Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

An efficient method for DEM-based overland flow routing

Pin-Chun Huang, Kwan Tun Lee ⇑
Department of River and Harbor Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 202, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: The digital elevation model (DEM) is frequently used to represent watershed topographic features based
Received 21 November 2012 on a raster or a vector data format. It has been widely linked with flow routing equations for watershed
Received in revised form 2 March 2013 runoff simulation. In this study, a recursive formulation was encoded into the conventional kinematic-
Accepted 12 March 2013
and diffusion-wave routing algorithms to permit a larger time increment, despite the Courant–Fried-
Available online 21 March 2013
This manuscript was handled by
rich–Lewy condition having been violated. To meet the requirement of recursive formulation, a novel
Konstantine P. Georgakakos, Editor-in-Chief, routing sequence was developed to determine the cell-to-cell computational procedure for the DEM data-
with the assistance of Attilio Castellarin, base. The routing sequence can be set either according to the grid elevation in descending order for the
Associate Editor kinematic-wave routing or according to the water stage of the grid in descending order for the diffusion-
wave routing. The recursive formulation for 1D runoff routing was first applied to a conceptual overland
Keywords: plane to demonstrate the precision of the formulation using an analytical solution for verification. The
Overland flow proposed novel routing sequence with the recursive formulation was then applied to two mountain
Computational efficiency watersheds for 2D runoff simulations. The results showed that the efficiency of the proposed method
Digital elevation model was significantly superior to that of the conventional algorithm, especially when applied to a steep
Diffusion wave watershed.
Kinematic wave
Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Courant–Friedrich–Lewy condition

1. Introduction strains the maximum time increment depending on the wave

Due to considerable progress on the computational technique
over the past few decades, complex numerical algorithms have
been adopted in hydrological modeling in connection with a
high-resolution DEM database. The simplest and most straightfor-
ward method for flow direction determination in a DEM dataset is
the deterministic eight-node (D8) approach (O’Callaghan and
Mark, 1984), in which a single drainage path for each cell is as-
signed to one of its eight neighbors toward the steepest down-
slope. Although multiple-flow direction methods have been
suggested to account for the dispersion of a cell to all neighboring
cells having lower elevations (Freeman, 1991; Quinn et al., 1991),
error may be introduced in the inconsistently physical definition
of upstream drainage areas (Tarboton, 1997; Orlandini et al.,
2003). Consequently, the D8 approach is most widely adopted for
flow-direction determination by hydrologists.
To depict the concentration process of surface runoff in a wa-
tershed, various approximations of St. Venant equations are
linked with numerical algorithms for runoff routing. According
to the conventional explicit scheme, the computational efficiency
of the scheme is restricted by the Courant–Friedrich–Lewy (CFL)
stability condition (Courant et al., 1967). The CFL condition con-
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +886 2 24634122.
E-mail address: ktlee@ntou.edu.tw (K.T. Lee).
celerity; the restriction is especially stringent for steep mountain
watersheds having rapid flow. Although nonlinear implicit meth-
ods have been proposed and are claimed to be more flexible in
assigning the time increment (Li et al., 1975; Fread, 1976), the
use of iterative calculations or matrix operations may disadvan-
tage their computational efficiency. In addition, such complex cal-
culations require extremely large virtual memory space on a
computer.
To achieve efficient computing, MacCormack (1982) proposed
an unconditional stable scheme to allow for an expanding time
increment in performing unsteady-flow routing. A recursive
formulation was added to each time step of the explicit scheme
to enable variable modification without complying to the CFL sta-
bility condition. Nevertheless, in performing the MacCormack
recursive formulation, the routing sequence from upstream to
downstream outlet is strictly enforced. It results that this formula-
tion cannot be properly performed for the D8 runoff routing in a
DEM database.
This study aims to improve the computing efficiency for runoff
routing in connection with a high-resolution DEM database. To al-
low for application of the D8 method, the MacCormack recursive
formulation (MacCormack, 1982) was reformulated and combined
with a novel cell-to-cell routing sequence in the DEM database.
Numerical algorithms, based on kinematic- and diffusion-wave
approximations, were developed to link with the recursive formu-
lation for watershed runoff routing. The precision of the numerical

0022-1694/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.014
 P.-C. Huang, K.T. Lee / Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245
algorithms in the runoff simulation was verified using the
analytical solution for a conceptual overland plane, and then the
proposed method was applied to two mountain watersheds to
demonstrate the computational efficiency of the method.
2. Governing equations for watershed runoff routing
Since the D8 method is applied for flow-direction determination
in this study, the expression of the governing equation is essen-
tially in a 1D (or quasi-2D) form. The continuity equation is written
as
@y @q
þ ¼ ie
@t @x
in which y is the water depth; ie is the rainfall excess rate, and q is
the flow discharge per unit width, which can be calculated as
 
1 2=3 1=2
q ¼ Vy ¼ R Sf y
n
in which V is the average flow velocity; n is the Manning’s rough-
ness coefficient; R is the hydraulic radius, which is considered equal
to y for shallow water flow; and Sf is the friction slope. For a kine-
matic-wave (KW) approximation, the friction slope of the flow is as-
sumed to be equal to the bed slope, as shown by the term
Sf ¼ So
in which So is the bed slope. Hence, the CFL stability condition of the
KW approximation is
3 nDx
Dt 6 pffiffiffiffiffi
5 So y2=3
If the influence of the pressure term on flow routing is further
included, the friction slope is expressed as
@y
Sf ¼ So 
@x
This equation shows that the water-stage gradient determines
the motion of runoff, which is known as the diffusion-wave
(DFW) model. Corresponding to the CFL stability condition of the
diffusion wave, the maximum time increment constraint can be
denoted as follows (Weinmann and Laurenson, 1979; Huang and
Song, 1985):
Dx
Dt 6 pffiffiffiffiffi
V þ gy
where V is the average flow velocity shown in Eq. (2), and g is the
gravity acceleration. The use of an explicit scheme for runoff routing
requires strict adherence to the stability criteria at each time step to
ensure correct numerical results.
3. MacCormack unconditional stable formulation
To alleviate the CFL restriction in performing an explicit
scheme, MacCormack (1982) developed a simple and straightfor-
ward formulation to ensure numerical stability in computations
involving large time increments. According to MacCormack
(1982), the estimated water depth at t + Dt can be expressed as
yi ðt þ DtÞ ¼ yi ðtÞ þ Dy0i
in which
Dyi þ k DDxt Dy0i1
Dy0i ¼
1 þ k DDxt
where Dyi denotes the time-varying increment of water depth at
location i, and Dy0i represents the modified Dyi. Eq. (8) is used to en-
sure the stability of computational results. The parameter k depends
239
on the variances between wave celerity and numerical marching
speed (Dx/Dt). MacCormack (1982) estimated this value as follows:
 
Dx
k ¼ a  Max 0; c  ð9Þ
Dt
in which a is a coefficient (a negative a should be avoided for the
computation), and c is the wave celerity. This function implies that
when the CFL condition is preserved, k is equal to 0 because the
numerical marching speed (Dx/Dt) is larger than the wave celerity.
Under other conditions, k is larger than 0, and a modified Dyi can be
obtained from Eq. (8) and used to estimate the water depth at t + Dt,
as shown in Eq. (7). The coefficient a shown in Eq. (9) mainly de-
ð1Þ pends on the wave celerity and geomorphologic features of the
watershed.
3.1. Verification of the MacCormack stable formulation using an
analytical solution
ð2Þ
Rainfall-runoff processes on an impervious overland plane were
used as an example to verify the capability of the MacCormack
unconditional stable formulation when the CFL condition was vio-
lated. The overland plane was 850 m long with a slope of 0.3. The
runoff simulation on the overland plane began with an initially dry
surface, and the rain lasted 60 min with an intensity of 70 mm/h.
ð3Þ The 1D flow models based on the KW and DFW approximations
were developed using a finite-difference scheme, in which the
Manning roughness coefficient was set as 0.1 in the simulations.
To perform the conventional backward-finite-difference scheme
(HEC, 1990; Bedient et al., 2008), the time increment was set at
ð4Þ
2 s to comply with the CFL condition. However, to have the fi-
nite-difference scheme include the MacCormack stable formula-
tion, the time increment was enlarged to 30 s to investigate the
accuracy of the algorithm when the CFL condition was violated.
As shown in Fig. 1a , although the time to equilibrium discharge
ð5Þ
calculated using the numerical models was slightly later than that
of the analytical solution, the hydrographs generated from the con-
ventional and the MacCormack algorithms based on KW approxi-
mation were close to the analytical solution. As shown in Fig. 1b
for the DFW model, the simulated hydrograph generated from
the MacCormack algorithm, without complying with the CFL con-
dition, also showed a fairly similar result to that obtained using
the conventional algorithm. In performing the algorithms, the coef-
ficient a in Eq. (9) was assigned as 1.0 for the KW model and as 0.6
ð6Þ
for the DFW model to obtain the best fit results with the analytical
solution. This analysis showed that, although its computing time
increment was 15 times larger than that of the conventional algo-
rithm, the MacCormack stable formulation preserved the accuracy
of results.
4. MacCormack stable formulation for DEM-based overland
flow routing
To enable quasi-2D runoff routing on a DEM database, modifica-
tions are required for the discrete formulations. Fig. 2 shows an
example of the flow direction using the D8 method (O’Callaghan
and Mark, 1984), in which each grid has a single downstream
ð7Þ drainage route but may possess multiple inflow sources from
upstream neighboring grids. The discrete continuity equation
using the backward-finite-difference scheme for flow routing on
a quasi-2D system can be expressed as
ð8Þ
Dt 1
Dyi ðt þ DtÞ ¼ ½q ðtÞ  qi ðtÞ þ ½ie ðtÞ þ ie ðt þ DtÞDt ð10Þ
Dx i;IN 2
where qi(t) denotes the flow discharge per unit width at location i;
qi,IN(t) is the total inflow discharge (namely, the accumulated
240 P.-C. Huang, K.T. Lee / Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245

0.02 0.02

0.016 0.016

0.012 0.012
q (m 2/s)

q (m 2/s)
0.008 0.008

So=0.3, no=0.1 So=0.3, no=0.1

0.004 KW analytical solution 0.004 KW analytical solution
conventional (KW, Δt=2sec) conventional (DFW, Δt=2sec)
MacCormack (KW, Δt=30sec) MacCormack (DFW, Δt=30sec)
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
time (min) time (min)
(a) kinematic-wave model (b) diffusion-wave model
Fig. 1. Verification of MacCormack stable algorithm using conceptual overland plane.

1 2 3 drainage route to the downstream outlet. In Fig. 3b, the arrow rep-
4 5 6 ing grids in the database is forced to point to the periphery. Hence,
7 8 9 work can be constructed as shown in Fig. 3c.
Fig. 2. Flow direction assigned in a DEM-based system.
discharge from upstream neighboring grids), and ie(t) is the rainfall
excess rate at location i. For example, the inflow discharge of Grid 5
shown in Fig. 2 can be calculated as
q5;IN ðtÞ ¼ q2 ðtÞ þ q3 ðtÞ þ q6 ðtÞ
Consequently, the MacCormack recursive formulation shown in
Eq. (8) is modified to fit the D8 method on a DEM-based dataset as
follows:
Dyi þ k DDxt Dy0i;IN
Dy0i ¼
1 þ k DDxt
If the Manning equation is used to estimate the flow velocity,
Dy0i;IN in Eq. (12) can be further derived as
Dy0i;IN ðt þ DtÞ ¼ yi;IN ðt þ DtÞ  yi;IN ðtÞ
!3=5
n on the upstream grids in Fig. 5b are always smaller than those
¼ pffiffiffiffiffi qi;IN ðt þ DtÞ  yi;IN ðtÞ
Sf
in which the friction slope Sf can be estimated from Eq. (3) for KW
routing and from Eq. (5) for DFW routing. It should be noted that
since the total inflow discharge qi,IN(t + 1) is included in the recur-
sive formulations in Eqs. (12) and (13), the discharges of up-
stream-inflow grids should be obtained prior to calculating the
downstream-grid discharge.
4.1. Flow routing sequence for DEM-based watersheds
Fig. 3a shows an example of the DEM database, in which the nu-
meral shown on each grid represents the elevation of the grid. If
the D8 method was adopted to determine the flow direction based
on the elevation drop between grids, each grid has a single
resents the flow direction for each grid, according to the maximum
elevation drop between grids; the flow direction of the surround-
once the outlet of a watershed is assigned, the watershed boundary
can be delineated, as shown by the dotted line in Fig. 3b. In accor-
dance with the flow direction depicted in Fig. 3b, the drainage net-
The conventional flow-routing sequence in a DEM database typ-
ically starts in the upper-left corner and progresses stepwise to the
lower-right corner. As shown in Fig. 4a, the numeral allocated to
each cell represents the routing sequence in conventional grid-
based computing, and grids lying beyond the watershed boundary
are assigned ‘‘00’’ and are not routed. The conventional routing se-
quence shown in Fig. 4a violates the rule of using the recursive for-
mulations of Eqs. (12) and (13). For example, the discharge of the
upstream-inflow grid (No. 16) should be calculated prior to calcu-
ð11Þ lating the discharge of the downstream grid (No. 15). Conse-
quently, the grids marked with a rectangle, shown in Fig. 4b,
would hinder runoff routing using the MacCormack recursive for-
mulation in the DEM-based system.
To relax the restriction of using Eqs. (12) and (13) in KW rout-
ing, the routing sequence was designed to follow the watershed
ð12Þ topography from higher-elevation grids to lower-elevation grids.
This enabled that the discharges from the upstream-inflow grids
can be calculated prior to calculating the downstream grid dis-
charge. As shown in Fig. 5a, the numerals allocated to the grids
show the proposed new flow-routing sequence in descending or-
der of the grid elevations shown in Fig. 3a. Hence, numerals shown
ð13Þ shown on the downstream grids. For example, in Fig. 5b, Grids 3
and 11 (upper-left corner) are connected to the downstream Grid
14. Hence, the discharges of Grids 3 and 11 should be calculated
before the discharge of Grid 14 if Eqs. (12) and (13) are to be imple-
mented. Consequently, the numeral shown on the watershed out-
let equals the total number of grids in the watershed; that is, 43
grids. According to the new routing sequence shown in Fig. 5, the
MacCormack recursive formulation can then be performed suc-
cessfully. Fig. 6 shows a schematic connection between flow path
and routing sequence proposed in this study. The dotted line rep-
resents the connection of flow direction between grids, and the so-
lid line represents the routing sequence for performing the
proposed algorithm.
The flow routing sequence shown in Figs. 5 and 6 is suitable
only for the KW method because the friction slope is assumed
 P.-C. Huang, K.T. Lee / Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245 241

90 92 91 95 93 92 92 95 93
72 91 87 90 89 87 88 90 78
78 89 93 83 83 85 87 92 74
75 90 72 69 69 82 83 84 77
88 67 70 68 72 70 83 85 89
78 66 69 67 71 72 82 95 83
73 64 63 64 65 82 85 94 81
61 57 59 66 71 71 83 88 87
51 62 67 74 78 82 91 90 95

(a) grid elevation drainage outlet

(b) flow direction

(02)
(01) (03) (04) (05)
(08) (11)
(06) (09) (10)
(07)
(14) (16) (17)
(13) (15)
(12)
(19) (20) (21) (22) (23)
(18)
(29)
(27) (30)
(26) (28)
(24) (25)
(34)
(33) (35)
(31) (32) (36)
(41)
(43)
(38) (39) (40) (42)
(37)

(c) drainage network

Fig. 3. Grid elevation, flow direction, and drainage network in a DEM dataset.

(02)
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 (01) (03) (04) (05)
00 00 01 02 03 04 05 00 00 (08) (11)
(06) (09) (10)
(07)
00 06 07 08 09 10 11 00 00 (14) (17)
(15) (16)
(13)
00 12 13 14 15 16 17 00 00 (12)
(22)
(19) (20) (21) (23)
00 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 00 (18)
(29)
(27) (30)
(26) (28)
00 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 00 (24) (25)
(34)
00 31 32 33 34 35 36 00 00 (33) (35)
(31) (32) (36)
(41)
00 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 00 (38) (39) (40)
(43)
(42)
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 (37)

(a) conventional flow-routing (b) drainage network

sequence
Fig. 4. Conventional flow-routing sequence is set to start from the upper-left corner to the lower-right corner of the DEM dataset.

equal to the ground slope in the KW approximation, as described in
Eq. (3). Consequently, the flow routing sequence can be deter-
mined before starting a KW runoff routing based on the relative
elevation drop between grids. Nevertheless, in performing the
DFW model, the spatial variation of water stage dominates the
flow direction between grids, as shown in Eq. (5); hence, the rout-
ing sequence should be determined at each time step according to
the temporal variation of water stage between grids. To clearly de-
pict the routing processes of the proposed method, a flowchart for
both the KW and DFW models was provided as shown in Fig. 7.
5. Model verification for mountain watersheds
Geomorphologic and hydrological data from the Goodwin Creek
Experimental Watershed in Northern Mississippi, USA, were col-
lected for the proposed algorithm test. Goodwin Creek is a tribu-
tary of Long Creek which flows into Yocona River. In 1981 the
Goodwin Creek watershed was placed under the administration
of the National Sedimentation Laboratory of the United States
Department of Agriculture. Flow and sediment discharges in Good-
win Creek are monitored by 14 gauging stations, and precipitation
242 P.-C. Huang, K.T. Lee / Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245

(03)
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 (11) (05) (09) (08)
00 00 11 03 05 09 08 00 00 (14) (10)
(06) (16) (13)
(02)
00 06 02 14 16 13 10 00 00 (32) (20) (15)
(24) (31)
00 04 24 32 31 20 15 00 00 (04)
(29) (33) (23) (28) (18)
00 35 29 33 23 28 18 00 00 (35)
(19)
(25) (01)
(34) (22)
00 36 30 34 25 22 19 01 00 (36) (30)
(38)
00 40 41 39 38 21 12 00 00 (39) (21)
(40) (41) (12)
(26)
00 43 42 37 27 26 17 07 00 (42) (37) (27)
(07)
(17)
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 (43)

(a) proposedflow-routing sequence (b) drainage network

Fig. 5. Proposed flow-routing sequence is set according to the grid elevation in descending order for the DEM dataset.

outlet
01 02 03 ..... 11 12 13 14 ..... 43 Input DEM dataset

flow-routing sequence
flow direction DFW model KW model

Fig. 6. Flow-routing sequence and flow direction between grids.

Sorting the water stage Sorting the elevation

of each cell of each cell
is measured by 31 rain gauges located in or near the watershed.
Discharge data from STA05 and the rainfall records from No. 55
and No. 57 rain gauges within the subwatershed were collected
for model verification. The watershed extends over 3.95 km2 with
a mean channel slope of 0.0072 and an overland slope of 0.0380.
i=1
Fig. 8 shows the channel network extracted from a 30-m resolution
digital elevation data set using a DEM (Lee, 1998), in which the wa-
tershed topography is represented by 3890 grids.
Rainfall and discharge data obtained at 10-min intervals from a
Derive Δyi
rainstorm event on 23 March 1996, were used in this study for
using continuity equation (Eq.10)
model verification. The rainfall excess hyetograph was determined
by deducting the abstractions from the rainfall using the Green–
Ampt equation (Green and Ampt, 1911). The Manning’s roughness
Derive Δy′i
used in the KW and DFW models was set as 0.22 which was cali-
using MacCormack equation (Eq.12)
brated based on the hydrological records from Goodwin Creek wa-
tershed by using the conventional algorithm. The allowable i = i +1
maximum time increment determined by the CFL stability condi- Estimate water depth yi ( t + Δt )
tion was 11 s for the KW routing and 7 s for the DFW routing. Con- using Eq.7
sequently, in applying the conventional algorithms to both runoff
models, the time increment was set at 5 s. When the proposed
method was used, the time increment was increased from 10 to Derive discharge qi ( t + Δt )
60 s to investigate simulation precision and computational using momentum equation (Eq.2)
efficiency.
Table 1 shows the detailed simulated results for the rainstorm
on 23 March 1996 in the Goodwin Creek watershed, using various Accumulate discharge
numerical algorithms in KW and DFW routings. The flow hydro- into downstream cell
graph for this storm lasted 16 h, and the recorded peak discharge
was 10.21 m3/s. As shown in Table 1, the simulated peak dis-
charges calculated using the conventional algorithms and the pro-
DFW model KW model
posed method were essentially congruent with the recorded data; Next time step
the relative errors for peak discharge simulations were less than 4%
in all cases. Table 1 also shows that the relative root mean square
error (RMSE) increased from 0.0065 for Dt = 10 s to 0.0167 for
Dt = 60 s in KW routing. Similarly, it increased from 0.0077 for
Stop
Dt = 10 s to 0.0184 for Dt = 60 s in DFW routing. These results
showed that, although the relative RMSE increased with increasing
Dt, RMSE remained less than 2%, even when Dt was 12-fold that Fig. 7. Flowchart of the proposed method.
 P.-C. Huang, K.T. Lee / Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245 243

reducing computing time for both KW and DFW routings. Fig. 9

shows the simulated results using the conventional algorithm
(Dt = 5 s) and the proposed method for KW and DFW routings
(Dt = 60 s). These results demonstrated that the hydrographs gen-
erated using the proposed method fitted fairly well with the re-
corded data, despite the CFL condition having been violated in
performing the runoff routing.

5.1. Model performance for steep mountain watersheds

As shown in Eqs. (4) and (6), to meet the CFL stability restric-
tion, a small time increment should be selected for steep water-
sheds when performing conventional numerical algorithms. To
Fig. 8. Map of the Goodwin Creek watershed. further investigate the computational efficiency of the proposed
algorithm, it was applied to a steep mountain watershed located
at Su–Ao Township in Northern Taiwan. As shown in Fig. 10, the
used in the conventional algorithm. Thus, the overall performance watershed covers 0.36 km2, and the average slope of the watershed
of the proposed method was extremely satisfactory. The MacCor- is 0.63; these measurements are based on analysis of a 5-m resolu-
mack recursive formulation provided an efficient method for tion DEM dataset (total 14,352 grids). Discharge records are

Table 1
Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs in the Goodwin Creek watershed using different algorithms for the storm event occurred on 23 March 1996.

Runoff model Numerical algorithm Time increment Dt (s) Relative Qp error Relative RMSE CUP time (min) Relative CPU time
Kinematic wave Conventional 5 0.0303 – 1.05 1.000
This study 10 0.0315 0.0065 0.53 0.505
20 0.0344 0.0081 0.26 0.248
30 0.0392 0.0089 0.18 0.171
40 0.0388 0.0117 0.13 0.124
50 0.0371 0.0132 0.11 0.105
60 0.0354 0.0167 0.09 0.086
Diffusion wave Conventional 5 0.0240 – 1.31 1.000
This study 10 0.0257 0.0077 0.65 0.496
20 0.0284 0.0091 0.33 0.252
30 0.0265 0.0102 0.22 0.168
40 0.0253 0.0143 0.16 0.122
50 0.0232 0.0167 0.13 0.099
60 0.0215 0.0184 0.11 0.084

Note: 1. Relative Qp error = |(Qp)simulated  (Qp)recorded|/(Qp)recorded.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PT ffi
1 2
2 Relative RMSE ¼ T t¼1 ½ððQ t Þthis study  ðQ t Þconv entional Þ=ðQ t Þconv entional  .
3. Relative CPU time = (CPU time)this_study/(CPU time)conventional.

40 40
i e (mm/hr)

i e (mm/hr)

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0

10 1996/03/23 10 1996/03/23
Recorded Recorded
conventional (KW, Δt = 5 sec) conventional (DFW, Δt = 5 sec)
8 this study (KW, Δt = 60 sec) 8 this study (DFW, Δt = 60 sec)
Q (m3/s)

Q (m3/s)

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16
time (hr) time (hr)
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs generated from different algorithms using (a) kinematic-wave model and (b) diffusion-wave model for the 23
March 1996 storm.
244 P.-C. Huang, K.T. Lee / Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245

Rainfall records obtained from the Dong-Ao rain-gauging station

Fig. 10. Map of the Su–Ao watershed.
unavailable for this watershed; thus, to calibrate the model param-
eters, the Manning coefficient was assigned as 0.6 according to the
land cover conditions of the watershed and the roughness values
suggested by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC, 2000).
for Typhoon Megi, which occurred on 20 October 2010, were used
as an example for runoff routing to test the efficiency of the pro-
posed method. The Dong-Ao station is situated 2.31 km from the
watershed outlet, and the rainfall records were obtained at 10-
min intervals. The Green–Ampt equation (Green and Ampt, 1911)
was used to deduct the rainfall abstraction to obtain the rainfall ex-
cess. The parameters used in the Green–Ampt equation were
determined according to the soil characteristics of the watershed.
In accordance with the CFL stability restriction for the conven-
tional KW algorithm applied to the Su–Ao watershed, the time
increment calculated by Eq. (4) was equal to 2 s, and it was 0.5 s
(using Eq. (6)) for the conventional DFW algorithm. These values
were smaller than those used in the computation for the Goodwin
Creek watershed (11 s and 7 s, respectively). Consequently, the
runoff routing was expected to be time-consuming if conventional
algorithms were applied for the routing on a steep watershed using
a high resolution DEM database. As mentioned for quasi-2D rout-
ing, the flow routing sequence should be determined before per-
forming a runoff simulation. For the Su–Ao watershed with its
14,352 grids, computing time was only 0.02 s by using Shellsort
method (Pratt, 1972) to arrange the flow-routing sequence for
the whole watershed.

160
i e (mm/hr)

i e (mm/hr)

160
120 120
80 80
40 40
0 0
16 16
2010/10/20 2010/10/20
14
conventional (KW, Δt = 2 sec) conventional (DFW, Δt = 0.5 sec)
this study (KW, Δt = 60 sec) this study (DFW, Δt = 60 sec)
12 12

10
Q (m3/s)

Q (m3/s)

8 8

4 4

0 0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
time (hr) time (hr)
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Comparison of simulated hydrographs for different algorithms using (a) kinematic-wave model and (b) diffusion-wave model for the 20 October 2010 storm.

Table 2
Comparison of observed and simulated hydrographs in the Su–Ao watershed using different algorithms for the storm event occurred on 20 October 2010.

Runoff model Numerical algorithm Time increment Dt (s) Relative RMSE CPU time (min) Relative CPU time
Kinematic wave Conventional 2 – 121.3 1.000
This study 10 0.0024 25.7 0.212
20 0.0067 13.5 0.111
30 0.0081 8.2 0.068
40 0.0098 6.1 0.050
50 0.0134 4.9 0.040
60 0.0182 4.1 0.034
Diffusion wave Conventional 0.5 – 491.5 1.000
This study 10 0.0054 25.9 0.053
20 0.0086 13.6 0.028
30 0.0097 8.3 0.017
40 0.0127 6.4 0.013
50 0.0187 5.1 0.010
60 0.0209 4.2 0.008
 P.-C. Huang, K.T. Lee / Journal of Hydrology 489 (2013) 238–245
Fig. 11 shows the simulated hydrographs for the example storm
generated from the KW and DFW models using various algorithms.
For KW routing, as shown in Table 2, although the relative RMSE
increased with increasing Dt, relative RMSE values remained less
than 2% when the proposed algorithm was used, even when Dt
was increased to more than 30-fold the values used in the conven-
tional algorithm. Moreover, in performing DFW routing, the com-
puting time for the proposed method (CPU time = 4.2 min for
Dt = 60 s) was a mere 1/117 that required for the conventional
algorithm (CPU time = 491.5 min for Dt = 0.5 s), and the relative
RMSE value of the hydrograph was only 2.09%. A comparison of
CPU times associated with different algorithms is shown in Tables
1 and 2. The tables show that the CPU time of the proposed method
was significantly less than that of the conventional algorithm espe-
cially applied to a steep watershed using a high-resolution DEM
dataset.
6. Conclusion
To reduce the lengthy computing time required to perform an
explicit numerical scheme, a recursive formulation combined with
a novel routing sequence were developed for DEM-based runoff
routing in natural watersheds. The routing sequence was set to fol-
low either the grid elevation in descending order for KW routing or
the water stage in descending order for DFW routing. The MacCor-
mack recursive formulation can avoid numerical unstable despite
the CFL condition being violated. The proposed method was ap-
plied to two watersheds to test its capability for improving compu-
tational efficiency with a minimal simulation error. Computational
efficiency was shown to be significantly enhanced, especially for
steep watersheds. In a test using the example of a storm over a
steep watershed, the computing time for performing the proposed
KW routing method was 1/30 that of performing the conventional
algorithm. For DFW routing, the computing time for the proposed
method was 1/117 that of the conventional algorithm. The pro-
posed numerical method is considered computationally efficient
and offers promise in its application to watershed runoff routing.
245
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Science Council,
Taiwan, ROC. Financial support provided by the National Science
Council is acknowledged.
References
Bedient, P.B., Huber, W.C., Vieux, B.E. 2008. Chapter 4: Flood Routing in Hydrology
and Floodplain Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Courant, R., Friedrichs, K., Lewy, H., 1967. On the partial difference equations of
mathematical physics. IBM J. 11, 215–234.
Fread, D.L., 1976. Theoretical Development of an Implicit Dynamic Routing Model.
National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration, National Weather Service.
Freeman, T.G., 1991. Calculating catchment area with divergent flow based on a
regular grid. Comput. Geosci. 17, 413–422.
Green, W.H., Ampt, G.A., 1911. Studies on soil physics. I: The flow of air and water in
soils. J. Agric. Sci. 4, 1–24.
Huang, I., Song, C.C.S., 1985. Stability of dynamic flood routing schemes. J. Hydr.
Eng., ASCE 111 (12), 1497–1506.
Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2000. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS,
Technical Reference Manual.
Lee, K.T., 1998. Generating design hydrographs by DEM assisted geomorphic runoff
simulation: a case study. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34 (2), 375–384.
Li, R.-M., Simons, D.B., Stevens, M.A., 1975. Nonlinear kinematic wave
approximation for water routing. Water Resour. Res. 11 (2), 245–252.
O’Callaghan, J., Mark, D.M., 1984. The extraction of drainage networks from
digital elevation data. Comput. Vision Graph. Image Process. 28 (3), 323–
344.
Orlandini, S., Moretti, G., Franchini, M., Aldighieri, B., Testa, B., 2003. Path-based
methods for the determination of nondispersive drainage directions in grid-
based digital elevation models. Water Resour. Res. 39 (6), 1144. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001639.
Pratt, V. 1972. Shellsort and Sorting Networks, Ph.D. Dissertation, Computer Science
Department, Stanford Univ., US.
Quinn, P., Beven, K., Chevallier, P., Planchon, O., 1991. The prediction of hillslope
flow paths for distributed hydrological modeling using digital terrain models.
Hydrol. Process. 5, 59–80.
MacCormack, R.W., 1982. A numerical method for solving the equations of
compressible viscous flow. AIAA J. 20 (9), 1275–1281.
Tarboton, D.G., 1997. A new method for the determination of flow directions and
upslope areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour. Res. 33 (2), 309–
319.
Weinmann, P.E., Laurenson, E.M., 1979. Approximate flood routing methods: a
review. J. Hydr. Eng., ASCE 105 (12), 1521–1537.