American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

e-ISSN : 2320-0847 p-ISSN : 2320-0936
Volume-02, Issue-11, pp-115-121
www.ajer.org

Research Paper Open Access

Performance Evaluation of the HEC-HMS Hydrologic Model for

Lumped and Semi-distributed Stormflow Simulation (Study
Area:Delibajak Basin)
Arash Asadi, Fardin Boustani
Islamic Azad University, Dehdasht branch, Iran
Department of Water Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran

Abstract: - Rainfall-runoff processes in small Delibajak basin(16.3 km2) in kohgilouye and boyerahmad , iran
was examined.At first, In this study, Delibajak basin was considered as Lumped and then basin divided into a
number of sub- basins where the hydrologic parameters may vary from one sub-basin to another. In such case,
lumped models may be labeled as "semi-distributed." The hydrologic model HEC-HMS (Hydrologic
Engineering Center, Hydrologic Modeling System), used in combination with the Geospatial Hydrologic
Modeling Extension, HEC-GeoHMS. The SCS curve number method (Soil conservation Service, 1972) was
considered for the Rainfall-runoff modelling and in both cases The model was carefully calibrated and verified
in basin using historical observed data. The determination coefficients and coefficients of agreement for all the
flood events were above 0.9, and the percent errors in peak flow and volume were all within the acceptable
range. Then,a local sensitivity analysis was adopted for evaluating the event model. There are three
parameters(curve number,initial abstraction and lag time) of the event model that were subject to the sensitivity
analysis.In the Delibajak basin. In both lumped and distributed model,The highest differences between the
generated peak hydrographs and the baseline peak hydrograph was caused by initial abstraction,Ia. The results
indicated that Semi-distributed model captured the peak runoff discharges and total runoff volume better than
Lumped model. However, overall, the performance of both models was quite reasonable.

Keywords: - Semi-distributed model, Delibajak basin, HEC-HMS, Sensitivity analysis, Rainfall-runoff

modelling, HEC-GeoHMS,SCS , kohgilouye and boyerahmad.

INTRODUCTIOEN
Currently available watershed models range from simple conceptual lumped models to comprehensive
physically based distributed models. Conceptual lumped models use an integrated description of parameters
representing an average value over the entire basin. A watershed can be divided into a number of sub- basins
where the hydrologic parameters may vary from one sub-basin to another. In such case, lumped models may be
labeled as "semi-distributed." They remain non-physically based, however, as they use synthetic methods of
transforming rainfall to runoff. This study used the HEC-HMS Version 3.2. The HEC model is designed to
simulate the surface runoff response of a basin to precipitation by representing the basin with interconnected
hydrologic and hydraulic components. It is primarily applicable to flood simulations. In HEC-HMS, the basin
model comprises three vital processes; the loss, the transform and the base flow. Each element in the model
performs different functions of the precipitation-runoff process within a portion of the basin or basin known as a
sub-basin. An element may depict a surface runoff, a stream channel, or a reservoir. Each of the elements is
assigned a variable which defines the particular attribute of the element and mathematical relations that describe
its physical processes. The result of the modeling process is the computation of stream flow hydrographs at the
basin outlet. The design, construction and operation of many hydraulic projects require an adequate knowledge
of the variation of the basin’s runoff, and for most of these problems it would be ideal to know the exact
magnitude and the actual time of occurrence of all stream flow events during the construction period and
economic life of the project. If this information was available at the project planning and design stages, it would
be possible to select from amongst all alternatives a design, construction program, and operational procedure

www.ajer.org Page 115

 American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013
that would produce a project output with an optimized objective function. Unfortunately, such ideal and precise
information is never available because it is impossible to have advance knowledge of the project hydrology for
water resources development projects; it is necessary to develop plans, designs, and management techniques
using a hypothetical set of future hydrologic conditions. It is the determination of these future hydrologic
conditions that has long occupied the attention of engineering hydrologists who have attempted to identify
acceptable simplifications of complex hydrologic phenomena and to develop adequate models for the prediction
of the responses of basins to various natural and anthropogenic hydrologic and hydraulic phenomena. In view of
these, a number of hydrologic models have been developed for flood forecasting and the study of rainfall-runoff
processes (Yusop and Chan, 2007; Yener and orman,2008; Li and Jia, 2008; Stisen and Jensen,2008; Khakbaz
and et al,2009; Salerno and Tartari, 2009; Amir and Emad,2010; Jang and Kim, 2010; James and Zhi,2010;).In
recent times, GIS (geographic information systems) has become an integral part of hydrologic studies because
of the spatial character of the parameters and precipitation controlling hydrologic processes. GIS plays a major
role in distributed hydrologic model parameterization. This is to overcome gross simplifications made through
representation by lumping of parameters at the river basin scale. The extraction of hydrologic information, such
as flow direction, flow accumulation, watershed boundaries and stream networks, from a DEM (digital elevation
model) is accomplished through GIS applications(Asadi and porhemat,2012). This study combined GIS with
HEC-HMS, and analyzed the model’s suitability for the studied basins. The Delibajak basin are selected as the
study areas in this research and basin parameters(curve number and initial abstraction) were calibrated using the
rainfall-runoff data of the basin that are collected by 2 rainfall and one runoff stations for 2008-2011 period.
The present study has two main objectives: (1) calibration ,verification and sensivity analysis of the HEC-HMS
hydrologic model in Delibajak basin, in both cases, lumped and distributed, and (2) Model Performance
Evaluation by statistical measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Study Area
The Delibajak basin are located in the west of Yasooj City,kohgilouye and boyerahmad Province in
Southwest iran. The basin is in between 30º 29′ - 30º 32′ northern latitudes and 51º 26′ - 51º 31′ eastern
longitudes. This basin is one of the subbasins of Delibajak river. Delibajak basin has a total basin area of 16.3
km2 with an elevation ranging from 2100 near the outlet to 2750m at the basin divide with an average channel
slope of 0.07.Average annual precipitation is about 1020 mm of which over 90% occurs between November to
April in the form of frontal rainfall induced flood. It has a humid and cold climate, an average annual
temperature of about 11 𝑐. (Fig 1.)

Data used
In the Delibajak basin ,streamflow and precipitation have been monitored since 2008 by the gricultural
research center. Precipitation data was collected by two raingauges located in the middle and upper parts of the
basin. Stream flow data were collected at the outlet of the basin (Delibajak hydrometric station) at one hour
interval. meteorological data were acquired from the local climatological station. All the hydrologic model
simulations are performed on an hourly time step basis.

Software used
Hec-GeoHMS 5.0
It is a geospatial hydrology toolkit for engineers with limited GIS experience. It is an extension
package used in ArcMap software. In this study, Hec-GeoHMS is used to derive river network of the basins and
to delineate subbasins of the basins from the digital elevation model (DEM) of the basins. In the subbasins
delineation process streamflow gages Delibajak is used for Delibajak basin.

HEC-HMS 3.2
It is a hydrologic modeling software developed by US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic
Engineering Center. It includes many of the well-known and well applicable hydrologic methods to be used to
simulate rainfall-runoff processes in river basins.

MODEL APPLICATION AND CALIBRATION

In this study, 3 flood events that occurred during the three-year period of 2009-2011 in the Delibajak
Basin was used for model testing. HMS uses a project name as an identifier for a hydrologic model. An HMS
project must have the following components before it can be run: a basin model, a meteorological model, and
control specifications. The basin model and basin features were created in the form of a background map file
imported to HMS from the data derived through HEC-GeoHMS for model simulation (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The
observed precipitation and discharge data were used to create the meteorological model using the user gauge

www.ajer.org Page 116

 American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013
weighting method and, subsequently, the control specification model was created. The control specifications
determine the time pattern for the simulation; its features are: a starting date and time, an ending date and time,
and a computation time step. To run the system, the basin model, the meteorological model, and the control
specifications were combined. The observed historical data of two raingauge stations representing each sub-
basin and one stream gauge station in the Delibajak Basin, were used for model calibration and verification. An
hourly time step was used for the simulation based on the time interval of the available observed data.
The SCS curve number method was employed to model infiltration loss. The SCS (Soil Conservation Service)
unit hydrograph method was used to model the transformation of precipitation excess into direct surface runoff.
The constant monthly method was employed to model baseflow. The Muskingum routing model was used to
model the reaches.
Each method in HEC-HMS has parameters and the values of these parameters should be entered as
input to the model to obtain the simulated runoff hydrographs.Some of the parameters may be estimated by
observation and measurements of stream and basin characteristics, but some of them cannot be estimated. When
the required parameters cannot be estimated accurately, the model parameters are calibrated, i.e. in the presence
of rainfall and runoff data the optimum parameters are found as a result of a systematic search process that yield
the best fit between the observed runoff and the computed runoff. This systematic search process is called as
optimization. Optimization begins from initial parameter estimates and adjusts them so that the simulated results
match the observed streamflow as closely as possible.
The trial and error method, in which the hydrologist makes a subjective adjustment of parameter values
in between simulations in order to arrive at the minimum values of parameters that give the best fit between the
observed and simulated hydrograph, was employed to calibrate the model. Although the model was calibrated
manually, the HEC-HMS built-in automatic optimization procedure was used to authenticate the acceptability
and suitability of the parameter values and their ranges as applicable to their uses in HEC-HMS. The choice of
the objective function depends upon the need. The SCS Curve Number method, which is used to handle the
infiltration loss in the subbasins, has three parameters such as: curve number, initial abstraction and percent
impervious area in the basin. Percent impervious area is taken as “0 %”, since no urban settlements are present
inside the subbasin. Therefore, the remaining two parameters (curve number, initial abstraction ) of SCS curve
number method were calibrated. The SCS unit hydrograph method, which is used to model the transformation of
precipitation excess into direct surface runoff, has lag time parameter. This parameter was calibrated,as well.

MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODS

The criteria used to evaluate the performance of the models are the overall agreement between
predicted and measured runoff discharges, and the models' ability to predict time and magnitude of hydrograph
peaks, and runoff volume. The following statistical measures were used to quantify the performance accuracy of
both models during each simulation periods, and combined over all periods:

 Percent error in peak flow (PEPF). The PEPF measure only considers the magnitude of computed peak
flow and does not account for total volume or timing of the peak:

𝑄𝑂 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 − 𝑄𝑆 (𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘)
𝑃𝐸𝑃𝐹 = 100
𝑄𝑄 (𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘) (1)
where 𝑄𝑂 (𝑄𝑆 ) is the the observed (simulated) flow.
 Percent error in volume (PEV). The PEV function only considers the computed volume and does not
account for the magnitude or timing of the peak flow:

𝑉𝑂 − 𝑉𝑆
𝑃𝐸𝑉 = 100
𝑉𝑂 (2)

where 𝑉𝑂 𝑉𝑆 is the volume of the observed (simulated) hydrograph

 Coefficient of correlation (R) . The lag-0 cross correlation coefficient was calculated as:
𝑁
𝑡=1 (𝑂𝑡 − 𝑂) × (𝑆𝑡 − 𝑆)
𝑅= (3)
𝑁 2 𝑁 2
𝑡=1 (𝑂𝑡 − 𝑂 ) × 𝑡=1 (𝑆𝑡 − 𝑆)

www.ajer.org Page 117

 American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013
Where 𝑂𝑡 (𝑆𝑡 ) is the observed (simulated) flow at time t, and 𝑂 𝑆 is the average observed (simulated) flow
during the calibration period.

 The relative root mean squared error, RRMSE, were calculated as:
1 𝑁 𝑆𝑡 −𝑂𝑡 2
𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 100 × 𝑁
(
𝑂𝑡
)
(4)
𝑡=1
where N is the number of streamflow ordinates and the meaning of the remaining symbols is the same as in
Equation (3).

SENSIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis is a method to determine which parameters of the model have the greatest impact
on the model results. It ranks model parameters based on their contribution to overall error in model predictions.
Sensitivity analysis can be local and global. In this study, a local sensitivity analysis was adopted for evaluating
the event model. There are three parameters(curve number, initial abstraction and Lag Time) of the event model
that were subject to the sensitivity analysis. The final set of the parameters of the calibrated model was deemed
as baseline/nominal parameter set. Then, the model was run repeatedly with the starting baseline value for each
parameter multiplied, in turn, by 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, while keeping all other parameters constant at
their nominal starting values. The hydrographs resulting from the scenarios of adjusted model parameters were
then compared with the baseline model hydrograph.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As described in the introduction, each component of HEC-HMS models an aspect of the precipitation-
runoff process within a portion of the basin, commonly referred to as a sub-basin. Representation of a
component requires a set of parameters that specify the particular characteristics of the component and
mathematical relations that describe the physical processes. Tables 1 and 2 show the calibrated parameter values
in the Lumped and Semi-distributed Delibajak basin,respectively. Apart from the sub-areas, which are fixed,
parameters were calibrated simultaneously through adjustment of their values until a good agreement between
the observed and simulated hydrographs was achieved.
The calibration and validation graphs of basin, in both cases, are shown below. Figs. 4 through 7 show
good agreement between observed and simulated graphs. Also, Tables 3 and 4 show observed and simulated
values for both calibration and validation basin, in both cases. Table 5 show a summary of the models
performance. It can be seen in the above graphs that the simulated and observed peak discharges occurred on the
same day, and their maximum time difference was one hour, which is acceptable for flood forecasting.
Also, Figures 8 and 9 summarize the absolute differences obtained from the -30% scenarios for each parameter
of the event model. In both cases, The highest differences were generated by the change in initial abstraction
parameter, Ia.

CONCLUSIONS
As shown in the results above, the model predicted peak discharge accurately based on the available
historical flood data. Both the flood volume and timing were fairly accurate. This shows that HEC-HMS is
suitable for the studied basin. From the results, we can conclude that the complexity of the model structure does
not determine its suitability and efficiency. Though the structure of HEC-HMS is simple, it is a powerful tool
for flood forecasting. A further application of HEC-HMS should be encouraged to confirm its suitability for the
iran basins. The results indicated that Semi-distributed model captured the peak runoff discharges and total
runoff volume better than Lumped model. However, overall, the performance of both models was quite
reasonable.As well, three parameters(curve number,initial abstraction and lag time) of the event model that were
subject to the sensitivity analysis. In both cases, lumped and semi-distributed basin, The highest differences
were generated by the change in initial abstraction parameter, Ia. Also, the optimmized hydrologic parameters,
curve number and initial abstraction were compared in both cases. In the lumped case, curve number , initial
abstraction and Lag Time Were 53 , 49mm, and 92 min, respectively. In the semi-distributed case, curve number
and initial abstraction, ranges from 51 to 52, and 47 mm to 51 mm, respectively. This variationes is due to
differences in basin slope, geologic formations,vegetation cover and land use in subbasins.

REFERENCES
[1] Amir. A, Emad. H,2010,Application of a Conceptual Hydrologic Model in Teaching Hydrologic
Processes, Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 1–11
[2] Asadi.A,Boustani.F, 2013, Application of HEC-HMS for Flood Forecasting in Kabkian Basin and
Delibajak Subbasin in Iran, Vol. 3, Issue 9 ,PP 10-16

www.ajer.org Page 118

 American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013

[3] Asadi.A,Porhemat.J, 2012, Calibration, verification and sensitivity analysis of the HEC-HMS hydrologic
model (study area: Kabkian basin and Delibajak subbasin), Iran, Journal of ECOLOGY,
ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION, 18 (4) ,805-812.
[4] James .O,Zhi-j. L ,2010,Application of HEC-HMS for flood forecasting in Misai and Wan’an catchments
in China, Water Science and Engineering, 2010, 3(1): 14-22
[5] Jang, T. I. and Kim, H. K., 2010.Estimation of storm hydrographs in a mixed – land use watershed using
a modified TR-20 model.
[6] Khakbaz, B., et al,2009. From lumped to distributed via semi-distributed: Calibration strategies for semi-
distributed hydrologic models. J. Hydrol. doi:10.1016
[7] Li, S. Y., Qi, R. Z., and Jia, W. W. 2008. Calibration of the conceptual rainfall-runoff model’s
parameters. Proceeding of 16th IAHR-APD Congress and 3rd Symposium of IAHR-ISHS, 55-59.
Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
[8] Parajka J,Blosch G,2010,The value of MODIS snow cover data in Validating and calibrating conceptual
hydrologic model, Journal of Hydrology, vol 358,240-258.
[9] Salerno, F., and Tartari, G., 2009, "A coupled approach of surface hydrological modelling and Wavelet
Analysis for understanding the baseflow components of river discharge in karst environments", Journal of
Hydrology, Volume 376, Issues 1-2, Pages 295-306.
[10] Stisen.S,Jensen.K,2008, A Remote Sensing driven distributed hydrological model of the Senegal river
basin,journal of hydrology 354:131-148.
[11] U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2009b, Hydrologic Modeling System: Technical Reference
Manual, Davis, CA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
[12] U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2000a,Geospatial modeling extension. HEC-GeoHMS, User’s
Manual, Davis, CA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
[13] Yener, M.K. orman, A.Ü.2008. Modeling Studies With Hec-Hms and Runoff Scenariosin Yuvacik
Basin, Turkiye. Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531
Ankara/Türkiye.
[14] Z. Yusop, C.H. Chan and A, 2007,Katimon,Runoff characteristics and application of HEC-HMS for
modelling stormflow hydrograph in an oil palm catchment, Water Science & Technology Vol 56 No 8 pp
41–48

Fig 1. Regional map of Iran , location of study basin and monitoring stations

www.ajer.org Page 119

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013

www.ajer.org Page 120

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013

Table 1. values of calibrated parameters in Lumped Delibajak Basin

Curve Number Initial Abstraction SCS Lag

Sub-basin Area(km2 )
(CN) (mm) (min)

Delibajak 16.3 53 49 92

Table 2. values of calibrated parameters in Semi-Distributed Delibajak Basin

Curve Initial Muskingum coefficient
SCS Lag
Sub-basin Area(km2 ) Number Abstraction
(min) X K(hr)
(CN) (mm)
W840 4.3 51.1 47.2 42.2 - -
W730 4.4 51.7 50.5 84.3 .2 .28
W1290 4.3 52.5 48.6 49.9 .2 .25
W1170 3.3 51.5 47.1 78.1 .2 .39

www.ajer.org Page 121