1 / 27

G. Thirel, L. Coron, V. Andréassian, C. Perrin

Application of several hydrological models (and objective functions ) to the complete dataset of the workshop. G. Thirel, L. Coron, V. Andréassian, C. Perrin. 22 July 2013. Introduction. What is the main issue when we fail on non-stationarity? Models? Objective functions?

aolani
Download Presentation

G. Thirel, L. Coron, V. Andréassian, C. Perrin

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Application of severalhydrologicalmodels(and objective functions) to the completedataset of the workshop G. Thirel, L. Coron, V. Andréassian, C. Perrin 22 July 2013

  2. Introduction • What is the main issue when we fail on non-stationarity? • Models? • Objective functions? • Something else? • Application of 3 models • Application of 6 objective functions IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  3. Outline of thispresentation Impact of using different models • The models • The results Impact of using different objective functions • The objective functions • The results IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  4. Outline of thispresentation Impact of using different models • The models • The results Impact of using different objective functions • The objective functions • The results IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  5. GR4J and GR5J GR5J GR4J Lumpedconceptualmodels, resp. 4 and 5 parameters IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  6. MORDOR6 Lumped conceptual model with 6 parameters (simplification of the MORDOR model). IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  7. The snow module No snowmodule: Axe Creek, Gilbert, Flinders, Wimmera and Bani Rivers. CemaNeige: all the other basins. CemaNeige = degree-day model, 2 free parameters. IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  8. The objective function The Nash on root square of discharge is used in this part. IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  9. Outline of thispresentation Impact of using different models • The models • The results Impact of using different objective functions • The objective functions • The results IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  10. Rivers with T increase High flows GR4J and GR5J are the best for the Kamp, except during P2 No big difference for the Garonne IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  11. Rivers with T increase MORDOR6 misses the 2002 Kamp flood Observedpeak value MORDOR6 peak values IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  12. Rivers with T increase Low flows GR5J the best for the Kamp MORDOR6 and GR5J the best for the Garonne IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  13. Rivers with T increase GR4J GR5J MORDOR6 Kamp The model choice and calibration induce the sameorder of variability Variability due to model and calibration choices IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  14. Rivers withdischarge change or high variability Best performance for GR5J Wimmera High flows IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  15. Rivers withdischarge change or high variability No model has the « solution » for handling the Millenium Drought Wimmera IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  16. Rivers with T increase GR4J GR5J MORDOR6 Wimmera The model choice and calibration induce the sameorder of variability Variability due to model and calibration choices IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  17. Rivers withdischarge change or high variability Severe crash from GR4J due to high reactivity Attempts to increase the reaction time or to better initialize the parameters all failed The structure of GR4J (&GR5J) is to revise for such a basin Bani GR4J IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013 MORDOR6

  18. Outline of thispresentation Impact of using different models • The models • The results Impact of using different objective functions • The objective functions • The results IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  19. The objective functions For this part only the gr4j model isused IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  20. Outline of thispresentation Impact of using different models • The models • The results Impact of using different objective functions • The objective functions • The results IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  21. Rivers with T increase Calibrating on IQ gives the lowest Nash(Q) -> of course! IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  22. Rivers with T increase Calibrating on Q gives the lowest Nash(IQ) -> of course! IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  23. Rivers with P decrease Kamp NaQ NaRQ NaIQ KGEIQ KGEQ KGERQ Variability due to calibration and Objective functionchoices The objective functions impact the model bias more than the model choice IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  24. Rivers withdischarge change or high variability Only NaRQ does not show disastrous results on P5 when calibrated on wet period. KGERQ performs the best on wet periods when calibrated on P5. Wimmera IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013 Prod. Store: NaRQ > KGERQ Loss for P5: KGERQ > NaRQ

  25. Rivers with P decrease Wimmera NaQ NaRQ NaIQ KGEQ KGERQ KGEIQ Variability due to calibration and Objective functionchoices The objective functionsstrongly impact the model bias IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  26. Conclusions Attempts to quantify the (un-)stabilityinduced by : The model choice –> low impact The calibration period -> low impact on variability, high impact on bias The objective function -> huge impact IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

  27. Thank you!

More Related