scholarly journals Improving process representation in conceptual hydrological model calibration using climate simulations

2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 5044-5073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Minville ◽  
Dominique Cartier ◽  
Catherine Guay ◽  
Louis-Alexandre Leclaire ◽  
Charles Audet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Process Representation ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Conceptual Hydrological Model

scholarly journals Particle Swarm Optimization and Shuffle Complex Evolution for Calibrating Xinanjiang Model Parameters

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 2036-2048
Author(s):  
OKelvin Kuok ◽  
Po Chan Chiu
Keyword(s):  
Particle Swarm Optimization ◽  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Particle Swarm ◽  
Daily Rainfall ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Swarm Optimization ◽  
Xinanjiang Model ◽  
Conceptual Hydrological Model

Xinanjiang model, a conceptual hydrological model, is well known and widely used in China since 1970s. Xinanjiang model consists of large number of parameters that cannot be directly obtained from measurable quantities of catchment characteristics, but only through model calibration. Parameter optimization is a significant but time-consuming process that is inherent in conceptual hydrological models representing rainfall–runoff processes. This study presents newly developed Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and compared with famous Shuffle Complex Evolution (SCE) to auto-calibrate Xinanjiang model parameters. The selected study area is Bedup Basin, located at Samarahan Division, Sarawak, Malaysia. Input data used for model calibration are daily rainfall data Year 2001, and validated with data Year 1990, 1992, 2000, 2002 and 2003. Simulation results are measured with Coefficient of Correlation (R) and Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient (E2). Results show that the performance of PSO is comparable with the famous SCE algorithm. For model calibration, the best R andE2 obtained are 0.775 and 0.715 respectively, compared to R=0.664 and E2=0.677 for SCE. For model validation, the average R=0.859 and average E2=0.892 are obtained for PSO, compared to average R=0.572 and average E2 =0.631 obtained for SCE. 

Hydrological model calibration with uncertain discharge data

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ida K. Westerberg ◽  
Anna E. Sikorska-Senoner ◽  
Daniel Viviroli ◽  
Marc Vis ◽  
Jan Seibert
Keyword(s):  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Discharge Data

Stepwise improvement of hydrological models using satellite-based evaporation and total water storage estimations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Hrachowitz ◽  
Petra Hulsman ◽  
Hubert Savenije
Keyword(s):  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Spatiotemporal Variability ◽  
Model Structure ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Spatiotemporal Model ◽  
Multiple Variables

<p>Hydrological models are often calibrated with respect to flow observations at the basin outlet. As a result, flow predictions may seem reliable but this is not necessarily the case for the spatiotemporal variability of system-internal processes, especially in large river basins. Satellite observations contain valuable information not only for poorly gauged basins with limited ground observations and spatiotemporal model calibration, but also for stepwise model development. This study explored the value of satellite observations to improve our understanding of hydrological processes through stepwise model structure adaption and to calibrate models both temporally and spatially. More specifically, satellite-based evaporation and total water storage anomaly observations were used to diagnose model deficiencies and to subsequently improve the hydrological model structure and the selection of feasible parameter sets. A distributed, process based hydrological model was developed for the Luangwa river basin in Zambia and calibrated with respect to discharge as benchmark. This model was modified stepwise by testing five alternative hypotheses related to the process of upwelling groundwater in wetlands, which was assumed to be negligible in the benchmark model, and the spatial discretization of the groundwater reservoir. Each model hypothesis was calibrated with respect to 1) discharge and 2) multiple variables simultaneously including discharge and the spatiotemporal variability in the evaporation and total water storage anomalies. The benchmark model calibrated with respect to discharge reproduced this variable well, as also the basin-averaged evaporation and total water storage anomalies. However, the evaporation in wetland dominated areas and the spatial variability in the evaporation and total water storage anomalies were poorly modelled. The model improved the most when introducing upwelling groundwater flow from a distributed groundwater reservoir and calibrating it with respect to multiple variables simultaneously. This study showed satellite-based evaporation and total water storage anomaly observations provide valuable information for improved understanding of hydrological processes through stepwise model development and spatiotemporal model calibration.</p>

scholarly journals How good are hydrological models for gap-filling streamflow data?

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 4593-4604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongqiang Zhang ◽  
David Post
Keyword(s):  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Hydrological Response ◽  
Gap Filling ◽  
Annual Streamflow ◽  
Response Variable ◽  
Benchmark Data ◽  
Streamflow Data ◽  
Streamflow Trend

Abstract. Gap-filling streamflow data is a critical step for most hydrological studies, such as streamflow trend, flood, and drought analysis and hydrological response variable estimates and predictions. However, there is a lack of quantitative evaluation of the gap-filled data accuracy in most hydrological studies. Here we show that when the missing data rate is less than 10 %, the gap-filled streamflow data obtained using calibrated hydrological models perform almost the same as the benchmark data (less than 1 % missing) when estimating annual trends for 217 unregulated catchments widely spread across Australia. Furthermore, the relative streamflow trend bias caused by the gap filling is not very large in very dry catchments where the hydrological model calibration is normally poor. Our results clearly demonstrate that the gap filling using hydrological modelling has little impact on the estimation of annual streamflow and its trends.

scholarly journals Hydrological model calibration for derived flood frequency analysis using stochastic rainfall and probability distributions of peak flows

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Haberlandt ◽  
I. Radtke
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Frequency Analysis ◽  
Model Calibration ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Probability Distributions ◽  
Flood Frequency ◽  
Rainfall Data ◽  
Flood Frequency Analysis ◽  
Peak Flows ◽  
Hourly Rainfall

Abstract. Derived flood frequency analysis allows the estimation of design floods with hydrological modeling for poorly observed basins considering change and taking into account flood protection measures. There are several possible choices regarding precipitation input, discharge output and consequently the calibration of the model. The objective of this study is to compare different calibration strategies for a hydrological model considering various types of rainfall input and runoff output data sets and to propose the most suitable approach. Event based and continuous, observed hourly rainfall data as well as disaggregated daily rainfall and stochastically generated hourly rainfall data are used as input for the model. As output, short hourly and longer daily continuous flow time series as well as probability distributions of annual maximum peak flow series are employed. The performance of the strategies is evaluated using the obtained different model parameter sets for continuous simulation of discharge in an independent validation period and by comparing the model derived flood frequency distributions with the observed one. The investigations are carried out for three mesoscale catchments in northern Germany with the hydrological model HEC-HMS (Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System). The results show that (I) the same type of precipitation input data should be used for calibration and application of the hydrological model, (II) a model calibrated using a small sample of extreme values works quite well for the simulation of continuous time series with moderate length but not vice versa, and (III) the best performance with small uncertainty is obtained when stochastic precipitation data and the observed probability distribution of peak flows are used for model calibration. This outcome suggests to calibrate a hydrological model directly on probability distributions of observed peak flows using stochastic rainfall as input if its purpose is the application for derived flood frequency analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document