See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283855429

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHODS

USING WMS RAINFALL – RUNOFF PROCESS SIMULATION

Conference Paper · July 2006

CITATION READS

1 1,248

3 authors, including:

Stavros Yannopoulos D. M. Papamichail

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
47 PUBLICATIONS   583 CITATIONS    70 PUBLICATIONS   1,020 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fuzzy Logic Model View project

Evolution of Agricultural Drainage over the Centuries worldwide View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stavros Yannopoulos on 15 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH
METHODS USING
WMS RAINFALL – RUNOFF PROCESS SIMULATION
S. Yannopoulos*, A. Katsi* & D. Papamichail**
*Department of Rural & Surveying Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
** School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
E-mail: giann@vergina.eng.auth.gr; a_katsi@hotmail.com; papamich@agro.auth.gr

ABSTRACT
The subject of the present paper is the comparative analysis of the Soil Conservation Service
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph (S.C.S.), Snyder Synthetic U.H. and Clark Instant U.H., by
using the software of the Watershed Modeling System (WMS). The program WMS is a
Geographic Information System (G.I.S.) with hydrological application, therefore it combines the
G.I.S. spatial data with hydrological models. The hydrological data for the watershed are two
separated events of rainfall – runoff. The structured G.I.S. furnishes the Digital Terrain Model,
the hydrological and the geomorphological features. The HEC–1 hydrological model was used in
this paper so that comparing the standard hydrographs (SCS, Snyder and Clark).

1
1. INTRODUCTION

The rational water resources management demands the quantity estimation of different phases of
the hydrologic cycle, which leads to reliable representation of rainfall – runoff process. Under
the frame of the rational water resources management in a river basin, the best methods are
necessary. The great development of computer’s science assists the hydrology applications.
Also, using the current technology of Geographic Information System (G.I.S.) allows the spatial
analysis of the watershed and the hydrological simulation [1, 2, 3]. In this study for the rainfall –
runoff process simulation the software Watershed Modeling System (WMS), the hydrological
model HEC-1 were used and only two rainfall – runoff events for the comparative analysis.
More events not are used due to the lack of relative data in the study area.

Watershed Modeling System (WMS) is a comprehensive environment for hydrologic analysis. It

was developed by the Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory (EMRL) of Brigham
Young University in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) [4, 5, 6]. The software is based on Geographic Information System (G.I.S.). The
innovation is that by using specific techniques the software can immediately update the terrain
model or the reference background of hydrological model’s data base. WMS recognizes and
records the watershed’s spatial data, the land use and the soil types. Also, WMS recognizes and
records the watershed’s hydrological data. The data are recorded on an interactive and flexible
data base. Finally, the WMS software can support the hydrological simulation.

The WMS software manages digital terrain models which are Triangulate Irregular Network
(T.I.N.) and Digital Elevation Model (D.E.M.). At the same time, it can obtain spatial data from
G.I.S. vector data. The software’s hydrological analysis uses parametric lumped event models.
The WMS software supports useful hydrological models like HEC-1 (Hydrological Engineering
Center), TR-20, TR-55 (Technical Release), the Rational Method and the Program NFF
(National Flood Frequency, U.S.A.). The hydrological model HEC-1 [7] which was used in this
paper supports the Synthetic Unit Hydrographs as the methods of the transformation of rainfall
to runoff. The Synthetic Unit Hydrographs supported by HEC-1 are the follow [1, 8]: (a) the
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph of SCS (1957), (b) the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph of Snyder
Method (1938) and (c) the Instant Unit Hydrograph of Clark Method (1943).
2. DATA AND METHODS
2.1 Study area
The study area is the Portaicos river watershed (Figure 1) over the sources down to natural
outlet, which is nearly to Pyli village.

Figure 1. Portaicos river watershed (study area).

2
The basin belongs to hydrological department No 08 of Greece, according the legislation in force
(Greek law 1739/87), which is located in the landlocked of the country and overlap of the
Thessaly province. Specifically, the Portaicos river watershed is located in South – West of
Trikala prefecture and is extended over the eastern glacis of Pindos Mountain. This watershed
constitutes the natural exit to Thessaly plain. The watershed’s area is 136.18 km2, the mean slope
is 44.14 % and the length of mainstream is 15.839 km. Also, the maximum, mean and minimum
elevations are correspondingly 1862 m, 926.64 m and 226 m and the median elevation’s value is
938.8 m. The Portaicos river basin is mountainous, with steep gradient [9].

2.2 Data
The requisite data for the research and the simulation of the rainfall – runoff process are the
simultaneous rainfall – runoff observations. Still more, necessary data are the stage – discharge
measurements, the land uses and the soil types or alternatively the values of Curve Number (CN)
in the study area. Also, the topographic maps are necessary, which are the reference background
and the original information for the creation of Digital Terrain Model (D.T.M.). In the present
study the map’s data are Maps by “Hellenic Military Geographical Service” on scale 1:50.000.
The gauge’s data of the present paper are one rain recorder at the Vrontero station, one rain
gauge at the Stournareica station and one stage recorder at the Pyli station.

2.3 Geographical Information System Structure

The Geographical Information System’s (G.I.S) structure includes the georeference, the creation
and the precision control of Digital Terrain Model (D.T.M.). Also, the structure includes the
creation and the precision control of the hydrological network and finally, the exportation of the
basin’s geomorphological features [8, 10, 11]. Using the WMS software was created a reliable
DTM and a hydrological network (river tree) of Portaicos river watershed. Extended description
relative of the project is available [9]. However, the GIS and DTM they are the useful tools for
the hydrological analysis which is the base for the rational water resources management on
Portaicos river watershed [9].

2.4 Hydrological simulation - Calibration

Two rainfall – runoff events in the years 1995 and 1996 are used for the simulation and
calibration because the stage – discharge rating curves for the two events by using stage
measurements at the Pyli station were estimated. But due to the lack of measured hydrographs
upstream of the Pyli station, routing process could not take place. It is obvious that the most
important parameters of simulation are the CN, the lag time and the Unit Hydrograph Methods
[12]. In the present research the simulation based on hydrological model HEC-1.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Comparison of U.H. SCS to U.H. Snyder

The computation of runoff hydrographs concerns two rainfall – runoff events, 1995 and 1996,
using the parameter’s values CN=59, tL =7hrs, Cp =0.638 and CN = 60, t L =8hrs, Cp =0.617 [12].
Snyder method has the peak coefficient Cp which estimated by the GIS [4, 5]. The Figures 2 and
3 represent the computed runoff hydrographs and the Tables 1 and 2 show the quantitative
analysis for the methods SCS and Snyder.

Figures 2 and 3 show that the computed hydrographs, for each rainfall event (1995 and 1996),
have similar shape for the SCS and Snyder method, but this shape is dissimilar from the
estimated hydrograph (red dots line). The peak runoff, the peak time and the total runoff volume
for the estimated and the computed hydrographs for each rainfall event are given in Tables 1 and
2.

3
 45
Qest [Qp=42, tp=24]
40
SCS, CN=59, TL=7 [Qp=44, tp=23]

35 SN, CN=59, TL=7 [Qp=42, tp=23]

Runoff (m /s)
3
SCS, CN=60, TL=8 [Qp=44, tp=25]
30
SN, CN=60, TL=8 [Qp=42, tp=25]

25

20

15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Relative time, t (hrs)

Figure 2. Estimated (measured) and computed hydrographs by using the SCS and Snyder
methods with parameter values (CN=59, tL=7hrs) and (CN=60, tL=8hrs) at Pyli station, for
the 03-11/05/95 event.
12
Qest [Qp=10, tp=39]
SCS, CN=59, TL=7 [Qp=11, tp=39]
10 SN, CN=59, TL=7 [Qp=10, tp=39]
SCS, CN=60, TL=8 [Qp=11, tp=39]
Runoff (m /s)

8 SN, CN=60, TL=8 [Qp=10, tp=39]

3

2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative time, t (hrs)

Figure 3. Estimated (measured) and computed hydrographs by using the SCS and Snyder
methods with parameter values (CN=59, tL=7hsr) and (CN=60, tL=8hrs) at Pyli station, for
the 12-13/09/1996 event.
TABLE 1. Peak runoff (Qp), peak time (tp) and total runoff volume (Vo) of the estimated
and the computed SCS and Snyder hydrographs, for the 03-11/05/95 event
Hydrograph Peak runoff, Qp Peak time, tp Total runoff volume,
(Figure 4) (m3/s) (hrs) Vo (m3)
Estimated 41.965 24 13,337,692.20
Computed
SCS (CN=59, tL = 7hr) 44.111 23 13,101,885.00
Snyder (CN=59, tL = 7hr) 42.251 23 13,050,531.00
SCS (CN=60, tL = 8hr) 43.516 25 13,177,611.00
Snyder (CN=60, tL = 8hr) 41.564 25 13,115,151.00

By the comparative analysis of the two methods (SCS and Snyder), concluded that the methods
are corresponding. However, the computed hydrographs by the SCS have more smooth peak
limp, but the computed hydrographs by Snyder simulate well the recession limp. Also, the
Snyder method, for the parameters CN=59, t L =7hr, Cp =0.638 and CN = 60, tL =8hr, Cp =0.617,
underestimate the peak runoff and the total runoff volume.

The underestimated peak runoff and the total volume of Snyder method can be calibrated rising
the CN’s values. The Snyder method though needs the peak time tp and the peak coefficient Cp
but, the peak coefficient is a parameter indefinite in real watershed. For all that reasons, in the

4
present application, the evaluation indicate the best Unit Hydrograph method of Soil
Conservation Service [13].

TABLE 2. Peak runoff (Qp), peak time (tp) and total runoff volume (Vo) of the estimated
and the computed SCS and Snyder hydrographs, for the 12-13/09/96 event
Hydrograph Peak runoff, Qp Peak time, tp Total runoff volume,
3
(Figure 5) (m /s) (hrs) Vo (m3)
Estimated 10.392 39 1,491,856.20
Computed
SCS (CN=59, tL = 7hr) 10.640 39 1,536,960.60
Snyder (CN=59, tL = 7hr) 10.029 39 1,525,973.40
SCS (CN=60, tL = 8hr) 11.085 39 1,582,129.80
Snyder (CN=60, tL = 8hr) 10.421 39 1,571,315.40

3.2 Comparison of U.H. SCS to U.H. Clark

The computation of runoff hydrographs concerns two rainfall – runoff events, 1995 and 1996.
The Clark method needs the time of concentration tc, the storage coefficient R and the Time –
Area curve. The storage coefficient R and the Time – Area curve are geomorphological data and
unique for each watershed [4, 5].
Using the preceding estimation, by equation 1 is calculated a range for the time of concentration
by the estimated lag time [13].

tL = 0,60 * tC  tC = 1,667 * tL (1)

Taking under consideration equation 1, for each lag time are chosen three integer values of time
concentration (because time interval of simulation is Δt = 1hr). Especially, for lag time tL = 7hrs
the time of concentration is tc = 11, 12 and 13hrs and for lag time tL = 8hrs the time of
concentration is tc =13, 14 and 15hrs respectively [12, 15] The computed runoff hydrographs by
using SCS method and Clark’s method are presented in Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7. The peak runoff,
the peak time and the total runoff volume for the estimated and the computed hydrographs for
each rainfall event are given in Tables 3 and 4.

45
Qest [Qp=42, tp=24]
40 SCS, CN=59, TL=7 [Qp=44, tp=23]
CL, CN=59, TC=13 [Qp=42, tp=25]
CL, CN=59, TC=12 [Qp=42, tp=25]
Runoff (m /s)

35
CL, CN=59, TC=11 [Qp=43, tp=24]
3

30

25

20

15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Relative time, t (hrs)

Figure 4. Estimated (measured) and computed hydrographs by using the SCS and Clark
methods with parameter values (SCS: CN=59, tL=7hrs) and (Clark: CN=59, tC=11, 12 &
13hrs) at Pyli station, for the 03-11/05/95 event.

The computed hydrographs of 1995 indicate that the Clark method simulates well the peak limp
(CN=60), without double peak but the recession limp is still abrupt, because of routing process

5
could not take place. The peak runoff, the peak time and the total runoff volume for the
estimated and the computed hydrographs for the simulation 1995 event are given in Table 3.

45
Qest [Qp=42, tp=24]
SCS, CN=60, TL=8 [Qp=44, tp=25]
40
CL, CN=60, TC=15 [Qp=43, tp=26]
CL, CN=60, TC=14 [Qp=44, tp=26]
35

Runoff (m /s)
CL, CN=60, TC=13 [Qp=44, tp=25]

3
30

25

20

15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Relative time, t(hrs)

Figure 5. Estimated (measured) and computed hydrographs by using the SCS and Clark
methods with parameter values (SCS: CN=60, tL=8hrs) and (Clark: CN=60, tC=13, 14 &
15hrs) at Pyli station, for the 03-11/05/95 event.

TABLE 3. Peak runoff (Qp), peak time (tp) and total runoff volume (Vo) of the estimated
and the computed SCS and Clark hydrographs, for the 03-11/05/95 event
Hydrograph Peak runoff, Qp Peak time, tp Total Runoff volume, Vo
(Figures 4&5) (m3/s) (hrs) (m3)
Estimated 41.965 24 13,337,692.20
Computed
SCS (CN=59, tL = 7hr) 44.111 23 13,101,885.00
Clark (CN=59, tC = 11hr) 43.040 24 13,102,821.00
Clark (CN=59, tC = 12hr) 42.196 25 13,104,858.60
Clark (CN=59, tC = 13hr) 41.802 25 13,106,305.80
SCS (CN=60, tL = 8hr) 43.516 25 13,177,611.00
Clark (CN=60, tC = 13hr) 44.060 25 13,239,318.60
Clark (CN=60, tC = 14hr) 43.715 26 13,239,318.60
Clark (CN=60, tC = 15hr) 43.354 26 13,140,741.60

The computed hydrographs of 1996 have the same shape for the two methods, but the Clark
method gives peaks runoff slightly less than the estimated hydrograph and the Clark method
simulates the hydrographs with greater peak lag.
12
11 Qest [Qp=10, tp=39]
SCS, CN=59, TL=7 [Qp=11, tp=39]
10 CL, CN=59, TC=13 [Qp=10, tp=41]
CL, CN=59, TC=12 [Qp=10, tp=40]
9 CL, CN=59, TC=11 [Qp=10, tp=39]
Runoff (m /s)

8
3

7
6
5
4
3
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative time, t (hrs)

Figure 6. Estimated (measured) and computed hydrographs by using the SCS and Clark
methods with parameter values (SCS: CN=59, tL=7hrs) and (Clark: CN=59, tC=11, 12 &
13hrs) at Pyli station, for the 12-13/09/96 event.

6
 12
Qest [Qp=10, tp=39]
11
SCS, CN=60, TL=8 [Qp=11, tp=39]
10 CL, CN=60, TC=15 [Qp=10, tp=42]
CL, CN=60, TC=14 [Qp=11, tp=41]
9
CL, CN=60, TC=13 [Qp=11, tp=41]

Runoff (m /s)
8

3
7
6
5
4
3
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative time, t (hrs)

Figure 7. Estimated (measured) and computed hydrographs by using the SCS and Clark
methods with parameter values (SCS: CN=60, tL=8hrs) and (Clark: CN=60, tC=13, 14 &
15hrs) at Pyli station, for the 12-13/09/96 event.

The peak runoff, peak time and the total runoff volume for the estimated and the computed
hydrographs for the 1996 event are given in Table 4.

TABLE 4. Peak runoff (Qp), peak time (tp) and total runoff volume (Vo) of the estimated
and the computed SCS and Clark hydrographs, for the 12-13/09/96 event
Hydrograph Peak runoff, Qp Peak time, tp Total runoff volume, Vo
3
(Figures 6&7) (m /s) (hrs) (m3)
Estimated 10.392 39 1,491,856.20
Computed
SCS (CN=59, tL = 7hr) 10.640 39 1,536,960.60
Clark (CN=59, tC = 11hr) 10.494 39 1,540,629.00
Clark (CN=59, tC = 12hr) 10.187 40 1,537,104.60
Clark (CN=59, tC = 13hr) 9.883 41 1,535,689.80
SCS (CN=60, tL = 8hr) 11.085 39 1,582,129.80
Clark (CN=60, tC = 13hr) 11.045 41 1,587,065.40
Clark (CN=60, tC = 14hr) 10.702 42 1,585,672.20
Clark (CN=60, tC = 15hr) 10.392 42 1,584,217.80

Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the Tables 3 and 4 show that the Clark method is a normal simulation
of the estimated hydrographs. However, this method has the storage coefficient R which defined
by the GIS. The results concluded the Clark method is reliable for the present application; suffice
it to define the concentration time [12].

4. CONCLUSIONS

The WMS software is a useful desktop for the hydrological simulation which can immediately
updates from the DTM and reference background to GIS database. The major capacities are
many because it is compatible with others GIS software, hydrological models and CAD software
to import or export correlative files. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph of Snyder though needs the
peak time tp and the peak coefficient Cp but, the peak coefficient is a parameter indefinite in real
watershed, so the Snyder’s method is unreliable for the Portaicos river watershed. The
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph of SCS is very useful and reliable because this method needs
only the CN and the lag time. Similarly, the Instant Unit Hydrograph of Clark method needs the
CN value, the concentration time and the storage coefficient R, which are representative for each
watershed, all the necessary data of Clark’s method are estimated and the runoff hydrographs are

7
 reliable. Summarizing the conclusions, it is noted that the SCS method, needs only the parameter
CN, which even if it is unknown, at first derives from the calibration process. Also, the
calculated runoff hydrograph, on the Portaicos river watershed, is best given with the SCS and
Clark methods. Therefore, the determination of the optimum U. H. method and unique values for
CN and travel times (lag and concentration time) was achieved, for which the modeling of the
phenomenon of the transformation of rainfall to runoff is proven optimum.
The structured hydrological model can be an important part of an extensive and integrated
master plan for the rational water resources management on Portaicos river watershed.

REFERENCES

1. Bedient P.B. and W.C. Huber (1992) ‘Hydrology and floodplain analysis’ (2nd ed.),
Addison-Wesley Publ., Co:pp. 692.
2. Gurnell A. M., D. R. Montgomery (1998) ‘Advances in Hydrological Process –
Hydrological Application of G.I.S’, Wiley Press.
3. Maidment D. and D. Djokic (2000) ‘Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Support with
G.I.S.’, ESRI Press.
4. WMS (1999a) ‘Watershed Modeling System v6.0: Reference Manual’, Environmental
Modeling Research Laboratory of Brigham Young University, Utah. U.S.
5. WMS (1999b) ‘Watershed Modeling System v6.0: Tutorials’, Environmental Modeling
Research Laboratory of Brigham Young University, Utah. U.S.
6. WMS (1999c) ‘Watershed Modeling System: Hydro v2.0’, Environmental Modeling
Research Laboratory of Brigham Young University, Utah. U.S.
7. HEC-1 (1990) ‘Flood Hydrograph Package HEC – 1: v 4.0’, User’s Manual. U.S.A.:
Hydrologic Engineering Center, United States Army Corps of Engineering: pp. 283
8. Dingman S.L. (1994) ‘Physical Hydrology’, Prentice Hall, New Jersey: pp. 575
9. Yannopoulos St., A. Katsi, D. Papamichail and Ch. Tzimopoulos (2005a) ‘Determination of
the Portaicos river watershed geomorphological features, using the WMS software’,
Proceedings of 5th National Conference of Hellenic Water Resources Management
Association, 2005 April 6-9. Xanthi, Greece: pp. 169-176 (in Greek with English abstract).
10. Gregory K. J. and D. E. Walling (1983) ‘Drainage Basin. Form and Process. A
Geomorphological Approach’, Norwich, U.K.: Fletcher and Son Ltd.
11. Wolfe M.L (1996) ‘Hydrologic data development. In Geographical Information Systems
in Hydrology’, Singh V. and Fiorentino M. (eds.), Water Science and Technology Library,
vol. 26. Kluwer Academic Publ.: pp. 43-63
12. Yannopoulos S., A. Katsi and D. Papamichail (2005b) ‘Rainfall – Runoff process simulation
using the Watershed Modeling System (WMS) software’, Proceedings of 6th International
Conference of European Water Resources Association, 2005 September 7-9. Menton,
France: pp. 111-122.
13. Katsi A. (2004) ‘Research the phenomenon of the transformation of rainfall to runoff
using the software Watershed Modeling System. Application on the Portaicos River’
Thessaloniki, Master thesis project, A.U.Th. Greece: pp. 287 (in Greek with extended
English summary).
14. Soil Conservation Service (1972) ‘National Engineering Handbook’, Section 4. U.S.
Department of Agricultural. Washington, D.C.
15. USACE (2000) ‘Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS’, Technical Reference Manual,
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA., U.S.A.: pp. 149

View publication stats