 |
| Titel |
Comparison of different multi-objective calibration criteria using a conceptual rainfall-runoff model of flood events |
| VerfasserIn |
R. Moussa, N. Chahinian |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1027-5606
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences ; 13, no. 4 ; Nr. 13, no. 4 (2009-04-27), S.519-535 |
| Datensatznummer |
250011833
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/hess-13-519-2009.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| A conceptual lumped rainfall-runoff flood event model was developed and
applied on the Gardon catchment located in Southern France and various
single-objective and multi-objective functions were used for its
calibration. The model was calibrated on 15 events and validated on 14
others. The results of both the calibration and validation phases are
compared on the basis of their performance with regards to six criteria,
three global criteria and three relative criteria representing volume,
peakflow, and the root mean square error. The first type of criteria gives
more weight to large events whereas the second considers all events to be of
equal weight. The results show that the calibrated parameter values are
dependent on the type of criteria used. Significant trade-offs are observed
between the different objectives: no unique set of parameters is able to
satisfy all objectives simultaneously. Instead, the solution to the
calibration problem is given by a set of Pareto optimal solutions. From this
set of optimal solutions, a balanced aggregated objective function is
proposed, as a compromise between up to three objective functions. The
single-objective and multi-objective calibration strategies are compared
both in terms of parameter variation bounds and simulation quality. The
results of this study indicate that two well chosen and non-redundant
objective functions are sufficient to calibrate the model and that the use
of three objective functions does not necessarily yield different results.
The problems of non-uniqueness in model calibration, and the choice of the
adequate objective functions for flood event models, emphasise the
importance of the modeller's intervention. The recent advances in automatic
optimisation techniques do not minimise the user's responsibility, who has
to choose multiple criteria based on the aims of the study, his appreciation
on the errors induced by data and model structure and his knowledge of the
catchment's hydrology. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|