Water Resources Management

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 325–341 | Cite as

The Influence of Model Structure on the Efficiency of Rainfall-Runoff Models: A Comparative Study for Some Catchments of Central India

  • R. Mehrotra
  • R. D. Singh


The paper examines relative performance of six monthly rainfall-runoff models on 12 catchments located in different agro-climate zones of Central India. Study indicates that a water balance type model can reproduce the catchment behaviour in a better manner as compared to a statistical model and it is easier to model runoff for catchments with higher runoff factor. Also, a two-parameter model is found sufficient to represent the rainfall-runoff relationship of the catchment on a monthly scale.

comparison of rainfall-runoff models conceptual rainfall-runoff relationship catchment runoff factor model structure efficiency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beven, K.: 1989, Changing ideas in hydrology: the case of physically-based models, J. Hydrol. 105, 157–172.Google Scholar
  2. Blackie, J. R. and Eles, C. W. O.: 1985, Lumped catchment models, In: M. G. Anderson and T. P. Burt (eds), Hydrological Forecasting, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Chiew, F. H. S., Stewardson, M. J. and McMahon, T. A.: 1993, Comparison of six rainfall-runoff modelling approaches, J. Hydrol. 147, 1–36.Google Scholar
  4. Ciriani, T. A., Maione, U. and Wallis, J. R.: 1977, Mathematical Models for Surface Water Hydrology, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  5. Hooper, R. P., Stone, A., Christophersen, N., de Grosbois, E. and Seip, H. M.: 1988, Assessing the Birkness model of stream acidification using a multisignal calibration methodology, Water Resour. Res. 24, 1308–1316.Google Scholar
  6. Ibbitt, R. P. and O'Donnell, T.: 1971, Fitting methods for conceptual catchment models, J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE (HY9), 1331–1342.Google Scholar
  7. Jakeman, A. J. and Hornberger, G. M.: 1993, How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model, Water Resour. Res. 29, 2637–2649.Google Scholar
  8. Littlewood, I. G. and Jakeman, A. J.: 1992, Hydrograph seperation into dominant quick and slow flow components, In: Third National Hydrology Symp., Br. Hydrol. Soc., Univ. of Southampton, England.Google Scholar
  9. Loague, I. G. and Freeze, R. A.: 1985, A comparison of rainfall-runoff modelling techniques on small upland catchments, Water Resour. Res. 21, 229–248.Google Scholar
  10. L'vovich, M. I.: 1979, World Water Resources and Their Future, Original in Russian, English translation, American Geophysical Union.Google Scholar
  11. Moore, I. D. and Mein, R. G.: 1975, An evaluation of three rainfall-runoff models, Proc. Hydrol. Symp., Sydney, May 1995, Inst. Engng. Aust. Sydney, N. S.W., Nat. Conf. Publ., 75/3, pp. 122–126.Google Scholar
  12. Rosenbrock, H. H.: 1960, An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function, Computer J. 3, No.175.Google Scholar
  13. USDA, SCS: 1985, National Engineering Handbook, Section 4: Hydrology, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  14. Weeks, W. D. and Hebbert, R. H. D.: 1980, A comparison of rainfall-runoff models, Nordic Hydrol. 11, 7–24.Google Scholar
  15. World Meterological Organisation: 1975, Intercomparison of conceptual models used in operational hydrologic forecasting, Operational Hydrol. Rep. 7, WMO, Geneva.Google Scholar
  16. World Meteorological Organisation: 1986, Intercomparison of models of snowmelt runoff, Operation Hydrol. Rep. 23, WMO 646, Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Mehrotra
    • 1
  • R. D. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of HydrologyRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations