Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 3979–3995 | Cite as

Robust Parameter Set Selection for a Hydrodynamic Model Based on Multi-Site Calibration Using Multi-Objective Optimization and Minimax Regret Approach

  • Li Li
  • Eun-Sung Chung
  • Kyung Soo Jun
Article
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

A robust parameter set (ROPS) selection method for a hydrodynamic flow model was proposed based on the multi-site calibration by combining multi-objective optimization with the minimax regret approach (MRA). The multi-site calibration was defined by a multi-objective optimization problem for which individual objective functions were used to measure errors at each site. In the hydrodynamic model, coefficients of power functions that show the changing relationships between Manning’s roughness and discharge in each sub-reach were optimized by minimizing the residuals of multiple sites. Different combinations of weights were assigned to sites in the application of an aggregation approach to solve the multi-objective function, and the corresponding Pareto optimal parameter sets were assumed as the ROPS candidates. All performance measures to individual Pareto optimal parameter sets were calculated and the ROPS was determined using MRA. The set which has the lowest maximum regret obtained by averaging the results from calibration and validation was determined as the only ROPS. It was found that the estimated variable roughness and the corresponding computed water levels varied considerably depending on the weights assigned to sites. Using the proposed method, the task to assign proper weights on multiple sites can be easily achieved for multi-site calibration problems. This study provides a multi-criteria decision making method to choose a ROPS that has the lowest potential regret among various alternatives for hydrologic and hydraulic models.

Keywords

Minimax regret approach Pareto optimal parameter sets Robust parameter set (ROPS) Hydrodynamic model Multi-site calibration Variable roughness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant (NRF-2016R1D1A1B04931844) from the National Research Foundation of Korea, and a grant (13AWMP-B066744-01) from the Advanced Water Management Research Program by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aksoy S, Haralick R (2000) Feature normalization and likelihood-based similarity measures for image retrieval. Pattern Recognit Lett, Special Issue on Image and Video RetrievalGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronica G, Hankin B, Beven K (1998) Uncertainty and equifinality in calibrating distributed roughness coefficients in a flood propagation model with limited data. Adv Water Resour 22:349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronica G, Tucciarelli T, Nasello C (1998) 2D multilevel model for flood wave propagation in flood-affected areas. J Water Res Pl 124:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayvaz MT (2013) A linked simulation-optimization model for simultaneously estimating the Manning’s surface roughness values and their parameter structures in shallow water flow. J Hydrol 500:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates PD (2004) Remote sensing and flood inundation modelling. Hydrol Process 18:2593–2597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergstrom S, Lindstr ¨o G, Pettersson A (2002) Multi-variable parameter estimation to increase confidence in hydrological modeling. Hydrol Process 16:413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chow VT (1959) Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung ES, Kim Y (2014) Development of fuzzy multi-criteria approach to prioritize locations of treated wastewater use considering climate change scenarios. J Environ Manag 146:505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coon WF (1998) Estimation of roughness coefficients for natural stream channels with vegetated banks. US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2441:133Google Scholar
  10. Cunge JA, Holly FM, Verwey A (1980) Practical aspects of computational river hydraulics. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dieperink C, Hegger DLT, Bakker MHN, Kundzewicz ZW, Green C, Driessen PPJ (2016) Recurrent governance challenges in the implementation and alignment of flood risk management strategies: a review. Water Resour Manag 30(13):4467–4481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty J (2000) Visual PEST: Model-Independent Parameter Estimation. Watermark Computing & Waterloo Hydrogeologic, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  14. Dung NV, Merz B, Bardossy A, Thang TD, Apel H (2011) Multi-objective automatic calibration of hydrodynamic models utilizing inundation maps and gauge data. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:1339–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holly FM, Yang JC, Schwarz P, Schaefer J, Hsu SH, Einhellig R (1990) Numerical Simulation of Unsteady Water and Sediment Movement in Multiply Connected Networks of Mobile-bed Channels. IIHR Report No. 343, Iowa Inst of Hydr Res, IowaGoogle Scholar
  16. Horritt M (2004) Development and testing of simple 2D finite volume model of sub-critical shallow water flow. Int J Numer Meth Fl 44:1231–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang Y (2014) Multi-objective calibration of a reservoir water quality model in aggregation and non-dominated sorting approaches. J Hydrol 510:280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang Y, Liu L (2010) Multiobjective water quality model calibration using a hybrid genetic algorithm and neural network-based approach. J Environ Eng 136(10):1020–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunter NM, Bates PD, Horritt MS, De Roo APJ, Werner MGF (2005) Utility of different data types for calibrating flood inundation models within a GLUE framework. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 9(4):412–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khu ST, Madsen H (2005) Multiobjective calibration with Pareto preference ordering: An application to rainfall-runoff model calibration. Water Resour Res 41:W03004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim Y, Chung ES, Won GJ, Gil K (2015) Robust parameter estimation framework of a rainfall-runoff model using Pareto optimum and minimax regret approach. Water 7(3):1246–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim HJ, Jun KS (2004) Unsteady flow model with variable roughness coefficient. J Korea Water Resources Association 37(12):1055–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loulou R, Kanudia A (1999) Minimax regret strategies for greenhouse has abatement: Methodology and application. Oper Res Lett 25:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Madsen H (2003) Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives. Adv Water Resour 26:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Madsen H, Wilson G, Ammentorp HC (2002) Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall–runoff models. J Hydrol 261:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCabe MF, Franks SW, Kalma JD (2005) Calibration of a land surface model using multiple data sets. J Hydrol 302:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT) (2002) Han River Master Plan Report. Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  28. Mroczkowski M, Raper GP, Kuczera G (1997) The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models. Water Resour Res 33(10):2325–2335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pappenberger F, Beven K, Horritt M, Blazkova S (2005) Uncertainty in the calibration of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level observations. J Hydrol 302(1-4):46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reed P, Minsker BS, Goldberg DE (2003) Simplifying multiobjective optimization: an automated design methodology for the nondominated sorted genetic algorithm-II. Water Resour Res 39(7):1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rode M, Suhr U, Wriedt G (2007) Multi-objective calibration of a river water quality model-information content of calibration data. Ecol Model 204:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rouse H (1965) Critical analysis of open channel resistance. J Hydraul Div 91(HY4):1–25Google Scholar
  33. Saeidifarzad B, Nourani V, Aalami MT, Chau KW (2014) Multi-site calibration of linear reservoir based geomorphologic rainfall-runoff model. Water 6:2690–2716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schoups G, Addams CL, Gorelick SM (2005) Multi-objective calibration of a surface water–groundwater flow model in an irrigated agricultural region: Yaqui Valley, Sonora, Mexico. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 9:549–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seibert J, Uhlenbrook S, Leibundgut C, Haldin S (2000) Multiscale calibration and validation of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model. Phys Chem Earth 25(1):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Song CG, Chung ES, Won K (2018) Use of the minimax regret approach for robust selection of rainfall-runoff model parameter values considering multiple events and multiple performance indices. KSCE J Civ Eng 22(4):1515–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevenson WJ, Ozgur C (2007) Introduction To Management Science With Spreadsheets. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Pelt SC, Swart RJ (2011) Climate change risk management in transnational river basins: the Rhine. Water Resour Manag 25:3837–3861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang W (2012) Multi-site calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis of the MIKE SHE model for a large watershed in Northern China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4621–4632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang S, Zhang Z, Sun G, Strauss P, Guo J, Tang Y (2012) Distributed hydrological modeling in a large-scale watershed of Northern-China: multi-site model calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 9:5697–5727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warmink JJ, Van der Klis H, Booij MJ, Hulscher SJMH (2011) Identification and quantification of uncertainties in a hydrodynamic river model using expert opinions. Water Resour Manag 25(2):601–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yapo PO, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1998) Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models. J Hydrol 204:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yen BC (2002) Open channel flow resistance. J Hydraul Eng 128(1):20–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Water ResourcesSungkyunkwan UniversitySuwonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringSeoul National University of Science and TechnologySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations