Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rsase

Assessment of flash flood hazard based on morphometric aspects and

rainfall-runoff modeling in Wadi Nisah, central Saudi Arabia
Mahmoud M. Abdelkader a, Ahmed I. Al-Amoud a, Mohamed El Alfy b, Ahmed El-Feky a, *,
Mohamed Saber c
a
Agricultural Engineering Department, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia
b
CPSIPW, Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water and Desert Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Dept. of Geology, Faculty
of Science, Mansoura Univ, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt
c
Water Resources Research Center, DPRI, Kyoto University, Goka-sho, Uji City, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The lack of monitoring and observational data is hampering the assessment of flash flood hazard in arid envi­
Geographic information system (GIS) ronments. This study forecasts and investigates flash floods hazards in Wadi Nisah basin in the central region of
Watershed modeling system (WMS) Saudi Arabia. An integrated approach of Geographic Information System (GIS), Remote Sensing (RS), and
Morphometric analysis
Watershed Modeling System (WMS) is presented to determine the flash flood hazards based on morphometric
And flash flood hazard
HEC-HMS
analysis along with rainfall runoff modeling. RS datasets including Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)
And wadi system data for digital elevation model (DEM), and SPOT-5 satellite images for land cover mapping, in addition to
meteorological data (represented in historical rainfall logs) are used. The study area is divided into 14 sub-basins
according to the 5th stream order. The morphometric parameter’s analysis clearly show that 42.3%–62% of the
total region of Wadi Nisah is highly prone to flooding. Furthermore, medium- and low-hazard areas make up
2.1%–36.4% and 16.5%–55.6% of the total area, respectively. Rainfall-runoff modeling shows that the peak
discharge values of sub-basin 14, covers 39.6% of the Wadi Nisah total area, making it greater than that of other
sub-basins for each return period, ranging from 12.3 m3/s for a 5-year return period to 294.5 m3/s for a 100-year
return period. Accordingly, sub-basin 14 poses more flood risk than other Wadi Nisah sub-basins, as confirmed by
the morphometric ranking method analysis.

1. Introduction
Flash flood is a natural disaster, imposing significant socio-economic
and environmental impacts, which leads to loss of life and destruction of
infrastructure and natural environments. The European Union’s (EU)
Floods Directive 2007/60/EC apart from the previous mentioned im­
pacts, went a step further and designates the risks that floods also pose to
cultural heritage (Reil et al., 2018). Floods are among the most cata­
strophic natural extreme events, presenting a potential threat to lives
and property and causing economic damage worldwide (McCarthy
2001). The Association of Professional Energy Managers (APEM)
defined flash floods as floods that occur owing to rapid accumulation
and release of runoff waters from upstream mountainous areas (Tech­
nologies World Meteorological Organisation, 2009). According to
Murray and Ebi (2012), flash floods are caused by excessive amounts of
rain falling within a short period or massive amounts of water suddenly
released from rivers or dams. Owing to climate change, flash floods are
expected to increasingly occur, posing threats to many areas worldwide
(Jonkman and Kelman 2005; Khan et al., 2011).
In Arid regions, flash floods are recently increasing in wadis, which is
an Arabic word that means “valley”. Wadis are characterized by their
drought condition all the year except in the flooding season, and they are
challenged by the limited observational data and lack of monitoring
systems that hinder the reliable assessment of the flash flood hazard. It
was stated that arid or semiarid regions may experience more severe
floods than humid areas with greater rainfall intensity (Costa 1987). The
infrequency of flash floods in wadis and the lack of an appropriate
disaster response policy, together with recent unplanned construction
activities and increasing insecurity, have diminished the wadi com­
munity’s ability to cope with such catastrophic disasters (Saber et al.,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mah.abdelfattah88@gmail.com (M.M. Abdelkader), alamoud.a@gmail.com (A.I. Al-Amoud), alfy@mans.edu.eg (M. El Alfy), aelfeky@ksu.edu.
sa (A. El-Feky), mohamedmd.saber.3u@kyoto-u.ac.jp (M. Saber).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100562
Received 14 February 2021; Received in revised form 31 May 2021; Accepted 7 June 2021
Available online 16 June 2021
2352-9385/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Fig. 1. Location map of Wadi Nisah.

a) DEM processing: The DEM of Wadi Nisah drainage basin was generated from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data with a 30-m spatial resolution. It
is freely available on the United States Geological Survey website (www.usgs.gov), as shown in Fig. 3 a. The DEM was processed using ArcGIS to generate the flow
direction, flow accumulation, slope, stream network order maps based on the Strahler (1952) theory, and sub-basin map, which was divided according to the 5th
stream order, as shown in Fig. 3 b, 3c, and 3d.
b) Remote sensing data processing: SPOT-5 satellite images were used. They were produced on 02-24-2016 with four multispectral and one panchromatic bands. The
multispectral bands have a 10-m spatial resolution, but the panchromatic band has a 2.5-m spatial resolution. At the beginning of the processing, the wavelengths
of each band were edited to their real value and the order of the bands were rearranged for each color to obtain the true color map using ERDAS imaging software,
according to the specifications for SPOT-5 images from their metadata. Then, the images were enhanced using principal component analysis tools with PCI-
Geomatics 2015 software. Subsequently, the multispectral bands were resampled with a panchromatic band to increase the spatial and spectral-range resolu­
tion. Finally, the images were mosaiced and clipped using spatial analyst tools in ArcMap (examples are shown in Fig. 3 e). The units for the land cover map were
extracted by a spectral-signature determination for each unit using supervised classification in ERDAS software, and the units were labeled, “Sand sheet-Sand
dunes”, “Buildings,” “Roads,” “Wadi fill or alluvium,” “Limestones,” and “Vegetation,” as shown in Fig. 3f.
c) Soil data processing

2017). Land reclamation and housing development usually arise in the
wadi channel and floodplain without taking the required mitigation
measures. Floods in arid wadis, on the other hand, are an important
source of water, especially for groundwater recharge (Saber et al.,
2017). In Saudi Arabia as one of hyper-arid environments, flash floods
occur periodically due to several factors, including rugged topography
and geological structures. Hence, precise assessment of floods has
become more vital in development planning in Makkah City (Dawod
et al., 2011).
Various researcher have applied different methods for runoff esti­
mation such as water balance approach (Jasrotia et al., 2009), rational
method (Jothiprakash and Mandar, 2009), Artificial Neural Network
(ANN) based model (Sarkar and Kumar 2012), and Soil Conservation
Service - Curve Number (SCS–CN) method (Krois and Schulte 2014;
(Singh et al., 2013). The SCS-CN approach is one of the most commonly
used and adaptable for runoff event estimation among these approaches
(Tiwari et al., 2018), especially in the ungauged basins. There are
limited studies which addressed the relation between the watershed
morphometric parameters and hydrological factors in arid regions, for
instance, by using wadi flow discharge (Nouh 1990, Al-Rawas and
Valeo, 2010), or using empirical approaches to estimate peak discharge
(Subyani et al, 2012). Abdel-Fattah et al. (2017). used physically-based
hydrological model for understanding the flash floods in arid regions
using the relation between flow discharge and morphometric parame­
ters Additionally, other studies focused on the flood hazard assessment
using morphometric parameters (Arnous et al., 2011; Youssef et al.,
2011; Basahi et al., 2016).
Mathematical tools devoted on hydraulic and hydrological simula­
tions are designated as the most holistic approach to describe - simulate
the flood events and determine the flood hazard (Reil et al., 2018). For
the estimation of flash flood hazard, hydraulic and hydrological simu­
lations consist of a three-step method that involves (1) forecasting dis­
charges for particular return periods, (2) mapping discharges into water
levels using hydraulic models, and (3) estimating the inundation region
using automated elevation models (Moel et al., 2009). Flash flood haz­
ard is investigated in the previous studies (Rahaman et al., 2015;
Abdel-Fattah et al., 2017) primarily by flash flood hazard mapping
based on statistical morphometric analysis and estimating the peak flow
of potential surface runoff. The implementation of GIS allows the
automated extraction of morphometric parameters from digital eleva­
tion models (DEMs) for quantitative analyses, updating, and morpho­
metric study of drainage basins (Wilson and Gallant 2000; Waikar and
Nilawar 2014).
The Wadi morphometry is not the sole factor responsible for flood
events in the area; climate and hydrological datasets are also used to
predict floods. Therefore, it is vital to determine flood peak discharge for
flood hazard assessment (El-Hames 2012). Many research methods
based on physical, geomorphological, and statistical techniques have
employed to estimate or determine the peak flood discharge in arid
lands (McIntyre and Al-Qurashi 2009). Some of the methods correlate
the mean annual peak discharge with the mean annual rainfall in certain
return periods (Bhatt and Tiwari 2008; Al-Rawas and Valeo 2010).
When there are limited data, the results from gauged watersheds can be
extrapolated to the ungauged watershed with similar geological and
environmental conditions by empirical rainfall–runoff modeling (Gheith
and Sultan 2002). Empirical approaches, computing runoff from
long-term rainfall data, were developed to estimate flood peak dis­
charges. Such approaches include the Snyder unit hydrograph (SUH)
(Snyder 1938), rational method (Hromadka and Whitley 1994), and the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method (USDA 1986).
Owing to the limited studies on flash flood hazard in Wadis, Saudi
Arabia, along with the increasing flash floods frequency and intensities
within the last decade, this study provides an integrated approach for
flash flood assessment and estimate peak surface runoff discharge in
every sub-basin in Wadi Nisah based on morphometric ranking method,
Shamy’s approach and HEC-HMS rainfall runoff modeling, along with
GIS, RS, and WMS. The integrated approach was employed in Wadi
Nisah in central Saudi Arabia, one of the most vulnerable areas for flash
flooding. It has recently been struck by many flash floods. However, due
to the rising occurrence of flash floods in this region, there have been no
previous detailed studies focused on the assessment of flood risk. Recent
studies did not target flash floods or surface water evaluation due to a

2
M.M. Abdelkader et al.
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the data processing methodology to assess the flash flood hazard in Wadi Nisah.
lack of data. Therefore, the previous studies concentrated on ground­
water quality for drinking and agricultural use (Alharbi 2018), hydro­
chemical evaluation for shallow groundwater aquifers mostly used for
agriculture (Gubran et al., 2019), and mesozoic sedimentary aquifers
(Musaed et al., 2020).
As a result, the primary aim of this research was to establish a
framework for assessing flash flood risk in Wadi Nisah sub-basins using
morphometric analysis, the morphometric ranking method, and El-
Shamy’s approach, which incorporated GIS and WMS applications and
rainfall runoff modeling. The degree of flash flood hazard and the ca­
pacity of each sub-basin to measure the spatial hazard areas for
improved flood risk management could then be calculated in the target
wadi basin for all sub-basins. Globally, this approach can be used in
other similar ungauged basins, and locally, the findings of this research
are vital for decision-makers to propose long-term flood control strate­
gies in this crucial region.
2. Study area
Wadi Nisah, the central part of Saudi Arabia, was selected as a case
study for flood hazard assessment for two main reasons: there are
limited studies on the area owing to inadequate data; the area is highly
prone to flash floods. The study area lies between latitudes 23◦ 30′ –24◦
30′ N and longitudes 46◦ 00′ –47◦ 00′ E, as shown in Fig. 1, and it has an
area of approximately 2202 km2, length of 90 km, and width of 56 km. It
grades upward from 492 m in the low-lying area (southeast) to 1172 m
in the southwest and is located in the arid, where annual rainfall is
approximately 100 mm/year and average pan evaporation is 4500 mm/
year (Almazroui et al., 2012).
Rainfall is infrequent and erratic in the study area, with average
annual rainfall ranging from 80 to 120 mm (Alsharhan et al., 2001).
Both rainfall and topography make the area prone to flooding.
3
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562
3. Methodology
The evaluation of flash floods was divided into two stages. First, the
morphometric parameters were analyzed to assess the degree of threat
posed by flash floods. Second, rainfall–runoff modeling, as a spatio­
temporal lumped model in Wadi Nisah, was employed to estimate the
runoff quantities for each sub-basin to each return period. However, a
preceding phase was necessary for processing spatial data, including
DEM, RS, soil, and rainfall data, using ArcGIS 10.3, ERDAS Imagine
2014, HyfranPlus, WMS 10.1, HEC-HMS 3.5, PCI-Geomatics 2015, and
RockWorks 16.
3.1. Data processing
The overall methodology for data processing to assess the flash flood
hazard of Wadi Nisah (Fig. 1) is shown in Fig. 2.
The soil data were digitized for the study area using ArcGIS 10.3
from the soil texture map, as shown in Fig. 4 a with a scale of 1:25,000,
obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and Water in the Kingdom
Saudi Arabia. The soil texture units were classified into seven types of
soils: loamy sand, sandy clay, sandy loam, silty loam, silty clay, and silty
clay loam. The soil units were reclassified into four hydrological soil
groups (HSGs), according to Brakensiek and Rawls (1983). The four
HSGs are listed in Table 1. The soil texture map was reclassified into
three (A, B, D), as shown in Fig. 4 b.
CN is an empirical parameter utilized as a part of the hydrology
calculation for forecasting direct runoff and infiltration from excess
rainfall excess (Cronshey et al., 1985). It is a coefficient that reduces the
total precipitation to runoff potential after losses such as evaporation,
absorption, transpiration, and surface storage (Cronshey et al., 1985).
Therefore, higher CN values correspond to higher runoff potential.
CN depends on the land cover units, HSGs, vegetation vigor, and
M.M. Abdelkader et al.
Fig. 3. (a) Digital elevation model; (b) slope map; (c) stream network order map; (d) sub-basin boundaries map; (e) Spot-5 imagery map; and (f) land cover map.
antecedent moisture content, which is a function of the total rainfall in
the 5 days preceding a storm (Gheith and Sultan 2002). CN values were
extracted spatially (for each pixel) in the study area based on the data­
sets of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1986), overlaying both
the HSG map and land cover map using the spatial composite tool in
ArcGIS. CN values of 54, 58, 71, 74, 78, 84, 90, and 92 are displayed in
the CN map shown in Fig. 4c.
e) Rainfall data processing
Rainfall and evaporation data were collected from the Ministry of
Water and Electricity. The nearest seven meteorological stations were
selected to analyze the temporal–spatial distribution of rainfall in the
main basin of the study area. Fig. 4d shows the selected stations, and
their coordinates are listed in Table 2.
The rainfall data was prepared following these steps: 1) The
maximum 24-h rainfall data were extracted from available historical
data logs for each station from 1964 to 2014.2) The maximum 24-h
rainfall values for 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year return periods were
4
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562
calculated by statistical frequency analysis and fitting of the rainfall data
using a three-parameter log-normal distribution, which is the most
common probability distribution used for extracting the expected rain­
fall data from HyfranPlus software. 3) The daily evaporation average
value was calculated from evaporation data logs, and it was 7.5 mm/
day. 4) The rainfall surplus values were calculated using equation (1)
Surplus Rainfall = Rainfall–Evaporation …. . (1)
The fitting curves for the relationship between return period and
historical maximum daily rainfall depth for seven rain gauge stations
were performed using the best probabilities for the 3-parameter log-
normal distribution, with a correlation coefficient of 0.95, as seen in
Fig. 5. The curves yielded rainfall depths for 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year
return periods for temporal analysis using Hyfran plus, as shown in
Table 3. The Kriging geostatistics method, through ArcMap software,
was employed for the rainfall spatial analysis to interpolate rainfall for
different return periods over the study area. Fig. 6 shows the spatial
distribution of the maximum daily rainfall depths for 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-,
and 100-year return periods. The spatial analysis showed that the
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Fig. 4. (a) Soil texture map and (b) hydrological soil group map c) CN map and d) Rainfall stations map.

parameters were classified into three: linear, areal, and relief charac­
Table 1 teristics. The linear characteristic morphometric parameters were ob­
Classification of HSG. tained from a one-dimensional analysis, and they describe the properties
d) Curve number extraction of the tributaries in the study area. Areal characteristic morphometric
HSG Soil textures Minimum infiltration rate parameters were obtained from a two-dimensional analysis, describing
(mm/h) the properties of the entire area projected on a horizontal plane, and the
A sand, loamy sand, or sandy loam 7.62–11.43 relief characteristics were obtained from a three-dimensional analysis,
B silt loam or loam 3.81–7.62 describing the terrain properties. All the types of morphometric char­
C sandy clay loam 1.27–3.81 acteristics were extracted or calculated using the formulas shown in
D clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, or 0.00–1.27
(Appendix Table. A1). Some of these morphometric parameters were
clay
used in assessing the flash flood hazard and determining the optimal
sub-basins for water harvesting using two methods, including the
morphometric ranking method and El-Shamy’s approach (El Shamy
Table 2 1992).
Coordinates of rainfall stations.
Station Name Latitude Longitude Ground Level (m) a) Morphometric ranking method
Al-Huriq 23.61862◦ 46.52511◦ 679
Al-Kharj 24.20198◦ 47.38146◦ 425 In this method, 15 morphometric parameters selected directly affect
Riyadh factories 24.57844◦ 46.71604◦ 585.58 flooding, according to Abduladheem et al. (2015) and Farhan and Anaba
Tameem 23.49146◦ 46.88376◦ 628 (2016). The parameters include the sub-basin area (A), drainage density
Dirab 24.417◦ 46.5669◦ 6
(Dd), stream frequency (Fs), relief ratio (Rh), slope index (SI), ruggedness
Wadi Hanifa-Dam 24.3999◦ 46.61666◦ 612
Durmaa 24.59835◦ 46.126273◦ 634.9 number (Rn), texture ratio (T), shape index (Ish), basin slope (BS),
stream order (U), total stream number (ΣN), total stream length (ΣL),
length of overland flow (Lg), mean bifurcation ratio (MRb), and
northwestern part of the study area has greater rainfall depth than other weighted mean bifurcation ratio (WMRb).
parts. These parameters are positively proportional to the degree of flood
hazard except (Lg), (MRb), and (WMRb), which have an inverse rela­
tionship. A hazard scale number, from 1 to 5, was assigned to all pa­
3.2. Morphometric analysis rameters. The distribution of hazard degrees in the sub-basins was
obtained as follows:
ArcGIS and TOPAZ modules in WMS were used to extract the
morphometric parameters for each sub-basin based on DEM data and 1) The minimum and maximum values of each morphometric param­
then projected onto the World Geodetic System Zone 1984 Universal eter for the study basins were determined.
Transverse Mercator (WGS 84 UTM) Zone 38 Coordinate System. The

5
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Fig. 5. Graphical representation of maximum daily rainfall at rain gauges for the temporal analysis of rainfall data, based on the three-parameter lognormal
probability distribution.

6
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Table 3 1) Weakly hazardous: sub-basins with hazard degree of 1,

Maximum daily rainfall depth (millimeter) for distributions of the selected re­ 2) Slightly hazardous: sub-basins with hazard degree of 2,
turn periods (in years) based on duration data. 3) Moderately hazardous: sub-basins with hazard degree of 3,
Rainfall Probability 0.8 0.9 0.96 0.98 0.99 4) Highly hazardous: sub-basins with hazard degree of 4,
station
Return period 5 10 25 50 100
5) Extreme highly hazardous: sub-basins with hazard degree of 5.
(years) b) El-Shamy’s Approach
Al-Huriq 30.987 38.818 48.804 56.305 63.859
Al-Kharj 23.753 31.658 42.968 52.322 62.45 The second approach for assessing the susceptibility of sub-basins to
Riyadh 26.558 32.83 40.826 46.831 52.877 flash flooding was developed by El Shamy (1992). A simple morpho­
factories metric method was designated to estimate the flash flood risk levels and
Tameem 26.646 36.571 50.756 62.478 75.163 degree of hazardousness in each sub-basin. Two approaches were
Dirab 30.002 38.579 50.446 60.007 70.158
Wadi 29.717 36.952 46.093 52.875 59.606
employed to determine the hazardous sub-basins. The first was based on
Hanifa- the relationship between the mean bifurcation ratio (MRb) and drainage
Dam density (Dd), and the second utilizes the relationship between the mean
Durmaa 25.009 36.241 54.207 70.502 89.427 bifurcation ratio (MRb) and stream frequency (Fs). Dd is the topographic
dissection, runoff potential, and infiltration capacity of surface mate­
rials, climate, and land cover of the watershed. In this regard, low values
2) The actual hazard degrees for all parameters located between the
of Dd indicate optimal conditions for infiltration, thus decreasing the
minimum and maximum values, depending on the empirical relation
runoff potential. On the other hand, high Fs indicates impermeable
between the basin relative hazard degree from flash floods and the
sub-surface materials, poor vegetation cover, high relief, and low infil­
morphometric parameters, were evaluated, choosing equal spacing
tration capacity, thereby increasing runoff potential (Youssef et al.,
or simple linear interpolation between data points.
2011). Applying this relationship separately to each sub-basin provides
3) Assuming a linear relation between sample points, the intermediate
reasonable information on flooding hazard and recharge potential esti­
values were calculated from the geometric relationship (Equation
mation. Dd, Rb, and Fs Rb are illustrated graphically, and each illustra­
(2)) (Davis (1973)),
tion contains two curves, dividing the area into three fields. These fields
(Ymax ‫ ـــ‬Ymin). (X ‫ ـــ‬Xmin) are described as follows:
Y = + Ymin (2)
(Xmax ‫ـــ‬Xmin)
1) Field A refers to areas of low flood probability and high recharge
For Lg, MRb, and WMRb, which show an inverse relationship, the
potential.
hazard degree was calculated using the following equation, (Davis
2) Field B refers to areas of intermediate flood probability and moderate
(1973)),
groundwater recharge potential.
(Ymax ‫ ـــ‬Ymin). (X ‫ ـــ‬Xmax) 3) Field C refers to high flood probability and low recharge property.
Y = + Ymin (3)
(Xmin ‫ـــ‬Xmax)

where Y is the relative hazard degree, Ymax and Ymin are the upper and
lower limits of the proposed scale (class five or 5◦ and first-class or 1◦ in
this class), respectively. Xmax and Xmin are the highest and lowest esti­
mated values of any parameter. X is the estimated value of any param­
eter between the highest and lowest values.
The drainage basins are classified according to the estimated hazard
degree:
3.3. Rainfall–runoff modeling
HEC-HMS has been developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers to
simulate the rainfall-runoff processes in the watershed systems. It con­
sists of four main components including: basin model (Kamali et al.,
2013), meteorological model (Ali et al., 2011), control specifications
(Kamali et al., 2013), and input data (USACE, 2015). It has different
methodological options for estimating infiltration losses and unit
hydrograph parameterizations (HEC 2000). There are several

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of rainfall isohyetal maps for different return periods (5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years) in Wadi Nisah region.

7
M.M. Abdelkader et al.
approaches to simulate infiltration losses (such as Green and Ampt,
Initial and constant, SCS curve number), to generate surface runoff (e.g.
Kinematic wave, SCS unit hydrograph, Snyder unit hydrograph), to
model routing (e.g. Kinematic wave Routing, Muskingum Routing).
Additionally, there are several metrological models for instance (Fre­
quency Storm, Gridded precipitation, Gage weights, SCS storm, and
Inverse distance).
The HEC-HMS requires different datasets such as a Digital Elevation
Model (DEM), meteorological data, soil type, and land use. The HEC-
HMS model has the advantage by including an advanced graphical
user interface to interactively visualize the hydrological components, in
addition to (storing and managing the data with displaying and
reporting outputs (Halwatura and Najim, 2013). For additional infor­
mation, the Model description of HEC-HMS can be found in the user
manual (Scharffenberg and Fleming 2006).
In this study, SCS-CN infiltration method is used as loss rate model to
compute the stream flow volume. The peak depth and discharge of
runoff using the rainfall–runoff relation, developing equations, and
conducting experiments to determine reliable models to predict peak
discharge from storm events. According to Cronshey et al. (1985),
Technical Release 55 presents a methodical and reliable approach for
predicting peak discharge from a 24-h rainfall storm event. The equa­
tions for this method are presented as follows:
∑ streams, sub-basin length, and perimeter, with coefficients of correlation
CNi × Ai
CNw = , (4)
At
( )
1000
S = − 10 ,
CNw
Ia = 0.2S,
(p − 0.2S)2
Q = for Q > 0.2S : else Q = 0,
(p + 0.8S)
where CNw is the weight CN, CNi the CN of the same value in a sub-basin,
Ai the area of CNi in a sub-basin (km2), and At the total area of the sub-
basin (km2). S is the potential maximum soil moisture retention depth
(inch), Ia is the initial abstraction loss depth (inch). Q is the direct runoff
depth (inch) over the entire sub-basin for any return period, P the pre­
cipitation depth (inch) for 24-h duration storm for any return period at
the same sub-basin. Additionally, the lag time, time of concentration,
time to peak and maximum of discharge parameters are estimated to
calculate the peak discharge and storm runoff volume. All the previous
parameters computed using the SCS-CN method were input to design the
storm event using the Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic
Modeling System (HEC-HMS) to simulate the rainfall–runoff of the
watersheds. HEC-HMS extracted the hydrograph curves for each sub-
basin, along with the important the hydrological parameters in the
study area.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Morphometric analysis in Wadi Nisah
The morphometric analysis results were classified into three
morphometric attributes: linear, areal, and relief characteristics.
4.1.1. Linear characteristics
4.1.1.1. Stream number. The total of order is given by the outcome of
the stream segments, known as the stream number (Nu). Horton (1945)
states that the number of stream segments of each order forms an inverse
geometric sequence with the order number for most drainage networks,
the logarithm of Nu has a linear relationship with the stream order, as
shown in (Appendix Fig. A1), with only a small deviation from a straight
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562
line (Chow 1964). According to Horton’s principle, Nu is negatively
correlated with the order (Horton 1932). The study of basins and
sub-basins exhibit a nearly perfect negative correlation, with a coeffi­
cient of correlation of 0.99 (Appendix Fig. A1).
4.1.1.2. Stream length. The stream length (Lu) was computed as pro­
posed by Horton (1945), and it supports the theory that geometric
similarity is preserved in the watershed of increasing order (Strahler
1964). The total Lu of Wadi Nisah is 5613.36 km, whereas, for the
sub-basins, it ranges from 49.68 km for sub-basin number 12–2416.75
km for sub-basin 14. There is a difference in the geometric relationship
between Lu and its order for the basins in arid and semi-arid regions than
for those of humid regions. This geometric relationship between Lu and
the stream order is linearly positive, as reported by Schmidt (1984),
Chapman (1992), and White et al. (2004). Meanwhile, a negative cor­
relation, as the case for the entire Wadi Nisah area (inverse relation­
ship), is observed for other arid and semi-arid regions, as reported by
Sreedevi et al. (2005) and Farhan et al. (2015). Hence, Lu is an indicator
of the relationship between climate, vegetation, and the rock and soil
resistance to erosion. Under similar conditions, impervious rocks sup­
port longer Lu. Consequently, higher drainage densities are observed for
permeable rock. On the other hand, when each sub-basin was separately
studied, Lu was found to be directly proportional to the number of
of 0.99 for both Nu and the perimeter and only 0.96 for the sub-basin
length, as shown in (Appendix Fig. A2).
(5) 4.1.2. Areal characteristics
(6) 4.1.2.1. Basin perimeter. The basin parameter (P) for Wadi Nisah is 357
km. Meanwhile, the sub-basin perimeter range from 29 km for sub-basin
7–419.3 km for sub-basin 14.
(7)
4.1.2.2. Drainage density. According to Eze and Efiong (2010), high
basin Dd indicates high precipitation runoff, and low Dd reflects
erosion-resistant fractured hard rocks, indicating that most rainfalls
infiltrate to recharge groundwater storage. Dd range from 2.289 km/km2
for sub-basin 12 to 3.062 km/km2 for sub-basin 10, indicating that
sub-basin 10 is best for groundwater storage. Arid and semi-arid regions
show higher Dd than humid regions with the same geology because of
flash floods and scarce vegetation (Strahler 1964). Dd is the relation
between the total length of tributaries and the area in the sub-basin.
Therefore, there is a proportional linear relationship between
sub-basin areas and both stream number and the corresponding stream
length, with correlation coefficients of 0.99, as shown in (Appendix,
Fig. A3, indicating that larger sub-basin areas correspond to a larger
number of tributaries and total tributary length. Appendix, Fig. A3 also
shows a proportional linear relationship between sub-basin areas and
their perimeters, with a correlation coefficient of 0.99, indicating that
the greater the sub-basin area the larger the perimeters.
4.1.2.3. Stream frequency. According to Horton (1945), Fs may be
directly related to lithological characteristics. Basins with structural hills
have high Fs and Dd, whereas those with alluvial deposits have low
values for both parameters. Fs for Wadi Nisah and its sub-basins vary a
little, ranging from 3.121 km for sub-basin 5–5.08 km for sub-basin 7.
This limited variation is attributed to the similarity in rainfall, relief,
infiltration rate, initial resistivity of terrain to erosion, and total
drainage area of the basin (Patel et al., 2012). To evaluate the rela­
tionship between Dd and Fs for Wadi Nisah sub-basins, a linear plot of Dd
versus Fs was prepared, and it shows a positive direct relationship be­
tween the two parameters but with a weak correlation (0.3) because of
the evident geological and structural difference (Romshoo et al., 2012),
as shown in Appendix, Fig. A4.
8
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Table 4 surface runoff reaching the stream for sub-basins 9, 10, and 11. A steep
Hypsometric data for Wadi Nisah area. slope results in higher velocities and allows faster removal of runoff from
Altitude Range in Height Area (km2) h/H(1) a/A(2) the watershed. Therefore, shorter concentration times to the peak of the
(m) (m) hydrograph are evident in sub-basins 4, 5, 7, and 14.
1171.63 661.695 0 100 0
1171.63–1100 590.065 66.61815372 89.17477085 3.104042856 4.1.3.3. Hypsometric integral. For the selected basin, the range of the
1171.63–1000 490.065 179.3269313 74.06206787 8.355657561 basin altitude was divided into equal intervals. For each interval, as
1171.63–900 390.065 406.3017845 58.94936489 18.93144858
shown in Appendix, Fig. A7, the proportion of the basin area was
1171.63–800 290.065 854.9665792 43.83666191 39.83678253
1171.63–700 190.065 1596.990336 28.72395892 74.41104513 calculated. Then, the relief and total basin area were normalized so that
1171.63–600 90.065 1978.784929 13.61125594 92.20059215 they ranged from 0 to 100, as shown in Table 4 Hypsometric integral
1171.63–509.935 0 2146.173775 0 100 (HI) represents the area under the hypsometric curve, and it was
(1)
h/H is the proportion of elevation. computed as described by Hurtrez et al. (1999), Singh et al. (2008), and
(2)
a/A is the proportion of area. Singh (2008).
Pareta and Pareta (2015) presented a HI-based classification of the
4.1.3. Relief characteristics main landscape development stages. According to their classification,
basins with HI above 60% are young, whereas catchments with HI below
30% are old or Monadnock. Mature stage catchments have HI greater
4.1.3.1. Relief ratio. Schumm (1956) reported that Rh is directly pro­
than 30% and lower than 60%. The calculated HI for Wadi Nisah is
portional to flooding and inversely proportional to the time of concen­
41.674%, with a mean elevation of 785.68 and an erosional integral of
tration. Thus, sub-basins 4, 7, and 13, which have high Rh, are expected
58.326%, indicating that the area is a mature or stable basin, as shown in
to experience a large-scale flooding. The high Rh is attributed to the
Appendix, Fig. A8 (Panels (a) and (b)).
presence of highly resistant basement and Tertiary rocks, which cover
the basin. It indicates a steep slope and high relief, whereas Rh indicates
the presence of basement rocks that are exposed in the form of small 4.1.3.4. Drainage patterns. The studied basins have a dendritic drainage
ridges and mounds with a lower degree of slope. Generally, sub-basins pattern, indicating less percolation and maximum runoff, especially in
with high Rh can control the rate of potential to kinetic energy conver­ the elevated areas. The calculated main direction of Wadi Nisah was
sion in water draining through the basin. Runoff is generally faster in extracted from the stream rose diagram and flow direction histograms,
steeper basins, producing more peak basin discharge and erosion as shown in Appendix, Fig. A9 (Panels (a) and (b)). The mean vector of
(Kaliraj et al., 2015). The studied sub-basins match those of Gottschalk the stream direction is 179.5◦ , and the stream orders of each drainage
(1964), as the relief ratio normally increases with decreasing area for a network show that the courses of the main channels and their tributaries
given drainage basin, as shown in Appendix, Fig. A5. The coefficient could be affected by the lineament structure and lithology (Adiat et al.,
correlation of this relationship is poor (about 0.41) because of the 2012). Many of the main channels and their tributaries are parallel to
geological structure. the lineament structures as the dominant trends in both cases are
similar.
4.1.3.2. BS. The slopes of the studied basin and its sub-basins were
4.1.4. Flash floods hazard assessment by morphometric ranking
extracted using TOPAZ software. The mean slope of Wadi Nisah is about
The morphometric ranking method of determining flash flood hazard
0.1364, and ranges from 0.069 for sub-basin 10 to 0.206 for sub-basin 5.
and its degree was used to perform the required morphometric analysis.
The slope categories were extracted from the slope map (Fig. 3b). In
As shown in Table 5, the results of this method are expressed by ranking
addition, the area of each category was calculated separately Appendix,
the score for different morphometric parameters along with the values of
Fig. A6.
relative hazard degrees for each sub-basin. To generate the flood hazard
Generally, the slope of terrain affects the total runoff volume and
map for the morphometric ranking using GIS, the relative hazard degree
time of concentration to the peak of the hydrograph. Basins with gentle
for the 14 sub-basins was classified into three categories of flooding
slopes have less runoff volume and smaller peaks in the runoff hydro­
susceptibility: high, moderate, and low degrees (Fig. 7a).
graph (Kaliraj et al., 2015). In such basins, the velocity of overland flow
Table 5 and Fig. 7a show that all sub-basins except 4, 7, 13, and 14
is low and water infiltration takes more time, reducing the amount of
(55.6% of the Wadi Nisah total area) have the lowest overall parameter;

Table 5
Hazard degrees of the effective parameters for Wadi Nisah.
Basin Number Relative hazard degrees of the effective parameters Basin hazard
degree
A Dd Fs Rh SI Rn T Ish BS U ΣN ΣL Lg WMRb MRb

1 1.21 2.60 3.67 3.54 2.42 2.01 3.09 4.43 2.29 1.00 1.23 1.20 2.89 3.18 3.58 2
2 1.27 1.52 2.39 3.02 1.35 1.60 2.74 4.10 3.28 1.00 1.24 1.22 1.66 2.61 3.73 1
3 1.25 2.12 2.63 3.07 1.76 2.78 2.10 1.89 2.56 1.00 1.23 1.22 2.37 1.00 3.57 1
4 1.13 2.58 2.49 4.55 3.33 2.42 2.29 4.14 4.33 1.00 1.11 1.11 2.87 2.53 4.22 3
5 1.44 1.63 1.00 2.73 1.20 2.11 2.78 3.56 5.00 1.00 1.30 1.37 1.80 2.49 3.59 1
6 2.61 2.61 2.72 1.18 1.00 2.56 4.95 1.48 3.16 1.00 2.53 2.47 2.90 3.10 1.00 2
7 1.00 2.93 5.00 4.96 5.00 1.74 1.74 2.99 4.52 1.00 1.02 1.00 3.22 5.00 4.95 4
8 1.64 2.58 3.11 2.21 1.10 2.54 4.58 2.82 4.01 1.00 1.64 1.58 2.86 2.57 2.66 2
9 1.08 3.37 3.75 2.06 1.27 1.01 1.68 1.20 2.39 1.00 1.09 1.08 3.64 2.74 4.22 1
10 1.63 5.00 3.28 1.68 1.08 1.68 4.63 3.80 1.00 1.00 1.64 1.69 5.00 3.00 2.86 2
11 1.67 3.26 3.72 1.93 1.09 2.07 4.81 3.26 2.23 1.00 1.73 1.65 3.54 2.74 2.66 2
12 1.01 1.00 2.15 3.35 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.55 4.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.04 5.00 1
13 1.10 3.51 3.67 5.00 1.61 2.45 2.49 5.00 2.57 1.00 1.11 1.10 3.77 4.40 4.34 4
14 5.00 3.87 3.15 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 2.44 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.09 3.67 3.92 5

Sub-basin area (A), drainage density (Dd), stream frequency (Fs), relief ratio (Rh), slope index (SI), ruggedness number (Rn), texture ratio (T), Shape Index (Ish), basin
slope (BS), stream order (U), total stream number (ΣN), total stream length (ΣL), length of overland flow (Lg), mean bifurcation ratio (MRb) and weighted mean
bifurcation ratio (WMRb).

9
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Fig. 7. Flooding susceptibility obtained by (a) the morphometric ranking method, (b, c) El-Shamy’s approach (MbR vs. Dd), (d, e) El-Shamy’s approach (MbR vs. Fs).

hence, they have low flooding susceptibility. Sub-basin 4 (2.1% of the

Table 6
total area of Wadi Nisah) has intermediate values, indicating moderate
Classification of sub-basins flooding susceptibility based on the two methods
flooding susceptibility. Sub-basins 7, 13, and 14 (42.3% of the total area
employed in flash floods assessment.
of Wadi Nisah) have the highest overall values; thus, they are the most
Flash floods Sub-basins of high Sub-basins of Sub-basins of low
dangerous sub-basins with the highest flooding susceptibility. There­
assessment flooding intermediate flooding
fore, approximately half of the Wadi Nisah total area is moderately or method susceptibility flooding susceptibility
highly susceptible to flooding. susceptibility
The results also indicate that the most hazardous and threatening
Morphometric 7* + 13*+14* 4 1 + 2+3 + 5+6*
sub-basins are located in the lower part of Wadi Nisah and its major ranking method + 8+9 + 10+11
tributary. Thus, it is essential to protect the area from repetitive flooding + 12
to maintain future urban and economic development. El-Shamy’s 4* + 7*+9* + 1 + 2+3 + 5+8* + 6*
approach (MRb 12*+13* + 14* 10*+11*
vs. Dd)
4.1.5. Flash floods hazard assessment using El-Shamy’s approach El-Shamy’s 1 + 2+3 + 4*+5 8* + 10*+11* 6*
Sub-basins vulnerable and exposed to flash flooding were demar­ approach (MRb + 7*+9* +
cated and assessed to determine those of low, intermediate, and high vs. Fs) 12*+13* + 14*
susceptibility to flooding based on the relationship between the two *Correlation between sub-basins under the two methods of flood risk
morphometric parameters (MRb vs. Dd and MRb vs. Fs). The final flood assessment.
hazard map was then generated using Arc GIS.
Based on the relationship between MRb and Dd Fig. 7 (b), sub-basins The obtained results were integrated into the morphometric ranking
4, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 14 are classified as areas of high susceptibility to method and El-Shamy’s approach by superimposing the tabulated haz­
flooding. Sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11 are classified as areas of ard degrees from both methods, as shown in Table 6 Such a procedure
intermediate flooding susceptibility, and only sub-basin 6 has low sus­ makes it possible to identify sub-basins under each category of flooding
ceptibility to flooding, as shown in Fig. 7 (c). susceptibility.
Based on the relationship between MRb and Fs (Fig. 7 (c). and (e)), all The correlation shows that sub-basins. 7, 13, and 14 are the common
sub-basins except 6, 8, 10, and 11 are considered highly susceptible to sub-basins and ranked under high flooding susceptibility. Sub-basins 4,
flooding, whereas sub-basins 8, 10, and 11 have intermediate suscepti­ 9, and 12 were ranked under high flooding susceptibility, as determined
bility to flooding. Sub-basin 6 has low susceptibility to flooding, as by both MRb vs. Dd and MRb vs. Fs. Similarly, sub-basins 8, 10, and 11
shown in Fig. 7. (d), (e). are classified under moderate flooding susceptibility, as determined by

10
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

5-Years return period

5-Years return period 5-Years return period 10-Years return period
10-Years return period 10-Years return period
100 25-Years return period
25-Years return period Sub-basin (2) 25-Years return period Sub-basin (3) 50-Years return period
90 Sub-basin (1) 50-Years return period 140 50-Years return period 90 100-Years return period
80 100-Years return period 100-Years return period
120 80

Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

70
70

Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

60 100
60
50 80 50
40
60 40
30
30
40
20
20
10 20
10
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (hr)
Time (hr) Time (hr)

5-Years return period 5-Years return period 5-Years return period

10-Years return period 10-Years return period 10-Years return period
Sub-basin (4) 25-Years return period Sub-basin (5) Sub-basin (6)
25-Years return period 25-Years return period
100 180 180 50-Years return period
50-Years return period 50-Years return period
90 100-Years return period 160 100-Years return period
100-Years return period 160
80
140
Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

140
Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

(m3/Sec)
70
120 120
60
100 100
50

Direct Runoff
40 80 80
30 60 60
20 40 40
10 20 20
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (hr) Time (hr) Time (hr)

5-Years return period

5-Years return period
Sub-basin (7) 5-Years return period Sub-basin (8) Sub-basin (9) 10-Years return period
10-Years return period 200 10-Years return period 60
50 25-Years return period 25-Years return period
25-Years return period
50-Years return period 50-Years return period
50-Years return period 50
Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

40 100-Years return period 100-Years return period

100-Years return period 150
40
30
100 30
20
20
50
10
10
0 0
0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Time (hr)

5-Years return period

Sub-basin (10) Sub-basin (11) 5-Years return period
5-Years return period 180 10-Years return period
Sub-basin (12) 10-Years return period
60 10-Years return period
25-Years return period 45 25-Years return period
25-Years return period 160 50-Years return period 50-Years return period
50-Years return period 40
50 140 100-Years return period 100-Years return period
Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)
Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

100-Years return period 35

Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

120
40 30
100
25
30 80
20
20 60
15
40 10
10
20 5
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (hr) Time (hr) Time (hr)

5-Years return period 5-Years return period

Sub-basin (13) 5-Years return period Sub-basin (14) 10-Years return period Main basin
80 10-Years return period 10-Years return period
350 25-Years return period
25-Years return period 1200 25-Years return period
70 50-Years return period
50-Years return period
50-Years return period
300 100-Years return period
Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

100-Years return period 1000 100-Years return period

60
Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

Direct Runoff (m3/Sec)

50 250
800
40 200
600
30 150
20 100 400
10 50 200
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0
0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Time (hr)

Fig. 8. Hydrograph curves for each sub-basin and each return period.

11
M.M. Abdelkader et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562

Table 7 maximum flow distance (feet)). All of the factors are summarized, Ap­
Peak discharge of runoff values (m3/sec) for each sub-basin and each return pendix Table A1.
period. Applying the HEC-HMS model in WMS software resulted in synthetic
Return Period (year) hydrograph-histogram curves of the Wadi Nisah basin by processing the
5 10 25 50 100
previous input factors. From these curves, the peak discharge of direct
runoff was estimated at the outlet point of each sub-basin in Wadi Nisah
sub-basin 1 3.50 15.30 35.60 59.50 86.50
for each return period. The importance of estimating the peak run of
sub-basin 2 4.90 21.00 48.90 81.40 119.10
sub-basin 3 3.20 13.60 31.70 53.60 79.00 discharges is that they are considered fundamental factors in engineer­
sub-basin 4 2.90 13.70 33.70 58.50 87.00 ing calculations of the design of hydraulic structures in the study area.
sub-basin 5 6.80 25.80 63.60 107.40 156.30 The hydrograph curves and the result of the SCS-CN method are sum­
sub-basin 6 6.60 23.20 63.90 109.00 165.40 marized in Fig. 8 and Table 7, respectively.
sub-basin 7 1.60 6.70 16.70 29.30 43.50
sub-basin 8 7.30 26.70 63.60 113.70 171.50
The calculated values of peak discharges for direct runoff in Wadi
sub-basin 9 1.80 8.20 19.60 33.30 49.50 Nisah for each sub-basin and return period are summarized in Table 7.
sub-basin 10 0.70 4.10 15.00 32.40 55.90 Table 7 reveals that the peak discharge values of sub-basin 14 are
sub-basin 11 7.00 28.40 64.80 107.90 158.80 greater than those of other sub-basins for each return period, ranging
sub-basin 12 2.00 6.50 16.70 27.70 40.70
from 12.3 m3/s for the 5-year return period to 294.5 m3/s for the 100-
sub-basin 13 1.90 10.00 25.50 46.60 71.70
sub-basin 14 12.30 47.70 118.00 201.00 294.50 year return period. Accordingly, sub-basin 14 is higher risk than other
sub-basins in Wadi Nisah, which is confirmed by the morphometric
ranking. In addition, the peak values of runoff discharges in the same
both MRb vs. Dd and MRb vs. Fs. Moreover, sub-basin 6 is ranked under sub-basin increase with the return period, whereas the variation be­
low flooding susceptibility by both morphometric ranking and El-Sha­ tween the values of peak runoff discharge decreases with an increase in
my’s approach. the return period, ranging from 94.3% to 86.18% for 5- and 100-year
Of the Wadi Nisah total area, 42.3% (sub-basins 7,13, and 14) to 62% return periods, respectively. The maximum temporal variation in the
(sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 14) can be categorized under values of peak runoff discharges in the same sub-basin is 98.74% in sub-
high flooding susceptibility based both methods; hence, there is no basin 10, where it ranges from 0.7 to 55.9 m3/s for 5- and 100-year
chance of groundwater recharging in these areas. Therefore, construct­ return periods, respectively. Meanwhile, the minimum temporal varia­
ing dams and the likes is very important to infiltrate and recharge the tion in the values of peak runoff discharges in the same sub-basin is
shallow aquifer at the crossing point between the fourth and fifth stream 95.08% in sub-basin 12, where it ranges from 2 to 40.7 m3/s for 5- and
orders. Meanwhile, medium-hazard areas, varying from 2.1% (sub-basin 100-year return periods, respectively.
4) to 36.4% (sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11) of the Wadi Nisah total For the entire Wadi Nisah main basin, the peak runoff discharge
area, have the possibility of groundwater recharge. Finally, in low- ranged from 41.2 m3/s with 2,063,895.28 m3 total volume of direct
hazard areas, ranging from 16.5% (sub-basin number 6) to 55.6% runoff to 993 m3/s with 46, 946, 294.47 m3 total volume of direct runoff
(sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12), there is a good potential for for 5- and 100-year return periods, respectively, as shown in Fig. 9.
groundwater recharge, facilitated by low elevation and the existence of
primarily Quaternary deposits, which permit the infiltration of water. 5. Discussion

4.2. Rainfall–runoff modeling for Wadi Nisah
Using the SCS-CN method, the input factors of the HEC-HMS model
were calculated to simulate the hydrological potential in Wadi Nisah.
These factors were categorized as loss factors (CNw for each sub-basin,
potential maximum soil moisture retention depth (inch), and initial
abstraction (inch)), meteorological factors based on temporal-spatial
rainfall distribution (precipitation depth for each return period
(inch)), and topographic factors (basin slope and flow length or
Flash floods are serious natural disasters that affect many regions
over the world, with more devasting impacts in developing countries
where mitigation measures are limited, that has been recently reported
in Saudi Arabia (Al Riyadh in 2015 and 2018) by Abdelkarim et al.
(2019). Therefore, the present study aims to predict and assess flash
flood hazards in Wadi Nisah basin in the central region of Saudi Arabia,
this assessment is made based on an integrated approach of GIS, RS, and
HEC-HMS. The study area is characterized by its arid climatic conditions
with the severe impact of flash floods, however, the previous studies

Fig. 9. Histogram of the relationship between rainfall, runoff, and return period in Wadi Nisah.

12
M.M. Abdelkader et al.
addressing the assessment of flash flood hazard in the studied area are
rare, and those studies found have alimited observational datasets.
Several previous researches have been conducted using RS and GIS
techniques and rainfall runoff modeling to quantify flood hazard im­
pacts on wadi systems, infrastructure, and agricultural areas, as well as
land use improvements (Waikar and Nilawar 2014; Saber et al., 2017;
Syed et al., 2017). Other studies have focused on using an integration of
the Wadi El Azariq basin’s physiographic characteristics, GIS, the
Watershed Modeling System (WMS) and Hydrologic Engineering
Center-Hydrologic Modeling System software (HEC HMS) for deter­
mining the basin’s hazard degree and flash flood risk (Osta et al., 2016).
Bajabaa et al. (2014) focused on the flash flood-prone region (Wadi Al
Lith) and mitigating strategies for a mixture of physiographic charac­
teristics and GIS technology. Skhakhfa and Ouerdachi (2016) estab­
lished flood model in wadi Ressoul, Algeria, based on the efficiency of
the HEC-HMS model for flood estimation. Masoud (2015) investigated
the morphometric parameters of Wadi Rabigh, Saudi Arabia with a focus
on their implications for flash flood hazard evaluation, this was made via
analysis of 36 morphometric parameters and Rainfall–runoff modeling
to describe a basin’s hydrological activity and the drainage basin’s
physiographic characteristics.
In the present study, the flash flood risk assessment was conducted in
Wadi Nisah sub-basins using two approaches of morphometric analysis
(the morphometric ranking method and El- Shamy’s approach), inte­
grated with GIS and WMS implementations, as well as rainfall runoff
modeling, this method was chosen as a way to face the challenge of the
limited observational data sets. Such shortage in data might be the
reason that recent studies did not target flash floods or surface water
evaluation due to a lack of data. In consequence, previous studies
concentrated on groundwater quality for drinking and agricultural use
(Alharbi 2018), hydrochemical evaluation for shallow groundwater
aquifers mostly used for agriculture (Gubran et al., 2019), and mesozoic
sedimentary aquifers (Musaed et al., 2020). Accordingly, the employed
approach can be used in similar ungauged basins, and the findings and
results of the study could be valuable and helpful for the planners and
decision-makers to mitigate the flash flood measures in this important
urban and agricultural area.
6. Conclusion
GIS software and satellite imagery are widely used in quantitative
analysis of flash flood hazards in drainage basins, these approaches
involve the collection, processing, and analysis of large study area
datasets over a relatively short time. In this study, we assessed the flash
flood hazard in Wadi Nisah using two methods—morphometric and
hydrological analyses—to spatially and temporally map the potential
hazard in the area.
Linear, areal, and relief aspects of morphometric parameters of 14
investigated sub-basins were calculated to assess the flash flood hazard
in the Wadi Nisah main basin using GIS software and TOPAZ module in
WMS software. The stream order, drainage density drainage, and fre­
quency decreased from high to low elevation, indicating that the stream
network becomes less dense. The form factor, circularity ratio, and
elongation ratio suggest that sub-basins 1, 4, 5, and 13 have a more
circular shape, whereas sub-basins 2, 4, 10, 13, and 14 are more elon­
gated. According to the average slopes and slope maps, sub-basins 3, 4,
6, 8, and 14 exhibit steeper descent in elevation. Two methods of
morphometric analysis (morphometric ranking method and El-Shamy’s
approach) were employed for the assessment. GIS made possible the
delineation of the sub-basins of Wadi Nisah, which could be affected by
floods of various susceptibilities. Estimation of the flash flood risk based
on the relationship between MRb and Dd (El-Shamy’s approach)
revealed that sub-basins 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 14 are highly susceptible to
flooding, sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11 are moderately susceptible,
and sub-basin 6 has low flooding susceptibility. Based on the relation­
ship between MRb and Fs, sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 14 are
13
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562
categorized as highly susceptible to flooding, sub-basins 8, 10, and 11 as
moderately susceptible, sub-basin 6 as poorly susceptible. Based on the
morphometric ranking, sub-basins 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
(55.6% of the total area of Wadi Nisah) have the lowest overall scores,
representing low flooding susceptibility rank. Sub-basin 4 (2.1% of the
total area of Wadi Nisah) have intermediate scores, which implying a
moderate flood susceptibility. Sub-basins 7, 13, and 14 (42.3% of the
total area of Wadi Nisah) have the highest overall scores, making them
the most dangerous sub-basin with high flooding susceptibility. These
imply that about half of the total area of Wadi Nisah are moderately and
highly susceptible to flooding.
The peak discharge was estimated for each sub-basin in Wadi Nisah
for different return periods using the SCS-CN method from HEC-HMS
hydrological model. The peak discharge of sub-basin 14 is greater
than that of other sub-basins in all return periods, ranging from 12.3 m3/
sec for a 5-year return period to 294.5 m3/sec for a 100-year return
period. Accordingly, sub-basin 14 has greater flood risk than other sub-
basins, as confirmed by the morphometric ranking. In addition, in the
same sub-basin, the peak runoff discharge increases with an increase in
the return period, whereas the variation of the peak runoff discharges
decreases with increasing return period, ranging from 94.3% (5-year) to
40.7% (10-year). The employed methods proved to be reasonable and
effective in assessing flash floods in such ungauged Wadi basins despite
the limited observational data. However, an extension of this study is
recommended to assess the water harvesting and dam selection based on
the multiple criteria analysis in the same basin. Such study would be not
solely aim to minimize the risk of flash flooding but also to meet the
water demand, especially in the drought seasons, as agricultural pur­
poses which consume huge water amounts in these dry areas.
Ethical statement
The author declare that all ethical practices have been followed in
relation to the development, writing, and publication of the article.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Deanship of Scientific Research for funding
and supporting this research through the initiative of DSR Graduate
Students Research Support (GSR). The authors also thank the Deanship
of Scientific Research and RSSU at King Saud University for their tech­
nical support.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100562.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Mahmoud M. Abdelkader, Ahmed I. Al-Amoud;
Data curation: Mahmoud M. Abdelkader, Mohamed El Alfy; Formal
analysis: Mahmoud M. Abdelkader, Mohamed El Alfy; Funding acqui­
sition: Ahmed I. Al-Amoud; Investigation: Mahmoud M. Abdelkader,
Ahmed I. Al-Amoud; Methodology: Mahmoud M. Abdelkader, Mohamed
El Alfy; Project administration: Ahmed I. Al-Amoud, Mohamed El Alfy;
Resources: Ahmed I. Al-Amoud; Software: Mahmoud M. Abdelkader,
Mohamed El Alfy; Supervision: Ahmed I. Al-Amoud, A. El-Feky; Vali­
dation: Mohamed El Alfy, Mohamed Saber; Visualization: Mahmoud M.
Abdelkader, A. El-Feky, Mohamed Saber; Writing - original draft:
M.M. Abdelkader et al.
Mahmoud M. Abdelkader, A. El-Feky, Mohamed Saber; Writing - review
& editing: Mahmoud M. Abdelkader, A. El-Feky, Mohamed Saber.
Author statement
We are highly thankful for reviewing our manuscript entitled
“Assessment of flash flood hazard based on morphometric aspects and
rainfall-runoff modeling in Wadi Nisah, Central Saudi Arabia”. We have
carefully addressed the editor and reviewers’ comments and sugges­
tions. We do really appreciate the reviewer’s efforts for their construc­
tive comments that enhanced the manuscript content and structure in
the revised version.The suggested contents have been added and high­
lighted by track changes. In the revised manuscript, the main changes
are mainly based on the comments such as modifying the methodology
section, improving the discussion with previous research studies,
addressing the importance and added value by this research, removing
the appendix, as well as correction of the grammatical and writing style
errors. On behalf of all the authors, I want to submit the revised
manuscript and responses to the Editor and Reviewer comments. Please
kindly find attached the revised manuscript.
References
Abdel-Fattah, M., Saber, M., Kantoush, S.A., Khalil, M.F., Sumi, T., Sefelnasr, A.M., 2017.
A hydrological and geomorphometric approach to understanding the generation of
wadi flash floods. Water 9, 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9070553.
Abdelkarim, A., Gaber, A.F., Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, B., 2019. Flood Hazard assessment
of the Urban area of Tabuk City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by integrating spatial-
based hydrologic and hydrodynamic modeling. Sensors 19 (5), 1024. https://doi.
org/10.3390/s19051024.
Abduladheem, A., Elmewafey, M., Beshr, A., Elnaggar, A., 2015. Using GIS based
morphometry estimation of flood hazard impacts on desert roads in South Sinai,
Egypt. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 6, 1593–1599.
Adiat, K., Nawawi, M., Abdullah, K., 2012. Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based
elementary multi criteria decision analysis as a spatial prediction tool–a case of
predicting potential zones of sustainable groundwater resources. J. Hydrol. 440,
75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.028.
Al-Rawas, G.A., Valeo, C., 2010. Relationship between wadi drainage characteristics and
peak-flood flows in arid northern Oman. Hydrol Sci J–J Sci Hydrol 55, 377–393.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626661003718318.
Alharbi, T.G., 2018. Identification of hydrogeochemical processes and their influence on
groundwater quality for drinking and agricultural usage in Wadi Nisah, Central
Saudi Arabia. Arab J Geosci 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3679-z.
Ali, M., Khan, S.J., Aslam, I., Khan, Z., 2011. Simulation of the impacts of land-use
change on surface runoff of Lai Nullah Basin in Islamabad, Pakistan. Landsc. Urban
Plann. 102, 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.006.
Almazroui, M., Nazrul Islam, M., Athar, H., Jones, P., Rahman, M.A., 2012. Recent
climate change in the Arabian Peninsula: annual rainfall and temperature analysis of
Saudi Arabia for 1978–2009. Int. J. Climatol. 32, 953–966. https://doi.org/
10.1002/joc.3446.
Alsharhan, A., Rizk, Z., Nairn, A.E.M., Bakhit, D., Alhajari, S., 2001. Hydrogeology of an
Arid Region: the Arabian Gulf and Adjoining Areas. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Arnous, M.O., Aboulela, H.A., Green, D.R., 2011. Geo-environmental hazards assessment
of the north western Gulf of Suez, Egypt. J. Coast Conserv. 15, 37–50. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11852-010-0118-z.
Bajabaa, S., Masoud, M., Al-Amri, N., 2014. Flash flood hazard mapping based on
quantitative hydrology, geomorphology and GIS techniques (case study of Wadi Al
Lith, Saudi Arabia). Arabian Journal of Geosciences 7 (6), 2469–2481. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12517-013-0941-2. .
Basahi, J., Masoud, M., Zaidi, S., 2016. Integration between morphometric parameters,
hydrologic model, and geo-informatics techniques for estimating WADI runoff (case
study WADI HALYAH—Saudi Arabia). Arab J Geosci 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12517-016-2649-6.
Bhatt, V., Tiwari, A., 2008. Estimation of peak streamflows through channel geometry/
Estimation de pics de débit fluviatiles à l’aide de la géométrie des cours d’eau.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 53, 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.2.401.
Brakensiek, D.L., Rawls, W.J., 1983. Green-Ampt infiltration model parameters for
hydrologic classification of soils. In: Advances in Irrigation and Drainage: Surviving
External Pressures, pp. 226–233. ASCE.
Chapman, D., 1992. A Guide to the Use of BIOTA Sediments and Water in Environmental
Monitoring Water Quality Assessments UNESCO/WHO/UNEP. Chapman and Hall,
London.
Chow, V.T., 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology: a Compendium of Water-Resources
Technology.
Costa, J.E., 1987. Hydraulics and basin morphometry of the largest flash floods in the
conterminous United States. J. Hydrol. 93 (3–4), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0022-1694(87)90102-8. .
14
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562
Cronshey, R., Roberts, R., Miller, N., 1985. Urban hydrology for small watersheds (TR-55
Rev.). In: Hydraulics and Hydrology in the Small Computer Age, pp. 1268–1273.
ASCE.
Davis, J.C., 1973. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. Wiley, New York.
Dawod, G.M., Mirza, M.N., Al-Ghamdi, K.A., 2011. GIS-based spatial mapping of flash
flood hazard in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 3, 217. https://doi.
org/10.4236/jgis.2011.33019.
El Shamy, I., 1992. Recent recharge and flash flooding opportunities in the Eastern
Desert, Egypt. Ann. Geol. Surv. Egypt 18, 323–334.
El-Hames, A., 2012. An empirical method for peak discharge prediction in ungauged arid
and semi-arid region catchments based on morphological parameters and SCS curve
number. J. Hydrol. 456, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.016.
Eze, E.B., Efiong, J., 2010. Morphometric parameters of the Calabar river basin:
implication for hydrologic processes. J. Geogr. Geol. 2, 18.
Farhan, Y., Anaba, O., 2016. Flash Flood risk estimation of Wadi Yutum (Southern
Jordan) watershed using GIS based morphometric analysis and remote sensing
techniques. Open J. Mod. Hydrol. 6, 79. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmh.2016.62008.
Farhan, Y., Anbar, A., Enaba, O., Al-Shaikh, N., 2015. Quantitative analysis of
geomorphometric parameters of Wadi Kerak, Jordan, using remote sensing and GIS.
J. Water Resour. Protect. 7, 456.
Gheith, H., Sultan, M., 2002. Construction of a hydrologic model for estimating Wadi
runoff and groundwater recharge in the Eastern Desert. Egypt J Hydrol 263, 36–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00027-6.
Gottschalk, L.C., 1964. Reservoir sedimentation. In: Handbook of Applied Hydrology.
McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. Section 7.
Gubran, M., Ghrefat, H., Zaidi, F., Shehata, M., 2019. Integration of hydrochemical, GIS,
and remote-sensing data for assessment of shallow groundwater aquifers in Wadi
Nisah, Central Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 78, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-019-8164-9.
Halwatura, D., Najim, M.M.M., 2013. Application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff
simulation in a tropical catchment. Environ. Model. Software 46, 155–162. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.006.
HEC, 2000. Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS User’s Manual. US Army Corps of
Engineers, US.
Horton, R.E., 1932. Drainage-basin characteristics. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 13,
350–361.
Horton, R.E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins;
hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 56,
275–370. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1945)56[275:EDOSAT]2.0.CO;2.
Hromadka, T., Whitley, R., 1994. The rational method for peak flow rate estimation.
JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 30, 1001–1009.
Hurtrez, J.E., Sol, C., Lucazeau, F., 1999. Effect of drainage area on hypsometry from an
analysis of small-scale drainage basins in the Siwalik Hills (Central Nepal). Earth
Surf. Process. Landforms 24, 799–808. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837
(199908)24:9<799::AID-ESP12>3.0.CO;2–4.
Jasrotia, A.S., Majhi, A., Singh, S., 2009. Water balance approach for rainwater
harvesting using remote sensing and GIS techniques, Jammu Himalaya, India. Water
Resour. Manag. 23, 3035–3055.
Jonkman, S.N., Kelman, I., 2005. An analysis of the causes and circumstances of flood
disaster deaths. Disasters 29, 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-
3666.2005.00275.x.
Jothiprakash, V., Mandar, V.S., 2009. Evaluation of rainwater harvesting methods and
structures using analytical hierarchy process for a large scale industrial area.
J. Water Resour. Protect. 2009.
Kaliraj, S., Chandrasekar, N., Magesh, N., 2015. Morphometric analysis of the River
Thamirabarani sub-basin in Kanyakumari District, South west coast of Tamil Nadu,
India, using remote sensing and GIS. Environ Earth Sci 73, 7375–7401. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12665-014-3914-1.
Kamali, B., Mousavi, S.J., Abbaspour, K.C., 2013. Automatic calibration of HEC-HMS
using single-objective and multi-objective PSO algorithms. Hydrol. Process. 27,
4028–4042. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9510.
Khan, S.I., Hong, Y., Wang, J., Yilmaz, K.K., Gourley, J.J., Adler, R.F., Brakenridge, G.R.,
Policelli, F., Habib, S., Irwin, D., 2011. Satellite remote sensing and hydrologic
modeling for flood inundation mapping in Lake Victoria basin: implications for
hydrologic prediction in ungauged basins. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 49, 85–95.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2010.2057513.
Krois, J., Schulte, A., 2014. GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation to identify potential sites
for soil and water conservation techniques in the Ronquillo watershed, northern
Peru. Appl. Geogr. 51, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.006.
Masoud, M., 2015. Rainfall-runoff modeling of ungauged Wadis in arid environments
(case study Wadi Rabigh—Saudi Arabia). Arabian Journal of Geosciences 8 (5),
2587–2606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1404-0. .
McCarthy, J.J., 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability:
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
McIntyre, N., Al-Qurashi, A., 2009. Performance of ten rainfall–runoff models applied to
an arid catchment in Oman. Environ. Model. Software 24, 726–738. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.11.001.
Moel, H de, Alphen, J van, Aerts, J., 2009. Flood maps in Europe–methods, availability
and use. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 289–301. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-
289-2009.
Murray, V., Ebi, K.L., 2012. IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). BMJ Publishing
Group Ltd., London, UK https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2012-201045.
M.M. Abdelkader et al.
Musaed, H.A.H., Al-Bassam, A.M., Zaidi, F.K., et al., 2020. Hydrochemical assessment of
groundwater in mesozoic sedimentary aquifers in an arid region: a case study from
Wadi Nisah in Central Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 79, 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-020-8889-5.
Nouh, M., 1990. Flood hydrograph estimation from arid catchment morphology. Hydrol.
Process. 4 (2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360040202. .
Osta, M.M.E., Sabri, M.S., Masoud, M.H., 2016. Estimation of flash flood using surface
water model and GIS technique in Wadi El Azariq, East Sinai, Egypt. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences Discussions 1–51.
Pareta, K., Pareta, U., 2015. Geomorphological interpretation through satellite imagery
& DEM data. Am J Geophys Geochem and Geosyst 2, 19–36.
Patel, D.P., Dholakia, M.B., Naresh, N., Srivastava, P.K., 2012. Water harvesting structure
positioning by using geo-visualization concept and prioritization of mini-watersheds
through morphometric analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. J Indian Soc Remote
Sensing 40, 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0147-6.
Rahaman, S.A., Ajeez, S.A., Aruchamy, S., Jegankumar, R., 2015. Prioritization of sub
watershed based on morphometric characteristics using fuzzy analytical hierarchy
process and geographical information system–a study of kallar watershed. Tamil
Nadu. Aquat Proc 4, 1322–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.172.
Reil, A., Skoulikaris, C., Alexandridis, T.K., Roub, R., 2018. Evaluation of riverbed
representation methods for one-dimensional flood hydraulics model. J. Flood Risk
Manag 11 (2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12304.
Romshoo, S.A., Bhat, S.A., Rashid, I., 2012. Geoinformatics for assessing the
morphometric control on hydrological response at watershed scale in the Upper
Indus Basin. J Earth Syst Sci 121, 659–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-012-
0192-8.
Saber, M., Kantoush, S., Abdel-Fattah, M., Sumi, T., 2017. Assessing flash floods prone
regions at wadi basins in Aswan, Egypt. Annu. Disaster Prev. Res. Inst. 60, 427–437. .
http://hdl.handle.net/2433/229345.
Sarkar, A., Kumar, R., 2012. Artificial neural networks for event based rainfall-runoff
modeling. J. Water Resour. Protect. 4, 891. https://doi.org/10.4236/
jwarp.2012.410105.
Scharffenberg, W.A., Fleming, M.J., 2006. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS:
User’s Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
Schmidt, K.-H., 1984. Der Fluß und sein Einzugsgebiet. Hydrogeographische
Forschungspraxis Steiner, Stuttgart.
Schumm, S.A., 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth
Amboy, New Jersey. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 67, 597–646. https://doi.org/10.1130/
0016-7606(1956)67[597:EODSAS]2.0.CO;2.
Singh, T., 2008. Hypsometric analysis of watersheds developed on actively deforming
Mohand anticlinal ridge, NW Himalaya. Geocarto Int. 23, 417–427. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10106040801965821.
Singh, O., Sarangi, A., Sharma, M.C., 2008. Hypsometric integral estimation methods and
its relevance on erosion status of north-western lesser Himalayan watersheds. Water
Resour. Manag. 22, 1545–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9242-z.
15
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23 (2021) 100562
Singh, P.K., Yaduvanshi, B.K., Patel, S., Ray, S., 2013. SCS-CN based quantification of
potential of rooftop catchments and computation of ASRC for rainwater harvesting.
Water Resour. Manag. 27, 2001–2012.
Skhakhfa, I.D., Ouerdachi, L., 2016. Hydrological modelling of wadi Ressoul watershed,
Algeria, by HEC-HMS model. J. Water Land Dev. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwld-
2016-0045. .
Snyder, F.F., 1938. Synthetic unit-graphs. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 19, 447–454.
Sreedevi, P., Subrahmanyam, K., Ahmed, S., 2005. The significance of morphometric
analysis for obtaining groundwater potential zones in a structurally controlled
terrain. Environ. Geol. 47, 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-004-1166-1.
Strahler, A.N., 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull. 63, 1117–1142. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1952)63[1117:
HAAOET]2.0.CO;2.
Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative Geomorphology of Drainage Basin and Channel
Networks. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York, pp. 439–476.
Subyani, A.M., Qari, M.H., Matsah, M.I., 2012. Digital elevation model and multivariate
statistical analysis of morphometric parameters of some wadis, western Saudi
Arabia. Arab J Geosci 5, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-010-0149-7.
Syed, N.H., Rehman, A.A., Hussain, D., Ishaq, S., Khan, A.A., 2017. Morphometric
analysis to prioritize sub-watershed for flood risk assessment in Central Karakoram
National Park using GIS/RS approach. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 4, 367. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-
annals-IV-4-W4-367-2017.
Technologies World Meteorological Organisation, 2009. Guide to Hydrological Practices
Volume II Management of Water Resources and Application of Hydrological
Practices, sixth ed. WMO-No. 168, Geneva.
Tiwari, K., Goyal, R., Sarkar, A., 2018. GIS-based methodology for identification of
suitable locations for rainwater harvesting structures. Water Resour. Manag. 32,
1811–1825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-1905-9.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Usace), 2015. Hydrologic EngineeringCenter, hydrologic
modelling system HEC-HMS. User ’s manual (ver-sion 4.1, july 2015). https://www.
hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/documentation.aspx.
Usda, S., 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical release 55, 2–6.
Waikar, M.L., Nilawar, A.P., 2014. Morphometric analysis of a drainage basin using
geographical information system: a case study. Int J Multidiscip Curr Res 2,
179–184.
White, A.B., Kumar, P., Saco, P.M., Rhoads, B.L., Yen, B.C., 2004. Hydrodynamic and
geomorphologic dispersion: scale effects in the Illinois River Basin. J. Hydrol. 288,
237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.10.019.
Wilson, J.P., Gallant, J.C., 2000. Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications. John
Wiley & Sons.
Youssef, A.M., Pradhan, B., Hassan, A.M., 2011. Flash flood risk estimation along the St.
Katherine road, southern Sinai, Egypt using GIS based morphometry and satellite
imagery. Environ Earth Sci 62, 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-
0551-1.