A bounded version of the Nash-Sutcliffe criterion for better model assessment on large sets of basins

IAHS-AISH Publication

Volumn , Issue 307, 2006, Pages 211-219

  Mathevet, Thibault ^a,b   Michel, Claude ^a   Andréassian, Vazken ^a   Perrin, Charles ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b EDF R AND D   (France)

Author keywords

Large sample of basins; Nash sutcliffe criterion; Rainfall runoff modelling

Indexed keywords

CATCHMENTS; HYDROLOGY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RAIN; RUNOFF;

ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELS; WATER ENGINEERING;

RIVER BASIN PROJECTS;

BASIN; CATCHMENT; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING;

EID: 33845595318     PISSN: 01447815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Garrick, M., Cunnane, C. & Nash, J. E. (1978). A criterion of efficiency for rainfall-runoff models. J. Hydrol. 38, 375-381.
2. Jakeman, A. J., Littlewood, I. G. & Whitehead, P. G. (1990) Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchments. J. Hydrol. 117, 275-300.
3. Klemeš, V. (1986) Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrol. Sci. J. 31(1), 13-24.
4. Linsley, R. K. (1982) Rainfall-runoff models - an overview. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Rainfall-Runoff Modelling (ed. by V. P. Singh), 3-22. Water Resources Publications, Littletown, Colorado, USA.
5. Makhlouf, Z. & Michel, C. (1994) A two-parameter monthly water balance model for French watersheds. J. Hydrol. 162(3-4), 299-318.
6. Mathevet, T. (2005) Which rainfall-runoff model at the hourly time-step ? Empirical development and intercomparsison of rainfall-runoff models on a large sample of watersheds. PhD thesis, ENGREF University, Paris, France (in French).
7. Martinec, J. & Rango, A. (1989) Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrological models. Water Resour. Bull. 25(2), 421-432.
8. Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part 1 - A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 27(3), 282-290.
9. Perrin, C., Michel, C. & Andréassian, V. (2001) Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments. J. Hydrol. 242(3-4), 275-301.
10. Vandewiele, G. L., Xu, C. Y. & Win, N. L. (1992) Methodology and comparative study of monthly models in Belgium, China and Burma. J. Hydrol. 134, 315-347.
11. WMO (1975) Intercomparison of conceptual models used in operational hydrological forecasting. Operational Hydrology Report no. 7, WMO no 429. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
12. Xu, C. Y. & Vandewiele, G. L. (1995) Parsimonious monthly rainfall-runoff models for humid basins with different input requirements. Adv. Water Resour. 18, 39-48.
13. Zhao, R J. & Liu, X. R. (1995) The Xinanjiang model. In: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Chap. 7 (ed. by V. P. Singh), 215-232. Water Resources Publications, Littletown, Colorado, USA.