© 2021 The Authors Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3005 doi: 10.2166/wcc.2021.

072

Performance of HEC-HMS and SWAT to simulate streamflow in the sub-humid tropical

Hemavathi catchment

N. C. Sanjay Shekara,* and D. C. Vinayb

a
Department of Civil Engineering, JSS Academy of Technical Education, Bangalore 570060, Karnataka, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, P.E.S. Institute of Technology and Management, Shimoga 577201, Karnataka, India
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The present study was conducted to examine the accuracy and applicability of the hydrological models Soil and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT) and Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)- Hydrologic Modeling System (HMS) to simulate streamflows. Models combined with the
ArcGIS interface have been used for hydrological study in the humid tropical Hemavathi catchment (5,427 square kilometer). The critical
focus of the streamflow analysis was to determine the efficiency of the models when the models were calibrated and optimized using
observed flows in the simulation of streamflows. Daily weather gauge stations data were used as inputs for the models from the
2014–2020 period. Other data inputs required to run the models included land use/land cover (LU/LC) classes resulting from remote sen-
sing satellite imagery, soil map and digital elevation model (DEM). For evaluating the model performance and calibration, daily stream
discharge from the catchment outlet data were used. For the SWAT model calibration, available water holding capacity by soil
(SOL_AWC), curve number (CN) and soil evaporation compensation factor (ESCO) are identified as the sensitive parameters. Initial abstrac-
tion (Ia) and lag time (Tlag) are the significant parameters identified for the HEC-HMS model calibration. The models were subsequently
adjusted by autocalibration for 2014–2017 to minimize the variations in simulated and observed streamflow values at the catchment
outlet (Akkihebbal). The hydrological models were validated for the 2018–2020 period by using the calibrated models. For evaluating
the simulating daily streamflows during calibration and validation phases, performances of the models were conducted by using the
Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) and coefficient of determination (R 2). The SWAT model yielded high R 2 and NSE values of 0.85
and 0.82 for daily streamflow comparisons for the catchment outlet at the validation time, suggesting that the SWAT model showed rela-
tively good results compared to the HEC-HMS model. Also, under modified LU/LC and ungauged streamflow conditions, the calibrated
models can be later used to simulate streamflows for future predictions. Overall, the SWAT model seems to have done well in streamflow
analysis for hydrological studies.

Key words: calibration, hydrological models, sensitivity, simulation, streamflow, validation

HIGHLIGHTS

• The study’s novelty is the comparative study of performances to simulate streamflow by using both HEC-HMS and SWAT hydrological
models for the first time in the sub-humid tropical Hemavathi catchment.
• The study’s scope focuses on streamflow analysis to determine the efficiency of the models when the models were calibrated and
optimized using observed flows in the simulation of streamflows.

1. INTRODUCTION
Water demand increases with the rising population; therefore, water management is essential through watershed models by
better understanding and handling water budget equations. Streamflow simulations are necessary to produce hydropower,
consumptive use and irrigation, etc. Therefore, the depth of rainfall converted into streamflow is to be estimated effectively.
Researchers have undertaken numerous studies for many decades to simulate streamflow using hydrological models on the
catchment scale (Gosling et al. 2011). The estimation of the streamflow on a basin-scale by executing water budget equations
in the hydrological models was necessary (Vijverberg et al. 2009). LU/LC affects the streamflow pattern in hydrological mod-
eling due to the infiltration variations (Yamamoto et al. 2020). To capture the spatial diversity of the catchment, hydrological
models require data inputs such as DEM, soil map, weather gauge stations data and LU/LC, and are then subdivided into

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and
redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3006

homogenous sub-watersheds. Hydrological models are used to analyze hydrologic parameters variations due to various
anthropogenic and climate change impacts. However, in all of the world’s hydroclimatic regimes, no single model can be
assumed to perform well.
The essential fundamental data for hydrologic research is streamflow, representing the runoff phase of the hydrologic cycle.
Unfortunately, continuous streamflow measurement is quite challenging. As a result, direct streamflow monitoring is a time-
consuming and expensive process (Chow Te 2010). Thus, the hydrologist’s fundamental problem is the relationship between
rainfall and streamflow conversions for water resources management. Streamflow measurements are often limited and una-
vailable in developing countries, making it more challenging to assess water resources (Shaw et al. 2010). Cunderlik (2003)
evaluated the available hydrologic models that can be used to assess the risk and vulnerabilities of water resources to chan-
ging climatic conditions. The availability of meteorological data and open-source computational tools have stimulated
hydrologic research and development during the last decade. The number of new hydrological models to strengthen water
resource assessment represents the growth of hydrologic research (Slater et al. 2019; Astagneau et al. 2021).
Various hydrological models like SWAT, Hec-HMS, MIKE SHE, PRMS and WetSpa simulate the significant water balance
components using regularly available data. The models mentioned above are available free in the public domain as open-
source software except for MIKE SHE (Dhami & Pandey 2013). The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service developed
the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (Arnold et al. 1998), which is a physically-based continuous-time, con-
ceptual, long-term, distributed watershed-scale hydrologic model developed by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
Surface runoff, percolation, erosion and other hydrological processes from small, medium and large watersheds can be simu-
lated. It can be used to assess a large un-gauged catchment of over 100 sub-watersheds. As a result, SWAT is constantly being
used to make water management strategies in land use, climate change and water management. The Hydrologic Modelling
System (Hec-HMS) is a continuous and event-based hydrologic modeling system developed by the US Army Corps of Engin-
eers Hydrologic Engineering Center (USACE 2010). It was initially developed to simulate the precipitation-runoff processes
of dendritic watershed systems. It was later improved to address a broader range of problems, such as large river basin water
supply distribution, flood hydrographs and small urban or natural watershed runoff. It is physically based and requires por-
table data inputs to produce realistic results. MIKE SHE (DHI 2007) is a deterministic, distributed, physically-based modeling
system that can simulate all major processes in the hydrologic cycle. For any of the hydrologic systems, it requires a complete
set of processing tools and a versatile combination of advanced and simple solution techniques. Precipitation, interception,
infiltration, evapotranspiration, subsurface flow in unsaturated and saturated zones, surface flow and flow in channels or
ditches are even included in the MIKE SHE model. However, it is a more complex model than SWAT and Hec-HMS and
it is not freely available in the public domain. The Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) is a physically-based, dis-
tributed-parameter watershed model that was developed to evaluate the effects of precipitation, climate, land use on
streamflow, sediment yields and basin hydrology (Markstrom et al. 2008). PRMS is well suited for simulating streamflow
and its hydrologic components from snowmelt-dominated basins since it simulates melting snowpack formation. WetSpa
(Water and Energy Transfer between Soil, Plants and Atmosphere) is a grid-based distributed hydrological model (Wang
et al. 1996) to predict water and energy transfer between soil and plants and atmosphere on a regional or basin-scale only
and daily time step. The atmosphere, canopy, root zone, transmission zone and saturation zone are considered part of the
basin’s hydrological system. The model simulates precipitation, snowmelt, surface runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration
and groundwater flow.
Since the main objective of the study was to simulate the streamflow, in recent years, across a wide range of hydroclimatic
environments, the SWAT and HEC-HMS models have achieved universal prominence for streamflow simulation and very
few comparative studies have been conducted (Rezazadeh et al. 2015; Khoi 2016). The SWAT model is a suitable tool
to simulate runoff with temporal and spatial variability in watershed management (Raju & Nandagiri 2018). The
random forests precipitation generator is integrated into the SWAT model for long-term streamflow simulation (Liang
et al. 2018). The SWAT model can simulate runoff in a humid tropical basin under low to high flow conditions (da
Silva et al. 2018). The effect of spatial variations in precipitation on streamflow simulation was assessed by the SWAT
model (Xue et al. 2019). In the tropical region, runoff simulations were evaluated based on LU/LC transition using the
SWAT model (Yamamoto et al. 2020). Under data scarcity conditions in the river basin, the SWAT model was used for
hydrological assessment to water resource management (Dutta & Sarma 2021). The SWAT model was used to project
mean to extreme streamflow simulations under climate change (Alam et al. 2021). GIS and remote sensing data were inte-
grated into HEC-HMS rainfall–runoff modeling to assess the effect of arid area urbanization on flash floods (El Alfy 2016).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3007

The hydrological analysis can be processed using the HEC-HMS model, which generates pre-flood inundation maps using
numerical weather predicted forecasted precipitation as input data for flood warning systems (Thakur et al. 2017). The
HEC-HMS model runs the streamflow analysis from climate datasets and computes flooding due to the impact of critical
precipitation, similar to the SWAT model (Yuan et al. 2019). The HEC-HMS model is implemented to delineate the basin
automatically and compute various hydrologic parameters (Castro & Maidment 2020). An advanced united hydrological
modeling system can be used effectively in flood management by flood prediction (Ramly et al. 2020). An output basin
text file is produced in HEC-HMS format for rapid model initialization. Climate change impacts on the catchment’s stream-
flow were analyzed under climate scenarios (Bekele et al. 2021).
In order to simulate the streamflows for a medium to a large river basin, both HEC-HMS and SWAT models were devel-
oped for continuous and event-based hydrological simulation. However, the performance comparison of both SWAT and
HEC-HMS models in humid tropical regions has been investigated in very few studies. In the presence of moist tropical
evergreen forests and well-drained lateral soils, the accuracy with which streamflow can be simulated under exceptionally
high precipitation conditions has not been thoroughly studied. It is often necessary to evaluate how to collect data, process
data and input data for the model under data-scarce conditions. HEC-GeoHMS and ArcSWAT are ArcGIS extension tool-
bars and graphical user interfaces for the HEC-HMS model used in this study. The key objective is to explore the
applicability of the SWAT and HEC-HMS models to a humid tropical catchment and under data-scarce conditions to deter-
mine the type of input data sources/requirements. The model’s output is to be evaluated in terms of the accuracy with which
streamflows can be simulated. The study will also investigate how the SWAT and HEC-HMS models can be used to exam-
ine the effects on streamflows due to LU/LC changes in different years. Therefore, the present study was conducted to test
the efficiency of models in catchment located in the humid tropical area extending from the mountain range of the Western
Ghats.

2. STUDY AREA
One of the main tributaries to join the river Kaveri on its northern bank is the Hemavathi river. The river rises in the Balla-
larayanadurga at Western Ghats of Mudigere taluk, Chikmagalur district. The watershed ranges between East longitudes 75°
310 30″ to 76°390 45″ and North latitudes 12°350 15″ to 13°220 30″. The Hemavathi river joins the Cauvery in the Krishnaraja-
sagar reservoir (KRS) near Akkihebbal after reaching 245 km in length. The watershed stretches over an area of 5,427 square
kilometers. Annual precipitation ranges from a low of 1,364 mm to a high of 2,178 mm, with a mean annual precipitation of
1,632 mm from the year 2014 and 2020 period. Precipitation was 1,364 mm in 2014, which is lower than the mean precipi-
tation and 2,178 mm of high precipitation was experienced in 2020. The economy of the basin relies primarily on planting
and agriculture. Watershed is the typical example of a monsoon type of climate. The summer season lasts March to May.
The catchment area is a typical example of a monsoon type of climate. The rainy season lasts from June to October.
During the rainy season, very strong rainstorms are observed. The winter months are November to February. During these
months, severe colds are felt. Hilly catchment with a steep to intermediate slope is observed in the study area. In the
upper reaches, the slope is very high and decreases steadily in the lower reaches. The river basin elevation varies between
748 m and 1,853 m above the mean sea level. The whole basin can be classified into hilly fields, moderately sloping and
low lying lands (valley lands).

3. DATA
Daily records of precipitation, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and hours of sunshine received from weather gauge
stations of IMD (India Meteorological Department) are used. Information on the locations of weather gauge stations is shown
in Figure 1. For a span of seven years (2014 to 2020), daily streamflow data for the catchment outlet (Akkihebbal) is collected
from the Department of Water Resources, Government of Karnataka, which is used for the hydrological models calibration
and validation. From the NBSS & LUP (National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning), soil map and databases are
collected for the watershed. Important soil parameters data is extracted for 20 groups of soil types that occur in the river
basin. LU/LC maps for the study region were downloaded from the Bhuvan – Thematic Resources website for the corre-
sponding time span. The LU/LC data utilized in the present study is from the Resourcesat-1 Linear Imaging Self-scanning
Sensor (LISS-III). The LU/LC changes data for the study area are shown in Table 1 for 2014 and 2020 for reference. Figure 2
depicts the Hemavathi river basin’s derived LU/LC map. By comparing Figure 3 and the LU/LC map, it can be seen that

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3008

Figure 1 | Weather gauge stations in the Hemavathi river basin.

Table 1 | Composition of LU/LC classes in the Hemavathi river basin

Sl. No LU/LC class Year 2014% Year 2020%

1 Built-up 0.25 0.46

2 Kharif only 29.31 22.67
3 Rabi only 12.93 5.68
4 Double/Triple 21.81 22.18
5 Current fallow 5.66 17.76
6 Plantation/Orchard 21.05 22.52
7 Evergreen forest 1.04 0.89
8 Deciduous forest 3.37 3.34
9 Scrub/Degraded forest 1.27 1.13
10 Grassland 0.14 0.12
11 Other wastelands 0.42 0.45
12 Gullied 0.16 0.17
13 Scrubland 0.07 0.05
14 Waterbodies 2.52 2.58
Total 100 100

plantations occur in the higher elevations of the basin (towards the West). Agricultural crops and plantation/orchards were
the predominant classes in the Hemavathi river basin. Table 2 and Figure 4 depict the soil types found in the study area and
their descriptions.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3009

Figure 2 | LU/LC map of Hemavathi river basin for the Year 2020 (reference).

Figure 3 | Location and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Hemavathi river basin.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3010

Table 2 | Soil type description

No. Soil Description according to Soil Type (Figure 4)

1 Deep, somewhat excessively drained, gravelly clay soils with mild erosion on gently sloping interfluves
2 Deep, well drained, gravelly clay soils with mild erosion on gently sloping interfluves
3 In undulating interfluves, relatively thick, well drained, artificial soils, with mild erosion
4 Moderately shallow, well-drained, gravelly clay soils with moderate erosion on gently sloping interfluves
5 Moderately thick, well-drained, artificial soils of medium water content with mild erosion on undulating interfluves
6 Deep, well-drained, clay soils with mild erosion on undulating interfluves
7 Deep, relatively well-drained, artificial valley soil, with drainage issues and slight salinity in patches
8 On ridges with steep slopes, heavy runoff and mild erosion, very deep, excessively drained, artificial soil
9 Shallow, very excessively drained, gravelly clay soils with very poor rolling ground water content, mildly eroded
10 Quite deep, well drained, on undulating interfluves, clayey soils, with minor erosion
11 Outcrops of rock
12 Quite deep, well drained, gravelly clay soils, on steeply sloping high hills with mild erosion, heavily gravelly in the subsoil
13 Deep, well drained, gravelly clay soils with mild erosion on slopes of steeply sloping high hill ranges
14 Quite thick, well-drained, medium-water clay soils on laterite plateaus, with mild erosion
15 Deep, well-drained, artificial soils with medium water content and low erosion on laterite plateaus
16 Quite deep, moderately well drained, loamy, sandy valley soils, with a table of shallow water
17 Quite thick, well drained, gravelly clay soils on the laterite plateau with low water content, with extreme erosion
18 Quite rich, well-drained, gravelly clay soils on low hills with low water content, with mild erosion
19 Deep, well-drained, artificial soils with medium water quality with low erosion in the high hill ranges
20 Body of water

Figure 4 | Soil map of Hemavathi river basin.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3011

3.1. Land use/land cover (LU/LC) map

LU/LC maps for the study region were downloaded from the Bhuvan – Thematic Resources website for the corresponding
time span. The LU/LC data utilized in the present study is from the Resourcesat-1 Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS-
III). The LU/LC changes data for the study area are shown in Table 1 for 2014 and 2020 for reference. Figure 2 depicts the
Hemavathi river basin’s derived LU/LC map.

3.2. Soil map

4. METHODOLOGY OF SWAT AND HEC-HMS MODELS

The watershed basin can be discretized by using physically based hydrologic models by dividing it into a limited number of
sub-basins based on terrain features and drainage networks. They can help with data interpretation and hypothesis testing
compared with field research and improve our knowledge of processes by their interactions. Physically-based models can
simulate the whole runoff regime by generating multiple hydrological outputs such as runoff and evapotranspiration com-
ponents. Black-box models, on the other hand, will only produce one output at a time. Figures 5 (SWAT) and 6 (HEC-
HMS) depict the workflow diagrams of the physically-based hydrological models that have been subject to continuous revi-
sion and extension. Both hydrological models need various data concerning climate, topography, LU/LC, soils and
streamflow information for model calibration and validation. Maximum, minimum air temperature and precipitation are
the minimum weather inputs requested by the models. There are three major components of ArcSWAT, namely Watershed
Delineation, HRU analysis and defining of Weather Data. DEM data is necessary for Watershed Delineator for stream net-
work processing. Using LU/LC, soil map and DEM data, HRU analysis is processed. For Weather Data defining for the study
area, weather gauge stations are needed. The outputs from these above three major steps are then used as inputs for stream-
flow simulation using the SWAT model. The HEC-HMS model also simulates runoff through open-channel routing by
analyzing meteorological data. Simulation runs contain three different components that can compute results: the simulation
runs, optimization trials and analyses. Outputs can be obtained as graphs, tables and with respect to continuous time series.
The physically-based HEC-HMS model was also optimized and auto-calibrated using simulated daily stream flows with the
observed flow.
Model output is calculated by computing the efficiency of the model between observed and simulated stream flows by deter-
mination coefficient (R 2) and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE).
Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) and coefficient of determination (R 2) was computed as follows:

XT
(yt  ft )2
NSE ¼ 1:0 
P
T
t¼1 (yt  y)2
t¼1

where yt is the observed data values for time period t, ft is the simulated data values for the same period, y is the mean
observed data values per time period and T is the number of time periods. The maximum NSE value possible is 1.0 and
occurs if simulated values perfectly match observed values. The lower the NSE value, the lower the goodness of fit between
the simulated and observed time series. The larger NSE values denote better model performance.

8 92
>
> P
T >
>
>
>
< (yt  y)(ft  f) >
>
=
t¼1
R2 ¼ T 0:5  T 0:5 >
>
> P P >
>
> (yt  y)2 (ft  f)
2 >
>
: ;
t¼1 t¼1

where y is the mean of observed values for the entire evaluation time period and f is the mean of simulated values for the
entire evaluation time period. The other symbols have the same meanings as defined in the preceding equation. The R2
value is equal to the square of Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient. R2 ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. Higher values
equate to better model performance.
The autocalibration for the models’ parameters is done until the acceptable streamflow simulation is attained. Sensitivity/
optimization analysis examines the relative changes concerning the observed streamflow and also indicates the importance of

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3012

Figure 5 | Workflow diagram for setup and SWAT run.

the parameters in determining the streamflow in the study area. The calibrated models are finally utilized for estimating the
effect of different scenarios like change in LU/LC for future streamflow simulation on hydrologic analysis of the basin; later
both the models are validated against observed streamflow measured data.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The SWAT and HEC-HMS hydrological models were applied to the sub-humid tropical Hemavathi river basin using the pro-
cedures defined in the literature review and described workflow diagrams (Figures 5 and 6). Based on the stream and DEM

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3013

Figure 6 | Workflow diagram for setup and HEC-HMS model run (Source: http://hdl.handle.net/10603/226891).

network, sub-basins of the catchment were delineated separately. The detection of Hydrological Response Units (HRUs) was
concluded by overlaying LU/LC, soil map and DEM. For the period year 2014–2020, associated data required as the input
variables is observed streamflow availability; hence 2014–2017 was considered the calibration period and 2018–2020 data
was considered for the validation period of models.
Hydrological models were implemented and run for the daily time step. Daily weather gauge stations records were used for
streamflow simulation. For model validation and calibration, daily streamflow records were used at the Akkihebbal gauging
site at the outlet of the basin. To identify the most critical parameters affecting daily streamflow simulation from the models,
sensitivity analysis was performed. Observed streamflow is used to minimize the root mean square error (RMSE) between
daily simulated runoff and daily observed runoff at the gauging site by identifying the critical sensitive parameters found
in this manner were auto-calibrated. SWAT and HEC-HMS models identified sensitivity and optimised parameters for cali-
bration in Table 3. The conclusions derived from the analysis are discussed below. Sensitivity analysis is conducted by
identifying the essential parameters CN, ESCO and SOL AWC for the SWAT model when applied to the Hemavathi
basin with required data inputs for 2014–2017. The significant parameters considered for optimization of the HEC-HMS
model were Ia and Tlag. These parameters are auto-calibrated to achieve minimum RMSE between observed and simulated
streamflows at the outlet of the basin.
Results of the below scatter plots (Figures 7 and 8) are derived from the daily observed runoff at the Akkihebbal gauge
location (outlet) with those simulated using the calibrated SWAT and HEC-HMS models. Observed daily streamflow
values obtained from the Akkihebbal stream gauge station are correlated with streamflow output extracted from the
SWAT and HEC-HMS models after calibration to test the models further throughout the validation part.
Table 4 shows the R 2 and NSE values throughout the validation phase (2018–2020) and before calibration (2014–2017). It
can be observed from the results that the efficiency of the models is very good and relative to the literature review, as shown

Table 3 | Sensitivity and optimized parameters identified for calibration by SWAT and HEC-HMS models

SWAT HEC-HMS

Available water holding capacity by soil (SOL_AWC) Initial abstraction (Ia)

Soil evaporation compensation factor (ESCO) Lag time (Tlag)
Curve number (CN)

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3014

Figure 7 | Daily measured versus observed streamflow before calibration.

Figure 8 | Daily measured versus observed streamflow after calibration.

Table 4 | R 2 and NSE values before calibration (2014–2017) and during the validation period (2018–2020)

SWAT HEC-HMS

Performances Validation Calibration Validation Calibration

2
R 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.78
NSE 0.82 0.76 0.77 0.73

by high R 2 and NSE values. By using observed data for the period 2018–2020, calibrated models are subjected to a validation
test and efficiency is analyzed. The calibrated and validated models can be later used for future forecasts to simulate stream-
flows under modified HRU conditions. SWAT model outcomes depicted that NSE and R 2 values are 0.76 and 0.81 before
calibration (2014–2017) and 0.82 and 0.85 during the validation period (2018–2020). Similarly, for the HEC-HMS model
NSE and R 2 values are 0.73 and 0.78 before calibration (2014–2017) and 0.77 and 0.81 during the validation period
(2018–2020).
The time series hydrograph of the streamflow difference among the simulated and observed flow during the calibration
period (2014–2017) is shown in Figure 9. The graph reveals that the peak flow occurred in the monsoon season, moderate

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3015

Figure 9 | Daily measured compared with the observed streamflow before calibration.

flow occurs in the post-monsoon period (September to October) and less streamflow during the pre-monsoon period depend-
ing on the rainfall. During the tropical region monsoon season, the discharge varies significantly, ranging from 200 to 350
cumecs due to the high rainfall occurrence. Compared to the literature review, both models’ average performance before cali-
bration was considered adequate since most of the simulated values were correlated to the observed streamflow values.
Graphs depict that during the monsoon season, the sharp peak occurred annually for all the years (2014–2017). Simulated
values are greater than the observed values at the Akkihebbal basin outlet at the catchment.
The time series hydrograph of the streamflow variation between the simulated and observed flow is seen in Figure 10 during
the validation period after model calibration. Since the RMSE is reduced after model calibration, the graph shows a close
correlation between the simulated and observed streamflow at the catchment outlet. Similarly, R 2 and NSE values during
the validation period (2018–2020) have been increased after model calibration. Due to lower rainfall during the validation
period (2018–2020), the discharge variance observed during the monsoon season varies from 180 to 320 cumecs, which is
lower than before the calibration period (2014–2017). In comparison to the literature review, both models’ overall perform-
ance was deemed adequate since the majority of the simulated values were also correlated to the observed values during the
validation phase.

6. CONCLUSION
A sub-humid tropical catchment is selected as an excellent case study for assessing the performance of hydrological models.
The weather gauge station data, LU/LC, DEM and soil map input data obtained are sufficiently reliable to simulate stream-
flows, based on the models’ relatively good performance. The data sources used in this research are recommended for
hydrological studies since they provide reasonably accurate results. In contrast to the literature analysis, the performance
of SWAT and HEC-HMS hydrological models simulating temporal variations in the streamflow at the Hemavathi river
basin’s outlet (Akkihebbal gauging station) was very satisfactory. Compared to the literature, the SWAT and HEC-HMS
hydrological models performed better in simulating temporal differences in streamflow at the Hemavathi river basin’s
outlet (Akkihebbal gauging station). During the validation duration (2014–2017), the R 2 value for the SWAT model was
0.81 and the NSE value for regular streamflow comparison was 0.76, indicating a more stable performance than the HEC-
HMS model. Moreover, both models performed equally well during the validation phase (2018–2020) for the catchment
outlet. During the validation period of daily observed flow comparisons, the R 2 value for the SWAT model was 0.85 and
the NSE was 0.82, rendering it more precise than the HEC-HMS model. According to the results presented in this paper,

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3016

Figure 10 | Daily measured compared with the observed streamflow after calibration.

SWAT performed better and is a proper hydrological modeling technique for water resource management. The SWAT and
HEC-HMS models provided an acceptable framework in the ArcGIS platform for streamflow simulation implementation.
Input data selection and collection, preliminary analysis and pre- and post-processing will be made quickly and effectively
using physically-based hydrological models. Similarly, the models could be implemented and produced good results at differ-
ent time steps and spatial scales.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank anonymous reviewers for giving tremendously valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality
of this manuscript are gratefully acknowledged.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

REFERENCES

Alam, S., Ali, M., Rahaman, A. Z. & Islam, Z. 2021 Multi-model ensemble projection of mean and extreme streamflow of Brahmaputra River
Basin under the impact of climate change. Journal of Water and Climate Change.
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S. & Williams, J. R. 1998 Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development 1.
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34 (1), 73–89.
Astagneau, P. C., Thirel, G., Delaigue, O., Guillaume, J. H., Parajka, J., Brauer, C. C. & Beven, K. J. 2021 Hydrology modelling R packages: a
unified analysis of models and practicalities from a user perspective. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 25 (7),
3937–3973.
Bekele, W. T., Haile, A. T. & Rientjes, T. 2021 Impact of climate change on the streamflow of the Arjo-Didessa catchment under RCP
scenarios. Journal of Water and Climate Change.
Castro, C. V. & Maidment, D. R. 2020 GIS preprocessing for rapid initialization of HEC-HMS hydrological basin models using web-based
data services. Environmental Modelling & Software 130, 104732.
Chow Te, V. 2010 Applied Hydrology. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi, India.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest
 Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 12 No 7, 3017

Cunderlik, J. 2003 Hydrologic Model Selection for the CFCAS Project: Assessment of Water Resources Risk and Vulnerability to Changing
Climatic Conditions. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
da Silva, R. M., Dantas, J. C., Beltrão, J. D. A. & Santos, C. A. 2018 Hydrological simulation in a tropical humid basin in the Cerrado biome
using the SWAT model. Hydrology Research 49 (3), 908–923.
Dhami, B. S. & Pandey, A. 2013 Comparative review of recently developed hydrologic models. Journal of Indian Water Resources Society
33 (3), 34–41.
DHI 2007 MIKE SHE User Manual Voume 1: User Guide. Danish Hydraulic Institute, Denmark.
Dutta, P. & Sarma, A. K. 2021 Hydrological modeling as a tool for water resources management of the data-scarce Brahmaputra basin.
Journal of Water and Climate Change 12 (1), 152–165.
El Alfy, M. 2016 Assessing the impact of arid area urbanization on flash floods using GIS, remote sensing and HEC-HMS rainfall–runoff
modeling. Hydrology Research 47 (6), 1142–1160.
Gosling, S. N., Taylor, R. G., Arnell, N. W. & Todd, M. C. 2011 A comparative analysis of projected impacts of climate change on river runoff
from global and catchment-scale hydrological models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15 (1), 279–294.
Khoi, D. N. 2016 Comparision of the HEC-HMS and SWAT hydrological models in simulating the stream flow. Journal of Science and
Technology 53 (5A), 189–195.
Liang, Z., Tang, T., Li, B., Liu, T., Wang, J. & Hu, Y. 2018 Long-term streamflow forecasting using SWAT through the integration of the
random forests precipitation generator: case study of Danjiangkou Reservoir. Hydrology Research 49 (5), 1513–1527.
Markstrom, S. L., Niswonger, R. G., Regan, R. S., Prudic, D. E. & Barlow, P. M. 2008 GSFLOW-Coupled ground-water and surface-water
FLOW model based on the integration of the precipitation-runoff modeling system (PRMS) and the modular ground-water flow model
(MODFLOW-2005). US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6, 240.
Raju, B. K. & Nandagiri, L. 2018 Assessment of variable source area hydrological models in humid tropical watersheds. International Journal
of River Basin Management 16 (2), 145–156.
Ramly, S., Tahir, W., Abdullah, J., Jani, J., Ramli, S. & Asmat, A. 2020 Flood estimation for SMART control operation using integrated radar
rainfall input with the HEC-HMS model. Water Resources Management 34 (10), 3113–3127.
Rezazadeh, M. S., Ganjalikhani, M. & Zounemat-Kermani, M. 2015 Comparing the performance of semi-distributed SWAT and lumped
HEC-HMS hydrological models in simulating river discharge (Case study: Ab-Bakhsha Watershed). Iranian Journal of Ecohydrology
2 (4), 467–479.
Shaw, E. M., Beven, K. J., Chappell, N. A. & Lamb, R. 2010 Hydrology in Practice. CRC Press, Milton Park, Abingdon, UK.
Slater, L. J., Thirel, G., Harrigan, S., Delaigue, O., Hurley, A., Khouakhi, A. & … Smith, K. 2019 Using R in hydrology: a review of recent
developments and future directions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 23 (7), 2939–2963.
Thakur, B., Parajuli, R., Kalra, A., Ahmad, S. & Gupta, R. 2017 Coupling HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS in precipitation runoff modelling and
evaluating flood plain inundation map. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2017 (C. N. Dunn & B. Van Weele,
eds.), pp. 240–251. American Society of Civil Engineers, Sacramento, CA.
USACE-HEC 2010 Hydrologic Modeling System, HEC-HMS v3.5. User’s Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering
Center, Davis, CA.
Vijverberg, J., Sibbing, F. A. & Dejen, E. 2009 Lake Tana: Source of the Blue Nile. In: The Nile (H. J. Dumont, ed.). Springer, Dordrecht, pp.
163–192.
Wang, Z. M., Batelaan, O. & De Smedt, F. 1996 A distributed model for water and energy transfer between soil, plants and atmosphere
(WetSpa). Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 21 (3), 189–193.
Xue, F., Shi, P., Qu, S., Wang, J. & Zhou, Y. 2019 Evaluating the impact of spatial variability of precipitation on streamflow simulation using a
SWAT model. Water Policy 21 (1), 178–196.
Yamamoto, E. M. S., Sayama, T. & Yamamoto, K. 2020 Comparison of runoff generation methods for land use impact assessment using the
SWAT model in humid tropics. Hydrological Research Letters 14 (2), 81–88.
Yuan, W., Liu, M. & Wan, F. 2019 Calculation of critical rainfall for small-watershed flash floods based on the HEC-HMS hydrological
model. Water Resources Management 33 (7), 2555–2575.

First received 22 February 2021; accepted in revised form 19 July 2021. Available online 9 August 2021

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/12/7/3005/956794/jwc0123005.pdf

by guest