MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409554916 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c546

Rainfall Runoff and Flood Plain Inundation Modeling of the Kharkai River, India using HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS

2025· article· en· W4409554916 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayushi Verma, Sujit Kumar, Prabeer Kumar Parhi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHEC-HMSFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Surface runoffEnvironmental scienceFloodplainGeologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringCartographyArchaeologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rainfall-runoff model using Hydrologic Engineering Center–Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) was carried out for the Kharkai River of Subarnarekha Basin, India to determine the magnitude of runoff from a known quantity of rainfall and the terrain inundation. In the present study, for the calibration and validation, the rainfall events of October 1–20, 2017 and July 12–31, 2019 were used. In the process of calibration, the computed discharge was found to be 1,674 cumecs against the observed discharge of 1,820 cumecs, with a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency of 91.78%. Whereas in the process of validation, the computed discharge was found to be 3,266 cumecs against the observed discharge of 3,589 cumecs, and a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency of 91.02%. Furthermore, to generate various inundation maps of the Kharkai River, an SRTM-DEM of 30 m x 30 m resolution, and a 30 m resolution DEM was used in the simulation process. The results of the inundation study showed that the 5, 20, 50, 100, and 500-year return period floods determined using Gumbel’s method are 3,647.791 m3/s, 5,797.717 m3/s, 7,160.188 m3/s, 8,181.168 m3/s, and 10,540.5 m3/s, respectively, and the corresponding inundation areas were 20.98 km2, 33.65 km2, 39.89 km2, 44.07 km2, and 56.65 km2, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207