Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 393–408 | Cite as

Distributed Hydrological Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis in Torysa Watershed, Slovakia

  • A. Bahremand
  • F. De Smedt
Article

Abstract

The spatially distributed hydrologic model WetSpa is applied to the Torysa river basin (1,297 km2) located in Slovakia. Daily hydrometeorological data from 1991 to 2000 are used as input to the model. The spatial characteristic of the basin are described by three base maps, i.e. DEM, landuse and soil type, in GIS form using 100 m cell size. Results of the simulations show a good agreement between calculated and measured hydrographs at the outlet of the basin. The model predicts the daily discharge values with a good accuracy, i.e. about 73% according to the Nash–Sutcliff criterion. Sensitivity analysis of the model parameters is performed using a model-independent parameter estimator, PEST. It is found that the correction factor for calculating the actual evapotranspiration from potential evaporation has the highest relative sensitivity. Parameter K gm which controls the amount of evapotranspiration from the groundwater has the least relative sensitivity.

Keywords

WetSpa model PEST Sensitivity analysis Flow simulation GIS-based hydrological modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baginska B, Milne-Home W, Cornish P (2003) Modelling nutrient transport in Currency Creek, NSW with AnnAGNPS and PEST. Environ Model Softw 18:801–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahremand A (2006) Simulating the effects of reforestation on floods using spatially distributed hydrologic modeling and GIS. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahremand A, Corluy J, Liu Y, De Smedt F, Poórová J, Velcická L (2005) Stream flow simulation by WetSpa model in Hornad river basin, Slovakia. In: van Alphen J, van Beek E, Taal M (eds) Floods, from defence to management. Taylor-Francis, London, pp 67–74Google Scholar
  4. Bahremand A, De Smedt F, Corluy J, Liu YB, Poórová J, Velcická L, Kuniková E (2006) WetSpa model application for assessing reforestation impacts on floods by in Margecany-Hornad watershed, Slovakia, Water Resource Management. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-006-9089-0
  5. Beven K (2001) How far can we go in distributed hydrological modeling. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 5(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corluy J, Bahremand A, Liu Y, De Smedt F (2005) Development and application of the GIS-based distributed precipitation – runoff model WetSpa in the Tisza River Basin, Annex 2A of the Tisza river project report. Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. De Smedt F, Liu YB, Gebremeskel S (2000) Hydrological modeling on a catchment scale using GIS and remote sensed land use information. In: Brebbia CA (ed) Risk analysis II. WTI, Boston, pp 295–304Google Scholar
  8. De Smedt F, Liu YB, Gebremeskel S (2005) Integrated modelling of hydrological processes on basin scale. In: Arijs E, Ducarme B (eds) Proceedings of Contact forum “Geodesy and Geophysics for the third millenium in Belgium,” Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, Brussel, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  9. Doherty J, Johnston JM (2003) Methodologies for calibration and predictive analysis of a watershed model. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doherty J, Brebber L, Whyte P (1994) PEST: model independent parameter estimation. Watermark Computing Trademarks, AustralianGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagleson PS (1978) Climate, soil, and vegetation, a simplified model of soil moisture movement in liquid phase. Water Resour Res 14(5):722–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gebremeskel S, Liu YB, De Smedt F, Pfister L (2002) GIS based distributed modeling for flood estimation. In: Ramirez JA (ed) Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual American Geophysical Union Hydrology Days, pp 98–109Google Scholar
  13. Hamby DM (1994) A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ Monit Assess 32:135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill MC (1998) Methods and guidelines for effective model calibration, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 98–4005Google Scholar
  15. Liu YB (2004) Development and application of a GIS-based hydrological model for flood prediction and watershed management. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu YB, De Smedt F (2004) WetSpa extension, documentation and user manual. Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu YB, Gebremeskel S, De Smedt F, Hoffmann L, Pfister L (2003) A diffusive transport approach for flow routing in GIS-based flood modeling. J Hydrol 283:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu YB, Batelaan O, De Smedt F, Poórová J, Velcická L (2005) Automated calibration applied to a GIS-based flood simulation model using PEST. In: van Alphen J, van Beek E, Taal M (eds) Floods, from defense to management. Taylor-Francis, London, pp 317–326Google Scholar
  19. Madsen H, Wilson G, Ammentorp HC (2002) Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall–runoff models. J Hydrol 261:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinec J, Rango A, Major E (1983) The Snowmelt-Runoff Model (SRM) User’s Manual, NASA Reference Publ. 1100, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Muleta MK, Nicklow JW (2004) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model. J Hydrol 306:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenhart T, Eckhardt K, Fohrer N, Frede HG (2002) Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Phys Chem Earth 27:645–654Google Scholar
  23. Refsgaard JC (1997) Parameterization, calibration and validation of distributed hydrologic models. J Hydrol 198:69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Refsgaard JC, Knudsen J (1996) Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrologic models. Water Resour Res 32(7):2189–2202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Senarath SUS, Ogden FL, Downer CW, Sharif HO (2000) On the calibration and verification of two-dimensional, distributed, Hortonian, continuous watershed models. Water Resour Res 36(6):1495–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sieber A, Uhlenbrook S (2005) Sensitivity analyses of a distributed catchment model to verify the model structure. J Hydrol 310:216–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Syvoloski G, Kwicklis E, Eddebbarh AA, Arnold B, Faunt C, Robinson B (2003) The site-scale saturated zone flow model for Yucca Mountain: calibration of different conceptual models and their impact on flow paths. J Contam Hydrol 62–63:731–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR (1955) The water balance. Publications in Climatology, No.8, Laboratory of Climatology, Centerton, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. van Griensven A (2002) Developments towards integrated water quality modeling for river basins. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang Z, Batelaan O, De Smedt F (1997) A distributed model for water and energy transfer between soil, plants and atmosphere (WetSpa). Phys Chem Earth 21:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wittenberg H, Sivapalan M (1999) Watershed groundwater balance estimation using streamflow recession analysis and baseflow separation. J Hydrol 219:20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Watershed ManagementGorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural ResourcesGorganIran
  2. 2.Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic EngineeringVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations