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

net/publication/272169378

A Review on Physically Based Hydrologic Modeling

Technical Report · May 2011

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4544.5924

CITATIONS READS
3 8,703

1 author:

Zahidul Islam
Government of Alberta
54 PUBLICATIONS   146 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Environmental Indicator Project View project

MSc Research Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zahidul Islam on 12 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Literature Review

on
PHYSICALLY BASED HYDROLOGIC MODELING

Submitted by

Zahidul Islam

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Alberta

May, 2011

1
 A REVIEW ON PHYSICALLY BASED HYDROLOGIC MODELING

Abstract
Hydrologic modelling involves formulating the mathematical models to represent the hydrologic processes such as,
precipitation, snowmelt, interception, evapotranspiration, infiltration, sub-surface flow, and surface flow, as well as
the interaction between them. Hydrologic modeling can be challenging because it involves highly nonlinear
processes, complex interactions and high spatial variabilities at basin scale. Starting from the mid of the nineteenth
century, the evolution of hydrologic modelling is continuing from lumped conceptual models to physically based
distributed models with the development of understanding the physical processes, computational efforts and data
retrieving facilities. Lumped conceptual hydrologic models consider three basic processes within a river basin: the
loss of water from storage to atmosphere; storage of water in soil, vegetation, aquifer, and in rivers; routing of flow
over the surface (Gosain et al., 2009). Physically based hydrologic models are based on known scientific principles
of energy and water fluxes whereas, conceptual models are based on conceptual storages and model parameters that
require calibration, or they are moisture accounting models without explicitly considering energy fluxes, and so they
mimic physical processes in a simplified manner. Focus on the physically based distributed hydrologic modelling
started in order to minimize or overcome the deficiencies of the conceptual models. In physically based hydrologic
modelling the hydrologic process of water movement are modeled either by the finite difference approximation of
the partial differential equation representing the mass, momentum and energy balance or by empirical equations
(Abbott et al., 1986b). Typically the primary components of hydrologic cycle related to the land phase are taken into
consideration. These are: interception, snowmelt, evapotranspiration, sub-surface runoff, groundwater flow, surface
runoff and channel routing. Physically based hydrologic models can be fully distributed where a river basin is
discretized as a rectangular grid mesh, or be semi-distributed when the basin is divided into limited number of sub-
basins based on the terrain features and the drainage network. Resolution of horizontal discretization could be an
important factor in physically based hydrologic modelling. This review paper will try to concentrate on the
physically based distributed or semi distributed hydrologic models, there necessity, capabilities of modeling various
hydrologic processes, discretization schemes and limitations.

1 Introduction
A river basin or watershed is an area over which various hydrologic processes such as precipitation, snowmelt,
interception, evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface runoff, and sub-surface flow are integrated. Hydrologic
modelling involves formulating the mathematical models to represent these hydrologic processes as well as the
interaction between them. So in hydrologic modelling the inter-relationship of soil, water, climate, and landuse are
considered and represented through mathematical abstraction (Gosain et al., 2009). This can be challenging because
it involves highly nonlinear processes, complex interactions and high spatial variability at basin scale. Starting from

2
the mid of the nineteenth century, the evolution of hydrologic modelling is continuing with the development of
understanding the physical processes, computational efforts and data retrieving facilities.

Hydrologic models can be classified according to the physical processes involved in modelling as conceptual and
physically based (Refsgaard, 1996). In conceptual models each of the hydrologic processes, that we read into our
observations of the catchment, are represented by simplified mathematical relationships, where as in physically
based model the detail physical processes can be represented in a deterministic way by representations of mass,
momentum and energy conservation (Refsgaard, 1996). According to the spatial description of the watershed
process, hydrologic models can be classified as lump and distributed models. In a lumped model the spatial
variability of watershed characteristics are ignored, while in a distributed model the spatial variability of vegetation,
soil, topography, etc are taken into account. The conceptual models are usually lumped while the physically based
model in practice has to be distributed in manner (Refsgaard, 1996).

The development of physically based hydrologic modelling started around the late 1960s. Freeze and Harlan (1969)
set out a blueprint for a physically based digitally simulated hydrologic response model. Their purpose of study was
to assess the feasibility of the development of physically based mathematical model of complete hydrologic system.
They concluded that, though the present level of sophistication allows the treatment of one or two dimensional
unsteady soil moisture flow in heterogeneous soil, three dimensional steady state groundwater flows in non-
homogeneous anisotropic formation, and one dimensional open channel flow with lateral inflow, the level of
development is not adequate to develop complete physically based hydrologic model (Freeze and Harlan, 1969).
Later studies by Freeze (1971, 1972a, 1972b) on saturated and unsaturated flow in groundwater and their role on
surface runoff are still considered as the pioneering work of physically based hydrologic modelling (Abbott et al.,
1986a). In 1976, three European organization, namely, the British Institute of Hydrology, the Danish Hydraulic
Institute and French Consulting Company SOGREAH, joined to develop a fully distributed physically based
hydrologic model SHE (European Hydrologic System) and it became operational in 1983(Abbott et al., 1986a,
1986b). Since then, the development of physically based hydrologic models is one of the major interests of
hydrologic research community.

A number of papers previously reviewed hydrologic modeling: Todini (2007) reviewed the past, present and future
state of art of hydrologic modeling; Davision and Kamp (2008) reviewed the capability of deterministic hydrologic
models to simulate low flows; Praskievicz and Chang (2009) reviewed the hydrological models for basin-scale
climate change and urban development impacts; Moradkhani and Sorooshian (2009) reviewed the rainfall-runoff
modeling and their uncertainty analysis; and recently Daniel et al. (2011) reviewed a state of the art of watershed
modeling and its applications. This review paper will try to concentrate on the physically based distributed or semi
distributed hydrologic models, there necessity, capabilities of modeling various hydrologic processes and
limitations.

3
This review paper is organized as follows: introduction in Section 1, modeling of different component of hydrologic
cycle in Section 2, discretization schemes of physically based hydrologic models in Section 3, semi-distributed
physically based hydrologic model Section 4, fully distributed physically based hydrologic model Section 5,
advantages and limitations in section 6 and an overall summary in Section 7.

2 Modeling concepts of hydrologic processes

In physically based hydrologic modelling the hydrologic process of water movement are modeled either by the finite
difference approximation of the partial differential equation representing the mass, momentum and energy balance
or by empirical equations (Abbott et al., 1986b). Typically the primary components of hydrologic cycle related to
the land phase are taken into consideration. These are: interception, snowmelt, evapotranspiration, sub-surface
runoff, groundwater flow, surface runoff and channel routing. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of
components of a physically based distributed hydrologic model MIKE SHE (Refsgaard and Stron, 1995). A number
of physically based hydrologic models have been reviewed and modeling concepts of these physical processes used
by various hydrologic models will be discussed in the following sections. Selected model acronyms and principal
reference(s) are listed in Table 1, and modeling concepts of different physical processes used by those models are
shown in Table 2 and Table 3. List of Symbols used in different equations discussed in the following sections is
given in Appendix A.

Figure 1: Schematic representation of components of a physically based distributed hydrologic model MIKE SHE
(from Refsgaard and Stron, 1995)

4
Table 1. Selected physically based hydrologic model, spatial description and discretization type

Model Acronym Model Definition Principle Reference(s) Semi/Fully Discretization

Distributed type*
TOPMODEL TOPography based hydrological Beven and Kirby (1976, 1979) Semi HRU
MODEL Beven et al. (1995)
WATBAL Knudsen et al. (1986) Semi OG
SHE European Hydrologic System Abbott et al.(1986a, 1986b) Fully OG
ISBA Interaction Soil Biosphere Nolihan and Planton(1989) Fully OG
Atmosphere Nolihan and Mahfouf (1995)
IHDM Institute of Hydrology Distributed Beven et al. (1987) Fully HRU
Model Calver and Wood (1995)
THALES Grayson et al. (1992a; 1995) Fully IE
SLURP Semi-distributed Land Use-based Kite (1995) Semi GRU
Runoff Processes
MIKE SHE Refsgaard and Storm (1995) Fully OG
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool Arnold et al. (1998a) Semi HRU
WATFLOOD/ Waterloo Flood Forecasting Kouwen (1988) Fully OG
SPL9 Model Kouwen (2000)
Kouwen and Mousavi (2002)
HRCDHM Hydrologic Research Center Carpenter et al. (2001) Semi HRU
Distributed Hydrologic Model
DPHM-RS Semi-Distributed Physically Biftu and Gan(2001, 2004) Semi HRU
based Hydrologic Model using
Remote Sensing and GIS
R.WATER.FEA Vieux and Gauer (1994) Fully IE
Vieux et al.(2004)
tRIBS TIN-based Real-time Integrated Ivanov et al., 2004 Fully TIN
Basin Simulator
TOPNET Bandaragoda et al.(2004) Semi HRU
MISBA Modified Interaction Soil Kerkhoven and Gan (2006) Fully OG
Biosphere Atmosphere
LISTFLOOD Van der Knijff et al.(2010) Fully OG
De Roo et al. (2000)
HydroGeoSphere Therrien et al. (2005; 2010) Fully OG
PAWS Process-based Adaptive Shen and Phanikumar (2010) Fully OG
Watershed Simulator
CREST The Coupled Routing and Excess Wang et al. (2011) Fully OG
Storage

*
Abbreviation used for Discretization type: OG= Orthogonal Grid, HRU= Hydrologic Response Unit, GRU=
Grouped Response Unit, IE=Irregular Elements, TIN=Triangulated Irregular Network.

5
2.1 Interception Component

The net precipitation reaching to the ground through the canopy and canopy storage is calculated by the interception
component. As rainfall interception by vegetative canopies modifies the surface water balance, interception loss can
be significantly higher over the forest canopies (Nolihan and Mahfouf, 1996). Muzylo et al. (2009) reviewed
different approaches of rainfall interception modelling. The Rutter interception model (Rutter et, al., 1971) is usually
considered as a reference for rainfall interception (Nolihan and Mahfouf, 1996) and has been used in the
development of many physically based hydrologic models (e.g. SHE, DPHMRS, ISBA, MISBA, tRIBS, IHDM,
etc). In this model the canopy interception is given by,

𝒅𝑪
= (𝟏 − 𝜹) − 𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒕 − 𝒌𝟏 𝒆𝒃(𝑪−𝑺) ; 𝟎 ≤ 𝑪 ≤ 𝑺 [1]
𝒅𝒕

where C is the canopy interception, δ is the throughfall coefficient, S is the canopy storage capacity or the maximum
interception, 𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒕 is evaporation rate from intercepted water, 𝑘1 and b are the Rutter drainage parameters; δ and S
are related to the leaf area index(LAI) of the canopy.

In MIKE SHE, Kristensen-Jensen method (Kristensen and Jensen, 1975) is used in addition to the Rutter model to
compute the intercepted water capacity,

𝑺 = 𝑺𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝑳𝑨𝑰 [2]

where 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑡 is a canopy storage parameter.

LISFLOOD follows the simpler approach of Aston (1979) and Merriam (1960) in which interception is estimated by
(Van der Knijff et al., 2010),

𝒌𝟐 𝑷∆𝒕
𝑪 = 𝑺 [𝟏 − 𝒆𝒙𝒑 (− )] [3]
𝑺

where P is the precipitation rate (mm/day), ∆t is the time step (days), and 𝒌𝟐 is vegetation constant . S and 𝒌𝟐 is
usually given by empirical relationship based on the leaf area index (LAI) of the canopy.

In TOPNET the canopy interception is calculated using a function quantifying the precipitation throughfall given by
Ibbitt (1971),

𝑪 𝑪
𝒇(𝑪) = (𝟐 − ) [4]
𝑺 𝑺

where 𝑓(𝐶) is the precipitation throughfall portion. The rate of change of interception storage is then given by,

𝒅𝑪
= 𝑷[𝟏 − 𝒇(𝑪)] − 𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝑪𝒓 𝒇(𝑪) [5]
𝒅𝒕

where Cr is the interception evaporation adjustment factor.

6
WATFLOOD/SPL9 (Kouwen, 1988; 2000) uses Horton equation (Horton, 1919) to compute interception, in which
the depth of interception is given by,
𝑪 = 𝒂𝒘 + 𝒃𝒘 . 𝑷𝒏𝒘 [6]
where aw, bw and nw are parameters depends on vegetation canopy.

ISBA (Nolihan and Planton, 1989; Nolihan and Mahfouf; 1996) and MISBA (Kerkhoven and Gan, 2006) uses the
relationship of Deardorff (1978) to model the precipitation interception,

𝒅𝑪
= 𝒗𝒆𝒈. 𝑷 − (𝑬𝒗 − 𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒕 ) − 𝑹𝒓 ; 𝑪 ≪ 𝟎. 𝟐. 𝒗𝒆𝒈. 𝑳𝑨𝑰 [7]
𝒅𝒕

where veg is the fraction of vegetation, Ev is the evaporation from vegetation and Rr is the runoff of the intercepted
water.

PAWS (Shen and Phanikumar 2010) use a bucket model approach to model the canopy interception,

𝒅𝑪 𝑺−𝑪
= 𝐦𝐢𝐧 ( , 𝑷) [8]
𝒅𝒕 ∆𝒕

2.2 Snowmelt Component

Snowmelt component of a physically based basin-scale hydrologic model simulate the snow accumulation and melt
processes and can essentially be grouped into two basic classes, namely the temperature index (or degree-day)
method (e.g., WATFLOOD, SLURP, SHE, MIKE SHE, LISTFLOOD, SWAT) and the energy balance method (e.g.
IHDM, SHE, MIKE SHE, MISBA ). Snowmelt models based on temperature index method use air temperature as
an index for snowmelt while the energy balance method use the principle of energy balance (Singh et al., 2009).

In temperature index method snowmelt rate is related to air temperature (Ta) using a melt factor (MF) as,

𝑴 = 𝑴𝑭(𝑻𝒂 − 𝑻𝑩𝒂𝒔𝒆 ) [9]

where M is snowmelt depth (mm); MF is the melt factor(mm. 0C -1.hr-1) , depends on the slope, aspect of the land
surface, vegetation cover, and climate; Ta is the average air temperature over the time (0C); TBase is a melt-threshold
temperature or the base temperature at which the snow will begin to melt ( 0C).

In this method, (𝑇𝑎 − 𝑇𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 ) is an empirical index of the total amount of insolation received on a regional basis.
Temperature index method applicable when there is a strong correlation between Ta and the dominant energy
responsible for snowmelt.

LISTFLOOD use a temperature index method (Speers et al., 1979) which takes into account the accelerated
snowmelt when it is raining,

7
𝑴 = 𝑴𝑭. (𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏. 𝑷∆𝒕)(𝑻𝒂 − 𝑻𝑩𝒂𝒔𝒆 )∆𝒕 [10]

where ∆𝑡 is interval time (days), and P is the rainfall rate (mm/day)

In SWAT snow melt starts when the second soil layer temperature exceeds 0˚C and snowmelt rate is presented as a
function of snow pack temperature using the equation,

𝑴 = (𝟏. 𝟓𝟐 + 𝟎. 𝟓𝟒 𝑺𝑷𝑻)𝑻𝒂 [11]

where M is the snowmelt rate in mm and SPT is the snow pack temperature in ˚C.

WATFLOOD/SPL9 used a radiation-temperature index model (Hamlin, 1996) which is a combination of the
temperature index and the surface radiation budget. Snowmelt depth is given by (Kouwen et al., 2002),

𝑴 = 𝑴𝑭(𝑻𝒂 − 𝑻𝑩𝒂𝒔𝒆 ) + 𝒓𝒏. 𝑹 [12]

where rn is the conversion factor for energy flux density to mm of snowmelt per hour, and R is the net radiation
acting on the snow pack (W.m-2).

In energy balance method, the transfer of energy at the snow surface and snow-soil interface is estimated from the
one-dimensional, energy equation applied to a control volume of snow having upper and lower interfaces with air
and ground, respectively (Singh et al, 2009). Available heat for snowmelt is given as,

Qm  Qn  Qh  Qe  Qp  Qg  U  [13]

where Qn is sum of net radiation, Qh is convective or turbulent sensible heat flux, Qe is latent heat flux (J.m-2), Qp is
advective heat of precipitation, Qg is ground heat flux, and U is cold content of snowpack. Amount of snowmelt is
then estimated as,

Qm
M [14]
 w f 

where f is latent heat of fusion of ice, ρw is density of water, and  is the ratio of the heat necessary to completely
melt a snowpack to that needed to produce the same quantity of melt from pure ice at 0C.

Energy balance method requires massive, good quality data that are rarely available and so are seldom used
operationally. However, depending on the availability of data or on general requirements, some model (e.g. SHE)
incorporate both the temperature index and energy balance calculation modes to determine the total heat flux.

2.3 Evapotranspiration Component

Evapotranspiration component calculates actual evaporation from soil, canopy storage, and open water, sublimation
from snow and transpiration from vegetation.

8
Hydrologic models ISBA, MISBA, SLURP, etc uses energy balance and aerodynamic method to calculate
evapotranspiration. In energy balance method evaporation rate is given by (Chow et al., 1988),

𝟏
𝑬𝒓 = (𝑹𝒏 − 𝑯𝒔 − 𝑮) [15]
𝒍𝒗 𝝆𝒘

where 𝑙𝑣 is the latent heat of vaporization, 𝜌𝑤 is the density of water, 𝑅𝑛 is the net radiation, 𝐻𝑠 is the sensible heat
flux and 𝐺 is the ground heat flux.

In aerodynamic method evaporation is given by (Chow et al., 1988),

𝑬𝒂 = 𝑩(𝒆𝒂𝒔 − 𝒆𝒂 ) [16]
where 𝑒𝑎𝑠 is the saturated vapour pressure, 𝑒𝑎 is the vapour pressure air temperature and 𝐵 is the vapour transfer
coefficient.

Penman (Penman, 1948) combined the energy balance and aerodynamic method of evaporation and developed a
combination method which is known as the Penman combination method and have been used in various hydrologic
models (e.g., HRCDHM, tRIBS). In this method evaporation is given by (Chow et al., 1988),
∆ 𝜸
𝑬= 𝑬𝒓 + 𝑬𝒂 [17]
∆+𝜸 ∆+𝜸

where ∆ is the slope of the saturation vapour pressure versus temperature curve and 𝛾 is the psychometric constant.

The Priestley-Taylor model (Priestley and Taylor, 1972) is a modification of Penman’s more theoretical equation
and is used in hydrologic models such as WATFLOOD/SPL9, SWAT, and TOPNET. In this method an empirical
approximation of the Penman combination equation is made to eliminate the need for input data other than radiation.
Potential evapotranspiration given by the Priestley-Taylor model,
∆
𝑬=𝜶 (𝑹𝒏 − 𝑮) [18]
∆+𝜸

where 𝛼 is a multiplying factor.

The Penman-Monteith method (Monteith, 1965) is also a modification of Penman combination method (Penman,
1948) and is being using in numerous hydrologic models (e.g., SWAT, SHE, MIKE SHE, IHDM, tRIBS etc). In this
method evaporation is given by,

𝟏 ∆(𝑹𝒏 −𝑮)+𝜸𝒍𝒗 𝑬𝒂
𝑬= [ ] [19]
𝒍𝒗 ∆+𝜸

In LISTFLOOD, evaporation from soil and transpiration are calculated separately based on Supit et al. (1994) and
Supit and vander Goot et al. (2003). The actual transpiration is estimated by multiplying the maximum transpiration
(𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) by a reduction factor 𝛼1 and actual evaporation from soil surface is estimated by multiplying the maximum
evaporation from soil surface (𝐸𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) by a reduction factor 𝛼2 ,

9
𝑻𝒂 = 𝜶𝟏 . 𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 [20]
𝑬𝑺𝒂 = 𝜶𝟐 . 𝑬𝑺𝒎𝒂𝒙 [21]

The maximum transpiration and maximum soil evaporation are calculated as,

𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝒌𝒄𝒓𝒐𝒑 . 𝑬𝑻𝒐 . [𝟏 − 𝒆−(𝒌𝒈𝒃 ).𝑳𝑨𝑰 ]∆𝒕 − 𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒕 [22]

𝑬𝑺𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝑬𝑺𝒐 . 𝒆−(𝒌𝒈𝒃 ).𝑳𝑨𝑰 ∆𝒕 [23]
Where, 𝑘𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 is a crop coefficient, 𝑘𝑔𝑏 is extinction coefficient, 𝐸𝑇𝑜 is the reference potential evaporation 𝐸𝑆𝑜 is the
potential evaporation from bare soil.

In SLURP, actual evapotranspiration (Ea) is computed by Complementary Relationship Areal Evapotranspiration

(CRAE) method of Mortion (1983). In CRAE method, first, an aerial wet-environment evaporation (Ew) is
calculated from an empirical equation using the slope of the saturation vapour pressure/ temperature curve and net
radiation, then actual evapotranspiration is calculated as a complementary function of wet-environment value,

𝑬𝒂 = 𝟐𝑬𝒘 − 𝑬𝒑 [24]
where, EP is the potential evaporation computed by solving the energy balance and aerodynamic equation at
equilibrium temperature using a modified Penman equation.

Empirical Hargreaves model (Hargreaves and Samani, 1982) is used in WATFLOOD/SPL9 and SWAT,
𝟏⁄
𝑬 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟓. 𝑹𝒂 . 𝑪𝒕 . 𝜹𝒕 𝟐 . 𝑻𝒂𝒗𝒈.𝒅 [25]
where 𝑅𝑎 is the incoming solar radiation, 𝐶𝑡 is a temperature reduction coefficient, 𝛿𝑡 is the difference between the
mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature (˚F) and 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔.𝑑 is the mean temperature (˚F) in the timestep.

WATBAL and MIKE SHE calculate the actual evapotranspiration by Kristensen-Jensen Model (Kristensen and
Jensen, 1975). In this method, the actual transpiration and soil evaporation is calculated from the soil moisture and
potential evaporation as shown in Figure 2.

Kristensen-Jensen Model also adapted in HydroGeoSphere (Therrien et al, 2010) in which the rate of transpiration is
estimated from the relationship of Kristensen and Jensen (1975) that distributes the net transpiration capacity
among leaf area index (LAI), water content, time-varying root distribution function, reference evapotranspiration
(Ep) and canopy evaporation (Ecan ),

𝑻𝒑 = 𝒇𝟏 (𝑳𝑨𝑰)𝒇𝟐 (𝜽)𝑹𝑫𝑭[𝑬𝒑 − 𝑬𝒄𝒂𝒏 ] [26]

𝑓1 (𝐿𝐴𝐼) is a function of leaf area index, 𝑓2 (𝜃) is a function of nodal water content and 𝑅𝐷𝐹 is the time varying root
distribution function.

10
Figure 2. Relationship between a) actual transpiration and soil moisture content b) actual soil evaporation and soil
moisture content (from Refgaard and Storn, 1995). Eat, Ep and Es are the actual transpiration, potential
evapotranspiration and soil evaporation respectively; θF , θW , θM are the soil moisture content at field capacity, soil
moisture content at wilting point and irreduable soil moisture content.

Evaporation is computed using two models. The first model assumes that evaporation occurs if the reference
evapotranspiration Ep has not been removed by the canopy evaporation Ecan and plant transpiration Tp,

𝐸𝑠 = 𝛼 ∗ (𝐸𝑝 − 𝐸𝑐𝑎𝑛 − 𝑇𝑝 )𝐸𝐷𝐹

The second model assumes that evaporation occurs along with transpiration,

𝐸𝑠 = 𝛼 ∗ (𝐸𝑝 − 𝐸𝑐𝑎𝑛 )[1 − 𝑓1 (𝐿𝐴𝐼)]𝐸𝐷𝐹

Where 𝛼 ∗ is a wetness factor, and 𝐸𝐷𝐹 is the evaporation distribution functions.

2.4 Unsaturated Zone Component

Unsaturated zone is referred as the mostly unsaturated and usually heterogeneous soil profile extending from the
land surface to the groundwater table (Refgaard and Storn, 1995). Water in this zone (i.e. soil moisture) represents
the temporary storage of precipitation and is characterized by cyclic fluctuations in soil moisture. In physically
based hydrologic modeling, this zone is usually vertically subdivided into two layers: the upper layer (active layer or
root zone layer), which exhibits rapid fluctuations in moisture content due to evapotranspiration and precipitation
infiltration, and the lower layer (or the transmission zone), which characterizes the relatively slow soil moisture
behavior (Refgaard and Storn, 1995; Biftu and Gan, 2004). Physical processes involved in unsaturated zone are
precipitation infiltration, evapotranspiration from the root zone, percolation to the saturated zone etc. Flow in the
unsaturated zone is assumed to be vertical as gravity plays major role during the percolation.

11
Most comprehensive physically based hydrologic models (e.g., SHE, MIKE SHE) use Richards’s equation for one
dimensional vertical flow to update the soil moisture content and tension in unsaturated zone. Richard’s equation is
developed by combining Darcy’s law with the law of conservation of mass and includes the effect of gravity, soil
suction, soil evaporation and transpiration in the form (Refgaard and Storn, 1995),

𝝏𝝍 𝝏 𝝏𝝍 𝝏𝑲
𝑪 = (𝑲 )+ −𝑺 [27]
𝝏𝒕 𝝏𝒛 𝝏𝒛 𝝏𝒁
𝜕𝜃
where 𝜓 is the soil moisture tension, 𝑡 is the time, 𝑧 is the vertical space coordinate, C is the soil water capacity ( ),
𝜕𝜓

𝜃 is the volumetric water content, 𝐾(𝜃, 𝑧) is the hydraulic conductivity and 𝑆(𝑧) is the source or sink term for root
extraction and soil evaporation.

A wide number of hydrologic models (e.g., WATBAL, TOPNET, R.WATER.FEA, SLURP, DPHMRS,
WATFLOOD/SPL9 etc.) calculate the infiltration separately and apply water balance to update the soil moisture and
percolation to the ground water. Infiltration modeling can be categorized as: empirical method (e.g. Horton, 1940),
physically based method (e.g. Richards Equation) and approximation to the physically based method (e.g. Green-
Ampt Model, Philip Model etc). Hydrologic models WATBAL, TOPNET, R.WATER.FEA etc used Green-Ampt
model (Green and Ampt, 1911) to calculate infiltration. Infiltration rate by the Green-Ampt model is given as,

(𝝋−𝜽𝒊 )𝑺𝒇
𝒇 = 𝑲 [𝟏 + ] [28]
𝑭

where K is the effective hydraulic conductivity, Sf is the effective suction at welting point, φ is the soil porosity, θi is
the initial soil moisture and F is the cumulative infiltration.

Infiltration rate given by the Philip model (Philip, 1954),

𝟏 𝟏⁄
𝒇 = 𝑺𝒕 𝟐 +𝑨 [29]
𝟐

where f is the infiltration rate, S is the Sorptivity and A is a parameter with dimensions of conductivity.
Philip model is used in hydrologic models SLURP, DPHMRS, WATFLOOD/SPL9 etc.

2.5 Saturated Zone Component

Saturated subsurface flow and groundwater level is computed by the saturated zone component. Flow in saturated
zone is assumed to be two dimensional horizontal. Saturated zone receives percolation rate from the unsaturated
zone and updated the ground water table which in turn updates the lower boundary condition of the unsaturated zone
component (Abbott et al., 1986a).

12
Most comprehensive physically based models (e.g., MIKE SHE, IHDM) solve three dimensional ground water flow
equation to calculate the spatial and temporal variation of hydraulic heads. Three dimensional groundwater flows in
an anisotropic, heterogeneous aquifer or multi layer aquifer system is given by (Refgaard and Storn, 1995),

𝝏𝒉 𝝏 𝝏𝒉
𝑺 +𝑹= (𝑲𝒊𝒋 𝑯 ) 𝒊, 𝒋 = 𝟏, 𝟐, 𝟑 [30]
𝝏𝒕 𝝏𝒙𝒊 𝝏𝒙𝒊

where 𝑆(𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) is the specific storage, ℎ(𝑥𝑖 ) is the hydraulic head, 𝑥𝑖 is the space coordinates, 𝐾(𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) is the hydraulic
conductivity, and 𝑅 (𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) is the volumetric flow rate via source or sink.

Semi distributed models TOPMODEL, DPHMRS use the concept of topographic index, given by, a/tanβ (Kirkby
and Weyman, 1974), where ‘a’ is the area draining through a point from upslope and ‘tanβ’ is the local slope angle
and the following relationship to relate the catchment average water table depth and the local water table depth,

𝒂 𝟏 𝒂 𝟏
𝒇(𝒛̅ − 𝒛𝒊 ) = [𝐥𝐧 − ( ∑𝒊 𝐥𝐧 )] − [𝐥𝐧 𝑻𝟎 − ( ∑𝒊 𝐥𝐧 𝑻𝟎 )] [31]
𝒕𝒂𝒏𝜷 𝑨 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝜷 𝑨

where, 𝑧̅ is the catchment mean water table, 𝑧𝑖 is the local water table at a point i, A is the entire area of the
catchment, 𝑇0 is the local lateral transmissivity when the soil is just saturated.

Other method used by different hydrologic models are: gravity drainage scheme following a linear reservoir (e.g.,
ISBA, MISBA); two parallel linear reservoirs method (LISTFLOOD); storage discharge relation
(WATFLOOD/SPL9); Quasi three-dimensional cascade model (tRIBS) etc.

2.6 Surface Runoff and Routing Component

This component includes three physical processes: accumulation of water contributing surface runoff (known as
overland flow), routing of overland flow to the nearest stream channel and routing of channel flow to the basin
outlet. Surface runoff can occur in two ways: first, when the rate of precipitation is less than the infiltration capacity
and runoff occurs because the soil becomes saturated (knows as Dunne runoff); second, when rate of precipitation
exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil (known as Horton runoff).

Distributed hydrologic model based on variable contributing area concept (e.g. TOPMODEL, TOPNET) express the
topographic index in distribution function form and thus generate hydrologically similar area based on similar values
of topographic index. Contributing areas having the local water table above the surface considered as saturated zone
and any rainfall falling upon that zone is taken to runoff.

Some physically based distributed hydrologic models (e.g. ISBA, MISBA, and LISTFLOOD) consider the sub-grid
heterogeneity of moisture capacity of soil (x) to follow the Xinanjiang distribution,

13
 𝒙 𝜷
𝑭(𝒙) = 𝟏 − (𝟏 − ) ; 𝟎 ≪ 𝒙 ≪ 𝒙𝒎𝒂𝒙 [32]
𝒙𝒎𝒂𝒙

where β is an empirical parameter and 𝐹(𝑥) is the cumulative probability distribution of x completely defined by the
maximum (𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) and mean moisture capacity of the soil (𝑥𝑎𝑣𝑒 ). The scheme acts like a multi-bucket model in
which the distribution of buckets size is defined by the Xinanjiang distribution (e.g. Zhao, 1992) and when a bucket
fills its capacity surface runoff occurs (Kerkhoven and Gan, 2006).

In physically based hydrologic models, generally, the surface runoff is routed to the nearest channel by overland
routing model and channel flow reach the basin outlet through channel routing. Distributed models like SHE, MIKE
SHE, apply the two dimensional solution based on the diffusion wave approximation of the St. Venant equation to
model the overland flow routing,

𝝏𝒉 𝝏(𝒖𝒉) 𝝏(𝒗𝒉)
+ + =𝒒 [33]
𝝏𝒕 𝝏𝒙 𝝏𝒚

where ℎ(𝑥, 𝑦)is the local water depth; t is time; 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦), 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦) are the flow velocities in x and y directions, q (x,y,t)
surface runoff.

Distributed and semi distributed models like IHDM, DPHMRS, HRCHHM, TOPNET, THALES, MISBA,
LISTFLOOD, R.WATER.FEA apply the kinematic wave model to route the overland flow,

𝝏𝒒 𝝏𝒒
+𝒄 = 𝒄𝑹 [34]
𝝏𝒕 𝝏𝒙

where q is the surface runoff, c is the kinematic wave velocity and R is the water available for runoff from vertical
water balance.

WATFLOOD uses a storage routing technique. It involves a straightforward application of the continuity equation,

𝑰𝟏 +𝑰𝟐 𝑶𝟏 +𝑶𝟐 𝑺𝟐 −𝑺𝟏

− = [35]
𝟐 𝟐 ∆𝒕

where, I1,2 is the inflow to the reach consisting of total runoff; O1,2 is the outflow from the reach; S1,2 is the storage in
the reach and ∆t is the routing timestep.

Other routing method commonly applied for overland flow are: non-linear hydrologic routing, routing based on
Manning’s formula, assuming constant hillslope velocity, response function based on kinematic wave model etc.

Widely used channel routing models includes one dimensional diffusion wave; Muskingum-Cunge method, which is
the approximate solution of modified diffusion equation; and kinematic wave model.

14
3 Discretization Schemes of Physically Based Hydrologic Models

Resolution of horizontal discretization could be an important factor in physically based hydrologic modelling.
Various types of discretization schemes of are found in literature and they can be broadly classified into three
categories (Kite and Pietriniro, 1996): orthogonal grid base, irregular grid base, and hydrologic response unit or
grouped response unit base.

In orthogonal grid base discretization, the river basin is divided into rectangular grids. The resolution of the grids
can vary within the basin but must be same for a given row or column in a network array (Abbott et al., 1986b).
Wood et al. (1988) proposed a Representative Element Area (REA) scale of horizontal discretization at which the
spatial variability assumed to be disappeared in watershed runoff. Physically based hydrologic models that fall in
this type of discretization are SHE (Abbott et al., 1986a, 1986b), WATBAL (Knudsen et al., 1986), MIKE SHE
(Refsgaard and Storm,1995) , ISBA (Nolihan and Planton, 1989), MISBA (Kerkhoven and Gan, 2006),
LISTFLOOD (Van der Knijff et al., 2010; De Roo et al., 2000), WATFLOOD/ SPL9 (Kouwen , 1988; Kouwen ,
2000; Kouwen and Mousavi, 2002), HydroGeoSphere (Therrien et al. , 2005; 2010), PAWS (Shen and Phanikumar,
2010) , CREST (Wang et al., 2011) etc.

In irregular grid base discretization, the river basin is divided into irregular elements depending on basin topography
and terrain features. Hydrologic modelling elements are generated either based on streamlines and equipotential
lines or by triangulated irregular networks (TIN). THALES (Grayson et al., 1992a), tRIBS (Ivanov et al., 2004),
R.WATER.FEA (Vieux and Gauer, 1994) are the examples of terrain based hydrologic model.

In hydrological response unit base discretization, the river basin is divided into a number of sub-basins which are
drained by a defined drainage network (Biftu and Gan, 2004). The hydrologic processes are usually evaluated at a
point scale for different land class and then aggregated in sub-basin scale. Wide number of physically based
hydrologic model, namely, TOPMODEL (Beven et al, 1979, 1995), TOPNET (Bandaragoda et al., 2004), SWAT
(Arnold et al., 1998a), HRCDHM (Carpenter et al., 2001), DPHMRS (Biftu and Gan, 2001, 2004), IHDM (Beven et
al., 1987; Calver and Wood, 1995) are based on this concept of basin discretization. In Grouped Response Unit Base
discretization, a watershed is subdivided into sub units, in which a grid cell or a group of grid cells or a sub-basin
may be represented as a GRU (e.g. SLURP (Kite, 1995).

4 Semi-distributed Physically based Hydrologic Models

In semi-distributed physically based hydrologic modeling, a river basin is divided into limited number of sub-basins
of uneven shapes and sizes based on topographic information derived from digital terrain elevation data (DTED) or
digital elevation model (DEM). They use vigorous scientific theories to effectively capture the essential physics of
hydrologic processes of a river basin, however, they can avoid unnecessary data demand and computation burden by

15
lumping the hydrologic processes into sub-basin scale. Discretizing a river basin to sub-basins on the basis of its
drainage pattern dictated by its topographic characteristics is expected to better represent nature than a rectangular
grid-mesh. Therefore at least in theory a semi-distributed approach should be advantageous over a fully distributed
approach even though the former is generally of coarser resolution than the latter. A number of physically based
semi-distributed hydrologic models have been reviewed; a selected number of models and their modeling basis are
summarized in Table 2 and will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

TOPMODEL (TOPography based hydrological MODEL)

TOPMODEL (Beven and Kirby, 1976; 1979; Beven et al., 1995) is based on the concept of topographic index,
given by a/tanβ (Kirkby and Weyman, 1974), where ‘a’ is the area draining through a point from upslope and ‘tanβ’
is the local slope angle. Topographic index is used as an index of hydrological similarity by assuming that all points
with the same value of the index are respond in a hydrologically similar way. TOPMODEL is based on three
assumptions: dynamics of the saturated zone can be approximated by steady state representations, hydraulic gradient
of the saturated zone can be approximated by the local surface topographic slope, and downward transmissivity
varies exponentially with depth to the water table (Beven et al., 1995). The surface or subsurface runoff
contributing area is calculated by expressing the topographic index in distribution function form and thus generating
hydrologically similar area based on similar values of topographic index. Contributing areas having the local water
table above the surface considered as saturated zone and any rainfall falling upon that zone is taken to runoff,
whereas, subsurface contributing areas are predicted by finding zones where the local water table is above a
threshold value.

TOPMODEL generally consider movement of water in through different stores embodied in the model that routes
water from surface to the saturated zone (Beven et al., 1995). In early version of TOPMODEL (Beven and Kirkby,
1979), there were three stores: interception or depression store which needs to be filled before infiltration and
subjected to potential evaporation; infiltration store; and saturated zone store. In revised formulation of
TOPMODEL (Quinn, 1991; Quinn and Beven, 1993), water stores are defined as: root zone storage, having the
similar functionality as interception or depression store; non-active moisture zone, which is based on the field
capacity concept; and the saturation zone.

TOPMODEL was initially applied to the Crimple Beck catchment in north of England (Beven and Kiekby, 1979;
Beven et al, 1984). Recent application included: Haute-Mentue catchment, Switzerland (Talamba et al., 2010); in
Vallcebre basins, South-Eastern Pyrenees, Spain (Gallart et al., 2009); in Arboleda and Taconazo watershed, north-
central Costa Rica (Zanon, 2011) etc.

WATBAL

Knudsen et al. (1986) developed physically based model WATBAL, which is an intermediate approach between
fully distributed physically based model and conceptual rainfall-runoff model. WATBAL model the hydrological

16
processes at the root zone level through a distributed, physically based approach by utilizing spatially distributed
meteorological data, vegetation and soil properties (Knudsen et al., 1986). However, the groundwater processes are
simulated using a lumped conceptual approach.

A time varying leaf-area index is used for each type of vegetation to derive the canopy storage capacity from which
water is assumed to be subject to evapotranspiration at the potential rate while excess input is transferred to the
surface storage (Knudsen et al., 1986). The actual evapotranspiration from the latter storage is computed using a
slightly modified version of the model developed by Kristensen and Jensen (1975). The infiltration process is
modeled using the Mein and Larson (1971; 1973) modification of Green-Ampt model to describe the pre-ponding
and post-ponding stages of the infiltration process.

A two box approach is used to model the soil moisture in which the depth of the upper box follows the root depth
and volumetric soil moisture is assumed to be uniformly distributed within each box. Soil moisture is computed
considering infiltration, actual evapotranspiration and percolation. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity variation as
proposed by Averjanov (1950) is used to calculate vertical drainage of soil moisture while exceeding field capacity.
The overland flow from each topographic zone is derived using a combination of the Chezy-Manning equation and
an empirical expression relating outflow depth and detention storage.

WATBAL was applied in the Danish and Tanzanian catchments and in feasibility study of medium-size dams in
Zimbabwe, by Dangroup International (1984).

SLURP (Semi-distributed Land Use-based Runoff Processes)

SLURP (Kite, 1995) is a semi-distributed hydrologic model which divided a watershed into sub units, namely,
Grouped Response Unit (GRUs). A grid cell or a group of grid cells or a sub-basin may be represented as a GRU.
SLURP is based on two components: a vertical component consisting of daily surface water balance and flow
generation from several storages; and a horizontal component of flow delivery within each GRU and channel
routing to the basin outlet (Brown et al, 2008).

Potential evaporation is computed by solving the energy balance and aerodynamic equation at equilibrium
temperature using a modified Penman equation. Actual evapotranspiration is computed by Complementary
Relationship Areal Evapotranspiration (CRAE) method of Mortion (1983). In this method, first, an aerial wet-
environment evaporation is calculated from an empirical equation using the slope of the saturation vapour pressure/
temperature curve and net radiation, then actual evapotranspiration is calculated as a complementary function of
wet-environment value. The snowmelt rate is calculated by temperature index method.

The vertical water balance is based on three non-linear reservoirs: one for snowpack, one for rapid response (e.g.
surface storage or top layer storage) and one for slow response (e.g. groundwater). Percolation from rapid storage to

17
slow storage is based on Philip modification (Philip, 1954) of Green-Ampt equation and surface runoff is based on
the Manning’s equation. Within a GRU, routing of surface runoff to GRU outlet is based on a constant velocity
computer by Manning’s equation and simple hydrological routing based on the non-linear reservoir inflow-storage
and outflow relationship is used to route the flow between GRUs.

SLURP model was initially applied in the Kootenay River Basin in the Rocky Mountains of British Colombia,
Canada (Kite, 1993) for testing and calibration. Recent applications are: in Mackenzie Basin (Thorne, et al., 2007);
hydrologic modeling in northern Manitoba, Canada (Choi et al., 2009); climate change projection of discharge for
Mekong River Basin (Kingston et al., 2010); climate change study in the north western part of South Korea (Ahn at
el., 2011) etc.

SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool)

Arnold et al. (1998a) developed a semi-distributed continuous non point source model Soil and Water Assessment
Tool (SWAT), in which the watershed is divided into a large number of sub-basins which are then subdivided into
unique soil or landuse classes, usually called the hydrologic response unit. SWAT is based on the water balance for
the four storage volumes: snow, soil profile, shallow aquifer, and deep aquifer. The water balance is applied in each
hydrological unit and non point source loading (e.g. runoff) is summed over a sub-basin. The resulting loads are then
routed through the channels and reservoirs to the watershed outlet. The physical processes considered in SWAT are
precipitation, interception, evapotranspiration, surface runoff, infiltration, percolation, and subsurface runoff.

The potential evapotranspiration can be computed using three different models: Hargreaves (Hargreaves and
Samani, 1982), Priestley-Taylor (Priestley and Taylor, 1972), and Penman-Monteith (Monteith, 1965). The actual
plant transpiration and the actual soil evaporation are estimated separately based on the potential evapotranspiration
and additional soil and landuse parameters. Snow melt starts when the second soil layer temperature exceeds 0˚C
and snowmelt rate is estimated as function of snow pack temperature and air temperature.

The surface runoff from daily rainfall amounts is modelled using the SCS curve number equation (USDA-SCS,
1972). In SWAT the soil profile is subdivided into multiple layers and for each layer the model considers
infiltration, evaporation, plant uptake and interflow (Schuol et al., 2008). Infiltration component uses a storage
routing technique combined with a crack-flow model to predict flow through each soil layer. Infiltrated water
becomes ground water or transferred to downstream basins when it infiltrated below the root zone. Lateral
subsurface flow in the soil profile is calculated simultaneously with infiltration using kinematic storage model
(Sloan et al., 1983). Ground water flow is simulated by creating shallow aquifer storage. Return flow from the
shallow aquifer and relationship for water height are estimated using the equations discussed by Arnold et al. (1993).
SWAT has a snow melting component where snowmelt is presented as a function of the snow pack temperature.

SWAT was initially applied to Richland and Chambers Creeks watershed (RC watershed) in upper Trinity River
basin in Texas (Arnold et al., 1998b). Recent applications of SWAT are: estimation of freshwater availability in the

18
West African sub-continent (Schuol et al., 2008); climate sensitivity study in the San Joaquin River watershed
(Ficklin et al., 2009); simulating streamflows in Middle Nueces watershed, Texas and in Middle Rio Grande
watershed, Texas and Northern Mexico (Tobin and Bennett, 2009); hydrological cycle simulating in an irrigation
district in Shanxi province, China (Zheng et al., 2010); in Pallas basin, a small Mediterranean watershed located on
the French Mediterranean coast (Sellami et al., 2011) etc.

HRCDHM (Hydrologic Research Center Distributed Hydrologic Model)

Carpenter et al. (2001) developed physically based model HRCDHM in which the watershed is subdivided into sub-
basins through terrain features and channel network. Geographic Information System (GIS) is used to delineate sub-
basins for study watershed with a low area threshold of 5 km2 (Carpenter and Georgakakos, 2004). HRCDHM uses
Penman’s combination method to compute potential evaporation, Sacramento soil moisture accounting model for
update soil moisture and runoff generation, and kinematic wave model to route the sub-basin surface runoff to the
basin outlet (Carpenter and Georgakakos, 2006).

HRCDHM has been applied in DMIP (Distributed Model Intercomparison Program) watersheds, USA ( e.g. Blue
River, Elk River, Baron Fork River, Illinois River at Watts and Illinois River at Tahlequah) (Carpenter et al., 2001;
Carpenter and Georgakakos, 2004; Carpenter and Georgakakos, 2006).

DPHM-RS (Semi-Distributed Physically based Hydrologic Model using Remote Sensing and GIS)

The semi-distributed DPHM-RS (Biftu and Gan, 2001; 2004) sub-divides a river basin to a number of sub-basins,
computes the evapotranspiration, soil moisture and surface runoff using energy and rainfall forcing data in a sub-
basin scale. It consists of six basic components: interception of rainfall, evapotranspiration, soil moisture, saturated
subsurface flow, surface flow and channel routing, as described in Biftu and Gan (2001, 2004).

The interception of precipitation from the atmosphere by the canopy is modeled using the Rutter Interception Model
(Rutter et al., 1971). The land surface evaporation and vegetation transpiration are computed separately using the
Two Source Model of Shuttleworth and Gurney (1990), which is based on the energy balance above canopy, within
canopy and at soil surface. A soil profile of three homogeneous layers (active, transmission and saturated layers) is
used to model the soil moisture on the basis of water balance between layers. In modeling the unsaturated flow
component of soil water, the water transport is assumed vertical and non-interactive between sub-basins. The lower
boundary of the unsaturated zone is the top of capillary fringe controlled by the local average ground water table
derived from the catchment average water table and topographic soil index which include the spatial variability of
the topographic and soil parameters (Sivapalan et al., 1987). Starting with an observed value from the surrounding
wells of the modeled basin, the temporal changes in the average ground water depth is based on the water balance
analysis for the whole catchment, and the rate of change of the average ground water table is assumed to be the rate
of change of local water table (Famiglittei and Wood, 1994).

19
After simulating the soil moisture, the saturation and Hortonian infiltration excess for vegetated and bare soil are
computed to generate the surface runoff for each sub-basin. Philip’s equation is used to compute the infiltration
capacity of soil, and the surface runoff is distributed temporally using a time lag response function obtained from a
reference rainfall excess of 1 cm depth applied to each grid cell within the sub-basin for one time step. Then for each
grid cell, which has the resolution of the digital elevation model (DEM) used, the flow is routed according to the
kinematic wave equation from cell to cell based on eight possible flow directions until the total runoff water for the
sub-basin is completely routed. The resulting runoff becomes a lateral inflow to the stream channel within the sub-
basin and these flows are routed through the drainage network by the Muskingum-Cunge routing method whose
variable parameters are evaluated by an iterative four point approach (Ponce and Yevjevich, 1978).

DPHMRS was applied to the semi-arid, Paddle River Basin, Central Alberta to simulate runoff, surface temperature
and net radiation (Biftu and Gan, 2001; 2004); to the Blue River Basin (BRB) of Oklahoma, USA for event
simulations (Kalinga and Gan, 2006); to the Blue River Basin (BRB) of Oklahoma, USA for continuous streamflow
simulations (Smith et al, 2011).

TOPNET

TOPNET (Bandaragoda et al., 2004) was developed by combining TOPMODEL (Beven and Kirkby, 1979; Beven
et al., 1995), with a kinematic wave channel routing algorithm (Goring, 1994) to develop a hydrologic model that
can be applied over large watersheds by subdividing into smaller subbasins as model elements. TOPNET is
developed using TOPMODEL concepts for the representation of sub-surface storage controlling the dynamics of the
saturated contributing area and baseflow recession while adding the potential evapotranspiration, interception and
soil zone components. TOPNET calculate outflow at sub-basin scale and kinematic wave routing is used to move
the sub-basin inputs through the stream channel network.

Priestley–Taylor equation (Priestley and Taylor, 1972) is used In TOPNET to calculate potential evapotranspiration
using air temperature and dew point time series. The canopy interception component calculates the amount of water
held in interception storage using a function quantifying the precipitation throughfall given by Ibbitt (1971). In
modeling unsaturated zone component both saturation and infiltration excess runoff generation mechanisms is
considered and TOPNET soil component is modelled by combining gravity drainage and Green-Ampt infiltration
excess concepts to control the generation of surface runoff by infiltration excess as well as the drainage to the
saturated zone and evapotranspiration (Bandaragoda et al., 2004). The saturated zone component of TOPNET is
modelled using the classical TOPMODEL assumptions (e.g. saturated hydraulic conductivity decreasing
exponentially with depth, saturated lateral flow is steady and driven by topographic gradients).

Routing of sub-basin runoff generated from excess precipitation on variable source saturated areas, infiltration
excess and base flow is modeled assuming a constant hillslope velocity, while kinematic wave routing algorithm
(Goring, 1994) is used to route flow through the stream network to the basin outlet.

20
TOPNET was applied to model DMIP (Distributed Model Intercomparison Program) watersheds, USA (Blue River,
Elk River, Baron Fork River, Illinois River at Watts and Illinois River at Tahlequah) (Bandaragoda et al., 2004) and
to model the Big Darby Creek Watershed, Ohio, USA (Guzha and Hardy, 2010).

5 Distributed Physically Based Hydrologic Models

Fully distributed models generally discretize a river basin as a rectangular grid mesh or square grid elements of
constant sizes, irrespective of the terrain features. These models use spatially distributed parameters of physical
relevance is usually expected to provide more accurate hydrologic predictions than the conceptual rainfall runoff
models. Distributed physically based models require excessive input data and parameters and hence are difficult to
apply practically. A number of physically based fully distributed hydrologic models have been reviewed; a selected
number of models and their modeling basis are summarized in Table 3 and will be discussed in the following
paragraphs.

SHE (European Hydrologic System) and MIKE SHE

SHE (Abbott et al., 1986a; 1986b) models the hydrologic processes of water movements either based on the
conservation of mass, momentum and energy or based on empirical relationship from experimental study. In SHE
the primary components of the land phase (e.g. snowmelt, canopy interception, evapotranspiration, overland and
channel flow and unsaturated and saturated subsurface flow) of the hydrological cycle are modelled.

Modified Rutter model (Rutter et al., 1971) is used to model interception. Evapotranspiration is calculated using
three different approaches: first, actual evapotranspiration at sub potential rates is assumed to be limited by
vegetation factors (e.g. the stomatal resistance to movement of water) fully; second, actual evapotranspiration at sub
potential rates is assumed to be limited by vegetation factors partially; and third, actual evapotranspiration at sub
potential rates is assumed to be limited due to the resistance of the unsaturated soil to water movement (Abbott et al,
1986b). Actual evapotranspiration is calculated using the Penman-Monteith equation for actual evapotranspiration
(Monteith, 1965) and potential evapotranspiration is calculated using the same equation while ignoring the canopy
resistance to water transport.

In modeling snowmelt, two different calculation modes are introduced to determine the total heat flux: the simplest
degree-day method, only when available data are limited to air temperatures; and more sophisticated energy budget
method, where the heat flux is determined from a balance of energy input s and outputs. In modeling the unsaturated
zone, it is assumed that there is flow in the vertical only; the solution is obtained with the one-dimensional Richards
equation. The saturated zone, (e.g. variation of water table through time) is modelled by the nonlinear Boussinesq
equation which combines Darcy's law and the mass conservation of two-dimensional laminar flow in an anisotropic,
heterogeneous aquifer. Overland flow and channel flow is modeled using a two-dimensional and one dimensional
solution of the St. Venant equations based on the diffusion wave approximation respectively.

21
 Table 2. Selected semi-distributed physically based hydrologic model and key physical processes considered.

Model* Interception Evapotranspiration Snowmelt Soil Moisture, Infiltration and Surface Flow and Routing
Subsurface Flow
TOPMODEL Subsurface Flow: Based on Surface Flow: Based on
Topographic soil index Topographic soil index
WATBAL Based on time Kristensen and Jensen (1975) Infiltration: Mein and Larson Surface Flow: Chezy-Manning
varying LAI (1971; 1973) modification of equation and an empirical
Green-Ampt model expression relating outflow depth
Soil moisture: Two box and detention storage.
approach
SLURP Potential: Energy balance and Temperature Infiltration: Philip modification Surface runoff: Manning’s equation
aerodynamic equation index method (Philip, 1954) of Green-Ampt Routing:
Actual: CRAE method equation. Within GRU is based on constant
(Mortion,1983) velocity, in between GRU is based
on non-linear reservoir inflow-
storage and outflow relationship
SWAT Potential: Temperature Infiltration: Storage routing Surface Flow: SCS curve number
Hargreaves Method Index Method technique combined with a equation (USDA-SCS, 1972)
(Hargreaves and Samani, 1982), crack-flow model
Priestley-Taylor Method Subsurface Flow: Kinematic
(Priestley and Taylor, 1972), storage model (Sloan et al.,
and Penman-Monteith Method 1983).
(Monteith, 1965).
HRCDHM Potential: Penman’s Sacramento soil moisture Surface Flow: Sacramento soil
combination method (Penman, accounting model moisture accounting model
1948) Routing: Kinematic wave model
DPHMRS Rutter Interception Two Source Model of Infiltration: Philip’s equation Surface Flow: Response Function
Model (Rutter et al., Shuttleworth and Gurney (1990) Subsurface Flow: Based on based on Kinematic Wave Model
1975) Topographic soil index Routing: Muskingum-Cunge
TOPNET Based on Priestley–Taylor Method Based on combining gravity Surface Flow: Assuming a constant
precipitation (Priestley and Taylor, 1972) drainage and Green-Ampt hillslope velocity
throughfall given by infiltration excess concepts. Routing: kinematic wave routing
Ibbitt (1971). algorithm (Goring, 1994)
*
Model definition and principal reference(s) are given in Table 1

22
A further development of SHE is implemented in MIKE SHE (Refsgaard and Storm, 1995). In MIKE SHE, the
Kirstensen-Jensen Model (Kirstensen and Jensen, 1975) of interception and evapotranspiration is added. In this
method the canopy interception is modeled based on actual leaf area index and interception capacity coefficient
while the actual evapotranspiration is calculated on the basis of potential rates and the actual soil moisture status in
the root zone. Modification is also done in modeling saturated zone by solving the partial differential equation of
groundwater flow in three dimensions which is applicable for a single and multilayer aquifer system. In MIKE SHE
an aquifer- river exchange component is introduced to consider the influence of river system over groundwater
system.

A numerous application of SHE and MIKE SHE are found in literature. Some of notable applications are listed in
Refsgaard and Storm (1995) and in Refsgaard et al. (2010). Recent applications of MIKE SHE are: Damodar
Irrigation Project, West Bengal, India (Gupta et al, 2008); in the Loess Plateau, China (Zhang et al, 2008); in a
forested watershed on South Carolina coastal plain (Dai et al, 2010); in semi arid Okanagan basin, Canada (Liggett
and Allen, 2010); in Alergaarde catchment in the Skjern watershed, Denmark (Fu et al, 2011) etc.

ISBA (Interaction Soil Biosphere Atmosphere) and MISBA (Modified ISBA)

Land surface scheme ISBA (Nolihan and Planton, 1989; Nolihan and Mahfouf, 1995) is a soil vegetation
atmosphere transfer (SVAT) scheme, used to model the hydrologic processes at GCM (General Circulation Model)
scale. ISBA is designed to simulate the exchange of heat, mass and momentum between the land or water surface
and the overlying atmosphere (Tanzeeba, 2009). ISBA requires two basic types of parameters – four primary and 22
secondary parameters. The primary parameters are percentage of sand, percentage of clay, vegetation and land-water
ratio that are specified at each grid points. The secondary parameters are determined from the primary parameters.

ISBA uses the relationship of Deardorff (1978) to model the precipitation interception. Evaporation from soil
vegetation is based on energy balance and aerodynamic method. ISBA has three soil layers. ISBA uses a sub-grid
runoff scheme that considers sub-grid variation of soil moisture by the Xinanjiang distribution (Habets, et al., 1999).
The scheme acts like a multi-bucket model in which the distribution of buckets size is defined by the Xinanjiang
distribution (e.g. Zhao, 1992) and when a bucket fills its capacity surface runoff occurs (Kerkhoven and Gan, 2006).
Sub-surface runoff is represented by a gravity drainage scheme following a linear reservoir.

In the modified version of ISBA, namely MISBA (Kerkhoven and Gan, 2006), the sub-surface runoff equation is
converted from a linear function to a nonlinear function of soil water to account for interflow more accurately.
MISBA has three-layer snow model where the upper snow layer serves as the interface between snow pack and
atmosphere and the lower layer acts as an interface between snow pack and soil surface. Melting in the snow pack
occurs when additional heat is available at or above the freezing point of water and liquid water produced from
melting snow or rainfall infiltrates through snow layers to the soil surface (Tanzeeba, 2009). The simulated runoff of
MISBA was routed by a Muskingum-Cunge routing model (Cunge, 1969) to obtain the total basin stream flow.

23
MISBA have been applied in Athabasca River Basin, Alberta (Kerkhoven and Gan, 2006; 2008); Fraser River
Basin, British Colombia (Kerkhoven and Gan, 2010; 2011); South Saskatchewan River Basin, Alberta (Tanzeeba,
2009; Islam and Gan, 2011).

IHDM (Institute of Hydrology Distributed Model)

IHDM (Beven et al., 1987; Calver and Wood, 1995) is a physically based rainfall-runoff modeling system developed
at the United Kingdom Institute of Hydrology. In this model, the catchment is modeled by division into channel and
hillslope components. Each of these components is individually modeled and then accumulated (Calver and Wood,
1995). IHDM includes a Rutter interception model (Rutter, 1971) and Penman-Monteith evapotranspiration model
and snowmelt model (Morris and Harding, 1991). Surface flow (overland flow and channel flow) is modeled by the
kinematic wave equation. The basic equation for modeling the subsurface flow is derived by combining the Darcy’s
Law and Richards Equation. Finite element method is used for the spatial discretization and finite difference method
is used for time stepping in solving the subsurface flow equation.

THALES

Grayson et al. (1992a; 1995) developed a physically based hydrologic model THALES, which divides the watershed
into irregular elements based on the streamlines and equipotential lines instead of representing them by regular
rectangular grids. As many aspects of the hydrologic response depend on the topography, this type of terrain based
model is an important development to accurately representing the surface and sub-surface runoff processes (Grayson
et al., 1992a).

The surface and subsurface flow, infiltration rate, exfiltration rate and rainfall excess for every element at every time
step are calculated. Either the relationship of Smith and Parlange (1978), or the Morel-Seytoux formulation (Moore
and Grayson, 1991) which is based on equivalence between the Green and Ampt and the Horton infiltration capacity
equation, is used to model the infiltration rate and volume as well as the rainfall excess for each element.
Considering only vertical flow in the unsaturated zone, infiltrated water entering the soil profile is added to the
unsaturated zone which then discharges into the underlying saturated zone using hydraulic conductivity computed
from the Brooks and Corey (1964) relationship. Volume balance of the unsaturated zone is used to update the soil
water content. However, as the primary objective of developing THALES was to simulate individual storm event,
the evaporation component is ignored in the physical process. After the saturated zone reaching the surface, surface
runoff occurs. Surface runoff is routed using the four-point finite difference scheme of Brakensiek (1967).

WATFLOOD/ SPL9 (Waterloo Flood Forecasting Model)

WATFLOOD/ SPL9 (Kouwen , 1988; Kouwen , 2000; Kouwen and Mousavi, 2002) is a physically-based
hydrologic model to model the flood forecasting and long term hydrologic simulation using distributed precipitation

24
data from radar or numerical weather models. It includes the following physical processes: interception, infiltration,
evaporation, snow accumulation and ablation, interflow, recharge, baseflow, and overland and channel routing.

In earlier version (Kouwen, 1988), WATFLOOD uses Horton equation (Horton, 1919) to compute interception. In
the later versions (Kouwen, 2000; Kouwen and Mousavi, 2002), a method developed by Linsley et al. (1949) is used
to calculate the total possible interception. Potential evapotranspiration is calculated by three different approaches:
the Priestley-Taylor equation, the Hargreaves equation or from pan evaporation data. Usually Priestley-Taylor
method is used where radiation data are available, the Hargreaves equation is used where only temperature data are
available and pan evaporation data used where neither temperature nor radiation data are available.

In snowmelt modeling, snow-free and snow covered areas are modelled separately. Two methods are used: the
temperature index algorithm, which is based on the National Weather Service River Flow Forecast system by
Anderson (1973); and the radiation-temperature index model (Hamlin, 1996) which is a combination of the
temperature index and the surface radiation budget (Martinec and de Quervain, 1975; Ambach, 1988; Martinec,
1989).

A soil moisture coefficient, a soil temperature coefficient, and a forest vegetation coefficient are used to convert the
potential evapotranspiration to actual evapotranspiration. Infiltration modeling is based on the Philip formula
(Philip, 1954); interflow and upper zone to lower zone drainage is computed by simple storage discharge
relationship; overland flow is based on Manning’s formula. A measured stream hydrograph at the basin outlet is
initially used to generate the initial base flow and then the base flow contributed by each basin sub-element is found
by prorating it to the total basin area. Also a ground water depletion function is used to gradually diminish the base
flow. Total runoff is derived by summing up the surface runoff from the pervious area, direct runoff from
impervious areas, the interflow, and the base flow and added to the channel flow from upstream grids and routed
though the grid to the next downstream grid using a storage routing technique.

Numerous applications of WATFLOOD, especially in Canadian basins, are found in literature. Notable recent
applications are: modelling climate change impacts in the Peace and Athabasca River basin (Toth et al., 2006;
Pietroniro et al., 2006); estimating glacier wastage and seasonal melt contribution to the North and South
Saskatchewan Rivers in western Canada (Comeau et al, 2009); modeling water balance in South Saskatchewan
River Basin, in western Canada (Marin et al, 2010); hydrological modelling of subarctic wetland system (Jing et al.,
2010) etc.

R.WATER.FEA

R.WATER.FEA (Vieux and Gauer 1994; Vieux et al., 2004) is a physically based distributed model that uses finite
element approach in watershed modelling. The model uses GIS maps of parameters directly within the GIS
environment and capable of handling distributed radar rainfall input. The initial development of the model is a part

25
of the public domain GIS called GRASS (Geographic Resource Analysis Support System) which was extended by
Vieux and Gauer (1994) to a network of elements representing a watershed domain with channels within a GIS
environment. The r.water.fea model uses each GRASS grid cell to simulate the effects of land surface slope, soils,
and vegetative cover disturbance. It includes distributed radar rainfall input, Green and Ampt infiltration routine,
and kinematic wave based routing of overland flow and channel flow. However, as r.water.fea is an event based
model it does not includes any evapotranspiration components.

Application of R.WATER.FEA are: hydrologic process simulation of a semiarid catchment in Sahelian West
Niger (Peugeota et al., 2003a; 2003b); in DMIP (Distributed Model Intercomparison Program) watersheds, USA
(Blue River, Elk River, Baron Fork River, Illinois River at Watts and Illinois River at Tahlequah) (Vieux et al,
2004); assessing the precipitation bias effect on hydrologic model calibration (Loopera et al, 2009) etc.

TIN-based Real-time Integrated Basin Simulator (tRIBS)

tRIBS (Ivanov et al., 2004) is a triangulated irregular network (TIN) based fully distributed physically based
hydrologic model which can simulate the basin hydrologic processes from point scale to basin scale.

tRIBS uses the Rutter canopy water balance model (Rutter et al., 1971) to calculate precipitation interception. To
account evapotranspiration, the combination equation (Penman, 1948; Monteith, 1965), gradient method (Entekhabi,
2000), and force-restore (Lin, 1980; Hu and Islam, 1995) method are used to estimate the latent, sensible, and
ground heat fluxes at the land surface. The latent heat energy is then partitioned into vegetation transpiration, bare
soil evaporation, and evaporation from the wet canopy.

Infiltration parameterization assumes gravity-dominated flow in heterogeneous, anisotropic soil. The unsaturated
and the saturated zones are coupled to account for the interaction of the moving infiltration front with a variable
groundwater table. The groundwater component is a quasi three-dimensional cascade model which allows for lateral
water redistribution in the saturated zone and dynamic interaction with the unsaturated zone. Runoff is generated
from saturation excess, infiltration excess, perched subsurface storm flow, and groundwater exfiltration. Overland
flow velocities are related to local stream discharge value using non-linear hydrologic routing and kinematic wave
routing is used to model water transport and dispersion in natural channels.

Applications of tRIBS are: simulating streamflow suing radar precipitation data in DMIP (Distributed Model
Intercomparison Program) watersheds, USA (Blue River, Baron Fork River, Illinois River at Watts and Illinois
River at Tahlequah) (Ivanov et al., 2004); to simulate hydrologic response of extreme events such as flood (Vivoni
et al. 2006a,b); flood evaluation applications in Bacchiglione basin of the Northeastern Italian Alps (Nikolopoulos
et al., 2010) etc.

26
LISTFLOOD

LISFLOOD (Van der Knijff et al., 2010; De Roo et al., 2000) is a physically based spatially distributed, grid-based
hydrologic model to simulate the long-term catchment water balance as well as to model individual flood events.

Interception is modeled by the even simpler approach of Aston (1979) and Merriam (1960). Evaporation from soil
and transpiration are calculated separately based on Supit et al. (1994) and Supit and vander Goot et al. (2003). The
actual transpiration from plant and actual evaporation from soil surface are estimated by multiplying the maximum
transpiration and maximum evaporation from soil surface by corresponding reduction factors. LISTFLOOD use a
temperature index method to model snowmelt (Speers et al., 1979) which takes into account the accelerated
snowmelt when it is raining.

Xinanjiang distribution, which explicitly takes into account sub-pixel heterogeneity of infiltration capacity, is used
to model the infiltration capacity of the soil. LISTFLOOD also model the preferential flow, that that bypasses the
soil matrix and drains directly to the groundwater, using a simple approach assuming that preferential flow is a
power function of the relative saturation of the topsoil. In this approach, at each time step, a fraction of the water
that is available for infiltration is added to the groundwater directly bypassing the soil matrix. Surface runoff is
computed by summing up the direct runoff from impervious portion and the infiltration excess from pervious
portion. Darcy’s law for one-dimensional vertical flow is used to calculate soil moisture fluxes in the unsaturated
zone.

Subsurface flow is modelled using two parallel linear reservoirs, in which the upper zone represents a quick runoff
component and the lower zone represents the slow groundwater component that generates the base flow. Routing
component includes routing the generated runoff in each pixel to the nearest downstream channel pixel and channel
routing using a four-point implicit finite-difference solution of the kinematic wave equations (Chow et al. 1988). It
also includes a full dynamic wave routing scheme, however, detail channel cross-section data are required to run that
scheme.

LISTFLOOD application is mostly confined to humid, west- and central-European catchments. LISTFLOOD was
applied to simulate flood flow in the Meuse catchment covering parts of France, Belgium, and The Netherlands, and
the Oder basin covering parts of The Czech Republic, Poland and Germany (De Roo, et al., 2000); to evaluate river
discharge under a changing climate for the whole of Europe (Gouweleeuw et al., 2004); to simulate river discharge
in the Upper Danube basin in central Europe (Dankers et al., 2007); and in The Elbe River basin of western and
central Europe (Van der Knijff et al., 2010).

HydroGeoSphere

HydroGeoSphere (Therrien et al., 2005; 2010) is a powerful numerical simulator having physically-based
accounting of all components of the hydrologic cycle water budget.

27
Interception model is based on Kristensen and Jensen (1975). The rate of transpiration is estimated from the
relationship of Kristensen and Jensen (1975) that distributes the net transpiration capacity among leaf area index,
water content, time-varying root distribution function, reference evapotranspiration, and canopy evaporation.
Evaporation is computed using two models: the first model assumes that evaporation occurs if the reference
evapotranspiration has not been removed by the canopy evaporation and plant transpiration; the second model
assumes that evaporation occurs along with transpiration.

In HydroGeoSphere, the surface regime is represented as two dimensional areal flows for the entire surface, or as
two dimensional runoff into one dimensional channel. The subsurface regime consists of three dimensional
unsaturated and saturated flows and both regimes naturally interact with each other through considerations of the
physics of flow between them. Richards' equation is used to describe three-dimensional transient subsurface flow in
a variably-saturated porous medium. Areal surface flow is represented by a two-dimensional depth averaged flow
equation, which is the diffusion-wave approximation of the Saint Venant equation for surface water flow. Flow in
channels is described by the general equation of continuity for flow in an open channel (Dingman, 1994).

Notable application of HydroGeoSphere are: simulating the multi-seasonal response of the Duffins Creek watershed
which is a part of the Lake Ontario drainage basin, Canada (Li et al., 2008); assessing climate change impacts on
groundwater reserves of Geer basin, Belgium (Goderniaux et al., 2009) etc.

PAWS (Process-based Adaptive Watershed Simulator)

PAWS (Shen and Phanikumar, 2010) is a physically-based hydrologic model consists of eight component to model
the entire hydrologic cycle: surface ponding layer, canopy storage layer, impervious cover storage layer, overland
flow layer, snowpack, soil moisture, groundwater aquifers and stream channels.

The canopy interception is calculated using a bucket model where the canopy storage is based on the leaf area index.
Evapotranspiration is based on Penman-Monteith equation (Monteith, 1965). Snowmelt model adapted in PAWS is
based on energy balance concept, namely, the Utah Energy Balance or UEB model (Luce et al., 1998; 1999; Luce
and Tarboton, 2004). UEB uses physically-based accounting of radiative, sensible, latent and advective heat
exchanges to calculate snowmelt; and uses a lumped representation of sub-grid variability and thus can simulates the
hysteresis effect caused by new snowfall and snowmelt .

Infiltration is simulated simultaneously with the soil column using the Richards equation, however, under heavy
rainfall at dry surfaces Green and Ampt equation is used to avoid the significant numerical that might occur at that
condition while using the Richard’s equation due to the limitations in vertical discretization (Shen and Phanikumar,
2010). To model the saturated groundwater flow, the saturated aquifers are conceptualized as a series of vertical

28
layers and in each vertical layer the two dimensional groundwater equation is solved. Overland flow is based on
two-dimensional diffusion wave equation and the channel flow model is based on the one-dimensional diffusive
wave equations.

As the hydrologic system is a fully coupled system, PAWS includes the interaction between different domains:
coupling of the unsaturated Richards equation and the groundwater flow equation, interaction between the surface
ponding layer and soil moisture, interaction between overland flow and channel flow, and interaction between
groundwater and channel flow.

PAWS model has been applied to the Red Cedar River basin which is a medium sized watershed located in the
Grand River watershed in Michigan, USA and is characterized by the humid continental climate with ample
precipitation and distinct temperatures in different seasons (Shen and Phanikumar, 2010).

CREST (The Coupled Routing and Excess Storage)

CREST (Wang et al., 2011) is a distributed hydrologic model based on hybrid modelling (i.e. which maintain a
balance between the degree of physical realism and data requirements), developed by the University of Oklahoma,
USA and NASA SERVIR Project Team. CREST can simulates the spatial and temporal variation of water and
energy fluxes and storages on a regular orthogonal grid.

Canopy interception storage is modeled by Dickinson (1989). Three different models are used to model the potential
evapotranspiration: the Priestley-Taylor equation (Priestley & Taylor, 1972) used when radiation data is available;
the Hargreaves equation (Hargreaves & Samani, 1982) is used when temperature data is available; and the 0.25-
degree monthly mean potential evaporation dataset available from the Famine Early Warning Systems Network is
used when neither radiation nor temperature dataset is available.

Precipitation reaching the ground is separated into excess rainfall and infiltration water using the variable infiltration
curve founded in the Xinanjiang model (Zhao et al., 1980). Surface Runoff is based on rainfall excess; subgrid
routing is based on linear reservoirs; and a two-layer scheme describing overland runoff and interflow from one cell
to the next one downstream is incorporated in CREST.

CREST model has been applied in the Nzoia basin near Lake Victoria, Africa characterized by high flood prone area
because of the concurrence of extreme rainfall, overflowing tributary rivers and streams (Wang et al., 2011).

29
 Table 3. Selected distributed physically based hydrologic model and key physical processes considered.

Model* Interception Evapotranspiration Snowmelt Soil Moisture, Infiltration and Surface Flow and Routing
Subsurface Flow
SHE Rutter model (Rutter Penman-Monteith equation Temperature Index Infiltration: Richards Equation Surface Flow: 2D diffusion wave
et al., 1971) (Monteith, 1965) Method; Subsurface Flow: The model
Energy Balance Method nonlinear Boussinesq equation Routing: 1D diffusion wave
model
MIKE SHE Rutter model (Rutter Penman-Monteith equation Temperature Index Infiltration: Richards Equation Surface Flow: 2D diffusion wave
et al., 1971); (Monteith, 1965); Method; Subsurface Flow: Saturated model
Kirstensen-Jensen Kristensen-Jensen Model Energy Balance Method zone modeled by solving the Routing: 1D diffusion wave
Model (Kirstensen (Kristensen and Jensen, partial differential equation of model
and Jensen, 1975) 1975) groundwater flow in three
dimensions

THALES Infiltration: Smith and Parlange Routing: Kinematic wave model

(1978); Morel-Seytoux based on four-point finite
formulation (Moore and difference scheme of Brakensiek
Grayson, 1991) (1967).
MISBA Deardorff (1978) Aerodynamic method Three layer Snow model Soil Moisture: Xinanjiang Routing: Kinematic wave model
based on Energy Balance distribution for overland flow, Muskingum-
Method (Boone and Subsurface Flow: Gravity Cunge routing model (Cunge,
Etchevers, 2001) Drainage Scheme assuming 1969) for channel flow.
linear reservoir.
IHDM Rutter interception Penman-Monteith equation Energy Balance Method Subsurface Flow: Based on Surface Flow and Routing:
model (Rutter, 1971) (Monteith, 1965) (Morris and Harding, Combination of Darcy’s Law Kinematic wave model
1991) and Richards Equation
LISFLOOD Interception model Evaporation and Temperature Index Soil Moisture: Xinanjiang Routing: Kinematic wave model,
of Aston (1979) and transpiration are calculated Method (Speers et al., distribution dynamic wave routing.
Merriam (1960). separately based on Supit 1979 Subsurface Flow: Two parallel
et al. (1994) and Supit and linear reservoirs method.
vander Goot et al. (2003).
WATFLOOD/ Horton equation Priestley-Taylor equation, Temperature Index Model Infiltration: Philip formula Surface Flow: Manning’s formula
SPL9 (Horton, 1919); the Hargreaves equation or (Anderson ,1973); (Philip, 1954); Routing: Storage routing
Linsley et al. (1949) from pan evaporation data Radiation-Temperature Subsurface Flow: Storage technique.
Index model (Martinec Discharge relation.
and de Quervain, 1975;
Ambach, 1988; Martinec,
1989
*
Model definition and principal reference(s) are given in Table 1

30
 Table 3. (..Continued)

Model* Interception Evapotranspiration Snowmelt Soil Moisture, Infiltration Surface Flow and Routing
and Subsurface Flow
tRIBS Rutter model The combination equation Subsurface Flow: Overland Flow Routing:
(Rutter et al., (Penman, 1948; Monteith, Quasi three-dimensional Non-linear hydrologic routing
1971) 1965), gradient method cascade model Channel Routing: Kinematic wave
(Entekhabi, 2000), and routing in natural channels.
force-restore (Lin, 1980;
Hu and Islam, 1995)
method.
R.WATER.FEA Infiltration: Green and Ampt Overland Flow Routing:
infiltration routine Kinematic wave routing.
Channel Routing: Kinematic wave
routing
HydroGeoSphere Kristensen and Kristensen and Jensen Subsurface Flow: Surface Flow: 2D diffusion wave
Jensen (1975) (1975). Three Dimensional Richards' model
equation
PAWS Bucket Model, Penman-Monteith equation UEB (Utah Energy Infiltration: Richards Surface Runoff: Manning’s
Storage Capacity (Monteith, 1965) Balance) snow model equation, Green and Ampt formula, Kinematic wave model
related to LAI (Luce et al., 1998; equation (For heavy rain) and coupled to Richards equation
1998; Luce and Soil water flow: Richards Overland Flow:
Tarboton,2004) equation 2D diffusion wave model
Lateral Ground water Flow: Channel Routing: 1D diffusion or
quasi-3D dynamic wave model

CREST Bucket Model, Priestley-Taylor equation Infiltration: Variable Surface Runoff:

Canopy storage (Priestley & Taylor, 1972); Rainfall excess
Infiltration Curve (Zhao et
given by Hargreaves equation Subgrid Routing: based on linear
Dickinson (1989) (Hargreaves & Samani, al., 1980). reservoirs.
1982); 0.25-degree monthly Channel Routing:
mean potential evaporation two-layer scheme
dataset. describing overland runoff and
interflow from one
cell to the next one downstream.
*
Model definition and principal reference(s) are given in Table 1

31
6 Advantages and Limitations of Physically Based Hydrologic Modelling

Lumped conceptual hydrologic models consider three basic processes within a river basin: the loss of water from
storage to atmosphere; storage of water in soil, vegetation, aquifer, and in rivers; routing of flow over the surface
(Gosain et al., 2009). Focus on the physically based distributed hydrologic modelling started in order to minimize or
overcome the deficiencies of the conceptual models. Conceptual models are controlled by various parameters to
represent the hydrologic processes. Parameters of these models are estimated either by manual curve fitting or by
optimizing the objective functions, thus making less or no physical interpretation of the fitted parameters. Therefore,
unrealistic parameter values may be obtained through errors in measurements (Abbott et al., 1986a). In lumped
conceptual models the mathematical representation of hydrologic processes are only an approximate representation
of the real world. So the errors in parameter estimation also can be raised from model structure (Beven, 1989). The
calibration of conceptual models requires long meteorological and hydrological records which are not always
available, especially for the un-gauged catchments (Gosain et al., 2009). Spatial heterogeneities of landuse, soil, and
input variables are not considered in lumped conceptual models (Abbott et al., 1986a). The effects of landuse
changes resulting from the human’s activities on the hydrologic cycle cannot be undertaken by altering the
parameter values to reflect changes as the parameters are not based on physical processes (Abbott et al., 1986a). The
calibration and validation of lumped conceptual models depends on the accuracy of both inputs and outputs. So,
uncertainty is involved in estimating the input variables, especially the evapotranspiration may cause significant
changes in calibration and validation processes (Beven, 1989). Different set of parameter values may result equal
quality of good results in a lumped conceptual model (Beven, 1989).

As discussed in the previous paragraph, the development of physically based hydrologic model was initiated to
overcome the deficiencies associated with the lumped conceptual models, by using parameter values with physical
interpretation and considering their spatial variability (Abbott et al., 1986a). However, the physics on which the
equations of physically based hydrologic models are based is the small scale physics of homogeneous system and in
application these models lump up the small scale physics to the model grid scale without considering any theoretical
framework (Beven, 1989). Calibration of most physically based hydrologic models is usually performed by the
comparison of predicted and observed hydrograph which is a necessary test but cannot be considered a sufficient test
of model that implies the internal response of catchment (Beven, 1989). In application of physically based
hydrologic models, the context of their original purpose of development is often lost when they are applied beyond
the scope of their capabilities (Grayson et al., 1992a). Development of some physically based model is not dynamic
nor is it in conjunction of a field program (Dunne, 1983). Many models are developed from limited data sources.
Calibration testing on one or two catchments is also insufficient test of model’s universal applicability (Grayson et
al., 1992a).

A summary of advantages and limitations of physically based distributed hydrologic models over lumped conceptual
models discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs is listed in Table 4.

32
Table 4. Advantages and limitations of physically based distributed hydrologic models over lumped conceptual
models

Advantages Over Lumped Conceptual Model

 Parameters in physically based models are based on physics.

 Physically based are developed from well established scientific laws at micro-scale to water behaviour at
the meso-scale or regional scale.
 Consider the spatial heterogeneities of landuse, soil, and input variables.
 Can consider the effects of landuse changes on the hydrologic cycle.
 Less (or no) calibration is needed

Limitations
 Lump up the small scale physics to the model grid scale without considering any theoretical framework.
 Calibration by the comparison of predicted and observed hydrograph cannot be considered a sufficient test
of model that implies the internal response of catchment.
 Context of original purpose of development is often lost when models applied beyond the scope of their
capabilities
 Development of some physically based model is not dynamic nor is it in conjunction of a field program.
 Many models are developed from limited data sources.
 Calibration testing on one or two catchments is also insufficient test of model’s universal applicability.

7 Summary

Physically based hydrologic models are based on known scientific principles of energy and water fluxes and the
hydrologic process of water movement (e.g. precipitation interception, snowmelt, evapotranspiration, sub-surface
runoff, groundwater flow, surface runoff, channel routing) are modeled either by the finite difference approximation
of the partial differential equation representing the mass, momentum and energy balance or by empirical equations
(Abbott et al., 1986b).

In modeling precipitation interception, Rutter interception model (Rutter et, al., 1971) is usually considered as a
reference (Nolihan and Mahfouf, 1996). However, considerable number of models used other approaches (e.g.
Kristensen-Jensen method; approach of Aston (1979) and Merriam (1960); Ibbitt (1971); Horton (1919); Deardorff
1978); bucket model approach etc.).

In modeling snowmelt two basic approaches are followed: the temperature index (or degree-day) method, in which
air temperature is used as an index for snowmelt; and the energy balance method, which requires massive, good
quality data that are rarely available and so are seldom used operationally.

Most physically based models use the Priestley-Taylor model (Priestley and Taylor, 1972) and the Penman-Monteith
method (Monteith, 1965) to estimate potential evaporation, however, the empirical Hargreaves model (Hargreaves

33
and Samani, 1982) is used while only temperature data is available. Other notable method of estimating
evapotranspiration are: Kristensen-Jensen Model (Kristensen and Jensen, 1975); Supit et al. (1994); Supit and
vander Goot et al. (2003); CRAE method (Mortion, 1983).

Most comprehensive physically based hydrologic models use Richards’s equation for one dimensional vertical flow
to update the soil moisture content and tension in unsaturated zone. A wide number of hydrologic calculate
separately the infiltration, either by empirical methods (e.g. Horton, 1940), or by physically based methods (e.g.
Richards Equation) or by approximation to the physically based methods (e.g. Green-Ampt Model, Philip Model
etc) and apply water balance to update the soil moisture and percolation to the ground water.

Flow in saturated zone is usually assumed to be two dimensional horizontal, however, most comprehensive
physically based models solve three dimensional ground water flow equation to calculate the spatial and temporal
variation of hydraulic heads. Some semi distributed models use the concept of topographic index and variable
contributing area concept. Other methods include: gravity drainage scheme following a linear reservoir, two parallel
linear reservoirs method, storage discharge relation; and quasi three-dimensional cascade model.

Surface runoff can occur in two ways: first, when the rate of precipitation is less than the infiltration capacity and
runoff occurs because the soil becomes saturated (knows as Dunne runoff); second, when rate of precipitation
exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil (known as Horton runoff). Some physically based distributed hydrologic
models consider the sub-grid heterogeneity of moisture capacity of soil to follow the Xinanjiang distribution which
acts like a multi-bucket model and when a bucket fills its capacity surface runoff occurs. Models based on variable
contributing area concept update the local water table from topographic soil index and contributing areas having the
local water table above the surface considered as saturated zone and any rainfall falling upon that zone is taken to
runoff. Routing of surface runoff to nearest channel is modeled by either the two dimensional diffusion wave model,
or the kinematic wave model, or using hydrologic routing methods. Widely used channel routing models includes
one dimensional diffusion wave; Muskingum-Cunge method, and kinematic wave model.

Discretization schemes of distributed hydrologic models can be broadly classified into three categories: orthogonal
grid base, irregular grid base, and hydrologic response unit or grouped response unit base. In orthogonal grid base
discretization, the river basin is divided into rectangular grids. In irregular grid base discretization, the river basin is
divided into irregular elements which are generated either based on streamlines and equipotential lines or by
triangulated irregular networks (TIN). In hydrological response unit base discretization, the river basin is divided
into a number of sub-basins which are drained by a defined drainage network. In Grouped Response Unit Base
discretization, a watershed is subdivided into sub units, in which a grid cell or a group of grid cells or a sub-basin
may be represented as a GRU. Based on these discreatization schemes, hydrologic models can be fully distributed
where a river basin is discretized as a rectangular grid mesh, or be semi-distributed when the basin is divided into
limited number of sub-basins based on the terrain features and the drainage network. From this perspective, as we

34
divide a river basin into more and more sub-basins, we generally can be regarded as moving from semi-distributed
to fully distributed modeling.

There is a growing need for hydrologic models in many sectors of water resources management such as, water
resources assessment, irrigation, soil erosion, surface and ground water pollution, online forecasting, effects of
landuse changes, ecology, effects of climate change, impacts of human activity etc. Traditional lumped conceptual
models are well suited to deal some of the problems but more advanced tool as physically based hydrologic model
are needed to solve the remaining problems (Refsgaard and Abbott, 1996). Therefore, despite of their limitations in
predictions, there will continue to be need for physically based models (Beven, 1989). As physical laws at micro-
scale are well established, most physically-based models are developed from well established scientific laws at
micro-scale to water behaviour at the meso-scale or regional scale, through certain parameterization approaches.
However, there is no theoretical framework to carry this lumping of sub-grid processes for spatially heterogeneous
grid squares and future developments in physically based models must take account for this need (Beven, 1989).

35
Appendix A: List of Symbols used in Section 2(Modeling concepts of hydrologic processes)

Symbol Definition
Interception Component
C Canopy interception
𝜹 Canopy interception
S Canopy storage capacity or the maximum interception
𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒕 Evaporation rate from intercepted water
𝑘1 , b Rutter drainage parameters
LAI Leaf Area Index
𝑺𝒊𝒏𝒕 Canopy Storage Parameter
P Precipitation rate
𝒌𝟐 Vegetation constant
∆t Time Step
𝑓(𝐶) Precipitation throughfall portion
Cr Interception evaporation adjustment factor
aw, bw and nw Parameters depends on vegetation canopy
Veg Fraction of vegetation
Ev Evaporation from vegetation
Rr Runoff of the intercepted water.
Snowmelt Component
M Snowmelt depth
MF Melt factor
Ta Average air temperature over the time (0C)
TBase Melt-threshold temperature or the base temperature at which the snow will begin to
melt (0C).
SPT Snow pack temperature in ˚C.
Rn Conversion factor for energy flux density to mm of snowmelt per hour
R Net radiation acting on the snow pack.
Qn Sum of net radiation,
Qh Convective or turbulent sensible heat flux,
Qe Latent heat flux (J.m-2),
Qp Advective heat of precipitation,
Qg Ground heat flux, and
U Cold content of snowpack
f Latent heat of fusion of ice,
ρw Density of water,
 The ratio of the heat necessary to completely melt a snowpack to that needed to
produce the same quantity of melt from pure ice at 0C.
Evapotranspiration Component
𝑙𝑣 Latent heat of vaporization
𝑅𝑛 Net radiation,
𝐻𝑠 Sensible heat flux
𝐺 Ground heat flux.
𝑒𝑎𝑠 Saturated vapour pressure
𝑒𝑎 Vapour pressure air temperature
𝐵 Vapour transfer coefficient
∆ Slope of the saturation vapour pressure versus temperature curve
𝛾 Psychometric constant.
𝛼 Multiplying factor
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum transpiration
𝐸𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum evaporation from soil surface
𝛼1, 𝛼2 Reduction Factor
𝑇𝑎 Actual transpiration

36
Appendix A: List of Symbols used in Section 2(Modeling concepts of hydrologic processes)(..Continued)

Symbol Definition
Evapotranspiration Component (..continued)
𝐸𝑆𝑎 Actual evaporation from soil surface
𝑘𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 Crop coefficient
𝑘𝑔𝑏 Extinction coefficient
𝐸𝑇𝑜 Reference potential evaporation
𝐸𝑆𝑜 Potential evaporation from bare soil
Ea Actual Evapotranspiration
Ew Wet environment Evaporation
EP Potential Evaporation
𝑅𝑎 Incoming solar radiation
𝐶𝑡 A temperature reduction coefficient
𝛿𝑡 Difference between the mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature (˚F)
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔.𝑑 The mean temperature (˚F) in the timestep
Ecan Canopy Evaporation
𝑓1 (𝐿𝐴𝐼) A function of leaf area index
𝑓2 (𝜃) A function of nodal water content
𝑅𝐷𝐹 The time varying root distribution function
Tp Plant transpiration
𝛼∗ Wetness factor
𝐸𝐷𝐹 Evaporation distribution functions.
Unsaturated Zone Component
𝜓 Soil moisture tension
𝑡 Time
C Soil water capacity
𝜃 Volumetric water content
𝐾(𝜃, 𝑧) Hydraulic conductivity
𝑆(𝑧) Source or sink term for root extraction and soil evaporation
Sf Effective suction at welting point
θi Initial soil moisture
F Cumulative infiltration
F Infiltration rate
S Sorptivity
A A parameter with dimensions of conductivity
Saturated Zone Component
𝑆(𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) Specific storage
ℎ(𝑥𝑖 ) Hydraulic head
𝑥𝑖 Space coordinates
𝐾(𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) Hydraulic conductivity
𝑅 (𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) Volumetric flow rate via source or sink.
a/tanβ Topographic index
𝑧̅ Catchment mean water table
𝑧𝑖 Local water table at a point i
A Entire area of the catchment
𝑇0 Local lateral transmissivity when the soil is just saturated
Surface Runoff and Routing Component
β An empirical parameter
𝐹(𝑥) Cumulative probability distribution of x
𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum soil moisture capacity
𝑥𝑎𝑣𝑒 Average soil moisture capacity
ℎ(𝑥, 𝑦) Local water depth

37
Appendix A: List of Symbols used in Section 2(Modeling concepts of hydrologic processes)(..Continued)

Symbol Definition
Surface Runoff and Routing Component (.. continued)
t Time
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) Flow velocity in x direction
𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦) Flow velocity in y direction
q (x,y,t) Surface runoff
C Kinematic wave velocity
R Water available for runoff from vertical water balance
I1,2 Inflow to the reach consisting of total runoff
O1,2 Outflow from the reach
S1,2 Storage in the reach
∆t Routing timestep

38
References
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O’Connell, P.E., Rasmussen, J., 1986a. An introduction to the European
Hydrological System—Systeme Hydrologique European, ‘SHE’, 1: History and philosophy of a physically-
based distributed modelling system. J. Hydrol. 87, 45–59.
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O’Connell, P.E., Rasmussen, J., 1986b. An introduction to the European
Hydrological System—Systeme Hydrologique Europeen ‘SHE’. 2: Structure of a physically based, distributed
modelling system. J. Hydrol. 87, 61–77.
Ahn, S.R., Park, G.A., Jung, I.K., Lim, K.J., and Kim, S.J., 2011. Assessing Hydrologic Response to Climate
Change of a Stream Watershed Using SLURP Hydrological Model. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
15(1):43-55
Ambach, W. 1988. Interpretation of the positive degree-day factor by heat balance characteristics – West Greenland.
Nordic Hydrology, 19: 217-224.
Anderson, E.A. 1973. National Weather Service River Forecast System-Snow Accumulation and Ablation Model.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Springs, Md., Tech. Memo NWS_HYDRO-17.
Arnold, J. G., P. M. Allen, and G. Bernhardt, 1993. A Comprehensive Surface-Groundwater Flow Model. J. Hydrol.
142:47-69.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998a. Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment.
Part I. Model development. Journal of American Water Resources Association 34(1), 73–89.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998b. Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment.
Part I. Model development. Journal of American Water Resources Association 34(1), 91–101.
Aston, A.R., 1979, Rainfall interception by eight small trees. Journal of Hydrology, 42, pp. 383–396.
Averjanov, S. F. (1950) About permeability of subsurface soils in case of incomplete saturation, Engr. Collect. Vol.
7.
Bandaragoda, C., Tarboton, D.G., and Woods, R., 2004. Application of TOPNET in the distributed model
Intercomparison project. Journal of Hydrology 298(1-4), 178-201.
Beven, K J, Kirkby, M J, Schoffield, N, and Tagg, A. 1984 Testing a Physically-based Flood Forecasting Model
(TOPMODEL) for Three UK Catchments, J. Hydrol. 69; 119-143
Beven, K. J. and Kirkby, M. J. (1976): Towards a simple physically based variable contributing model of catchment
hydrology. Working Paper 154, School of Geography, University of Leeds.
Beven, K. J., Calver, A., and Morris, E. M., 1987, The Institute of Hydrology distributed model. Institute of
Hydrology, Report 98, Wallingford, UK.
Beven, K., 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology –The case of physically based models. J Hydrol., 105, 157-172.
Beven, K., Lamb, R., Quinn, P., Romanowicz, R., Freer, J., 1995. TOPMODEL. In: Singh, V.P., (Ed.), Computer
Models of Watershed Hydrology, 18. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, (Chapter 18); pp.
627–668.
Beven, K.J., Kirkby, M.J., 1979. A physically based variable contributing area model of basin hydrology,
Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24 (1), 43–69.
Beven, K.J., Lamb, R., Quinn, P., Romanowicz, R., Freer, J., 1995. TOPMODEL and GRIDATB: A User’s Guide
to the Distribution Versions, CRES Technical Report TR110 (2nd edn.). Lancaster University.
Biftu, G. F., and T.Y. Gan, 2004. Semi-distributed, Hydrologic Modelling of Dry Catchment with Remotely Sensed
and Digital Terrain Elevation Data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25(20), 4351-4379.
Biftu, G.F., and Gan, T.Y., 2001. Semi-distributed, physically based, hydrologic modelling of the Paddle River
Basin, Alberta, using remotely sensed data. Journal of Hydrology 244, 137-156.
Boone, A. and Etchevers, P., 2001. An inter-comparison of three snow schemes of varying complexity coupled to
the same land surface model: local evaluation at an alpine site. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 2, pp. 347-394.
Brakensiek, D. L., Kinematic flood routing, Trans. ASAE, I0, 340--343, 1967.
Brooks, R. H., and Corey, A. T., 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media, Hydrol. Pap., 3, 27 pp., Colo. State
Univ., Fort Collins.
Brown, L., Thorne, R., Woo, M.-K., 2008.Using satellite imagery to validate snow distribution simulated by a
hydrological model in large northern basins. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2777–2787.
Calver, A., and Wood, W.L., 1995. The Institute of Hydrology Distributed Model. In: Singh, V.P., (Ed.), Computer
Models of Watershed Hydrology, 17. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, (Chapter 17); pp.
595–626.
Carpenter, T.M., and Georgakakos, K.P., 2004. Continuous streamflow simulation with the HRCDHM distributed
hydrologic model. Journal of Hydrology 298(1-4), 61-79.

39
Carpenter, T.M., and Georgakakos, K.P., 2006. Intercomparison of lumped versus distributed hydrologic model
ensemble simulations on operational forecast scales. Journal of Hydrology 329, 174-185.
Carpenter, T.M., Georgakakos, K.P., Sperfslage, J.A., 2001. On the parametric and NEXRAD-radar sensitivities of a
distributed hydrologic model suitable for operational use. J. Hydrol. 254, 169–193.
Choi, W., Kim, S.J., Rasmussen, P.F. and Moore, A.R., 2009. Use of the North American Regional Reanalysis for
Hydrological Modelling in Manitoba, Canadian Water Resources Journal, 2009, 34:17-36.
Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R. and Mays, L.W., 1988. Applied Hydrology, McGraw Hill Publishing, New York 572
pp .
Comeau, L. E. L., Pietroniro, A. and Demuth, M. N., 2009. Glacier contribution to the North and South
Saskatchewan Rivers. Hydrological Processes, 23: 2640–2653.
Cunge, J. A. "On the Subject of a Flood Propagation Method (Muskingum Method). Journal of Hydraulic Research
(International Association for Hydraulic Research) 7, no. 2 (1969): 205-230.
Dai, Z., Li, C., Trettin, C. , Sun, G., Amatya, D., and Li, H. , 2010. Bi-criteria evaluation of MIKE SHE model for a
forested watershed on South Carolina coastal plain. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 7, 179–219.
Dangroup International (1984) Feasibility study and design for medium size dams in the communal lands in the
Midlands Province, Zimbabwe. Feasibility study rep., Vol. 1. Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and
Development.
Daniel, E.B., Camp, J.V., LeBoeuf, E.J., Penrod, J.R., Dobbins, J.P. and Abkowitz, M.D., 2011.Watershed
Modeling and its Applications: A State-of-the-Art Review. The Open Hydrology Journal, 2011, 5, 26-50.
Dankers, R., Bøssing Christensen, O., Feyen, L., Kalas, M. and De Roo, A.P.J., 2007, Evaluation of very high-
resolution climate model data for simulating flood hazards in the Upper Danube Basin. Journal of Hydrology,
347(3–4), pp. 319–331.
Davision, B., and Kamp, G., 2008. Low flow in deterministic modeling: a brief review. Canadian Water Resources
Journal, 33(2), pp 181-194.
De Roo, A.P.J., Wesseling, C.G. and Van Deursen, W.P.A., 2000. Physically based river basin modelling within a
GIS: The LISFLOOD model. Hydrological Processes, 14,pp. 1981–1992.
Deardorff, J. W., 1978. Prediction of Ground Surface Temperature and Moisture,With Inclusion of a Layer of
Vegetation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 83(C4),pp 1889-1903.
Dickinson, R. E., 1989. A regional climate model for the western united states. Climate Change 15(1), 383–422.
Dingman, S.L., 1994. Physical Hydrology, 575 pp., Maxmillian, New York.
Dune, T., 1983 Relation of field studies and modeling in the prediction of storm runoff. J of Hydrol., 65, 25-83.
Entekhabi, D., 2000. Land Surface Processes: Basic Tools and Concepts, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Famiglietti, J.S., and Wood, E.F., 1994. Multi-scale modeling of spatially-variable water and energy balance
process. Water Resources Research 30(11), 3061-3078.
Ficklin, D.L., Luo, Y., Luedeling, E., and Zhang, M., 2009. Climate change sensitivity assessment of a highly
agricultural watershed using SWAT. Journal of Hydrology, 374(1-2), pp 16-29.
Freeze, R.A., 1971. Three-dimensional, transient, saturated unsaturated flow in a groundwater basin. Water Resour.
Res., 7, 347-366.
Freeze, R.A., 1972a. Role of subsurface flow in generating surface runoff 1. Base flow contributions to channel
flow. Water Resour. Res., 8, 609-623.
Freeze, R.A., 1972b. Role of subsurface flow in generating surface runoff 2. Upstream source areas. Water Resour.
Res., 8, 1272-1283.
Freeze, R.A., and Harlan, R.L., 1969. Blueprint for a physically-based, digitally-simulated hydrologic response
model. J of Hydrol., 9, 237-258.
Fu,S., Sonnenborg, T.O., Jensen, K.H., and He, X., 2011. Impact of Precipitation on Spatial Resolution on the
Hydrological Response of an Integrated Distributed Water Resources Model. Vadose Zone Journal, 10(1),pp. 25-
36.
Gallart, F., Latron, J., Llorens, P. and Beven, K.J., 2009. Experiences with semi-distributed hydrological modelling
in a small Mediterranean mountain research basin: TOPMODEL at Vallcebre(South-Eastern Pyrenees).
Geophysical Research Abstracts,Vol. 11, EGU General Assembly 2009.
Goderniaux, P., Brouyère, S., Fowler, H.J., Blenkinsop, S., Therrien, R., Orban, P., and Dassargues, A., 2009. Large
scale surface–subsurface hydrological model to assess climate change impacts on groundwater reserves. Journal
of Hydrology, 373, 122–138.

40
Goring, D.G., 1994. Kinematic shocks and monoclinal waves in the Waimakariri, a steep, braided, gravel-bed river,
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Waves: Physical and Numerical Modelling, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 21–24 August, 1994, pp. 336–345.
Gosain, A.K., Mani, A., Dwivedi, C., 2009. Hydrological modelling literature review: Report No.1. Indo-Norwegian
Institutional Cooperation Program 2009-2011.
Gouweleeuw, B., Thielen, J., De Roo, A.P.J., Cloke, H., Van Der Knijff, J. and Franchello, G., 2004, Evaluation of
river flow in Europe over the last 4 decades using ERA40. In Proceedings SPIE – The International Society for
Optical Engineering, 5568, pp. 92–101.
Grayson, R.B., Bloschl, G., and Moore, I.D., 1995. Distributed Parameter Hydrologic Modelling using vector
elevation data: THALES and TAPES-C. In: Singh, V.P., (Ed.), Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, 18.
Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, (Chapter 19); pp. 669–696.
Grayson, R.B., More, I.D., and McMahon, T.A., 1992a. Physically based hydrological modelling 1: A terrain based
model for investigative purposes. Water Resour. Res., 28(10), 2639-2658.
Grayson, R.B., More, I.D., and McMahon, T.A., 1992b. Physically based hydrological modelling 2: Is the concept
realistic? Water Resour. Res., 28(10), 2659-2666.
Green WH and Ampt GA (1911) Studies on soil physics 1. The flow of air and water through soils. J Agric Sci, 4
:1–24
Gupta, P. K., Singh, R., Raghuwanshi, N. S. , Dutta, S. and Panigrahy, S., 2008. Effect of Remotely Sensed Data
on the Performance of a Distributed Hydrological Model: Case Study. J. Hydrologic Engrg. 13, 939.
Guzha, A.C. and Hardy, T. B., 2010. Application of the Distributed Hydrological Model, TOPNET, to the Big
Darby Creek Watershed, Ohio, USA. Water Resources Management, 24(5),979-1003.
Habets, F, J Nolihan, C Golaz, J. P. Goutorbe, P. Lacarrère, and E Leblois, 1999. The ISBA surface scheme in a
macroscale hydrological model applied to the Hapex–Mobilhy area. Part 1. Model and database. Journal of
Hydrology, 75-96.
Hamlin, L.P.B. 1996. Snowmelt Hydrologic Modelling of Northern Wetland Dominated River Basins. M.A.Sc.
Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON. 213 p.
Hargraeves, G.H., and Z.A. Samani. 1982. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. ASCE, J. Irrigation and
Drainage Division, 108(3): 225-230.
Horton RE. 1919. Rainfall interception. Mon. Weather. Rev. 47:603–623.
Horton, R.E., 1940. An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity, Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings.
Hu, Z., Islam, S., 1995. Prediction of ground surface temperature and soil moisture content by the force-restore
method. Water Resour. Res. 31(10), 2531–2539.
Ibbitt, R., 1971. Development of a conceptual model of interception, Unpublished Hydrological Research Progress
Report No. 5, Ministry of Works, New Zealand.
Islam, Z. and Gan, T. ,2011. Effect of Climate Change on Management of Surface Water of South Saskatchewan
River Basin. 20th Canadian Hydrotechnical Conference, Ottawa, Canada. Accepted, Date of Acceptance April,
19, 2011.
Ivanov, V.Y., Vivoni, E. R., Bras, R. L., and Entekhabi, D., 2004. Preserving high-resolution surface and rainfall
data in operational-scale basin hydrology: a fully distributed approach. Journal of Hydrology 298(1-4), 80-111.
Jing, L., Chena, B., and Zhang, B., 2010. A comparison study on distributed hydrological modelling of a subarctic
wetland system. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2, pp. 1043-1049.
Kerkhoven, E. and Gan T.Y., 2011. Unconditional Uncertainties of Historical and Simulated River Flows Subjected
to Climate Change. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 396 (1-2), 113-127.
Kerkhoven, E. and Gan, T.Y., 2008. Development of a Hydrologic Scheme for Use in Land Surface Models and its
Application to Climate Change in the Athabasca River Basin. Cold Region Atmospheric and Hydrologic Studies.
The Mackenzie GEWEX Experience.
Kerkhoven, E. and Gan, T.Y., 2010. Differences and sensitivities in potential hydrologic impact of climate change to
regional-scale Athabasca and Fraser River basins of the leeward and windward sides of the Canadian Rocky
Mountains respectively. Climatic Change (published online)
Kerkhoven, Ernst, and Thian Yew Gan, 2006. A modified ISBA surface scheme for modelling the hydrology of
Athabasca River Basin with GCM-scale data. Advanced in Water Resources 29, 808-826.
Kingston, D. G., Thompson, J. R. and Kite, G., 2010.Uncertainty in climate change projections of discharge for the
Mekong River Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 7, 5991–6024.

41
Kirkby, M. J. and Weyman, D. R. 1974. Measurements of contributing area in very small drainage basins', Seminar
Series B, No. 3. Department of Geography, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Kite, G. W., and Pietroniro, A., 1996, Remote sensing applications in hydrological modelling. Hydrological
Sciences Journal, 41, 563–591.
Kite, G.W., 1993. Application of a landclass hydrological model to climatic change. Water Resources Research,
29(7), 2377-2384.
Kite, G.W., 1995. The SLURP Model. In: Singh, V.P., (Ed.), Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, 17. Water
Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, (Chapter 15); pp. 521-562.
Knudsen, A., Thomson, A., and Refsgaard, J.C., 1986. WATBAL, A semi-distributed, physically based hydrological
modelling system. Nordic Hydrology, 17, 347-362.
Kouwen, N. 2000. WATFLOOD/SPL9: Hydrological Model and Flood Forecasting System. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON.
Kouwen, N., 1988, WATFLOOD. A micro-computer based flood forecasting system based on real-time weather
radar. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 13, 62–77.
Kouwen, N., Mousavi, S. F., 2002. WATFLOOD/SPL9 hydrological model & flood forecasting system. In: Singh,
V. P. and Frevert, D.K., (Ed.), Mathematical models of large watershed hydrology,pp. 649-685.
Kristensen, K. J. and Jensen, S. E., 1975. A model for estimating actual evapotranspiration from potential
transpiration, Nord. Hydrol., 6,79–88.
Li, Q., Unger, A.J.A., Sudicky, E.A., Kassenaar, D., Wexler, E.J. and Shikaze, S., 2008. Simulating the multi-
seasonal response of a large-scale watershed with a 3D physically-based hydrologic model. Journal of
Hydrology, 357, 317– 336.
Liggett, J.E. and Allen, D.M., 2010. Approaches for modeling spatially distributed direct recharge in a semi-arid
region (Okanagan Basin, Canada). Hydrogeology Journal,18: 339–357
Lin, J.D., 1980. On the force-restore method for prediction of ground surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 85(C6),
3251–3254.
Linsley, R.K., M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus. 1949. Applied Hydrology. McGraw - Hill Book Company, New
York, N.Y.
Loopera, J.P., Vieux , B. E. Morenoa, M.A., 2009. Assessing the impacts of precipitation bias on distributed
hydrologic model calibration and prediction accuracy. Journal of Hydrology. Article in Press, Published online.
Luce C.H., Tarboton, D.G. and Cooley, R.R., 1998. The influence of the spatial distribution of snow on basin-
averaged snowmelt. Hydrol Process, 12(10–11):1671–83.
Luce, C.H. and Tarboton, D.G., 2004. The application of depletion curves for parameterization of subgrid variability
of snow. Hydrol Process, 18(8):1409–22.
Luce, C.H., Tarboton, D.G. and Cooley K.,R.,1999. Sub-grid parameterization of snow distribution for an energy
and mass balance snow cover model. Hydrol Process,13(12–13):1921–33.
Maidment, D. R., editor, 1993, Handbook of hydrology (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Marin, S., van der Kamp, G., Pietroniro, A., Davison, B., Toth, B., 2010. Use of geological weighing lysimeters to
calibrate a distributed hydrological model for the simulation of land–atmosphere moisture exchange . Journal of
Hydrology, 383 (3-4), pp. 179-185.
Martinec, J. 1989. Hour-to-hour snowmelt rates and lysimeter outflow during an entire ablation period: Snow cover
and glacier variations. Proc. of the Baltimore Symposium, Maryland, IAHS Publ. No. 193: 19-28.
Martinec, J., and M.R. de Quervain. 1975. The effect of snow displacement by avalanches on snowmelt and runoff.
Proc. Snow and Ice Symposium, Moscow, IAHS Publ. No. 104:364-377.
Mein, R. G., and Larson, C. L. (1971) Modelling the infiltration component of the rainfall runoff process, Water
Resour. Res. Center, Univ. of Minn., Minneapolis, Bulletin 43.
Mein, R. G., and Larson, C. L. (1973) Modelling infiltration during a steady rain, Water Resour. Res., Vol. 9, 384-
394.
Merriam, R.A., 1960. A note on the interception loss equation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 65, pp. 3850–3851.
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 19, 205–234.
Moore, I .D., and Grayson, R . B., 1991. Terrain-based prediction of runoff with vector elevation data,Water Resour
Res., 27(6),1177-1191.
Moradkhani, H. and Sorooshian, S., 2009. General Review of Rainfall-Runoff Modeling: Model Calibration, Data
Assimilation, and Uncertainty Analysis. In S. Sorooshian et al. (eds.), Hydrological Modelling and the Water
Cycle, 1–24.

42
Morris EM, Harding RJ. 1991. Parameterization of turbulent transfer between glaciers and the atmosphere.
International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IHAS) Publication 208: 543–549.
Morton, F.I., 1983. Operational estimates of areal evapotranspiration and their significance to the science and
practice of hydrology. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 66, Issues 1-4, Pages 1-76.
Muzylo, A., Llorens, P., Valente, F., Keizer, J.J., Domingo, F. and Gash, J.H.C., 2009. A review of rainfall
interception modelling, Journal of Hydrology. 370 (2009), pp. 191–206.
Nikolopoulos, E.I., Anagnostou, E.I., Hossain, F., Ebremichael, M., and Borga, M. 2010. Understanding the Scale
Relationships of Uncertainty Propagation of Satellite Rainfall through a Distributed Hydrologic Model. Journal
of Hydrometeorology, 11(2), 520-532.
Nolihan, J, and Mahfouf, J., 1996. ISBA land surface parameterization scheme. Global and Planetary Change, 13,
145-159.
Nolihan, J, and Planton, S., 1989. A simple parameterization of land surface processes for meteorological models.
Monthly Weather Review, 17.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proceedings of the Society of
London Series A193, 120–145.
Peugeota, C., Cappelaerea, B., Vieux, B.E., Seguisa, L., and Maia, A., 2003. Hydrologic process simulation of a
semiarid, endoreic catchment in Sahelian West Niger. 1. Model-aided data analysis and screening. Journal of
Hydrology, 279, 224–243.
Peugeota, C., Cappelaerea, B., Vieux, B.E., Seguisa, L., and Maia, A., 2003. Hydrologic process simulation of a
semiarid, endoreic catchment in Sahelian West Niger. 2. Model calibration and uncertainty characterization.
Journal of Hydrology, 279, 244–261.
Philip. J.R., 1954. An Infiltration Equation with Physical Significance. Sol Science, Vol 77.
Pietroniro, A., R. Leconte, B. Toth, D.L. Peters, N. Kouwen F.M. Conley and T. Prowse. 2006. “Modelling climate
change impacts in the Peace and Athabasca catchment and delta III – Integrated model assessment Hydrological
Process 20, Special Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative Issue.
Ponce, V.M., and Yevjevich, V., 1978. Muskingum-Cunge method for variable parameters. Proc. ASCE
104(HY12).
Praskievicz, S. and Chang, H., 2009. A review of hydrological modelling of basin-scale climate change and urban
development impacts. Progress in Physical Geography 33(5), pp. 650–671.
Priestley, C.H.B., Taylor, R.J., 1972. On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale
parameters. Monthly Weather Review 100(2), 81–92.
Quinn, P. F. 1991. The role of digital terrain analysis in hydrological modelling, PhD thesis, Lancaster University,
U.K.
Quinn, P. F. and Beven, K. J., 1993. Spatial and temporal predictions of soil moisture dynamics, runoff variable
source areas and evapotranspiration for Plynlimon, mid-Wales', Hydrol.Process., 7, 425-448.
Refggaard, J. C., 1997. Parameterization, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. . J. Hydrol.,
198, 69-97.
Refsgaard, J.C. and Storm, B., 1995. MIKE SHE. In: Singh, V.P., (Ed.), Computer Models of Watershed
Hydrology, 18. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, (Chapter 23); pp. 809–846.
Refsgaard, J.C., and Abbott, M.B., 1996. The role of distributed hydrological modelling in eater resources
management. Distributed Hydrologic Modelling, edited by Michael B. Abbott and Jens C. Refsgaard, 1-16.
Refsgaard, J.C., Storm, B. and Clausen, T., 2010. Systeme Hydrologique Europeen (SHE): review and perspectives
after 30 years development in distributed physically-based hydrological modelling. Hydrology Research,41.5.
Refsgaard, J.C.,1996. Terminology, modelling protocol and classification of hydrologic model codes. Distributed
Hydrologic Modelling, edited by Michael B. Abbott and Jens C. Refsgaard, 41-54.
Rutter, A.J., K.A. Kershaw, P.C. Robins and A.J. Morton, 1971. A predictive model of rainfall interception in forest.
Part I: Derivation of the model from observations in a plantation of Corsican pine. Agric. Meteorol. 9 (1971), pp.
367–384.
Schuol, J., Abbaspour, K.C., Srinivasan, R. and Yang, H, 2008. Estimation of freshwater availability in the West
African sub-continent using the SWAT hydrologic model. Journal of Hydrology 352, 30– 49.
Sellami, H., Jeunesse, I.L., Benabdallah, L., Vanclooster, M., 2011. Calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analyses
of the spatially distributed hydrological model SWAT for a small Mediterranean watershed. Geophysical
Research Abstracts, Vol. 13, EGU General Assembly 2011.
Shen,C., and Phanikumar, M.S., 2010. A process-based, distributed hydrologic model based on a large-scale method
for surface–subsurface coupling. Advances in Water Resources, 33,1524–1541.

43
Shuttleworth, J.W., and Gurney, R.J., 1990. The theoretical relationship between foliage temperature and canopy
resistance in sparse crop. Quarterly Journal of Royal Meteorology Society 116, 497-519.
Singh, P.R., Gan, T.Y. Gobena, A.K., 2009. Evaluating a hierarchy of snowmelt models at a watershed in the
Canadian Prairies. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 114.
Sivapalan, M., Wood, E.F., and Beven, K.J., 1987. On hydrologic similarity, 2 a scaled model of storm runoff
prediction. Water Resources Research 23(12), 2266-2278
Sloan, P. G., I. D. Morre, G. B. Coltharp, and J. D. Eigel, 1983. Modeling Surface and Subsurface Storm flow on
Steeply-Sloping Forested Watersheds. Water Resources Inst. Report 142, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky.
Smith, M., Koren, V., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Reed, S., Cui, Z., Moreda, F., Cosgrove, B., Mizukami, N., and DMIP
2 Participants (Islam, Z.), 2011. Results from the DMIP 2 Oklahoma Experiments. Submitted to Journal of
Hydrology. Text Pages: 22, No of Figure: 20.
Smith,R . E., and Parlange, J . Y., 1978. A parameter-efficient hydrologic infiltration model, Water Resour. Res.,
14(3), 533-538, 1978
Speers, D.D. and Versteeg, J.D., 1979, Runoff forecasting for reservoir operations – the past and the future. In
Proceedings 52nd Western Snow Conference, pp. 149–156 (Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University).
Supit, I., and Van Der Goot, E. (Eds), 2003, Updated System Description of the WOFOST Crop Growth Simulation
Model as Implemented in the Crop Growth Monitoring System Applied by the European Commission (Heelsum:
Treemail).
Supit, I., Hooijer, A.A., and Van Diepen, C.A. (Eds), 1994, System Description of the WOFOST 6.0 Crop
Simulation Model Implemented in CGMS. Volume 1: Theory and Algorithms. EUR 15956 (Luxembourg: Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities).
Talamba, D.B., Parent, E., and Musy, A., 2010. Bayesian multiresponse calibration of TOPMODEL: Application to
the Haute-Mentue catchment, Switzerland, Water Resour. Res., 46.
Tanzeeba, S., 2009. Potential Impact of Climate Change on the Water Availability in the South Saskatchewan River
Basin. Msc Thesis, University of Alberta.
Therrien, R., McLaren, R.G., Sudicky, E.A. and Panday, S.M. 2005. HydroGeoSphere: a three-dimensional
numerical model describing fully-integrated subsurface and surface flow and solute transport, Groundwater
Simulations Group, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 322p.
Therrien, R., McLaren, R.G., Sudicky, E.A. and Panday, S.M. 2010. HydroGeoSphere: A Three-dimensional
Numerical Model Describing Fully-integrated Subsurface and Surface Flow and Solute Transport. Groundwater
Simulations Group, Waterloo, Canada.
Thorne R, Armstrong RN, Woo MK, Martz LW. 2007. Lessons from macroscale hydrologic modeling: experience
with the hydrologic model SLURP in the Mackenzie Basin. In Cold Region Atmospheric and Hydrologic
Studies, The Mackenzie GEWEX Experience, Vol. 2: Hydrologic Processes, Woo MK (ed.). Springer-Verlag:
Berlin; 397–410.
Tobin, K.J. and Bennett, M.E., 2009. Using SWAT to model streamflow in two river basins with ground and
satellite precipitation data. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(1), pp. 253-271.
Todini, E., 2007. Hydrological catchment modeling: past, present and future. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11(1), 468-
482.
Toth, B., A. Pietroniro, F.M. Conley and N. Kouwen. 2006. “Modelling climate change impacts in the Peace and
Athabasca catchment and delta I – hydrological model application. Hydrological Process 20, Special Northern
Rivers Ecosystem Initiative Issue.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1972. National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology
Section 4, Chapters 4-10.
Van der Knijff, J.M., Younis, J. and De Roo, A.P.J., 2010. LISFLOOD: a GIS-based distributed model for river
basin scale water balance and flood simulation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science,
24(2), 189–212.
Vieux, B.E., Cui, Z., and Gaur, A., 2004. Evaluation of a physics-based distributed hydrologic model for flood
forecasting. J of Hydrol.,298, 155-177.
Vieux, B.E., Gauer, N., 1994. Finite element modeling of storm water runoff using GRASS GIS. Microcomput.
Civil Eng. 9(4), 263–270.
Vivoni, E. R., D. Entekhabi, R. L. Bras, V. Y. Ivanov, M. P. Van Horne, C. Grassotti, and R. N. Hoffman, 2006b:
Extending the predictability of hydrometeorological flood events using radar rainfall nowcasting. J.
Hydrometeor., 7, 660–677.

44
 Vivoni, E. R., R. S. Bowman, R. L. Wyckoff, R. T. Jakubowski, and K. E. Richards, 2006a: Analysis of a monsoon
flood event in an ephemeral tributary and its downstream hydrologic effects. Water Resour. Res., 42.
Wang, J., Yang, H., Li, L., Gourley, J. J., Sadiq, I. K., Yilmaz, K. K., Adler, R. F., Policelli, F. S., Habib, S., Irwn,
D., Limaye, A. S., Korme, T. & Okello, L., 2011. The coupled routing and excess storage (CREST) distributed
hydrological model. Hydrol. Sci. J. 56(1), 84–98.
Wood, E. F., Sivapalan, M., Beven, K., and Band, L., 1988, Effects of spatial variability and scale with implications
to hydrologic modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 102, 29–47.
Zanon, C., 2011. Watershed Hydrologic Modeling to Assess Interbasin Groundwater Flow in a Tropical Rainforest.
thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Zhang, Z., Wang, S., Sun, G., McNulty, S.G., Zhang, H., Li, J., Zhang, M., Klaghofer, E., and Strauss, P., 2008.
Evaluation of the MIKE SHE Model for Application in the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of The American
Water Resources Association, 44(5).
Zhao, R., Zhang, Y., Fang, L., Liu, X., and Zhang, Q., 1980. The Xinanjiang Model. In: Hydrological Forecasting
(Proc. Oxford Symp., April 1980), 351–356. Wallingford: IAHS Press, IAHS Publ. 129.
Zhao, R.J., 1992. The Xinanjiang model applied in China. J Hydrol, 135, pp:371–381.
Zheng, J., Li, G., Han, Z., and Meng, G., 2010. Hydrological cycle simulation of an irrigation district based on a
SWAT model. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(11-12), pp. 1312-1318.

45

View publication stats