 |
| Titel |
Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves |
| VerfasserIn |
I. K. Westerberg, J.-L. Guerrero, P. M. Younger, K. J. Beven  , J. Seibert, S. Halldin, J. E. Freer, C.-Y. Xu |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1027-5606
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences ; 15, no. 7 ; Nr. 15, no. 7 (2011-07-14), S.2205-2227 |
| Datensatznummer |
250012889
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/hess-15-2205-2011.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| The degree of belief we have in predictions from hydrologic models will
normally depend on how well they can reproduce observations. Calibrations
with traditional performance measures, such as the Nash-Sutcliffe model
efficiency, are challenged by problems including: (1) uncertain discharge
data, (2) variable sensitivity of different performance measures to
different flow magnitudes, (3) influence of unknown input/output errors and
(4) inability to evaluate model performance when observation time periods
for discharge and model input data do not overlap. This paper explores a
calibration method using flow-duration curves (FDCs) to address these
problems. The method focuses on reproducing the observed discharge frequency
distribution rather than the exact hydrograph. It consists of applying
limits of acceptability for selected evaluation points (EPs) on the observed
uncertain FDC in the extended GLUE approach. Two ways of selecting the EPs
were tested – based on equal intervals of discharge and of volume of water.
The method was tested and compared to a calibration using the traditional
model efficiency for the daily four-parameter WASMOD model in the Paso La
Ceiba catchment in Honduras and for Dynamic TOPMODEL evaluated at an hourly
time scale for the Brue catchment in Great Britain. The volume method of
selecting EPs gave the best results in both catchments with better
calibrated slow flow, recession and evaporation than the other criteria.
Observed and simulated time series of uncertain discharges agreed better for
this method both in calibration and prediction in both catchments. An
advantage with the method is that the rejection criterion is based on an
estimation of the uncertainty in discharge data and that the EPs of the FDC
can be chosen to reflect the aims of the modelling application, e.g. using
more/less EPs at high/low flows. While the method appears less sensitive to
epistemic input/output errors than previous use of limits of acceptability
applied directly to the time series of discharge, it still requires a
reasonable representation of the distribution of inputs. Additional
constraints might therefore be required in catchments subject to snow and
where peak-flow timing at sub-daily time scales is of high importance. The
results suggest that the calibration method can be useful when observation
time periods for discharge and model input data do not overlap. The method
could also be suitable for calibration to regional FDCs while taking
uncertainties in the hydrological model and data into account. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|