Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation

被引:282
作者
Tang, Y. [1 ]
Reed, P. [1 ]
Wagener, T. [1 ]
van Werkhoven, K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
D O I
10.5194/hess-11-793-2007
中图分类号
P [天文学、地球科学];
学科分类号
07 ;
摘要
This study seeks to identify sensitivity tools that will advance our understanding of lumped hydrologic models for the purposes of model improvement, calibration efficiency and improved measurement schemes. Four sensitivity analysis methods were tested: (1) local analysis using parameter estimation software (PEST), (2) regional sensitivity analysis (RSA), (3) analysis of variance (ANOVA), and (4) Sobol's method. The methods' relative efficiencies and effectiveness have been analyzed and compared. These four sensitivity methods were applied to the lumped Sacramento soil moisture accounting model (SAC-SMA) coupled with SNOW-17. Results from this study characterize model sensitivities for two medium sized watersheds within the Juniata River Basin in Pennsylvania, USA. Comparative results for the 4 sensitivity methods are presented for a 3-year time series with 1 h, 6 h, and 24 h time intervals. The results of this study show that model parameter sensitivities are heavily impacted by the choice of analysis method as well as the model time interval. Differences between the two adjacent watersheds also suggest strong influences of local physical characteristics on the sensitivity methods' results. This study also contributes a comprehensive assessment of the repeatability, robustness, efficiency, and ease-of-implementation of the four sensitivity methods. Overall ANOVA and Sobol's method were shown to be superior to RSA and PEST. Relative to one another, ANOVA has reduced computational requirements and Sobol's method yielded more robust sensitivity rankings.
引用
收藏
页码:793 / 817
页数:25
相关论文
共 80 条
[1]   Estimating unsaturated soil hydraulic parameters using ant colony optimization [J].
Abbaspour, KC ;
Schulin, R ;
van Genuchten, MT .
ADVANCES IN WATER RESOURCES, 2001, 24 (08) :827-841
[2]  
ANDERSON EA, 2002, 45 NOAA NWS HYDR LAB
[3]   Sampling methods and sensitivity analysis for large parameter sets [J].
Andres, TH .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL COMPUTATION AND SIMULATION, 1997, 57 (1-4) :77-110
[4]  
ANDRES TH, 1993, P JOINT INT C MATH M, V2, P328
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1973, NATL WEATHER SERVICE
[6]   Sensitivity measures, ANOVA-like techniques and the use of bootstrap [J].
Archer, GEB ;
Saltelli, A ;
Sobol, IM .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL COMPUTATION AND SIMULATION, 1997, 58 (02) :99-120
[7]   Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology [J].
Beven, K ;
Freer, J .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2001, 249 (1-4) :11-29
[8]   Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological modelling [J].
Beven, KJ .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2000, 4 (02) :203-213
[9]  
Box G.E., 1978, STAT EXPT
[10]   Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods [J].
Boyle, DP ;
Gupta, HV ;
Sorooshian, S .
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2000, 36 (12) :3663-3674