HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)

Published online 18 May 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6318

Runoff estimation for an ungauged catchment using

geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH)
models
Rakesh Kumar,1 C. Chatterjee,2 * R. D. Singh,1 A. K. Lohani1 and Sanjay Kumar1
1 National Institute of Hydrology, Jalvigyan Bhavan, Roorkee-247667, Uttaranchal, India
2 Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur-721302, West Bengal, India

Abstract:
A geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH) is derived from the geomorphological characteristics of a catchment
and it is related to the parameters of the Clark instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH) model as well as the Nash IUH model
for deriving its complete shape. The developed GIUH based Clark and Nash models are applied for simulation of the direct
surface run-off (DSRO) hydrographs for ten rainfall-runoff events of the Ajay catchment up to the Sarath gauging site of
eastern India. The geomorphological characteristics of the Ajay catchment are evaluated using the GIS package, Integrated
Land and Water Information System (ILWIS). The performances of the GIUH based Clark and Nash models in simulating
the DSRO hydrographs are compared with the Clark IUH model option of HEC-1 package and the Nash IUH model, using
some commonly used objective functions. The DSRO hydrographs are computed with reasonable accuracy by the GIUH
based Clark and Nash models, which simulate the DSRO hydrographs of the catchment considering it to be ungauged. Inter
comparison of the performances of the GIUH based Clark and Nash models shows that the DSRO hydrographs are estimated
with comparable accuracy by both the models. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS runoff estimation; geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph; geographic information system; ungauged
catchment
Received 28 July 2003; Accepted 24 February 2006

INTRODUCTION land-use and climate patterns, the model parameters are

For planning, development and operation of various water
resources schemes estimation of run-off response from
ungauged catchments is an important subject of research
in the sphere of surface water hydrology. Conventional
techniques of unit hydrograph (UH) derivation require
historical rainfall-runoff data. Owing to obvious rea-
sons, adequate run-off data are generally not available
for many small and medium size catchments, particu-
larly in developing countries like India. Hence, indi-
rect inferences through regionalization are sought for
such ungauged catchments. In the process of region-
alization, the parameters of UH or instantaneous unit
hydrograph (IUH) models are related with physiographic
and climatologic characteristics for gauged catchments
in hydro-meteorologically homogeneous regions. These
relationships are then used for run-off estimation for
the ungauged catchments of the hydro-meteorologically
homogeneous regions. This process of regionalization is
a difficult task since it not only requires a good amount
of rainfall-runoff data for the gauged catchments, but
the hydro-meteorological homogeneity of the region is
also difficult to ascertain. Further, with the change of the
* Correspondence to: C. Chatterjee, Humboldt Research Fellow, Potsdam
University, Institute for Geo-Ecology (Hydrology/Climatology), 14415
Potsdam, Germany.
E-mail: cchat iit@yahoo.com; cchatnih@yahoo.com
required to be updated from time to time.
The rainfall pattern, in general is undergoing a change
due to global changes in atmospheric conditions. Fur-
ther, because of different activities in the catchment, its
land-use is also undergoing a gradual change and this
has an impact on the run-off characteristics of the catch-
ment. Thus, the coupling of the hydrologic characteristics
of the catchment with the geomorphologic parameters
can provide an insight to the hydrologic behaviour of
the ungauged catchments in particular. As a first step
in the direction of coupling the hydrologic characteris-
tics of a catchment with the geomorphologic parameters,
the concept of the geomorphologic instantaneous unit
hydrograph (GIUH) was introduced by Rodriguez-Iturbe
and Valdes (1979). The GIUH approach is applicable for
ungauged or scantily gauged catchments wherein rainfall
data are available but runoff data are not. The GIUH
approach is more advantageous than the conventional
IUH methods such as the Clark IUH model (Clark, 1945)
and the Nash IUH model (Nash, 1957) since it avoids
the requirement of stream flow data. Also, the param-
eters of the Clark and Nash IUH models require to be
updated from time to time because of changing land-use
and climatic conditions. Further, the GIUH approach is
more advantageous than the regionalization techniques
as it does not require any information about the other
catchments in the hydro-meteorologically homogeneous

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1830 R. KUMAR ET AL.
region. It also does not require stream flow data for the
catchment for which it is to be applied. Another advan-
tage of the GIUH approach is its potential for deriving the
UH using the geomorphological characteristics obtain-
able from topographic maps or remote sensing, possibly
linked with geographic information system (GIS) and dig-
ital elevation model (DEM). However, the GIUH models
are applicable only for the direct surface runoff (DSRO)
component of the stream flow and hence, can be used to
generate only the DSRO hydrographs. In case of flood
events, the base flow contribution to the stream flow
is very small as compared to the DSRO. For ungauged
catchments the regional values of base flow per km2 of
the catchment area are usually available (Central Water
Commission, 1983). These regional values of base flow
may be added to the DSRO hydrographs computed by
the GIUH approach for estimating the stream flow hydro-
graphs.
The objectives of the present study are (i) to derive
GIUH from the geomorphological characteristics of a
catchment by relating the GIUH to the parameters of the
Clark IUH model (Clark, 1945) and the Nash IUH model
(Nash, 1957) for deriving its complete shape, (ii) to eval-
uate the geomorphological characteristics of the catch-
ment required for derivation of the GIUH by employing
GIS, (iii) to compare the observed and simulated DSRO
hydrographs obtained using the GIUH based Clark and
Nash models, the Clark IUH model option of the HEC-1
package (HEC-1, 1990) and the Nash IUH model using
some commonly adopted objective functions, and (iv) to
compare the GIUH based Clark and Nash models for
estimating DSRO hydrographs by convoluting the excess
rainfall with the derived UHs of unit volume and specific
duration.
BACKGROUND OF GIUH BASED APPROACH
The GIUH theory was introduced by Rodriguez-Iturbe
and Valdes (1979) by relating IUH peak and time to
peak with geomorphologic characteristics of the catch-
ment and a dynamic velocity parameter. This pioneer-
ing work of Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979), which
explicitly integrates the geomorphology details and the
climatological characteristics of a basin, in the frame-
work of travel time distribution, is a boon for stream
flow synthesis in the basins having no or scanty infor-
mation on flow data. This original formulation of GIUH
is based upon the probability density function (pdf) of
the time history of a randomly chosen drop of effec-
tive rainfall arrived to the trapping state of a hypothetical
basin, treated as a continuous Markovian process, where
the state is the order of the stream in which the drop is
located at any time. The value at the mode of this pdf
produces the main characteristics of GIUH. Equations
were derived by Rodriguez-Iturbe and Valdes (1979) to
express peak and time to peak characteristics of the IUH
as functions of Hortons order ratios (Horton, 1945). The
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
expressions were given as:
qp D 131RL043 V/L
1
tp D 044 L
/VRB /RA  055
038
RL  2
where qp is peak flow in units of inverse hour, tp is time
to peak in hour, RB , RL , RA are bifurcation, length and
area ratios given by the Hortons laws of stream numbers,
lengths and areas respectively, L
is length in km of
the highest order stream, and V is a dynamic velocity
parameter in m s
1 . On multiplying Equations (1) and
(2) a non-dimensional term qp tp as mentioned below
is obtained.
qp tp D 05764 RB /RA 055 RL 005 3
The term qp tp is not dependent on the velocity and
thereby on the storm characteristics and hence, it is a
function of only the geomorphological characteristics of
the catchment. The dynamic velocity parameter in the
formulation of Geomorphological IUH (GIUH) incorpo-
rates the effect of climatic variation. Rodriguez-Iturbe
et al. (1979) showed that the dynamic velocity param-
eter of the GIUH can be taken as the velocity at the
peak discharge time for a given rainfall-runoff event in
a catchment. Valdes et al. (1979) compared the GIUHs
for some real world basins with the IUHs derived from
the discharge hydrograph produced by a physically based
rainfall-runoff model of the same basins and found them
to be remarkably similar.
Gupta et al. (1980) examined the above approach, and
reformulated, simplified and generalized it. In the deriva-
tion of the GIUH, one of the greatest difficulties involved
is the estimation of peak velocity. This is a parameter that
must be evaluated for each flood event. Rodriguez-Iturbe
et al. (1982a,b) rationalized that velocity must be a func-
tion of the effective rainfall intensity and its duration. It
leads to the development of geomorphoclimatic IUH. In
a further development, the Nash model scale and shape
parameters were related to Horton order ratios on the
basis of the GIUH model of catchment response (Rosso,
1984); a hill slope velocity term was incorporated into the
 GIUH (van der Tak and Bras, 1990); and the GIUH was
reformulated on a deterministic basis in contrast to the
Markov and the statistical mechanics approaches (Chutha
and Dooge, 1990). Zelazinski (1986) gave a trial and
error procedure for estimating the flow velocity, which
involves the development of the relationship between the
velocity and corresponding peak discharge. Troutman and
Karlinger (1984, 1985, 1986) and Karlinger and Trout-
man (1985) endeavoured the topologic IUH, which is
based on the pattern of the finite number of topologic
features, using linear schemes including translation, diffu-
sion and the general linear routing. Rinaldo et al. (1991)
developed the hydraulic response of a channel network
in the framework of inverse Gaussian function of channel
holding time, using the conceptual structure as used by
Rodriguez-Iturbe et al. (1979), and assuming that the lin-
ear advectiondispersion relationship define the transport
Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 RUNOFF ESTIMATION USING GIUH MODELS
of water through the individual channels. Snell and Siva-
palan (1994) used a contributing area-flow distance func-
tion extracted directly from DEM, without the assump-
tions of Strahler stream ordering to derive the GIUH.
They found that the geomorphological dispersion coef-
ficient derived from the area-distance function expresses
the natural dispersion within the catchment in a more fun-
damental manner than the other methods. Corradini et al.
(1995) established the variation of the GIUH with basin
order reduction. Rinaldo and Rodriguez-Iturbe (1996),
and Rodriguez-Iturbe and Rinaldo (1997) expressed the
pdf of travel times as a function of the basin forms.
Bhaskar et al. (1997) derived the GIUH from the water-
shed geomorphological characteristics and then related
the parameters of the Nash IUH model for deriving its
complete shape. Al-Wagdany and Rao (1998) correlated
the velocity parameter of the exponential distribution
GIUH, the linear routing GIUH and the geomorpho-
logical dispersion GIUH. Lee (1998) linked the GIUH
with GIS to simulate the design hydrographs. Karvonen
et al. (1999) used the GIUH model for different land-use
areas and calibrated the GIUH routing parameters using
an optimization technique. Jain et al. (2000) derived a
GIS supported GIUH for flood estimation in an ungauged
basin and found that the peak characteristics of the design
flood are more sensitive to the storm pattern. However,
there were some limitations in their study due to the lack
of data availability for velocity estimation and valida-
tion. Further, Kumar et al. (2002) studied the sensitivity
analysis of the GIUH based Clark model.
Summarizing the above, it is observed that in the initial
GIUH approach a triangular IUH is assumed, notifying
only the peak and time to peak of the GIUH. Later,
though there have been isolated efforts to couple the
GIUH model with the Clark IUH and Nash IUH models
to derive the complete shape of the IUH, however, there
has been no concerted effort to develop these models
as well as evaluate and compare their performances.
Thus, this study is carried out to derive the GIUH from
the geomorphological characteristics of a catchment by
relating the GIUH to the parameters of the Clark and
Nash IUH models for deriving its complete shape; and to
evaluate their performances and compare them with the
Clark IUH and the Nash IUH models.
DEVELOPMENT OF GIUH BASED CLARK AND
NASH MODELS
Development of the GIUH based Clark and Nash models
involves derivation of relationship between equilibrium
velocity and excess-rainfall intensity as well as a proce-
dure for derivation of the UH using the GIUH based Clark
and Nash models, respectively. Equilibrium velocity is
defined as the velocity corresponding to the flow resulting
due to specific excess-rainfall intensity over the catch-
ment for infinite duration. It occurs when the duration of
the excess rainfall exceeds the time of concentration of
the catchment, and the entire catchment begins to con-
tribute to the flow at the gauging site. Excess-rainfall
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1831
intensity is defined as the excess-rainfall depth per unit
time.
There are two different approaches for development
of relationship between equilibrium velocity and excess-
rainfall intensity and these are described in detail by
Kumar et al., (2002). A brief description of the Clark and
Nash IUH models as well as the procedure developed for
derivation of UH using the GIUH based approaches is
given below.
Clark IUH model
The Clark IUH model is based on the concept that
IUH can be derived by routing the unit excess rainfall in
the form of a timearea diagram through a single linear
reservoir. For the derivation of the IUH, the Clark model
uses two parameters viz. time of concentration (Tc ) in
hour and storage coefficient (R) in hour of a single linear
reservoir, in addition to the timearea diagram. The
governing equation of the Clark IUH model is expressed
as:
ui D CIi C 1
Cui
1 4
where, ui is ith ordinate of the IUH, C and (1
C) are
the routing coefficients, and C is t/R C 05 t, t
is computational interval in hour, Ii is ith ordinate of the
timearea diagram. A UH of desired duration (D) may
be derived using the following equation.
1
Ui D 05 ui
N C ui
NC1 C C ui
1 C 05 ui  5
N
where, Ui is ith ordinate of the UH of D-hour duration
and computational interval t hour, and N is number of
computational intervals in D-hour and is equal to D/t.
Nash IUH model
The Nash model (Nash, 1957) is based on the concept
that IUH can be derived by routing the instantaneous
inflow through a cascade of linear reservoirs with equal
storage coefficient. The outflow from the first reservoir
is considered as inflow to the second reservoir, and so
on. For derivation of IUH, the Nash model uses two
parameters viz. number of linear reservoirs (n), which
is dimensionless and storage coefficient (k) in hour. The
governing equation of the Nash IUH model is expressed
as:
1
u(t) D t/kn
1 e
t/k 6
kn
where, u (t) denotes IUH ordinates in hour
1 , t is
sampling time interval in hour, n and k are parameters of
Nash IUH model as described above and is  function.
A UH of desired duration (D) may be derived using
the following equation:
1
U(D,t) D I(n,t/k)
In, t
D/k 7
D
where, U D, t denotes ordinates of UH of D-hour
duration in hour
1 , t is the sampling time interval in
Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
1832 R. KUMAR ET AL.

hour, I n, t k
1  is the incomplete  function of order 10. Compute the next trial value of R using the following
n at (t k
1 ) and D is the duration of UH in hour. governing equations of NewtonRaphsons method:
FCN1
Derivation of UH using the GIUH based Clark model R D 12
FPN
The steps involved in derivation of a UH of a specific and
duration using the GIUH based Clark model approach are RNEW D R1 C R 13
as follows:
11. For the next trial, consider R1 D R2 and R2 D RNEW
1. Evaluate the geomorphological parameters like RA , and repeat steps (6) to (10) till one of the following
RB and RL for consecutive orders and the overall criteria of convergence is achieved.
values of these parameters for the catchment as a
whole. (a) FCN2 D 0000001
2. Compute the excess-rainfall hyetograph either by (b) No. of trials exceeds 200
uniform loss rate procedure or by soil conservation (c) ABS R/R1 D 0001
service (SCS) curve number method (USDA-SCS,
1972; Chatterjee et al., 2001) or by any other suitable 12. The final value of storage coefficient (R2 ) obtained
method. as above is the required value of the parameter R
3. For a given storm, estimate the peak velocity V for corresponding to the value of time of concentration
the highest rainfall excess by using the relationship (Tc ) for the Clark model.
between velocity and intensity of rainfall excess 13. Compute the IUH using the GIUH based Clark model
(Kumar et al., 2002). with the help of final values of storage coefficient (R)
4. Compute the time of concentration (Tc ) in hour using as computed in step (12), time of concentration (Tc )
the equation: and the timearea diagram.
14. Compute the D-hour UH using the relationship
Tc D 02778 L/V 8 between IUH and UH of D-hour as given by Equation
(5).
where, L is length of the main channel in km, and 15. For estimation of the DSRO hydrograph convolute,
V is peak velocity in m s
1 . Considering this Tc as the excess-rainfall hyetograph with UH obtained in
the largest time of travel compute the ordinates of Step (14).
cumulative isochronal areas corresponding to integral
multiples of computational time interval with the Derivation of UH using the GIUH based Nash model
help of non-dimensional relation between cumulative
The complete shape of the GIUH can be obtained
isochronal area and the percent time of travel. This
by linking qp and tp of the GIUH with the scale (k)
describes the ordinates of the timearea diagram at
and shape (n) parameters of the Nash IUH model.
each computational time interval.
By equating the first derivative (with respect to t)
5. Compute the peak discharge (qp ) of IUH given by
of Equation (6) to zero, t becomes the time to peak
Equation (1).
discharge, tp . Thus, taking the natural logarithm of both
6. Assume two trial values of the storage coefficient of
sides of Equation (6), differentiating with respect to t and
GIUH based Clark model as R1 and R2 . Compute
simplifying, we get,
the ordinates of two IUHs by Clark model using

time of concentration Tc as obtained in step (iv) and 1 n
1
two storage coefficients R1 and R2 , respectively using ln[u(t)] D
C 14
t k t
Equation (4). Compute the IUH ordinates at a very
small time interval say 01 or 005 h so that a better Equating (14) to zero results in the following expres-
estimate of peak value may be obtained. sion, where t is equal to tp
7. Find out the peak discharges Qpc1 and Qpc2 of

1 n
1
the IUHs obtained for Clark model for the storage
C D0 15
k t
coefficients R1 and R2 , respectively at step (6).
8. Compute the value of objective function, using the and hence,
relation: t D tp D kn
1 16

FCN1 D qp
Qpc1 2 9 Substituting the value of tp from Equation (16) in
Equation (6) and simplifying, we get
FCN2 D qp
Qpc2 2 10
1
n
1
qp D e n
1n
1 17
9. Compute the first numerical derivative FPN of the kn
objective function FCN with respect to parameter R From Equations (16) and (17), we get,
as:
FCN1
FCN2 n
1
n
1
FPN D 11 qp tp D e n
1n
1 18
R1
R2 n

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 RUNOFF ESTIMATION USING GIUH MODELS 1833

Equating Equation (18) with Equation (3), we get, where, Volo is observed runoff volume, Volc is computed
runoff volume.
n
1
n
1
e n
1n
1 Qop
Qcp 
n PEP D 100 25

055 Qop
RB
D 05764 RL 005 19
RA where, Qop is observed peak discharge, Qcp is computed
peak discharge.
All the terms in the right-hand side of Equation (19)
are known. The only unknown term is the Nash model Top
Tcp
parameter n, which is obtained by solving Equation (19) PETP D 100 26
Top
using the Newton Rapshon method of non-linear opti-
mization. The Nash model parameter k for the given where, Top is time to peak of observed discharge, Tcp is
velocity V is obtained using Equations (2) and (16) and time to peak of computed discharge.
the known value of the parameter n as follows:

055
044L
RB 1 STUDY AREA
kD RL
038 20
V RA n
1
The GIUH based Clark and Nash models described in
The derived values of n and k are used to determine the previous section were applied to the Ajay river
the complete shape of GIUH based Nash model using catchment defined by the Sarath gauging site of eastern
Equation (6). Subsequently, the D-hour UH is obtained India. The Ajay catchment lies between latitudes 23 500 N
using the relationship between IUH and UH of D-hour and 24 60 N and longitudes 86 160 E and 87 50 E. The river
as given by Equation (7). The DSRO hydrograph is length and catchment area up to the Sarath gauging site
estimated by convoluting the excess-rainfall hyetograph are 8218 km and 11914 km2 , respectively. The Ajay
with the UH obtained above. river emerges from forest covered hills of Chakai block
in Munger district of Jharkhand state at an elevation
Objective functions used for evaluation of the computed of 400 m above mean sea level. The study area, in
DSRO hydrographs general, has a mild terrain having small patches of
The following objective functions were employed for steep, mountainous and low lands. The soils in the Ajay
evaluation of the DSRO hydrographs computed by the river catchment have been almost entirely derived from
GIUH based Clark and Nash models in comparison with granite gneiss and schists and are mostly yellow and
the observed DSRO hydrographs as well as with the red at the surface except in low lands where olive-to-
DSRO hydrographs estimated by the HEC-1 package olive grey soils may also be found. Most of these soils
and the Nash IUH model: (i) efficiency (EFF); (ii) are sandy and loamy sand especially on uplands. But
absolute average error (AAE); (iii) root mean square in lowlands, medium textured sandy loam-to-loam soils
error (RMSE); (iv) average error in volume (AEV); are encountered. About 7% of the total area is under
(v) percentage error in peak (PEP); and (vi) percentage forest and about 63% is under cultivation. The average
error in time to peak (PETP). annual rainfall in the catchment varies from 1280 mm to
1380 mm while the mean peak flow at Sarath gauging site

m 
m is about 440 m3 s
1 . The rainfall in plains is more than
Qoi
Q2
Qoi
Qci 2 in the hilly catchment. The monsoon rainfall accounts for
iD1 iD1 about 7580% of the annual rainfall in the catchment.
EFF D 100 21

m
2
Qoi
Q
iD1 EVALUATION OF THE GEOMORPHOLOGIC
th CHARACTERISTICS USING GIS
where, Qoi is i ordinate of the observed discharge, Q
is average of the ordinates of observed discharge, Qci is In application of the GIUH approaches, some of the
computed discharge, and m is number of ordinates. important geomorphological characteristics are required
to be evaluated from the topomaps. It is extremely dif-

m
ficult to manually derive the geomorphological charac-
jQoi
Qci j
teristics from topomaps. Thus, it discourages the users
iD1
AAE D 22 from adopting the GIUH approach. But, nowadays GIS
m
 software like Integrated Land and Water Information Sys-
 m
 tem (ILWIS), Earth Resources Data Analysis System
 Qoi
Qci 2
 (ERDAS), ARC/INFO and GRASS etc. are available for
 iD1
RMSE D 23 derivation of these characteristics in a simplified man-
m ner. In this study, the geomorphologic characteristics of
Volo
Volc  the catchment under study are evaluated using the GIS
AEV D 24 software, ILWIS as described below.
m

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
1834 R. KUMAR ET AL.

The boundary of the catchment, the stream network Table I. Details of number, length, mean length and mean area
and topographical contours are derived using the Survey for streams of various orders for Ajay catchment up to Sarath
of India topomaps in the scale of 1 : 50 000. These maps Order of Number Length Mean length Mean area
were converted to digital form for ILWIS. The digitized stream (km) (km) (km2 )
map was corrected for any errors due to digitization
such as overshoot, undershoot etc. After removal 1 1266 75384 060 09
of errors from the drainage network map, the network 2 260 32548 125 38
3 59 17957 304 161
ordering was carried out in ILWIS. In ILWIS, a table is 4 19 7668 404 676
generated which contains the order of each stream, the 5 3 3813 1271 2840
number of streams and the length of the streams. The 6 1 5967 5967 11914
Strahlers ordering scheme was followed for ordering of
the river network (Strahler, 1957). Figure 1 shows the
drainage network map of the study area for the sixth
order streams of the catchment. Table I provides the The Tc is computed using the Kirpich formula. Using
details of stream numbers, length, average length and the DEM of Ajay catchment up to Sarath gauging site
average areas for streams of various orders for the study in a GIS based on proportionality constant, lengths and
area. The geomorphological parameters viz. RB D 4199, slopes of various segments of the streams of the drainage
RL D 2375, RA D 4190 were computed graphically by network, relative times of travel at various locations over
plotting stream numbers, mean stream length and mean the catchment were progressively computed, beginning
stream area versus order of the streams and estimating from the gauging site of the catchment. All the values of
absolute values of slopes of the best fit lines as shown in time of travels for each stream were then marked on the
Figures 24. The length of the highest order stream i.e. map of the catchment. Then these points were transferred
the sixth order stream (L
) is measured as 5967 km. to the digital form. Using an interpolation technique,
The time of travel (T) is directly proportional to a map of time distribution was drawn through these
L S
05 , where L is the length of stream and S is the points. Subsequently, a timearea diagram in the form
slope of the stream. The proportionality constant can be of cumulative catchment area versus time of travel was
computed using the time of concentration (Tc ) of the prepared as shown in Figure 5. This timearea diagram
catchment, length and average slope of the mainstream. forms an input to the GIUH based Clark model.

Figure 1. Drainage network map of Ajay catchment up to sarath gauging site

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 RUNOFF ESTIMATION USING GIUH MODELS 1835

8 8
RB = 4.199 RA = 4.190
7 7

6
6

Ln (Mean Stream Area)

Ln (Stream Numbers)

5
5

4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 Stream Order
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stream Order Figure 4. Variation of mean stream area with stream order for Ajay
catchment up to sarath
Figure 2. Variation of stream numbers with stream order for Ajay
catchment up to sarath
1200
5

1000
RL = 2.375
4
Cumulative Area (km2)

800
Ln (Mean Stream Length)

3
600

2
400

1
200

0
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Stream Order
Figure 3. Variation of mean stream length with stream order for Ajay
catchment up to sarath
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The parameters of the Clark IUH model option of HEC-1
and the Nash IUH model are estimated using histor-
ical data of ten hourly rainfall-runoff events. Initially,
the base flows are separated from the discharge hydro-
graphs for obtaining the DSRO hydrographs. The uniform
loss rate model is used for separating the losses from
the rainfall hyetographs for obtaining the excess-rainfall
hyetographs. Subsequently, the DSRO and excess-rainfall
hyetographs are analysed to derive the parameters of
Clark and Nash IUH models. For estimating the parame-
ters of Clark and Nash IUH models, the geometric mean
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (h)
6
Figure 5. Time of travel versus cumulative area diagram for Ajay
catchment up to sarath
values of the parameters are computed each time for the
rest of the nine rainfall-runoff events out of ten events
considering the remaining one as an independent event.
These geometric mean values of the parameters are used
for computing the DSRO hydrographs for each of the
independent events.
The values of the parameters for all the ten individual
rainfall-runoff events and the geometric mean parameter
values for the Clark and Nash IUH models derived from
the historical data are given in Table II. The values of
arithmetic mean parameters of HEC-1 package viz. Clark
IUH model and the Nash IUH model derived from the
historical data and their 90 and 95% confidence limits are
given in Table III.

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
1836 R. KUMAR ET AL.

Table II. Values of parameters for individual storms and mean 25 m s
1 , which is based on the information obtained
parameters for Clark and Nash IUH models derived from
from the field engineers about the normally prevailing
historical data
velocity at the gauging site under study, during the
Event Clark IUH model Nash IUH occurrence of the type of rainfall-runoff storms, which
number (HEC-1 package) model are considered in this study.
For Geometric For Geometric For evaluation of the performances of the GIUH based
individual meana individual meana Clark and Nash models, DSRO hydrographs of each
storm storm of the independent events reproduced from the Clark
IUH model option of the HEC-1 package (HEC-1, 1990)
Tc R Tc R n k n k
and Nash IUH model (Nash, 1957) as well as GIUH
1 878 607 1015 651 386 239 431 259 based Clark and Nash models are compared with the
2 424 966 1100 619 231 421 456 243 observed DSRO hydrographs. Some of the commonly
3 1157 717 984 639 398 286 430 254 used objective functions are evaluated for the GIUH
4 1027 552 997 658 463 218 422 262 based Clark model, GIUH based Nash model, Clark
5 1097 678 990 643 480 245 421 258
IUH of HEC-1 package and the Nash IUH model using
6 1201 668 980 644 461 264 423 256
7 1050 703 995 641 465 244 422 259 observed and the computed DSRO hydrographs.
8 1822 349 936 693 619 203 409 264 The values of Tc and R for the GIUH based Clark
9 1338 633 968 648 595 230 411 260 model were obtained as 913 and 845 while the values
10 672 785 1045 633 318 273 440 255 of n and k for the GIUH based Nash model were obtained
a Geometric mean values based on the parameters T and R and n and k as 344 and 310, respectively. The values of Tc and
c
of the remaining storms. R for the GIUH based Clark model and n and k for
the GIUH based Nash model are identical for all the
rainfall-runoff events because the parameter velocity is
Table III. Mean parameters of Clark and Nash IUH models considered constant for all the events in the absence of
derived from the historical data and their 90% and 95% con-
fidence limits cross sectional details of the gauging site and Mannings
roughness coefficient. As seen from Table III, the values
Parameter Mean Standard Confidence Confidence of Tc and R for the GIUH based Clark model and n
value deviation level D 90% level D 95% and k for the GIUH based Nash model are very close
Lower Upper Lower Upper to the mean values of these parameters derived from the
limit limit limit limit historical data of all the ten events and lie well within
90% confidence limits of these parameters values.
Parameters of Clark IUH model (HEC-1 package)
Tc 1067 338 584 1500 447 1686 Comparison of observed and computed DSRO
R 666 159 463 869 405 923
hydrographs
Parameters of Nash IUH model
n 442 117 292 591 250 634 The DSRO hydrographs computed by the GIUH based
k 262 061 184 341 162 363 Clark and Nash models are compared with the observed
DSRO hydrographs as well as the DSRO hydrographs
computed using the Clark IUH model option of the
The DSRO hydrographs are computed using the GIUH HEC-1 package and the Nash IUH model as shown in
based Clark and Nash models. For applying the GIUH Figures 610. The values of peak discharge and time to
models, excess-rainfall hyetographs may be separated peak of the DSRO hydrographs for the ten rainfall-runoff
from the observed rainfall by SCS method (Chatterjee events are given in Table IV.
et al., 2001) or any other suitable approach as the GIUH
approaches are applicable to the ungauged catchments. Comparison of objective functions used for evaluation of
However, in the present study, for comparing the DSRO the computed DSRO hydrographs
hydrographs computed by all the four approaches, the The values of following objective functions, as
same excess-rainfall hyetographs have been adopted for described earlier, computed for evaluation of the DSRO
the GIUH based Clark and Nash models as adopted for hydrographs for GIUH based Clark model, GIUH based
the Clark and Nash IUH models. Also, the geometric Nash model, Clark IUH model option of the HEC-1
properties of the gauging section and the value of package and the Nash IUH model are given in Table V:
Mannings roughness coefficient as well as the velocities (i) EEF; (ii) AAE; (iii) RMSE; (iv) AEV; (v) PEP; and
corresponding to discharges passing through the gauging (vi) PETP. The objective functions based on comparison
section at different depths of water flow were not of the observed and computed DSRO hydrographs for the
available for the Sarath gauging site. Thus, the two four methods, presented in Table V, show that the values
approaches of estimation of the velocity mentioned above of EFF for GIUH based Clark model are the highest
and discussed in Kumar et al. (2002) could not be among the four methods for five flood events out of the
applied in this study. Instead, the GIUH based Clark and ten events. The values of EFF for the GIUH based Nash
Nash models were run by adopting the peak velocity of model are the highest among the four methods in case of

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 RUNOFF ESTIMATION USING GIUH MODELS 1837

Excess Rainfall (mm)

Excess Rainfall (mm)
400 8 Event No.3
Event No. 1 1000 24
6 20
16
4 900 12
8
2 4
800 0
300

Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

0
Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
700 Time (h)
Time (h)

Observed 600
Observed
200 GIUH (Clark) 500 GIUH (Clark)
GIUH (Nash) GIUH (Nash)
400
HEC-1 HEC-1
Nash 300 Nash
100
200

100

0
0 0 6 12 18 24 30
0 6 12 18 24 30 Time (h)
Time (h)

Excess Rainfall (mm)

Event No.4 20
Excess Rainfall (mm)

600 16
900
Event No. 2 16
12 12
800 8
8
4
500 4
0
700 0 1 2
0
Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

0 1 2 Time (h)
Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

Time (h) 600

400
500
Observed
Observed
300 400 GIUH (Clark)
GIUH (Clark)
GIUH (Nash)
GIUH (Nash)
300 HEC-1
200 HEC-1
Nash
Nash 200

100 100

0
0 6 12 18 24 30
0
Time (h)
0 6 12 18 24 30
Time (h) Figure 7. Comparison of observed and computed DSRO hydrographs for
event Nos. 3 and 4
Figure 6. Comparison of observed and computed DSRO hydrographs for
event Nos. 1 and 2

Table IV. Peak discharge and time to peak of observed and computed DSRO hydrographs for the various rainfall-runoff events

Event no. Observed GIUH (Clark) GIUH (Nash) HEC-1 Nash

Qop Top Qcp Tcp Qcp Tcp Qcp Tcp Qcp Tcp
m3 s
1  (h) m3 s
1  (h) m3 s
1  (h) m3 s
1  (h) m3 s
1  (h)

1 3632 9 3187 11 3323 10 3612 10 3433 11

2 4684 6 4725 10 4848 9 5358 9 5158 10
3 7920 11 8299 9 8896 9 9751 8 9364 10
4 8084 9 7153 9 7311 8 8140 8 7585 9
5 1053 8 908 9 924 8 1054 8 972 9
6 5019 10 5108 9 5200 8 5931 7 5497 9
7 3990 9 3976 10 4053 9 4617 9 4247 10
8 3188 13 3068 11 3386 10 3452 9 3520 10
9 4583 10 4181 9 4256 8 4854 7 4498 9
10 1612 7 1693 9 1736 8 1967 8 1796 9

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
1838 R. KUMAR ET AL.

Table V. Error functions computed for DSRO hydrographs

Excess Rainfall (mm)

120 Event No.5
4
estimated by the GIUH based Clark and Nash models, HEC-1
package and Nash IUH model for the various rainfall-runoff
events
100
Methods Error functions for DSRO hydrographs
0
0 1

Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

EFF AAE RMSE AEV PEP PETP Time (h)
80
Event 1
GIUH (Clark) 7838 4491 5808 14572
1227 2222
GIUH (Nash) 9604 2050 2735 15921
851 1111 Observed
60
HEC-1 9643 1941 2621 15440
055 1111 GIUH (Clark)
NASH 8746 3775 4667 16044
549 2222
GIUH (Nash)
Event 2
GIUH (Clark) 3854 7918 11323 19161 088 6667 40 HEC-1
GIUH (Nash) 6394 6358 8915 20216 349 5000 Nash
HEC-1 6039 6308 9322 19963 1439 5000
NASH 2898 9028 12346 20410 1013 6667
20
Event 3
GIUH (Clark) 9145 6462 7619 37823 478
1818
GIUH (Nash) 8585 8069 9901 40157 1232
1818
HEC-1 6738 11853 14947 39735 2312
2327 0
NASH 8589 8351 9890 40415 1823
909 0 6 12 18 24 30
Event 4 Time (h)
GIUH (Clark) 8640 7763 10362 33352
1152 0
GIUH (Nash) 9789 3132 4577 36247
957
1111
Event No. 6

Excess Rainfall (mm)

HEC-1 9198 6668 8220 35510 070
1111 600 20
NASH 9643 3718 3701 36514
618 0 16
Event 5 12
GIUH (Clark) 9321 688 808 3974
1381 1250 8

GIUH (Nash) 7812 1095 1459 4247
1225 0 500 4

0
HEC-1 6478 1540 1847 4164 009 0 0 1
Direct Surface Runoff(m3/s)

NASH 8572 938 1182 4285
768 1250 Time (h)

Event 6 400
GIUH (Clark) 9425 3342 3976 20631 177
1000
GIUH (Nash) 8035 5795 7389 21668 361
2000
HEC-1 5818 8917 10752 21550 1818
3000 Observed
300
NASH 8694 4650 6038 21836 952
1000 GIUH (Clark)
Event 7 GIUH (Nash)
GIUH (Clark) 9397 2655 3354 16833
034 1111
GIUH (Nash) 9134 3064 4069 17998 159 0 200 HEC-1
HEC-1 7988 5302 6161 17698 1572 0 Nash
NASH 9496 2607 3131 18164 643 1111
Event 8 100
GIUH (Clark) 7732 440 5307 14828
375
1538
GIUH (Nash) 5689 6336 7385 15898 62
2308
HEC-1 2597 8422 9640 15443 829
3077
NASH 6355 5817 6802 16041 1040
2308 0
0 6 12 18 24 30
Event 9
GIUH (Clark) 7845 5491 6843 16445
878
1000 Time (h)
GIUH (Nash) 4827 7885 10674 17187
714
2000
Figure 8. Comparison of observed and computed DSRO hydrographs for
HEC-1 2119 10494 13145 17016 592
3000 event Nos. 5 and 6
NASH 5618 7184 9835 17326
185
1000
Event 10
GIUH (Clark) 4841 2969 4067 8376 501 2857 of AAE and RMSE for HEC-1 package are the lowest
GIUH (Nash) 7800 1860 2788 9237 767 1429
HEC-1 7919 1962 2618 9029 2201 1429
for two events while the values of AAE and RMSE for
NASH 5568 3047 3863 9312 1140 2857 Nash IUH model are the lowest for only one event. It is
observed that the values of AEV are the lowest for GIUH
based Clark model for all the ten flood events. It is also
two flood events, whereas, the values of EFF for HEC-1 observed that the values of PEP are the lowest for GIUH
package are the highest in case of the other two events. based Clark model for six flood events. The values of PEP
However, the values of EFF for Nash IUH model are the are the lowest for HEC-1 package for three events; while,
highest in case of only one event. It is observed that the the values of PEP are the lowest for Nash IUH model for
values of AAE and RMSE for the GIUH based Clark only one event. Thus, it is found that the GIUH based
model are the lowest in five flood events out of the ten Clark model and the GIUH based Nash model which
events. The values of AAE and RMSE for GIUH based consider the catchment under study as ungauged, estimate
Nash model are the lowest for two events. The values the DSRO hydrographs with reasonable accuracy for the

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
 RUNOFF ESTIMATION USING GIUH MODELS 1839

Excess Rainfall (mm)

Event No.7 16

Excess Rainfall (mm)

500 500 E vent No. 9 20
12 16
8 450 12

4 8

400 4
0 400
0 1 2 3 0
Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

0 1

Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

Time (h)
350 Time (h)

300 300
Observed
Observed
GIUH (Clark) 250
GIUH (Clark)
GIUH (Nash)
200 200 GIUH (Nash)
HEC-1
HEC-1
Nash 150
Nash
100 100

50

0 0
0 6 12 18 24 30 0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Time (h) Time (h)

Event No. 10 8

Excess Rainfall (mm)

Event No.8 200
Excess Rainfall (mm)

400 8

350 4 175 4

150
Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

300 0 0
Direct Surface Runoff (m3/s)

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3
Time (h) Time (h)
125
250
Observed
Observed
100 GIUH (Clark)
200 GIUH (Clark)
GIUH (Nash)
GIUH (Nash)
75 HEC-1
150 HEC-1
Nash
Nash
50
100

25
50

0
0 0 6 12 18 24
0 6 12 18 24 30
Time (h)
Time (h)
Figure 10. Comparison of observed and computed DSRO hydrographs
Figure 9. Comparison of observed and computed DSRO hydrographs for for event Nos. 9 and 10
event Nos. 7 and 8

Ajay catchment up to Sarath gauging site as compared to

the HEC-1 package and Nash IUH model.
RMSE for the GIUH based Clark model are lower than
Comparison of the GIUH based Clark model and GIUH GIUH based Nash model for six flood events out of the
based Nash model ten events; whereas the values of AAE and RMSE for
Comparison of the values of error functions of the GIUH based Nash model are lower than the GIUH based
observed and computed DSRO hydrographs for the Clark model for four events. It is observed that the values
GIUH based Clark model and GIUH based Nash model, of AEV are lower for GIUH based Clark model for all
presented in Table V, shows that the values of EFF for the flood events. It is also seen that the values of PEP
GIUH based Clark model are higher than the GIUH based are lower for GIUH based Clark model for six events;
Nash model for six flood events out of the ten events; whereas the values of PEP are lower for the GIUH based
while the values of EFF for the GIUH based Nash model Nash model for four events. In general, it is found that the
are higher than the GIUH based Clark model for four GIUH based Clark and Nash models estimate the DSRO
flood events. It is observed that the values of AAE and hydrographs with comparable accuracy.

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
1840 R. KUMAR ET AL.
CONCLUSIONS
In the GIUH approaches, the catchment is considered
as ungauged and the parameters of the GIUH based
Clark and Nash models are estimated with reasonable
accuracy by using the geomorphological characteristics of
the catchment under study. Comparison of values of the
error functions reveals that the GIUH based Clark model
and the GIUH based Nash model, estimate the DSRO
hydrographs with reasonable accuracy as compared to
the Clark IUH model option of the HEC-1 package and
Nash IUH model. Performances of Clark IUH model
option of HEC-1 package and the Nash IUH model for
estimation of the DSRO hydrographs may be considered
as comparable.
The geomorphological parameters required for deriva-
tion of the GIUH based Clark model and GIUH based
Nash model are evaluated for the Ajay catchment up
to Sarath gauging site of eastern India using the GIS
package viz. ILWIS. Manual estimation of geomorpho-
logical parameters is a tedious and cumbersome process
and often discourages the field engineers from developing
regional methodologies for solving various hydrologi-
cal problems of the ungauged catchments or in limited
data situations. At times, it also leads to erroneous esti-
mates. On the other hand, modern techniques like the GIS
serve as an efficient approach for storage, processing and
retrieval of a large amount of database. Its spatial mod-
eling and tabular databases constitute a powerful tool for
the data analysis. Also, the database created and stored
in GIS system may be updated as and when required.
REFERENCES
Al-Wagdany AS, Rao AA. 1998. Correlation of the velocity parameter
of three geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph methods.
Hydrological Processes 12: 651659.
Bhaskar NR, Parida BP, Nayak AK. 1997. Flood estimation for ungauged
catchments using the GIUH. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, ASCE 123(4): 228 238.
Central Water Commission. 1983. Flood Estimation Report for Upper
Narmada and Tapi Subzone (Subzone 3c) (1983). Directorate of
Hydrology (SC) CWC: New Delhi.
Chatterjee C, Jha R, Lohani AK, Kumar R, Singh R. 2001. Runoff curve
number estimation for a basin using remote sensing and GIS. Asian-
Pacific Remote Sensing and GIS Journal 14: 17.
Chutha I, Dooge JCI. 1990. The shape parameters of the geomorphologic
unit hydrograph. Journal of Hydrology 117: 8197.
Clark CO. 1945. Storage and the unit hydrograph. Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers 110: 1419 1446.
Corradini C, Melone F, Singh VP. 1995. Some remarks on the use of
GIUH in the hydrological practice. Nordic Hydrology 26: 297 312.
Gupta VK, Waymir E, Wang CT. 1980. A representation of an
instantaneous unit hydrograph from geomorphology. Water Resources
Research 16(5): 855 862.
HEC-1. 1990. In Flood Hydrograph Package Users Manual . US Army
Corps of Engineers: Hydrologic Engineering Center, USA.
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Horton RE. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage
basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bulletin of
Geological Society of America 56: 275 370.
Jain SK, Singh RD, Seth SM. 2000. Design flood estimation using
GIS supported GIUH approach. Water Resources Management 14:
369376.
Karlinger MR, Troutman BM. 1985. Assessment of the instantaneous unit
hydrograph derived from the theory of topologically random networks.
Water Resources Research 21(11): 1693 1702.
Karvonen T, Koivusalo H, Jauhiainen M, Palko J, Weppling K. 1999. A
hydrological model for predicting runoff from different land-use areas.
Journal of Hydrology 217: 253265.
Kumar R, Chatterjee C, Lohani AK, Kumar S, Singh RD. 2002.
Sensitivity analysis of the GIUH based Clark model for a catchment.
Water Resources Management 16: 263 278.
Lee KT. 1998. Generating design hydrographs by DEM assisted
geomorphic runoff simulation: a case study. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 34(2): 375 384.
Nash JE. 1957. The form of instantaneous unit hydrograph. International
Association of Sciences and Hydrological Publications 45(3):
114121.
Rinaldo A, Marani A, Rigon R. 1991. Geomorphological dispersion.
Water Resources Research 27(4): 513 525.
Rinaldo A, Rodriguez-Iturbe I. 1996. Geomorphological theory of the
hydrological response. Hydrological Processes 10(6): 803829.
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Devoto G, Valdes JB. 1979. Discharge response
analysis and hydrologic similarity: the interrelation between the
geomorphologic IUH and the storm characteristics. Water Resources
Research 15(6): 1435 1444.
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Gonzalez-Sanabria M, Bras RL. 1982a. The geo-
morphoclimatic theory of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. Water
Resources Research 18(4): 877886.
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Gonzalez-Sanabria M, Caamano G. 1982b. On the
climatic dependence of the IUH: a rainfall-runoff analysis of the Nash
model and the geomorphoclimatic theory. Water Resources Research
18(4): 887 903.
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Rinaldo A. 1997. Fractal River Basins: Chance and
Self Organization. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Valdes JB. 1979. The geomorphologic structure of
hydrologic response. Water Resources Research 15(6): 1409 1420.
Rosso R. 1984. Nash model relation to Horton order ratios. Water
Resources Research 20(7): 914920.
Snell JD, Sivapalan M. 1994. On geomorphological dispersion in
natural catchments and the geomorphological unit hydrograph. Water
Resources Research 30(7): 2311 2323.
Strahler AN. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology.
Transactions American Geophysical Union 38: 913 920.
Troutman BM, Karlinger MR. 1984. On the expected width function for
topologically random channel networks. Journal of Applied Probability
21: 836884.
Troutman BM, Karlinger MR. 1985. Unit hydrograph approximation
assuming linear flow through topologically random channel networks.
Water Resources Research 21(5): 743 754.
Troutman BM, Karlinger MR. 1986. Averaging properties of channel
networks using methods in stochastic branching theory. In Scale
Problem in Hydrology, Gupta VK, Roriguez-Iturbe I, Wood EF (eds).
D. Reidel: Norwell, MA; 85216.
USDA-SCS. 1972. Hydrology. National Engineering Handbook, Section
4 . US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC.
Valdes JB, Fiallo Y, Rodriguez-Iturbe I. 1979. A rainfall-runoff analysis
of the geomorphologic IUH. Water Resources Research 15(6):
1421 1434.
van der Tak LD, Bras RL. 1990. Incorporating hillslope effects into
the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph. Water Resources
Research 26(10): 2393 2400.
Zelazinski J. 1986. Application of the geomorphological instantaneous
unit hydrograph theory to development of forecasting models in
Poland. Hydrological Sciences Journal 31: 26.
Hydrol. Process. 21, 1829 1840 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp