Philip M Nyenje

Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering

BSc, MSc, PhD
Project seeks to assess and identify potential of using groundwater in sub-saharan africa
Active project
Updates quarterly
Slums are increasing in urban communities in developing countries. It is often difficult or impossible to relocate such communities, although their impact on the environment may be extremely negative. The study looked at the impact of such unsewered communities on water resources on such communities.
Active project
Updates monthly
Unlocking the Potential of Groundwater for the Poor (UPGro) - - is a seven-year international research programme (2013-2020) which is jointly funded by UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). It focuses on improving the evidence base around groundwater availability and management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to enable developing countries and partners in SSA to use groundwater in a sustainable way in order to benefit the poor. UPGro projects are interdisciplinary, linking the social and natural sciences to address this challenge. They will be delivered through collaborative partnerships of the world’s best researchers. The programme’s success will be measured by the way that its research generates new knowledge which can be used to benefit the poor in a sustainable manner.

Featured research View all

Questions (6) View all

From probability theory, sum of f(x) = 1. Hence P(x>X) = 1 - P(x<X). However, a simple check using randomly selected values shows otherwise. Why?
Given a set of values of a variable x= 40, 25, 20, 15, 12, and 5: The probability of exceedance of a value x=20 written as  P (x&gt;=20)  can be got by arranging data is descending order thus giving a value of 0.5 The probability of non-exceedance of a value x=20 written as  P (x&lt;=20) and can be got by arranging data is ascending order thus giving a value of 0.67 On checking P(x&gt;=1) = 1 - P(x&lt;=1) gives 0.5 = 1 - 0.67 which is not correct. Is this error creating by the estimations made using the probability formulae?
Does the SCS curve number method estimate the same runoff amount when using daily and annual rainfall?
I notice that when I use the SCS curve number method using annual rainfall amounts, I get much more runoff than when using daily or monthly runoff. How can this be explained? Is the SCS curve number suited for daily runoff and not annual rainfall estimates? Example: A catchment with a curve number of 75 gives an S value of 84.6mm. For month rainfalls of 50.9, 66, 140.3, 223.7, 105.8, 68.2, 79.2, 201.9, 118.5, 47.9, 63.7 and 5.8mm, I get accumulated runoff of 546 mm. If I use the total annual rainfall, which amounts to 1171.9mm, the corresponding runoff will be 1076.1mm. How can this be explained?
How can I estimate the discharge of an ungauged catchment using runoff data of a gauged catchment?
I want to estimate the discharge at the outlet of an ungauged catchment in order to determine how much water is available for water supply. The only runoff data I have is that of a much larger catchment. My ungauged catchment is also located in this larger catchment. How can I use a hydrological model like SWAT to simulate the runoff in the ungauged catchment using the runoff data of the gauged catchment? 


Top co-authors
View all

55 Following View all

143 Followers View all

Skills and expertise(7) View all