Journal of the Korean GEO-environmental Society (한국지반환경공학회 논문집)

Korean Geo-Environmental Society (한국지반환경공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Extended Model Evaluation Method under Uncertainty in Hydrologic Modeling

  • Lee, Giha (Department of Construction and Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Youn, Sangkuk (Department of Construction and Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Yeonsu (Department of Construction and Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2015.02.04
  • Accepted : 2015.04.20
  • Published : 2015.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper proposes an extended model evaluation method that considers not only the model performance but also the model structure and parameter uncertainties in hydrologic modeling. A simple reservoir model (SFM) and distributed kinematic wave models (KWMSS1 and KWMSS2 using topography from 250-m, 500-m, and 1-km digital elevation models) were developed and assessed by three evaluative criteria for model performance, model structural stability, and parameter identifiability. All the models provided acceptable performance in terms of a global response, but the simpler SFM and KWMSS1 could not accurately represent the local behaviors of hydrographs. Moreover, SFM and KWMSS1 were structurally unstable; their performance was sensitive to the applied objective functions. On the other hand, the most sophisticated model, KWMSS2, performed well, satisfying both global and local behaviors. KMSS2 also showed good structural stability, reproducing hydrographs regardless of the applied objective functions; however, superior parameter identifiability was not guaranteed. A number of parameter sets could result in indistinguishable hydrographs. This result indicates that while making hydrologic models complex increases its performance accuracy and reduces its structural uncertainty, the model is likely to suffer from parameter uncertainty.

Keywords

References

  1. Beven, K. (2001), Revisiting the problem of model choice in Rainfall-runoff modeling: The primer, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 297-306
  2. Beven, K. (2002), Towards an alternative blueprint for a physicallybased digitally simulated hydrologic response modeling system, Hydrological Processes, Vol. 16, No. 2, 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.343
  3. Beven, K. (2006), A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 320, pp. 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007
  4. Beven, K. and Binley, A. M. (1992), The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrological Processes, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 279-298. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305
  5. Beven, K. and Freer, J. (2001), Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modeling of complex environmental systems, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 249, pp. 11-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00421-8
  6. Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V. and Sorooshian, S. (2000), Toward improved calibration of hydrological models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resources Research, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 3663-3674. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900207
  7. Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Koren, V., Zhang, Z. and Smith, M. (2001), Toward improved streamflow forecast: The value of semi-distributed modeling, Water Resources Research, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 2739-2759.
  8. Duan, Q., Gupta, V. K. and Sorooshian, S. (1993), Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Application, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 501-521. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00939380
  9. Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S. and Gupta, V. K. (1992), Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water Resources Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1015-1031. https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR02985
  10. Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S. and Gupta, V. K. (1994), Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 158, pp. 265-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)90057-4
  11. Feyen, L., Vrugt, J. A., Nualláin, B. Ó., Knijff, J. and Roo, A. D. (2007), Parameter optimization and uncertainty assessment for large-scale streamflow simulation with the LISFLOOD model, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 332, pp. 276-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.07.004
  12. Freer, J., Beven, K. and Ambroise, B. (1996), Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of GLUE approach, Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 2161-2173. https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR03723
  13. Gan, T. Y., Dlamini, E. M. and Biftu, G. F. (1997), Effects of model complexity and structure data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 192, pp. 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03114-9
  14. Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B. (1992), Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Statistical Science, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
  15. Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Hogue, T. S. and Boyle, D. P. (2003), Advances in automatic calibration of watershed models, in Advances in calibration of watershed models, edited by Q. Duan, S. Sorooshian, H.V. Gupta, Rosseau, A. and R. Turcotte, Washington, AGU, pp. 9-28.
  16. Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S. and Yapo, P. O. (1998), Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information, Water Resources Research, Vol. 134, No. 4, pp. 751-763.
  17. Ichikawa, Y., Shiiba, M., Tachikawa, Y. and Takara, K. (2000), Object-oriented hydrological modeling system, Proceeding of 4th International Conference Hydro- informatics 2000 CD-ROM, Iowa, pp. 8-15.
  18. Jakeman, A. J. and Hornberger, G. M. (1993), How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model?, Water Resources Research, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 2637-2649. https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR00877
  19. Kuczera, G. and Parent, E. (1998), Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: the Metropolis algorithm, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 211, pp. 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00198-X
  20. Refsgaard, J. C. and Knudsen J. (1996), Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrologic models, Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 2189-2202. https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR00896
  21. Sorooshian, S. and Dracup, J. A. (1980), Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologic rainfall-runoff models: Correlated and heteroscedastic error cases, Water Resources Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 430-442. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR016i002p00430
  22. Spear, R. C. and Hornberger, G. M. (1980), Eutrophication in Peel Inlet - Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis, Water Research, Vol. 14, pp. 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(80)90040-8
  23. Tachikawa, Y., Nagatani, G. and Takara, K. (2004), Development of stage-discharge relationship equation incorporating saturatedunsaturated flow mechanism, Annual Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 48, pp. 7-12 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.2208/prohe.48.7
  24. Takasao, T. and Shiiba, M. (1988), Incorporation of the effect of concentration of flow into the kinematic wave equations and its applications to runoff system lumping, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 102, pp. 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(88)90104-7
  25. Takasao, T., Shiiba, M. and Ichikawa, Y. (1996), A runoff simulation with structural hydrological modeling system, Journal of Hydroscience and Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 47-55.
  26. Uhlenbrook, S., Seibert, J., Leibundgut, C. and Rohde, A. (1999), Prediction uncertainty of conceptual rainfall-runoff models caused by problems in identifying model parameters and structures, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 779-797. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669909492273
  27. Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W. and Sorooshian, S. (2003), A shuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters, Water Resources Research, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 1-14.
  28. Wagener, T. (2003), Evaluation of catchment models, Hydrological Processes, Vol. 17, pp. 3375-3378. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5158
  29. Wagener, T., Boyle, D. P., Leeds, M. J., Wheater, H. S., Gupta, H. V. and Sorooshian, S. (2001), A framework for development and application of hydrological models, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 13-26. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-5-13-2001
  30. Wagener, T. and Gupta H. V. (2005), Model identification for hydrological forecasting under uncertainty, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, Vol. 19, pp. 378-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-005-0006-5
  31. Wagener, T., Wheater, H. S. and Gupta, H. V. (2003a), Identification of Watershed Models in Advances in calibration of watershed models, edited by Q. Duan, S. Sorooshian, H.V. Gupta, Rosseau, A. and R. Turcotte, Washington, AGU, pp. 29-47.
  32. Wagener, T., Leeds, M. J., Wheater, H. S. and Gupta, H. V. (2003b), Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfallrunoff modeling: dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrological Processes, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1135
  33. Wagener, T., Wheater, H. S. and Gupta, H. V. (2004), Rainfallrunoff modeling in gauged and ungauged catchments, London, Imperial College Press, 306 pp.
  34. Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V. and Sorooshian, S. (1998), Multiobjective global optimization for hydrologic models, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 204, pp. 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00107-8
  35. Yu, P. S., Yang, T. C. and Chen, S. J. (2001), Comparison of uncertainty analysis methods for a distributed rainfall-runoff model, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 244, pp. 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00328-6