Submitted:
17 August 2024
Posted:
19 August 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Data Map Preparation
2.4. HEC-HMS Model Set-Up
2.5. Model Calibration and Validation
2.5.1. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number Method
2.5.2. Muskingum Routing Method
2.6. Model Performance Evaluation
- By visually inspecting and comparing the calculated and observed hydrograph.
- The Coefficient of determination (R2)
- 3.
- The dimensionless statistic: Nash-Sutcliffe model Efficiency [28] given by:
- 4.
- The absolute error index represented by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) - standard deviation ratio (RSR) of observations given by:
- 5.
- The dimensionless statistic: percentage of bias (PBIAS) given by:
3. Results
3.1. Calibration and Validation
3.2. Model Performance Evaluation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Abdulkareem, J.H.; Pradhan, B.; Sulaiman, W.N.A.; Jamil, N.R. Review of studies on hydrological modelling in Malaysia. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 2018, 4, 1577–1605. [Google Scholar]
- Othman, N.; Romali, N.S.; Samat, S.R.; Ahmad, A.M. Calibration and validation of hydrological model using HEC-HMS for Kuantan River Basin. IOP conference series: materials science and engineering 2021, 1092, 012028. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, D.; Begam, S.; Ghosh, S.; Jana, S. Calibration and validation of HEC-HMS model for a river basin in Eastern India. ARPN journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2013, 8, 40–56. [Google Scholar]
- Anees, M.T.; Abdullah, K.; Nawawi, M.N.M.; Ab Rahman, N.N.N.; Piah, A.R.M.; Zakaria, N.A.; Syakir, M.I.; Omar, A.M. Numerical modeling techniques for flood analysis. Journal of African Earth Sciences 2016, 124, 478–486. [Google Scholar]
- Feldman, A.D. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS: Technical Reference Manual; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; pp. 1–145. [Google Scholar]
- Hunukumbura, P.B.; Weerakoon, S.B.; Herath, S. Runoff modeling in the upper Kotmale Basin; In Traversing No Man’s Land, Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of Professor Madduma Bandara, 1st ed.; Hennayake, N., Rekha, N., Nawfhal, M., Alagan, R., Daskon, C., Eds.; Godage International Publishers: University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2008; pp. 169–184. [Google Scholar]
- HEC. Capabilities. In Hydrologic Engineering Center HEC-HMS User’s Manual, Version 4.11; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/confluence/hmsdocs/hmsum/latest/introduction/capabilities (accessed on 26 July 2024).
- Rahman, M.M.; Arya, D.S.; Goel, N.K.; Dhamy, A.P. Design flow and stage computations in the Teesta River, Bangladesh, using frequency analysis and MIKE 11 modeling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 2012, 17, 10–24. [Google Scholar]
- Masood, M.; Takeuchi, K. Assessment of flood hazard, vulnerability and risk of mid-eastern Dhaka using DEM and 1D hydrodynamic model. Natural Hazards 2012, 61, 757–770. [Google Scholar]
- Shahid, S. Rainfall variability and the trends of wet and dry periods in Bangladesh. International Journal of Climatology 2010, 30, 2299–2313. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, A.; Haque, A.; Bala, S.K. Hydrologic characteristics of floods in Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna (GBM) delta. Natural Hazards 2010, 54, 797–811. [Google Scholar]
- Gain, A.K.; Immerzeel, W.W.; Sperna Weiland, F.C.; Bierkens, M.F.P. Impact of climate change on the stream flow of the lower Brahmaputra: trends in high and low flows based on discharge-weighted ensemble modelling. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 2011, 15, 1537–1545. [Google Scholar]
- Halwatura, D.; Najim, M.M.M. Application of the HEC-HMS model for runoff simulation in a tropical catchment. Environmental modelling & software 2013, 46, 155–162. [Google Scholar]
- Ouédraogo, W.A.A.; Raude, J.M.; Gathenya, J.M. Continuous modeling of the Mkurumudzi River catchment in Kenya using the HEC-HMS conceptual model: Calibration, validation, model performance evaluation and sensitivity analysis. Hydrology 2018, 5, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, C.; Doherty, J. Role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error. Water Resources Research 2005, 41. [Google Scholar]
- Ghosh, D. Aftermath of Calamities on Migration. In Global Climate Change and Environmental Refugees; Singh, P., Ao, B., Yadav, A., Eds.; Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, A.; Munne, S.K.; Paul, S.K. Living with Flood in the outer Embankment of Gumti River: An Empirical Study. Oriental Geographer 2014, 55, 35–55. [Google Scholar]
- Choudhury, A.U. Gumti-Tripura’s remote IBA. Mistnet 2009, 10, 7–8. [Google Scholar]
- Gumti River (Tripura). Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gumti_River_(Tripura)&oldid=1190202888 (accessed on 26 July 2024).
- Gumti River. Available online: https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Gumti_River (accessed on 26 July 2024).
- Hersbach, H.; Bell, B.; Berrisford, P.; Biavati, G.; Horányi, A.; Muñoz Sabater, J.; Nicolas, J.; Peubey, C.; Radu, R.; Rozum, I.; Schepers, D.; Simmons, A.; Soci, C.; Dee, D.; Thépaut, J-N. ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) 2023. (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- USGS EROS Archive - Digital Elevation - Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) 1 Arc-Second Global. Available online: https://10.5066/F7PR7TFT (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Casulli, V. A high-resolution wetting and drying algorithm for free-surface hydrodynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 2009, 60, 391–408. [Google Scholar]
- Minshall, N.E. Predicting storm runoff on small experimental watersheds. Journal of the Hydraulics Division 1960, 86, 17–38. [Google Scholar]
- Welle, P.I., Woodward. Dimensionless unit hydrograph for the Delmarva Peninsula. Transportation Research Record, 1989, 1224.
- Ponce, V.M. Development of physically based coefficients for the diffusion method of flood routing. Final Report to the USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Lanham, MD, 1983.
- Vaze, J.; Jordan, P.W.; Beecham, R.; Frost, A.J.; Summerell, G.K. Guidelines for rainfall-runoff modelling: towards best practice model application; eWater Cooperative Research Centre: Bruce, Australia, 2011; pp. 6–45. [Google Scholar]
- Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models, part I - A discussion of principles. Journal of hydrology 1970, 10, 282–290. [Google Scholar]
- National Engineering Handbook: Chapter 16 Hydrographs. Available online: https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/17755.wba (accessed on 27 July 2024).
- HEC. Selecting a Loss Method. In Hydrologic Engineering Center HEC-HMS User’s Manual, Version 4.11; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/confluence/hmsdocs/hmsum/4.11/subbasin-elements/selecting-a-loss-method (accessed on 29 July 2024).
- HEC. Selecting a Reach Routing Method. In Hydrologic Engineering Center HEC-HMS User’s Manual, Version 4.11; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/confluence/hmsdocs/hmsum/4.11/reach-elements/selecting-a-reachrouting-method (accessed on 29 July 2024).
- Legates, D.R.; McCabe Jr, G.J. Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water resources research 1999, 35, 233–241. [Google Scholar]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar]
- Waseem, M.; Mani, N.; Andiego, G.; Usman, M. A review of criteria of fit for hydrological models. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology 2017, 4, 1765–1772. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, X.; Dutta, U. Engaging Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and model efficiency factor indicators in selecting and validating effective light rail system operation and maintenance cost models. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 2015, 3, 2328–2142. [Google Scholar]
- Ghoraba, S.M. Hydrological modeling of the Simly Dam watershed (Pakistan) using GIS and SWAT model. Alexandria Engineering Journal 2015, 54, 583–594. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, H.V.; Sorooshian, S.; Yapo, P.O. Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of hydrologic engineering 1999, 4, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
- HEC. Reports. In Hydrologic Engineering Center HEC-HMS User’s Manual, Version 4.11; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/confluence/hmsdocs/hmsum/latest/reports (accessed on 28 July 2024).
- Ali, M.M.; Narzis, A.; Haque, S. Impacts of Climate Changes on Peak Flow of Upper Meghna River Basin. Presidency 2016, 3, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
- Munna, G.M.; Alam, M.J.B.; Uddin, M.M.; Islam, N.; Orthee, A.A.; Hasan, K. Runoff prediction of Surma basin by curve number (CN) method using ARC-GIS and HEC-RAS. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 2021, 11, 100129. [Google Scholar]
- Gichamo, T.Z.; Popescu, I.; Jonoski, A.; Solomatine, D. River cross-section extraction from the ASTER global DEM for flood modeling. Environmental Modelling & Software 2012, 31, 37–46. [Google Scholar]
- Castronova, M.A.; Goodall, J.L. Simulating watersheds using loosely integrated model components: evaluation of computational scaling using open MI. Environmental Modelling & Software 2013, 39, 304–313. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, M.R.; Aziz, M.T.; Imran, H.M.; Haque, A. HEC-HMS-based future streamflow simulation in the Dhaka River Basin under CMIP6 climatologic projections. Environmental Earth Science, in press.
- Badhan, G.S.; Ali, R.; Kamal, S. Urban development and water supply system: a case study on Comilla City Corporation. International Conference on Water Energy Food and Sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021.
- Roy, P.K.; Roy, B.; Roy, B.C. Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes in Comilla District of Bangladesh. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 2016, 6, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
- Qureshi, A.S.; Ahmad, Z.U.; Krupnik, T.J. Moving from resource development to resource management: problems, prospects and policy recommendations for sustainable groundwater management in Bangladesh. Water resources management 2015, 29, 4269–4283. [Google Scholar]
- Gain, A.K.; Mondal, M.S.; Rahman, R. From flood control to water management: A journey of Bangladesh towards integrated water resources management. Water 2017, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akter, J.; Islam, S.N.; Gnauck, A. Water resources management in the coastal region of Bangladesh. In Modelling and Simulation of Ecosystems: Workshop Kölpinsee 2010, 1, 167–185. [Google Scholar]




| Data Sources and References | Parameters | Station name with availability |
| Bangladesh Water Development Board (Daily) |
Discharge (m3/s) | Comilla (SW110) (January 01, 2019 – December 12, 2021) |
| Bangladesh Meteorological Department (Daily) |
Precipitation (mm), Temperature (oC) |
Comilla (January 01, 2019 – December 12, 2021) |
| ECMWF (Hourly) [21] | Evaporation (m of water equivalent) |
23°39'00"N, 90°41'24"E; 23°31'12"N, 90°15'00"E (January 01, 2019 – December 12, 2021) |
| USGS [22] | SRTM-DEM 1 arc-second for global coverage (~30 meters) | Whole Catchment Area (2018) |
| Model Element | Model Parameter | References |
| Canopy Method | Simple Canopy | Casulli [23], Minshall [24], Welle and Woodward [25] |
| Surface Method | Simple Surface | |
| Loss Method | SCS Curve Number | |
| Transform Method | SCS Unit Hydrograph | |
| Baseflow Method | Recession | |
| Routing Method | Muskingum | Ponce [26] |
| Canopy Method | Surface Method | Loss Method | ||||||||
| Simple Canopy | Simple Surface | SCS Curve Number | ||||||||
| Subbasin | Initial Storage (%) | Max Storage (MM) | Crop Coefficient | Evapotranspiration | Uptake Method | Initial Storage (%) | Max Storage (MM) | Initial Abstraction (MM) | Curve Number | Impervious (%) |
| Subbasin-4 | 10 | 60 | 1.00 | Wet and Dry Periods | Simple | 10 | 92 | 100.37 | 27.66 | 60 |
| Subbasin-1 | 10 | 60 | 1.00 | Wet and Dry Periods | Simple | 10 | 89 | 100.00 | 22.00 | 58 |
| Subbasin-3 | 10 | 60 | 1.00 | Wet and Dry Periods | Simple | 10 | 88 | 100.00 | 24.00 | 56 |
| Subbasin-6 | 10 | 60 | 1.00 | Wet and Dry Periods | Simple | 10 | 85 | 63.64 | 32.17 | 60 |
| Subbasin-2 | 10 | 60 | 1.00 | Wet and Dry Periods | Simple | 10 | 87 | 70.35 | 17.70 | 55 |
| Subbasin-9 | 10 | 60 | 1.00 | Wet and Dry Periods | Simple | 10 | 88 | 83.16 | 38.66 | 60 |
| Subbasin | Transform Method | Baseflow Method | |||||
| SCS Unit Hydrograph | Recession | ||||||
| Graph Type | Lag Time (MIN) | Initial Type | Initial Discharge (M3/S) | Recession Constant | Threshold Type | Ratio to Peak | |
| Subbasin-4 | Standard (PRF 484) | 408.88 | Discharge | 8 | 0.20 | Ratio to Peak | 0.3 |
| Subbasin-1 | Standard (PRF 484) | 765.96 | Discharge | 7 | 0.25 | Ratio to Peak | 0.3 |
| Subbasin-3 | Standard (PRF 484) | 596.19 | Discharge | 6 | 0.30 | Ratio to Peak | 0.3 |
| Subbasin-6 | Standard (PRF 484) | 524.94 | Discharge | 7 | 0.25 | Ratio to Peak | 0.3 |
| Subbasin-2 | Standard (PRF 484) | 748.33 | Discharge | 6 | 0.31 | Ratio to Peak | 0.3 |
| Subbasin-9 | Standard (PRF 484) | 408.49 | Discharge | 8 | 0.23 | Ratio to Peak | 0.3 |
| Routing Method | ||||
| Muskingum | ||||
| Reach | Initial Type | Muskingum K (HR) | Muskingum X | Number of Subreaches |
| R7 | Discharge = Inflow | 133.15 | 0.07573 | 2 |
| R6 | Discharge = Inflow | 149.00 | 0.01100 | 2 |
| R5 | Discharge = Inflow | 149.00 | 0.00120 | 2 |
| R4 | Discharge = Inflow | 149.00 | 0.00125 | 1 |
| R11 | Discharge = Inflow | 149.00 | 0.02000 | 1 |
| R3 | Discharge = Inflow | 149.00 | 0.02000 | 1 |
| R2 | Discharge = Inflow | 149.00 | 0.01000 | 1 |
| R1 | Discharge = Inflow | 115.26 | 0.01802 | 1 |
| Performance Rating | HEC [38] | Moriasi et al. [33] | ||||||
| R2 | RSR | NSE | PBIAS | R2 | NSE | PBIAS | ||
| Very good | 0.65 to 1.00 | 0.00 to 0.60 | 0.65 to 1.00 | <±15 | 0.75 to 1.00 | 0.75 to 1.00 | <±10 | |
| Good | 0.55 to 0.65 | 0.60 to 0.70 | 0.55 to 0.65 | ±15 to ±20 | 0.65 to 0.75 | 0.65 to 0.75 | ±10 to ±15 | |
| Satisfactory | 0.40 to 0.55 | 0.70 to 0.80 | 0.40 to 0.55 | ±20 to ±30 | 0.50 to 0.65 | 0.50 to 0.65 | ±15 to ±25 | |
| Unsatisfactory | <0.40 | >0.80 | <0.40 | >±30 | <0.50 | <0.50 | >±25 | |
| Optimized Parameter Results | |||||
| Basin Model: Basin 1 | Meteorologic Model: Met 1 | ||||
| Element | Parameter | Units | Initial Value | Optimized Value | |
| R7 | Muskingum - K | HR | 149.00 | 126.63 | |
| R7 | Muskingum - x | - | 0.01 | 0.03 | |
| Subbasin-4 | SCS Curve Number - Initial Abstraction | MM | 100.00 | 100.37 | |
| Subbasin-4 | SCS Curve Number - Curve Number | - | 40.00 | 27.66 | |
| Subbasin-9 | SCS Curve Number - Initial Abstraction | MM | 100.00 | 83.16 | |
| Subbasin-9 | SCS Curve Number - Curve Number | - | 40.00 | 38.66 | |
| Subbasin-6 | SCS Curve Number - Curve Number | - | 40.00 | 32.17 | |
| Subbasin-6 | SCS Curve Number - Initial Abstraction | MM | 100.00 | 63.64 | |
| Subbasin-2 | SCS Curve Number - Curve Number | - | 40.00 | 17.70 | |
| Subbasin-2 | SCS Curve Number - Initial Abstraction | MM | 100.00 | 70.35 | |
| R1 | Muskingum - K | HR | 149.00 | 115.26 | |
| R1 | Muskingum - x | - | 0.01 | 0.02 | |
| Peak Discharge (m3/s) | Volume (MM) | R2 1 | RSR 2 | NSE 3 | PBIAS 4 | |
| Calibration | 168.70 | 3674.89 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.585 | -2.59% |
| Validation | 174.80 | 1928.12 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.513 | -3.78% |
| Legend | ||||||
| Very Good | ||||||
| Good | ||||||
| Satisfactory | ||||||
| Unsatisfactory | ||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).