Abstract
An evaluation of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting (SAC-SMA) model was conducted to be used in flood event simulations with datasets at a time step up to one hour. The SAC-SMA model is a complex conceptual model which integrates two soil zones, the upper and lower zone, in order to provide current soil moisture conditions and generated streamflow. However, in flood events, where time intervals are small, the generated flood hydrograph is usually the product of only the upper soil layer runoff generation mechanism while the lower zone and baseflow have little impact. In this context, a modified version of the original SAC-SMA model was introduced, where only the upper zone processes are kept in order to reduce the parameter count and the overall model uncertainty involved, and a comparison was made against the original model output. The two models were calibrated and validated for a series of flood events occurred at the Karitaina basin of the Alfeios river, located in southern Greece. The results show that both model versions were able to reproduce the observed runoff with success. The simplified model showed high consistency with the original model in all cases, which is an obvious improvement to the original model, since it provided results of equal quality, while lowering significantly the total parameter count and the computing time. This contributes against the overall model generated uncertainty which is crucial for real-time data processing applications and flood forecasting systems.
Highlights
• Presentation of the SAC-SMA model concept, variables, parameters and flowchart.
• Introduction of a modified – simplified version of the original SAC-SMA model to be used for event-based rainfall runoff applications.
• Calibration and validation of the SAC-SMA using fine temporal scale datasets in a mountainous basin in Greece.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Addor N, Melsen LA (2019) Legacy, rather than adequacy, drives the selection of hydrological models. Water Resour Res 55:378–390. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022958
Ajami NK, Gupta H, Wagener T, Sorooshian S (2004) Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for streamflow estimation along a river system. J Hydrol 298:112–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.033
Alfieri L, Salamon P, Pappenberger F, Wetterhall F, Thielen J (2012) Operational early warning systems for water-related hazards in Europe. Environ Sci Policy 21:35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.008
Basha EA, Ravela S, Rus D (2008) Model-based monitoring for early warning flood detection. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Embedded Network Sensor Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 295–308. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1460412.1460442?casa_token=6bzctFrcb9EAAAAA:cidGDooyCZ618W09VyaGnUWDXh07k3DjUlwvh0YI_3Piv8KXHWbvbRBjtCo_GdIX0iWqQ9x89oM
Batelis S-C, Nalbantis I (2014) Potential effects of forest fires on streamflow in the enipeas River Basin, Thessaly, Greece. Environ Process 1:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-014-0004-z
Birhanu D, Kim H, Jang C, Park S (2018) Does the Complexity of evapotranspiration and hydrological models enhance robustness? Sustainability 10:2837. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082837
Boyle DP, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Koren V, Zhang Z, Smith M (2001) Toward improved streamflow forecasts: value of semidistributed modeling. Water Resour Res 37:2749–2759. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR000207
Burnash RJC (1995) The NWS river forecast system-catchment modeling. In: Singh VP (ed) computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, pp 311–366
Burnash RJC, Ferral RL, McGuire RA (1973) A Generalized Streamflow Simulation System: Conceptual Modeling for Digital Computers. Joint Federal-State River Forecast Center, U.S. National Weather Service and California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA, USA
Caloiero T, Coscarelli R, Ferrari E, Sirangelo B (2017) Temporal analysis of rainfall categories in Southern Italy (Calabria Region). Environ Process 4:113–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-017-0215-1
Chen H, Yang D, Hong Y, Gourley JJ, Zhang Y (2013) Hydrological data assimilation with the ensemble square-root-filter: use of streamflow observations to update model states for real-time flash flood forecasting. Adv Water Resour 59:209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.06.010
Clark RA, Gourley JJ, Flamig ZL, Hong Y, Clark E (2014) CONUS-wide evaluation of national weather service flash flood guidance products. Weather Forecast 29:377–392. https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00124.1
Cools J, Innocenti D, O’Brien S (2016) Lessons from flood early warning systems. Environ Sci Policy 58:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.006
Daliakopoulos IN, Tsanis IK (2016) Comparison of an artificial neural network and a conceptual rainfall–runoff model in the simulation of ephemeral streamflow. Hydrol Sci J 61:2763–2774. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1154151
Diakakis M, Mavroulis S, Deligiannakis G (2012) Floods in Greece, a statistical and spatial approach. Nat Hazards 62:485–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0090-z
Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28:1015–1031. https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR02985
Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1994) Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J Hydrol 158:265–284
Feloni EG, Baltas EA, Nastos PT, Matsangouras IT (2019) Implementation and evaluation of a convective/stratiform precipitation scheme in Attica region, Greece. Atmospheric Res 220:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.01.011
Finnerty BD, Smith MB, Seo D-J, Koren V, Moglen GE (1997) Space-time scale sensitivity of the Sacramento model to radar-gage precipitation inputs. J Hydrol 203:21–38
Georgakakos KP (2006) Analytical results for operational flash flood guidance. J Hydrol 317:81–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.009
Gupta HV, Kling H, Yilmaz KK, Martinez GF (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 377:80–91
Hogue T, Yilmaz K, Wagener T, Gupta H (2006) Modelling ungauged basins with the Sacramento model. IAHS Publ 307:159
Ivanescu V, Drobot R (2016) deriving rain threshold for early warning based on a coupled hydrological-hydraulic model. Math Model Civ Eng 12:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/mmce-2016-0014
Katsanou K, Lambrakis N (2017) Modeling the Hellenic karst catchments with the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model. Hydrogeol J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-016-1520-x
Kobold M, Brilly M (2006) The use of HBV model for flash flood forecasting. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:407–417. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-6-407-2006
Koren V, Reed S, Smith M, Zhang Z, Seo D-J (2004) Hydrology laboratory research modeling system (HL-RMS) of the US National Weather Service. J Hydrol 291:297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.039
Koren V, Smith M, Cui Z (2014) Physically-based modifications to the sacramento soil moisture accounting model. Part A: modeling the effects of frozen ground on the runoff generation process. J Hydrol 519:3475–3491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.004
Koutroulis AG, Tsanis IK, Daliakopoulos IN, Jacob D (2013) Impact of climate change on water resources status: a case study for Crete Island, Greece. J Hydrol 479:146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.055
Lagouvardos K, Kotroni V, Bezes A, Koletsis I, Kopania T, Lykoudis S, Mazarakis N, Papagiannaki K, Vougioukas S (2017) The automatic weather stations NOANN network of the National Observatory of Athens: operation and database. Geosci Data J 4:4–16
Madsen H, Lawrence D, Lang M, Martinkova M, Kjeldsen TR (2014) Review of trend analysis and climate change projections of extreme precipitation and floods in Europe. J Hydrol 519:3634–3650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.003
Moussa R, Chahinian N (2009) Comparison of different multi-objective calibration criteria using a conceptual rainfall-runoff model of flood events. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:519–535. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-519-2009
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
Nearing GS, Mocko DM, Peters-Lidard CD, Kumar SV, Xia Y (2016) Benchmarking NLDAS-2 soil moisture and evapotranspiration to separate uncertainty contributions. J Hydrometeorol 17:745–759. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0063.1
Norbiato D, Borga M, Dinale R (2009) Flash flood warning in ungauged basins by use of the flash flood guidance and model-based runoff thresholds. Meteorol Appl 16:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.126
Ntelekos AA, Georgakakos KP, Krajewski WF (2006) On the uncertainties of flash flood guidance: toward probabilistic forecasting of flash floods. J Hydrometeorol 7:896–915
Peck E (1976) Catchment Modeling and Initial Parameter Estimation for the National Weather Service River Forecast System, NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS HYDRO‐31, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD, USA. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/13474
Pereira S, Diakakis M, Deligiannakis G, Zêzere JL (2017) Comparing flood mortality in Portugal and Greece (Western and Eastern Mediterranean). Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.007
Pistrika A, Tsakiris G, Nalbantis I (2014) Flood depth-damage functions for built environment. Environ Process 1:553–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-014-0038-2
Plate EJ (2007) Early warning and flood forecasting for large rivers with the lower Mekong as example. J Hydro-Environ Res 1:80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2007.10.002
Posner AJ, Georgakakos KP (2015) Soil moisture and precipitation thresholds for real-time landslide prediction in El Salvador. Landslides 12:1179–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0618-x
Pushpalatha R, Perrin C, Le Moine N, Andréassian V (2012) A review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow simulations. J Hydrol 420:171–182
Putra AW, NnUC Os, Faalih IS (2021) The efficient early warning with South East-Asia Oceania Flash Flood Guidance System (SAOFFGS). In: Casagli N, Tofani V, Sassa K, Bobrowsky PT, Takara K (eds) Understanding and reducing landslide disaster risk: volume 3 monitoring and early warning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 245–250
Reed S, Schaake J, Zhang Z (2007) A distributed hydrologic model and threshold frequency-based method for flash flood forecasting at ungauged locations. J Hydrol 337:402–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.015
Sene K (2013) Flash floods: forecasting and warning. Springer, Dordrecht
Singh A, Singh S, Nema AK, Singh G, Gangwar A (2014) Rainfall-runoff modeling using MIKE 11 NAM model for Vinayakpur intercepted Catchment, Chhattisgarh. Indian J Dryland Agric Res Dev 29:1. https://doi.org/10.5958/2231-6701.2014.01206.8
Smith MB, Seo D-J, Koren VI, Reed SM, Zhang Z, Duan Q, Moreda F, Cong S (2004) The distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP): motivation and experiment design. J Hydrol 298:4–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.040
Sušanj I, Ožanić N, Marović I (2016) Methodology for developing hydrological models based on an artificial neural network to establish an early warning system in small catchments. Adv Meteorol 2016:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9125219
Thielen J, Bartholmes J, de Tourvoie P, Cedex A (2009) The European flood alert system – part 1: concept and development. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:125–140
Uliana EM, de Almeida FT, de Souza AP, da Cruz IF, Lisboa L, de Sousa Júnior MF (2019) Application of SAC-SMA and IPH II hydrological models in the Teles Pires River basin, Brazil. Rev Bras Recur Hidr 24:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0331.241920180082
Wu S-J, Lien H-C, Chang C-H (2010) Modeling risk analysis for forecasting peak discharge during flooding prevention and warning operation. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:1175–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-010-0436-6
Wu S-J, Lien H-C, Chang C-H (2012) Calibration of a conceptual rainfall–runoff model using a genetic algorithm integrated with runoff estimation sensitivity to parameters. J Hydroinformatics 14:497. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2011.010
Yannopoulos S, Eleftheriadou E, Mpouri S, Iο G (2015) Implementing the requirements of the European Flood Directive: the Case of Ungauged and Poorly Gauged Watersheds. Environ Process 2:191–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-015-0094-2
Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Reed S, Koren V (2011) An enhanced and automated approach for deriving a priori SAC-SMA parameters from the soil survey geographic database. Comput Geosci 37:219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2010.05.016
Funding
This research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social Fund-ESF) through the Operational Programme «Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning» in the context of the project “Strengthening Human Resources Research Potential via Doctorate Research” (MIS-5000432), implemented by the State Scholarships Foundation (ΙΚΥ).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Apollon Bournas. Supervision, validation, review and editing were performed by Evangelos Baltas. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Apollon Bournas and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bournas, A., Baltas, E. Increasing the Efficiency of the Sacramento Model on Event Basis in a Mountainous River Basin. Environ. Process. 8, 943–958 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-021-00504-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-021-00504-4