Catchment modelling with HEC-HMS

Objectives
To model the catchment using HEC-HMS and generate the outflow hydrograph at
outflow location.
To obtain peak flow (m3/s), time to peak (min) and peak shift with the observed
stream flow data.
To Calibrate the model with the river gauge data given by adjusting relevant
parameters.

Introduction
The analysis and design of the most drainage systems (canals, culverts, bridges, reservoirs,
etc.) requires the determination of the maximum flow or runoff hydrograph. The HEC-HMS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Centres programme is commonly used
is commonly used for this task.
Hydrological Modelling System (HEC-HMS) software system designed to simulate complete
hydrological activities of dendritic watershed systems. The software includes many
traditional hydrologic analysis procedures such as event infiltration, unit hydrographs, and
hydrologic routing. HEC-HMS also includes procedures necessary for continuous simulation
including evapotranspiration, snowmelt, and soil moisture accounting (William A., Fleming
S., Fleming M.J., 2010). In here the HEC-HMS program is used for the of peak flow
calculation and hydrograph calculations.
For this assignment, there were three input components,
The basin model
The meteorological model
The control specifications
The basin model is the representation of real world objects with parameters that describe
their behaviour. The basin model elements are,

Sub basin Used for rainfall-runoff computation on a watershed.

Sink Used to represent the outlet of the physical watershed. no outflow.
Reach Used to route streamflow downstream in the basin model.
Reservoir Used to model the detention and attenuation of a hydrograph caused by
a reservoir or detention pond.
Junction Used to combine flows from upstream reaches and sub-basins.
Diversion Used to model abstraction of flow from the main channel.
Source Used to introduce flow into the basin model

1
Each of these elements needs some parameters to define its behaviour in a hydrological
system. Each element stores the downstream element to facilitate water flow and create a
dendritic network.
The metrological model is responsible for preparing the boundary conditions that act on
during a simulation in the water area. The meteorological model looks at the information
about precipitation that is related to watershed and evapotranspiration. Simple event
simulations only require precipitation, while continuous simulation also requires
evapotranspiration.
The time span(duration) of a simulation is controlled by control specifications. The control
specification is used to describe the period and time step for simulation. Control
specifications include a starting date and time, ending date and time, and a time interval.
HEC-HMS is a numerical model that can predict runoff volumes, peak flows, and timing off
lows by simulating the behaviour of the entire watershed. This includes the behaviour of the
reservoirs and channels (William A., Fleming S., Fleming M.J., 2010).
In the HEC-HMS, soil data is fed to the software using The NRCS curve number. The curve
number method was developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The
NRCS curve number is related to soil type, soil infiltration capability, land use and depth of
the seasonal high water table. To take into account the infiltration capacity of different
lands, NRCS has divided land into four hydrological soil groups. Soil groups are defined as
follows (United States Department of Agriculture, 1986),
Group A: Soils with high infiltration rates, even when thoroughly wetted. These
consist mainly of deep, well drained sand and gravel.
Group B: Soils with moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These
consist mainly of soils that are moderately deep and deep, moderately well drained
to well drained with moderately fine to moderately rough textures.
Group C: Soils with slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These consist
mainly of soils with a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soil
with moderately fine to fine textures.
Group D: Soils with very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These
consist mainly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, bottoms with a permanent
water table, soil with a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soil
over almost impermeable materials

2
Methodology

1) Given watershed was modelled on HEC-HMS software.

2) The parameters sub catchment parameters, model control specifications, NRCS curve
numbers, rainfall records and observed flow at the outlet were fed to the software.
3) After entering the parameters, simulation run was created and results were computed.
4) Then the peak discharge, time of peak discharge and discharge volume at the outlet
were obtained.
5) Out flow hydrograph was obtained.

Finally, the parameters were fine tuned to equal the observed hydrograph and the
computed hydrograph.

Given Data

Figure 1-Watershed

Sub-catchment ID Initial Soil Lag Time

Area(km2)
abstraction(mm) Group (min)
SB1 34.41 1.7 A 78
SB2 25.2 1.4 A 25
SB3 29.63 2.3 C 42
SB4 24.2 1.8 D 48
Table 1-Sub catchment parameters

Loss method SS Curve number method

Transform Method SCS unit hydrograph method
Catchment cover status Grass cover < 50%
Maskingum k 1.5 (Hours)
Maskingum x 0.15
Table 2-Model control specifications

3

Curve numbers for hydrologic soil
group
Cover description
A B C D

Open space Poor condition (grass 68 79 86 89

(lawns, parks, cover <50%)

golf courses,
cemeteries, Fair condition (grass 49 69 79 84
etc.) cover 50 to 75%)

Good condition (grass 39 61 74 80

cover > 75%)

Table 3-NRCS curve numbers

Time Rainfall (mm)

01Apr2016, 00:00
01Apr2016, 01:00 0.0635
01Apr2016, 02:00 0.3175
01Apr2016, 03:00 0.1905
01Apr2016, 04:00 0.508
01Apr2016, 05:00 0.8255
01Apr2016, 06:00 1.0795
01Apr2016, 07:00 1.143
01Apr2016, 08:00 1.778
01Apr2016, 09:00 1.0795
01Apr2016, 10:00 1.165
01Apr2016, 11:00 0.635
01Apr2016, 12:00 0.1905
01Apr2016, 13:00 0.11
01Apr2016, 14:00 0.05
01Apr2016, 15:00 0
Table 4-Gauge 1 rainfall records

4
Table 5-Observed flow at the outlet

Date Time Observed Flow (m3/s)

1-Apr-16 0:00 0
1-Apr-16 1:00 0
1-Apr-16 2:00 0
1-Apr-16 3:00 0
1-Apr-16 4:00 0
1-Apr-16 5:00 0
1-Apr-16 6:00 0
1-Apr-16 7:00 0
1-Apr-16 8:00 0.25
1-Apr-16 9:00 0.29
1-Apr-16 10:00 0.45
1-Apr-16 11:00 1.2
1-Apr-16 12:00 1.4
1-Apr-16 13:00 2.8
1-Apr-16 14:00 3
1-Apr-16 15:00 1.25
1-Apr-16 16:00 0.5
1-Apr-16 17:00 0.35
1-Apr-16 18:00 0.22
1-Apr-16 19:00 0.15
1-Apr-16 20:00 0.1
1-Apr-16 21:00 0.1
1-Apr-16 22:00 0.1
1-Apr-16 23:00 0.1
2-Apr-16 0:00 0
2-Apr-16 1:00 0
2-Apr-16 2:00 0
2-Apr-16 3:00 0
2-Apr-16 4:00 0
2-Apr-16 5:00 0
2-Apr-16 6:00 0
2-Apr-16 7:00 0
2-Apr-16 8:00 0
2-Apr-16 9:00 0
2-Apr-16 10:00 0
2-Apr-16 11:00 0
2-Apr-16 12:00 0
2-Apr-16 13:00 0
2-Apr-16 14:00 0
2-Apr-16 15:00 0
2-Apr-16 16:00 0
2-Apr-16 17:00 0
2-Apr-16 18:00 0
2-Apr-16 19:00 0
2-Apr-16 20:00 0
2-Apr-16 21:00 0
2-Apr-16 22:00 0
2-Apr-16 23:00 0
3-Apr-16 0:00 0

5
Results
Run 01
The analysis of given data

Figure 2-Summary results for the out

Figure 3-Hydrograph of the out

6
Run 02
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 1.5 A 78
SB2 1.2 A 25
SB3 2.1 C 42
SB4 1.6 D 48
Table 6-Adjusted parameters

Figure 4-Summary results for the out

Run 03
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 2.0 A 78
SB2 1.7 A 25
SB3 2.6 C 42
SB4 2.1 D 48
Table 7-Adjusted parameters

Figure 5-Summary results for the out

7
Run 06
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 2.2 A 78
SB2 2.0 A 25
SB3 3.0 C 42
SB4 2.3 D 48
Table 8-Adjusted parameters

Figure 6-Summary results for the out

Run 08
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 2.2 A 50
SB2 2.0 A 10
SB3 3.0 C 20
SB4 2.3 D 25
Table 9-Adjusted parameters

Figure 7-Summary results for the out

8
Run 10
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 2.2 A 150
SB2 2.0 A 50
SB3 3.0 C 70
SB4 2.3 D 75
Table 10-Adjusted parameters

Figure 8-Summary results for the out

Run 12
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 2.2 A 180
SB2 2.0 A 80
SB3 3.0 C 100
SB4 2.3 D 105
Table 11-Adjusted parameters

Figure 9-Summary results for the out

9
Run 15
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 1.6 A 200
SB2 1.4 A 100
SB3 2.4 C 110
SB4 1.8 D 120
Table 12-Adjusted parameters

Figure 10-Summary results for the out

Figure 11-Hydrograph of the out

10
Run 16
Sub-catchment Initial abstraction Soil Group Lag time (min)
ID (mm)
SB1 1.6 A 200
SB2 1.4 A 100
SB3 2.4 C 110
SB4 1.8 D 120
Table 13-Adjusted parameters

Reach Muskingum K Muskingum X

01 2 0.15
02 2 0.15
03 2 0.15
04 2 0.15
05 2 0.15
06 2 0.15
07 2 0.15
Table 14-Adjusted Muskingum K and Muskingum X values

Figure 12-Summary results for the out

Run 23
Grass cover - poor condition

Sub- Initial Soil Lag Soil Curve

catchment ID abstraction Group time Group number
(mm) (min)
SB1 1.6 A 200 A 68
SB2 1.4 A 100 A 68
SB3 2.4 C 110 C 86
SB4 1.8 D 120 D 89
Table 15-Adjusted parameters

11
 Reach Muskingum K Muskingum X
01 1.5 0.3
02 1.5 0.3
03 1.5 0.3
04 1.5 0.3
05 1.5 0.3
06 1.5 0.3
07 1.5 0.3
Table 16-Adjusted Muskingum K and Muskingum X values

Figure 13-Summary results for the out

Run24
Grass cover - good condition

Sub- Initial Soil Lag Soil Curve

catchment abstraction Group time Group number
ID (mm) (min)

SB1 1.6 A 200 A 39

SB2 1.4 A 100 A 39
SB3 2.4 C 110 A 39
SB4 1.8 D 120 A 39
Table 17-Adjusted parameters

Reach Muskingum K Muskingum X

01 1.5 0.15
02 1.5 0.15
03 1.5 0.15
04 1.5 0.15
05 1.5 0.15
06 1.5 0.15
07 1.5 0.15
Table 18-Adjusted Muskingum K and Muskingum X values

12
 Figure 14-Summary results for the out

Run 55
At the Run 55 the peak discharge and the time of peak of the observed results and the
computed results were equalled with small volume difference.

Sub-catchment ID Initial abstraction Lag time Soil Group Curve number

(mm) (min)

SB1 3.5 95 D 89
SB2 3.9 39 D 89
SB3 5.9 45 C 86
SB4 5.0 50 D 86
Table 19-Adjusted parameters

Reach Muskingum K Muskingum X

01 1.5 0.2
02 1.5 0.3
03 0.7 0.3
04 1.6 0.2
05 1.5 0.3
06 1.5 0.3
07 1.3 0.3
Table 20-Adjusted Muskingum K and Muskingum X values

13
Figure 15-Summary results for the out

Figure 16-Hydrograph of the out

Figure 17-Global Summary Results

14
Discussion
In this assignment, the ground water flow is taken as zero. Therefore, the discharge is only
contributed by the surface flow. Infiltration, initial abstractions and flood routing dominate
the surface flow volume. Infiltration affects the timing, magnitude of the surface runoff. The
infiltration depends on factors such as soil type and soil moisture. A loose, permeable sandy
soil have greater infiltration capacity than a tight clayey soil, Flat/mild slope terrains have
more infiltration than the steep terrains, and surfaces covered by vegetation will have a high
infiltration as the raindrops would not displace soil particles on surface which clog the
pores.
There are two types of initial abstractions namely interception and depression storage. Both
results less run off. The volume caught by vegetation is interception and the volume of
water trapped in surface depressions called depression storage.
In here The Muskingum method is used for hydrologic routing. The Muskingum model,
models the flood storage volume in the river channel using a combination of wedge and
prismatic storage. The key parameters for Muskingum routing are K (driving time) and X
(weighing factor). The X value depends on the shape of the wedge to be modelled. The X
value ranges from 0 for the reservoir-type to 0.5 for the full wedge. In natural flows, X is
between 0 and 0.3. K is the time required for an incremental flood wave to travel the reach
length, and can be estimated as the observed time of the peak flow path within reach. The
Muskingum method assumes that the water surface in the range is a uniform uneven
surface profile between the upper and lower ends of the section. It is also assumed that K
and X are constant over the range of flow.

Wedge Storage

Q out
Q in
Prismatic Storage

Figure 18- Wedge and Prism storages (Muskingum Channel Routing, 2017)

According to the observed data, the software calculated the peak volume as 3.5m3/s and
the volume and time of peak discharge to be 0.67 mm and 15:00 at 01Apr2016 respectively.
But the computed peak volume was 4.0 m3/s and the volume and time of peak discharge
were 0.89 mm and 13:30 at 01Apr2016 respectively. Therefore, it was needed to fine tune
parameters to get same computed results as the observed ones.
Computed peak discharge is higher than the observed discharge, so it was needed to lower
the discharge in computed results. Firstly, the initial abstractions were changed to observes
the effect on computed results. Run 01 is the analysis of given data in the lab sheet. In run
02 Initial abstractions of all abstractions were reduced by 0.3. This resulted increase in the

15
peak discharge and volume. The time to peak discharge was reduced. As discussed early the
Initial abstractions results less runoff. Therefore, the reduction of the Initial abstractions
should be increase the discharge and volume as witnessed. Therefore, to lower the
discharge and volume the Initial abstractions should be increased. In run 03 the Initial
abstractions were increased by 0.3 and the peak discharged was reduced as expected with
the volume. The Initial abstractions were changed until the peak discharge of computed
result equals the observed peak discharge. At run 06 the peak discharges were equalled by
changing The Initial abstractions only.
Then the lag times were changed to equalled the time of peak discharge while keeping the
other parameters. The time difference between the maximum effective rainfall intensity
and the maximum runoff is called the lag time. According to result of run 06 it was needed
delay the time of peak discharge to do that the lag times needed to be increased. To
observe the effect of lag time firstly the lag times were reduced in run 08 and the time of
peak discharge of computed results was hastened. In run 09 lag times were increased and
time of peak discharge of computed results was delayed as expected. Since the lag time is
time parameter its not affect the volume of discharge. Therefore, the peak discharge
change with the changing time to maintain same volume. This means that if the volume of
computed and observed results equalled the peak discharge and time pf peak discharge can
be equalled by changing the lag time. At run 15 the peak discharge and the time of peak
were equalled by changing the lag times and the Initial abstractions.
At run 15 same peak discharge and the time of peak were equalled to the observed results.
As discussed earlier, The Muskingum K is the travel time for a wave to travel the reach
length so changing it would not change the volume instead it will change the peak discharge
and the time of the peak to maintain same volume. To observe that the Muskingum K was
increased to 2.0 hrs in the run 16 and it behaved as expected.
To observe the effect of the Muskingum X, the value was in increased up to 0.3 at Run 23.
This resulted change in the peak discharge and the time of peak while maintaining the same
volume as the Muskingum K. This is because the Muskingum X depends on the shape of the
wedge and it not affect the discharge volume. Therefore, changes in Muskingum parameters
(K and X) will change the peak discharge and the time of the peak to maintain same volume.
Therefore, as same as the lag time, if the volume of computed and observed results
equalled the peak discharge and time pf peak discharge can be equalled by changing the
Muskingum parameters (K and X) without a change in volume.
The last parameter is the soil condition. As discussed early, the infiltration depends on
factors such as soil type and soil moisture. Therefore, changes in the soil type will results the
changes in the discharge volume. According to the results of the Run 15, it was needed to
reduce the computed discharge volume. It can be done by increasing the infiltration and
Initial abstractions. To observe the effect of increased infiltration soil groups were changed
to the group A which has the greater infiltration rates at the run 24 and the cover condition
was taken as good. As expected the discharge volume of the computed results were
reduced upon the increased infiltration.

16
Conclusion
Changes in the infiltration and Initial abstractions have only resulted changes in the
discharge volume. Increased the infiltration and Initial abstractions have reduce the
discharge volume. The decreased infiltration and Initial abstractions have increased the
discharge volume. Changes in the other parameters, the lag times and the Muskingum
parameters have not change the discharge volume and they have change the peak discharge
and the time of the peak to maintain same volume. The lag time increase has delayed the
time of peak discharge and reduced the peak volume. The Muskingum K and X increase also
has delayed the time of peak discharge and reduced the peak volume. The decrease in the
lag time, Muskingum K and X have hastened the time of peak discharge and increased the
peak volume.

References
1. Muskingum Channel Routing. (2017). Retrieved from Modified Muskingum Hydrologic
Routing Implementation for a Variable Number of Reach Segments:
http://www.goldsim.com/Library/Models/Applications/Hydrology/Muskingum/

2. Song X.,Kongf.,Zhu Z. (2011). Application of Muskingum routing method with variable. Water
Science and Engineering, 1-12.

3. United States Department of Agriculture. (1986). Urban hydrology for small watersheds.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division.

4. William A., Fleming S., Fleming M.J. (2010). Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers .

5. Xiaofang R.,Fanggui L.,Mei Y. (2008). Discussion of Muskingum method parameter X. Water

Science and Engineering, 16-23.

17