World Library  

Add to Book Shelf
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Book

Comparison of Different Multi-objective Calibration Criteria of a Conceptual Rainfall-runoff Model of Flood Events : Volume 4, Issue 3 (10/05/2007)

By Chahinian, N.

Click here to view

Book Id: WPLBN0003980128
Format Type: PDF Article :
File Size: Pages 37
Reproduction Date: 2015

Title: Comparison of Different Multi-objective Calibration Criteria of a Conceptual Rainfall-runoff Model of Flood Events : Volume 4, Issue 3 (10/05/2007)  
Author: Chahinian, N.
Volume: Vol. 4, Issue 3
Language: English
Subject: Science, Hydrology, Earth
Collections: Periodicals: Journal and Magazine Collection, Copernicus GmbH
Publication Date:
Publisher: Copernicus Gmbh, Göttingen, Germany
Member Page: Copernicus Publications


APA MLA Chicago

Chahinian, N., & Moussa, R. (2007). Comparison of Different Multi-objective Calibration Criteria of a Conceptual Rainfall-runoff Model of Flood Events : Volume 4, Issue 3 (10/05/2007). Retrieved from

Description: Agrocampus Rennes, Laboratoire Physique des Surfaces Naturelles et Génie Rural, 65 Rue de Saint Brieuc, 35042 Rennes, France. A conceptual lumped rainfall-runoff flood event model was developed and applied on the Gardon catchment located in southern France and various mono-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 strong 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 parameter 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 mono-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 chose 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.

Comparison of different multi-objective calibration criteria of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model of flood events

Bates, B. and Ganeshanandam, S.: Bootstrapping non-linear storm event models, in: National conference of Hydraulic engineering, edited by: A.S.O.C. Engineering, San Diego, CA, 330–335, 1990.; Bergström, S.: The HBV model, in: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V. P., Water Resources Publications, Colorado, 443–476, 1995.; Beven, K. J.: Prophesy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling. Adv. Water Resour., 16, 41–51, 1993.; Beven, K. J. and Binley, A. M.: The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, 1992.; Boyle, D., Gupta, H., and Sorooshian, S.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resour. Res., 36, 3663–3674, 2000.; Crawford, N. H. and Linsley, R. K.: Digital simulation in hydrology: Stanford watershed model IV. Technical Report 39, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1966.; Cormary, Y. and Guilbot, A.: Relations pluie-débit sur le bassin de la Sioule. Rapport D.G.R.S.T. N° 30, Université des Sciences et Techniques, Montpellier (France), 1969.; Diskin, M. and Nazimov, N.: Linear reservoir with feedback regulated inlet as a model for the infiltration process, J. Hydrol., 172, 313–330, 1995.; Donigan, A., Bicknell, B., and Imhoff, J. C.: Hydrological simulation program – Fortran (HSPF), in: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V. P., Water Resource Publications, Colorado, 395–442, 1995.; Duan, Q., Sorroshian, S., and Gupta, V.: Effective and efficient global optimisation for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res., 28, 1015–1031, 1992.; Engeland, K., Braud, I., Gottschalk, L., and Leblois, E.: Multi-objective regional modelling, Hydrol. Process. 327, 339–351, 2006.; Fleming, G.: Computer simulation techniques in hydrology. Environmental Science Series, Elsevier, 1975.; Gan, T. and Biftu, G.: Automatic calibration of conceptual-runoff models: Optimization algorithms, catchment conditions, and model structure, Water Resour. Res., 32(12), 3513–3524, 1996.; Garçon, R.: Prévision opérationnelle des apports de la Durance à Serre-Ponçon à l'aide du modèle MORDOR : Bilan de l'année 1994–1995, La Houille Blanche., 51(2), 71–79, 1996.; Gupta, H., Sorooshian, S., Hogue, T., and Boyle D.: Advances in the automatic calibration of watershed models. In Calibration of watershed models, Water Science and Application 6, 9–28. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 2003.; Havnø, K., Madsen, M. N., and Dørge, J.: MIKE 11 – a generalized river modelling package. In Singh, V.P. Ed. Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Water Resour. Publications, Colorado, 733–782, 1995.; Hayami, S.: On the propagation of flood waves, Disaster Prev. Res. Inst. Bull., 1, 1–16, 1951.; Kuczera, G.: Efficient subspace probabilistic parameter optimisation for catchment models, Water Resour. Res., 33, 177–186, 1997.; Jain, A. and Indurthy, P.: Comparative analysis of event based rainfall-runoff modelling techniques-Deterministic, statistical and artificial neural networks, J. Hydrol. Eng., 8(2), 93–98, 2003.; Johnsen, K., Mengelkamp, H., and Huneke, S.: Multi-objective calibration of the land scheme TERRA/LM using LIFTASS-2003 data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9(3), 586–595, 2005.; Legates, D. and McCabe, G.: Evaluating the use of goodness-of-fit measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation, Water Resour. Res., 35(1), 233–241, 1999.; Madsen, H.: Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using multiple objectives, J. Hydrol., 235, 276–288, 2000.; Madsen, H.: Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using aut


Click To View

Additional Books

  • Estimation of Parameters in a Distribute... (by )
  • Identifying Erosive Periods by Using Rus... (by )
  • Development and Validation of a Global D... (by )
  • Modelling Water, Sediment and Nutrient F... (by )
  • An Evaluation of the Canadian Global Met... (by )
  • Towards Modelling Flood Protection Inves... (by )
  • Effect of Parameter Choice in Root Water... (by )
  • Suitability of Soil Bioengineering Techn... (by )
  • The Impact of Climate Change on Hydrolog... (by )
  • Space-time Variability of Hydrological D... (by )
  • Interannual Variability of Winter Precip... (by )
  • A View from the Watershed : Volume 11, I... (by )
Scroll Left
Scroll Right


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.