Modification of the probability-distributed interacting storage capacity model

Abstract This paper is concerned with the review and modification of the structure of the conceptual rainfall-runoff model known as the probability-distributed interacting storage capacity (PDISC) model. The significance of the fundamental assumption of the equal-storage redistribution mode used in this model is critically investigated by adopting a more general linear-storage redistribution mode. The investigation is performed using the daily data of six catchments. The results reveal that the original assumption of the equal-storage redistribution mode may not be an optimum in some catchments. Further development of the water-balance module of the PDISC model is also explored. The surface-runoff generation mechanism of the model is modified by incorporating into the model structure a quick-runoff component. The results suggest that this modification can significantly improve the performance of the model. The results of the PDISC model are also compared with that of another established lumped conceptual rainfall-runoff model known as the soil moisture accounting and routing procedure (SMAR). Neither of the two models has worked consistently better than the other under all situations.

[1]  H. Houghton-Carr.  Assessment criteria for simple conceptual daily rainfall-runoff models , 1999 .

[2]  George Kuczera,et al.  Probabilistic optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models: A comparison of the shuffled complex evolution and simulated annealing algorithms , 1999 .

[3]  R. Moore.  The probability-distributed principle and runoff production at point and basin scales , 1985 .

[4]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Performance of conceptual rainfall‐runoff models in low‐yielding ephemeral catchments , 1997 .

[5]  Asaad Y. Shamseldin,et al.  A nearest neighbour linear perturbation model for river flow forecasting , 1996 .

[6]  Keith Beven,et al.  Effects of spatial variability and scale with implications to hydrologic modeling , 1988 .

[7]  M. Kirkby.  TOPMODEL: A personal view , 1997 .

[8]  André Musy,et al.  Generalization of TOPMODEL for a power law transmissivity profile , 1997 .

[9]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models , 1992 .

[10]  Marco Franchini,et al.  Physical interpretation and sensitivity analysis of the TOPMODEL , 1996 .

[11]  Q. J. Wang.  The Genetic Algorithm and Its Application to Calibrating Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models , 1991 .

[12]  N Lauzon,et al.  Comparaison de deux procédures d'amélioration des prévisions à court terme des apports naturels d'un modèle déterministe , 1997 .

[13]  Bryson C. Bates,et al.  Calibration of a modified SFB model for twenty-five Australian catchments using simulated annealing , 1997 .

[14]  Marco Franchini,et al.  Comparing several genetic algorithm schemes for the calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models , 1997 .

[15]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[16]  R. K. Kachroo,et al.  River flow forecasting. Part 5. Applications of a conceptual model , 1992 .

[17]  Murugesu Sivapalan,et al.  Variable bucket representation of TOPMODEL and investigation of the effects of rainfall heterogeneity , 1997 .

[18]  Michael J. Stewardson,et al.  Comparison of six rainfall-runoff modelling approaches , 1993 .

[19]  J. Nicell,et al.  Evaluation of global optimization methods for conceptual rainfall-runoff model calibration , 1997 .

[20]  S. Burges,et al.  An assessment of a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model's ability to represent the dynamics of small hypothetical catchments: 1. Models, model properties, and experimental design , 1990 .

[21]  P. E. O'connell,et al.  An introduction to the European Hydrological System — Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE”, 2: Structure of a physically-based, distributed modelling system , 1986 .

[22]  P. E. O'connell,et al.  An introduction to the European Hydrological System — Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, “SHE”, 1: History and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modelling system , 1986 .

[23]  V. Klemeš,et al.  A hydrological perspective , 1988 .

[24]  A. Shamseldin,et al.  Methods for combining the outputs of different rainfall–runoff models , 1997 .

[25]  J. E. Nash,et al.  The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph , 1957 .

[26]  E. Todini.  Rainfall-runoff modeling — Past, present and future , 1988 .

[27]  M. Franchini.  Use of a genetic algorithm combined with a local search method for the automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models , 1996 .

[28]  Eric F. Wood,et al.  A land-surface hydrology parameterization with subgrid variability for general circulation models , 1992 .

[29]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[30]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data , 1996 .

[31]  Zhao Ren-jun,et al.  The Xinanjiang model applied in China , 1992 .

[32]  W. E. Bardsley.  An alternative distribution for describing the instantaneous unit hydrograph , 1983 .

[33]  Keith Beven,et al.  Changing ideas in hydrology — The case of physically-based models , 1989 .

[34]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[35]  George Kuczera,et al.  The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models , 1997 .

[36]  J. Nash.  A unit hydrograph study, with particular reference to British catchments [Discussion] , 1960 .

[37]  R. Moore,et al.  A distribution function approach to rainfall runoff modeling , 1981 .

[38]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Parameter Estimation, Model Identification, and Model Validation: Conceptual-Type Models , 1991 .

[39]  Keith Beven,et al.  TOPMODEL : a critique. , 1997 .

[40]  S. Bergström,et al.  Principles and Confidence in Hydrological Modelling , 1991 .

[41]  K. Beven,et al.  THE PREDICTION OF HILLSLOPE FLOW PATHS FOR DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING DIGITAL TERRAIN MODELS , 1991 .

[42]  Keith Beven,et al.  Discharge and water table predictions using a generalised TOPMODEL formulation , 1997 .

[43]  Keith Beven,et al.  Including spatially variable effective soil depths in TOPMODEL , 1997 .

[44]  Enoch M. Dlamini,et al.  Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling , 1997 .

[45]  L. K. Sherman.  Streamflow from rainfall by the unit-graph method , 1932 .

[46]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Calibration of rainfall‐runoff models: Application of global optimization to the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model , 1993 .

[47]  K. Beven,et al.  Toward a generalization of the TOPMODEL concepts:Topographic indices of hydrological similarity , 1996 .

[48]  K. Beven,et al.  A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology , 1979 .

[49]  M. Franchini,et al.  Comparative analysis of several conceptual rainfall-runoff models , 1991 .

[50]  X. R. Liu,et al.  The Xinanjiang model. , 1995 .

[51]  H. H. Rosenbrock,et al.  An Automatic Method for Finding the Greatest or Least Value of a Function , 1960, Comput. J..

[52]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  Derivation of discretely coincident forms of continuous linear time-invariant models using the transfer function approach , 1982 .

[53]  George Kuczera,et al.  Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: the Metropolis algorithm , 1998 .

[54]  P. E. O'Connell,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part II - The Brosna catchment at Ferbane , 1970 .

[55]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  Application of an empirical infiltration equation in the SMAR conceptual model , 1996 .

[56]  Denis A. Hughes,et al.  Soil moisture and runoff simulations using four catchment rainfall-runoff models , 1994 .