Calibration and validation of a physically distributed hydrological model, MIKE SHE, to predict streamflow at high frequency in a flashy mountainous Hawaii stream

Summary Hawaii streams are short and steep, often producing dangerous flash floods as a result of rainfall events that can be short but intense. The streamflow can change by a factor of 60 in only 15 min. Using streamflow data collected at 15-min intervals, the physically distributed modeling system, MIKE SHE, is applied to the Manoa–Palolo stream system on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, to study the watershed response to storm events. Because of the unavailability of detailed spatially distributed data, a single-valued hydraulic conductivity for the saturated zone is used as the representative of the entire watershed. It is shown that a well-calibrated MIKE SHE with the single-valued hydraulic conductivity is able to produce consistent results with correlation coefficients greater than 0.7. The rainfall distribution along the watershed is the driving factor for the estimation of streamflow. The reciprocal of Manning’s roughness coefficient ( M ) for the watershed and the hydraulic conductivities (vertical and horizontal) of the saturated zone had the most pronounced effects in determining the shape of flood peaks. The peak streamflow is reduced by nearly 1 m 3 /s for an M value that was changed from 60 to 10. For the upper part of the watershed, which is located in the rainiest and steepest mountainous area, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity value of the saturated zone is insensitive, while the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity values of the saturated zone are sensitive to predict streamflow for the entire watershed. Drainage depth, an average position of phreatic surface above which the water table in one grid starts to drain to the nearest grid or stream, is less sensitive, while drainage time constant, the time required to discharge the drainage water to the nearest grid or stream, is more sensitive for the estimation of base flow. Because calibration for a large basin at small time steps (e.g., every 15 min) takes a long time to complete a year of simulation, splitting the entire watershed into subwatersheds during calibration was useful in examining the effects of key parameters on streamflow estimation before calibrating the parameters for the entire watershed.

[1]  J. Refsgaard.  Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models , 1997 .

[2]  Nunzio Romano,et al.  Prediction of soil water retention using soil physical data and terrain attributes , 2002 .

[3]  W. Nichols,et al.  Water Budget and the Effects of Land-Use Changes on Ground-Water Recharge, Oahu, Hawaii , 1996 .

[4]  V. Klemeš,et al.  Operational Testing of Hydrological Simulation Models , 2022 .

[5]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Large scale modelling of groundwater contamination from nitrate leaching , 1999 .

[6]  Clifford I. Voss,et al.  Analysis of an anisotropic coastal aquifer system using variable-density flow and solute transport simulation , 1987 .

[7]  L. Lau,et al.  WRRCTMR No.62 Hawaiian Groundwater Geology and Hydrology, and Early Mathematical Models , 1980 .

[8]  D. Legates,et al.  Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation , 1999 .

[9]  J. Feyen,et al.  Analysis of uncertainties associated with different methods to determine soil hydraulic properties and their propagation in the distributed hydrological MIKE SHE model , 2001 .

[10]  E. H. Carlo,et al.  THE NEED FOR HIGH RESOLUTION TIME SERIES DATA TO CHARACTERIZE HAWAIIAN STREAMS 1 , 2003 .

[11]  Hedeff I. Essaid,et al.  A comparison of the coupled fresh water-salt water flow and the Ghyben-Herzberg sharp interface approaches to modeling of transient behavior in coastal aquifer systems , 1986 .

[12]  A. Thomsen,et al.  WATBAL: A Semi-Distributed, Physically Based Hydrological Modelling System , 1986 .

[13]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Operational Validation and Intercomparison of Different Types of Hydrological Models , 1996 .

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

[15]  Tammo S. Steenhuis,et al.  Application of two hydrologic models with different runoff mechanisms to a hillslope dominated watershed in the northeastern US: a comparison of HSPF and SMR , 2003 .

[16]  K. Kristensen,et al.  A MODEL FOR ESTIMATING ACTUAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FROM POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION , 1975 .

[17]  N. Crawford,et al.  DIGITAL SIMULATION IN HYDROLOGY' STANFORD WATERSHED MODEL 4 , 1966 .

[18]  C. Jayatilaka,et al.  Simulation of water flow on irrigation bay scale with MIKE-SHE , 1998 .

[19]  K. Jensen,et al.  Distributed hydrological modelling of the Senegal River Basin — model construction and validation , 2001 .

[20]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Hydrological modelling of a small watershed using MIKE SHE for irrigation planning , 1999 .

[21]  Delwyn S. Oki,et al.  Geohydrology of the Central Oahu, Hawaii, Ground-Water Flow System and Numerical Simulation of the Effects of Additional Pumping , 1998 .

[22]  Rf Vazquez,et al.  Effect of potential evapotranspiration estimates on effective parameters and performance of the MIKE SHE-code applied to a medium-size catchment , 2003 .

[23]  W. Nichols,et al.  Summary of the Oahu, Hawaii, Regional Aquifer-System Analysis , 1996 .

[24]  Herbert Lang,et al.  Advanced flood forecasting in Alpine watersheds by coupling meteorological observations and forecasts with a distributed hydrological model , 2002 .

[25]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information , 1998 .

[26]  L. Feyen,et al.  Application of a distributed physically-based hydrological model to a medium size catchment , 2000 .

[27]  J. Feyen,et al.  Calibration, Validation and Sensitivity Analysis of the MIKE-SHE Model Using the Neuenkirchen Catchment as Case Study , 1997 .