Parameterization for distributed watershed modeling using national data and evolutionary algorithm

Distributed hydrologic models supported by national soil survey, geology, topography and vegetation data products can provide valuable information about the watershed hydrologic cycle. However numerical simulation of the multi-state, multi-process system is structurally complex and computationally intensive. This presents a major difficulty in model calibration using traditional techniques. This paper presents an efficient calibration strategy for the physics-based, fully coupled, distributed hydrologic model Penn State Integrated Hydrologic Model (PIHM) with the support of national data products. PIHM uses a semi-discrete Finite Volume Method (FVM) formulation of the system of coupled ordinary differential equations (e.g. canopy interception, transpiration, soil evaporation) and partial differential equations (e.g. groundwater-surface water, overland flow, infiltration, channel flow, etc.). The matrix of key parameters to be estimated in the optimization process was partitioned into two groups according to the sensitivity to difference in time scales. The first group of parameters generally describes hydrologic processes influenced by hydrologic events (event-scale group: EG), which are sensitive to short time runoff generation, while the second group of parameters is largely influenced by seasonal changes in energy (seasonal time scale group: SG). The Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) is used to optimize the EG parameters in Message Passing Interface (MPI) environment, followed by the estimation of parameters in the SG. The calibration strategy was applied at three watersheds in central PA: a small upland catchment (8.4ha), a watershed in the Appalachian Plateau (231km^2) and the Valley and Ridge of central Pennsylvania (843km^2). A partition calibration enabled a fast and efficient estimation of parameters.

[1]  Christopher J. Duffy,et al.  International Journal of Geographical Information Science an Efficient Domain Decomposition Framework for Accurate Representation of Geodata in Distributed Hydrologic Models an Efficient Domain Decomposition Framework for Accurate Representation of Geodata in Distributed Hydrologic Models , 2022 .

[2]  P. Bayer,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms for the optimization of advective control of contaminated aquifer zones , 2004 .

[3]  E. Vivoni,et al.  Catchment hydrologic response with a fully distributed triangulated irregular network model , 2004 .

[4]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): An overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops , 2006 .

[5]  J. Dudhia,et al.  Coupling an Advanced Land Surface–Hydrology Model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 Modeling System. Part I: Model Implementation and Sensitivity , 2001 .

[6]  Shuangcai Li,et al.  Fully coupled approach to modeling shallow water flow, sediment transport, and bed evolution in rivers , 2011 .

[7]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Watershed Reanalysis: Towards a National Strategy for Model-Data Integration , 2011, 2011 IEEE Seventh International Conference on e-Science Workshops.

[8]  Mukesh Kumar,et al.  Toward a Hydrologic Modeling System , 2009 .

[9]  C. Duffy Semi-discrete dynamical model for mountain-front recharge and water balance estimation, Rio Grande of southern Colorado and New Mexico. , 2013 .

[10]  C. Duffy,et al.  A semidiscrete finite volume formulation for multiprocess watershed simulation , 2007 .

[11]  Gopal Bhatt,et al.  A Distributed Hydrologic Modeling System: Framework For Discovery And Management Of Water Resources , 2012 .

[12]  Bryan A. Tolson,et al.  Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration , 2007 .

[13]  A. Hindmarsh,et al.  CVODE, a stiff/nonstiff ODE solver in C , 1996 .

[14]  Bart Nijssen,et al.  Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of land surface parameters using the Variable Infiltration Capacity model , 2007 .

[15]  A physically based FVM watershed model fully coupling surface and subsurface water flows , 2010, Paddy and Water Environment.

[16]  Avi Ostfeld,et al.  State of the Art for Genetic Algorithms and Beyond in Water Resources Planning and Management , 2010 .

[17]  Hao Wang,et al.  Development of an AutoWEP distributed hydrological model and its application to the upstream catchment of the Miyun Reservoir , 2012, Comput. Geosci..

[18]  T. Meyers,et al.  Sensitivity of Land Surface Simulations to Model Physics, Land Characteristics, and Forcings, at Four CEOP Sites , 2007 .

[19]  E. Sudicky,et al.  Simulating the multi-seasonal response of a large-scale watershed with a 3D physically-based hydrologic model , 2008 .

[20]  A. Vortmeyer,et al.  Tumors of the endolymphatic sac in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease: implications for their natural history, diagnosis, and treatment. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery.

[21]  Walter J. Rawls,et al.  Pedotransfer functions: bridging the gap between available basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics , 2001 .

[22]  G. Yeh,et al.  Identified Model Parameterization, Calibration, and Validation of the Physically Distributed Hydrological Model WASH123D in Taiwan , 2011 .

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

[24]  K. Davis,et al.  Sensitivity, uncertainty and time dependence of parameters in a complex land surface model , 2008 .

[25]  Petros Koumoutsakos,et al.  Reducing the Time Complexity of the Derandomized Evolution Strategy with Covariance Matrix Adaptation (CMA-ES) , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

[26]  Changying Li,et al.  A comparative study of three evolutionary algorithms for surface acoustic wave sensor wavelength selection , 2007 .

[27]  C. Duffy,et al.  Using Integrated Hydrologic Models to Trace the Source and Dynamics of Fresh Water Discharge in a Coastal Watershed , 2007 .

[28]  Manoj Kumar,et al.  Watershed reanalysis: data assimilation from strip charts to embedded sensor networks (Invited) , 2010 .

[29]  Vijay P. Singh,et al.  Development and testing of a simple physically-based distributed rainfall-runoff model for storm runoff simulation in humid forested basins , 2007 .

[30]  Joseph R. Kasprzyk,et al.  Evolutionary multiobjective optimization in water resources: The past, present, and future , 2012 .

[31]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Quantifying parameter sensitivity, interaction, and transferability in hydrologically enhanced versions of the Noah land surface model over transition zones during the warm season , 2010 .

[32]  Manoj Kumar,et al.  Identification and Classification of Wetlands using Physics based Distributed Hydrologic Model , 2010 .

[33]  J. Shewchuk,et al.  Delaunay refinement mesh generation , 1997 .

[34]  Mathieu Javaux,et al.  Using Pedotransfer Functions to Estimate the van Genuchten–Mualem Soil Hydraulic Properties: A Review , 2010 .

[35]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Comparing Review , 2006, Towards a New Evolutionary Computation.

[36]  Victor Koren,et al.  Using SSURGO data to improve Sacramento Model a priori parameter estimates , 2006 .

[37]  Henry Lin Temporal Stability of Soil Moisture Spatial Pattern and Subsurface Preferential Flow Pathways in the Shale Hills Catchment , 2006 .

[38]  Van Genuchten,et al.  A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils , 1980 .