Multi-criterial validation of TOPMODEL in a mountainous catchment

Abstract

Abstract:The need for powerful validation methods for hydrological models including the evaluation of internal stages and spatially distributed simulations has often been emphasized. In this study a multi-criterial validation scheme was used for validation of TOPMODEL, a conceptual semi-distributed rainfall±runo model. The objective was to test TOPMODEL's capability of adequately representing dominant hydrological processes by simple conceptual approaches. Validation methods diered in the type of data used, in their target and in mode.The model was applied in the humid and mountainous Brugga catchment (40 km 2 ) in south-west Germany. It was calibrated by a Monte Carlo method based on hourly runo data. Additional information for validation was derived from a recession analysis, hydrograph separation with environmental tracers and from ®eld surveys, including the mapping of saturated areas. Although runo simulations were satisfying, inadequacies of the model structure compared with the real situation with regard to hydrological processes in the study area were found. These belong mainly to the concept of variable contributing areas for saturation excess overland ow and their dynamics, which were overestimated by the model. The simple TOPMODEL approach of twō ow components was found to be insucient. The multi-criterial validation scheme enables not only to demonstrate limitations with regard to process representation, but also to specify where and why these limitations occur. It may serve as a valuable tool for the development of physically sound model modi®cations.

Testing the distributed water table predictions of TOPMODEL (allowing for uncertainty in model calibration): The death of TOPMODEL?

“…In the original study of Beven and Kirkby [1979], similarity in pattern of observed and predicted saturated areas was demonstrated for a small catchment in the UK. Other similarities in predicted and observed saturated areas and patterns of the topographic index have been demonstrated by Kirkby [1978] for Sleepers River, Vermont; Merot and Bruneau [1993] and Franks et al [1998] for the bocage landscape of Britanny, France; Ambroise et al [1996] in the Vosges, France; Güntner et al [1999] in the Brugga catchment in Germany; and Blazkova et al [2002] in the same Uhlirska catchment in the Czech Republic studied here.…”

Testing the distributed water table predictions of TOPMODEL (allowing for uncertainty in model calibration): The death of TOPMODEL?

“…In the original study of Beven and Kirkby [1979], similarity in pattern of observed and predicted saturated areas was demonstrated for a small catchment in the UK. Other similarities in predicted and observed saturated areas and patterns of the topographic index have been demonstrated by Kirkby [1978] for Sleepers River, Vermont; Merot and Bruneau [1993] and Franks et al [1998] for the bocage landscape of Britanny, France; Ambroise et al [1996] in the Vosges, France; Güntner et al [1999] in the Brugga catchment in Germany; and Blazkova et al [2002] in the same Uhlirska catchment in the Czech Republic studied here.…”

A discrete particle representation of hillslope hydrology: hypothesis testing in reproducing a tracer experiment at Gårdsjön, Sweden

“…It is also indicative of the additional information content of combined discharge and tracer transport data. This has been acknowledged by other studies (Güntner et al, 1999;Uhlenbrook and Leibundgut, 2002;Soulsby and Dunn, 2003;Iorgulescu et al, 2005;McGuire et al, 2007;Tetzlaff et al, 2008), though not all of those have correctly differentiated between wave celerities and particle velocities in fitting both flow and tracer concentration data.…”

Modelling subsurface storm flow with the Representative Elementary Watershed (REW) approach: application to the Alzette River Basin

“…Compared to what field studies reported, this ratio seems high. For instance, field observations in other regions, as presented by Freeze (1974), Tanaka et al (1988), Güntner et al (1999), and Srinivasan et al (2002), among others, show that the extent of the saturated fraction of the catchments is usually less than 10% during storm events. In our modelling results, however, we observed that the range of the effective area fraction for producing hydrograph peaks of each REW, varies between 3% and 8% (see e.g.…”

Testing the distributed water table predictions of TOPMODEL (allowing for uncertainty in model calibration): The death of TOPMODEL?

“…In the original study of Beven and Kirkby [1979], similarity in pattern of observed and predicted saturated areas was demonstrated for a small catchment in the UK. Other similarities in predicted and observed saturated areas and patterns of the topographic index have been demonstrated by Kirkby [1978] for Sleepers River, Vermont; Merot and Bruneau [1993] and Franks et al [1998] for the bocage landscape of Britanny, France; Ambroise et al [1996] in the Vosges, France; Güntner et al [1999] in the Brugga catchment in Germany; and Blazkova et al [2002] in the same Uhlirska catchment in the Czech Republic studied here.…”

A discrete particle representation of hillslope hydrology: hypothesis testing in reproducing a tracer experiment at Gårdsjön, Sweden

“…It is also indicative of the additional information content of combined discharge and tracer transport data. This has been acknowledged by other studies (Güntner et al, 1999;Uhlenbrook and Leibundgut, 2002;Soulsby and Dunn, 2003;Iorgulescu et al, 2005;McGuire et al, 2007;Tetzlaff et al, 2008), though not all of those have correctly differentiated between wave celerities and particle velocities in fitting both flow and tracer concentration data.…”

Modelling subsurface storm flow with the Representative Elementary Watershed (REW) approach: application to the Alzette River Basin

“…Compared to what field studies reported, this ratio seems high. For instance, field observations in other regions, as presented by Freeze (1974), Tanaka et al (1988), Güntner et al (1999), and Srinivasan et al (2002), among others, show that the extent of the saturated fraction of the catchments is usually less than 10% during storm events. In our modelling results, however, we observed that the range of the effective area fraction for producing hydrograph peaks of each REW, varies between 3% and 8% (see e.g.…”

Testing the distributed water table predictions of TOPMODEL (allowing for uncertainty in model calibration): The death of TOPMODEL?

“…In the original study of Beven and Kirkby [1979], similarity in pattern of observed and predicted saturated areas was demonstrated for a small catchment in the UK. Other similarities in predicted and observed saturated areas and patterns of the topographic index have been demonstrated by Kirkby [1978] for Sleepers River, Vermont; Merot and Bruneau [1993] and Franks et al [1998] for the bocage landscape of Britanny, France; Ambroise et al [1996] in the Vosges, France; Güntner et al [1999] in the Brugga catchment in Germany; and Blazkova et al [2002] in the same Uhlirska catchment in the Czech Republic studied here.…”

A discrete particle representation of hillslope hydrology: hypothesis testing in reproducing a tracer experiment at Gårdsjön, Sweden

“…It is also indicative of the additional information content of combined discharge and tracer transport data. This has been acknowledged by other studies (Güntner et al, 1999;Uhlenbrook and Leibundgut, 2002;Soulsby and Dunn, 2003;Iorgulescu et al, 2005;McGuire et al, 2007;Tetzlaff et al, 2008), though not all of those have correctly differentiated between wave celerities and particle velocities in fitting both flow and tracer concentration data.…”

Modelling subsurface storm flow with the Representative Elementary Watershed (REW) approach: application to the Alzette River Basin

“…Compared to what field studies reported, this ratio seems high. For instance, field observations in other regions, as presented by Freeze (1974), Tanaka et al (1988), Güntner et al (1999), and Srinivasan et al (2002), among others, show that the extent of the saturated fraction of the catchments is usually less than 10% during storm events. In our modelling results, however, we observed that the range of the effective area fraction for producing hydrograph peaks of each REW, varies between 3% and 8% (see e.g.…”