Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net 1812-2108 1812-2116 4 3 2007 10.5194/hessd-4-1031-2007 http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/4/1031/2007/ http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/4/1031/2007/hessd-4-1031-2007.html http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/4/1031/2007/hessd-4-1031-2007.pdf 1031 1067 2007-05-10 Comparison of different multi-objective calibration criteria of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model of flood events N. Chahinian chahinia@msem.univ-montp2.fr R. Moussa Agrocampus Rennes, Laboratoire Physique des Surfaces Naturelles et Génie Rural, 65 Rue de Saint Brieuc, 35042 Rennes, France INRA, Laboratoire d'étude des Interactions entre Sol – Agrosystème – Hydrosystème UMR LISAH AgroM-INRA- IRD, 2 Place Pierre Viala, 34060 Montpellier, France now at: HydroSciences Montpellier, Université Montpellier 2, Case courrier MSE Place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, 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. 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. 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. Kuczera, G.: Efficient subspace probabilistic parameter optimisation for catchment models, Water Resour. Res., 33, 177–186, 1997. 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 automatic calibration with multiple objectives. Adv. Water Resour., 26, 205-216, 2003. Madsen, H., Wilson, G., and Ammentrop, H.: Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall-runoff models, J. Hydrol., 261, 48–59, 2002. Moussa, R.: Variabilité spatio-temporelle et modélisation hydrologique. Application au bassin du Gardon d'Anduze. PhD dissertation, University of Montpellier II, France, 314 pp, 1991. Moussa, R. and Bocquillon, C.: Algorithms for solving the diffusive wave flood routing equation, Hydrol. Process., 10, 105–123, 1996. Moussa, R., Voltz, M., and Andrieux, P.: Effects of spatial organization of agricultural management on the hydrological behaviour of farmed catchment during flood events, Hydrol. Process., 16(2), 393–412, 2002. Nash, I. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I: a discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, 1970. Nelder, J. and Mead, R.: A simplex method for function minimization, Comput. J., 7, 308–313, 1965. Paquet, E.: Évolution du modèle hydrologique MORDOR: modélisation du stock nival à différentes altitudes, La Houille Blanche, 2(2), 75–82, 2004. Parada, L., Fram, J., and Liang, Xu.: Multi-resolution calibration of hydrologic models. In Calibration of watershed models, Water Science and Application 6, 197-212. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 2003. Parajka, J., Merz, R., and Blöschl, G.: Uncertainty and multiple objective calibration in regional water balance modelling: case study in 320 Austrian catchments, Hydrol. Process., 21, 435–446, doi:10.1002/hyp.6253, 2007. Rawls, W. J. and Brakenseik, D. L.: Estimation of soil hydraulic properties. Unsaturated flow in hydrologic modeling: Theory and practice. NATO ASI series. Series C, Mathematical and physical sciences, edited by: Morel-Seytoux, H. J., 275, Kluwer Academic, Boston, 275–300, 1989. Rosenbrock, H.: An automatic method for fitting the greatest or least value of a function, Comput. J., 3, 175–184, 1960. Schoops, G., Hopmans, J., Young, C., Vrugt, J., and Wallender, W.: Multi-criteria optimization of a regional spatially-distributed subsurface water flow model, J. Hydrol. 311, 20–48, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.01.001, 2005. Singh, V. P.: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Water Resources Publications, Colorado, 1995. Soil Conservation Service-USDA: Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall. National Engineering Handbook. Section 4-Hydrology, pp. 10.1-10.24, 1972. Tang, Y., Reed, P., and Wagener, T.: How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 289–307, 2006. Vrugt J., Gupta, H., Bastidas, L., Bouten, W., and Sorooshian, S.: Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 39(8), 1214, doi:10.1029/2002WR001746, 2003a. Vrugt J., Gupta, H., Bouten, W., and Sorooshian, S.: A Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters, Water Resour. Res., 39(8), 1201, doi:10.1029/2002WR001642, 2003b. Willmott, C.: On the validation of models, Phys. Geogr., 2, 184–194, 1981. Yang, X. and Michel, C.: Flood forecasting with a watershed model: a new method of parameter updating, Hydrol. Sci. J., 45(4), 537–546, 2000. Yapo, P., Gupta, H., and Sorooshian, S.: Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 204, 83–97, 1998. Yu, P. S., and Yang, T. C.: Fuzzy multi-objective function for rainfall-runoff model calibration, J. Hydrol., 238, 1–14, 2000. Zarriello, P.: Comparison of Nine Uncalibrated Runoff Models to Observed Flows in Two Small Urban Watersheds, in: Subcommittee on Hydrology of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data (Editor) First Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las Vegas, NV , pp.7-163–7-170, 1998.