Comparative analysis of model behaviour for flood prediction purposes using self-organizing maps

Natural Hazards and Earth System Science

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 373-392

  Herbst, M ^a   Casper, M C ^a   Grundmann, J ^b   Buchholz, O ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRIER   (Germany)

^b DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^c Hydrotec GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CALIBRATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FLOOD FORECASTING; FLOODING; FLOW MODELING; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; OPTIMIZATION; PEAK DISCHARGE; TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELING; WATERSHED;

EID: 76149093874     PISSN: 15618633     EISSN: 16849981     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/nhess-9-373-2009     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bossel, H.: Systeme, Dynamik, Simulation - Modellbildung, Analyse und Simulation komplexer Systeme, Books on Demand, Norderstedt, 2004.
2. Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resour. Res., 36, 3663-3674, 2000.
3. Bremicker, M.: Das Wasserhaushaltsmodell LARSIM. Modellgrundlagen und Anwendungsbeispiele, Freiburger Schriften zur Hydrologie, 2000.
4. Casper, M. C., Herbst, M., Grundmann, J., Buchholz, O., and Bliefernicht, J.: Einfluss der Niederschlagsvariabilität auf die Simulation extremer Abflüsse, Hydrology and Water Resources Management Germany, accepted, 2009.
5. Disse, M., Pakosch, S., and Yörük, A.: Development of an operational expert system for flood forecasts considering prediction uncertainty, Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung, 51, 210-215, 2007.
6. Duan, Q.: Global optimization for watershed model calibration, in: Calibration of Watershed Models, edited by: Duan, Q., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Rousseau, A. N., and Turcotte, R., Water Science and Application, AGU,Washington D.C., 89-104, 2003.
7. Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. K.: Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water Resour. Res., 28, 1015-1031, doi:10.1029/91WR02985, 1992.
8. Fenicia, F., Solomatine, D. P., Savenije, H. H. G., and Matgen, P.: Soft combination of local models in a multi-objective framework, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1797 - 1809, 2007, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/1797/2007/. (Pubitemid 350178262)
9. Gan, T. Y. and Biftu, G. F.: Effects of model complexity and structure, parameter interactions and data on watershed modelling, in: Calibration of Watershed Models, edited by: Duan, Q., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Rousseau, A. N., and Turcotte, R., Water Science and Application, AGU, Washington D.C., 317-329, 2003.
10. Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P. O.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information,Water Resour. Res., 34, 751-764, 1998.
11. Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., and Liu, Y.: Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation, Hydrol. Process., 22, 3802-3813, doi:10.1002/hyp.6989, 2008.
12. Haykin, S.: Neural networks - a comprehensive foundation, 2nd ed., New Jersey, 842 pp., 1999.
13. Herbst, M. and Casper, M. C.: Towards model evaluation and identification using Self-Organizing Maps, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 657-667, 2008, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/12/657/2008/.
14. Herbst, M., Gupta, H. V., and Casper, M. C.: Mapping model behaviour using Self-Organizing Maps, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 395-409, 2009, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/13/395/2009/.
15. Hydrotec: Rainfall-Runoff-Model NASIM - program documentation (in German), Hydrotec GmbH, Aachen, 579 pp., 2005.
16. Kalteh, A. M., Hjorth, P., and Berndtsson, R.: Review of the selforganizing map (SOM) approach in water resources: Analysis, modelling and application, Environmental Modelling & Software, 23, 835-845, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.10.001, 2008.
17. Kaski, S.: Data Exploration Using Self Organizing Maps, Dr. thesis, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, 57 pp., 1997.
18. Klemeŝ, V.: Conceptualization and scale in hydrology, Journal of Hydrology, 65, 1-23, 1983.
19. Kohonen, T.: Self-Organizing Maps, 3rd ed., Information Sciences, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 501 pp., 2001.
20. Legates, D. R. and McCabe Jr., G. J.: Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation, Water Resour. Res., 35, 233-241, 1999.
21. Kundzewicz, Z. W., Mata, L. J., Arnell, N. W., Döll, P., Kabat, P., Jiménez, B., Miller, K. A., Oki, T., Sen, Z., and Shiklomanov, I. A.: Freshwater resources and their management, in: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., and Hanson, C. E., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 173- 210, 2007.
22. Madsen, H.: Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives, Adv. Water Resour., 26, 205-216, 2003.
23. Merz, B. and Didszun, J.: Risikomanagement extremer Hochwasserereignisse, USWF - Zeitschrift für Umweltchemie und Ökotoxikologie, 17, 191-192, 2005.
24. Merz, B., Didszun, J., and Ziemke, B.: RIMAX Risikomanagement extremer Hochwasserereignisse, 2. Auflage ed., Geo- ForschungsZentrum Potsdam (GFZ), Potsdam, 51, 51 pp., 2007.
25. Minns, A. W. and Hall, M. J.: Artificial Neural Network Concepts in Hydrology, in Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, edited by: Anderson, M. G., 307-320, 2005.
26. Moore, C. and Doherty, J.: Role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error, Water Resour. Res., 41, W05020, doi:10.1029/ 2004WR003501, 2005. (Pubitemid 40856470)
27. Peschke, G.: Soil Moisture and Runoff Components from a Physically Founded Approach, Acta hydrophysica, 31(3/4), 191-205, 1987.
28. Reusser, D. E., Blume, T., Schaefli, B., and Zehe, E.: Analysing the temporal dynamics of model performance for hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 5, 3169-3211, 2008, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci- discuss.net/5/3169/2008/.
29. Sivapalan, M.: Pattern, Process and Function: Elements of a Unified Theory of Hydrology at the Catchment Scale, in: Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, edited by: Anderson, M. G.,Wiley, 193-220, 2005.
30. Schulla, J. and Jasper, K.: Model description WaSIM-ETH, Zürich, 167 pp., 2001.
31. Wagener, T., McIntyre, N., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., and Gupta, H. V.: Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis, Hydrol. Process., 17, 455-476, 2003.
32. Van Genuchten, M. T.: A Closed-Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44(5), 892-898, 1976.
33. Vesanto, J.: SOM-based data visualization methods, Intelligent Data Analysis, 3(2), 111-126, 1999.
34. Vesanto, J.: Neural network tool for data mining: SOM toolbox, Symposium on Tool Environments and Development Methods for Intelligent Systems (TOOLMET2000), Oulu, Finnland, 184-196, 2000.
35. Vesanto, J., Himberg, J., Alhoniemi, E., and Parhankangas, J.: SOM Toolbox for Matlab 5, Helsinki University of Technology, Report A57, Espoo, Finland, 60 pp., 2000.
36. Yilmaz, K. K., Gupta, H. V., and Wagener, T.: A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09417, doi:10.1029/2007WR006716, 2008.
37. Zadeh, L.: Optimality and non-scalar-valued performance criteria, IEEE T. Automat. Contr., 8, 59-60, 1963.
38. Zhao, R. J.: Flood forecasting method for humid regions of China, East China College of Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing, 1977.