Comparison of different distributed hydrological models for characterization of catchment spatial variability

Most physically-based hydrological models rely on either spatially distributed or lumped characterizations of topography and other spatial variations. Three disturbed hydrological models with different treatments of topography, namely the MIKE SHE, TOPMODEL and GB model (geomorphology-based hydrological model) are discussed in this paper. A regular square grid system is used by MIKE SHE for representation of catchment spatial variability and as the fundamental computation units. TOPMODEL characterizes the topography using a distributed topographic index, ln(a/tan β). The areas with the same ln(a/tan β) are assumed to be hydrologically similar. Then, the catchment is divided into a number of segments corresponding to the topographic index intervals. The GB model employs the catchment area function and width function to lump the topography and divide the catchment into a series of flow interval-hillslopes. The catchment spatial variations are averaged over each flow interval and represented by one-dimensional distribution functions with respect to the flow distance from the catchment outlet. The hillslope elements are the fundamental computational units in the GB model. The above three models are applied to the Seki River in Japan. The model structure and performance are compared and discussed in the paper. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  R. Allan Freeze,et al.  Role of subsurface flow in generating surface runoff: 1. Base flow contributions to channel flow , 1972 .

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

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

[4]  Oscar J. Mesa,et al.  On the Relative Role of Hillslope and Network Geometry in Hydrologic Response , 1986 .

[5]  Keith Loague.  Impact of rainfall and soil hydraulic property information on runoff predictions at the hillslope scale , 1988 .

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

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

[8]  C. Jackson,et al.  Hillslope infiltration and lateral downslope unsaturated flow , 1992 .

[9]  P. Naden.  Spatial variability in flood estimation for large catchments: the exploitation of channel network structure , 1992 .

[10]  R. Bras,et al.  A kinematic model of infiltration and runoff generation in layered and sloped soils , 1992 .

[11]  M. Sivapalan,et al.  On the relative roles of hillslope processes, channel routing, and network geomorphology in the hydrologic response of natural catchments , 1995 .

[12]  K. Beven,et al.  The in(a/tan/β) index:how to calculate it and how to use it within the topmodel framework , 1995 .

[13]  Murugesu Sivapalan,et al.  INSTANTANEOUS RESPONSE FUNCTIONS OF OVERLAND FLOW AND SUBSURFACE STORMFLOW FOR CATCHMENT MODELS , 1996 .

[14]  Katumi Musiake,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF A GEOMORPHOLOGY-BASED HYDROLOGICAL MODEL FOR LARGE CATCHMENTS , 1998 .