Impacts of uncertain river flow data on rainfall‐runoff model calibration and discharge predictions

Abstract

10.1002/hyp.7587.abs In order to quantify total error affecting hydrological models and predictions, we must explicitly recognize errors in input data, model structure, model parameters and validation data. This paper tackles the last of these: errors in discharge measurements used to calibrate a rainfall-runoff model, caused by stage–discharge rating-curve uncertainty. This uncertainty may be due to several combined sources, including errors in stage and velocity measurements during individual gaugings, assumptions regarding a particular form of stage–discharge relationship, extrapolation of the stage–discharge relationship beyond the maximum gauging, and cross-section change due to vegetation growth and/or bed movement. A methodology is presented to systematically assess and quantify the uncertainty in discharge measurements due to all of these sources. For a given stage measurement, a complete PDF of true discharge is estimated. Consequently, new model calibration techniques can be introduced to explicitly account for the discharge error distribution. The method is demonstrated for a gravel-bed river in New Zealand, where all the above uncertainty sources can be identified, including significant uncertainty in cross-section form due to scour and re-deposition of sediment. Results show that rigorous consideration of uncertainty in flow data results in significant improvement of the model's ability to predict the observed flow. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves

“…Uncertainty in discharge data, which has been shown to be sometimes substantial (Di Baldassarre and Montanari, 2009;Pelletier, 1988;Krueger et al, 2010;PetersenOverleir et al, 2009) and influence the calibration of hydrological models (McMillan et al, 2010;Aronica et al, 2006), is usually not accounted for in model evaluation with traditional performance measures. Novel approaches in environmental modelling that include evaluation-data uncertainty in model calibration include Bayesian calibration to an estimated probability-density function of discharge (McMillan et al, 2010), Bayesian calibration with a simplified error model (Huard and Mailhot, 2008;Thyer et al, 2009), fuzzy rule based performance measures (Freer et al, 2004) and limits-of-acceptability calibration in GLUE for rainfallrunoff modelling (Liu et al, 2009), flood mapping (Pappenberger et al, 2007), environmental tracer modelling (Page et al, 2007) and flood-frequency estimation (Blazkova and Beven, 2009). Here we explore the limits-of-acceptability GLUE approach applied to flow-duration curves, which could be a way of dealing with some of the effects of nonstationary epistemic errors on the identification of feasible model parameters in real applications (Beven, 2006(Beven, , 2010Beven and Westerberg, 2011;Beven et al, 2008).…”

Calibration of Horizontal Acoustic Doppler Current profilers by three dimensional CFD simulations

“…Many power plants are fed by multiple reservoirs and streams, and the system of tunnels can therefore be vast and complex. Reliable discharge data are crucial for water resource planning, since continuous series of water discharges are essential inputs both for hydrological models and operation simulations (McMillan, Freer, Pappenberger, Krueger, & Clark, 2010). Hence, an accurate monitoring system of the water discharges in the different branches of a tunnel system is valuable.…”

Scaling, similarity, and the fourth paradigm for hydrology

“…Several papers have highlighted the problem of different climatologies or sensitivities of remote sensing products (e.g., Albergel et al, 2012;Brocca et al, 2011), gridded meteorological products (Clark and Slater, 2006;Newman et al, 2015b), and streamflow observations (Di Baldassarre and Montanari, 2009;McMillan et al, 2010). A true correspondence of these remotely sensed variables with model results is often hampered, due to vertical mismatches in the soil column between the different products (Wilker et al, 2006), approximations in the structure of the hydrological model used, its parameterization and discretization, the initial conditions, and errors in forcing data (De Lannoy et al, 2007).…”