Parameter optimization of distributed hydrological model with a modified dynamically dimensioned search algorithm

被引:23
作者
Huang, Xiaomin [1 ,2 ]
Liao, Weihong [2 ]
Lei, Xiaohui [2 ]
Jia, Yangwen [2 ]
Wang, Yuhui [1 ]
Wang, Xu [2 ]
Jiang, Yunzhong [2 ]
Wang, Hao [2 ]
机构
[1] Donghua Univ, Sch Environm Sci & Engn, Shanghai 201620, Peoples R China
[2] China Inst Water Resources & Hydropower Res, State Key Lab Simulat & Regulat Water Cycle River, Beijing 100038, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Distributed hydrological model; Parameter sensitivity; Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm; SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION; UNCERTAINTY; CALIBRATION; EFFICIENT; AUTOCALIBRATION; STRATEGIES; TOOL;
D O I
10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.09.028
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
A modified version of the dynamically dimensioned search (MDDS) is introduced for automatic calibration of watershed simulation models. The distinguishing feature of the MDDS is that the algorithm makes full use of sensitivity information in the optimization procedure. The Latin hypercube one-factor-at-a-time (LH-OAT) technique is used to calculate the sensitivity information of every parameter in the model. The performance of the MDDS is compared to that of the dynamically dimensioned search (DDS), the DDS identifying only the most sensitive parameters, and the shuffled complex evolution (SCE) method, respectively, for calibration of the easy distributed hydrological model (EasyDHM). The comparisons range from 500 to 5000 model evaluations per optimization trial. The results show the following: the MDDS algorithm outperforms the DDS algorithm, the DDS algorithm identifying the most sensitive parameters, and the SCE algorithm within a specified maximum number of function evaluations (fewer than 5000); the MDDS algorithm shows robustness compared with the DDS algorithm when the maximum number of model evaluations is less than 2500; the advantages of the MDDS algorithm are more obvious for a high-dimensional distributed hydrological model, such as the EasyDHM model; and the optimization results from the MDDS algorithm are not very sensitive to either the variance (between 0.3 and 1) for randn' used in the MDDS algorithm or the number of strata used in the Latin hypercube (LH) sampling. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:98 / 110
页数:13
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], SENSITIVITY AUTO CAL
[2]   Comment on "Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration" by Bryan A. Tolson and Christine A. Shoemaker [J].
Behrangi, Ali ;
Khakbaz, Behnaz ;
Vrugt, Jasper A. ;
Duan, Qingyun ;
Sorooshian, Soroosh .
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2008, 44 (12)
[3]   Towards an alternative blueprint for a physically based digitally simulated hydrologic response modelling system [J].
Beven, K .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2002, 16 (02) :189-206
[4]   How far can we go in distributed hydrological modelling? [J].
Beven, K .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2001, 5 (01) :1-12
[5]  
Beven K, 2000, HYDROL PROCESS, V14, P3183, DOI 10.1002/1099-1085(200011/12)14:16/17<3183::AID-HYP404>3.0.CO
[6]  
2-K
[7]   Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological modelling [J].
Beven, KJ .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2000, 4 (02) :203-213
[8]   Sensitivity analysis of a hierarchical qualitative model for sustainability assessment of cropping systems [J].
Carpani, Marta ;
Bergez, Jacques-Eric ;
Monod, Herve .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2012, 27-28 :15-22
[9]   Sampling strategies in density-based sensitivity analysis [J].
Castaings, W. ;
Borgonovo, E. ;
Morris, M. D. ;
Tarantola, S. .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2012, 38 :13-26
[10]   Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of a depth-averaged water quality model for evaluation of Escherichia Coli concentration in shallow estuaries [J].
Cea, L. ;
Bermudez, M. ;
Puertas, J. .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2011, 26 (12) :1526-1539