Watershed Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Using

Integrated GIS and HEC-HMS

Presented by: Deepak Kumar Sah

Department of Civil Engineering

National Institute Of Technology, Patna, 2023
1
 OBJECTIVES
1. To develop a rainfall-runoff model using integrated GIS and HEC-HMS
software to estimate the peak flood discharges of watershed located in
lower Sone basin of south Bihar, India.

2. To make a comparative study between the HEC-HMS model and the

available rational methods in determining peak discharges at various
return periods.

3. To develop flood mapping and propose flood mitigation measures in the

study area.

2
 Study Area Description
 Study area: Watershed on the Lower Region of Sone River basin in South Bihar. The
Sone river originates from Amarkantak in Anuppur district of Madhya Pradesh, flows in
south to north direction and drains into Ganges river in Patna district, Bihar
 Total area: 1461.96 km2

 Maximum Elevation: 649 m

 Minimum Elevation: 39 m
 Length: 202 km
 Annual precipitation: Average 927.56 mm
 Temperature: Ranging from 48°F-101°F
 Humidity: Ranging from 34%-93%
3
Contd.

4
Methodology
GIS:
.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) store, analyze, and visualize data for
geographic positions on Earth’s surface.

GIS mapping produces visualizations of

geospatial information. The 4 main ideas of
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are:

 Create geographic data.

 Manage it in a database.
 Analyze and find patterns.
 Display it on a map.

5
Contd.
ArcGIS:
 . ArcGIS is a cloud-based mapping and analysis solution software.
 Use it to make maps, to analyze data, and to share and collaborate.

DEM of Study Area

Pre Processing Filling ,Flow Direction

in ArcGIS ,Flow Accumulation

Create Outlet point, Delineate

Watershed, Defining the Stream Order

Fig 1. Flow chart of GIS processing

6
HEC-HMS model:
 HEC-HMS is a precipitation-runoff lumped model.
 It uses empirical methods to convert rainfall volume to runoff volume.
 Hydrographs produced by the program are used for studies of flow forecasting, future urbanization impact,
flood damage reduction, floodplain regulation etc.
LULC Data

DEM of the Area CN map of Soil map of the Area

the watershed

Estimated Surface
Hydrological Parameters Rainfall Data
Runoff(SCS-CN) Method
of watershed

Channel Routing(Muskingum Method) Outflow

Hydrograph
7
Fig 2. Flow Chart of HEC-HMS simulation
Contd.
HEC-HMS Model has 4 Units.
1. Basin model
 It holds data relevant to the physical attributes of the model, such as basin areas,
river reach connectivity, or reservoir data.
2. Meteorological data
 Rainfall & Evapotranspiration data.
3. Control specifications
 It contains data related to the timing of the model like when a storm occurred and
what type of time interval is to be adopted in the model.
4. Input data
 Stores boundary and parameter conditions for basin and meteorological models.
 The methods include loss method, transform method and routing method.
8
 Loss method

The loss method chosen in this study is SCS-CN which uses CN values for
each sub-basin along with the initial abstraction values. The formula for
calculating loss through the SCS-CN method is:

( 𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 ) 2 Where; P = precipitation in mm
Q= Ia =initial abstraction in mm
𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎+ 𝑆
S is soil retention

Soil retention is calculated using CN

values with the formula as:

25400
S= − 254
𝐶𝑁

9
Transform method
 The Transform method allows specifying how to convert excess rainfall to direct
runoff.

 SCS unit hydrograph method was used in this study.

 For calculation of purpose, values of lag time were calculated for each sub basin
using slope length and CN values. The following dimension-less equation is used
for the transformation of surface runoff to the channel:

A Where: A is the watershed area

Up=C and C is the conversion
Tp constant

The time of peak and duration of the

unit excess precipitation is related as: lag

10
 where T is the duration of excess precipitation; Tlag is the basin lag.

The basin lag time was calculated through CN lag method tool
according to the equation below:

( 𝐿0.8 ∗ ( 𝑆+1 ) 0.7) Where: Lag = basin lag time

𝑇 𝑙 𝑎𝑔= L = hydraulic length of the wateshed
1900 ∗ 𝑌 0.5 Y = basin slope (%)

Routing method

Routing accounts for changes in flow hydrograph as a flood wave

passes downstream. Routing method used in this study was
Muskingum, which uses travel time K (assumed as CN lag time) and
degree of storage values x (is assumed 0.2).
11
Rainfall-runoff complete modelling flowchart

12
Rational Methods
 Dickens Formula:

𝟑 Where: Qp=Peak Discharge in m3/s

𝐐 𝐩 =𝐂𝐃 𝐀 𝟒
CD = Dickens Constant(Value 6 to 30)
A= Catchment Area in km2

 Ryves Formula:
𝟐 Where: Qp=Peak Discharge in m3/s
𝟑
𝐐 𝐩 =𝐂 𝑹 𝐀 CR = Ryves Constant
A= Catchment Area in km2

 Inglis Formula:
𝟏𝟐𝟒 𝐀 Where: Qp=Peak Discharge in m3/s
𝐐 𝐩= A= Catchment Area in km2
√ 𝐀 +𝟏𝟎 .𝟒
13
Result and discussions

Fig 3. GIS layers Fig 4. HEC-HMS Schematic view

14
Contd.
Table1: Land Cover and its percentage
Sum of % Area
Land Type Area(km2) Coverd

Agriculture 758.2 52%

Barren
Land 206.04 14%
Built Up
Area 163.84 11%

Forest 213.53 15%

Water Body 84.187 6%

Wet Land 36.13 2%

Grand Total 1461.96 100%

Fig 5. Land use land Cover map
15
 Contd.
Table2: Soil Classification(with HSG) and
its Percentage
Soil Texture HSG %Area
Code
Be80-2a Silty Loam C 6

Jc50-2a Silty Loam C 77

Lf10-1bc Sandy Loam B 11

Lo49-1b Sandy Loam B 2

Lo49-2a Sandy Loam B 4

Fig 6. Soil map of Study area 16

Contd.
Table3: Description and Curve Number(CN) From Soil TR-55
Land Type HSG(B) CN HSG(C)
Value CN Value

75 82

Agriculture
77 85

Barren Land
85 90
Built Up
Area
55 70

Forest
100 100

Water Body
100 100

Wet Land Fig 7. CN values distribution in the study area 17

Contd.

Fig 8. Rainfall distribution from Jan, 2012 to Nov, 2022

18
 Contd.

Peak
Time Discharge(m3/sec)
18-Aug-12 433.2
14-Oct-13 911.8
14-Aug-14 692.3
19-Aug-15 533.3
06-Sep-16 802.3
05-Jul-17 296.8
29-Jul-18 616.7
29-Sep-19 909.1
07-Sep-20 386.3
02-Sep-21 394
10-Aug-22 226.8
Fig 9. Model simulated year-wise peak discharge for different years

19
 References
 Ackom, E.K., Adjei, K.A., Odai, S.N., 2020. Spatio-temporal rainfall trend and homogeneity
analysis in flood prone area: case study of Odaw river basin-Ghana. SN Appl. Sci. 2 (12), 1–
26.
 Amutha, R., Porchelvan, P., 2009. Estimation of surface runoff in Malattar sub-watershed
using SCS-CN method. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 37 (2), 291–304. Arsenault, R.,
Brissette, F., Martel, J.L., Troin, M., L´evesque, G., Davidson-Chaput, J., Poulin, A., 2020. A
comprehensive, multisource database for hydrometeorological modeling of 14,425 North
American watersheds. Sci. Data 7 (1), 243.
 Balascio, C.C., Lucas, W.C., 2009. A survey of storm-water management water quality
regulations in four Mid-Atlantic States. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (1), 1–7. Bathrellos, G.D.,
Skilodimou, H.D., Soukis, K., Koskeridou, E., 2018. Temporal and spatial analysis of flood
occurrences in the drainage basin of pinios river (thessaly, central greece). Land 7 (3), 106,
2018.
 Guo, J., 2004. Hydrology-based approach to storm water detention basin design using new
routing schemes. J. Hydrol. Eng. 9 (4), 333–336.
 Guo, J., 2012. Off-stream detention design for storm-water management. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
138 (4), 371–376.

20
 Contd.
 Abbaspour, K.C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bogner, K., Mieleitner, J., Zobrist, J.,
Srinivasan, R., 2007. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/ alpine Thur
watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 333, 413–430.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.014.
 Abbaspour, K.C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi, S., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., Kløve, B.,
2015. A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: calibration and
uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J. Hydrol. 524, 733–752.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027.
 Braud, I., Breil, P., Thollet, F., Lagouy, M., Branger, F., Jacqueminet, C., Kermadi, S.,
Michel, K., 2013. Evidence of the impact of urbanization on the hydrological regime of a
medium-sized periurban catchment in France. J. Hydrol. 485, 5–23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.049.
 Fletcher, T.D., Andrieu, H., Hamel, P., 2013. Understanding, management and modelling
of urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: a state of the art. Adv.
Water Resour. 51, 261–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.09.001.
 Gebre, S. L. 2015 Application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff simulation of Upper
Blue Nile River Basin. Journal of Waste Water Treatment & Analysis 06(02). doi:
10.4172/2157-7587.1000199
21
Thank You

22