Towards robust methods to couple lumped rainfall-runoff models and hydraulic models: A sensitivity analysis on the Illinois River

Journal of Hydrology

Volumn 418-419, Issue , 2012, Pages 123-135

  Lerat, Julien ^a,c   Perrin, Charles ^a   Andréassian, Vazken ^a   Loumagne, Cécile ^a   Ribstein, Pierre ^b  

^a National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture   (France)

^b SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^c CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

Hydraulic model; Hydrological model; Lateral inflows; Model coupling; Semi distribution

Indexed keywords

ACCURATE PREDICTION; COUPLED MODELS; DISTRIBUTED MODEL INTERCOMPARISON PROJECTS; FLOOD FORECASTING; FLOOD INUNDATION MODELLING; HYDROLOGICAL MODELS; ILLINOIS RIVER; IN-PHASE; INTERIOR POINT; LATERAL INFLOWS; MODEL COUPLING; MODEL PERFORMANCE; OPTIMAL NUMBER; POINT FLOWS; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELS; ROBUST METHODS; SEMI-DISTRIBUTION; STABLE MODEL; UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS; WAVE PROPAGATION MODELS;

CLIMATE MODELS; FLOOD CONTROL; FLOODS; HYDRAULIC MODELS; RAIN; RIVERS; RUNOFF; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATER LEVELS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

CALIBRATION; FLOOD FORECASTING; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MEASUREMENT METHOD; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING; RESOLUTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAMFLOW; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATER LEVEL;

ILLINOIS BASIN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84856048777     PISSN: 00221694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.019     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ajami N., Gupta H., Wagener T., Sorooshian S. Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for streamflow estimation along a river system. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298(1-4):112-135.
2. Andréassian V., Oddos A., Michel C., Anctil F., Perrin C., Loumagne C. Impact of spatial aggregation of inputs and parameters on the efficiency of rainfall-runoff models: A theoretical study using chimera watersheds. Water Resour. Res. 2004, 40(5).
3. Andréassian, V., Bergström, S., Chahinian, N., Duan, Q., Gusev, Y., Littlewood, I., Mathevet, T., Michel, C., Montanari, A., Moretti, G., et al., 2006. Catalogue of the Models Used in MOPEX 2004/2005. IAHS Publication, vol. 307, pp. 41-93.
4. Baptista M., Michel C. Une utilisation simple du modéle hayami en hydrologie. La Houille Blanche 1989, 2:123-130.
5. Beven K. The limits of splitting: hydrology. Sci. Total Environ. 1996, 183(1-2):89-97.
6. Birkhead A.L., James C.S. Muskingum river routing with dynamic bank storage. J. Hydrol. 2002, 264(1-4):113-132.
7. Boyle D.P., Gupta H.V., Sorooshian S., Koren V., Zhang Z., Smith M. Toward improved streamflow forecasts: value of semidistributed modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2001, 37(11):2749-2759.
8. Butts M.B., Payne J.T., Kristensen M., Madsen H. An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298(1-4):242-266.
9. Corradini C. Evaluation of alternative configurations of basin elements for on-line flood forecasting. Water Resour. Bull. 1991, 27(3):407-418.
10. Das T., Bárdossy A., Zehe E., He Y. Comparison of conceptual model performance using different representations of spatial variability. J. Hydrol. 2008, 356(1-2):106-118.
11. Fan P., Li J.C. Diffusive wave solutions for open channel flows with uniform and concentrated lateral inflow. Adv. Water Resour. 2006, 29(7):1000-1019.
12. Havnø K., Madsen M.N., Dørge J. Mike 11 - a generalized river modelling package. Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology 1995, 733-782. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, USA. V.P. Singh (Ed.).
13. Hayami, S., 1951. On the propagation of flood waves. Bulletin, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan, p. 1.
14. Klemes V. Conceptualization and scale in hydrology. J. Hydrol. 1983, 65(1-3):1-23.
15. Klemes V. Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1986, 31(1):13-24.
16. Knebl M.R., Yang Z., Hutchison K., Maidment D.R. Regional scale flood modeling using NEXRAD rainfall, GIS, and HEC-HMS/ RAS: a case study for the San Antonio River Basin Summer 2002 storm event. J. Environ. Manage. 2005, 75(4 SPEC. ISS.):325-336.
17. Koren V., Finnerty B., Schaake J., Smith M., Seo D., Duan Q. Scale dependencies of hydrologic models to spatial variability of precipitation. J. Hydrol. 1999, 217(3-4):285-302.
18. Koren V., Reed S., Smith M., Zhang Z., Seo D.-J. Hydrology laboratory research modeling system (HL-RMS) of the US national weather service. J. Hydrol. 2004, 291(3-4):297-318.
19. Krysanova V., Bronstert A., Muller-Wohlfeil D. Modelling river discharge for large drainage basins: from lumped to distributed approach. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1999, 44(2):313-331.
20. Lerat, J., 2009. Quels apports hydrologiques pour les modèles hydrauliques? Vers un modèle intégré de simulation des crues (in French). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Pierre et Marie Curie.
21. Lian Y., Chan I., Singh J., Demissie M., Knapp V., Xie H. Coupling of hydrologic and hydraulic models for the illinois river basin. J. Hydrol. 2007, 344(3-4):210-222.
22. Liang X., Guo J., Leung L.R. Assessment of the effects of spatial resolutions on daily water flux simulations. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298(1-4):287-310.
23. Michaud J., Sorooshian S. Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed. Water Resour. Res. 1994, 30(3):593-605.
24. Moramarco T., Fan Y., Bras R.L. Analytical solution for channel routing with uniform lateral inflow. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1999, 125(7):707-713.
25. Moramarco T., Melone F., Singh V.P. Assessment of flooding in urbanized ungauged basins: a case study in the upper tiber area, italy. Hydrol. Process. 2005, 19(10):1909-1924.
26. Moussa R. Analytical hayami solution for the diffusive wave flood routing problem with lateral inflow. Hydrol. Process. 1996, 10(9):1209-1227.
27. Moussa R. Geomorphological transfer function calculated from digital elevation models for distributed hydrological modelling. Hydrol. Process. 1997, 11:429-449.
28. Nash J.E., Sutcliffe J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. part 1: a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10(3):282-290.
29. Onyando J.O., Schumann A.H., Schultz G.A. Simulation of flood hydrographs based on lumped and semi-distributed models for two tropical catchments in kenya. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2003, 48(4):511-524.
30. Perrin C., Michel C., Andrássian V. Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol. 2003, 279(1-4):275-289.
31. Reed S., Koren V., Smith M., Zhang Z., Moreda F., Seo D.-J. Overall distributed model intercomparison project results. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298(1-4):27-60.
32. Refsgaard J. Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. J. Hydrol. 1997, 198(1-4):69-97.
33. Refsgaard J.C., Knudsen J. Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32(7):2189-2202.
34. Robinson J., Sivapalan M. Catchment-scale runoff generation model by aggregation and similarity analyses. Hydrol. Processes 1995, 9(5-6):555-574.
35. Savenije H. Equifinality, a blessing in disguise?. Hydrol. Process. 2001, 15(14).
36. Sivapalan M., Bloschl G., Zhang L., Vertessy R. Downward approach to hydrological prediction. Hydrol. Process. 2003, 17(11):2101-2111.
37. Smith, M., Koren, V., Reed, S., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Moreda, F., Cui, Z., Mizukami, N., Sheldon, S., in press. The distributed model intercomparison project: phase 2 motivation and experiment design. J. Hydrol, this issue.
38. Smith M.B., Seo D., Koren V.I., Reed S.M., Zhang Z., Duan Q., Moreda F., Cong S. The distributed model intercomparison project (dmip): motivation and experiment design. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298(1-4):4-26.
39. Te Linde A., Aerts J., Hurkmans R., Eberle M. Comparing model performance of two rainfall-runoff models in the Rhine basin using different atmospheric forcing data sets. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 12(3):943-957.
40. USACE, 2002. HEC-RAS River Analysis System: Hydraulic Reference Manual. Tech. Rep., US Army Corps of Engineers.
41. Vázquez R., Feyen L., Feyen J., Refsgaard J. Effect of grid size on effective parameters and model performance of the MIKE-SHE code. Hydrol. Proces. 2002, 16(2).
42. Vieux B. DEM aggregation and smoothing effects on surface runoff modeling. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 1993, 7(3):310-338.
43. Whiteaker T.L., Robayo O., Maidment D.R., Obenour D. From a NEXRAD rainfall map to a flood inundation map. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006, 11(1):37-45.
44. Wood E.F., Sivapalan M., Beven K., Band L. Effects of spatial variability and scale with implications to hydrologic modeling. J. Hydrol. 1988, 102(1-4):29-47.
45. Young P. Top-down and data-based mechanistic modelling of rainfall-flow dynamics at the catchment scale. Hydrol. Process. 2003, 17(11).
46. Zhang Z., Koren V., Smith M., Reed S., Wang D. Use of next generation weather radar data and basin disaggregation to improve continuous hydrograph simulations. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2004, 9:103-115.