Water Resour Manage (2015) 29:2485–2501

DOI 10.1007/s11269-015-0953-7

Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS

for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction in a Small Urban
Catchment

Fares Laouacheria & Rachid Mansouri

Received: 24 March 2014 / Accepted: 11 February 2015 /

Published online: 20 February 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract The Azzaba City located in the North East of Algeria has undergone rapid urbani-
zation during the past few years. Infrastructure development has further enhanced the land use
change process in the area. Bad land use management practices are thought to be the cause of
increased flooding. While the characteristics of the precipitation are tied to the climatology of
the region, and can change only over the long term, the urbanization, an antropic factor, changes
more rapidly and plays a non negligible role in modifying the land use. It is thus very important
to assess the runoff changes due to land-use changes. Moreover, the knowledge of the rainfall
runoff relationship is an essential tool in modelling and design of urban drainage networks. In
this paper two hydrological models, namely WBNM and HEC-HMS, and a GIS procedure are
used to predict runoff hydrographs of a small urban catchment located in Azzaba city. The aim
was to test the effect of catchment size and time steps on runoff hydrograph shape, and to
evaluate the catchment reaction to a given rainfall event obtained from the established IDF
Curves. Furthermore a sensitivity analysis of the parameters of the models is carried out. In
addition the results of the models are compared with the observed runoff data, measured during
a storm event that occurred in 11th of Mars, 2014. This calibration is performed by applying
different situations of catchment size and time steps. Then, characteristics of calculated
hydrographs were compared with the same characteristics of the same observed hydrographs
and analyzed statistically. The results indicate that HEC-HMS provide acceptable simulations
in the flood events, which WBNM fail to simulate. Finally, hydrographs simulated by the HEC-
HMS model have the best fit with the real situation. It is necessary to generalize this study and
build up the data base for the further application of rainfall runoff model in Algeria.

Keywords Catchment size . GIS . Runoff hydrograph . IDF Curves . HEC-HMS . WBNM .
Sensitivity analysis

F. Laouacheria : R. Mansouri
Department of Hydraulic, Badji Mokhtar Annaba University, P.O. Box 12, 23000 Annaba, Algeria
R. Mansouri
e-mail: [email protected]

F. Laouacheria (*)
Laboratory of Hydraulic and Hydraulic Construction, Badji Mokhtar Annaba University, P.O. Box 12,
23000 Annaba, Algeria
e-mail: [email protected]
2486 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

1 Introduction

Accurate understanding of rainfall-runoff modeling is an important precondition for flood

management, and serves various purposes such as overall assessment of the catchment response
as a part of strategic and master planning to detailed network and ancillary elements design,.
The biggest challenge facing modelers is choosing a rainfall-runoff model which can correctly
simulate a wide range of floods. During the last decades, many efforts have been made to
accurately estimate runoff within ungauged watersheds. Runoff prediction in ungauged catch-
ment remains a difficult task in hydrology (Sivapalan et al. 2003). In addition to the quest for
better prediction methods in ungauged basins, a capital of environmental observations noted
considerable change in the hydrological cycle (Costa and Foley 1999; Groisman et al. 2004).
These changes were most likely driven by the combined effects of a climate change (Alcamo
et al. 2007, Seager et al. 2007, Molini et al. 2011), land use changes due the large increase in
population or economic pressures (Ye et al. 2003, DeFries et al. 2010). Flood hydrograph
prediction becomes difficult due to the increasing complexity of the physical nature of the
catchment as a result of urbanisation growth. As process based hydrologic modelling is a data
demanding process and contains large degree of uncertainty (Leimer et al. 2011) in data sparse
areas, predicting flood hydrograph becomes even more difficult if the site under consideration is
ungauged. The most recent studies, which aimed to simulate the rainfall-runoff response of
small catchments in semi-arid regions, used semi-distributed models. These models require
many parameters, representing specific catchment characteristics. Due to the relative scare data
in these Regions, lumped parameters are used to simplify the hydrological processes. Limited
availability of hydrologic data is a major hurdle for implementation of detailed hydrologic
models. In cases where available data is limited, simple hydrologic models consisting of a
minimum number (one or two) of model parameters are more desirable (Ahmad et al. 2009).
This study focused on Azzaba watershed in order to test the effect of catchment size and time
steps on runoff hydrograph shape, and to evaluate the catchment reaction to a given rainfall event
obtained from the established IDF Curves. Two models were chosen for the simulation of rainfall-
runoff namely WBNM and HEC-HMS. In both models, the initial and constant loss methods are
used to determine the direct runoff from the rainfall input. The two rainfall-runoff models were used
to estimate direct runoff volume, peak discharge and to construct hydrographs. Furthermore the
intensity of rainfall was obtained from the Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curve of Azzaba
rainfall station for a selected return period of 50 years. For each duration time, the corresponding
precipitation depth was computed as the product of intensity and duration. Furthermore a compar-
ison the WBNM (Watershed Bounded Network Model) based on a quasi-distributed hydrologic
model, and the HEC-HMS (Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System) model
for computing the watershed hydrologic response has been made. Using four statistical indexes
(mean absolute error (MAE), the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient (E), the coefficient correlation of linear
regression (R), and root mean square error (RMSE)) simulated and observed hydrographs were
compared. In Addition sensitivity analysis and model performance due to various sources such as
wrong data input, incorrect model parameterizations are also highlighted in this study.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Area

Azzaba catchment which is located between (36° 44/42.58// and 36° 45/08.64// N latitude; 7°
6/48.75// to 7° 08/ 06.69// E longitude) with an elevation ranging from 25 to 250 m was selected
Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2487

for this study. The study area is located in the eastern part of Seybouse Region of Algeria, with
a drainage area of 57.44 ha (Fig. 1). The watershed receives an average annual rainfall of
641.07 mm. The overall climate of the area can be classified as Mediterranean type. The soil is
mainly sandy loam type occupying the maximum area with a land slope varying from 0 to 1 %.

2.2 Use of the CatchmentSim

CatchmentSIM is a stand-alone GIS based terrain analysis program that is designed to help
setup hydrologic models. The program is used to automatically delineate sub-catchments and
calculate their associated spatial and topographic characteristics.
Prior to using the two models, namely WBNM and HEC-HMS, Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) was used to create the stream network and to delineate the whole watershed. This step
is made by using CatchmentSim, the GIS pre-processor for WBNM coupled with ESRI’s
Arcview GIS program. The whole catchment was divided into 3 sub-catchments (Figs. 2 and
3), for which the corresponding drainage networks were also delineated. Then the topographic
attributes (Tables 1 and 2) for each sub-catchment (e.g., slope, area and impervious…ect) were
derived.
The model structure including land use information, hydrologic soil groups and rainfall
events, all of which were allowed to vary in space, and rainfall was allowed to vary in time.
Land use data was obtained by digitizing the satellite image, and was reclassified into seven
types including administrative buildings, green space, sidewalk, roadway, residences, agricul-
tural and forest land with poor cover (Fig. 4) .

Fig. 1 Location of the study area

2488 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

Fig. 2 Sub-catchments of the study area

The CN is a hydrologic parameter used to describe the storm water runoff potential for
drainage area. The CN is a function of land use, soil type, and antecedent soil moisture
condition (AMC). The information needed to determine a CN is the hydrologic soil group
(HSG), which indicates the amount of infiltration the soil will allow. There are four hydrologic
soil groups (USDA, 1986). The hydrologic soil group of Azzaba catchment corresponds to the
soil class B (sandy loam). Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve numbers are assigned for
each possible land use-soil group combination. The AMC is defined as an indicator of
catchment wetness and the initial moisture condition of the soil prior to the storm event.

Fig. 3 Whole catchment of the study area

Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2489

Table 1 Whole catchment characteristics

Total Area Slope % Impervious Impervious % Perimeter Main stream Main stream
(ha) (ha) (km) length (km) slope %

57.44 0.7 31.247 54.40 4.56 1.97 0.4

SCS methodology expresses this parameter as an index based on seasonal limits for the total 5-
day antecedent rainfall, as follows: AMC I conditions represent dry soil with a dormant season
rainfall (5-day) of less than 12.70 mm and a growing season rainfall (5-day) of less than
35.56 mm. AMC II conditions represent average soil moisture conditions with dormant season
rainfall averaging from 12.70 to 27.94 mm and growing season rainfall from 35.56 to
53.34 mm, and AMC III conditions represent wet soil with dormant season rainfall of over
27.94 mm and growing season rainfall over 53.34 mm. In general, CN are calculated for AMC
II, then adjusted up to simulate AMC III or down to simulate AMC I. The values of CN shown
in Table 3 corresponds to AMC II

2.3 Model Structure

HEC-HMS model components and WBNM Software were used to simulate the hydrologic
response in the watershed. HEC-HMS model components and WBNM model components
include basin models, meteorological models, control specifications and input data. The
control specifications included the time period and the time step of the simulation run. Input
data components were required as boundary condition in the basin and in the meteorological
models. The initial and constant loss method for HEC-HMS as well as the initial and
continuing loss method for WBNM was used in this study.

2.3.1 WBNM

The Watershed Bounded Network Model (WBNM) was originally developed to be a physi-
cally realistic representation of the catchment as it transforms storm rainfall into a flood
hydrograph (Boyd et al. 2007). WBNM model has been used extensively for urban and rural
flood investigations. WBNM is an event-based hydrologic model that calculates flood
hydrographs from either recorded storm rainfall hyetographs or design storm rainfall param-
eters. It is a lumped conceptual model. It needs a single parameter and realistically represents
the catchment structure and flow of water on the catchment surface. The stored volume is
related to the outflow discharge as shown below (Boyd et al. 2007):
S ¼ 60:K:Q ð1Þ

Table 2 Characteristics of the subareas

Name Area Outflow Slope % Impervious Impervious % Perimeter Main stream Main stream
(ha) basin (ha) (km) length (km) slope %

1.02 29.08 Outlet 0.6 12.797 44 3.36 0.86 0.3

1.01 12.4 1.02 0.4 8.566 69.1 2.44 1.1 0.5
2.01 15.97 1.02 1 9.885 61.9 2.5 0.93 1
2490 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

Fig. 4 Land use of the study area

Where, Q (m3/s) is the outflow rate at time t, S (m3) is the volume of water stored
on catchment surface at time t and K (min) is the lag time between centroids of
inflow and outflow hydrographs. The lag time K, depends on the size of the
catchment. If it remains constant for this subarea for all size floods, the model would
be linear. However, based on recorded rainfall and flood hydrograph data (Askew
1968, 1970), and also on hydraulic considerations, WBNM allows K to decrease as
flood discharges increase, and it thus would be nonlinear. WBNM uses lag relations
developed by Askew (1968, 1970):

K ¼ C:A0:57 :Q−0:23 ð2Þ

Where, A (km ) is the area and C is the lag parameter. This equation contains a nonlinear
2

component (lag decreases as discharges increase), and an area component. WBNM proposes a
global value of the lag parameter near 1.6, unless there is good evidence for varying it.

Table 3 Land use categories and associated CN

Land use Curve Number by Hydrological Soil

A B C D

Residence 77 85 90 91
Administrative Building 77 85 90 92
Roadway 98 98 98 98
Sidewalk 98 98 98 98
Green space 67 78 85 89
Agricultural Soil 67 78 85 89
Forest 36 60 73 79
Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2491

WBNM is using m - 1 as its measure of nonlinearity (m is a storage-discharge nonlinearity

coefficient). It uses the value of m – 1=−0.23 (m=0.77) for nonlinearity and recommends it as
a global value for all watersheds. However, it allows it to be varied if there is strong evidence
that it is different than this value. If m - 1 is less than −0.23 (e.g., –0.30) the nonlinearity is
greater and lag times decrease even more as discharges increase. If m – 1=0 the flood response
is linear and lag times remain constant over the range of discharges.

2.3.2 HEC-HMS

HEC-HMS (Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System) is hydrologic

modeling software developed by US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering
Center. HEC-HMS model adopts a concept of semi-distributed modeling by using sub-
catchments and channel routing components. It includes many of the well-known and well
applicable hydrologic methods to be used to simulate rainfall-runoff processes in river basins
(USACE-HEC 2010).
HEC-HMS includes a soil moisture accounting algorithm, thus qualifying it for
consideration. HEC-HMS conceptualizes the watershed into a network of subareas
connected by channel links. Basins of all sizes may be modeled. Automatic calibration
algorithms are included with the new model version (Feldman 2000), and an Arcgis
extension, HEC-GeoHMS, expedites input file creation if proper GIS data layers are
available. An urban hydrology option exists where in each subarea contains two plane
surfaces (one impervious, and one pervious), and two levels of collector channel.
Another option allows each subarea to be represented as a raster (grid), accounting for
spatial variation of both rainfall and hydrologic parameters (Feldman 2000). Basin
model in HEC-HMS is set up for each subbasin using two hydrologic elements:
subbasin and junction. The Subbasin element handles the infiltration loss and rainfall
runoff transformation process. The Junction element handles the observed flow data.
Among the available hydrologic methods (USACE-HEC 2010) the initial and the
constant loss method is used to handle the infiltration loss. Besides the spatial
distribution of the rainfall, the temporal distribution pattern has always been a major
problem in hydrologic studies. There are several different methods suggested for the
temporal distribution of a rainfall in a specified period. A general classification of
these methods is given by Veneziano and Villani (1999). Castronova and Goodall
(2013) successfully employed the HEC-HMS to test the performance of the Open
Modeling Interface Software Development Kit (SDK), where infiltration, surface
runoff, and channel routing processes are each implemented as independent model
components.

2.4 Catchment Model

The catchment model represents the physical watershed. In this study, the catchment model
was developed in CatchmentSim as described earlier. This catchment model was than imported
into the HEC-HMS and WBNM.

2.5 Meteorological Model

The meteorological model calculates the precipitation input required by a sub-basin element.
The meteorological model can use both point and gridded precipitation. In the study, frequency
storm data were used for both the HEC-HMS model and WBNM model.
2492 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

2.6 Sensitivity Analysis and Calibration

Model calibration is an important process needed to assure that the simulation outputs
are close to real observations. It is the phase that determines the credibility of
modelling. The model HEC-HMS and the WBNM model include a certain number
of parameters. Calibrate these parameters would be very difficult. Sensitivity analysis
is used to identify the parameters that have most influence on the performance of the
model for the study site and thus reduce the number of parameters to be optimized.
The sensitivity analysis, set up by the users of the model HEC-HMS and WBNM
model is done by varying certain parameters while keeping the other parameters fixed.
The purpose of this process is to identify the parameters whose variation causes
significant changes in the outputs of the model. In our case we have chose the CN,
Impervious and Lag time parameters for the HEC-HMS model and initial loss (IL),
Impervious and Lag Parameter C parameters for WBNM model influence the flow. A
sensitivity analysis has been carried out, enhancing the comprehension on how the
model works and also to identify the influence of each parameter on simulated
discharge. The model is tested under different situations so that we could study the
impact of catchment size and time step in the simulated processes. Furthermore, the
study evaluates the model capability of simulating and providing a hydrological
analysis to compare different situations. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to deter-
mine the relative importance of parameter CN, Impervious and Lag time of the HEC-
HMS model and IL, Impervious and Lag parameter C of the WBNM model. This was
done by using formula for calculating relative sensitivity given below (James and
Burges 1982 and Kati and Indrajeet 2005):



x y −y
Sr ¼ ˙ 2 1 ð3Þ
y x2 −x1
Where Sr is relative sensitivity with units of objective function units divided by units of
hydrologic parameter whose sensitivity is being measured, x is hydrologic parameter and y is
the predicted output. x1 =x+Δ x and x2 =x-Δx are parameter values that result in output of y1
and y2 respectively.
The performance of the HEC-HMS model and the WBNM model are evaluated using the
coefficient correlation of linear regression, R, in Eq. 4. A high number of R=1.0 means perfect
statistical correlation. The success measurement of sensitivity analysis for choosing the input
variables is based on the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), given by Eq. 5, which measures
the level of fitness between the HEC-HMS model output and the observed data and measures
the level of fitness between the WBNM model output and the observed data. The mean
absolute error (MAE), given by Eq. 6, measures the global goodness of the fit of the simulated
error (the difference between the observed data and the model predicted output). The corre-
lation between the simulated hydrograph and the observed hydrograph is evaluated using the
Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient by Nash and Sutcliffe(1970), E, given by Eq. 7, which ranges from
negative infinity to 1.0. An E value of 1.0 means a good agreement between the observed and
predicted hydrographs.
XN   
i¼1
Q i;Obs −Q Obs Q i;sim −Q sim
R ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð4Þ
XN  2  2
i¼1
Qi;Obs −QObs Qi;sim −Qsim
Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2493

0X N  2 1 2
1

Qi;Obs −Q i;Sim
RMSE ¼ @ i¼1 A ð5Þ
N

XN 
Q 
i i;Obs −Qi;Sim
M AE ¼ ð6Þ
N

XN  2
i¼1
Qi;Obs −Qi;Sim
E ¼ 1− XN  2 ð7Þ
i¼1
Qi;Obs −QObs

where Qi,Sim is the simulated discharge at time t=i, Qi,Obs is the observed discharge at time t=i,
QObs is the average observed discharge; N is the number of observations.

3 Results and Discussion

The comparison of model results was performed on two levels: the runoff hydrographs were
compared visually to assess differences in the hydrograph shape and timing, however the peak
flow rates were analyzed for statistically significant differences.

3.1 Model Situations

The following section describes different model situations that were developed to test the
influence of the catchment size and the time step on the differences between WBNM and
HEC-HMS models.

3.2 Sub-Catchment and Time Step Situations

Based on the topography, the catchment was divided into several smaller sub-catchments. Two
different situations were considered. In the first situation, the catchment was divided into 3
sub-catchments (Fig. 2). The second scenario had only one single catchment (the whole
catchment), (Fig. 3).

Table 4 Results of simulated and observed hydrographs for Three Sub-catchments (HEC-HMS model)

Time Measure Simulated Observed Difference Percent

Difference

10 min Volume (mm) 40.95 34.70 6.25 18.01

Peak Flow (m3/s) 4.04 4.20 −0.16 −3.81
Time of Peak 01 :10 01 :20
20 min Volume (mm) 41.14 34.70 6.44 18.56
Peak Flow (m3/s) 3.45 4.20 −0.75 −17.86
Time of Peak 01 :20 01 :20
2494 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

Table 5 Results of simulated and observed hydrographs for Whole catchment (HEC-HMS model)

Time Measure Simulated Observed Difference Percent

Difference

10 min Volume (mm) 42.40 34.70 7.70 22.19

Peak Flow (m3/s) 5.18 4.20 0.98 23.33
Time of Peak 01 :10 01 :20
20 min Volume (mm) 41.80 34.70 7.10 20.46
Peak Flow (m3/s) 4.86 4.20 0.66 15.71
Time of Peak 01 :20 01 :20

The Sub-catchment size has indeed an effect on differences between WBNM and HEC-
HMS peak discharge rates. From Table 4 to Table 7 it can be observed the occurrence of large
differences between whole catchment and three sub-catchments. It could also be noted that the
sub-catchment size does not affect the routing calculations in WBNM or HEC-HMS. How-
ever, it has a direct impact on the unit hydrograph. Both in WBNM and HEC-HMS, the shape
of the unit hydrograph for each sub-catchment is determined by one parameter, namely the lag
parameter in WBNM and lag time in HEC-HMS. Lag parameter in WBNM and lag time in
HEC-HMS should be responsible for the observed differences.
The (Figs. 5 and 6) illustrated the differences between simulated and observed hydrographs
for the event of 11th Mars, 2014, obtained for different situations of catchment size and time
steps. The HEC-HMS and WBNM models for the whole catchment indicate that the simulated
hydrograph overestimates the peak discharge, and underestimates the peak discharge in the
case of the three sub-catchments. From the simulated hydrographs given by the Fig. 5, in the
case of three sub-catchments and time step of 10 min, it can be observed that simulated peak
discharge, obtained by the HEC-HMS model and WBNM model are respectively about
4.04 m3/s and 3.97 m3/s, however the observed peak discharge is about 4.20 m3/s. In the
case of a time step of 20 min, the simulated peak discharge obtained by the HEC-HMS model
is about 3.45 m3/s, the observed peak discharge is about 4.20 m3/s, and the peak discharge
resulting from the WBNM model is about 3.82 m3/s (Tables 4 and 6) . In the case of the whole
catchment and for different time steps, the simulated hydrographs (Fig. 6) show that simulated
peaks discharge obtained by using the HEC-HMS model is about 4.86 m3/s, the calculated
observed peak discharge is about 4.20 m3/s, and the peak discharge from the WBNM model is
about 5.93 m3/s (Tables 5 and 7). It can be concluded that results obtained by using the
WBNM model (40.67 mm and 40.30 mm) are more closer to the observed value (34.70 mm)

Table 6 Results of simulated and observed hydrographs for Three Sub-catchments (WBNM model)

Time Measure Simulated Observed Difference Percent

Difference

10 min Volume (mm) 40.67 34.70 5.97 17.20

Peak Flow (m3/s) 3.97 4.20 −0.23 −5.48
Time of Peak 01 :00 01 :20
20 min Volume (mm) 40.30 34.70 5.60 16.14
Peak Flow (m3/s) 3.82 4.20 −0.38 −9.05
Time of Peak 01 :00 01 :20
Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2495

Table 7 Results of simulated and observed hydrographs for whole catchment (WBNM model)

Time Measure Simulated Observed Difference Percent

Difference

10 min Volume (mm) 46.72 34.70 12.02 34.64

Peak Flow (m3/s) 5.93 4.20 1.73 41.19
Time of Peak 01 :00 01 :20
20 min Volume (mm) 48.18 34.70 13.48 38.85
Peak Flow (m3/s) 6.01 4.20 1.81 43.09
Time of Peak 01 :00 01 :20

rather than those obtained by using the HEC-HMS model (40.95 mm and 41.14 mm), as
illustrated in Table 4 and Table 6.
For the whole catchment and by using different time steps (10 min and 20 min), it can be
seen from the Table 5 and the Table 7 that the results of both models are relatively above the
observed values. Finally it could be concludes that the obtained time to peak from the HEC-
HMS model for time step of 20 min is relatively closer to the observed time to peak (1:20 h),
and greater than the values obtained from both models in the case of time step of 10 min.

3.3 Sensitivity Analysis

In the present study, the relative sensitivity coefficients for the parameters of both models have
been computed, the corresponding parameters for each model are listed below:

1) For the HEC-HMS model : CN, Impervious and Lag time

2) For the WBNM model: IL, Impervious and Lag parameter C.

In the case of using the HEC-HMS model the estimated values of the parameters are:CN=
82, Impervious=54.40 %, Lag time=26.40 min.
In the case of using the WBNM model the values of the corresponding parameters are:IL=
14.80 mm, Impervious=54.40 %, Lag parameter=1.90.
Using the above mentioned parameters for each model the peak of the unit hydrograph is
estimated, and the corresponding values are given below:

Fig. 5 Observed and simulated hydrographs for the three sub-catchments

2496 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

Fig. 6 Observed and simulated hydrographs for the whole catchment

& For the HEC-HMS model

– In the case of whole catchment: 5.18 m3/s and 4.86 m3/s respectively for time steps of
10 min and 20 min.
– In the case of the three sub-catchments: 4.04 m3/s and 3.45 m3/s respectively for time
steps of 10 min and 20 min.

& For the WBNM model

– In the case of whole catchment: 5.93 m3/s and 6.01 respectively for time steps of 10 min
and 20 min.
– In the case of the three sub-catchments: 3.97 m3/s and 3.82 m3/s respectively for time
steps of 10 min and 20 min.

To lead the relative sensitivity analysis for both models model, the peak of the unit
hydrograph and the time to peak are computed for various values of the three mentioned

Table 8 Variation of peak discharge and time to peak with de CN for HEC-HMS model

Element Time step CN Peak discharge (m3/s) Time to peak (hr)

Whole catchment 10 min 73.80 4.85 1:10

82 5.18 1:10
90.20 5.70 1:10
20 min 73.80 4.54 1:20
82 4.86 1:20
90.20 5.34 1:20
Three sub- catchments 10 min 73.80 3.56 1:10
82 4.04 1:10
90.20 4.80 1:10
20 min 73.80 2.88 1:20
82 3.45 1:20
90.20 4.32 1:20
Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2497

Table 9 Variation of peak discharge and time to peak with de impervious for HEC-HMS model

Element Time step Impervious (%) Peak discharge (m3/s) Time to peak (hr)

Whole catchment 10 min 48.96 4.95 1:10

54.40 5.18 1:10
59.84 5.40 1:10
20 min 48.96 4.67 1:20
54.40 4.86 1:20
59.84 5.05 1:20
Three sub- catchments 10 min 48.96 3.91 1:10
54.40 4.04 1:10
59.84 4.17 1:10
20 min 48.96 3.38 1:20
54.40 3.45 1:20
59.84 3.51 1:20

parameters. This step is realized by varying only one of these parameters for a given time. The
procedure and the results are summarized in the Tables 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.
The computed values of relative sensitivity (Sr) coefficient for peaks of discharges for each
model are given in Table 14 and Table 15. It could be observed that the CN-parameter and the
lag time are more sensitive comparing to the impervious, which is relatively less sensitive in
computing peak of discharge by the HEC-HMS model, except in the case of the whole
catchment and three sub-catchments for the time step of 20 min.
It could be also observed that the CN-parameter is more sensitive comparing to the
impervious and the lag time, which are less sensitive in computing peak of discharge.
When the WBNM model is used, it could be also concluded that the IL and Lag parameter
C are more sensitive comparing to the impervious, which is relatively less sensitive in
computing peak of discharge, except in the case of the whole catchment for time steps of
10 min and 20 min, where the impervious and the Lag parameter C are less sensitive in
computing peak of discharge. Further, in the sensitivity analysis, the time to peak values

Table 10 Variation of peak discharge and time to peak with the Lag time for HEC-HMS model

Element Time step Lag time (min) Peak discharge (m3/s) Time to peak (hr)

Whole catchment 10 min 23.76 5.46 1:10

26.40 5.18 1:10
29.04 4.84 1:10
20 min 23.76 4.95 1:20
26.40 4.86 1:20
29.04 4.65 1:20
Three sub- catchments 10 min 23.76 4.28 1:10
26.40 4.04 1:10
29.04 3.79 1:20
20 min 23.76 3.53 1:20
26.40 3.45 1:20
29.04 3.28 1:20
2498 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

Table 11 Variation of peak discharge and time to peak with the initial loss for WBNM model

Element Time step Initial loss (mm) Peak discharge (m3/s) Time to peak (hr)

Whole catchment 10 min 13.32 6.23 1:00

14.80 5.93 1:00
16.28 5.50 1:00
20 min 13.32 6.23 1:00
14.80 6.01 1:00
16.28 5.65 1:00
Three sub- catchments 10 min 13.32 4.37 1:00
14.80 3.97 1:00
16.28 3.63 1:00
20 min 13.32 4.19 1:00
14.80 3.82 1:00
16.28 3.39 1:00

doesn’t change, except in the case of the HEC-HMS model for the three sub-catchments in
time step of 10 min (Table 10).

3.4 Model Performance

The only available observed discharge to assess the quality of the simulation was a runoff
measurement made by the Hydraulic Service of Skikda department (Algeria) in 11th Mars,
2014. For the calibration of the generated simulation, the measured peak flow of 4.20 m3/s was
used to enhance the difference between the simulated and observed discharge hydrograph.
The HEC-HMS model, as showed in Table 16, presents the most accurate discharge values
for three Sub-catchments obtained for a time step of 20 min with. In this case the MAE is about
0.453 m3/s; the value of E slightly higher up to 0.830, and a perfect fit of the observed
discharge with R greater than 0.930.

Table 12 Variation of peak discharge and time to peak with the impervious for WBNM model

Element Time step Impervious (%) Peak discharge (m3/s) Time to peak (hr)

Whole catchment 10 min 48.96 5.75 1:00

54.40 5.93 1:00
59.84 6.11 1:00
20 min 48.96 5.90 1:00
54.40 6.01 1:00
59.84 6.12 1:00
Three sub- catchments 10 min 48.96 3.91 1:00
54.40 3.97 1:00
59.84 4.04 1:00
20 min 48.96 3.76 1:00
54.40 3.82 1:00
59.84 3.88 1:00
Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2499

Table 13 Variation of peak discharge and time to peak with the Lag parameter C for WBNM model

Element Time step Lag parameter C Peak discharge (m3/s) Time to peak (hr)

Whole catchment 10 min 1.70 5.96 1:00

1.80 5.95 1:00
1.90 5.93 1:00
20 min 1.70 6.04 1:00
1.80 6.03 1:00
1.90 6.01 1:00
Three sub- catchments 10 min 1.70 4.94 1:00
1.80 4.42 1:00
1.90 3.97 1:00
20 min 1.70 4.71 1:00
1.80 4.23 1:00
1.90 3.82 1:00

The performance measures for the WBNM model for all situations (Catchment size
and time step) are not good comparing with those for the HEC-HMS model: larger
MAE between 0.692 and 0.832 m3/s; very low value of E between 0.054 and 0.083
for the whole catchment for time step of 20 min and 10 min and value of R than
0.840. Furthermore, from Figs. 5 and 6, it could be concluded that the simulated
discharge hydrograph obtained using the HEC-HMS model is matched by the ob-
served discharge hydrograph with the correlation coefficient value of 0.939. This
value is higher than all the correlation coefficient of the WBNM model for different
situations.
These performance measures clearly indicate that the HEC-HMS model performs better
than the WBNM model.

Table 14 Value of relative sensitivity coefficient for HEC-HMS model

Element Time step parameter Parameter value Relative sensitivity (Sr)

Whole catchment 10 min CN 82 0.805

Impervious 54.40 % 0.435
Lag time 26.40 min −0.602
20 min CN 82 0.809
Impervious 54.40 % 0.391
Lag time 26.40 min −0.313
Three sub-catchment 10 min CN 82 1.48
Impervious 54.40 % 0.322
Lag time 26.40 min −0.607
CN 82 2.00
20 min Impervious 54.40 % 0.189
Lag time 26.40 min −0.367
2500 F. Laouacheria, R. Mansouri

Table 15 Value of relative sensitivity coefficient for WBNM model

Element Time step parameter Parameter value Relative sensitivity (Sr)

Whole catchment 10 min IL 14.80 mm −0.622

Impervious 54.40 % 0.303
Lag Param C 1.90 −0.045
20 min IL 14.80 mm −0.488
Impervious 54.40 % 0.183
Lag Param C 1.90 −0.044
Three sub-catchment 10 min IL 14.80 mm −0.925
Impervious 54.40 % 0.163
Lag Param C 1.90 −1.959
IL 14.80 mm −1.055
20 min Impervious 54.40 % 0.157
Lag Param C 1.90 −1.878

4 Conclusion

The accuracy of results from hydrologic models depends on the underlying hypothesis and the
availability of data. In this study the HEC-HMS model and WBNM model coupled with a
GIS- procedure are used to predict the surface runoff of a small catchment located in Azzaba
city. The obtained hydrographs, as responses of the catchment to rainfall events of return
period of 50-years are estimated. Both models were calibrated against measured runoff event
of 11th Mars, 2014. From the calibrated models new parameters were estimate for the
catchment. The comparison, between simulated and observed discharge hydrograph, indicates
how the calibrated model fits the observed runoff data. The relative sensitivity coefficients
computed for three selected parameters of each model were computed. In the case of using the
HEC-HMS model, it can be concluded that parameters CN and Lag time are more sensitive
and impervious is relatively less sensitive in computing the peak hydrograph. By using the
WBNM Model, it was found that The IL and the Lag parameter are more sensitive and
impervious is relatively less sensitive while computing the peak hydrograph. Then, character-
istics of calculated hydrographs including peak discharge, and time to peak were compared
with the same characteristics of the same observed hydrographs and analyzed statistically.

Table 16 The performance simulation between the HEC-HMS model and the WBNM model

Time Sub-basin Mean flow Simulated RMSE MAE E R

Step scenario (m3/s) model (m3/s) (m3/s)

10 min 3 Sub-basin 1.73 HEC-HMS 0.663 0.530 0.767 0.917

1 Sub-basin 1.75 WBNM 0.911 0.744 0.560 0.799
1.83 HEC-HMS 0.812 0.567 0.650 0.887
1.91 WBNM 1.314 0.832 0.083 0.644
20 min 3 Sub-basin 1.45 HEC-HMS 0.556 0.453 0.832 0.939
1 Sub-basin 1.66 WBNM 0.836 0.692 0.619 0.838
1.69 HEC-HMS 0.612 0.464 0.796 0.949
1.85 WBNM 1.319 0.779 0.054 0.703
Comparison of WBNM and HEC-HMS for Runoff Hydrograph Prediction 2501

Statistical analysis of the effect of mentioned three parameters on characteristics of

hydrographs using mean relative error, coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square
error, showed the relative better performance of the HEC-HMS model than the WBNM model.
In Algeria most of catchments are not equipped with surface water gauges. Therefore, we
believe that the presented methodology could be allowed an acceptable estimation of the
runoff in areas with similar conditions.

References

Ahmad M, Ghumman R, Ahmad S (2009) Estimation of Clark’s instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters and
development of direct surface runoff hydrograph. J Water Resour Manag 23:2417–2435. doi:10.1007/
s11269-008-9388-8
Alcamo J, Flörke M, Märker M (2007) Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-
economic and climatic changes. Hydrol Sci J 52(2):247–275
Askew AJ (1968). Lag Time of Natural catchments, University of NSW. Water Research Laboratory Report. No.
107
Askew AJ (1970) Derivation of formulae for variable lag time. J Hydrol 10(3):225–242
Boyd MJ, Rigby EH, Van Drie R, Schymitzek L (2007). Watershed Bounded Network Model user manual.
University of Wollongong
Castronova MA, Goodall JL (2013) Simulating watersheds using loosely integrated model components: evalu-
ation of computational scaling using open MI. Environ Model Softw 39:304–313
Costa MH, Foley JA (1999) Trends in the hydrologic cycle of the amazon basin. J Geophys Res 104(D12):
14189–14198
DeFries RS et al (2010) Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first
century. Nat Geosci 3:178–181
Feldman AD (2000) BHEC-HMS Technical Reference Manual^ CPD-74B U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
March
Groisman PY et al (2004) Contemporary changes of the hydrological cycle over the contiguous United States:
trends derived from in situ observations. J Hydrometeorol 5:64–85
James, L.D. and S.J. Burges, 1982. Se lection, calibration and testing of hydrologic models. Hydrologic modeling
of small watersheds, C.T. Hann, H.P. Johnson, and D.L. Brakensiek (Editors). ASAE Monograph, St.
Joseph, Michigan, pp. 437–472.
Kati L, Indrajeet C (2005) Sensitivity analysis, calibration and validation for a multisite and multivariable SWAT
model. J Am Water Res Ass 41(5):1077–1089
Leimer S, Pohlert T, Pfahl S, Wilcke W (2011) Towards a new generation of high-resolution meteorological input
data for small scale hydrological modeling. J Hydrol 402(3–4):317–332
Molini A, Katul GG, Porporato A (2011) Maximum discharge from snowmelt in a changing climate. Geophys
Res Lett 38, L05402
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual model. Part 1: a discussion of principles.
J Hydrol 10:282–290
Seager R et al (2007) Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North
America. Science 316:1181–1184
Sivapalan M, Takeuchi K, Franks SW, Gupta VK, Karambiri H, Lakshmi V, Liang X, McDonnell JJ, Mendiondo
EM, O’Connell PE, Oki T, Pomeroy JW, Schertzer D, Uhlenbrook S, Zehe E (2003) IAHS decade on
predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB), 2003–2012: Shaping an exciting future for the hydrological
sciences. Hydrol Sci J J Des Sciences Hydrol 48:857–880
USDA Soil Conservation Service (1986), Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical Release 55, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
USACE-HEC, 2010, BHydrologic Modeling System, HEC-HMS v3.5. User’s Manual^, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, August 2010
Veneziano D, Villani P (1999) BBest linear unbiased design hyetograph^. Water Resour Res 35(9):p2725
Ye B, Yang D, Kane DL (2003) Changes in Lena river streamflow hydrology: human impacts versus natural
variations. Water Resour Res 39(7):1200