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.
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
Beven KJ (2002) Rainfall–runoff modelling: the primer. Wiley, London, p 372
Bhatt A, Yadav H, Kumar D (2012) Estimation of Infiltration parameter for Tehri Garhwal catchment. Int J Eng Res Technol 7:1–6
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
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
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
Đukić V, Radić Z (2016) Sensitivity analysis of a physically based distributed model. Water Resour Manag 30:1669–1684
Feldman R (2000) Hydrologic engineering center—hydrologic modelling system technical reference manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, California
Gee G, Bauder J (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 1. American Society of Agronomy Inc, Madison
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
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
Green I, Stephenson D (1986) Criteria for comparison of single event models. Hydrol Sci J 31:395–411
Halwatura D, Najim M (2013) Application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff simulation in a tropical catchment. Environ Modell Softw 46:155–162
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
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
Kamphorst A (1987) A small rainfall simulator for the determination of soil erodibility. Neth J Agric Sci 35:407–415
Kumar D, Bhattacharjya RK (2011) Distributed rainfall runoff modeling. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4:270–275
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
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
Maidment DR (1992) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York
Mitas L, Mitasova H (1998) Distributed soil erosion simulation for effective erosion prevention. Water Resour Res 34(3):505–516
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
Nash J, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290
Noor H, Vafakhah M, Taheriyoun M, Moghadasi M (2014a) Hydrology modelling in Taleghan mountainous watershed using SWAT. J Water Land Dev 20:11–18
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
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
Parhi PK, Mishra S, Singh R (2007) A modification to Kostiakov and modified Kostiakov infiltration models. Water Resour Manag 21:1973–1989
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
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
Philip J (1957) The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration equations. Soil Sci 84(3):257–264
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
Sadeghi SH, Singh JK (2010) Derivation of flood hydrographs for ungauged upstream subwatersheds using a main outlet hydrograph. J Hydrol Eng 15:1059–1069
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
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
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
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
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
Van Mullem J (1991) Runoff and peak discharges using Green–Ampt infiltration model. J Hydraul Eng-ASCE 117:354–370
Vich AI (2013) Adjustment of infiltration models in poorly developed soils. Open J Mod Hydrol 3:8–14
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-018-0635-1