A Comparison of Rainfall‐Runoff Modeling Techniques on Small Upland Catchments

Abstract

This paper reports a set of model performance calculations for three event‐based rainfall‐runoff models on three data sets involving 269 events from small upland catchments. The models include a regression model, a unit hydrograph model, and a quasi‐physically based model. The catchments are from the Washita River Experimental Watershed, Oklahoma; the Mahantango Creek Experimental Watershed, Pennsylvania; and the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Model performance was assessed for a verification period that is carefully distinguished from the calibration period. Performance assessment was carried out both in forecasting mode and in prediction mode. The results show surprisingly poor forecasting efficiencies for all models on all data sets. The unit hydrograph model and the quasi‐physically based model have little forecasting power; the regression model is marginally better. The performance of the models in prediction mode is better. The regression model and the unit hydrograph model showed acceptable predictive power, but the quasi‐physically based model produced acceptable predictions on only one of the three catchments. We believe that the primary barrier to the successful application of physically based models in the field lies in the scale problems that are associated with the unmeasurable spatial variability of rainfall and soil hydraulic properties. The fact that simpler, less data intensive models provided as good or better predictions than a physically based model is food for thought.

Génèse des débits dans les petits bassins versants ruraux en milieu tempéré : 2 - Modélisation systémique et dynamique

“…-des résultats similaires peuvent être obtenus avec des modèles très diffé-rents, reposant donc sur des représentations très différentes de la même réalité (LOAGUE et FREEZE, 1985;WMO, 1975WMO, , 1986FRANCHINI et PACCIANI, 1991): comment alors identifier le « bon » modèle ? Avec un nombre suffisant de paramètres de calage, il est en effet possible de « bien » caler numériquement un « mauvais » modèle -ce qui peut conduire à des conclusions tout à fait irréalistes et/ou dommageables : à condition de bien « tourner les boutons » de rugosité et infiltrabilité, il est possible de simuler correctement à l'aide d'un modèle de ruissellement une crue d'origine purement souterraine, mais certainement pas aussi les variations correspondantes d'humidité des sols ou de niveau piézométrique.…”

Integrating remote sensing, geographic information systems and global positioning system techniques with hydrological modeling

“…The first is the prediction (or forecasting) of future events based on validated and calibrated model (Loague and Freeze 1985). The second object is to develop the conceptual methods for the designing of future experiments to improve the understanding of the process (Loague 1988).…”

A Real-Time Decision Support System for River Basin Management

“…Precipitation loss is found for each computation time interval, and is subtracted from the mean areal precipitation depth for that interval. The remaining depth is referred to as precipitation excess [14]. This depth is considered uniformly distributed over a watershed area, so it represents a volume of runoff as precipitation excess & represents volume of runoff [6].…”