| Literature DB >> 35627583 |
Ismail Abd-Elaty1, Hanan Shoshah1, Martina Zeleňáková2, Nand Lal Kushwaha3, Osama W El-Dean1.
Abstract
Water resources in arid and semi-arid regions are limited where the demands of agriculture, drinking and industry are increasing, especially in drought areas. These regions are subjected to climate changes (CC) that affect the watershed duration and water supplies. Estimations of flash flooding (FF) volume and discharge are required for future development to meet the water demands in these water scarcity regions. Moreover, FF in hot deserts is characterized by low duration, high velocity and peak discharge with a large volume of sediment. Today, the trends of flash flooding due to CC have become very dangerous and affect water harvesting volume and human life due to flooding hazards. The current study forecasts the peak discharges and volumes in the desert of El-Qaa plain in Southwestern Sinai, Egypt, for drought and wet seasons by studying the influence of recurrence intervals for 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 years. Watershed modeling system software (WMS) is used and applied for the current study area delineation. The results show that the predictions of peak discharges reached 0, 0.44, 45.72, 195.45, 365.91 and 575.30 cubic meters per s (m3 s-1) while the volumes reached 0, 23, 149.80, 2,896,241.40, 12,664,963.80 and 36,681,492.60 cubic meters (m3) for 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 years, respectively, which are precipitation depths of 15.20, 35.30, 50.60, 70.70, 85.90 and 101 mm, respectively. Additionally, the average annual precipitation reached 13.37 mm, with peak flow and volume reaching 0 m3 s-1 where all of water harvesting returned losses. Moreover, future charts and equations were developed to estimate the peak flow and volume, which are useful for future rainwater harvesting and the design of protection against flooding hazards in drought regions due to CC for dry and wet seasons. This study provides relevant information for hazard and risk assessment for FF in hot desert regions. The study recommends investigating the impact of recurrence intervals on sediment transport in these regions.Entities:
Keywords: El-Qaa Plain; Sinai and WMS; forecast; hazards; hydrograph; watershed
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627583 PMCID: PMC9142089 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1El-Aawag Watershed for (a) location map of the study area (Google earth 2022) and (b) geological map. (after, UNSECO 2004 [30]).
Historical climate data form weather of El Tur station.
| Year | Tmin | Tmax | Taver | V | PT | RA | Pmax | Paver |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 22.9 | 27.7 | 18.1 | 24.8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 23.2 | 28.2 | 18.5 | 24.5 | 13.46 | 2 | 12.95 | 6.73 |
| 1997 | 22.9 | 28 | 17.9 | 22.4 | 1.02 | 2 | 1.02 | 0.51 |
| 1998 | 23.7 | 28.4 | 19.1 | 23 | 3.05 | 1 | 2.03 | 3.05 |
| 2000 | 22 | 27.2 | 17 | 24.1 | 11.44 | 5 | 5.08 | 2.288 |
| 2001 | 23.3 | 28.2 | 18.1 | 25.7 | 11.94 | 1 | 11.94 | 11.94 |
| 2003 | 23.3 | 28.2 | 18.3 | 24.8 | 3.05 | 1 | 2.03 | 3.05 |
| 2004 | 22.9 | 27.7 | 18.2 | 25 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 23.4 | 28.2 | 18.6 | 24.4 | 0.76 | 1 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| 2007 | 23.6 | 28.6 | 18.8 | 23.6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 23.7 | 28.7 | 18.8 | 23.5 | 2.54 | 1 | 2.03 | 2.54 |
| 2009 | 23.7 | 28.9 | 18.6 | 22.6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 24.9 | 30 | 20 | 22.3 | 23.37 | 2 | 13.97 | 11.685 |
| 2011 | 23.5 | 28.1 | 18.7 | 24.1 | 2.03 | 2 | 2.03 | 1.015 |
| 2015 | 23.9 | 28.9 | 19 | 26.2 | 77.72 | 2 | 70.1 | 38.86 |
| 2017 | 23.5 | 28.5 | 18.6 | 19.5 | 70.61 | 2 | 70.1 | 35.305 |
| 2019 | 23.8 | 28.9 | 19 | 22.3 | 3.3 | 3 | 2.03 | 1.1 |
| 2021 | 24.3 | 28.9 | 19.4 | 26.2 | 273.31 | 4 | 199.9 | 68.3275 |
Figure 2Relation between rainfall depth and frequency for El Tor station.
Figure 3Study area (a) digital elevation model and (b) watershed characteristics in the study area.
Figure 4IDF curve for the study area.
Figure 5Runoff discharge for W. El Aawag watershed for different recurrence interval.
Runoff discharge for W. El Aawag watershed.
| Recurrence | Average | 2 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 50 | 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depth (mm) | 13.37 | 15.3 | 35.30 | 50.60 | 70.70 | 85.90 | 101 |
|
|
| ||||||
| 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 180 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 360 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 540 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 720 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.47 | 1.39 | 2.71 |
| 900 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.39 | 17.05 | 39.42 | 68.99 |
| 1080 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.84 | 66.92 | 145.47 | 246.98 |
| 1260 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 21.07 | 136.34 | 278.63 | 457.76 |
| 1440 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 35.11 | 183.02 | 354.73 | 565.87 |
| 1620 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 44.14 | 195.25 | 361.82 | 562.28 |
| 1800 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 44.85 | 173.38 | 307.78 | 465.77 |
| 1980 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.44 | 37.35 | 134.35 | 233.32 | 348.32 |
| 2160 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 27.17 | 95.09 | 163.81 | 243.31 |
| 2340 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 17.98 | 62.41 | 107.21 | 158.96 |
| 2520 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 11.35 | 39.50 | 67.90 | 100.71 |
| 2700 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 7.28 | 25.30 | 43.47 | 64.45 |
| 2880 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 4.67 | 16.22 | 27.88 | 41.36 |
| 3060 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 2.98 | 10.37 | 17.83 | 26.44 |
| 3240 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 1.90 | 6.63 | 11.39 | 16.89 |
| 3420 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 1.22 | 4.29 | 7.40 | 11.01 |
| 3600 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.80 | 2.80 | 4.83 | 7.18 |
| 3780 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.51 | 1.75 | 2.97 | 4.38 |
| 3960 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.31 | 0.94 | 1.52 | 2.15 |
| 4140 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.46 | 0.72 | 1.00 |
| 4320 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.30 | 0.41 |
| 4500 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.11 |
| 4680 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 4860 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 5040 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 5220 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 5400 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Figure 6Relation between the projection precipitation depths and watershed hydrograph.