Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparative effectiveness of different infiltration models in estimation of watershed flood hydrograph

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

Abstract

The present study aims to evaluate performance of different infiltration models, namely initial and constant rate, soil conservation service (SCS) curve number and Green–Ampt in simulation of flood hydrographs for the small-sized Amameh Watershed, Iran. To achieve the study purpose, the infiltration rates were measured using rainfall simulator in work units acquired through overlaying topography, land use, drainage network and soil hydrologic group maps. All parameters of the study infiltration models were determined with the help of the Infilt. software package. The performances of the models in simulation of the observed output hydrographs from the entire watershed were ultimately evaluated for 28 rainfall–runoff events in the HEC-HMS environment. The different components of the observed and estimated hydrographs including time to peak, runoff volume, peak discharge, discharge values and peak time deviation were compared using relative error (RE), coefficient of determination (R2), peak-weighted root mean square error (PWRMSE) and Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) criteria. The general performance of estimations was also qualitatively assessed using scatter plot and distribution of study variables around standard lines of 1:1 slope. The results revealed that the SCS infiltration model with PWRMSE = 0.61 m3 s−1 and NS = 0.53 performed better than initial and constant rate model with PWRMSE = 1.1 m3 s−1 and NS = 0.54, and Green Ampt model with PWRMSE = 1.35 m3 s−1 and NS = 0.29 in estimation of flood hydrograph for the Amameh Watershed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bahremand A, De Smedt F (2008) Distributed hydrological modeling and sensitivity analysis in Torysa Watershed, Slovakia. Water Resour Manag 22:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beven KJ (2002) Rainfall–runoff modelling: the primer. Wiley, London, p 372

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt A, Yadav H, Kumar D (2012) Estimation of Infiltration parameter for Tehri Garhwal catchment. Int J Eng Res Technol 7:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Chahinian N, Moussa R, Andrieux P, Voltz M (2005) Comparison of infiltration models to simulate flood events at the field scale. J Hydrol 306:191–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhari K, Panigrahi B, Paul JC (2014) Simulation of rainfall-runoff process using HEC-HMS model for Balijore Nala watershed, Odisha, India. Int J Geomat Geosci 5:253–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Crescimanno G, De Santis A, Provenzano G (2007) Soil structure and bypass flow processes in a Vertisol under sprinkler and drip irrigation. Geoderma 138:110–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Đukić V, Radić Z (2016) Sensitivity analysis of a physically based distributed model. Water Resour Manag 30:1669–1684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman R (2000) Hydrologic engineering center—hydrologic modelling system technical reference manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee G, Bauder J (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 1. American Society of Agronomy Inc, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghorbani Dashtaki S, Homaee M, Mahdian MH, Kouchakzadeh M (2009) Site-dependence performance of infiltration models. Water Resour Manag 23:2777–2790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9408-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green W, Ampt G (1911) Studies on soil physics part I: the flow of air and water through soils. J Agric Sci 4:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green I, Stephenson D (1986) Criteria for comparison of single event models. Hydrol Sci J 31:395–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halwatura D, Najim M (2013) Application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff simulation in a tropical catchment. Environ Modell Softw 46:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill P, Mein R, Siriwardena L (1998) How much rainfall becomes runoff. Loss modelling for flood estimation- Industry report. Victoria, Australia, 23 p

  • Horton R (1933) The role of infiltration in the hydrologic cycle EOS. Trans Am Geophys Union 14:446–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain A, Kumar A (2006) An evaluation of artificial neural network technique for the determination of infiltration model parameters. Appl Soft Comput 6:272–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamphorst A (1987) A small rainfall simulator for the determination of soil erodibility. Neth J Agric Sci 35:407–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar D, Bhattacharjya RK (2011) Distributed rainfall runoff modeling. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4:270–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Liu T, Bao A, De Maeyer P, Feng X, Miller SN, Chen X (2016) Assessment of different modelling studies on the spatial hydrological processes in an arid alpine catchment. Water Resour Manag 30:1757–1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machado AR, Wendland E, Krause P (2016) Hydrologic simulation for water balance improvement in an outcrop area of the Guarani aquifer system. Environ Proc 3:19–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maidment DR (1992) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitas L, Mitasova H (1998) Distributed soil erosion simulation for effective erosion prevention. Water Resour Res 34(3):505–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mockus V (1972) Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall, National Engineering Handbook. Section 4-Hydrology 1972. Soil Conservation Service-USDA, pp 10.1–10.24

  • Morel-Seytoux H (1978) Derivation of equations for variable rainfall infiltration. Water Resour Res 14(4):561–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash J, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noor H, Vafakhah M, Taheriyoun M, Moghadasi M (2014a) Hydrology modelling in Taleghan mountainous watershed using SWAT. J Water Land Dev 20:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noor H, Vafakhah M, Taheriyoun M, Moghaddasi M (2014b) Comparison of single-site and multi-site based calibrations of SWAT in Taleghan Watershed, Iran. Int J Eng 27:1645–1652

    Google Scholar 

  • Parchami-Araghi F, Mirlatifi SM, Dashtaki SG, Mahdian MH (2013) Point estimation of soil water infiltration process using artificial neural networks for some calcareous soils. J Hydrol 481:35–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parhi PK, Mishra S, Singh R (2007) A modification to Kostiakov and modified Kostiakov infiltration models. Water Resour Manag 21:1973–1989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechlivanidis I, Anastasiadis S, Lekkas D (2015) Development and testing of the MWBMT toolbox to predict runoff response at the poorly gauged catchment of Mornos, Greece. Eur Water 49:3–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin C, Oudin L, Andreassian V, Rojas-Serna C, Michel C, Mathevet T (2007) Impact of limited streamflow data on the efficiency and the parameters of rainfall–runoff models. Hydrol Sci J 52:131–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip J (1957) The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration equations. Soil Sci 84(3):257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quan NH (2006) Rainfall-runoff modeling in the ungauged Can Le catchment, Saigon river basin. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi SH, Singh JK (2010) Derivation of flood hydrographs for ungauged upstream subwatersheds using a main outlet hydrograph. J Hydrol Eng 15:1059–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi S, Moradi H, Mozayan M, Vafakhah M (2005) Comparison of different statistical analysis methods in rainfall–runoff modeling (case study: Kasilian watershed) Iran. J Agric Sci Nat Resour 12:81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Sardoii ER, Rostami N, Sigaroudi SK, Taheri S (2012) Calibration of loss estimation methods in HEC-HMS for simulation of surface runoff (case study: Amirkabir Dam Watershed, Iran). Adv Environ Biol 6:343–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Starý M (1998) HYDROG-S. Popis programu. Brno, nepub-likováno. 36s

  • Tramblay Y, Bouvier C, Martin C, Didon-Lescot J-F, Todorovik D, Domergue J-M (2010) Assessment of initial soil moisture conditions for event-based rainfall–runoff modelling. J Hydrol 387:176–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unucka J et al (2010) Possibilities of the semi-distributed and distributed models in forest hydrology on example of the Ostravice basin. Časopis Beskydy 3:205–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Putte A, Govers G, Leys A, Langhans C, Clymans W, Diels J (2013) Estimating the parameters of the Green–Ampt infiltration equation from rainfall simulation data: why simpler is better. J Hydrol 476:332–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Mullem J (1991) Runoff and peak discharges using Green–Ampt infiltration model. J Hydraul Eng-ASCE 117:354–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vich AI (2013) Adjustment of infiltration models in poorly developed soils. Open J Mod Hydrol 3:8–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehdi Vafakhah.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vafakhah, M., Fakher Nikche, A. & Sadeghi, S.H. Comparative effectiveness of different infiltration models in estimation of watershed flood hydrograph. Paddy Water Environ 16, 411–424 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-018-0635-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-018-0635-1

Keywords

Navigation