J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No.

3, April, 2013

34

INTRODUCTION
Application of models in hydrological studies has become an
indispensible tool for understanding of the natural processes
occurring at the watershed scale. Plenty of computer-based
hydrologic/water quality models have been developed and
available for applications in hydrologic modeling and water
resources studies. They are increasingly being utilized to
analyze the quantity and quality of stream flow, flood
forecasting, reservoir system operations, groundwater
development and protection, surface water and groundwater
conjunctive use management, water distribution system, water
use, climate and land use change impact study, ecology and a
range of water management activities (Wurbs 1998; Singh and
Woolhiser, 2002). In the recent years, with the dramatic
development of computational capabilities and algorithm
backed with newly available distributed databases like radar
rainfall, high resolution digital elevation models (DEMs),
remotely sensed satellite data and space technology, mighty
arsenal of available hydrological models has been reported in
the published literature. These models are varied from simple
empirical relationship for evaluation of flood events to simple
ones containing a certain degree of physicality, to stochastic
models of various kinds and finally to more recent numerically
complex physically based distributed models (Borah and Bera,
2003; Gosain et al., 2009). There is wide variability in their
characteristics and potential applications, for example, spatial
and temporal scale, processes modeled and the basis of
relationships and algorithm used. With this increasing number
of availability, wide ranging characteristics and potential
applications of the models, it is becoming challenging job for
the potential model users to choose a particular model best
suited for the given problem. In addition, modifications are
made to existing models and new models are available each
year. Therefore, updated, consistent and comprehensive
evaluations of hydrological models are a continuous need.
A model can be evaluated by comparing the model results or
capabilities to other models or some other expected/specific
response. In the past, many different attempts have been
initiated to evaluate the hydrological models amongst
themselves and with lumped models. Inter-comparison of
conceptual models (WMO, 1975), inter-comparison of snow
accumulation and melting models (WMO, 1986) and inter-
comparison of real-time updating approaches applied to
hydrological flood forecasting models (WMO, 1992) are some
examples. The distributed model inter-comparison project
(DMIP) (Reed et al., 2004) and DMIP Phase II (DMIP 2)
(http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/dmip/2/) by the US-National
Weather Service in order to assess the performance of
distributed hydrologic models are another important works in
the field of hydrologic model comparison and evaluation.
Besides institutional practices, for example, Borah and Bera
(2003) evaluated eleven commonly used watershed scale
hydrologic and non-point source pollution models based on
their mathematical bases and Migliaccio and Srivastava (2007)
compared hydrologic components of five watershed scale
hydrologic models. More recently, Gudmundsson et al. (2012)
evaluated nine large scale hydrological models based on their
ability to capture the runoff climatology i.e. mean annual water
balance and seasonality of runoff.
In the present study nine recently developed or regularly
updated hydrologic models namely: AnnAGNPS, GSSHA,
HYPE, Hec-HMS, MIKE-SHE, PRMS, SWAT, WetSpa, and
WinSRM have been selected for the inter-comparison
evaluation. Criteria used for the evaluation are: (I)
Hydrological processes that the model can simulate, (II)
Governing equations used to simulate the hydrologic
processes, (III) Minimum data required to run the model and
(IV) spatial and temporal scale of the model. These criteria are
four common, fundamental ones that must be always answered
before selecting any hydrologic models. The main objective of
this study is to consolidate latest information of the commonly
used and recently developed hydrologic models which may be
helpful for potential model users to choose the best model for
their applications.
MODEL DESCRIPTIONS
AnnAGNPS
Annualized Agricultural Non-point Source Model
(AnnAGNPS) (Bingner et al., 2011) is a watershed-scale,
continuous simulation model designed to predict the impact of
management on water, sediment, nutrients, and pesticides in
agricultural watersheds. AnnAGNPS is the next generation of
Journal of Indian Water Resources Society,
Vol 33, No. 3, April, 2013
COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF RECENTLY DEVELOPED
HYDROLOGIC MODELS
Bir Singh Dhami

and Ashish Pandey

ABSTRACT
Present study is focused on a comparative evaluation of some recently developed, regularly updated and well documented hydrologic models
namely: AnnAGNPS, GSSHA, HYPE, Hec-HMS, MIKE-SHE, PRMS, SWAT, WetSpa, and WinSRM. All these models are public domain
(freely available) except MIKE-SHE. AnnAGNPS, HYPE, SWAT and WinSRM are continuous simulation models while GSSHA, Hec-HMS,
MIKE-SHE, PRMS and WetSpa have both long-term and single event simulation capabilities. In this study, models are evaluated based on:
(I) Hydrological processes that the model can simulate, (II) Governing equations used to simulate the hydrologic processes, (III) Minimum
data required to run the model and (IV) spatial and temporal scale of the model. This study can be helpful in the selection of suitable model
as per the problem at hand and save lots of time required just to know whether the model is suitable or not.
Key words: Hydrologic modelling, Hydrologic processes, simulation, Evaluation, Scale of the model
Department of Water Resources Development and
Management, IIT, Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India
Manuscript No.: 1352
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

35

the AGNPS 5.0 single event model developed by USDA-ARS

and Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS).
AnnAGNPS incorporates several components of other models,
including the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE),
Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural
Management Systems (CREAMS) model, the Groundwater
Loading Effects on Agricultural Management Systems
(GLEAMS) model, the Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator
(EPIC) model, and the Trace Element Transport- Transient-
State Solute Transport (TETRANS) model (Das et al., 2008;
Bingner et al., 2011). The basic modeling components are
hydrology, sediment, nutrient, and pesticide transport.
AnnAGNPS model provides two options for spatial
representation; Grid or Cell spatial representation or
hydrologic response unit spatial representation characterized
by homogeneous land soil properties. AnnAGNPS has been
successfully used for hydrology, sediment and nutrient loading
predictions and evaluation of cost-effective alternative policy
scenarios over a wide range of environments in the United
States, Czechoslovakia, Nepal, Australia, Malaysia, India and
China (Hua et al., 2012). The latest version of AnnAGNPS
model (AnnAGNPS V5.2) and documentation can be found at
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5199.
GSSHA
The Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis
(GSSHA) (Downer and Ogden., 2004) model, developed by
USACE ERDC, is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic,
sediment and constituent fate and transport model. GSSHA is
developed from significant reformulation and enhancement of
the two-dimensional physically based Hortonian runoff model
CASC2D. Unlike CASC2D (Downer et al., 2002), GSSHA
model is capable of simulating stream flow generated from
diverse runoff production mechanisms both in non-Hortonian
and mixed watersheds. It can simulate stream flow generated
by infiltration-excess (Hortonian runoff) and saturation excess
mechanism, as well as exfiltration and groundwater discharge
to streams. The model employs mass-conserving solutions of
partial differential equations (PDEs) and closely links the
hydrologic components to assure an overall mass balance and
correct feedback. Spatial heterogeneity is considered by
dividing the watershed into cells comprising a uniform finite
difference grid and processes that occur before, during, and
after a rainfall event are calculated for each grid cell and then
the responses from individual grid cells are integrated to
produce the watershed response. GSSHA can be used as an
event based model or continuous simulation model. Various
features included in the GSSHA model are 2D overland flow,
1D stream flow, 1D infiltration, 2D groundwater, and full
coupling between the groundwater, vadoze zone, streams, and
overland flow. Because GSSHA is fully coupled surface water
and groundwater model, it can be used in both arid and humid
regions. The latest version of the GSSHA model version 6.0
(Jan 30, 2013) can be downloaded from
http://www.gsshawiki.com/gssha/GSSHA_Download
HYPE
Hydrological Predictions for the Environment (HYPE)
(Lindstrm et al., 2010) model is a hydrological model for
small-scale and large-scale assessments of water resources and
water quality, developed at the Swedish Meteorological and
Hydrological Institute during 20052007. It is a recently
developed process-based, semi-distributed, conceptual model
to simulate different multi-basin regions, encompassing wide
variations in geomorphology, soil types, land uses and
topography. HYPE integrates landscape elements and
hydrological compartments along the flow paths with nutrient
turnover and transport. Modeled river basins are divided into
sub-basins and each sub-basin is divided into classes according
to soil type, vegetation and altitude. The soil profile may be
further divided into three layers which may have different
thickness for each class. For each class, model simulates
snowmelt, surface runoff, surface erosion, macropore flow, tile
drainage, groundwater outflow from the individual soil layers,
nutrient turnover in soil, and transport/transformation in rivers
and lakes. Calculations are made on a daily time step in
coupled sub-basins. The model parameters are associated with
land use, soil type or be common for the whole catchment. Due
to coupling of parameter values to physiography, the model is
better suited for simulations in ungauged catchments
(Strmqvist et al., 2012). The model uses only a maximum of
ten input data files, independent of size and resolution of
domain (Lindstrm et al., 2010). The programming language is
Fortran 95 and all files are in free format (f90). Model can be
used without a user interface as all the input and output files
are ASCII files and input preparation and output visualization
can be carried out by the common software.
The S-HYPE (Strmqvist et al., 2012) model (S for Sweden)
was applied for the entire country of Sweden (450,000 km
2
) to
simulate daily water discharge and nutrient concentrations.
Similarly, E-HYPE (Donnelly et al., 2010) model (E for
Europe) was set up to calculate hydrological variables (runoff,
discharge, snow depth, groundwater level) and nutrient
variables (e.g. concentrations and loads) for over 35000
subbasins (median resolution=215 km
2
) across all of Europe.
BALT-HYPE (Donnelly et al., 2011) model was used to
simulate both hydrological and nutrient variables for the whole
Baltic Sea basin. LPB-HYPE model (Strmqvist et al., 2009)
was applied on the La Plata Basin (LPB) (Worlds 5
th
largest
river basin) in South America for simulating hydrological
variables. Presently (2012-2013), development of various new
HYPE type models is going on; for example Niger-HYPE
model for simulating hydrological variables of the Niger River
in Africa and Arctic-HYPE model for simulating hydrological
variables for the entire Arctic region. Similarly, development
of In-HYPE model for simulating hydrological variables for
the Indian region is also going on
(http://www.smhi.se/en/Research).
Hec-HMS
The Hydrologic Modelling System (Hec-HMS), developed by
US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center,
is designed for both continuous and event-based hydrologic
modelling. It provides several different options to the users for
modelling various components of hydrologic cycle. Initially it
was developed to simulate the precipitation-runoff processes of
dendritic watershed systems but later it was improved to solve
widest possible range of problems including large river basin
water supply, flood hydrographs, and small urban or natural
watershed runoff (USACE, 2010). For watershed modelling,
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

36

the Hec-HMS model contains four components: (I) Basin

model, (II) Meteorological model, (III) Control specification,
and (IV) Input data. All the watershed physical descriptions
are accomplished through the basin component which contains
elements of the basin, their connectivity, and runoff
parameters. Further, it includes loss, transform, and baseflow
calculations through different approaches to determine
catchment runoff. Meteorological model contains the rainfall,
evapotranspiration and snowmelt data. All the meteorological
data analysis, for example, precipitation required by a sub-
basin element is performed using this meteorological model
component. Control specification contains start/stop timing
and calculation intervals for the run. User can select a variety
of combinations of the three models in order to see the effects
of changing parameters on one sub-basin. The Hec-HMS
model is public domain software tool. The documentation and
the latest version of the software can be freely downloaded
from www.hec.usace.army.mil.
MIKE-SHE
MIKE SHE (DHI, 2007) is a comprehensive deterministic,
distributed, and physically based modelling system capable of
simulating all major processes in the land phase of the
hydrologic cycle. It includes a full suite of pre- and post-
processing tools, plus a flexible mix of advanced and simple
solution techniques for each of the hydrologic processes.
MIKE SHE includes the precipitation, interception, inltration,
evapotranspiration, subsurface ow in unsaturated and
saturated zones, surface ow, and ow in channels or ditches
(Refsgaard, 1997). Each of these processes can be represented
at different levels of spatial distribution and complexity,
according to the goals of the modelling study, availability of
field data and the modellers choices (Butts et al. 2004). MIKE
SHE is being widely used in many countries around the world.
Successful applications of MIKE SHE are found in the eld of
water supply design, management and planning, irrigation and
drought management, soil and water management, conjunctive
use of groundwater and surface water, groundwater
management, ecological evaluations, environmental impact
assessments, impact of land use and climate change, floodplain
studies etc. (DHI, 2007). MIKE SHE model is commercial
software developed by a European consortium of three
organizations: the U.K. Institute of Hydrology, the French
consulting firm SOGREAH, and the Danish Hydraulic
Institute.
PRMS
The Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) is a
modular designed, physically-based, distributed- parameter
watershed model developed to evaluate the effects of various
combinations of precipitation, climate and land use on
streamflow, sediment yields, and general basin hydrology
(Markstrom et al., 2008). PRMS simulates snowpack
formation and melt, and is well suited for simulating
streamflow and its hydrologic components from snowmelt-
dominated basins. Each component of the hydrologic cycle is
expressed in the form of known physical laws or empirical
relationships that have some physical interpretation based on
measurable watershed characteristics. PRMS can function
either as a lumped or distributed parameter type model and
simulates both mean daily flows and storm flow hydrograph.
Watershed is partitioned into different hydrologic response
units (HRUs) based on the unique combinations of slope,
aspect, vegetation, type of soil and precipitation distribution.
Due to its modular structure, PRMS model is suitable for both
research and management applications. It operates in a
Windows personal computer environment and is publicly
available and can be downloaded from the US Geological
Survey (www.brr.cr.usgs.gov/prms). The latest version
available is version 3.0.4 (January 15, 2013).
SWAT
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (Arnold
et al., 1998; Arnold and Fohrer, 2005) is a physically-based
continuous-time, conceptual, long-term, distributed watershed-
scale hydrologic model developed by USDAs Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), designed to predict the impact of
land management practices on the hydrology, sediment and
contaminant transport in large, complex catchment. It has
capabilities of simulating surface runoff, percolation, return
flow, erosion, nutrient loading, pesticide fate and transport,
irrigation, groundwater flow, channel transmission losses,
pond and reservoir storage, channel routing, field drainage,
plant water use and other supporting processes from small,
medium and large watersheds. It can be applied to a large un-
gauged rural watershed with more than 100 numbers of sub-
watersheds (Kusre et al., 2010). For this reason, SWAT is
increasingly being used to support decisions about alternative
water management policies in the areas of land use change,
climate change, water re-arrangement, and pollution control.
There are numerous applications of SWAT model all over the
world. All the details about SWAT model can be found at
http://swat.tamu.edu.
WetSpa
WetSpa (Water and Energy Transfer between Soil, Plants and
Atmosphere) model (Wang et al., 1997) is a grid-based
distributed hydrological model for predicting the water and
energy transfer between soil, plants and atmosphere on
regional or basin scale and daily time step. It was developed in
Vrije Universiteit Brussels (VUB) and adapted for flood
prediction on an hourly time scale by De Smedt et al. (2000)
and Liu et al. (2002). The whole basin is conceptualized as a
hydrological system being composed of atmosphere, canopy,
root zone, transmission zone and saturation zone. The basin is
discretized into a number of grid cells and each cell is further
divided into a bare soil and vegetated part, for which the water
and energy balance are maintained (Liu and De Smedt, 2009).
The model combines topography, landuse and soil maps, and
observed daily meteorological time series to predict discharge
hydrographs and spatial distribution of hydrological
parameters in the catchment (Rwetabula et al., 2007). The
model simulates hydrological processes of precipitation,
snowmelt, interception, depression, surface runoff, infiltration,
evapotranspiration, percolation, interflow, groundwater flow,
etc. continuously both in time and space. With various major
changes incorporated in original WetSpa model (for example;
variable time scale, flood routing, snow melt runoff modeling
component, shallow subsurface lateral flow etc.), ArcView
GIS based WetSpa extension has been developed and currently
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

37

ArcGIS 10 module of the model has also been developed

(Jaroslaw and Batelaan, 2011). All the details about WetSpa
model can be found at http://www.vub.ac.be/WetSpa/.
WinSRM
WinSRM is the windows version of the Snow melt Runoff
Model (SRM) which is a degree-day (i.e. snow melting per 1
o
C
increase in daily air temperature) based deterministic
conceptual model developed to simulate and forecast daily
stream flow in mountainous basins where snow melt is a major
runoff component and has also been applied to evaluate the
effect of changed climate on seasonal snow cover and runoff
(Martinec et al., 2008). SRM uses snow cover information and
meteorological data (daily precipitation and daily average
temperature) as input variables and elevation bands for spatial
discretisation. The SRM is considered to be the most
successful model for simulating snowmelt runoff (Wang and
Li, 2006). The model has been successfully applied on more
than 100 Himalayan basins situated in 29 different countries
(Martinec et al., 2008). Simple model structure, accuracy,
readily available input parameters and high computational
efficiency are the major reasons for its wide applicability.
Initially it was developed for small European basins (Martinec,
1975) but with the development of remote sensing technology,
it is now possible to apply this model for any size of the
basins. So far, it has been applied on areas having size from
0.76 to 917,444 km
2
(Martinec et al., 2008). Seidel et al. (2000)
applied SRM to simulate runoff in the Ganges (917,444 km
2
)
and the Brahmaputra (547,346 km
2
) basin. The latest version
of the model WinSRM v1.12 can be downloaded from
http://www.ars.usda.gov.
EVALUATION OF MODELS
Hydrological processes modeled
Hydrological processes simulated by a model is the first
question to answer whether model has capability to produce
the required output or not. Various hydrological processes
addressed by a model may include precipitation, interception,
evapotransiration, infiltration, surface/sub-surface water flow
and channel transport and fate, snow accumulation and melt,
runoff/erosion, nutrients and pesticides. All the models
included in this review are distributed parameter and
physically-based. Except WinSRM and Hec-HMS, all other
models can simulate all or most of the components of land
phase of hydrological cycle. SWAT and MIKE SHE can
simulate all the water balance components of the watershed.
WinSRM simulates only average daily discharge at the basin
outlet and Hec-HMS does not simulate the groundwater flow.
AnnAGNPS also has no capability of simulating groundwater
and snowmelt runoff. Details about the hydrological processes
that can be simulated by the selected hydrologic models are
presented in Table 1.


Table 1: Hydrological processes modeled
Model Hydrological processes simulated
AnnAGNPS Hydrology, weather, sediment, nutrients, pesticides, plant growth, and land management
GSSHA
Temporal and spatially variable precipitation distribution, 2D diffusive wave overland flow, 1D
diffusive wave stream flow, snowfall accumulation and melting, precipitation interception, overland
water retention, infiltration (3 methods), evapotranspiration (2 methods), soil moisture in the vadose
zone (2 methods), lateral groundwater flow, stream/groundwater interaction, exfiltration, roadway
embankments and dikes, culverts (3 types), weirs (2 types), small lakes and detention basins (Dynamic
Boundary), rating curve, rule curves, and scheduled discharges, wetland hydraulics, sediment erosion
and deposition.
Hec-HMS
Precipitation (6 options), Runoff Volume (loss modelling) (7 options), Direct runoff (overland flow and
interflow) (6 options), Baseflow (4 options), Flow routing (7 options), Infiltration, Evapotranspiration,
Snow accumulation and melt runoff
HYPE
surface runoff, snowmelt, surface erosion, macropore flow, tile drainage, groundwater outflow, &
nutrient transport
MIKE-SHE
Interception, ET, overland and channel flow, unsaturated zone, saturated zone, snowmelt, exchange
between aquifer and rivers, advection and dispersion of solutes, geochemical processes, crop growth
and nitrogen processes in the root zone, soil erosion, dual porosity, irrigation, and user interface with
pre- and post-processing, GIS, and UNIRAS for graphical presentation
PRMS
General basin hydrology, stream flow, sediment yield, snowmelt, flow regimes, flood peaks and
volumes, soil water relationships, groundwater recharge
SWAT
runoff, weather, sediment yield, snowmelt, soil temperature, crop growth, nutrients, pesticides,
agricultural management, channel and reservoir routing, water transfer
WetSpa
precipitation, surface runoff, snowmelt, interception, depression, infiltration, evapotranspiration,
percolation, interflow and groundwater flow
WinSRM Average daily discharge and Snow melt runoff
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

38

Governing equations used

Flow governing equations are basic to all the hydrologic
models. Performance and applicability of a model depends
largely on these basic equations. In physically-based models,
mass transfer, momentum, and energy are simulated using
partial differential equations such as the St. Venant equations
Table 2: Governing equations used in the selected hydrological models
Model Processes modeled (Governing equation used)
AnnAGNPS
Surface runoff (SCS-Curve Number and extended TR55 method), Evapotranspiration (Penman
equation), lateral sub-surface flow (Darcys law), sub-surface drainage ( Hooghoudts equation) Sheet
and reel erosion (RUSLE technology), Gully erosion (Function of surface runoff volume), Stream and
Bank erosion (Transport capacity), Sediment transport (Einstein deposition equation with Bagnold
transport capacity), Snowmelt (Thermodynamic balance of snowpack with surrounding environment)
GSSHA
Precipitation (Theissen polygon, inverse distance square weighted method), Snow accumulation and
melting (Energy balance method), Interception (Two parameter method), Retention (Specified depth
method), Infiltration (G&A, multilayered G&A, GAR and RE), Overland channel routing (2-D diffusive
wave equations: Explicit, ADE and ADEPC), Channel routing (1-D up-gradient explicit diffusive wave
equation), Evapotranspiration (Deardorff, Penman-Monteith with seasonal canopy resistance), Soil
moisture in Vadose zone (Buckt and RE equations), Lateral groundwater flow (2-D vertically averaged
method) and Darcys law for Stream/groundwater interaction & Exfiltration
Hec-HMS
Precipitation (Gridded precipitation or Inverse distance squared weighting), Direct runoff (7 options :
Clarks UH, Kinematic wave, Modclark, SCS UH, Snyders UH, User specified S-graph, and User
specified UH), Base flow (5 options: Bounded recession, constant monthly, Linear reservoir, and Non-
linear Boussinesq recession), snow accumulation and melt (temperature index method),
Evapotranspiration (3 options: Monthly average, New Priestly Tailor & Gridded Priestly-Tailor), loss
rate ( 7 options: Deficit & Constant rate (DC), Initial & Constant rate, Exponential, G&A SCS-CN,
Smith Parlange, and Soil moisture accunting), Canopy interception ( Simple canopy or Gridded simply
canopy), Flow routing (6 options: Kinematic wave, lag, Modified Puls, Muskingum, Muskingum-Cung,
Straddle stagger method)
HYPE
Simple conceptual and empirical equations based on the various model parameters coupled with either
soil type or land use
MIKE-SHE
Runoff on overland (2-D diffusive wave equations), Runoff in channels (1-D diffusive wave equations
solved by implicit fine-difference method) Interception, ET loss and vertical flow (Richards equations),
Sub-surface flow (3-D groundwater flow equations solved using numerical finite-difference method and
simulated river ground water exchange), and numerically solved advection-dispersion equation are used
for chemical simulations.
PRMS
Runoff (Contributing-area concept), Runoff on overland and channel for storm mode (Kinematic wave
equation using finite difference approximation), Evapotranspiration (Pan adjusted coefficient method,
Hamon (1961) method and Jensen and Haise (1963) method), snowmelt (Energy balance method),
Interception and infiltration ( Empirically based areal distribution of point infiltration (G & A (1911)
equations), Groundwater (Conceptual linear reservoir system approach), Channel routing (Reservoir
routing method), Reservoir routing (Linear storage routing or Modified-Plus routing), Overland
sediment (Conservation mass equation, Hjelmfelt et al., 1975)
SWAT
Runoff volume (Modified SCS-Curve Number or G&A infiltration method), Peak runoff rate (Modified
rational formula or the SCS TR-55 method, Lateral sub-surface flow & percolation (Kinematic storage
routine (Sloan et al., 1983), Potential evapotranspiration ((I) Hargreaves (II) Priestley-Taylor and (III)
Penman-Monteith equations), Snow melt (degree-day based method), Sediment yield (Modified
Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE)), Water routing (Variable storage coefficient method or
Muskingum routing method & Mannings equation to define flow)
WetSpa
Precipitation (Thiessen polygon), Runoff and infiltration (Empirical-based modified coefficient
method), Interflow (Darcys law & Kinematic approximation), groundwater flow (Simple linear
reservoir method and non-linear reservoir method), snowmelt (degree-day coefficient method),
Depression storage ( Empirical equation (Linsley, 1982), Percolation (Darcys law), flow routing; both
overland and channel component ( linear diffusive wave approximation (Miller and Cunge, 1975),
WinSRM Coefficient of runoff and degree-day based method
Note: G&A = Green and Ampt (1911); GAR= Green and Ampt with Redistribution (Ogden and Saghafian 1997); RE=
Richards equation (1931); ADE= Alternating direction explicit; ADEPC= alternating direction explicit with prediction
correction, UH = Unit hydrograph.
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

39

for surface flow, Richards equation for unsaturated zone flow,

Penman-Monteith equation for evapotranspiration and
Boussinesq equation for groundwater flow which are solved by
various numerical methods. St. Venant equations or dynamic
wave equations which consist equations of continuity and
momentum for gradually varied unsteady flow, require
computationally intensive numerical solutions and hence have
not commonly been used in the watershed modelling.
Diffusive wave equations and kinematic wave approximations
are found in many surface runoff routing models. In diffusion
wave equation, continuity equation and momentum equation
ignoring dynamic terms (local and convective accelerations)
are used while in kinematic wave equation, momentum
equation is approximated by ignoring all the acceleration and
pressure gradient terms of the dynamic momentum equation
(i.e. energy gradient is equal to bed slope). Diffusive wave
equations require numerical approximation techniques like
finite difference, finite element or finite volume approximation
for their solution while kinematic wave equations have their
analytical solutions. GSSHA and MIKE SHE use diffusive
wave equations and finite difference approximation for their
solutions. PRMS, Hec-HMS and WetSpa use kinematic wave
approximation. AnnAGNPS and SWAT model use USDA Soil
Conservation Service runoff curve number method to compute
runoff volumes and other empirical relations similar to the
Rational formula to compute peak flows. HYPE and WinSRM
model use simple conceptual and empirical equations based on
various model parameters coupled with the soil type or land
use. Physically-based GSSHA and MIKE SHE use multi-
dimensional flow-governing equations which are
computationally intensive and subject to numerical instability
in case of large watersheds (Borah and Bera, 2003) while other
models like SWAT, AnnAGNPS, which do not use numerical
approximation based equations, are computationally efficient.
Various other governing equations used to represent different
hydrological processes by selected hydrologic models are
presented in Table 2.
Input Data Requirement
Input data required to run a model is another important criteria
for the selection and application of any hydrologic model.
Lack of required data to run the model is a major constraint felt
(especially in developing world) for successful application of
any model. Various data requirements (minimum) for the
application of selected models are presented in Table 3.
AnnAGNPS and SWAT model require extensive data but can
be managed with readily available data sets from various
public sources. They have their own weather generator model
also. MIKE SHE has extensive input data requirement. HYPE
and WinSRM require least input data which may be readily
available or can be measured. Thanks to the digital revolution
and space technology, most of the data required by the
hydrologic models can now be found in various public domain
internet sources.
Spatial and Temporal Scale
A watershed can range from as little as one hectare to hundreds
of thousands of square kilometers. Spatial scale is an important
Table 3: Input data requirement
Model Minimum input data required to run the model
AnnAGNPS
DEM, landuse/land cover, soils, Daily precipitation, max. and min. air temperature, relative humidity,
sky cover, crop rotation, crop management schedule including tillage and fertilizer applications, reach
geometry and point source inputs of sediment and nutrients
GSSHA
DEM, land use, soil type, vegetation, precipitation, Meteorological variables and surface energy
balance parameters
Hec-HMS DEM, Soil information, topographic data, land use, daily precipitation, and daily observed runoff data
HYPE
DEM, land use, soil type, daily precipitation, daily air temperature, Lake information (Depths,
regulation rules, rating curve), Water quality (initial nutrient pools in soil), Agriculture practices
(Manure and inorganic fertilizer application, crop husbandry, timing and amount of fertilization, sowing
and harvesting) and other nutrient loads ( Rural households, industries, waste water treatment plants,
atmospheric deposition)
MIKE-SHE
Extensive input data requirement; eg. Basin discretized into horizontal grid, vertical discretisation in the
saturated and unsaturated zone, land surface elevation, soil profiles, vegetation cover, topography of
overland flow planes, channel cross sections, riverbed lining thickness and permeability, location of
abstraction or recharge wells, time varying discharge, withdrawls, flows, gradients and heads at
saturated zone boundaries, pumping and recharge rates, meteorological and precipitation data, water
quality data and many more
PRMS
Basin discretized into land areas, topography (elevation, latitude, aspect and slope), vegetation, routing
coefficients for storage reservoirs or function tables, precipitation (daily or more frequent for storm
mode) daily min., max. air temperature, daily solar radiation, daily Pan evaporation (optional)
SWAT
DEM, landuse/land cover, soils, daily precipitation, max. and min. temperature, solar radiation, relative
humidity, wind speed, daily discharge, sediment, nutrient delivery, fertilizer and pesticides application
data, point source of pollution and management practices
WetSpa
DEM, land use, soil type, topographic data, precipitation & stream flow (interval same as the model
running step, minutely, hourly, daily), daily evapotranspiration, and daily average temperature (optional,
required only for snow melt simulation)
WinSRM Daily precipitation, max. and min. temperature and daily snow covered area
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

40

criterion in the selection of a model because it plays a

significant role in how specific processes are treated in a
model. Storage characteristics may vary at different watershed
scales, for example; runoff in large watersheds (> 1000 km
2
) is
dominated by channel storage, have well developed networks
and channel phase, and are less sensitive to short duration,
high intensity rainfall while for small watersheds (<100 km
2
),
it is dominated by the land phase and overland flow, have
relatively less prominent to channel phase, and highly sensitive
to high intensity short duration rainfall. Based on how a model
treats the spatial component of watershed, it can be either
lumped parameter model where entire watershed is treated as
one unit and take no account of spatial heterogeneity or
distributed parameter model where spatial variability is taken
into account.
Temporal scale of the model is important because hydrological
processes may occur at different time scales. It is important to
consider models that operate from event to daily or yearly time
scales. Event based models simulate storm events of relatively
short duration while continuous time hydrologic model can
simulate hydrological processes for longer time or seasonal
framework. Temporal scale also affects data requirements of
the model, for example; it is difficult to get the data at the time
resolution of hours.
Spatial and temporal time scales of the selected models are
summarized in the Table 4. All the models have continuous
time-scale and distributed parameter. GSSHA, Hec-HMS,
MIKE SHE, PRMS and WetSpa can simulate both event or
continuous time based hydrological processes while
AnnAGNPS, HYPE, SWAT and WinSRM are continuous time
scale models. Except AnnAGNPS and WetSpa, all the models
have flexible spatial scale applicable to any size of the
watershed. AnnAGNPS is applicable up to watershed of size
3000 km
2
and WetSpa is applicable for the watershed size
ranging from 100 10,000 km
2
. HYPE model is suitable for
continental or multi-basin simulations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Nine commonly used, well documented and continuously
updated watershed scale hydrologic models were reviewed:
AnnAGNPS, GSSHA, HYPE, Hec-HMS, MIKE-SHE, PRMS,
SWAT, WetSpa, and WinSRM. HYPE and WetSpa models are
under development and remaining models are continuously
upgrading or updated. All the models are distributed
parameter, continuous time scale models but GSSHA, Hec-
HMS, MIKE-SHE, PRMS and WetSpa model can simulate
storm events also. AnnAGNPS is similar to SWAT model but
has limited spatial scale. For both the models, input data
requirement can be managed from freely available public
sources. Both models have their own weather generator model.
The worldwide application of SWAT reveals that it is a
promising model for continuous simulation and to integrate
multiple environmental processes. MIKE SHE and GSSHA
require extensive input data, are computationally intensive and
may suffer from numerical instability problem for large
watersheds. Hec-HMS is promising model for providing
multiple options to simulate hydrologic processes. WinSRM is
robust, computationally efficient and accurate model for
simulating snow dominated watersheds. For continental or
multi-basin simulation, HYPE is better option. Modular
design, fully distributed and physically-based WetSpa model is
available to simulate several hydrological processes with
minimum data requirement. PRMS can be applied either as a
lumped or distributed parameter type model. It is suitable for
coupling with other models but it may subject to computational
instability problem due to its governing equations requiring
numerical approximation for their solutions.
This study may be helpful to potential model users (especially
novice one) to select their model based on the given problem.
REFERENCES
1. Arnold J.G., Srinivasan R., Muttiah R.S., Williams J.R.,
1998. Large Area Hydrological Modeling and
Assessment Part I: Model Development. Journal of the
American Water Resources Assosication, Vol. 34, No. 1.
2. Arnold, J.G., and Fohrer, N., 2005. SWAT2000:
Current capabilities and research opportunities in
applied watershed modeling. Hydrological Processes
19, 563-572.
3. Bingner, R.L., Theurer, F.D., and Yuan, Y., 2011.
AnnAGNPS Technical Processes: Documentation
Version 5.2.
Table 4: Spatial and temporal scale of the selected hydrologic models
Model Spatial Scale Time Scale Computational time step
AnnAGNPS
Watershed scale
( up to 3000 km
2
)
Continuous daily
GSSHA Flexible Event and Continuous
Second (Should be integer
divisible into 60 sec or an integer
multiple of 60 sec.)
Hec-HMS Flexible Event & Continuous Minutely, Hourly, Daily
HYPE Multi-basin, Continental Continuous Daily
MIKE SHE Flexible Event & continuous Flexible
PRMS Watershed Event and Continuous Minutely, Daily
SWAT Flexible Continuous Daily
WetSpa
Watershed
( 100 10,000 km
2
)
Event and continuous Hourly, Daily, Monthly, Yearly
WinSRM Flexible; any size Continuous Daily
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

41

4. Borah, D. K., and M. Bera. 2003. Watershed-scale

hydrologic and nonpoint-source pollution models:
Review of Mathematical bases. Trans. ASAE 46(6):
1553-1566.
5. Butts, M.B., Payne, J.T., Kristensen, M. and Madsen,
H., 2004. An evaluation of the impact of model
structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for
streamflow simulation. Journal of Hydrology, 298, pp
242266
6. Das, S., Rudra, R.P., Gharabaghi, Gebremeskel, S.,
Goel, P.K., and Dickenson, W.T., 2008. Applicability
of AnnAGNPS for Ontario Conditions. Canadian
Biosystems Engineering, Vol. 50, pp, 1-11.
7. De Smedt, F., Liu, Y.B., and Gebremeskel, S., 2000.
Hydrologic modeling on a catchment scale using GIS
and remote sensed land use information, [In:] Risk
Analysis II, Ed. C.A. Brebbia, WTI press, Southampton,
Boston, 295304.
8. DHI, 2007. MIKE SHE User Manual Voume 1: User
Guide. Danish Hydraulic Institute, Denmark.
9. Downer, C. W., Ogden, F. L., Martin, W., and Harmon,
H. S. 2002. Theory, development, and applicability of
the surface water hydrologic model CASC2D.
Hydrological Processes, 16, 255275.
10. Downer, C.W. and Ogden, F.L. 2004. GSSHA: Model
to simulate diverse flow producing processes. J.
Hydrol. Eng..9, 161-174.
11. Donnelly, C., Dahne, J., Strmqvist and Arheimer, B.
2010. Modelling Tools: From Sweden to Pan-
European Scales for European WFD Data
Requirements. Proceedings BALWOIS conference on
Water Informaion and Observation Systems,
Macedonia.
12. Donnelly, C., Strmqvist, J. and Arheimer, B. 2011.
Modelling climate change effects on nutrient
discharges from the Baltic Sea catchment: processes
and results. IAHS Publ. 348:1-6.
13. Gosain A.K., Mani A., Dwivedi, C., 2009.
Hydrological Modeling-Literature Reiew.
Climawater, Report No. 1
14. Green, W.H., and Ampt., C.A., 1911. Studies on soil
physics, I. Flow of water and air through soils. J.
Agric. Sciences 4: 1-24.
15. Gudmundsson, L., Wagener, T., Tallaksen, L.M. and
Engelands, K. 2012. Evaluation of nine large-scale
hydrological models with respect to the seasonal runoff
climatology in Europe. Water Resources Research,
Vol. 48, W11504.
16. Hamon, W. R., 1961. Estimating potential
evapotranspiration: Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Hydraulic
Division, v. 87, no. HY3, p. 107-120.
17. Hjelmfelt, A. T., Piest, R. P., and Saxton, K. E., 1975,
Mathematical modeling of erosion on upland areas:
Congress of the 16th International Association for
Hydraulic Research, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1975,
Proceedings, v. 2,p. 40-47.
18. Hua, L., He, X., Yuan, Y. and Nan, H., 2012.
Assessment of Runoff and Sediment Yields Using the
AnnAGNPS Model in a Three-Gorge Watershed of
China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 9, 1887-
1907.
19. Jaroslaw, C. and Batelaan, O., 2011. Application of
the WetSpa distributed hydrological model for
catchment with significant contribution of organic soil.
Upper Biebrza case study. Annals of Warsaw University
of Life Sciences SGGW, Land Reclamation No 43 (1),
2535.
20. Jensen, M. E., and Haise, H. R., 1963. Estimating
evapotranspiration from solar radiation: Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage, v. 89, no. IR4, p. 15-41.
21. Kusre, B.C., Baruah D.C., Bordoloai P.K., Para S.C.,
2010. Assessment of hydropower potential using GIS
and hydrological modeling technique in Kopili River
basin in Assam (India). Applied Energy 87: 298-309.
22. Lindstrom, G., Pers, C., Rosberg, J., Stromqvist, J., and
Arheimer, B. 2010. Development and testing of the
HYPE (Hydrological Prediction for the Environment)
water quality model for different spatial scales.
Hydrology Research 41.3-4: 295-319.
23. Linsley, R.K., Kohler, J., Max A. & Paulhus, J.L.H.,
Hydrology for Engineers, 237, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1982
24. Liu, Y.B., Gebremeskel, S., De Smedt, F., and Pfister, L.,
2002. Flood prediction with the WetSpa model on a
catchment scale, (ed. by: Wu, B.S., Wang Z.Y., Wang
G.Q., Huang G.H., Fang H.W., Huang J.C.), Flood
Defence, Science Press, New York.
25. Liu, Y.B. and De Smedt, F. 2009. Wetspa Extension, A
GIS-based hydrologic model for flood prediction and
watershed management. Department of Hydrology and
Hydraulic Engineering. Vrije Universiteit Brussels.
26. Markstrom, S.L., Niswonger, R.G., Regan, R.S., Prudic,
D.E., and Barlow, P.M., 2008. GSFLOWCoupled
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): U.S. Geological Survey
Techniques and Methods, 6-D1, 240 p.
27. Martinec, J. 1975. Snowmelt-runoff Model for Stream
flow forecast. Nordic Hydrol. 6(3), 145-154.
28. Martinec, J., Rango, A., and Roberts, R. 2008. SRM
Snowmelt Runoff Model, Userss Manual. New Mexico
State University, Las Cruces, NM.
J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No. 3, April, 2013

42

29. Migliaccio, K.W., and Srivastava, P., 2007.

Hydrologic components of watershed-scale models.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers, Vol 50(5): 1695-1703.
30. Miller, W.A. & Cunge, J.A., 1975. Simplified equations
of unsteady flow, eds., K. Mahmood & V. Yevjevich,
Unsteady flow in open channels, Water Resources
Publications, Fort 124 Collins, CO.
31. Ogden, FL, Saghafian, B. 1997. Green and
Ampt Infiltration With Redistribution. Journal of.
Irrigation and Drainage, 123 (5): 386-393
32. Refsgaard, J.C., 1997. Parameterization, calibration
and validation of distributed hydrological models.
Journal of Hydrology, 198, 6997.
33. Reed, S., Seo, D.J., Koren, V.I., Smith, M.B., Zhang, Z.,
Duan, Q.Y, Moreda, F.and Cong, S. 2004. The
distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP):
motivation and experiment design. Journal of
Hydrology.
34. Richards, L. A. (1931). Capillary conduction of liquids
through porous mediums. J. Appl. Physics, 1(5), 318
333
35. Rwetabula, J., De Smedt, F., Rebhun M., 2007.
Prediction of runoff and discharge in the Simiyu River
(tributary of Lake Victoria, Tanzania) using the WetSpa
model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 4, 881908.
36. Seidel K, Martinec J, and Baumgartner Mf. 2000.
Modelling runoff and impact of climate change in
large Himalayan basins. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Integrated Water
Resources Management for Sustainable Development,
New Delhi, India, 10201028.
37. Singh V.P., Woolhiser, David A., 2002. Mathmatical
Modeling of Watershed Hydrology. Journal of
Hydrological Engineering, 270-292.
38. Sloan, P.G., Moore, I.D., Coltharp, G.B., and Eigel,
J.D., 1983. Modelling surface and subsurface
stormflow on steeply sloping forested watersheds.
Water Resources Institute Report No. 142. Lexington,
Kentucky: University of Kentucky.









39. Strmqvist, J., Dahne, J., Donnelly, C., Lindstrom, G.,
Rosberg, J., Pers, C., Yang, W. and Arheimer, B. 2009.
Using recently developed global data sets for
hydrological predictions. New Approaches to
Hydrological Prediction in Data-sparse Regions (Proc.
of Symposium HS.2 at the Joint IAHS & IAH
Convention, Hyderabad, India, September 2009).
IAHS Publ. 333.
40. Strmqvist, J., Arheimer, B., Dahn, J., Donnelly, C.,
and Lindstrm, G., 2012. Water and nutrient
predictions in ungauged basins: set-up and evaluation
of a model at the national scale. Hydrological
Sciences Journal, 57:2, 229-247
41. USACE-HEC, 2010. Hydrologic Modeling System,
HEC-HMS v3.5. Users Manual, US Army Corps of
Engineers", Hydrologic Engineering Center, August
42. Wang, Z.W., Batelaan, O., and Smedt, F.D., 1997. A
distributed model for water and energy transfer between
soil, plants and atmosphere (WetSpa). Phys. Chem.
Earth, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 189-193.
43. Wang, J., and Li, S. 2006. Effect of climate change on
snowmelt runoffs in mountainous regions of inland
rivers in Northwestern China. Science in China-Series
D: Earth Sciences, 49, 881-888.
44. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 1975.
Intercomparison of conceptual models used in
operational hydrological forecasting. Operational
Hydrology Report No. 7, Geneva, Switzerland, 172 pp.
45. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 1986.
Intercomparison of models of snowmelt runofff.
Operational Hydrology Report No. 23. WMO Publ. No.
646, Geneva, Switzeerland.
46. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 1992.
Simulated realtime Intercomparison of hydrological
models. Operational Hydrology Report No. 38,
Geneva, Switzerland.
47. Wurbs, R.A. 1998. Dissemination of generalized water
resources models in the United States. Water
International, 23. 190-198.