Hydrology: Current Research

Sintayehu, Hydrol Current Res 2015, 6:2

http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Research Article

Open Access

Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile
River Basin
Sintayehu Legesse Gebre*
Department of Natural Resources Management, Jimma University, P.o. box 307, Ethiopia
*Corresponding

author: Department of Natural Resources Management, Jimma University, P.O. box 307, Ethiopia, Tel: +2514711114; E-mail:

[email protected]
Rec Date: Feb 12, 2015; Acc Date: May 27, 2015; Pub Date: May 29, 2015
Copyright: 2015 Sintayehu LG. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract
Hydrological models have been used in different River basins across the world for better understanding of the
hydrological processes and the water resources availability. It is important to use hydrological model today to assess
and predict the water availability of river basins due to climate change to develop a strategies in order to cope up
with the changing environment. It is very crucial to properly calibrate and validate models to give confidence to
model users in prediction of stream flow. In this study HEC-HMS 3.5 hydrologic model (Developed by US Hydrologic
Engineering Center-SMA (with Soil moisture Accounting Algorithm) has been used to calibrate (from 1988-2000)
and validate (from 2001-2005) the upper Blue Nile River Basin (Gilgel Abay, Gumera, Ribb and Megech catchment).
The model performance tested for each catchment in simulation the runoff flow during calibration and validation
period, The Nash-Sutcliff (ENS) and Coefficient of determination (R2) used to evaluate the performance of the
model. The results obtained are satisfactory and accepted for simulation of runoff. The deficit and constant loss
method, synder unit hydrograph method and exponential recession method, are the best fit performed methods of
the hydrological processes of infiltration loss, direct runoff transformation and base flow part respectively. Thus, this
study shows that HEC-HMS hydrological model can be used to model the upper Blue Nile River basin catchments
for better assessment and prediction of simulation of the hydrological responses. The study recommends further
studies which incorporate the land use change of the basin in the model.

Keywords: Blue Nile; HEC-HMS; Modelling

Introduction
Climate change is threatening the normal hydrological cycle of
River basins, due to rising in temperature because of the global
warming effect which is associated in disturbing the frequency and
intensity of precipitation a given climatic condition [1]. This has an
implication on the hydrologic events and the water resources
availability [2]. The upper Blue Nile River basin is the main sources for
economic and social welfare of the people living on the River basin.
This is so because the majority of the people rely on climate sensitive
sectors like agricultural productivity, fishery, and hydropower power
sources [3]. The impacts of climate change have been noticed and
discussed in different research studies [4]. In order clearly understand
the reality and predict the future water availability of different
catchments, it is a must to use a mathematical hydrological modelling
[5]. According to Lastoria [6] and Xu [7] on the basis of process
description, the hydrological models can be classified in to three main
categories. Lumped, distributed and semi distributed models. Lumped
models; parameters of lumped hydrologic models do not vary spatially
within the basin and thus, basin response is evaluated only at the
outlet, without explicitly accounting for the response of individual
sub-basins [6]. Most of the time these models are not good for event
scale hydrological processes. If the interest is primarily in the discharge
prediction only, then these models can provide just as good
simulations as complex physically based models [8,9]. The other one is
Distributed models, parameters can easily vary in space at the desired
resolution based on the preference of the user. Distributed modeling
Hydrol Current Res
ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

approach attempts to incorporate data concerning the spatial

distribution of parameter variations together with computational
algorithms to evaluate the influence of this distribution on simulated
precipitation-runoff behavior. Distributed models generally require
large amount of (often unavailable) data [8]. However, the governing
physical processes are modelled in detail, and if properly applied, they
can provide the highest degree of accuracy [9]. The last one is Semidistributed models. Parameters of semi-distributed (simplified
distributed) models are partially allowed to vary in space by dividing
the basin in to a number of smaller sub-basins. The main advantage of
these models is that their structure is more physically-based than the
structure of lumped models, and they are less demanding on input
data than fully distributed models [10]. HEC-HMS [11], SWAT [12],
HBV [13], are some examples of semi-distributed models.
In this study we use a semi distributed hydrologic model of HECHMS. HEC-HMS 3.5 (developed by USA Hydraulic Engineering
center-Hydrologic Modelling SystemSoil Moisture Accounting
Algorithm, HEC [14] is used to model four catchments in the Upper
Blue Nile River basin (Gilgel Abay, Gumera, Ribb and Megech
catchments). HECH-HMS model is capable of simulating rain fallrunoff relation for dendritic watershed in space and time [15]. HECHMS model has been used successfully in different parts of the world
River basins for catchment modeling [16,17]. HEC-HMS Soil Moisture
Accounting (SMA) algorithm has been used to analyze the long term
impacts of climate change on water resources availability of the Blue
Nile [18,19]. Hence a proper understanding of the rainfall- runoff
relation at different small scale watershed level of the upper blue Nile
River basin help to study water balance, water resources management

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199

Citation:

Sintayehu LG (2015) Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Hydrol Current Res 6:
199. doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Page 2 of 8
and flooding control of the basin. In this study in order to clearly
understands the hydrologic characteristics of each catchments, we will
calibrate rainfall-runoff relation of the basin using HEC-HMS 3.5
model from 1988-2000. After calibration the model will be validated
from 2001-2005.Moreover, the basic sensitive parameters and the good
modeling methods for each process part will be identified for
assessment of runoff simulation.

Materials and Methods

Description of the study area
The upper Blue Nile River Basin which is located in the Ethiopian
Highlands. The Blue Nile River runs from its origin, Lake Tana, to the
Sudanese border and eventually meets the White Nile River at
Khartoum, Sudan. The Lake Tana Basin is located in north-western
Ethiopia (latitude 10.95 and 12.78N, and longitude 36.89 and
38.25E) with a drainage area of about 15,000 km2 [3]. The Lake Tana,
the largest lake in Ethiopia and the third largest in the Nile Basin, is
located in this basin. The major rivers feeding the Lake Tana are Gilgel
Abay, Gumera, Ribb, and Megech. These rivers contribute more than
93% of the flow to the Lake [20,21].

Hydro climatic characteristics of upper blue Nile basin

The climate of upper Blue Nile River Basin (Tana Basin) is
dominated by highland tropical monsoon. The basin is located in the
high land of the country, Ethiopia. The mean annual rainfall of the
area is about 1465 mm even with significant spatial variation and The
average annual maximum temperature is 25.5C and mean annual
minimum temperature is 10.8C from 1988-2005 for the study area
(Figure 1).

Figure 1: Average annual precipitation for 6 meteorological stations

located in upper Blue Nile River Basin from 1988 until-2005.

Hydrology of the basin

Lake Tana has more than forty tributaries, but the major rivers
feeding the Lake are Gilgelabay (the largest river from the south
direction), Gumera, and Ribb from the east and Megech from the
north, these four main rivers accounts about 93% of inflow. The only
river flowing out of the Lake Tana is the Blue Nile River (Abay River).
The Blue Nile flow approximately reaches annually about 4 billion
cubic metric at the out let of the LakeTana. From the Lake Tana, the
Blue Nile travels around 35 Kms and reaches to a fountain place so
called Tisesat which is 50 meter high, then flows in gorges towards the
Sudan border. The Blue Nile flow at the Ethio-Sudan border annually
reaches about 50 billion cubic meters (Figure 2). In the mean while
major tributary rivers joins the Blue Nile, like Beles, Didessa, Fincha,
Guder, Muger, Wenchit, Jemma, Beshilo and Temcha. The Blue Nile
contributes two third of the Nile River Basin flow [22].

Hydrol Current Res

ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

Figure 2: Map of weather and gauging stations on upper Blue Nile

River basin (Lake Tana basin).

Topography of upper blue Nile (Lake Tana basin)

The upper Blue Nile area is high land area where the source of Blue
Nile originates. In the peripheral part of South, East, and Northern
directions, there are high mountains which reach up to 4000 m above
sea level (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Map of digital elevation of upper blue Nile river basin.

Land use of blue Nile basin

The land use data was obtained from the Ministry of Energy and
Water of Ethiopia. Since land cover is the major factor that affects
runoff, evpotranspiration, and soil erosion characteristics of the basin.
The total area of the basin covers about 15,000 Km2, more than 90% of
the area is covered with dominantly and moderately cultivated land
(Figure 4).

Soil type of blue Nile basin

The other major factor of the basin property is the soil type. The soil
data of FAO (1988) calssification is obtained from Ministry of Energy
and water of Ethiopia. The main dominant soil in the basin is Eutric
Leptosols (54.56%), Haplic Alisols (14.23%) and Eutric Cambisols
(7.71%). The rest are in minor proportion like, Chromic Luvisols,

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199

Citation:

Sintayehu LG (2015) Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Hydrol Current Res 6:
199. doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Page 3 of 8
Eutric Fluvisols, Eutric Regosols, Eutric Vertisols, Haplic Nitisols and
Lithic Leptosols (Figure 5).

Figure 6: Map of geology of upper blue Nile basin.

Names

Area
(KM2)

Gilgel Abay

1664

Kidamaja, Adet and Dangila

Gumera

1335

Addis Zemen, DebreTabore and Bahirdar

Ribb

1595

Addis Zemen and DebreTabore

Megech

531

Gondor

Figure 4: Map of land use of upper blue Nile river basin.

size Weather stations inside the catchment

Table 1: Area size and weather stations of each catchment in upper

blue Nile river basin.
For each catchment areal precipitation was prepared using Thiessen
polygon techniques. The number of observed weather station which
contributes for each catchment presented (Figure 7).

Figure 5: Map of soil type of upper blue Nile river basin.

Geology of the blue Nile basin

The basin composed of different geological consituents. More than
87% of the area is covered by Termaber basalt (71.86%) and Basaltic
volcano (15.82%). The other perecent filled with, Alluvium, Ashangi
basalt, Colluvium, Lacustrine and Amiba aiba basalt (Figure 6).

Materials
Topography data of 90 m resolution was used for catchment
delination and catchment characteristics using Arc GIS software, soil,
land use and geological data used to better understand the nature the
ctachments. Stream flow from 1988-2005 for each catchment also
collected for calibration and validation of the hydrological model. All
the data collected from Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy.
Meteorological data also collected from Ethiopian Meteorological
Station Agency (NMSA), which used for used as input to hydrological
model for catchment simulation (Table 1).

Hydrol Current Res

ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

Figure 7: Map of areal precipitation of upper blue Nile basin (Lake

Tana basin).

Potential Evapotranspiration (PET)

There are a number of methods to estimate potential
evapotranspiration. However, the methods vary based on climatic

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199

Citation:

Sintayehu LG (2015) Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Hydrol Current Res 6:
199. doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Page 4 of 8
variables required for calculation. The temperature based method uses
only temperature and day length; the radiation based method uses net
radiation and air temperature and some other formula like, Penman
requires a combination of the above net radiation, air temperature,
wind speed, and relative humidity.
The FAO Penman-Monteith method is recommended as the sole
ET0 method for determining reference evapotranspiration when the
standard meteorological variables including air temperature, relative
humidity, and sunshine hours are available [23]. In this study the
potential evapotranspiration of the observed weather stations for each
catchment was computed by FAO Penman-Monteith method.

stream flow. Lateral flow from the ground surface contributes to

stream base flow. The rate of evaporation depends on the weather
condition, canopy vegetation type, amount of water in surface
depression, canopy and in soil profile. The user can input monthly
average values of potential ET, or the HEC HMS model can compute
potential ET from user-input net radiation and temperature data using
the Priestly-Taylor method [14].

Methods
Arc GIS 10.2 was used to delineate the catchment area. The
watershed and sub basins delineation was carried out based on an
automatic delineation procedure using a Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) and digitized stream networks.

HEC-HMS
The model that will be used in this study is, HEC-HMS 3.5, which is
developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and is
designed to simulate the precipitationrunoff processes of dendritic
watershed systems [14].
HEC-HMS is a semi -distributed conceptual hydrological model
which simulates run off. It requires daily precipitation, long term
average monthly potential evapotranspiration, runoff flow of the basin
(for calibration and validation), and geographical information of the
basin to get the simulated runoff as output [24]. HEC-HMS model
setup consists of a basin model, meteorological model, control
specifications, and input data (time series data) [14].
In HEC-HMS basin model the surface and ground water flow is
computed using soil moisture accounting (SMA). The SMA model
accounts for evapotranspiration and percolation between rainfall
events as well as infiltration and other losses during rainfall events.
Modelling of snowpack accumulation and snowmelt is optional. HECHMS generates a continuous stream flow record for the sub basin
from the direct-runoff and base flow records [15]. Direct runoff is
transformed to stream flow by a user-selected transform method. The
transform options include several unit-hydrograph methods, the Clark
time-area method, and a kinematic wave method. The model also
computes downstream processes such as channel routing and reservoir
routing [14].

Soil moisture accounting method (SMA)

Water is stored in canopy of leaves, in soil profile, in surface
depression, and in two ground layers. Canopy losses are considered as
initial loss, infiltration is subtracted from precipitation that exceeds
from canopy storage. Infiltration that is not infiltrated accounts into
depression storage. Over flow from the depression storage is
considered as surface flow (Direct runoff, stream flow). Canopy
interception is computed in the same way for the pervious and
impervious parts of the sub basin. Water is removed from the canopy
through evaporation. Water in the impervious parts of the basin
considering as there is no infiltration and deep storage losses in that
area. Water is removed from depression storage through evaporation
and infiltration. The two ground water storage layers serve as for
shallow surface drainage and deep aquifer hydraulically connected to

Hydrol Current Res

ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

Figure 8: Schematic diagram of HEC-HMS soil-moisture

accounting module [25].

HEC-HMS model setup

HEC-HMS Model setup consists of four main model components:
basin model, meteorological model, control specifications, and input
data (time series, paired data, and gridded data).The Basin model for
instance, contains the hydrologic element and their connectivity that
represent the movement of water through the drainage system [14].
The meteorological component is also the first computational
element by means of which precipitation input is spatially and
temporally distributed over the river basin [15]. The spatio-temporal
precipitation distribution was accomplished by the gauge weight
method. The Thiessen polygon technique used to determine the gauge
weights and the following input data used like daily precipitation, daily
temperature, elevation, and long term mean monthly actual potential
evapotranspiration. Areal Precipitation of the four catchments was
prepared for model input accordingly (Figure 8).

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199

Citation:

Sintayehu LG (2015) Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Hydrol Current Res 6:
199. doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Page 5 of 8

Catchment division for modelling

In order to increase for better performance of modelling, the
catchment is sub divided into sub basin to use the model as semidistributed. All are divided except Megech catchment due to its small
size of the catchment. Gilgel Abay catchment divided in to three sub
basins, Gumera in to three sub basins and Ribb in to two sub basins
(Figure 9).

Figure 9: Map of sub basins division for each catchment in Upper

Blue Nile.

HEC-HMS calibration and validation

The deficit and constant loss method used to model infiltration loss.
For the transformation of precipitation excess into direct surface
Modelling

Runoff Volume

Model

Deficit and constant loss

runoff, synder unit hydrograph method was used and for the base flow
recession method was employed to model base flow. These methods
selected based on checking up of every methods for the best fit
options. In HEC-HMS modeling of each method, each method needs
parameters and values as an input to obtain simulated runoff
hydrographs. The values of the parameters estimated by observation
and measurement of stream and basin characteristics, but some of
them cannot be estimated. When the required parameters cannot be
estimated precisely, the parameters are calibrated. By systematic search
of the best fit of the observed and simulated stream flow hydrograph,
the calibrated values were determined for each sub basin of upper Blue
Nile basin. In order to get the optimum parameter values after
manually calibrating the model, an automatic trial and error method
applied [15]. The Nelder and Mead optimization method used than
the univarient method. The reason behind is, the Nelder and Mead
method uses downhill simplex to evaluate all parameters
simultaneously and which parameters to adjust. This automatic
calibration processes uses in order to minimize a specific objective
function, such as sum of the absolute error, sum of the squared error,
percent error in peak, and peak weighted root mean square error [14].
In our study the sum of squared error objective function used because
it gives large weight to large error and less weight to small error [26].
Therefore, automated calibration in conjunction with manual
calibration was used to determine a practical range of the parameter
values preserving the hydrograph shape and minimum error in
volume. The calibration from (1988-2000) and validation from
(2001-2005) period used. Validation is the key criteria to test
hydrological model performance with independent data serious [27].
During validation period, the calibrated model without changing the
parameters, the goodness fit statics also computed (Table 2).

Parameter

Unit

Minimum

Maximum

Initial deficit

MM

500

Maximum deficit

MM

500

Constant rate

MM/HR

0.1

Lag time

HR

0.1

500

Peaking coefficient

0.1

0.1

Initial base flow

m3/s

100000

Recession factor

0.000011

Flow to peak flow ratio

Direct runoff transformation Snyder's UH

Base flow

Exponential Recession

Table 2: Modeling methods and Calibration parameters constraints [14].

Model performance criteria

Finally the model performance was evaluated for both calibration
and validation in different ways including coefficient of determination
(R2) and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency [28] and MBE.MBE, ENS, and R2
[29] are used to assess the hydrological modeling performance.
1. By visually inspecting and comparing the calculated and observed
hydrograph
2. Coefficient of correlation (R2)

Hydrol Current Res

ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

R2=

2
Qobs-Qobs 2- Qsim-Qsim

Qobs-Qobs 2

Where:
Qobs=observed discharge
Qsim=simulated discharge
obs=mean of observed discharge
sim=mean of simulated discharge

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199

Sintayehu LG (2015) Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Hydrol Current Res 6:
199. doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Citation:

Page 6 of 8
R2 is indicates how the simulated data correlates to the observed
values of data. The range of R2 is extends from 0 (Unacceptable) to
1(best).
3. Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies (ENS) [28].
ENS=1-

Qobs Qsim 2
*100
Qobs Qobs

Where:
Qobs=observed discharge
Qsim=simulated discharge
obs=mean of observed discharge
sim=mean of simulated discharge
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies can range from - to 1.
An efficiency of ENS=1 corresponds to a perfect match of modelled
discharge to the observed data. An efficiency of ENS=0 indicates that
the model predictions are as accurate as the mean of the observed data,
whereas an efficiency less than zero (-<ENS<0) occurs when the
observed mean is a better predictor than the model. The closer the
model efficiency is to 1, the more accurate the model is [30].

well simulated, but the peak flow is under predicted in the model.
Based on the calibrated parameters and values the model is validated
from (1//1/2001-31/12/2005), and the performance a little bit
improved. As you can see, the daily hydrograph well simulated with
observed stream flow, however as like calibration period, there is also
under prediction in the peak flow. The model performance was
checked using ENS, R2 and MBE, the result obtained are satisfactory
and acceptable to simulate the basin runoff for future projection
(Table 3). The deficit and constant loss method, synder unit
hydrograph method and exponential recession method, are the best fit
performed methods of the hydrological processes of infiltration loss,
direct runoff transformation and base flow part of the model. Yilma H,
et al. [31] has also indicated that synder unit hydrograph method and
exponential recession method are the best fit.

Calibration and validation HEC-HMS

Calibration and validation HEC-HMS is given in Figure 10.

4. Mass Balance error

MBE=1-

Qobs Qsim 2
*100
Qobs

This Mass balance error can vary between and -. The model
performs best when the value of zero is attained. This M.B.E tells us
how much direct runoff moved in to the out let.

Result and Discussion

HEC-HMS hydrological modelling of the upper blue Nile
river basin
The HEC HMS hydrological model has been calibrated manually
and automatically to optimize to obtain the best possible option fit.
Initial deficit constant loss, Snyder unit hydrograph transform, and
recession base flow method used. The calibration and validation
performance of the HEC-HMS 3.5 is carried out by comparing of the
daily simulated runoff with the observed stream flow at the out let of
the catchments. To assess the performance of the model predictability
of representing the hydrological simulation of the reality of the basin.
Three basic statistical hydrological model performance check used.
The ENs (Nash Sutcliffe efficiency), R2 (Relation coefficient) and MBE
(Mass balance error).

Hydrological modelling of catchments

A semi-distributed hydrological modelling technique applied for
Gilgel Abay, Gumera, and Ribb catchments in order to increase the
performance of the model. However a lumped system applied for
Megech catchment due to its small area size. The catchments are
classified into sub basins and each sub basin parameters manually
adjusted by trial and error method and automatically optimized to get
the best fit.
In Figure 10, the daily hydrograph of the simulated runoff caught
the observed flow during calibration period (1/1/1988-1/12/2000), it is

Hydrol Current Res

ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

Figure 10: Daily hydrograph comparison between simulated and

observed flow for the catchments of Blue Nile River basin. A)
Calibration period 1988-2000, B) Validation period (2001-2005).

Conclusion
HEC-HMS (Soil Moisture Algorithm SMA) hydrological catchment
simulation model calibrated and validated for each catchments. The
soil moisture storage coefficient and the base flow coefficients are the
most sensitive parameters for simulation of runoff. This also has been
noted by Flemming and Nearby (for Dale Hollow watershed located
within the Cumberland River basin in USA).The daily Nash and
Sutcliffe efficiency (ENS) and coefficient of determination (R2) of
model performance criterion used to evaluate the model applicability
for different catchments. The model well simulated the daily stream
flow at the out let of the catchment, however there is a slight under
and over prediction of the high flows; this is the common draw backs
of hydrological models [32]. The results obtained are satisfactory and
acceptable. The applicability of the model is also ensured by Yilma and
Moges [31], the difference is that they studied only Gilgel Abay
catchment of the Upper Blue Nile River basin. Therefore, we assured
in this study, HEC-HMS model can be used for modelling and

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199

Citation:

Sintayehu LG (2015) Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Hydrol Current Res 6:
199. doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Page 7 of 8
projection of future impacts of climate changes on runoff for upper
Blue Nile River basin and can be applied to other catchments with
similar hydro meteorological and land use characteristics. However
the result of this study has been carefully noticed. Since HEC-HMS
hydrological model assumed that the land use has been unchanged
during modeling period, in reality the land use may change. In the
future, we recommend further studies which incorporate the land use
change of the basin [32].

5.
6.
7.
8.

Catchment
name

Performance factor

Calibration
period

Validation
period

Gilgel Abay

ENs(Nash-Sutcliffe
Efficiency)

0.71

0.77

R2(Relation coefficient)

0.73

0.78

MBE(Mass balance Error)

12.3%

7.49%

ENs(Nash-Sutcliffe
Efficiency)

0.52

0.567

R2(Relation coefficient)

0.724

0.76

MBE(Mass balance Error)

51.2%

42%

12.

ENs(Nash-Sutcliffe
Efficiency)

0.52

0.53

13.

R2(Relation coefficient)

0.77

0.78

14.

MBE(Mass balance Error)

47.1%

46.2%

ENs(Nash-Sutcliffe
Efficiency)

0.49

0.5

R2(Relation coefficient)

0.5

0.51

MBE(Mass balance Error)

15%

9%

Gumera

Ribb

Megech

Table 3: Calibration and validation performance values of upper Blue

Nile basin.

9.

10.

11.

15.
16.
17.
18.

Acknowledgments
My sincere gratitude goes to Ethiopian Ministry of Water and
Energy (MoWE) and Ethiopian National Meteorological Service
Agency (NMSA), for providing hydro- meteorological data with free
of charge.

References
1.
2.

3.

4.

IPCC (2008a) Special report on Climate Change and Water. A Special

Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate
Change. Cambridge University press: Cambridge.
Kim U, Kaluarachchi JJ, Smakhtin VU (2013) Climate change impacts on
hydrology and water resources of the Upper Blue Nile River Basin,
Ethiopia. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management
Institute. p. 27.
BCEOM (1998) Abbay River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan
Project Phase 2, Data Collection and Site Investigation Survey and
Analysis, Section II, - Sectoral Studies, Volume XIV Demography and
Sociology. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of
Water Resources.
Conway D (2005) From headwater tributaries to international river:
Observing and adapting to climate variability and change in the
Nilebasin. Global Environmental Change 15: 99-114.

Hydrol Current Res

ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

Surur A (2010) Simulated Impact of Land use dynamics on hydrology

during a 20- 65 year period of Beles Basin in Ethiopia. M.Sc Thesis, Royal
Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden.
Lastoria B (2008) Hydrological Processes on the Land Surface: A Survey
of Modelling Approaches. FORALPS Technical Report 9. Trento, Italy.
Xu CY (2009) Textbook of Hydrologic Models. Uppsala University,
Sweden.
Cunderlik J (2004) Hydrological model selection for CFCAS project,
Assessment of water resource risk and vulnerability to change in climate
condition, University of Western Ontario.
Pechlivanidis IG, Jackson BM, Mcintyre NR, Wheater HS (2011)
Catchment Scale Hydrological Modelling: a Review of Model Types,
Calibration Approaches and Uncertainty Analysis Methods in the
Context of Recent Developments in Technology and Applications.
Global NEST Journal 13: 193214.
Orellana B, Pechlivanidi IG, McIntyre N, Wheater HS, Wagener T (2008)
A Toolbox for the Identification of Parsimonious Semi-Distributed
Rainfall-Runoff Models: Application to the Upper Lee Catchment. In:
Proc. of the 4th Meeting iEMSs, Barcelona Jul 710, 2008. Spain: pp. 670
677.
USAC (2001b) Hydrologic Modeling System HEC- HMS User's Manual.
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.
Arnold JG, Allen PM, Bernhardt G (1993) A comprehensive surfacegroundwater flow model. Journal of Hydrology, 142: 47-69.
Bergstrm S (1995) The HBV model. In: Sing VP (Ed), Computer models
of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Colorado,
443-476.
HEC (2006) Hydrological Modelling (HEC-HMS) user`s Manual, US
Army Corps of Engineers.
Feldman AD (2000) Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS. Technical
Reference Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Hydrologic
Engineering Center, HEC. Davis, CA, USA.
McColl C, Aggett G (2007) Land-use forecasting and hydrologic model
integration for improved land-use decision support. J Environ Manage
84: 494-512.
Yusop Z, Chan CH, Katimon A (2007) Runoff characteristics and
application of HEC-HMS for modelling stormflow hydrograph in an oil
palm catchment. Water Sci Technol 56: 41-48.
Bashar KE, Zaki AF (2005) SMA Based Continuous Hydrologic
Simulation of the Blue Nile. A paper published in the International
Conference of UNESCO Flanders FUST FRIEND/NILE Project
"Towards a Better Cooperation. Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.
Yimer G, Jonoski A, Van Griensven A (2009) Hydrological Response of a
Catchment to Climate Change in the Upper Beles River Basin, Upper
Blue Nile, Ethiopia. Nile Basin Water Engineering Scientific Magazine 2:
pp. 4959.
Tarekegn D, Tadege A (2005) Assessing the impact of climate change on
the water resources of the Lake Tana sub-basin using the WATBAL
model, CEEPA, Republic of South Africa.
Kebede S, Travi Y, Alemayehu T, Ayenew T (2006) Water balance of
Lake Tana and its sensitivity to fluctuations in rainfall, Blue Nile basin,
Ethiopia, J.Hydrol., 316,233-247.
Setegn SG, Srinivasan R, Dargahi B, Melesse AM (2009) Spatial
delination of soil erosion vulnerability in the Lake Tana Basin,
Ethiopia.Hydrol Process 23: 37383750.
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop Evaporation:
Guidlines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage paper 56,300.
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/documentation/
CPD-74A_2001Jan.pdf.
Bruce M (2010) Guidelines for Continuous Simulation of Stream flow in
Johnson County, Kansas, with HEC-HMS. Department of Civil,
Environmental, and Architectural Engineering University of Kansas.
USAC (2001a) HEC-HMS performance guide lines. Unites states Army
Corps of Engineers.

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199

Citation:

Sintayehu LG (2015) Application of the HEC-HMS Model for Runoff Simulation of Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Hydrol Current Res 6:
199. doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000199

Page 8 of 8
27.
28.
29.
30.

Vaze J, Jordan P, Beecham R, Frost A, Summerell G (2011) Guidelines for

Rainfall-Runoff Modelling: Towards Best Practice Model Application.
eWater Cooperative Research Centre. Bruce, Australia.
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual
models Part 1-A discussion of principals. J. Hydrol. 10: 282-290.
Kalin L, Hantush M (2006) Hydrologic Modeling of an Eastern
Pennsylvania Watershed with NEXRAD and Rain Gauge Data, J. Hydrol.
Eng., 11, 555569.
Motovilov YG, Gottschalk L, Engeland K, Belokurov A (1999)
ECOMAG: Regional model of hydrological cycle. Application to the
NOPEX region, Oslo, Norway, 82-91885-04-4.

Hydrol Current Res

ISSN:2157-7587 HYCR, an open access

31.

32.

Yilma H, Moges SA (2007) Application of semi-distributed conceptual

hydrological model for flow forecasting on upland catchments of Blue
Nile River Basin, a case study of Gilgel Abbay catchment. Catchment and
Lake Research, 200.
Zhang GP, Savenije HG (2005) Rainfall-runoff modelling in a catchment
with a complex groundwater ow system: application of the
Representative Elementary Watershed (REW) approach. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 9: 243261.

Volume 6 Issue 2 1000199