1 introduction g. thirel and v. andréassian iahs hw15 22 july 2013

1

Introduction

G. Thirel and V. Andréassian

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

2

3

4

5

Modelling is like painting

Catchments are hyper-dynamic systems: they change continuously

For the sake of our ‘portrating’, we need to make simplifying assumptions

The risk: that the simplifying hypotheses cause a catchment non-stationarity artefact

6

Non stationarity makes the life of hydrologists miserable

Identifying parameters is already not an easy task within the stationarity hypothesis…

… it is much worse when changes which we have neglected turn out to have a significant impact on the calibration process

7

Goal of this workshop

To provide a factual diagnosis: describe / document the problem

based on common catchments

also on other datasets

Can we agree on the problem? On how to assess it, numerically and graphically?

Investigate solutions

8

Workshop preparation group

Guillaume Thirel

Valérie Borrell-Estupina

Sandra Ardoin-Bardin

Julien Lerat

Olga Semenova

Francesco Laio

9

Outline of this presentation

• The dataset

• The calibration and evaluation protocol

• Some results

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

10

Outline of this presentation

The dataset

The calibration and evaluation protocol

Some results

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

11

Need for a dedicated websiteFOR DEFINING THE COMMON FRAMEWORK AND FOR PROVIDING THE COMMON DATABASE

Website address: http://non-stationarities.irstea.fr/

• Description of the dataset for each basin• Description of the calibration and evaluation protocol

Possibility to download the data (password protected)

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

12

The dataset14 RIVER BASINS SHOWING NON-STATIONARITIES

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

13

The dataset14 RIVER BASINS SHOWING NON-STATIONARITIES

Basins sizes from 0.2 km² to 100,000km²

Several types of non-stationarities encountered: • Temperature increase• Precipitation change or high variability• Urbanization• Forest cover modification

Period: variable according to the considered basin

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

14

Which data?DATA COLLECTED FROM MANY PARTNERS

Variables: precipitation (P), temperature (T), potential evapotranspiration (PE), discharge (Q).

What we provided: • basin-wide aggregated values of P, T and PE • Q at the outlet • (repartition of altitude within the basin if available)

Time step: daily

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

15

Temperature increaseTHE KAMP (622 KM²), ALLIER (2267 KM²), DURANCE (2170 KM²) AND GARONNE (9980 KM²) RIVERS

All located in Europe, impacted by snowmelt

Allier Kamp

Durance Garonne

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

16

The case of the Kamp RiverVERY LARGE FLOODS IN 2002

P

QIAHS Hw15

22 July 2013

(Komma et al., 2007; Blöschl et al., 2008; Reszler et al., 2008)

17

The case of the Allier RiverCONSTRUCTION OF A DAM IN 1983 FOR SUSTAINING LOW FLOWS

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Impact on low flows

18

Precipitation change or high variabilityTHE AXE CREEK (237 KM²) AND THE WIMMERA RIVER (2000 KM²)

Millenium drought in Australia (1997-2008)

Wimmera River

Axe Creek

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Q

Q

19

Decrease in rainfall and deep water recharge between before 1970 and after 1971

Precipitation change or high variabilityTHE BANI RIVER (100,000 KM²)

P Q

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

20

Precipitation change or high variabilityTHE GILBERT AND FLINDERS RIVERS (AROUND 1900 KM²)

Arid catchments under cyclonic heavy rainfall influence.

Major flood in 2002.

The Flinders RiverIAHS Hw15

22 July 2013

21

UrbanizationTHE FERSON (134 KM²) AND BLACKBERRY CREEKS (182 KM²)

Located in the USA

The urbanization modifies the hydrological response

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ferson Creek

Blackberry Creek

Percentage of urbanization

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

22

Forest cover modificationTHE FERNOW (0,2 KM²) AND MÖRRUMSÅN (97 KM²) RIVERS AND THE REAL COLLOBRIER (1,4 KM²)

The Fernow Experimental watershed: forest cut of the lower part of the basin, then forest cut of the upper part of the basin, then plantation of firtrees.

The Mörrumsån River: a severe storm (Gudrun), led to loss of forest in January 2005.

The Real Collobrier: forest fire in August 1990.

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

23

The dataset

River Country Area Period Change Providers

Fernow River USA 0.2km² 1956-2009 Forest USDA Forest Service

Real Collobrier France 1.4km² 1966-2006 Forest Irstea & Météo-France

Mörrumsan River Sweden 97km² 1981-2010 Forest SMHI

Ferson Creek USA 134km² 1980-2011 Urbanization USGS & DayMet

Blackberry Creek USA 182km² 1980-2011 Urbanization

Axe Creek Australia 237km² 1970-2011 P decrease Victoria data Warehouse

Kamp River Austria 622km² 1976-2008 T increase TU Wien, UFZ

Gilbert River Australia 1907km² 1963-1988 P variability Queensland Government

Flinders River Australia 1912km² 1967-2011 P variability

Wimmera River Australia 2000km² 1960-2009 P decrease Victoria data Warehouse

Durance River France 2170km² 1901-2010 T increase EDF

Allier River France 2267km² 1958-2008 T increase Météo-France & Banque HydroGaronne River France 9980km² 1958-2008 T increase

Bani River W Africa 103390km² 1959-1990 P decrease DMM & DNH

24

Outline of this presentation

• The dataset

• The calibration and evaluation protocol

• Some results

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

25

The protocolA COMMON CALIBRATION AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

• Common calibration / evaluation periods

• Common minimum set of metrics

• Possibility that I produce a set of metrics and plots for the modellers (providing that they sent to me their simulations)

• Modellers are free to do more!

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Complete periodWarm-up

Time

P1 P4P3P2 P5

Change

26

The protocolLEVEL 1: THE BEGINNER LEVEL

• Calibration has to be done on the “Complete period” or the model does not need calibration

• Models are run on the “Complete period”

• Evaluation is done on the “Complete period” + P1 to P5

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Complete periodWarm-up

Time

P1 P4P3P2 P5

Change

27

The protocolLEVEL 2: THE NORMAL LEVEL

• Calibration has to be done on each pre-defined sub-period P1 to P5

• Models are run on the “Complete period” for each calibration

• Evaluation is done on the “Complete period” + P1 to P5

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Complete periodWarm-up

Time

P1 P4P3P2 P5

Change

28

The protocolLEVEL 3: THE EXPERT LEVEL

The modellers found that their model failed at level 2 to deal with non-stationarities or could do better.

They want to try to solve this issue, or at least to try to test solutions that could solve this issue.

-> all solutions are allowed.

Failing is fine, since it allows to discard a solution.

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

29

The protocolTHE METRICS

Participants were asked to produce the following statistics on each sub-period: • NSE and NSE on low flows (i.e. using 1/Q+ε instead of Q) • Bias (Qsim/Qobs)• Discharge quantiles: Q95, Q85, Q15 and Q05• Frequency of low flows (i.e. when Q<5% of mean Qobs)

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

30

The protocolTHE METRICS

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Participants were asked to produce the following statistics on each sub-period: • NSE and NSE on low flows (i.e. using 1/Q+ε instead of Q) + their

decomposition• Bias (Qsim/Qobs)• Discharge quantiles: Q95, Q85, Q15 and Q05• Frequency of low flows (i.e. when Q<5% of mean Qobs)• KGE and its decomposition• Nash and bias on sliding windows• Flow regime• Ranked discharges

31

The protocolTHE GRAPHS

Used for the bias, the Nash criteria, the KGE, and their decompositions

For the quantiles and the frequency of low flows, the observed value is added

Two different ways of showing the same thingIAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

The criterion value

Six curves: one for each calibration

Six values: one for each evaluation period

The criterion value

Six columns: one for each calibration

Six lines: one for each evaluation period

32

The protocolTHE GRAPHS

Extension of some graphs for a 1-year frequency evaluation

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

33

The protocolTHE GRAPHS

The discharges regimes and the ranked discharges

-> one graph for each evaluation period

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

34

The protocolTHE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MODELS

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Not values, but differences

between the criteria of two

models

Blue values indicate that this model has a higher criterion

Red values indicate that this model has a higher criterion

Blue values indicate that this model has a higher criterion

Red values indicate that this model has a higher criterion

A column compares a single calibration on each evaluation period

A line compares each calibration on a single evaluation period

Mod 1 Mod 2

Mod 1

Mod 2

Over-estimation from model on top

Δ

Under-estimation from the model on top

35

Outline of this presentation

• The dataset

• The calibration and evaluation protocol

• Some results

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

36

List of models used for the workshop

1k-DHM, AWBM, CLSM, COSERO, ECOMAG, GARDENIA, GR4J, GR5J, HBV, HYDROGEOIS, HYPE, HyMod, IHACRES, MISO, MORDOR, MORDOR6, SAFRAN-ISBA-MODCOU, SimHyd, SpringSim, TOPMODEL, Xinanjiang,…

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

37

Brief presentation of some results from people who participated but could not come

GARDENIA: D. Thiéry, BRGM, France

COSERO: H. Kling, Austria

SpringSim: A. Ramchurn, Australia

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

38

Lumped model with slow compo-

nents reservoirs

Can take into account aquifer

level measurements (not used

here)

4 to 6 parameters

Calibration metrics:

MSE(sqrt(Q))+5%(Qsim-Qobs)

Ran on 11 basins

Ref: Thiéry, D. (2010) Reservoir Models in Hydrogeology, in Mathematical Models, Volume 2 (ed J.-M. Tanguy), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. doi: 10.1002/9781118557853.ch13

GARDENIAUSED BY: Dominique Thiery (d.thiery@brgm.fr, BRGM, France)

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Soil storage

Vadose zone

Groundwater tank

Effective rainfall

Percolation (Recharge)

Rapid flow

Grounwater flow

Rain Snow

Evapotranspiration (PET)

Aquifer level

39

Low bias on calibration periods, but high bias on contrasted periods.

The calibration on the complete period allows an « intermediary » solution but does not prevent from biased simulations.

Calibrations on dryer periods gave higher soil reservoir capacities: the model tries to allow more evapotranspiration for compensating the lower Q.

GARDENIAUSED BY: Dominique Thiery (d.thiery@brgm.fr, BRGM, France)

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Bani

Regime change from

1971

40

High bias on contrasted periods.

Calibrations on dryer periods gave higher soil reservoir capacities: try of the model to allow more evapotranspiration for compensating the lower Q.

GARDENIAUSED BY: Dominique Thiery (d.thiery@brgm.fr, BRGM, France)

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

Wimmera

MilleniumDrought

41

COSERO

Continuous, semi-distributed rainfall-runoff model.

• Snow processes• Soil moisture accounting (HBV-type)• Surface-flow, inter-flow, base-flow

(linear reservoirs)

Nachtnebel et al. (1993)

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

USED BY: Harald Kling (harald.kling@poyry.com, Pöyry Energy GmbH, Austria)

42

COSERO

Objective function: KGE on Q.

Ran on 11 basins (i.e. all except US basins).

Dam module (affects low flows) added for the Allier River.Riparian zone (affects evaporation) added for Australian rivers.

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

USED BY: Harald Kling (harald.kling@poyry.com, Pöyry Energy GmbH, Austria)

43

COSERO

Allier

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

USED BY: Harald Kling (harald.kling@poyry.com, Pöyry Energy GmbH, Austria)

New dam built in 1983

44

COSEROUSED BY: Harald Kling (harald.kling@poyry.com, Pöyry Energy GmbH, Austria)

Wimmera

COSERO GR4JSimilar behaviour: clear over-estimation for the Millenium DroughtDifference: no clear under-estimation of wet years for Cosero when calibrated on dry years

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

MilleniumDrought

45

SpringSIM

New model, implemented to deal specifically with incorporation of long term droughts in the routine response to rainfall/evaporation of rainfall-runoff models

12 parameters

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

USED BY: Avijeet Ramchurn (a.ramchurn@bom.gov.au, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia)

Interception store

Quick response layer

Unsa

turate

dzo

neSa

turate

dzo

ne

Soil p

rofile

de

pth (

D)

Saturation flow

Quickflow

Interflow

Subsurface loss from saturated zone

Subsurface loss from unsaturated zone

Rainfall Evaporation

Outletheight (OH)

Spill

Leakage to saturated zone

Unavailableto quickflow

GWD

UNZD

Channel routing

Impervious area flow

Rainfall

46

SpringSIM

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

USED BY: Avijeet Ramchurn (a.ramchurn@bom.gov.au, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000So

il M

oist

ure

Stor

e

Soil moisture content of unsaturated zone

Saturated zone

Outlet level

47

SpringSIM

Good simulations of the water volume

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

USED BY: Avijeet Ramchurn (a.ramchurn@bom.gov.au, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia)

Bani

48

SpringSIM

Low bias in contrasted periods

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013

USED BY: Avijeet Ramchurn (a.ramchurn@bom.gov.au, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia)

Bani

Wet Dry

Wet

Dry

49

Thank you!

50

The protocolTHE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MODELS

Comparisons between the models

Comparisons with observations

Mod 1 Mod 2M

od 1M

od 2

Over-estimation from model on top

Δ

Under-estimation from the model on top

51

The protocolTHE GRAPHS

The 10-year sliding windows plots

IAHS Hw15 22 July 2013