Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Performance evaluation and parameters sensitivity of a distributed hydrological model for a semi-arid catchment in India

  • Published:
Journal of Earth System Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In present study, a distributed physics based hydrological model, MIKE SHE coupled with MIKE 11, is calibrated using multi-objective approach, i.e., minimization of error in prediction of stream flows and groundwater levels, using the data of eight years from 1991 to 1998 of Yerli sub-catchment \((\hbox {area} = 15{,}881\,\hbox {km}^{2})\) of upper Tapi basin in India. The sensitivity analyses of thirteen model parameters related with overland flow, unsaturated and saturated zones have been undertaken while simulating the runoff volume, peak runoff at catchment outlet and groundwater levels within the catchment with wide variations \((\pm 50\%)\) in the model parameters. The calibrated model has also been validated for prediction of stream flow and groundwater levels within the Yerli sub-catchment for period 1999–2004. The simulated results revealed that calibrated model is able to simulate hydrographs satisfactorily for Yerli sub-catchment (NSE \(=\) 0.65–0.89, \(r=0.80{-}0.95\)) at daily and monthly time scales. The ground water levels are predicted reasonably satisfactorily for the plain area (RMSE \(=\) 0.50–6.50 m) in the study area. The results of total water balance indicated that about 78% of water is lost from the system through evapotranspiration, out of which about 3.5% is contributed from the groundwater zone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes D and Smith M 1998 Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Rome, Italy.

  • CGWB 2013 Amravati, Akola and Buldana districts profiles, Central Ground Water Board report, New Delhi, India.

  • Chow V T, Maidment D R and Mays L W 1988 Applied Hydrology; Mcgraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu M L, Knouft J H, Ghulam A, Guzman J A and Pan Z 2013 Impacts of urbanization on river flow frequency: A controlled experimental modelling-based evaluation approach; J. Hydrol. 495 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen B and Biggs B J F 2000 Flow variables for ecological studies in temperate streams: Groupings based on covariance; J. Hydrol. 237(3) 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai Z, Li C, Trettin C, Sun G, Amatya D and Li H 2010 Bi-criteria evaluation of the MIKE SHE model for a forested watershed on the South Carolina coastal plain; Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14 1033–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DHI 2017 MIKE SHE User and Reference Manual; Denmark.

  • El-Nasr A, Arnold J G and Berlamont J 2005 Modelling the hydrology of a catchment using a distributed and a semi-distributed model; Hydrol. Pros. 19 573–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engman E T 1986 Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff; J. Irri. Drain. Engg. 112(1) 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster S B and Allen D M 2015 Groundwater-surface water interactions in a mountain-to-coast watershed: Effects of climate change and human stressors; Adv. Meteorol. 861805 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GSDA 2004 Dynamic groundwater assessment report (DGAR), Groundwater Survey Development Authority, Maharashtra, India.

  • Im S, Kim H, Kim C and Jang C 2009 Assessing the impacts of land use changes on watershed hydrology using MIKE SHE; Engg. Geol. 57 231–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain S K, Agarwal P K and Singh V P 2007 Hydrology and Water Resources of India; Springer Science & Business Media, India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain P K and Tambe J A 2012 Inland salinity in parts of Purna alluvial basin, Amravati, Akola and Buldhana districts, Maharashtra; Central Ground Water Board report, Nagpur, India.

  • Kaarlsson I B, Sonnenborg T O, Refsgaard J C, Trolle D, Borgesen C D, Olesen J E, Jeppesen E and Jensen K H 2016 Combined effects of climate models, hydrological model structures and land use scenarios on hydrological impacts of climate change; J. Hydrol. 535 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keilholz P, Disse M and Halik U 2015 Effects of land use and climate change on groundwater and ecosystems at the middle reaches of the Tarim river using the MIKE SHE integrated hydrological model; Water 7 3040–3056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothyari U C, Raamsankaran Raaj, Satish Kumar D, Ghosh S K and Mendiratta N 2010 Geospatial based automated watershed modeling in Garhwal Himalaya; J. Hydroinfo. 12(4) 502–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loliyana V D and Patel P L 2015 Lumped conceptual hydrological model for Purna river basin, India; Sadhana 40(8) 2411–2428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorup J K, Christian R J and Mazvimavi D 1998 Assessing the effect of land use change on catchment runoff by combined use of statistical tests and hydrological modeling: Case study from Zimbabwe; J. Hydrol. 205 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen H 2003 Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives; Adv. Water Res. 26 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penman H L 1948 Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil, and grass; Proc. Roy. Soc. London 193 120–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin H, Cao G, Kristensen M, Refsgaard J C, Rasmussen M O, He X, Liu J, Shu Y and Zheng C 2013 Integrated hydrological modeling of the North China plain and implications for sustainable water management; Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17 3759–3778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard J C 1997 Parameterization, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological model; J. Hydrol. 198 69–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard J C and Knudsen J 1996 Operational, validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models; Water Resour. Res. 32 2189–2202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard J C and Storm B 1995 MIKE SHE; In: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology (ed.) Singh V P, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, USA, pp. 809–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahim B E A, Yusoff I, Jafri A M, Othman Z and Ghani A A 2012 Application of MIKE SHE modelling system to set up a detailed water balance computation; Water Environ. J. 26 490–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahoo G B, Ray C and De Carlo E H 2006 Calibration and validation of a physically distributed hydrological model, MIKE SHE, to predict streamflow at high frequency in a flashy mountainous Hawaii stream; J. Hydrol. 327 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh R, Subramanian K and Refsgaard J C 1999 Hydrological modeling of a small watershed using MIKE SHE for irrigation planning; Agr. Water Manag. 41(3) 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinoni J, Vogt J, Naumann G, Carrao H and Barbosa P 2015 Towards identifying areas at climatological risk of desertification using the Köppen–Geiger classification and FAO aridity index; Int. J. Climatol. 35(9) 2210–2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain J B and Patra K C 2017 Stream flow estimation in ungauged catchments using regional flow duration curve: Comparative study; J. Hydrol. Engg. 22(7), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J R, Sorenson H R, Gavin H and Refsgaard A 2004 Application of the coupled MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 modelling system to a lowland wet grassland in southeast England; J. Hydrol. 293(1) 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP 1992 World Atlas of Desertification; United Nations Environment Programme Edward Arnold, London.

  • Vázquez R F, Beven K and Feyen J 2009 GLUE based assessment on the overall predictions of a MIKE SHE application; Water Resour. Manag. 23(7) 1325–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieux B E 2001 Distributed Hydrologic Modelling Using GIS; Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vo N D and Gourbesville P 2016 Application of deterministic distributed hydrological model for large catchment: A case study at Vu Gia Thu Bon catchment, Vietnam; J. Hydroinfor. 18(5) 885–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Zhang Z, Sun G, Strauss P, Guo J, Tang Y and Yao A 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 4621–4632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijesekara G N, Farjad B, Gupta A, Qiao Y, Delaney P and Marceau D J 2014 A comprehensive land-use/hydrological modeling system for scenario simulations in the Elbow river watershed, Alberta, Canada; Environ. Manag. 53 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan J and Smith K R 1994 Simulations of integrated surface water and ground water systems – model formulation; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 30(5) 879–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Wang S, Sun Ge, McNulty S G, Zhang H, Li J, Zhang M, Klaghofer E and Strauss P 2008 Evaluation of the MIKE SHE model for application in the loess plateau, China; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 44(5) 1108–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to MHRD-NPIU-TEQIP-II for providing the funding through Centre of Excellence (CoE) Project on ‘Water Resources and Flood Management Centre at SVNIT’ under which present investigation has been undertaken. Authors are also thankful to India Meteorological Department (IMD), National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC), Hyderabad, National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS & LUP), Nagpur, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Nagpur, and Central Water Commission (CWC), Tapi division for providing the data for present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, SVNIT Surat, Surat, 395 007, India

    V D Loliyana & P L Patel

Authors
  1. V D Loliyana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P L Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P L Patel.

Additional information

Corresponding editor: Subimal Ghosh

Appendix: Statistical performance indices

Appendix: Statistical performance indices

The statistical performance indicators enable to evaluate the performance of model from different viewpoints, and would provide a broader appraisal of the developed model. Performance indices (Refsgaard and Knudsen 1996; Lorup et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2012) being used to evaluate the performance of the developed model in present study, are described in table A1.

Table A1 Description of statistical performance indices.
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loliyana, V.D., Patel, P.L. Performance evaluation and parameters sensitivity of a distributed hydrological model for a semi-arid catchment in India. J Earth Syst Sci 127, 117 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-1021-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-1021-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation