Environmental Processes

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 629–644 | Cite as

Comparative Study of Evolutionary Algorithms for the Automatic Calibration of the Medbasin-D Conceptual Hydrological Model

  • Dimitris Tigkas
  • Vasileios Christelis
  • George Tsakiris
Original Article

Abstract

The calibration of a hydrological model is an important task for obtaining accurate runoff simulation results for a specific watershed. Several optimisation algorithms have been applied during the last years for the automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff (CRR) models. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and the efficiency of three evolutionary algorithms, namely the Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE), the Genetic Algorithms (GA) and the Evolutionary Annealing-Simplex (EAS), for the calibration of the Medbasin-D daily CRR model. An improved calibration approach of Medbasin-D is presented, including a batch-processing module which enables the implementation of coupled simulation-optimisation routines. The enhanced Medbasin calibration module is employed in a watershed of the island of Crete (Greece), using several objective functions in order to test the optimisation algorithms under different hydrological flow conditions. The results reveal that, in terms of effectiveness, SCE and EAS performed equally well, while GA provided slightly worse optimal solutions. However, GA was computationally more efficient than SCE and EAS. Despite the discrepancies among the optimisation runs, the simulated hydrographs had a very similar response for the optimal parameter sets obtained by the same calibration criteria, indicating that all tested optimisation methods produce equally successful results with Medbasin-D model. Additionally, the selected objective function seems to have a more decisive effect on the final simulation outcomes.

Keywords

Hydrological models Conceptual models Global optimisation Medbasin software Evolutionary algorithms 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An initial version of this paper has been presented at the 9th World Congress of the European Water Resources Association (EWRA) “Water Resources Management in a Changing World: Challenges and Opportunities”, Istanbul, Turkey, June 10–13, 2015.

References

  1. Al-Faraj FAM, Scholz M, Tigkas D (2014) Sensitivity of surface runoff to drought and climate change: application for shared river basins. Water 6(10):3033–3048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Faraj FAM, Tigkas D, Scholz M (2015) Sensitivity of irrigation requirements to improvement in irrigation efficiency in climate-induced changes: example of a transboundary watershed. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of EWRA, 10–13 June 2015, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyle DP, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (2000) Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods. Water Resour Res 36(12):3663–3674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks KN, Ffolliott PF, Magner JA (2013) Hydrology and the management of watersheds. 4th edition. WileyGoogle Scholar
  5. Chowdhury Ρ, Eslamian S (2014) Climate change and hydrologic modeling. In: Eslamian S (ed) Handbook of engineering hydrology II: modeling, climate change and variability. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christelis V, Mantoglou A (2016) Coastal aquifer management based on the joint use of density-dependent and sharp interface models. Water Resour Manag 30(2):861–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu W, Gao X, Sorooshian S (2010) Improving the shuffled complex evolution scheme for optimization of complex nonlinear hydrological systems: application to the calibration of the Sacramento soil-moisture accounting model. Water Resour Res 46(9), W09530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu W, Gao X, Sorooshian S (2011) A new evolutionary search strategy for global optimization of high-dimensional problems. Inform Sci 181(22):4909–4927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dakhlaoui H, Bargaoui Z, Bárdossy A (2012) Toward a more efficient calibration schema for HBV rainfall–runoff model. J Hydrol 444:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28(4):1015–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1994) Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J Hydrol 158:265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dumedah G, Berg AA, Wineberg M, Collier R (2010) Selecting model parameter sets from a trade-off surface generated from the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II. Water Resour Manag 24:4469–4489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Efstratiadis A, Koutsoyiannis D (2002) An evolutionary annealing-simplex algorithm for global optimization of water resource systems. Proceeedings of the Fifth International Conference on Hydroinformatics, Cardiff, UK, International Water Association Publishing 2:1423–1428Google Scholar
  14. Efstratiadis A, Koutsoyiannis D (2008) Fitting hydrological models on multiple responses using the multiobjective evolutionary annealing-simplex approach. In: Practical hydroinformatics. Springer, Berlin, p 259–273Google Scholar
  15. Franchini M, Galeati G (1997) Comparing several genetic algorithm schemes for the calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Hydrol Sci J 42(3):357–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franchini M, Galeati G, Berra S (1998) Global optimization techniques for the calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Hydrol Sci J 43(3):443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gan TY, Biftu GF (1996) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: optimization algorithms, catchment conditions and model structure. Water Resour Res 32(12):3513–3524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo J, Zhou J, Zou Q, Liu Y, Song L (2013) A novel multi-objective shuffled complex differential evolution algorithm with application to hydrological model parameter optimization. Water Resour Manag 27(8):2923–2946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO (1998) Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resour Res 34(4):751–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Hogue TS, Boyle DP (2003) Advances in automatic calibration of watershed models. In: Duan Q et al (eds) Calibration of watershed models. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haupt RL, Haupt SE (2004) Practical genetic algorithms. 2nd Edition, WileyGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaini P, Artita K, Nicklow JW (2012) Optimizing structural best management practices using SWAT and genetic algorithm to improve water quality goals. Water Resour Manag 26:1827–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuczera G (1997) Efficient subspace probabilistic parameters optimization for catchment models. Water Resour Res 33(1):177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Machado AR, Wendland E, Krause P (2016) Hydrologic simulation for water balance improvement in an outcrop area of the Guarani Aquifer system. Environ Process 3(1):19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madsen H (2000) Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall–runoff model using multiple objectives. J Hydrol 235(3):276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Madsen H, Wilson G, Ammentorp HC (2002) Comparison of different automated strategies for calibration of rainfall-runoff models. J Hydrol 261:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathworks (2010) MATLAB global optimization toolboxGoogle Scholar
  29. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muleta MK (2012) Model performance sensitivity to objective function during automated calibrations. J Hydrol Eng 17(6):756–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nalbantis I, Efstratiadis A, Rozos E, Kopsiafti M, Koutsoyiannis D (2011) Holistic versus monomeric strategies for hydrological modelling of human-modified hydrosystems. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15(3):743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7(4):308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pangalou D, Tigkas D, Vangelis H, Tsakiris G, Nanou-Giannarou A (2009) Drought severity thresholds and drought management in Greece. In: Iglesias et al (eds) Coping with drought risk in agriculture and water supply systems. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Price WL (1987) Global optimization algorithms for a CAD workstation. J Optim Theory Appl 55(1):133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Razavi S, Tolson BA, Burn DH (2012) Numerical assessment of metamodeling strategies in computationally intensive optimization. Environ Model Softw 34:67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reshma T, Reddy KV, Pratap D, Ahmedi M, Agilan V (2015) Optimization of calibration parameters for an event based watershed model using genetic algorithm. Water Resour Manag 29(13):4589–4606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rozos E, Efstratiadis A, Nalbantis I, Koutsoyiannis D (2004) Calibration of a semi-distributed model for conjunctive simulation of surface and groundwater flows. Hydrol Sci J 49(5):819–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sivakumar B, Jayawardena AW, Fernando TMKG (2002) River flow forecasting: use of phase-space reconstruction and artificial neural networks approaches. J Hydrol 265:225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1983) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: the question of parameter observability and uniqueness. Water Resour Res 19(1):260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tang Y, Reed P, Wagener T (2006) How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10(2):289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thyer M, Kuczera G, Bates BC (1999) Probabilistic optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models: a comparison of the shuffled complex evolution and simulated annealing algorithms. Water Resour Res 35(3):767–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tigkas D, Tsakiris G (2004) Medbasin: a Mediterranean rainfall – runoff software package. Eur Water 5–6:3–11Google Scholar
  43. Tigkas D, Tsakiris G (2006) Medbasin II: an integrated rainfall – runoff software package for watershed management. Geophys Res Abstr 8:00742Google Scholar
  44. Tigkas D, Vangelis H, Tsakiris G (2012) Drought and climatic change impact on streamflow in small watersheds. Sci Total Environ 440:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tigkas D, Christelis V, Tsakiris G (2015a) The global optimisation approach for calibrating hydrological models: the case of Medbasin-D model. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of EWRA, 10–13 June 2015, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  46. Tigkas D, Vangelis H, Tsakiris G (2015a) DrinC: a software for drought analysis based on drought indices. Earth Sci Inf 8(3):697–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolson BA, Shoemaker CA (2007) Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration. Water Resour Res 43(1), W01413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsakiris G, Tigkas D, Pangalou D (2004) On the assessment of climatic and drought scenarios on runoff in Mediterranean island river basins. In: Harmancioglu N et al (eds), Proceedings of EWRA international symposium, Water Resources Management: Risks and Challenges for the 21st century, Izmir, Turkey, p. 627–637Google Scholar
  49. Tsakiris G, Tigkas D, Spiliotis M (2006) Assessment of interconnection between two adjacent watersheds using deterministic and fuzzy approaches. Eur Water 15–16:15–22Google Scholar
  50. Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bastidas LA, Bouten W, Sorooshian S (2003a) Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models. Water Resour Res 39(8):1214Google Scholar
  51. Vrugt JA, Gupta HV, Bouten W, Sorooshian S (2003b) A Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour Res 39(8):1201Google Scholar
  52. Wagener T, Wheater HS, Gupta HV (2003) Identification and evaluation of watershed models. In: Duan Q et al (eds) Calibration of watershed models. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang QJ (1997) Using genetic algorithms to optimise model parameters. Environ Model Softw 12(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yapo PO, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1996) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data. J Hydrol 181:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Zhao K, Liew MV (2009) Evaluation of global optimization algorithms for parameter calibration of a computationally intensive hydrologic model. Hydrol Process 23(3):430–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Tigkas
    • 1
  • Vasileios Christelis
    • 1
  • George Tsakiris
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Reclamation Works & Water Resources Management and Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards & Proactive Planning, School of Rural and Surveying EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations