1Hanoi University of Natural Resources and Environment;;

*Corresponding author:; Tel.: +84–945014398


Flood is one of the most commonly occurring forms of natural disaster which damage to environment and society. Flood events have been increased both in their intensity and frequency associating with increasing average global temperature due to climate change. In order to contribute to the work of mitigating the effect of climate change as well as floods' damage, this study introduces a method to simulate discharge with respect to design storm through hydrological modeling system (HMS). This model is applied for three case studies the Upper Sunter river basin in Indonesia, the Vu Gia–Thu Bon river basin and the Nhat Le River basin in Vietnam in which there were several severe floods occurred, causing severe impacts on social development. Hydrologic simulations were performed using the software of Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC–HMS). With three different precipitation input data, daily data in the Upper Sunter river basin, 6–hourly data in the Vu Gia–Thu Bon river basin and hourly data in the Nhat Le river basin were used to simulate. The HEC–HMS calibration and validation were conducted to assess the model performance, and the estimation of design floods with respect to design storm was also presented. NSE coefficients are higher than 0.70 in both calibration and validation process through the years which is acceptable for further simulation. With the validated model, seven return periods (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 and 200 years) were used to design seven floods.


Cite this paper

Linh, N.T.; Minh, H.T.N. Global Land Surface Data Applications in Flood Hydrologic Modeling Using HEC–GeoHMS and HEC–HMS for Three Watersheds in Southeast Asia. VN J. Hydrometeorol. 2022, 12, 9-22. 


1. McMillan, H.; Krueger, T.; Freer, J. Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: Rainfall, river discharge and water quality. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26, 4078–4111.

2. Yen, H.X.; Wang, D.; Fontane, R.; Harmel, M. Arabi. A framework for propagation of uncertainty contributed by parameterization, input data, model structure, and calibration/validation data in watershed modeling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 54, 211–221.

3. Abbaspour, K.C. Modelling hydrology and water quality of the European Continent at a subbasin scale: calibration of a high–resolution large–scale SWAT model. J. Hydrol, 2015, 524, 733–752.

4. Abbaspour, K.C. Uncertainty in Estimation of Soil Hydraulic Parameters by Inverse Modeling: Example Lysimeter Experiments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1999, 63, 501–509.

5. Rouholahnejad, E. A high resolution spatiotemporal distribution of water resources quantity and quality in the Black Sea Basin. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 5866–5885.

6. Hall, J.; Arheimer, B. Understanding Flood Regime Changes in Europe: A state of the art assessment. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 2735–2772.

7. Barnett, T.; Pierce, D. Human–Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States. Science 2018, 319, 1080–1083.

8. Lin, S.; Jing, C. Evaluating DEM source and resolution uncertainties in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2013, 27, 209–221.

9. Beven, K.; Binley, A. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process. 1992, 6, 279–298.

10. Legates, D.; McCabe, G. Evaluating the use of “goodness–of–fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35, 233–241.

11. N. Ajami.; Q. Duan.; S. Sorooshian. An integrated hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: Confronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in hydrologic prediction. Water Resour. Res., 2007, 43.

12. O. Wani.; A. Scheidegger. Parameter estimation of hydrologic models using a likelihood function for censored and binary observations. Water Res., 2017, 121, 290–301.

13. Sharma, A.; Tiwari, K. A comparative appraisal of hydrological behavior of SRTM DEM at catchment level. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 1394–1404.

14. Wang, H.; Wu, Z. A Comprehensive Study of the Effect of Input Data on Hydrology and non–point Source Pollution Modeling. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 1505–1521.

15. Bormann, H.; Breuer, L. Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM) IV: Model sensitivity to data aggregation and spatial (re–) distribution. Adv. Water Resour. 2009, 32, 171–192.

16. Bastola, S.; Murphy, C. The role of hydrological modelling uncertainties in climate change impact assessments of Irish river catchments. Adv. Water Resour. 2011, 34, 562–576.

17. Najafi, M.; Moradkhani, H. Assessing the uncertainties of hydrologic model selection in climate change impact studies. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 2814–2826.

18. Niehoff, D. Land–use impacts on storm–runoff generation: scenarios of land–use change and simulation of hydrological response in a meso–scale catchment in SW–Germany. J. Hydrol. 2002, 267(1–2), 80–93.

19. Price, K. Effects of watershed topography, soils, land use, and climate on baseflow hydrology in humid regions: a review. US Environmental Protection Agency, USA, 2011, 35, 465–492.

20. DeFries, R. Land–use change and hydrologic processes: a major focus. Hydrol. Processes 2004, 18, 2183–2186.

21. Yang, X.; Ren, L.; Singh, V.P.; Liu, X.; Yuan, F.; Jiang, S.; Yong, B. Impacts of land use and land cover changes on evapotranspiration and runoff at Shalamulun River watershed, China. Hydrol. Res. 2012, 43(1–2), 23–37.

22. Horritt, M.S.; Bates, P.D. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation. J. Hydrol. 2002, 268(1–4), 87–99.

23. Behbahani, R. The effect of base map scale on the accuracy of floodplain zoning using GIS. J. Appl. Sci. 2006, 6(1), 20–26.

24. Bates, P.D. Remote sensing and flood inundation modeling. Wiley Inter. Sci. 2004, 18(1–2), 2593–2597.

25. Borga, M. Accuracy of radar rainfall estimates for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol. 2002, 267(1–2), 26–39.

26. USACE. Engineers, Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC–HMS) Applications Guide: Version 3.1.0. Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2008.

27. Oleyiblo, J.O. Application of HEC–HMS for flood forecasting in Misai and Wan’an catchments in China. Water Sci. Eng. 2010, 3, 14–22.

28. Wahren, F.T.; Julich, S.; Nunes, J.P.; Gonzalez-Pelayo, O.; Hawtree, D.; Feger, K.H.; Keizer, J.J. Combining digital soil mapping and hydrological modeling in a data scarce watershed in north–central Portugal. Geoderma 2016, 264, 350–362.

29. Steinman, A. Event and Continuous Hydrologic Modeling with HEC–HMS. IJETSR 2009, 135(1), 119–124.

30. Feldman, A. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC–HMS, Technical Reference Manual, USA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2009.

31. Yener, M.K. Modeling studies with HEC–HMS and runoff scenarios in Yuvacik Basin, Turkiye. International Congress on River Basin Management, 2009.

32. Knebl, M.R.; Yang, Z.L.; Hutchison, K.; Maidment, D.R. Regional scale flood modeling using NEXRAD rainfall, GIS, and HEC–HMS: a case study for the San Antonio River Basin Summer 2002 storm event. J. Environ. Manage. 2004, 75, 325–336.

33. Enard, B.; Kavetski, D. Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: The challenge of identifying input and structural errors. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46(5), W05521.

34. William, J. Hydrologic Modeling of a Probable Maximum Precipitation Event Using HEC–HMS and GIS Models – A Case Study of Two Watersheds in Southern Virginia. Thesis in Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2012, pp. 269.

35. Kalita, D. A study of basin response using HEC–HMS and subzone reports of CWC. Proceeding of 13th National Symposium on Hydrology, Roorkee, New Delhi, 2008.

36. Oudin, L.; Andréassian, V. Dynamic averaging of rainfall–runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42(7), W07410.

37. Rathod, P. Simulation of Rainfall–Runoff Process Using HEC–HMS – Case Study: Tapi River, India. Proceeding of 20th International Conference on Hydraulics, 2015.

38. Abdullah, J. Estimation of Peak Discharges Using Flood Frequency Analysis and Hydrological Modeling System. In International Symposium on Flood Research and Management, Singapore, 2015.

39. Muthukrishnan, E. Calibration of a simple rainfall–runoff model for long–term hydrological impact evaluation. URISA J. 2006, 18(2), 33–40.

40. Tassew, B.; Belete, M.; Miegel, K. Application of HEC–HMS Model for Flow Simulation in the Lake Tana Basin: The Case of Gilgel Abay Catchment, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrology 2019, 6(1), 21.

41. Merwade, V. Terrain Processing and HMS–Model Development using GeoHMs. School of Civil Engineering. Purdue University, USA, 2012.

42. World Bank. In Jakarta Tantangan Perkotaan Seiring Perubahan Iklim. The World Bank, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017.

43. Emam, A.; Mishra, B.; Kumar, P.; Massago, Y.; Fukushi, K. Impact Assessment of Climate and Land–use Changes on Flooding Behavior in the Upper Ciliwung River, Jakarta, Indonesia. Water 2016, 8(12), 559.

44. Nga, T.T. Establishing a flood simulation model for reservoir operation in the Vu Gia–Thu Bon River during the flood season. 2013, 42, 18–24.

45. Loi, N.K. Automated procedure of real–time flood forecasting in Vu Gia – Thu Bon river basin, Vietnam by integrating SWAT and HEC–RAS models. J. Water Clim. Change 2019, 10(3), 535–545.

46. Son, N.H. Study on the application of flood forecasting model for Vu Gia – Thu Bon River. 2013, 43, 118–124.

47. Hau, N.X. Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Floods in the Nhat Le River Basin, Vietnam. VNU J. Sci.: Nat. Sci. Technol. 2015, 31(3S), 125–138.

48. Halwatura, D.; Najim, M.M.M. Application of the HEC–HMS model for runoff simulation in a tropical catchment. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2013, 46, 155–162.

49. Sardoii, E.; Rostami, N. Calibration of loss estimation methods in HEC–HMS for simulation of surface runoff (Case Study: Amirkabir Dam Watershed, Iran). Adv. Environ. Biol. 2012, 6, 343–348.

50. Tewolde, M.; Smithers, J.C. Flood routing in ungauged catchments using Muskingum methods. Water SA. 2016, 32, 379–388.