Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 EduHBV IJEE PDF
10 EduHBV IJEE PDF
963973, 2010
Printed in Great Britain.
0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00
# 2010 TEMPUS Publications.
1. INTRODUCTION
UNDERSTANDING HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES (i.e. evapotranspiration, infiltration,
snowmelt, interflow, etc.) is fundamental to water
resources and environmental engineers and scientists. The need for improving existing engineering
hydrology curricula has been highlighted in various national and international reports, particularly
in two areas: modeling and field observations [1
3]. More recently, two major community initiatives
(the Consortium for Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc., CUAHSI [4];
and the Collaborative Large-Scale Engineering
Analysis Network for Environmental Research,
CLEANER) have stressed the critical role of
observations and simulation models for transforming the future of hydrologic and engineering
education. With the increasing availability of
hydrologic data over a wide range of scales (e.g.,
from remote sensing platforms), hydrology education can significantly benefit from the use of
simulation models to aid in understanding the
complex behavior and significant variability
evident in hydrologic observations. In fact, a
purely theoretical coverage of hydrology topics
can be uninteresting to todays engineering
students who are better inspired by hands-on
teaching methods.
Hydrologic models [56] have been used exten* Accepted 20 February 2010.
963
964
2. MODEL CONCEPT
It was some 160 years ago that the first hydrologic model for runoff prediction was introduced
based on an empirical relation between rainfall
intensity and peak flow [1516]. Since then, a
multitude of hydrologic models with various
degrees of assumption and simplification have
been developed to simulate various rainfallrunoff processes, many of which are still not fully
understood. Depending on the assumptions used
by the modeler, a model can give reasonable results
for a specific situation which it is calibrated for;
however, the same model may not work in other
cases. Hydrologic models can be categorized into
three different groups [17]:
(1) Physically-based models that are based on
solving governing equations such as conservation of mass and momentum equations. Parameters and state variables may be either
directly measured in the field or reasonably
assumed based on site characteristics;
(2) conceptual models that use simple mathematical equations to describe the main hydrologic
processes such as evapotranspiration, surface
storage, percolation, snowmelt, baseflow, and
965
monthly temperature and potential evapotranspiration rates. As shown, the model includes a
module that processes the input precipitation
either as rainfall or snow, based on the input
temperature at each time step. The rainfall and
snowmelt (if it exists) are then processed in the soil
moisture module where the effective rainfall that
contributes to the surface runoff is evaluated. The
remaining part of the rainfall contributes to the
soil moisture storage which itself can be evaporated as long as there is enough water content in
the subsurface. The main output of the model is
discharge runoff at the outlet of the watershed,
which has three components: surface runoff, interflow (contribution from near surface flow) and
baseflow (contribution from groundwater flow).
The model has a number of parameters that need
to be calibrated based on available observations.
In the following, the details of each module are
briefly described.
2.1 Snowmelt and snow accumulation
Snowmelt and accumulation are assumed to be
directly proportional to the temperature. The first
model parameter is the threshold temperature, Tt;
for temperatures above Tt snow melts and below
Tt it accumulates. Setting the initial Tt temperature
to zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit) is a
reasonable initial assumption. If a precipitation
event occurs when the temperature is below Tt
then precipitation accumulates as snow, otherwise
the input precipitation is assumed to be rainfall
(i.e. liquid). As long as the temperature remains
below the threshold temperature, the input precipitation does not contribute to runoff. However,
as soon as the temperature exceeds the threshold,
both snowmelt and precipitation start to contri-
Tt
966
if SM < PWP
2.3. Evapotranspiration
To calculate actual evapotranspiration over the
watershed, the model user needs to provide as
input long-term monthly mean potential evapotranspiration (PEm, m 1 to 12). Then for each
day within the simulation period, the adjusted
potential evapotranspiration is calculated by reducing the potential value based on the difference
between the mean temperature in the day and the
long-term mean monthly temperature:
PEa 1 CT
Tm :PEm
where: PEa is adjusted potential evapotranspiration [L], T is mean daily temperature [], Tm is long
term mean monthly temperature [], PEm is longterm mean monthly potential evapotranspiration
[L], C is model parameter [ 1].
967
L:A
if Su > L
if Su L
Q1 K1 Su A
Qperc Kperc Su A
5
RNS 1
Q2 K2 Sl A
t1
n
P
t1
where Q0 is near surface flow [L T ], Q1 is interflow [L3T 1], Q2 is baseflow [L3T 1], Qperc is
percolation [L3T 1], K0 is near surface flow storage
coefficient [T 1], K1 is interflow storage coefficient
[T 1], K2 is baseflow storage coefficient [T 1], Kperc
is percolation storage coefficient [T 1], Su is upper
reservoir water level [L], Sl is lower reservoir water
level [L], L is threshold water level [L], A is
watershed area [L2].
The total simulated runoff, Qs, can be obtained
by summing the first and the second reservoir
outflows (Qs = Q0 + Q1 + Q2). While the full
HBV model includes other features such as the use
of more elaborate discharge transformation functions and the capability of streamflow routing,
Qts
Qto 2
Qto
Qo 2
n
P
Qio Qo : Qis Qs
i1
i1
s
RP s
n
n
P i
P
2
Qo Qo :
Qis Qs 2
i1
i1
968
Fig. 5. Input: (a) precipitation; (b) temperature. Simulated and observed runoff: (c) before calibration; (d) after calibration.
ment the knowledge they gained to perform a reallife hydrologic modeling application. The students
were provided with an Excel spreadsheet with the
necessary input data along with initial values for
the model parameters. For the given input data
(see Fig. 5(a) and 5(b) ) and some initial values for
soil moisture, snow depth, the students were asked
to perform the required calculations of the various
hydrologic processes described above in order to
estimate the discharge. Figure 5(c) display the
output discharge (m3/s) based on the input data
(Fig. 5(a) and 5(b) ) before model calibration. After
a short overview on the concept of model calibration, the students were asked to practice model
calibration by changing the model parameters
within reasonable bounds to maximize the NashSutcliffe coefficient as an objective function. By
taking the shape coefficient (), reservoir parameters (K0, K1, K2, Kp and L), field capacity
(FC), soil permanent wilting point (PWP),
degree-day factor (DD) and model parameter C
as the calibration parameters, the students used the
Excel Solver tool to maximize the objective function (Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient) based on necessary
constraints on the model parameters. Figure 5 (c
and d) shows an example of the model output
discharge before and after the model calibration.
Using this example, the students realized the
importance of model calibration.
Besides model calibration, the students were also
introduced to the concept of sensitivity analysis by
changing one model parameter at a time and
969
970
5. DISCUSSION
Various areas of possible enhancement to the
approach followed in the current study can be
highlighted. The learning tool presented was an
example of utilizing simulation models in an engineering hydrology curriculum with little overhead to the instructor. Other hydrologic learning
modules that are based on physical and spatiallydistributed representations are currently being
developed by the authors for further evaluations.
These models are expected to significantly add to
student learning and provide deeper understanding
of complex and inter-connected hydrologic
processes. However, such models are more computationally demanding and may interfere with the
teaching process especially in undergraduate classrooms. Innovative teaching methodologies that are
based on interactive visualization and virtual-reality techniques are currently under investigation to
facilitate the use of more complex models in
hydrology education. Another challenge in using
numerical models in hydrologic engineering
courses is how to avoid the misperception that
hydrologic models can provide an exact representation of what happens in nature. Students need to
develop an appreciation of how limitations in data
available for model building and validation can
contribute to uncertainties in model predictions
and subsequent engineering analysis and decisions.
These concepts can be presented using simplified
uncertainty analysis techniques that are based on
Monte-Carlo simulations and re-sampling
methods [30]. An example of such methods is the
Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation
(GLUE, [5] ). The authors are currently implementing this method within a hydrologic teaching
context using the MATLAB computing languages.
Plans are underway to integrate the different
enhancements discussed above in future engineering hydrology courses and assess their impact on
student appreciation of capabilities and limitations
971
972
REFERENCES
1. NRC, Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1991.
2. J. Nash, E, Eagleson, P.S., Phillip, J.R. and W.H. van der Molen, The education of hydrologists
(Report of the IAHS-UNESCO Panel), Hydrolog. Sci. J., 35(6), 1990, 97607.
3. NRC, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 2000.
4. CUAHS, Hydrology of a Dynamic Earth: A Decadal Research Plan for Hydrologic Science,
CUAHSI Science Plan draft version 7.0, 2007.
5. K. Beven, Rainfall-Runoff Modelling: The Primer, John Wiley and Sons (2001).
6. J. Williams, Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Editor: V. Singh, Water Resources
Publications, Colorado, USA, 1995.
7. T. de Jong and W. Van Joolingen, Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of
conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research 68(2), 1998, 179202.
8. J. Linsey, A. Talley, C. White, D. Jensen and K. Wood, From tootsie rolls to broken bones: An
innovative approach for active learning in mechanics of materials, Advances in Engineering
Education, 2009, 123.
9. E. Alpay, A. Ahearn, R. Graham and A. Bull, Student enthusiasm for engineering: charting
changes in student aspirations and motivation. Euro. J. Eng. Educ. 33(5), 2008, 573585.
10. J. Grandin, Preparing engineers for the global workplace. Online J. Global Eng. 1(1), 2008.
11. H. Chanson and P. James, Teaching Case Studies in Reservoir Siltation and Catchment Erosion,
Int. J. Eng. Educ., 14(4), 1998, 265275.
12. D. Hansen, W. Cavers and G. George, Physical Linear Cascade to Teach Systems Modelling, Int.
J. Eng. Educ, 19(5), 2003, 682695.
13. A. Elshorbagy, Learner-centered approach to teaching watershed hydrology using system
dynamics. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 21(6), 2005, 12031213.
14. T. A. Endreny, Simulation of Soil Water Infiltration with Integration, Differentiation, Numerical
Methods & Programming Exercises, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 23(3), 2007, 608617.
15. D. Hayes and R. Young, Comparison of peak discharge and runoff characteristic estimates from the
rational method to field observations for small basins in central Virginia. USGS Scientific
Investigations Report 2005-5254, US Geological Survey 2005.
16. T. Mulvaney, On the use of self-registering rain and flood gauges in making observations of the
relations of rainfall and of flood discharges in a given catchment. Proceeding of the Institute of Civil
Engineers of Ireland 4, 1851.
17. V. P. Singh and D. A. Woolhiser, Mathematical Modeling of Watershed Hydrology, J. Hydrol.
Eng. ASCE 7(4), 2002, 269343.
18. SCS, National engineering handbook, section 40 (hydrology). Soil Conservation Service, US
Department of Agriculture, 1972.
19. S. Bergstrom, Development and application of a conceptual runoff model for Scandinavian
catchments, SMHI RHO 7, Norrkoping, Sweden, 1976.
20. S. Bergstrom, The HBV model, computer models of watershed hydrology (Ed. V. P. Singh). Water
Resources Publications, 1995.
21. G. Lindstrom, A simple automatic calibration routine for the HBV model. Nordic Hydrology 28(3),
1997, 153168.
22. Y. H. Hundecha and A. Bardossy, Modeling of the effect of land use changes on the runoff
generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model. J. Hydrology
292, 2004, 281295.
23. U. Ehret, Rainfall and Flood Nowcasting in Small Catchments using Weather Radar, Doctoral
Thesis, Institute of Hydraulic Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Germany, 2002.
24. T. Das, A. Bardossy and E. Zehe, Influence of spatial variability of precipitation on distributed
rainfall-runoff modeling. IAHS Publication 303: Promise and Progress (Eds) M. Sivapalan, T.
Wagener, S. Uhlenbrook, E. Zehe, V. Lakshmi, X. Liang, Y. Tachikawa and P. Kumar), 2006.
25. E. Kuusisto, On the values and variability of degree-day melting factor in Finland. Nordic
Hydrology 11, 1980, 235242.
26. P. Singh and N. Kumar, Determination of snowmelt factor in the Himalayan region. Hydrolog.
Sci. J. 41, 1996, 301310.
27. Y. H. Hundecha, Regionalization of parameters of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model, Doctoral
Dissertation, Institute of Hydraulic Engineering, Universitat Stuttgart, Sprint-Digital-Druck
GmbH, 2005.
28. J. E. Nash and J. V. Sutcliffe, River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part I. A
discussion of principles. J. Hydrology 10, 1970, 282290.
29. E. Seymour, D. Wiese, A. Hunter and S.M. Daffinrud, Creating a Better Mousetrap: On-line
Student Assessment of their Learning Gains, National Meeting of the American Chemical Society,
San Francisco, CA, 2000.
30. J. Freer, B. Ambroisc and K. J. Beven, Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and
the value of data: an application of the GLUE approach. Water Resources Research 32(7), 1996,
21612173.
973