7 13.7 13.7 0.0
13 1998 3.8 20.9 20.9 0.0
14 1998 5.0 36.0 36.0 0.0
15 1998 4.9 24.5 24.5 0.0
Total 478.5 222.7 255.9
Min. 1.7 0.3 1.5
Max. 80.0 51.8 28.2
Average 31.9 14.8 17.1
 97

Table D. 10: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley

Hydrologic

USLE_LS
USLE_K

USLE_P
Slope

Group
HRU
Area Land Soil

Soil
Sub

length Slope
(ha) Use Type
(m)

1 1 44.06 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56

1 2 2.29 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
1 3 89.77 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.69
1 4 81.32 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.22 3.13
1 5 108.07 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.39
1 6 1.70 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
1 7 35.09 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
1 8 74.51 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.21 3.01
1 9 71.46 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.71
1 10 89.53 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.39
1 11 12.32 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.71
1 12 11.91 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.50
1 13 4.87 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
1 14 0.12 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
1 15 12.44 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.21 2.89
2 16 0.94 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.76
2 17 2.23 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
2 18 0.94 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
2 19 0.06 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.00 0.10
2 20 0.29 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
2 21 21.06 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.69
2 22 9.92 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
2 23 23.17 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.39
2 24 18.54 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.21 3.01
2 25 0.23 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
2 26 7.10 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.65
2 27 9.45 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.33
2 28 6.51 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.22 3.18
2 29 4.69 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.50
3 30 0.29 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
 98

Table D. 11: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley

Hydrologic

USLE_LS
USLE_K

USLE_P
Slope

Group
HRU Area Land Soil
Sub

Soil
length Slope
(ha) Use Type
(m)

3 31 4.17 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52

3 32 6.98 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.33
3 33 3.64 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.69
3 34 0.53 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.75
3 35 0.41 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.11
3 36 9.97 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
3 37 12.09 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.65
3 38 22.76 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.39
3 39 3.64 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.18 2.52
3 40 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
3 41 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
3 42 0.29 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.11 2.31
4 43 0.53 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.18 2.71
4 44 1.82 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.73
4 45 2.23 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
4 46 0.06 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.16
4 47 5.63 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.39
4 48 0.35 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
4 49 5.69 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
4 50 0.70 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.36
4 51 1.64 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.69
4 52 6.45 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.20
5 53 0.23 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.42
5 54 0.76 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.50
5 55 1.11 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.65
5 56 0.41 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
5 57 6.69 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.50
5 58 4.75 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.20
5 59 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.11 2.31
5 60 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.00 0.09
5 61 1.23 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.48
5 62 1.47 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
6 63 3.99 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.80
6 64 12.61 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.65
6 65 36.85 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
6 66 33.03 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
 99

Table D. 12: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley

Hydrologic

USLE_LS
USLE_K

USLE_P
Slope

Group
HRU Area Land Soil

Soil
Sub

length Slope
(ha) Use Type
(m)

6 67 1.88 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12

6 68 27.87 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.63
6 69 16.02 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.20 3.05
6 70 69.06 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
6 71 50.28 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
6 72 2.58 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
6 73 7.69 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.20 2.80
6 74 25.58 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
6 75 0.82 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
6 76 11.97 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.76
6 77 16.72 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
7 78 1.00 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.44
7 79 0.18 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
7 80 0.82 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.69
7 81 1.11 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.42
7 82 4.40 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.33
7 83 2.35 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.13 1.73
7 84 0.47 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.31
7 85 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.00 0.09
7 86 2.17 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
8 87 0.23 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.11
8 88 2.58 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
8 89 1.17 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.15
8 90 7.92 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.76
8 91 33.21 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
8 92 40.31 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.23
8 93 1.58 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
8 94 1.76 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.42
8 95 95.40 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
8 96 96.45 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.23
8 97 18.31 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.73
8 98 4.28 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.42
8 99 5.05 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
8 100 0.88 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
8 101 18.66 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
8 102 23.12 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.25
8 103 7.98 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.65
8 104 2.76 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.73
 100

Table D. 13: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley

USLE_LS
Hydrologi

USLE_K

USLE_P
c Group
Slope
HRU
Area Land Soil

Soil
Sub

length Slope
(ha) Use Type
(m)

9 105 0.18 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.15 2.39

9 106 0.23 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.11
9 107 2.52 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.18
9 108 3.23 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.48
9 109 0.88 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.11 2.41
9 110 1.17 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.38
9 111 0.29 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
9 112 6.63 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
9 113 3.75 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.69
9 114 9.97 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
9 115 0.06 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.00 0.09
9 116 0.23 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.16 2.25
9 117 1.35 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.69
9 118 2.29 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
9 119 2.70 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.36
9 120 4.69 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
9 121 24.00 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.73
9 122 94.40 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
9 123 74.10 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
9 124 4.05 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.18 2.59
9 125 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.15 2.39
9 126 0.65 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.71
9 127 0.47 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
9 128 7.51 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
9 129 5.52 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.18
10 130 96.57 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.25
10 131 92.35 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.50
10 132 5.16 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.18 2.54
10 133 4.05 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
10 134 26.99 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.73
10 135 3.29 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.76
10 136 16.84 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.25
10 137 0.53 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.18 2.66
10 138 0.53 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
10 139 14.14 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.50
10 140 44.41 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.76
10 141 9.09 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.18 2.68
10 142 144.27 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
 101

Table D. 14: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley

USLE_LS
Hydrologi

USLE_K

USLE_P
c Group
HRU
Land Soil Slope

Soil
Sub

Area(ha) Slope
Use Type length(m)

10 143 8.45 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13

10 144 168.09 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.25
10 145 1.88 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.69
10 146 0.59 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
10 147 9.62 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.48
10 148 7.10 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
11 149 82.96 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
11 150 3.23 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
11 151 29.51 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.80
11 152 59.79 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
11 153 7.45 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.47
11 154 2.93 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.67
11 155 1.82 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.46
11 156 3.64 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
11 157 1.53 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.95
11 158 0.29 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.11
11 159 93.99 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.33
11 160 18.95 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.75
11 161 2.46 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
11 162 55.91 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
11 163 44.12 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.67
11 164 6.28 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.58
11 165 4.05 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.65
11 166 11.62 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
11 167 1.23 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.18 2.63
11 168 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.00 0.08
12 169 1.11 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.38
12 170 6.45 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.69
12 171 23.06 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
12 172 32.27 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.25
12 173 1.23 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
12 174 3.70 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
12 175 36.26 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.76
12 176 71.81 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
12 177 92.05 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
12 178 5.52 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.17 2.36
13 179 5.93 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
13 180 0.53 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
 102

Table D. 15: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley

USLE_LS
Hydrologi

USLE_K

USLE_P
c Group

length
Slope
HRU

Area
Land Soil

(ha)

Soil
Sub

(m)
Slope
Use Type

13 181 1.47 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.11 2.58

13 182 7.74 WBAR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.48
13 183 102.62 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
13 184 40.48 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.63
13 185 10.85 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.20 3.05
13 186 72.69 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
13 187 4.81 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
13 188 48.29 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.33
13 189 30.92 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.71
13 190 23.00 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
13 191 0.82 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
13 192 31.27 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.21 2.92
14 193 37.73 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.65
14 194 50.52 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
14 195 1.41 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.13
14 196 16.25 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.75
14 197 89.12 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
14 198 63.36 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.69
14 199 100.15 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.36
14 200 47.29 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.54
14 201 1.35 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
14 202 95.63 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 15.24 0.22 3.13
15 203 12.26 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.85
15 204 1.99 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
15 205 24.17 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.65
15 206 26.40 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
15 207 45.65 PAST 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.08 1.36
15 208 1.53 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.12 2.65
15 209 0.12 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.15
15 210 7.39 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
15 211 5.75 WPAS 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52
15 212 22.41 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 18.29 0.19 2.92
15 213 63.13 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.63
15 214 153.13 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.28
 103

Table D. 16: HRU Characteristics for Alsalam valley

Hydrologic

USLE_LS
USLE_K

USLE_P
Slope

Group
HRU
Area Land Soil

Soil
Sub

length Slope
(ha) Use Type
(m)

15 215 113.12 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.03 0.52

15 216 6.51 RNGE 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.12
15 217 0.18 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 121.95 0.01 0.14
15 218 2.17 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 91.46 0.04 0.56
15 219 2.29 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 60.98 0.07 1.31
15 220 0.06 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.15 2.34
15 221 0.82 BARR 3323 B 0.17 1 24.39 0.12 1.69
 104

E. Sample of Calculations for Sweedy Valley

E.1 Sample of calculations for 1998 year

Flow out = 4.5 (m3/s) (simulations SWAT output)

Area valley = 447.5 km2 (simulations SWAT output)

𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑜𝑢𝑡 (𝑚³/𝑠)×60×60×24×365

𝑅𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ(𝑚𝑚) = × 1000
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑘𝑚2 )×10⁶

4.5 (𝑚³/𝑠)×60×60×24×365
Runoff depth (mm) = × 1000
447.5 (𝑘𝑚2 )×10⁶

Runoff depth = 316.8 mm

Volume runoff (MCM) = 𝑅𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ (𝑚) × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝐾𝑚²)

Volume runoff (MCM) = 0.317 × 447.5

Volume runoff = 141.86 MCM

Sed. In = 300.1×103 ton (simulations SWAT output)

Sed. Out (load) = 32.45×103 ton (simulations SWAT output)

Deposition in valley = Sed. In − Sed. Out

Deposition in valley = 300.1×103 – 32.45×103

Deposition in valley = 267.65×103 ton for 1998.

𝑆𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑡𝑜𝑛/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
𝐺ₛ

Where the specific gravity of the sediment Gs is 2.65

32.45 × 10³ (𝑡𝑜𝑛/𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
2.65

Volume Sed. = 12.25×103 m3/year

 105

Sample of calculations for February month

Flow out = 3.32 (m3/s) (simulations SWAT output)

Area valley = 447.5 km2 (simulations SWAT output)

𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑜𝑢𝑡 (𝑚³/𝑠)×60×60×24×28

𝑅𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ(𝑚𝑚) = × 1000
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑘𝑚2 )×10⁶

3.32 (𝑚³/𝑠)×60×60×24×28
Runoff depth (mm) = × 1000
447.5 (𝑘𝑚2 )×10⁶

Runoff depth = 18.07 mm

Volume runoff (MCM) = 𝑅𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ (𝑚) × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝐾𝑚²)

Volume runoff (MCM) = 0.0181 × 447.5

Volume runoff = 8.01 MCM

Sed. In = 13.03×103 ton (simulations SWAT output)

Sed. Out (load) = 1.17×103 ton (simulations SWAT output)

Deposition in valley = Sed. In − Sed. Out

Deposition in valley = 13.03×103 − 1.17×103

Deposition in valley = 11.86×103 ton for February month.

𝑆𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑡𝑜𝑛/𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
𝐺ₛ

Where the specific gravity of the sediment Gs is 2.65

1.17 × 10³ (𝑡𝑜𝑛/𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ)

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
2.65

Volume Sed. = 0.44×103 m3/month

 ‫‪106‬‬

‫تقدير عائد الرواسب في سد الموصل في المنطقة الشمالية للعراق باستخدام نموذج‬

‫المحاكاة الهيدرولوجية‬
‫‪ABSTRACT IN ARABIC‬‬
‫إعداد‬
‫ورقاء ذنون أنيس النعيمي‬
‫المشرف‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور نضال أديب حدادين‬

‫الملخص‬
‫ان األنهار واألحواض الميائية تحمل كميات كبيرة من الرواسب التي يمكن أن تتراكم خلف‬
‫المنشآت الهيدروليكية ‪ ،‬والتي يمكن أن تسبب مشاكل كثيرة‪ .‬منطقة الدراسة في هذا البحث هو‬
‫خزان سد الموصل الذي يعتبر أكبر سد في العراق‪ .‬وهو رابع أكبر سد في الشرق األوسط ‪،‬‬
‫وتستلزم السعة التخزينية للخزان تقييم معدل الترسيب ‪ ،‬كما أن لديه مشكلة تراكم الرواسب في‬
‫البحيرة‪ .‬تهدف الدراسة إلى تقدير الجريان السطحي والرواسب التي تدخل البحيرة من ثالثة أودية‬
‫رئيسة تقع في الضفة اليمنى لخزان السد‪ .‬وتحديد تأثير وحساسية تحليل المعلمات (‪ )n‬و‬
‫(‪ )SOL_K‬و (‪ )CH_K‬و (‪ )CN‬و (‪ )Spcon‬و (‪ )Spexp‬على قيم الجريان السطحي‬
‫والرواسب المقدرة‪ .‬لذلك ‪ ،‬تم إجراء عمليات محاكاة يومية وشهرية وسنوية باستخدام نموذج‬
‫‪( SWAT‬أداة تقييم التربة والمياه) لمدة ‪ 35‬عا ًما (‪ .)2019-1985‬تمت معايرة النموذج باستخدام‬
‫وادي فايدة الذي كان يقع في الجانب األيسر من الخزان‪ .‬تم تقييم أداء النموذج من خالل تطبيق‬
‫أدوات مختلفة مثل ‪ RMSE‬و ‪ R2‬و ‪ IOA‬و ‪ ، MAE‬حيث كانت النتائج مقبولة‪.‬‬

‫بينت نتائج الدراسة أن متوسط االمطار السنوي لمدة ‪ 35‬سنة كان ‪ 362.66‬ملم‪ .‬وكان رقم المنحنى‬
‫(‪ )CN‬لمنطقة الدراسة (‪ )77 ، 80 ، 91‬ألودية سويدى وكرنولد والسالم على الترتيب‪ .‬بلغ عمق‬
‫الجريان السطحي (‪ 91.18‬و ‪ 61.51‬و ‪ 60.30‬ملم) وحجم الجريان السطحي (‪ 40.8‬و ‪ 4.63‬و‬
‫‪ 2.73‬مليون متر مكعب ‪ /‬سنة) ألودية سويدى وكرنولد والسالم على التوالي‪ .‬بينما بلغ مجموع‬
‫أجمالي الرواسب الداخلة إلى خزان السد (‪ 103 × 7.34 ، 103 × 14.24 ، 103 × 111.4‬طن ‪/‬‬
‫سنة) لنفس األودية‪ .‬المصدر الرئيسي للرواسب من الجانب األيمن من خزان السد هو وادي سويدى‬
‫مع حمولة رواسب قصوى تبلغ ‪ ٪84‬من إجمالي متوسط الرواسب التي تدخل خزان السد من ثالثة‬
‫أودية رئيسة‪ .‬لتقليل نسبة الرواسب ‪ ،‬يوصى بزيادة الغطاء النباتي في الوديان‪.‬‬