A STUDY OF BASIN RESPONSE USING HEC-HMS AND

SUBZONE REPORTS OF CWC

Dweependra Nath Kalita
e-mail:dnkalita@gmail.com

Abstract

In the northeastern part of India, where data availability is scarce in many areas, the Flood
Estimation Reports of North Brahmaputra (Subzone-2a) and South Brahmaputra (Subzone-2b)
published by CWC have been serving as handy tools for arriving at viable estimates of design
flood. The development of the HEC-1 model to a GUI-based user friendly HEC-HMS model
available in the public domain have come as another useful tool for the hydrologists. This study
is made to compare the basin response to the same storm for the catchments of Subzone-2a and
2b using the HEC-HMS model and the CWC reports. Watershed characteristics along with unit
hydrograph parameters of 21 catchments of Subzone-2a and 14 catchments of Subzone-2b are
available in the CWC reports. Unit hydrographs are developed for all these catchments using the
unit hydrograph parameters. Considering a 50-year return period storm, flood hydrographs are
developed for each of the catchments. For the same storm, flood hydrographs are derived using
HEC-HMS model also. While using the HEC-HMS, the Snyder and SCS unit hydrograph
transform methods are used. All the resulting flood hydrographs are compared with a view to
see whether the HEC-HMS model can be used with the same degree of reliability and viability
as the CWC reports. An attempt is made to establish regional parameters for the Snyder and
SCS unit hydrograph transform methods so that the HEC-HMS model can be used for the areas
under Subzone-2c also where a similar report of CWC is yet to be published.

Introduction

Estimation of design flood is one of the usual tasks assigned to a hydrologist. Design flood
information is required for flood protection measures in a river basin or for the design of water
related structures against failure by overtopping. Depending on the project, design flood values
are provided by hydrologists as a peak discharge value or as a flood hydrograph corresponding
to a fixed return period of a few years in case of an urban storm water drainage scheme, or up
to 10,000 years or more in case of a spillway of a large dam. In many dam projects the probable
maximum flood (PMF) is used as a design flood against dam overtopping. In all the cases,
design floods provide a decisive input into the comprehensive flood risk management policy.
Estimation of design flood becomes an arduous task when the hydrologist is faced with limited
data from poorly gauged or un-gauged basins. With limited or no data, the quantitative
understanding and prediction of the processes of runoff generation and its transmission to the
outlet represent one of the most challenging areas of hydrology. Traditional techniques for
design flood estimation include the rational method, empirical methods, flood frequency
method, unit hydrograph techniques, and watershed models. The rational method, empirical
methods and flood frequency method are generally used for estimating the magnitude of the
flood peak. The unit hydrograph techniques and watershed models can be used to estimate the
design flood hydrograph in addition to the magnitude of the design flood peak. However, in a
poorly gauged or un-gauged basin, construction of a unit hydrograph is the toughest part of the
job. This is where the regional studies for the 26 hydro-meteorologically homogeneous sub-
basins of India done by CWC have been immensely helpful for the field hydrologists. In the
northeastern part of India, where hydro-meteorological data availability is scarce in many areas,
the Flood Estimation Reports of North Brahmaputra (Subzone-2a) and South Brahmaputra
(Subzone-2b) published by CWC have been serving as handy tools for arriving at viable
estimates of design flood. A similar report for Subzone-2c covering the states of Tripura,
Mizoram, Manipur, and parts of southern Assam and Meghalaya is yet to become available. The
proliferation of personal computers and the development of the HEC-1 model of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (1998) to a GUI-based user-friendly HEC-HMS model available in the
public domain have come as another useful tool for the field hydrologists. Unfortunately, the
HEC-HMS model, or any of the so many watershed models for that matter, has not found many
takers due to the uncertainty involved in the estimation of parameters of the models. But
parameter estimation on a regional scale at least may be possible to enable the hydrology
community to switch over to watershed models like HEC-HMS and take advantage of such high
speed computer programs instead of sticking to the now traditional spreadsheet exercises. With
this in view, this study has been undertaken to make a comparative study of basin response
using HEC-HMS and Flood Estimation Reports of CWC in North-East India.

Objectives of the study

The main objectives of the study are:

(I) To see whether the HEC-HMS program can be reliably used in estimation of design flood
for the catchments under Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b.

(2) Parameter estimation in a watershed model like HEC-HMS is one of the main deterrents in
its acceptability in poorly gauged or un-gauged basins. With the available watershed
physiographic data available in the Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b reports, can regional model
parameters be estimated for Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b?

(3) A flood estimation report for Subzone-2c covering the states of Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur,
and parts of southern Assam and Meghalaya is yet to become available. Can the regional model
parameters estimated for Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b be extended to Subzone-2c also?

Design flood hydrographs using Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b reports

Design flood hydrographs for 50-year return period storms of the 21 catchments under Subzone-
2a and 14 catchments under Subzone-2b are obtained following the procedure outlined in the
reports. The most important component of the procedure is finding out the unit hydrograph
ordinates from a set of parameters. The parameters are to be found out through a set of
equations derived from physical characteristics of the basin viz. area ( A ), length of the main
stream ( L ), length of the main stream from the point opposite to the center of gravity of the
basin ( L c ), and equivalent slope of the basin ( S ). The physiographic parameters of the
catchments under Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b are given in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.

Unit hydrograph

The set of equations to find out the unit hydrograph parameters for the catchments under
Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b are given in Table 3. After finding out the unit hydrograph
parameters for each catchment, the unit hydrographs of all the 21 catchments under Subzone-2a
and 14 catchments under Subzone-2b are obtained.
 Table 1. Physiographic parameters of the catchments under Subzone-2a

Sl. Bridge No. A (sq km) L (km) L c (km) S (m/km)

1 240 1350.00 108.00 61.00 10.88
2 521 1016.00 120.75 89.36 7.41
3 376 758.00 60.62 22.00 4.46
4 373 595.70 75.62 47.14 1.70
5 8 (B) 345.30 42.34 27.37 21.28
6 486 326.00 62.75 35.40 1.95
7 363 323.23 69.23 42.99 2.68
8 450 233.10 38.62 29.77 1.84
9 6/12 230.45 54.71 29.94 23.47
10 242 229.99 34.59 18.82 22.53
11 210 220.87 36.06 17.07 9.10
12 22 213.05 42.00 25.76 1.52
13 95 119.14 27.29 16.74 34.07
14 285 92.46 36.06 26.89 0.88
15 196 85.47 21.56 11.26 19.81
16 429 69.60 32.52 15.30 1.00
17 114 66.00 23.00 11.00 12.67
18 8(S) 61.38 22.54 8.36 0.63
19 385 46.62 24.94 16.25 0.26
20 24 42.10 12.88 8.21 0.77
21 201 38.49 21.33 11.75 9.97

Table 2. Physiographic parameters of the catchments under Subzone-2b

Sl. Bridge No. A (sq km) L (km) L c (km) S (m/km)

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 (MOT) 1270.00 84.47 41.19 5.326
2 463 875.46 36.45 49.63 2.91
3 414 553.60 51.49 22.53 1.148
4 6(MOT) 476.00 60.18 27.35 7.39
5 160 469.80 56.35 31.39 2.01
6 8 284.46 49.90 19.30 4.17
7 146 215.90 49.75 25.68 1.47
8 184 171.00 25.68 12.20 2.54
9 215 135.66 20.00 9.50 4.00
10 446 54.00 19.70 9.63 2.26
11 160 46.44 17.23 10.06 11.09
12 440 45.71 27.40 22.70 1.72
13 70 30.80 13.68 6.90 0.38
14 3(MOT) 29.00 9.65 5.23 13.36

Design storm

It is proposed to test the basin response to a 50-year rainfall. In the Subzone reports 50-year
point rainfall values for 24 hour duration is given. The design storm duration is found out; point
rainfall converted to areal rainfall and is distributed hourly as per the time distribution
coefficients provided in the reports. After that critical sequencing is done and the rainfall input
is made ready for convolution.
 Table 3. The set of equations to find out the unit hydrograph parameters

Sl. Parameter Description Equation for Equation for

Subzone-2a Subzone 2b
1 qp Unit hydrograph peak L 0.409 Qp
q p = 2.272( ) qp =
Lc A

2 tp Time from the center of t p = 2.164(q p ) 0.940

3.39
unit rainfall duration to tp = 0.71
the peak of unit
qp
hydrograph
3 W50 Width of unit hydrograph W50 = 2.084(q p ) 1.065
2.206
measured at 50% of peak W50 = 1.06
qp
discharge ( Q p ) in hours

4 W75 Width of unit hydrograph W75 = 1.028(q p ) 1.071

1.270
measured at 75% of peak W75 = 1.008
qp
discharge ( Q p ) in hours

5 WR 50 Width of the rising side of WR 50 = 0.856(q p ) 0.865

0.625
unit hydrograph measured WR 50 = 1.17
at 50% of peak discharge
qp
( Q p ) in hours
6 WR 75 Width of the rising side of WR 75 = 0.440(q p ) 0.918
0.380
unit hydrograph measured WR 75 = 1.13
at 75% of peak discharge
qp
( Q p ) in hours
7 TB Base width of unit TB = 5.428(t p ) 0.852 TB = 2.245 t p
1.19

hydrograph in hours
8 Tm Time from the start of rise tr tr
to the peak of unit Tm = t p + Tm = t p +
2 2
hydrograph in hours
where t r is the unit
rainfall duration in
hours
9 Qp Peak discharge of unit Q p = q p A Q p = 1.171( A) 0.7
hydrograph in cubic
meters per second

Design Loss rate

A design loss rate of 2.4 mm/hour as recommended in the Subzone-2a report and 3.5 mm/hour
in the Subzone-2b report is adopted.

Base Flow

A base flow of 0.05 cubic meters per sq km has been adopted as recommended in both the
subzone reports.
Design Flood Hydrograph

After convolution, the design flood hydrographs are obtained.

Design Flood Hydrograph using HEC-HMS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) is a hydrologic
model that supersedes HEC-1 and contains many improvements over its predecessor. The latest
version of the program, HEC-HMS 3.1.0 has been used.

Unit hydrograph

A total of six unit hydrograph models are provided in the HEC-HMS program. The are (i) Clark
unit hydrograph, (ii) ModClark unit hydrograph, (iii) SCS unit hydrograph, (iv) Snyder unit
hydrograph, (v) User-specified S-graph and (vi) User-specified unit hydrograph. Based on
parameter requirement, the Snyder unit hydrograph and the SCS unit hydrograph methods have
been selected in this study.

The Snyder unit hydrograph method

In the HEC-HMS program, two parameters are required for running the Snyder unit hydrograph
method. They are the standard lag t p and a peaking coefficient. The standard lag is defined as
the length of time between the centroid of precipitation mass and the peak flow of the resulting
hydrograph. The standard lag t p is found out using the equations given in the subzone reports.
The peaking coefficient measures the steepness of the hydrograph that results from a unit of
precipitation. The implementation used in the HEC-HMS program utilizes a unit hydrograph
generated with the Clark methodology such that the empirical Snyder relationships are
maintained. Thus, the peaking coefficient to be taken is suggested automatically. It has been
found that the mean value of 0.77 as the peaking coefficient can satisfactorily run the Snyder
unit hydrograph method for the catchments of Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b.

The SCS unit hydrograph method

The SCS unit hydrograph method requires only one parameter i.e. the standard lag. The same
standard lag values derived from the equations given in the subzone reports as used while using
the Snyder unit hydrograph method are used for the SCS unit hydrograph method.

Design loss

In the HEC-HMS program, there are four alternative models included to account for the rainfall
losses. They are (i) the initial and constant-rate loss model, (ii) the deficit and constant-rate
model, (iii) the SCS curve number (CN) loss model and (iv) the Green and Ampt loss model.
The initial and constant-rate loss model has been selected. The underlying concept of the initial
and constant-rate loss model is that the maximum potential rate of precipitation loss is constant
throughout an event. An initial loss is added to the model to represent interception and
depression storage. Interception storage is a consequence of absorption of precipitation by
surface cover, including plants in the watershed. Depression storage is a consequence of
depressions in the watershed topography; water is stored in these and eventually infiltrates or
evaporates. This loss occurs prior to the onset of runoff. The initial and constant-rate loss model
has been selected because during an extreme event such as a 50-year storm, a common
assumption is that the antecedent moisture saturates the soil before the event occurs. When this
happens, the rate of infiltration approaches a constant value from an initial zero value. This
physical condition during an extreme event can be well represented with the initial and constant-
rate loss model. In the Sub-zone 2(a) report of CWC, a loss rate of 2.4 mm/hour is
recommended while in the Sub-zone 2(b) report of CWC, a loss rate of 3.5 mm/hour is
recommended. These rates are adopted in the study.

Base flow

The HEC HMS program includes three alternative models of base flow. They are (i) the
constant, monthly-varying value model, (ii) an exponential recession model and (iii) a linear-
reservoir volume accounting model. The constant, monthly-varying model is the simplest base
flow model included in the program. It represents base flow as a constant flow; this may vary
monthly. This user-specified flow is added to the direct runoff computed from rainfall for each
time step of the simulation. This model is used with a constant base flow value of 0.05 cubic
meters per sq km as recommended in both the subzone reports.

Design Flood Hydrograph

With these inputs, the program is run to obtain the design flood hydrographs. Table- 4 and
Table-5 show the comparative pictures of the design flood peaks obtained for the catchments
under Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b.

Discussion of results

From Table 4 it can be seen that the SCS unit hydrograph method of HEC-HMS can be very
well used for the catchments of Subzone-2a. On an average, we can expect the design flood
estimate to be about 5% more than what would have been arrived at using the CWC procedure.
In Subzone-2b, however, the Snyder unit hydrograph method of HEC-HMS appears to be
slightly better suited.

Parameter estimation

The Snyder unit hydrograph is a synthetic unit hydrograph method. In 1938, Snyder published
a description of a parametric unit hydrograph that he had developed for analysis of ungauged
watersheds in the Appalachian Highlands in the US. More importantly, he provided
relationships for estimating the unit hydrograph parameters from watershed characteristics.
Snyder collected rainfall and runoff data from gauged watersheds, derived the unit hydrographs,
parameterized these unit hydrographs, and related the parameters to measurable watershed
characteristics. He proposed the equation:

Standard lag t p = CCt ( LLc ) 0.3 (1)

where t p = standard lag, Ct = basin coefficient; L = length of the main stream from the outlet to
the divide; Lc = length along the main stream from the outlet to a point nearest the watershed
centroid; and C = a conversion constant (0.75 for SI and 1.00 for foot-pound system).

The standard lag is defined as the length of time between the centroid of precipitation mass and
the peak flow of the resulting hydrograph. Many relationships for estimating lag from sub-basin
characteristics have been developed for different regions. As for example, lag equations are
provided in the subzone reports as shown in Table 3. The parameter Ct is best found via
calibration, as they are not physically-based parameters. It has been reported that Ct typically
ranges from 1.8 to 2.2, although it has been found to vary from 0.4 in mountainous areas to 8.0
along the Gulf of Mexico. Alternative forms of the parameter predictive equations are also
available in the literature. Others have proposed estimating tp as a function of t c , the watershed
time of concentration.
 Table 4. Comparison of design flood peaks for catchments of Subzone-2a

Sl. Bridge Peak Peak using Increase/ Peak using Increase/

No. using Snyder unit decrease in SCS unit decrease in
CWC hydrograph percentage hydrograph percentage
procedure method of method of HEC-
HEC-HMS HMS
1 240 2060.0 2429.7 17.9 2251.6 9.3
2 521 1274.9 1613.8 26.6 1514.4 18.8
3 376 2961.5 3140.4 0.6 2940.3 -0.7
4 373 1238.8 1294.3 4.5 1214.9 -1.9
5 8 (B) 2213.9 2172.3 -1.9 2025.3 -8.5
6 486 626.1 726.4 16.0 685.3 9.5
7 363 953.4 1103.3 15.7 1041.4 9.2
8 450 818.1 945.7 15.6 893.9 9.3
9 6/12 1719.6 1904.5 10.8 1788.6 4.0
10 242 1916.8 2040.1 6.4 1923.2 0.3
11 210 958.7 1064.5 11.0 997.1 4.0
12 22 408.6 473.7 15.9 444.6 8.8
13 95 1557.9 1697.0 8.9 1563.5 0.4
14 285 322.4 374.2 16.1 352.7 9.4
15 196 1104.1 1231.8 11.6 1131.0 2.4
16 429 296.5 338.3 14.1 318.4 7.4
17 114 451.1 570.4 5.4 546.8 1.0
18 8(S) 248.2 278.2 12.1 263.3 6.1
19 385 130.0 152.9 17.6 143.8 10.6
20 24 219.6 242.6 10.5 228.3 4.0
21 201 363.4 400.1 10.1 375.4 3.3
Average increase/decrease in 11.7 5.1
percentage

Standard deviation 6.4 5.8

In the present study, using Snyder‟s equation along with the t p values derived from the
equations for subzones 2a and 2b, it has been found that for these two subzones, Ct ranges from
0.58 to 3.72. Further, it has been observed that the Ct values bear a strong correlation with the
slope of the catchments. Table 6 shows the slope and Ct values of the 21 catchments under
Subzone 2a. A plot is made between the S pc (% slope) and Ct values shown in Fig. 1 which
gives the following relationship-

0.39
C t = 0.9511( S pc ) (2)
 Table 5. Comparison of design flood peaks for catchments of Subzone-2b

Sl. Bridge Peak using Peak using Increase/ Peak using SCS unit Increase/
No. CWC Snyder unit decrease hydrograph method decrease in
procedure hydrograph in of HEC-HMS percentage
method of percentage
HEC-HMS
1 4 (MOT) 3989.9 4509.0 13.0 4367.1 9.5
2 463 3233.8 3571.5 10.4 3468.3 7.3
3 414 2096.4 2192.7 4.6 2121.7 1.2
4 6(MOT) 1737.7 1829.0 5.3 1734.2 -0.2
5 160 1697.0 1782.4 5.0 1688.6 -0.5
6 8 1104.6 1132.1 2.5 1065.4 -3.5
7 146 889.9 889.0 -0.1 840.7 -5.5
8 184 717.6 723.7 0.8 678.3 -5.5
9 215 593.8 587.2 -1.1 554.6 -6.6
10 446 328.6 331.9 1.0 311.9 -5.1
11 130 234.9 231.4 -1.5 213.3 -9.2
12 440 335.1 328.9 -1.8 316.4 -5.6
13 70 232.8 226.0 -2.9 216.6 -6.9
14 3(MOT) 225.8 203.9 9.7 195.2 -13.6
Average increase/decrease in percentage 6.4 -3.2

Standard deviation 4.8 5.9

Table-6. Table showing relation between slope and Ct values in Subzone-2a

Sl. Bridge S (m/km) S (m/m) S pc Ct

No.
(%slope)
1 240 10.88 0.01088 1.088 1.12
2 521 7.41 0.00741 0.741 0.86
3 376 4.46 0.00446 0.446 1.16
4 373 1.70 0.00170 0.170 2.58
5 8 (B) 21.28 0.02128 2.128 0.72
6 486 1.95 0.00195 0.195 1.98
7 363 2.68 0.00268 0.268 1.79
8 450 1.84 0.00184 0.184 1.92
9 6/12 23.47 0.02347 2.347 0.74
10 242 22.53 0.02253 2.253 0.70
11 210 9.10 0.00910 0.910 0.98
12 22 1.52 0.00152 0.152 2.05
13 95 34.07 0.03407 3.407 0.58
14 285 0.88 0.00088 0.088 2.50
15 196 19.81 0.01981 1.981 0.67
16 429 1.00 0.00100 0.100 2.25
17 114 12.67 0.01267 1.267 0.80
18 8(S) 0.63 0.00063 0.063 2.48
19 385 0.26 0.00026 0.026 3.72
20 24 0.77 0.00077 0.077 2.19
21 201 9.97 0.00997 0.997 0.88
 5

3
Ct
2

0
0 1 2 3 4
Spc

Figure 1. Plot between S pc (% slope) and Ct values in Subzone-2a

For running the Snyder unit hydrograph method in HEC-HMS, the standard lag t p is found out
using Eq. 1 in conjunction with Eq. 2, which makes a modified Snyder equation as follows:

0.39
t p = 0.9511C ( S pc ) ( LLc ) 0.3 (3)

or, for SI units

0.39
t p = 0.7133( S pc ) ( LLc ) 0.3 (4)

The peaking coefficient is taken as 0.77.

With these input data for all the 21 catchments, the HEC-HMS program is run and the design
flood hydrographs obtained. These hydrographs are superimposed upon the hydrographs
obtained using the procedure outlined in the Subzone 2a report. As an example, the
superimposed situation in case of catchment no. 114 is shown in Fig. 2.

600

500

400
CWC
300
HEC-HMS
200

100

0
0 20 40 60

Figure 2. Superimposition of HEC-HMS hydrograph upon CWC hydrograph

It can be readily observed from Fig. 2 that both the hydrographs are quite matching. It is
interesting to note that that for all the other catchments of Subzone-2a, the matching of
hydrographs is very encouraging. For a comparison, Table 7 shows the flood peaks obtained
using the CWC report, Snyder unit hydrograph method of HEC-HMS with tp as per Eq. 3, and
SCS unit hydrograph method of HEC-HMS with tp as per Eq. 3.

Table 7. Comparison of design flood peaks

Sl. Bridge Peak using Peak using Increase/ Peak using Increase/
No. CWC Snyder unit decrease SCS unit decrease in
procedure hydrograph in hydrograph method percentage
method of percentage of HEC-HMS
HEC-HMS with t p as per Eqn.
with t p as (3)
per Eqn. (3)
1 240 2060.0 2717.0 31.89 2529.0 22.77
2 521 1274.9 1372.4 7.65 1292.0 1.34
3 376 2961.5 2940.5 -0.71 2743.7 -7.35
4 373 1238.8 1660.2 34.02 1560.1 25.94
5 8 (B) 2213.9 2197.2 -0.75 2042.1 -7.76
6 486 626.1 783.9 25.20 738.6 17.97
7 363 953.4 1208.5 26.76 1142.2 19.8
8 450 818.1 980.5 19.85 920.9 12.57
9 6/12 1719.6 1967.8 14.43 1848.0 7.47
10 242 1916.8 2051.2 7.01 1927.7 0.57
11 210 958.7 1061.2 10.69 992.7 3.55
12 22 408.6 485.7 18.87 456.3 11.67
13 95 1557.9 1694.6 8.77 1550.2 -0.49
14 285 322.4 382.6 18.67 360.8 11.91
15 196 1104.1 1212.4 9.81 1081.8 -2.02
16 429 296.5 333.2 12.38 312.9 5.53
17 114 451.1 475.2 5.34 529.9 17.47
18 8(S) 248.2 260.1 4.79 246.3 -0.77
19 385 130.0 147.5 13.46 138.7 6.69
20 24 219.6 223.7 1.87 210.3 -4.23
21 201 363.4 388.9 7.02 362.1 -0.36
Average increase/decrease in percentage 13.19 6.77

Standard deviation 10.03 9.91

From Table 7 it can be observed that the SCS unit hydrograph method of HEC-HMS gives
better results. To sum up, it can be said that if the standard lag is computed using Eq. 3 i.e. t p =
0.39
0.9511C ( S pc ) ( LLc ) 0.3 and the SCS unit hydrograph method run in HEC-HMS, we can get
a fairly good estimate of design flood.
Possibility of use of HEC-HMS in Subzone-2c

As stated earlier, a subzone report of CWC for Subzone-2c covering the states of Tripura,
Mizoram, Manipur, and parts of southern Assam and Meghalaya is yet to published. It is thus
worthwhile to see the possibility of application of HEC-HMS for the areas falling under
Subzone-2c. Having established the parameters required for running the Snyder or SCS unit
hydrograph methods in HEC-HMS for Subzone-2a, these parameters are tested for Subzone-2b.
The results are tabulated in Table 8.

Table 8. Subzone-2b peaks using Subzone-2a parameters

Sl. Bridge Peak using Peak using Increase/ Peak using SCS unit Increase/
No. CWC Snyder unit decrease hydrograph method decrease in
procedure hydrograph in of HEC-HMS percentage
method of percentage
HEC-HMS
1 4 3989.9 5339.6 33.8 5126.9 28.5
(MOT)
2 463 3233.8 3863.7 19.5 3781.3 16.9
3 414 2096.4 2455.2 17.1 2182.4 4.1
4 6(MOT) 1737.7 2344.9 34.9 2213.2 27.4
5 160 1697.0 1661.4 -2.1 1590.1 -6.3
6 8 1104.6 1329.7 20.4 1246.3 12.8
7 146 889.9 736.1 -17.3 701.7 -21.2
8 184 717.6 867.3 20.9 804.4 12.1
9 215 593.8 841.7 41.7 767.0 29.1
10 446 328.6 352.1 7.2 330.4 0.5
11 130 234.9 365.1 55.4 331.6 41.2
12 440 335.1 281.5 16.0 271.1 -19.1
13 70 232.8 184.2 -20.9 176.5 -24.2
14 3(MOT) 225.8 204.2 -9.6 197.2 -12.7
Average increase/decrease in percentage 15.5 6.4

Standard deviation 21.5 20.3

It can be seen from Table 8 that the SCS method of HEC-HMS could be used for Subzone-2b
with Subzone-2a parameters with some degree of reliability, had there been no information in
Subzone-2b. By this reckoning, if parameter estimation is done on the basis of information
available for both the two subzones, the SCS method of HEC-HMS can be used for Subzone-2c.

Parameter estimation for Subzone-2c

Fig. 1 showed a plot between the S pc (% slope) and Ct values of the catchments under Subzone-
2a. Fig. 3 shows such a plot for all the catchments under Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b, so that an
equation for standard lag can be developed for Subzone-2c. After considering three points in the
plot of Fig. 3 as outliers, a revised plot is drawn which is shown in Fig. 4. The equation obtained
is

0.35
C t = 0.9817( S pc ) (5)
 4

Ct 3

0
0 1 2 3 4
Spc

Figure 3. Plot between S pc (% slope) and Ct values of Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b

3
Ct

0
0 1 2 3 4
Spc

Figure 4. Revised plot between S pc (% slope) and Ct values of Subzone-2a and Subzone-2b

Eq. 5 in conjunction with Eq. 2, makes the modified Snyder equation for Subzone-2c, in SI
units, as follows :

0.35
t p = 0.7363( S pc ) ( LLc ) 0.3 (6)

Eq. 6 is proposed as a means to estimate the standard lag parameter for running the HEC-HMS
program for catchments under Subzone-2c to obtain design flood.
Conclusions

The HEC-HMS program can be reliably used for design flood estimate in Subzone-2a and
Subzone-2b. The SCS unit hydrograph transform method is found to give better results in
Subzone-2a, while the Snyder unit hydrograph method performs better in Subzone-2b.For the
required standard lag parameter in the both the unit hydrograph methods, the equations
provided in the subzone reports are to be used. For the parameter „peaking coefficient‟ required
in the Snyder unit hydrograph method, a value of 0.77 can be used. The HEC-HMS program
can also be used in Subzone-2c with a certain degree of reliability. For the standard lag
parameter to be used for Subzone-2c, an equation based on the physical characteristics of the
basin viz. L , L c and S pc in the form of Eq. 6 is proposed.

References

Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) user’s manual: version 3.1.0. (2006). U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.

Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) technical reference manual: (2000). U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.

Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) applications guide: version 3.1.0. (2008). U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.

Flood Estimation Report for North Brahmaputra Basin (Subzone-2a). (1991). Hydrology (Small
Catchments) Directorate, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

Flood Estimation Report for North Brahmaputra Basin (Subzone-2b). (1984). Hydrology (Small
Catchments) Directorate, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

Kumar,R. (2008). “Design Flood Estimation”. Lecture Notes, Training Workshop on Flood
Disaster Management, Center for Flood Management Studies, National Institute of Hydrology,
Guwahati.