A detailed analysis of model performance based on the RMSE for each segment of the hydrograph was also performed, as shown in Table 7. The RMSE values indicate that the SWAT model was better at simulating very low and high flows, the HEC-HMS model was better at simulating low and medium flows and both the HBV and SWAT models gave almost the same performance in simulating the very high flow range.
RMSE values (m3/s) of the physically based models in each segment of the hydrograph
Hydrograph phase . | Range (m3/s) . | HEC-HMS . | SWAT . | HBV . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Very low flow | 1.188–1.559 | 0.233 | 0.193 | 0.854 |
Low flow | 1.641–2.415 | 0.342 | 0.828 | 1.556 |
Medium flow | 2.526–18.788 | 5.49 | 5.622 | 9.001 |
High flow | 19.244–60.032 | 9.353 | 8.954 | 10.001 |
Very high flow | 61.048–110.624 | 5.371 | 4.508 | 4.601 |
Hydrograph phase . | Range (m3/s) . | HEC-HMS . | SWAT . | HBV . |
---|---|---|---|---|
Very low flow | 1.188–1.559 | 0.233 | 0.193 | 0.854 |
Low flow | 1.641–2.415 | 0.342 | 0.828 | 1.556 |
Medium flow | 2.526–18.788 | 5.49 | 5.622 | 9.001 |
High flow | 19.244–60.032 | 9.353 | 8.954 | 10.001 |
Very high flow | 61.048–110.624 | 5.371 | 4.508 | 4.601 |