Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of HEC-HMS and WEPP for simulating watershed runoff using remote sensing and geographical information system

  • Article
  • Published:
Paddy and Water Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although a variety of rainfall-runoff models are available, selection of a suitable rainfall-runoff model for a given watershed is essential to ensure efficient planning and management of watersheds. Such studies are relatively limited in developing nations, including India. In this study, rainfall-runoff modeling was carried out using HEC-HMS and WEPP hydrologic models, and remote sensing and GIS (geographical information system) techniques in the Upper Baitarani River basin of Eastern India using daily monsoon season (June–October) rainfall and the corresponding streamflow data of 6 years (1999–2005). Other input data such as soil map, land use/land cover map, and slope map were prepared using remote sensing and GIS techniques. The modeling results revealed that both the models under predict streamflow for 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2005 and over predict for 2001 and 2003, whereas HEC-HMS under predicts and WEPP over predicts streamflow for the year 2000. The percent deviation of total runoff volume simulated by HEC-HMS ranges between −2.55 and 31%, while it varies from −13.96 to 13.05% for the WEPP model which suggests that the WEPP model simulates annual flow volumes more accurately than the HEC-HMS model for most years. However, the lower values of root mean square error (RMSE) and RMSE-observation standard deviation ratio coupled with the higher values of Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, percent deviation and coefficient of determination for HEC-HMS during calibration and validation periods indicated that the streamflow simulated by HEC-HMS is more reliable than that simulated by WEPP. Overall, it is concluded that the HEC-HMS model is superior to the WEPP model for simulating daily streamflow in the Baitarani River basin of Eastern India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson ML, Chen ZQ, Kavvas ML, Feldman A (2002) Coupling HEC-HMS with atmospheric models for prediction of watershed runoff. J Hydrol Eng (ASCE) 7(4):312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arabi M, Frankenberger JR, Engel BA, Arnold JG (2008) Representation of agricultural practices with SWAT. Hydrol Process 22:3042–3055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE Task Committee (1993) Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J Irrigation Drainage Eng (ASCE) 119(3):429–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingner RL, Murphree CE, Mutchler CK (1989) Comparison of sediment yield models on watersheds in Mississippi. Trans ASAE 32(2):529–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger CM, Kolditz O, Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S (2007) Future climate scenarios and rainfall-runoff modeling in the upper Gallego Catchment (Spain). Environ Pollut 148:842–854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke RT (2008) A critique of present procedures used to compare performance of rainfall-runoff models. J Hydrol 352:379–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Croke J, Nethary M (2006) Modelling runoff and soil erosion in logged forests: scope and application of some existing models. Catena 67:35–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CWC (2006). Integrated hydrological data book. Central Water Commission (CWC), New Delhi. www.cwc.nic.in/main/downloads/Integrated_Hydrological_Data_2005.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2007

  • Das S, Rudra RP, Gharabaghi B, Goel PK, Singh A, Ahmed I (2007) Comparing the performance of SWAT and AnnAGNPS model in a watershed in Ontario. ASABE Publication, 701P0207, pp 485–492

  • Duan Q, Schaake J, Andre′assian V, Franks S, Goteti G, Gupta HV, Gusev YM, Habets F, Hall A, Hay L, Hogue T, Huang M, Leavesley G, Liang X, Nasonova ON, Noilhan J, Oudin L, Sorooshian S, Wagener T, Wood EF (2006) Model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX): an overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops. J Hydrol 320:3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duru JO, Hjelmfelt AT (1994) Investigating prediction capability of HEC-1 and KINEROS kinematic wave runoff models. J Hydrol 157:87–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan DC, Nearing MA (eds) (1995) USDA-water erosion prediction project: hillslope profile and watershed model documentation. NSERL Report No. 10, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

  • Gosain AK, Rao S (2004) GIS-based technologies for watershed management. Curr Sci 87(7):948–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang S, Cho M, Yoon J, Yoon Y, Kim S, Kim J, Kim L, Aksoy H (2007) Using SWMM as a tool for hydrologic impact assessment. Desalination 212:344–356

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jena SK (2002) Development and evaluation of hydrological models for agricultural watersheds using remote sensing and GIS. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

  • Johnson MS, Coon WF, Mehta VK, Steenhuis TS, Brooks ES, Boll J (2003) Application of two hydrologic models with different runoff mechanisms to a hillslope dominated watershed in the northern US: a comparison of HSPF and SMR. J Hydrol 284:57–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallin L, Hantush MH (2006) Comparative assessment of two distributed watershed models with application to a small watershed. Hydrol Processes 20:2285–2307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (1999) Rationale for watershed as a basis for sustainable management of soil and water resources. In: Lal R (ed) Integrated watershed management in the global ecosystem. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 3–16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of goodness-of-fit measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manseurad RA, Leemans R (1992) Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statistics. Ecol Model 62:275–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCuen RH (1998) Hydrologic analysis and design. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, USA, pp 155–163

    Google Scholar 

  • McCuen RH, Knight Z, Cutter AG (2006) Evaluation of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index. J Hydrol Eng (ASCE) 11(6):597–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minns AW, Hall MJ (1996) Artificial neural networks as rainfall-runoff models. Hydrol Sci 41(3):399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra A (2004) Modeling hydrological processes and non-point source pollution of water in a small multivegetated watershed. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

  • Montas HJ, Madramootoo CA (1991) Using the ANSWERS model to predict runoff and soil loss in South Western Quebec. Trans ASAE 34(4):1751–1762

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Vanliew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostaghimi S, Park SW, Cooke RA, Wang SY (1997) Assessment of management alternatives on a small agricultural watershed. Water Res 31(8):1867–1878

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nasr A, Bruen M, Jordan P, Moles R, Kiely G, Byrne P (2007) A comparison of SWAT, HSPF and SHETRAN/GOPC for modeling phosphorous export from three catchments in Ireland. Water Res 41:1065–1073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oldeman LR (1994) The global extent of soil degradation. In: Greenland DJ, Szabolcs I (eds) Soil resilience and sustainable land use. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K, pp 99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey A (2005) Hydrological modeling of a watershed using remote sensing, GIS and WEPP model. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

  • Pandey A, Chowdary VM, Mal BC, Billib M (2008) Runoff and sediment yield modeling from a small agricultural watershed in India using the WEPP model. J Hydrol 348:305–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieri L, Bittelli M, Wu JQ, Dun S, Pisa PR, Ventura F, Flanagan DC, Salvatorelli F (2007) Using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model to simulate field-observed runoff and erosion in the Apennines mountain range, Italy. J Hydrol 336:84–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putty MRY, Prasad R (2000) Understanding runoff processes using a watershed model: a case study in the Western Ghats in South India. J Hydrol 228:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raclot D, Albergel J (2006) Runoff and water erosion modeling using WEPP on a Mediterranean cultivated catchment. Phys Chem Earth 31:1038–1047

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao MN, Waits DA, Neilsen ML (2000) A GIS-based modeling approach for implementation of sustainable farm management practices. Environ Model Software 15:745–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhi C, Kannan N, Arnold JG, Luzio MD (2008) Spatial calibration and temporal validation of flow for regional scale hydrologic modeling. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44(4):829–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarangi A, Madramootoo CA, Enright P, Prasher SO, Patel RM (2005) Performance evaluation of ANN and geomorphology-based models for runoff and sediment yield prediction for a Canadian watershed. Curr Sci 89(12):2022–2033

    Google Scholar 

  • Savabi MR, Williams JR (1995) Water balance and percolation. In: Flanagan DC, Nearing MA (eds) USDA-water erosion prediction project hillslope profile and watershed model documentation, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp 5.1–5.14

  • Schuman AH, Funkl R, Schultz GA (2000) Application of a geographic information system for conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling. J Hydrol 240:45–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal JL, Abrol IP (1994) Soil degradation in India: status and impact. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, 80 pp

  • Singh VP (1994) Elementary hydrology. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh R (2002) Hydrological studies for small watershed using distributed parameter models. Unpublised Ph.D. thesis, Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

  • Singh VP, Fervert DK (2006) Introduction. In: Singh VP, Frevert DK (eds) Watershed models. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone JJ, Lane LJ, Shirley ED, Hernandez M (1995) Hillslope surface hydrology. In: Flanagan DC, Nearing MA (eds) USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope profile and watershed model documentation, NSERL Report No. 10. USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, pp 4.1–4.20

  • Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS (2003) Identification and prioritization of critical sub-watersheds for soil conservation management using the SWAT model. Biosyst Eng 85(3):365–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USACE-HEC (2000) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS technical reference manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Centre (HEC), Davis, USA

  • USACE-HEC (2008) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS v3.2 user’s manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Davis, USA

  • WMO (1982) WMO project for the intercomparison of conceptual models of snowmelt runoff. In: Proceedings of the exeter symposium, Geneva, IAHS Publication No. 138, pp 193–202

  • Yang D, Herath S, Musiake K (1999) Comparison of different distributed hydrological models for characterization of catchment spatial variability. Hydrol Process 14(3):403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very thankful to the Central Water Commission (CWC), Bhubneshwar, Orissa, India and the India Meteorological Department (IMD), Bhubneshwar, Orissa, India for providing necessary hydrological and meteorological data for this study. They are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, 721 302, West Bengal, India

    Arbind K. Verma, Madan K. Jha & Rajesh K. Mahana

Authors
  1. Arbind K. Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madan K. Jha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajesh K. Mahana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madan K. Jha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verma, A.K., Jha, M.K. & Mahana, R.K. Evaluation of HEC-HMS and WEPP for simulating watershed runoff using remote sensing and geographical information system. Paddy Water Environ 8, 131–144 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-009-0192-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-009-0192-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation