Balancing Complexity, Parsimony, and Applicability in Hydrologic Modeling: A Comparative Evaluation of Four Infiltration Models across Parameterization Scenarios
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 29, Issue 6
Abstract
Infiltration models are vital for predicting the onset and magnitude of flash floods. A multitude of infiltration models have been developed over the past century. In practice, model selection for a given study constitutes a compromise between complexity, parsimony, and feasibility. This study presents a comparative evaluation of four infiltration models of varying complexity available in the widely used HEC-HMS software: the curve number (CN), initial-constant (IC), Green-Ampt (GA), and the recently integrated linear-constant (LC) model. Using precipitation and runoff data from the Walnut Gulch Experimental watershed in Arizona, each model was analyzed across three different scenarios including, using published guidance, constrained calibration, and unconstrained calibration. Findings reveal that GA, the most complex model, excelled over the rest under published guidance and constrained calibration scenarios but was susceptible to equifinality issues under unconstrained calibration. Conversely, the simpler IC model performed well under unconstrained calibration. The results indicate the simple, two-parameter LC model offers a balance between complexity, parsimony, and feasibility in hydrologic modeling, particularly for arid and semiarid regions. This study provides valuable insight to hydrologists and researchers in selecting an appropriate infiltration model based on data availability and regional hydrologic conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data and models that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their sincere gratitude to David Gatterman, Executive Engineer at the Southern Sandoval County Arroyo Flood Control Authority (SSCAFCA), for his invaluable review and insightful comments on this work. We also extend our appreciation to the SSCAFCA board of directors; their unwavering support was pivotal in the successful completion of this study.
References
Athira, P. 2021. “Calibration of hydrological models considering process interdependence: A case study of SWAT model.” Environ. Modell. Software 144 (Oct): 105131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105131.
Baiamonte, G. 2019. “SCS curve number and green-Ampt infiltration models.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 24 (10): 04019034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001838.
Becker, R., M. Gebremichael, and M. Märker. 2018. “Impact of soil surface and subsurface properties on soil saturated hydraulic conductivity in the semi-arid Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona, USA.” Geoderma 322 (Jul): 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.02.023.
Beven, K. 2006. “A manifesto for the equifinality thesis.” J. Hydrol. 320 (1–2): 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007.
Breckenfeld, D. J., W. A. Svetlik, and C. E. McGuire. 2008. Soil survey of Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona. Tucson, AZ: USDA-SCS and USDA-ARS in Cooperation with Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station.
Chahinian, N., R. Moussa, P. Andrieux, and M. Voltz. 2005. “Comparison of infiltration models to simulate flood events at the field scale.” J. Hydrol. 306 (1–4): 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.09.009.
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2023. ArcGIS desktop version 10.8.2 [computer software]. Redlands, CA: ESRI.
Goodrich, D. C., T. O. Keefer, C. L. Unkrich, M. H. Nichols, H. B. Osborn, J. J. Stone, and J. R. Smith. 2008. “Long-term precipitation database, Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona, United States.” Water Resour. Res. 44 (5): W05S04. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005782.
Goodrich, D. C., L. J. Lane, R. M. Shillito, S. N. Miller, K. H. Syed, and D. A. Woolhiser. 1997. “Linearity of basin response as a function of scale in a semiarid watershed.” Water Resour. Res. 33 (12): 2951–2965. https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR01422.
Green, W. H., and G. A. Ampt. 1911. “Studies on soil physics.” J. Agric. Sci. 4 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11453.
Grimaldi, S., A. Petroselli, and N. Romano. 2013. “Green-Ampt Curve-Number mixed procedure as an empirical tool for rainfall–runoff modelling in small and ungauged basins.” Hydrol. Processes 27 (8): 1253–1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9303.
Guse, B., J. Kiesel, M. Pfannerstill, and N. Fohrer. 2020. “Assessing parameter identifiability for multiple performance criteria to constrain model parameters.” Hydrol. Sci. J. 65 (7): 1158–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1734204.
Hapuarachchi, H. A. P., Q. J. Wang, and T. C. Pagano. 2011. “A review of advances in flash flood forecasting.” Hydrol. Processes 25 (18): 2771–2784. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8040.
Hawkins, R. H., T. J. Ward, D. E. Woodward, and J. A. Van Mullem. 2008. Curve number hydrology: State of the practice. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Her, Y., and I. Chaubey. 2015. “Impact of the numbers of observations and calibration parameters on equifinality, model performance, and output and parameter uncertainty.” Hydrol. Processes 29 (19): 4220–4237. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10487.
Her, Y., S. H. Yoo, J. Cho, S. Hwang, J. Jeong, and C. Seong. 2019. “Uncertainty in hydrological analysis of climate change: Multi-parameter versus multi-GCM ensemble predictions.” Sci. Rep. 9 (1): 4974. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41334-7.
Hrachowitz, M., O. Fovet, L. Ruiz, T. Euser, S. Gharari, R. Nijzink, J. Freer, H. H. G. Savenije, and C. Gascuel-Odoux. 2014. “Process consistency in models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process complexity.” Water Resour. Res. 50 (9): 7445–7469. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015484.
Huang, P., Z. Li, J. Chen, Q. Li, and C. Yao. 2016. “Event-based hydrological modeling for detecting dominant hydrological process and suitable model strategy for semi-arid catchments.” J. Hydrol. 542 (Nov): 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.09.001.
Huo, W., Z. Li, K. Zhang, J. Wang, and C. Yao. 2020. “GA-PIC: An improved Green-Ampt rainfall-runoff model with a physically based infiltration distribution curve for semi-arid basins.” J. Hydrol. 586 (Jul): 124900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124900.
Jackson, E. K., W. Roberts, B. Nelsen, G. P. Williams, E. J. Nelson, and D. P. Ames. 2019. “Introductory overview: Error metrics for hydrologic modelling—A review of common practices and an open source library to facilitate use and adoption.” Environ. Modell. Software 119 (Sep): 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.05.001.
Kampf, S. K., J. Faulconer, J. R. Shaw, M. Lefsky, J. W. Wagenbrenner, and D. J. Cooper. 2018. “Rainfall thresholds for flow generation in desert ephemeral streams.” Water Resour. Res. 54 (12): 9935–9950. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023714.
Kelleher, C., B. McGlynn, and T. Wagener. 2017. “Characterizing and reducing equifinality by constraining a distributed catchment model with regional signatures, local observations, and process understanding.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21 (7): 3325–3352. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3325-2017.
Kirchner, J. W. 2006. “Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology.” Water Resour. Res. 42 (3): W03S04. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004362.
Kjeldsen, T. R., H. Kim, C. H. Jang, and H. Lee. 2016. “Evidence and implications of nonlinear flood response in a small mountainous watershed.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 21 (8): 04016024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001343.
Kokkonen, T., H. Koivusalo, T. Karvonen, B. Croke, and A. Jakeman. 2004. “Exploring streamflow response to effective rainfall across event magnitude scale.” Hydrol. Processes 18 (8): 1467–1486. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1423.
Mai, J. 2023. “Ten strategies towards successful calibration of environmental models.” J. Hydrol. 620 (May): 129414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129414.
Mengistu, A. G., L. D. van Rensburg, and Y. E. Woyessa. 2019. “Techniques for calibration and validation of SWAT model in data scarce arid and semi-arid catchments in South Africa.” J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 25 (Oct): 100621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100621.
Mishra, S. K., J. V. Tyagi, and V. P. Singh. 2003. “Comparison of infiltration models.” Hydrol. Processes 17 (13): 2629–2652. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1257.
Moglen, G. E., H. Sadeq, L. H. Hughes, M. E. Meadows, J. J. Miller, J. J. Ramirez-Avila, and E. W. Tollner. 2022. “NRCS curve number method: Comparison of methods for estimating the curve number from rainfall-runoff data.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 27 (10): 04022023. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0002210.
Morbidelli, R., C. Corradini, C. Saltalippi, A. Flammini, J. Dari, and R. S. Govindaraju. 2018. “Rainfall infiltration modeling: A review.” Water 10 (12): 1873. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121873.
Moriasi, D. N., J. G. Arnold, M. W. Van Liew, R. L. Bingner, R. D. Harmel, and T. L. Veith. 2007. “Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.” Trans. ASABE 50 (3): 885–900. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153.
Nash, J. E., and J. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. “River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles.” J. Hydrol. 10 (3): 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6.
Nearing, M. A., M. H. Nichols, J. J. Stone, K. G. Renard, and J. R. Simanton. 2007. “Sediment yields from unit-source semiarid watersheds at Walnut Gulch.” Water Resour. Res. 43 (6): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005692.
Nijzink, R. C., et al. 2018. “Constraining conceptual hydrological models with multiple information sources.” Water Resour. Res. 54 (10): 8332–8362. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR021895.
Ogden, F. L., R. P. Hawkins, M. T. Walter, and D. C. Goodrich. 2017. “Beyond the SCS-CN method: A theoretical framework for spatially lumped rainfall-runoff response.” Water Resour. Res. 53 (7): 6345–6350. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020176.
Pande, S., H. H. Savenije, L. A. Bastidas, and A. K. Gosain. 2012. “A parsimonious hydrological model for a data scarce dryland region.” Water Resour. Manage. 26 (4): 909–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9816-z.
Phillips, J. V., and S. Tadayon. 2006. Selection of Manning’s roughness coefficient for natural and constructed vegetated and nonvegetated channels, and vegetation maintenance plan guidelines for vegetated channels in central Arizona. Reston, VA: USGS.
Quichimbo, E. A., M. B. Singer, K. Michaelides, D. E. Hobley, R. Rosolem, and M. O. Cuthbert. 2021. “DRYP 1.0: A parsimonious hydrological model of DRYland partitioning of the water balance.” Geosci. Model Dev. 14 (11): 6893–6917. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6893-2021.
Rawls, W. J., D. L. Brakensiek, and N. Miller. 1983. “Green-ampt infiltration parameters from soils data.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 109 (1): 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1983)109:1(62).
Renard, K. G., M. H. Nichols, D. A. Woolhiser, and H. B. Osborn. 2008. “A brief background on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed.” Water Resour. Res. 44 (5): W05S02. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005691.
Schoener, G. 2017. “Quantifying transmission losses in a New Mexico ephemeral stream: A losing proposition.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 22 (3): 05016038. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001473.
Schoener, G. 2018. “Time-lapse photography: Low-cost, low-tech alternative for monitoring flow depth.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 23 (2): 06017007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001616.
Schoener, G. 2022. “Impact of urbanization and stormwater infrastructure on ephemeral channel transmission loss in a semiarid watershed.” J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 41 (Jun): 101089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101089.
Schoener, G., S. Rassa, M. Fleming, D. Gatterman, and J. Montoya. 2023. “Infiltration model parameters from rainfall simulation for sandy soils.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 29 (1): 06023001. https://doi.org/10.1061/JHYEFF.HEENG-6025.
Schoener, G., M. C. Stone, and C. Thomas. 2021. “Comparison of seven simple loss models for runoff prediction at the plot, hillslope and catchment scale in the semiarid southwestern U.S.” J. Hydrol. 598 (Jul): 126490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126490.
Schreiner-McGraw, A. P., and E. R. Vivoni. 2018. “On the sensitivity of hillslope runoff and channel transmission losses in arid piedmont slopes.” Water Resour. Res. 54 (7): 4498–4518. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022842.
Southwest Watershed Research Center. 2024. “Data access project.” US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Accessed March 7, 2024. https://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/dap/.
Stewart, D., E. Canfield, and R. Hawkins. 2012. “Curve number determination methods and uncertainty in hydrologic soil groups from semiarid watershed data.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 17 (11): 1180–1187. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000452.
Tegegne, G., D. K. Park, and Y. O. Kim. 2017. “Comparison of hydrological models for the assessment of water resources in a data-scarce region, the Upper Blue Nile River Basin.” J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. 14 (Dec): 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.10.002.
USACE. 2000. Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS technical reference manual. Davis, CA: USACE.
USDA. 2004a. National engineering handbook, Chapter 9, Hydrologic soil-cover complexes. Washington, DC: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USDA. 2004b. National engineering handbook, Chapter 10, Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall. Washington, DC: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USDA. 2007. National engineering handbook, Chapter 16, Hydrographs. Washington, DC: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USDA. 2010. National engineering handbook, Chapter 15, Time of concentration. Washington, DC: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USGS. 2024. “National geospatial program: The national map.” US Department of the Interior. Accessed April 19, 2023. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/national-geospatial-program/national-map.
Wambura, F. J., O. Dietrich, and G. Lischeid. 2018. “Improving a distributed hydrological model using evapotranspiration-related boundary conditions as additional constraints in a data-scarce river basin.” Hydrol. Processes 32 (6): 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11453.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 29 • Issue 6 • December 2024
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 29, 2024
Accepted: Jun 25, 2024
Published online: Sep 13, 2024
Published in print: Dec 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Feb 13, 2025
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.