Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study of conceptual rainfall-runoff models GR4J, AWBM and Sacramento at catchments in the upper Godavari river basin, India

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

Abstract

Accurate catchment level water resource assessment is the base for integrated river basin management. Due to the complexity in model structure and requirement of a large amount of input data for semi-distributed/distributed models, the conceptual models are gaining much attention in catchment modelling these days. The present study compares the performance of three conceptual models, namely GR4J, Australian Water Balance Model (AWBM) and Sacramento for runoff simulation. Four small catchments and one medium catchment in the upper Godavari river basin are selected for this study. Gap-filled daily rainfall data and potential evapotranspiration (PET) measured from the same catchment or adjacent location are the major inputs to these models. These models are calibrated using daily Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) with bias penalty as the objective function. GR4J, AWBM and Sacramento models have four, eight and twenty-two parameters, respectively, to optimise during the calibration. Various statistical measures such as NSE, the coefficient of determination, bias and linear correlation coefficient are computed to evaluate the efficacy of model runoff predictions. From the obtained results, it is found that all the models provide satisfactory results at the selected catchments in this study. However, it is found that the performance of GR4J model is more appropriate in terms of prediction and computational efficiency compared to AWBM and Sacramento models.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aatish A, Eldho T I and Kunnath-Poovakka A 2018 Performance evaluation of SWAT with a conceptual rainfall-runoff model GR4J a catchment in upper Godavari river basin; In: International soil and water assessment tool conference, Chennai, January 2018, 101p.

  • Ajami N K, Gupta H, Wagener T and Sorooshian S 2004 Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for streamflow estimation along a river system; J. Hydrol.  298(1) 112–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson R M, Koren V I and Reed S M 2006 Using SSURGO data to improve Sacramento model a priori parameter estimates; J. Hydrol.  320 103–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boughton W 2004 The Australian water balance model; Environ. Modell. Softw. 19 943–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bumash R 1995 The NWS river forecast system-catchment modelling; In: Chapter 10, computer models of watershed hydrology (ed.) V J Singh, Water Resources Publications, Colorado, USA.

  • Burnash R, Ferral R and McGuire R 1973 A generalised streamflow simulation system – Conceptual modelling for digital computers; Joint Federal and State River Forecast Center, Sacramento, Technical Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron D, Beven K J, Tawn J, Blazkova S and Naden P 1999 Flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation for a gauged upland catchment (with uncertainty); J. Hydrol. 219 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr R and Podger G 2012 eWater Source – Australia’s next generation IWRM modelling platform; In: Hydrology and water resources symposium 2012, Engineers Australia, 742p.

  • Chiew F, Peel M and Western A 2002 Application and testing of the simple rainfall-runoff model SIMHYD; Math. Models Small Watershed Hydrol. Appl., pp. 335–367.

  • Croke B F, Andrews F, Jakeman A J, Cuddy S M and Luddy A 2006 IHACRES Classic Plus: A redesign of the IHACRES rainfall-runoff model; Environ. Modell. Softw. 21 426–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta D, Welsh W D, Vaze J, Kim S S and Nicholls D 2012 A comparative evaluation of short-term streamflow forecasting using time series analysis and rainfall-runoff models in eWater Source; Water Resour. Manag.  26 4397–4415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edijatno M C 1989 Un modeÌe pluie-débit journalier àtrois paramétres; La Houille Blanche 2 113–121.

  • Edijatno M C, DeOliveira Nascimento N, Yang X, Makhlouf Z and Michel C 1999 GR3J: A daily watershed model with three free parameters; Hydrol. Sci. J. 44 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • eWater Australia 2017 Source user guide 4.3; https://wiki.ewater.org.au.

  • Fowler K J A, Peel M C, Western A W, Zhang L and Peterson T J 2016 Simulating runoff under changing climatic conditions: Revisiting an apparent deficiency of conceptual rainfall-runoff models; Water Resour. Res.  52 1820–1846, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg K K, Wani S P, Barron J, Karlberg L and Rockstrom J 2013 Up-scaling potential impacts on water flows from agricultural water interventions: Opportunities and trade-offs in the Osman Sagar catchment, Musi sub-basin, India; Hydrol. Process.  27 3905–3921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosain A, Rao S and Basuray D 2006 Climate change impact assessment on hydrology of Indian river basins; Curr. Sci. 99(3) 346–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosain A, Rao S and Arora A 2011 Climate change impact assessment of water resources of India; Curr. Sci. 101(3) 356–371.

  • Green C, Tomer M, Di Luzio M and Arnold J 2006 Hydrologic evaluation of the soil and water assessment tool for a large tile-drained watershed in Iowa; Trans. ASABE  49 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta H V, Sorooshian S and Yapo P O 1999 Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration; J. Hydrol. Eng.  4 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hengade N and Eldho T 2016 Assessment of LULC and climate change on the hydrology of Ashti catchment, India using VIC model; J. Earth Syst. Sci.  125 1623–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hengade N, Eldho T and Subimal G 2017 Hydrological simulation of a large catchment using the variable infiltration capacity model; In: Development of water resources in India, Springer, pp. 19–30, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55125-8_2

  • Jones R N, Chiew F H, Boughton W C and Zhang L 2006 Estimating the sensitivity of mean annual runoff to climate change using selected hydrological models; Adv. Water. Resour.  29 1419–1429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavabre J, Torres D S and Cernesson F 1993 Changes in the hydrological response of a small Mediterranean basin a year after a wildfire; J. Hydrol.  142 273–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lørup J K, Refsgaard J C and Mazvimavi D 1998 Assessing the effect of land use change on catchment runoff by combined use of statistical tests and hydrological modelling: Case studies from Zimbabwe; J. Hydrol.  205 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhusoodhanan C G, Sreeja K G and Eldho T I 2017 Assessment of uncertainties in global land cover products for hydro-climate modeling in India; Water Resour. Res.  53 1713–1734. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannik R, Boronkay A, Jordan P, Church T, Hughes D and Blockwell S 2012 Applying eWater source as the catchment model for the Hawkesbury–Nepean water quality model system; In: Hydrology and water resources symposium 2012, Engineers Australia, 645p.

  • Moriasi D N, Arnold J G, Van Liew M W, Bingner R L, Harmel R D and Veith T L 2007 Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations;Trans. ASABE  50 885–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narsimlu B, Gosain A K, Chahar B R, Singh S K and Srivastava P K 2015 SWAT model calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction in the Kunwari River Basin, India, using sequential uncertainty fitting; Environ. Process.  2 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash J E and Sutcliffe J V 1970 River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I: A discussion of principles; J. Hydrol.  10 282–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechlivanidis I, Jackson B, Mcintyre N and Wheater H 2011 Catchment scale hydrological modelling: A review of model types, calibration approaches and uncertainty analysis methods in the context of recent developments in technology and applications; Global NEST J. 13.3 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin C, Michel C and Andréassian V 2003 Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation; J. Hydrol.  279 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prabhanjan A, Rao E and Eldho T 2014 Application of SWAT model and geospatial techniques for sediment-yield modeling in ungauged watersheds; J. Hydrol. Eng.  20 C6014005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rassam D, Jolly I and Pickett T 2011 Guidelines for modelling groundwater–surface water interactions in eWater Source, towards best practice model application; eWater. Interim. Version 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redpath K and Daamen C 2018 Upper Godavari sub-basin baseline water balance model, technical report; eWater. Interim. Version 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard J C 1997 Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models; J. Hydrol.  198 69–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03329-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şen Z 1998 Average areal precipitation by percentage weighted polygon method; J. Hydrol. Eng.  3(1) 69–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorooshian S, Hsu K-L, Coppola E, Tomassetti B, Verdecchia M and Visconti G (eds) 2008 Hydrological modelling and the water cycle: Coupling the atmospheric and hydrological models; Springer Heidelberg Berlin: California, vol. 63, 1–25.

  • Uniyal B, Jha M K and Verma A K 2015 Assessing climate change impact on water balance components of a river basin using SWAT model; Water Resour. Manag.  29 4767–4785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viney N R, Perraud J-M, Vaze J, Chiew F H S, Post D A and Yang A 2009 The usefulness of bias constraints in model calibration for regionalisation to ungauged catchments; In:18th World IMACS congress and MODSIM09 international congress on modelling and simulation, July 2009, Cairns: Modelling and simulation society of Australia and New Zealand and International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, pp. 3421–3427.

  • Yang X and Michel C 2000 Flood forecasting with a watershed model: A new method of parameter updating; Hydrol. Sci. J.  45 537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Parent E, Michel C and Roche P-A 1995 Comparison of real-time reservoir-operation techniques; J. Water Res. Plan. Man.  121 345–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI), Aurangabad, the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC), Aurangabad and eWater, Australia, for providing necessary data for this study. The authors are thankful to WALMI and GMIDC for funding a project related to the present study. We gratefully thank suggestions of Dr Carl Daamen (eWater) and Dr Avinash Garudkar (WALMI) that have significantly improved this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, 400 076, India

    A Kunnath-Poovakka & T I Eldho

Authors
  1. A Kunnath-Poovakka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T I Eldho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T I Eldho.

Additional information

Corresponding editor: Rajib Maity

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kunnath-Poovakka, A., Eldho, T.I. A comparative study of conceptual rainfall-runoff models GR4J, AWBM and Sacramento at catchments in the upper Godavari river basin, India. J Earth Syst Sci 128, 33 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-1055-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-1055-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation