Hydrological Sciences Bulletin

ISSN: 0303-6936 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj19

Automatic calibration of the tank model /

L'étalonnage automatique d'un modèle à cisterne

M. SUGAWARA

To cite this article: M. SUGAWARA (1979) Automatic calibration of the tank model / L'étalonnage
automatique d'un modèle à cisterne, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24:3, 375-388, DOI:
10.1080/02626667909491876

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491876

Published online: 25 Dec 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 705

View related articles

Citing articles: 38 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thsj19

Download by: [130.105.193.217] Date: 17 June 2017, At: 07:41

 Hydrohgical Sciences-Bulletin-des Sciences Hydrologiques, 24, 3, 9/1979

Automatic calibration of
the tank model

M . S U G A W A R A 6-13-30 Minami-Karasuyama,
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 157, Japan

Abstract. The automatic calibration is done not by a hill-top climbing method but by a trial and error
method carried out automatically by a computer program. The feedback procedure is made by compar-
ing some criteria obtained from the observed hydrograph and the calculated hydrograph output from the
working tank model. The two criteria are discharge volume and the shape of the hydrograph. The
feedbacks of these two criteria correspond to dispacement feedback and velocity feedback in automatic
control. The output of the working tank model is composed of components, the outputs from each of the
tanks. Correspondingly, the whole period is divided into subperiods, in each of which each of the
components plays the main part. The volume and shape are calculated in each subperiod and are used for
the adjustment of the respective tanks. The feedback procedure starts from some initial model and
converges very quickly after several (usually less than 15) iterations, and the result obtained is very good.

L'étalonnage automatique d'un modèle à cisterne

Résumé. L'étalonnage automatique est effectué non pas en utilisant une méthode 'gravir pente' mais en se
servant d'une méthode de fausse position exécutée automatiquement par un programme à l'ordinateur.
Le processus de réaction se fait en comparant des critères obtenus de l'hydrogramme observé et
l'information de l'hydrogramme calculé du modèle à cisterne fonctionnant. Ces deux critères sont le
volume du débit et la forme de l'hydrogramme. Les réactions de ces deux critères correspondent à la
réaction de déplacement et la réaction de vélocité au réglage automatique. Le résultat du modèle à
cisterne fonctionnant se compose de composants, les résultats de chacun des cisternes. Egalement toute la
durée est divisée en sous-périodes, pendant lesquelles chacun de ses composants joue le rôle principal. On
calcule les critères de volume et de forme en chaque sous-période et les utilise pour l'adjustement des
cisternes respectives. Le processus de réaction commence de quelque modèle initial et converge très vite
après plusieurs (en général moins de 15) itérations, et le résultat obtenu est très bon.

NECESSITY FOR AN A U T O M A T I C CALIBRATION P R O G R A M

In spite of its simplicity the tank model (Fig. 1) can give good results for rivers in
many regions, and because of its simple structure there are no difficulties with using
computer techniques. The program is easily understood by computer users. The
only difficult problem is the calibration of the model, partly because of its nonlinear
structure and partly because its structure is very difficult for input/output analysis.
The only way is by trial and error. This is not so difficult for those who are
experienced with the model, but it is difficult to teach this method of calibration to
those inexperienced in using the tank model. Therefore to have an automatic
calibration program is the most important point of using a computer for this model.

0303-6936/79/0900-0375$02.00 © 1979 Blackwell Scientific Publications 375

376 M. Sugawara

nr
nr
L
nr

F I G . 1. The tank model.

OUTLINE OF THE METHOD

Fundamental principle
The fundamental principle is rather simple. The tank model is composed of two
types of tank (Fig. 2a and b) which can be approximated by a linear model (Fig. 2c)
by moving the side outlets or outlet to the bottom. This linear tank model is a first

nr (b)
(a)

(c)
FIG. 2. (a) and (b), the two types of tank; (c) is the linear model of (a) and (b).

order lag system which can be written f}/[A + (a + /?)], where A is the differential
operator, l/(a + /i) is the time constant, and the ratio of discharge to input is
PI (a + /?). The fundamental principle of parameter modification is as follows.
( 1 ) To change the shape of the hydro graph we must modify a + f>, e. g. to make the
hydrograph steeper we must increase a +/? and vice versa.
(2) To change the total volume of the hydrograph we must modify /?/(a + /?), e.g.
to make the total volume of discharge larger without changing the shape of the
hydrograph we must increase ft and decrease a keeping a + /? unchanged, and vice
versa.
 Automatic calibration of the tank model 377

Division into subperiods

We may modify the parameters of each tank in the following way.
( 1 ) Judging from the shape and volume of the computed hydrograph in periods of
high discharge resulting from high precipitation, we adjust the parameters of the top
tank.
(2) Judging from the hydrograph of the transient or intermediate period that
follows the peak discharge, we can adjust the parameters of the second tank.
(3) Judging from the baseflow portion of the hydrograph we adjust the para-
meters of the third and fourth tanks.
The problem is how to divide the whole period of the hydrograph into subperiods
that correspond to each of the four tanks.

Use of the initial model

When we consider the idea of using the initial model shown in Fig. 3, the future of an
automatic calibration method looks hopeful. Precipitation and évapotranspiration
are input into this initial tank model, and judging from the components of the

0.2

n£
L 0.05

niô-°5
r= 0.01

ni0.01
0.001
FIG. 3. The initial model.

calculated discharge hydrograph, we determine the subperiods 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 which

correspond to the upper outlet of the top tank, the lower outlet of the top tank, the
second tank, the third tank and the fourth tank, respectively. The rule of division is
given as follows.
Subperiod 1: The day on which the output through the upper outlet of the top
tank plays the main part belongs to subperiod 1, i.e. when the ratio of the output
from the upper outlet of the top tank to the total output of the tank model is larger
than C, some constant, this day belongs to the subperiod 1, i.e.
y i ^ Civ i + }'i + >'3 + >'4+>'s) = Cy
where >',- is the output from the rth outlet as shown in Fig. 4.
Subperiod 2: When vi < Cy and y\ +y2 > Cy.
Subperiod3: Wheny\ +}>2< Cy and>'[ +>'2 + >'3> Cy.
378 M. Sugawara

y2

nrL
y3

nr r
hr L
y5
FIG. 4. Outputs from the four tanks

Subperiod4: When j i +>'2 + >'3< Cy and y, +V2+F3+ )'4> Cy.

Subperiod 5: Otherwise.
Values of 0, 50, 25, 10 and 5 per cent were tried for C, among which 10 per cent
seems to be good.

Criteria RQfl) and RD(I)

In each subperiod 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the discharge volume and the decreasing ratio of
the logarithms of calculated and observed discharges are compared using the
following criteria:
RQ(I) = ïQ(N)feQ(N) (/=!,...,5)

I'flog Q(N-l)-log Q(N)]

N
RD(I) = ( / = ! , . . . , 5)
T^ëQÏN^h^iQÏN)]
where Q is the observed discharge, Q is the calculated discharge, / is the index
number of the subperiod, N is the day number, £ means the sum over the N days
belonging to the subperiod /and zJ means the sum over the Ndays belonging to the
subperiod /for which Q(N— l) — Q(N) is positive.
and L, are determined only from the
N N

calculated discharge and not from the observed discharge. For example, in the
definition of the criterion RD(I), the summation is carried out over the falling part of
the calculated hydrograph. The observed hydrograph is disregarded to avoid the
random noise that will appear in it (Fig. 5).

Feedback formulae
According to the fundamental principle given above, adjustment of the parameters
shown in Fig. 6 can be carried out using the criteria RQ(I) and RD(I).
When RQ(I) > \(RQ(I) < 1), we must decrease (increase) the parameter controll-
 Automatic calibration of the tank model

FIG. 5. Observed and calculated hydrograph.

A?

nr
FIG. 6. Inlet and outlet parameters.

ing the side outlet, and increase (decrease) the parameter for the bottom outlet. This
adjustment is carried out by dividing the side outlet parameter by ^RQ(I) and
multiplying the bottom parameter by ^JRQÎJ).
When RD(I)>1 (RD(I)<\), we must decrease (increase) both parameters
equally. The adjustment is carried out by dividing both parameters by RD(I).
Feedback by RQ(I) and RD(I) corresponds to the displacement feedback and
velocity feedback in automatic control, respectively. Therefore the feedback of
RQ(l) and RD(l) may be given as follows, where A MO, AMI and AMI are the
modified parameters:
(AMI +AM2) = (A\+A2)j[sjRQ(\) RD(\)}
AM0=A0 ^/RQ(Ï)/RD(\)

Similarly the feedback of RQ(2) and RD{2) will be given as follows:

AMI =Al/l/RQ(2) RD (2)]

AM0 = A0 jRQ(2)IRD(2)
380 M. Sugawara
Combining these equations with the earlier adjustments and using the mean of two
equations for A MO we obtain the following formulae:

A0 = A0 i^RQ{l)/RD(ï) + ^RQi2)/RD(2)] \
AMI =Al/[^/RQ(2) RD(2)]
A2 = (Al +A2)l[jRQ(X) RD(\)]-AM\
Al=AM\

where the equations are written in FORTRAN, i.e. A0, A1 and A2 on the left of the
equations are the modified parameters.
Although adjustments of the parameters of the top tank will have some effects on
the lower tanks, we neglect these effects and adjust the parameters of the second
tank using the criteria RQ(3) and RD(3):

B0 = B0^/RQ(3J/RD(3)
Bl=Bl/[jRQ(3) RD(3)]
In the same way, we can adjust the parameters of the third tank by RQ(4) and
RD{4):
C0 = C0 ^rRQ(4)/RD(4)
Cl=Cl/[y/RQW RD{4)]

The tank model shown in Fig. 6 has no outlet on the bottom of the fourth tank
because at this stage, we consider only the case in which there is no underground
discharge. In this case, the feedback of RD{5) is given by
D\=D\jRD(5)
The feedback of RQ(5), however, cannot be calculated as above. We must control
the water supply from the upper tanks. If RQ(5) > 1 (RQ(5) < 1), we must decrease
(increase) the parameters of the bottom outlets of the upper tanks. The control of
the water supply to the fourth tank is carried out by first adjusting CO of the third
tank, then the change in the third tank caused by the adjustment of CO is compen-
sated by the adjustment of BO, etc. Under such consideration, we obtain the
following formulae:
C0 = C0/RQ(5)
B0 = B0I^/RQ{5)
A0 = A0/ l/RQ(5)

In some cases, some of the RQ(I)s and RD(I)s may show values exceedingly
different from 1. To prevent the feedback of such extreme values, we limit them to
the range Q-, 2), i.e. values of RQ(I) and RD(I) larger than 2 are replaced by 2, and
values smaller than \ are replaced by \.
We expect that by using the iterative feedback described above the tank model
will converge to a good fit. Modifications may be necessary, however, for the
convergence of the feedback system.

Effect of RD(I) must be halved

One of the reasons why the above feedback system does not work well must come
 Automatic calibration of the tank model 381
from the unreliability of RD(I) which is affected by large noise. Therefore, we halve
the effect of RD(I) by replacing it by ^/RDU) .

RD(r) = sj/RD{f)
At first, RD(I) was replaced by ^jfRD{I) but the modification has now been revised
to the above formula.

The effect of random deviation of the time lag of peak discharge

The unreliability of RD(I) is due partially to the random deviation of the time
co-ordinate of the peak of the calculated hydrograph. The daily observation time
artificially divides the day, e.g. a rainstorm might by chance be considered to be in
one day or in the following day depending on the observation time. Therefore, as
shown in Fig. 7, we cannot expect the observed and computed peaks to be always on
the same day. Inevitably, in the case shown in Fig. 7a RD(3), RD{4) or RD(5) will

(a) (b)
FIG. 7. Lag times between observed and calculated bydrographs.

have large errors, and in the case shown in Fig. 7b RD(l) or RD(2) will have large
errors. To avoid this type of error we modify the definition of the subperiods by
neglecting the day and the next day when the day belongs to subperiod 3,4 or 5 and
the next day belongs to subperiod 1 or 2.

RQ(I) and RD(I) which are near to 1 should not be used for feedback
The main reason why the above feedback system cannot work well must come from
the simultaneous feedback of all RQ(I) and RD(I). Then, the interference between
the criteria and the feedback of RQ(I) and RD(I) which are near to 1 will lead the
feedback in the wrong direction. The criteria near to 1 contain less information but
much noise, therefore such criteria should be neglected in the feedback system. For
this purpose, we set two thresholds, CRQ and CRD, and we feedback only those
criteria RQ(I) and RD(I) which satisfy the following conditions,
\RQ(I)~l\^CRQ
\RD(I)-l\>CRD
Setting CRQ = i and CRD =4, the automatic calibration trial converged for the
River Waga, the test basin for this method. Then, it converged under the condition
CRQ = 10 per cent, CRD = 20 per cent, and also under CRQ = 7 per cent, CRD = 15
per cent but not under the condition CRQ = 5 per cent, CRD= 10 per cent. Here,
converge means that all RQ(I) and RD(I) are restricted within the given threshold
CRQ and CRD. Though it did not converge under the condition CRQ = 5 per cent,
CRD = 10 per cent, the tank model obtained, under the condition CRQ = 7 per cent,
382 M. Sugawara
CRD = 15 per cent, gives an excellent hydrograph, so we believe that this type of
automatic calibration is successful.

Some improvement for quick convergence

We can make the convergence quicker by improving the feedback of RQ{3) and
RQ(4). Consider the case where RQ(3) < 1 and RQ(4) < 1. In the previous feedback
system, when RQ(3)<\, BO is adjusted smaller and B\ larger. As BO becomes
smaller the water supply to the third tank from the second tank becomes smaller.
This adjustment is not good for the third tank, because RQ{4) < 1 shows a shortage
of discharge from the third tank. Therefore, in the earlier system, the feedback led to
a shortage of water in the fourth tank, and then to further modifications of A0, BO
and CO. To make the feedback more efficient we modify A0 directly. The change in
the feedback system is as follows. When RQ(3)~ 1 and RQ(4) — 1 have the same
sign, the feedback of RQ{3) is applied to A0, instead of to BO and 5 1 . The feedback
formulae are then given by:
A0=A0/RQ(J) B0 = B0/RD(3) Bl=B\iRD(3)
When RQ(4) — 1 and RQ(5) - 1 have the same sign, the feedback of RQ(4) is carried
out as follows:
A0 = A0/^/RQ(4) B0 = B0/RQ(4)
CO = C0/RD(4) C\ = CI jRD(4)
Convergence becomes very fast by this improvement. After 10 times of iterated
feedback, it converges and the result obtained in the case of the River Waga is good.
Then it becomes rather troublesome to change the thresholds CRQ and CRD
successively, so we modify the feedback system so that only two criteria far from 1
are used for the feedback. That is, we compare \RQ(I)—l\ and \RD(I)—\\, and
select only two large values which are used for the feedback, where RD(I) is the
revised one, i.e. RD(I) = jR~D{f)'.

Modified mean square error

The feedback procedure using thresholds CRQ and CRD stops when all RQ{I) and
RD(I) are restricted within the given threshold. However, in the modified system
without thresholds the iterated feedback procedure is stopped after a given number
of iterations, say 20.
Then, for the comparison of results an evaluation criterion is necessary. There is,
however, one common difficulty about the mean square error. In the case shown in
Fig. 7 in spite of the similarity of both hydrographs, the mean square error would
have a large value.
To avoid this difficulty, we will present the following idea. It is very easy and
practical but not theoretical. We compare the calculated discharge Q(N) with
Q(N- 1), Q(N) and Q(N+ 1) and the nearest of these to Q(N) we term Q*(N). Then
the modified mean square error is given by

Ité(jv)-e*(jv)]2/£i
A' ff

This formula can give good error evaluation to the calculated hydrograph in most
cases but it is bad in the particular case shown in Fig. 8 which occurs very seldom.
 Automatic calibration of the tank model 383

FIG. 8. Particular case where the modified mean square error method fails.

Divergence
The iteration of feedback goes on as follows. Within the first five to ten trials, all the
criteria RQ(I) and RD(I) approach the goal quickly. Then the convergence becomes
slow, and after they have reached some value they cannot improve. Then in some
cases divergence or oscillation begins. When divergence begins, the balance between
parameters is broken and the feedback leads to a worse state and cannot return to a
good condition.
We can understand the above phenomena as follows. As the data contain random
noise, RQ(I) and RD(f) will also contain noise. When they are different from 1,
RQ(I) and RD(I) contain a lot of information. But when they approach close to 1,
the proportion of noise becomes larger and feedback by RQ(I) and RD(I) cannot
give a good adjustment. Once the balance between parameters is broken, feedback
accelerates the disintegration.

Flowchart
The details of the feedback system are shown in Fig. 9.

Improved feedback system

In the automatic calibration system described above there are weak points in the
feedback procedure for the top tank. There are four criteria RQ(\), RQ(2), RD(\)
and RD(2) for the top tank which has only three outlets. This weak point is avoided
by an easy but not so reasonable way, by taking the mean of the two formula
obtained for the adjustment of AO. Then in the feedback formulae obtained, A2 is
given as the difference of two terms, and so it is weak against noise and accordingly
it is not reliable. Sometimes, A2 has a negative value, which can be avoided by
adopting some rule, e.g. if A2 is negative put A2 = 0.01. However, this is not so
reasonable.
Moreover, sometimes RD(l) is not reliable because of the large random fluctua-
tion of peak discharge. In this case, RD(\) and RD(2) are unified to make one
criterion RD(2), and RD(\) is deleted.
RD(2) = [ND(l) RD(\) + ND(2) RD(2)]/[ND(l) + ND(2)]
Considering that RD(2) the criterion on the decreasing ratio of discharge must
operate onAl +A2 + A3, and RQ( 1 ) and RQ(2) the criterion on discharge volume in
subperiods 1 and 2 must operate on A2/A0 and Al/AO respectively, the feedback
formulae are given as follows, where A MO, AMI and AMI are the adjusted
parameters:
AMO+AMl +AM2 = (A0 + Al+A2)/RD(2)
AM2IAM0 =(A2IA0)IRQ(l)
AMIIAMO = {AIIAO)/RQ(2)
384 M. Sugawara

Initial tank model.

Determination of correction factors for rainfall

and parameters of snow model.

Determination of time lag.

: : : : : : j : : : : : : :
Adjustment for titne lag on observed discharge:
lj(N) = 1 1 - a M N ) * aç(N*1)

Working tank model.

Det ermination of subperiods:

YC = C - (Y1+Y2+Y3 + Y W Y 5 ) C = G. 1
D Dav N belongs to subperiod 1, when Y1 -S* YC.
2) Day N belongs to subperiod 2, when Y1 < YC and Y1+Y2 > Y C .
3) Day h belongs to subperiod J, when Y1+Y2 < YC and Y1+Y2+Y3 -=$" YC.
<0 Day N belongs to subperiod k, when Y1+Y2+Y3<" YC and Y1+Y2 + Y3+Yk :§- YC.
5} Otherwise, day M belongs to subperiod 5.
b) When a day N belongs to subperiod 1 or 2 and the day (N~1) belongs to
subperiod 3i ^ o r 5, day M and (h-1 ) are omitted from subperiod.

Calculation of criteria which are used for adjusting the working tank model.
HQ(I) = i QEtN) / i cCJ) (I = 1.2,J,<*,5)
i'flog iE(h-l) - log jS(N)>
HD(I)
- pTTzrm^r-^rmri n =-^.3»
where 1 means the sum for days belonging to subperiod I, and 1' means the
sum for days N where both days h, ft-1 belong to subperiod I and
log ^E(n-1) - log QE(U) is positive.

RJ(I) - 1 + UP(l)-l)/2

RQ(I)'a and SD 1) s are neglected wt en t iey £ re def in ed by sr all sample.

RO(I) . 1 when IMI) 1.3 NY
HD(I> = 1 when ND( I) Wà
<. *
NY Ul k
% * _
Preparation for branching :
kk = (K(J(J)-1) • ( B Q C O - 1 )
A3 = (R»C»)-1) • (80(5)-1)

i
Calculation of criteria for evaluation :
M Sag (mean square error of discharge) /(mean discharge)
(mean square error of log ^ ) *
CUE (MSE^ + MSEL^)/2
CRi^D criterion for RQ(l) and RD(l)**
< U ( R y U ) - 1 Î 2 + i(RD(l) - 1 ) 2 ) / {^ + z.l)) 1/<i
CH CR& + Ci^D/4
* the effe t of random fluctuation of time lag is under consideration.
neglecte i H€>( I ) ' 5 and ED (I ) 's are not counted in summation.

FIG. 9. Flow chart of the automatic calibration program of the tank model.

The derived feedback formulae written in FORTRAN form are as follows:

A=(A/A0)/RQ(l) B = (Al/A0)/RQ(2)
A0 = (A0+Al+A2)/[RD(2)(\+A+B)]
Al=BA0 A2 = AA0
The details of the improved system are shown in Fig 10.
 Automatic calibration of the tank model 385

P a r a m e t e r s of t h e working t a n k model a r e a d j u s t e d as follows

Within |Ri,Kl)~1j (I = 1 , - - - , 5 ) and | R ! ) ( I ) - l | (1 = 1 , ' - - , 4 ) , t h e l a r g e

a r e s e l e c t e d and o t n e r s a r e n e g l e c t e d , i . e . o t i . e r R Q ( T ) ' s and R D ( l ) ' s
p u t t o 1.

RQ(I), RD(I) = 2 when RQ(I), HD(I)> 2 ,

RO(I), R D ( I ) = 1/2 «hen RQ(I), RD(l)<:i/2.

AO = AO • (( I/RQTÎ7/HB(I)) + ( l/HQ(2)/RD(2))) (1/2)

AN1 = A1/( l/RQ(2) » BD(2))
A2 = (A1*A2)/( V R Q ( 1 ) - KD(1)) - AK1
AI = AM

AO = AO / 80(3)
BO = BO
/ BB(3)
B1 = B1
/ HD(3)

CO = CO - V R 0 ( M / RD(^) AO = AO/ VHOCt)

BO = 3 0 / R Q ( ^ )
ci = ci / ( VROJTT-RDCO)
co = co / aiico
ci = ci / sn(4)

AO = AO / VK3(5)

BO = BO / \/HQ(5)
CO = CO / B Q ( 5 )

Stop.
Something is wrong,
Print out the results.

F I G . 9. continued.

AUTOMATIC CALIBRATION SYSTEM BY MEANS OF THE

CRITERIA DEFINED BY COMPARISON OF DURATION CURVES
OF OBSERVED AND CALCULATED DISCHARGE

Necessity for a feedback system which is strong against noise

The rainfall in tropical regions is usually very localized. Accordingly, the number of
rainfall stations necessary for runoff analysis must be from 10 to 20. When there are
only a few rainfall stations in or near the basin, due to localization of the rainfall, it
sometimes happens that in spite of the large peak in the observed hydrograph there
are only low or zero rainfalls recorded at the rainfall stations, and vice versa. Even in
such cases, the calibration of the tank model by human subjective and synthetic
judgement is possible, by aiming to achieve a hydrograph similar in shape and in
386 M. Sugawara

Initial tank model.

Determination of correction factors for rainfall

and parameters for snow model.

Determination of time la

Adjustment for time lag on observed discharge:

^(N) = O-tt)q(N) + a y ( H + D

Working tank model.

Determination of subperiods:
Same as the previous metnod shown in Fig, 9.

Calculation of criteria which are used for adjusting the working tank model:
Same as the previous method shown m Fig. 9-

Unifying RD(1) and Hl)(2):

Kl>(2) = (ND(1)«HD(1) + ND(2)-HD(2)) / ( H D ( D + HD(2))
HU(1) = 1
KD(2) = ND(1) + ND(2)
nD( i ) = 0

RQ(I)'s and 'Rl){X)'s defined by small sample are neglected

as shown in Fig. 9.

I
Preparation for brancning :
AA = <H^(3)-1) - ( H u C O - 1 )
Ad = (fii.CO-1) • Utf(5)-1)
]
I
RD(I) = 1 , (3D(l)-1)/2

I
Calculation of criteria for evaluation, hii,^, HSbLi^, QRb, CK^D and GR :
Same as the previous system shown in Fig. 9.

F I G . 10. Flow chart of the improved automatic calibration program of the tank model.

total outlook. However, the automatic calibration procedure by means of RQ{I)

and RD(I) denned by the comparison of hydrographs is entirely powerless for such
data.
Let us consider aiming for a good fit between duration curves of calculated and
observed discharges. Then, RQ(I) and RD(I) must be defined by the comparison of
duration curves.

Division of the duration curve into live sections corresponding to five subperiods of the
working tank model
The most fundamental part of the automatic calibration system is the division into
subperiods by means of the working tank model. On the duration curve of calcu-
 Automatic calibration of the tank model 387

Parameters are adjusted as follows

i t h l n | K v , Q ) - 1 | and | H D ( 1 ) - 1 | , t h e l a r g e two are

e l e c t e d and o t h e r s a r e p u t t o 1.

RGvD's and R D C D ' s a r e limitted within the range (1/2, 2).

A = (A2/A0)/BQ(1)
B = (A1/A0)/Rtj(2)
AO = (A0+A1 + A 2 ) / C ' f ? D ( 2 ) , ( 1 + A + B) )
A1 = B * AG
A2 = A - AO

B = (B1/B0)/RQ(3) AO = A O / H c ( 3 )
BO = ( B 0 * B 1 ) / ( B D ( 3 ) - ( 1 t B ) ) BO = BO/HD(3)
B1 ^ B * BO B1 = B 1 / K D ( 3 )

C = (C1/CO)/HG(4) Ao = AO/ yûïiWÎ

CO = ( C G + C 1 ) / ( 3 D C * ) - ( 1 + C ) ) 30 = BO / HJ(IO
C1 = C * CO CO = CO / KDCt)
ci = ci / tin (it)

AO = AO/VWJT
BO = so/ </SMyi
GO = CO / X 0 ( 5 )

Stop.
ng i s w r o n g .

FIG. 10 continued.

lated discharge derived from the working tank model, discharges for the days
belonging to subperiod 1 are usually large and they will gather in the left part, and
conversely discharges for the days belonging to subperiod 5 are usually small and
they will gather in the right part.
After some consideration and hesitation, the duration curve is divided boldly by
the most simple way, dividing it into five subsections successively from the left,
NQ(l) days, NQ(2) days, . . . and NQ{5) days, where NQ(I) is the number of days
belonging to subperiod /.
In the previous system there is an additional condition in defining the subperiods
to avoid the effect of random deviation of the time lag of peak discharge. In this
case, however, this additional condition is not necessary, because in comparing the
duration curves the effect of time lag has no meaning.
Duration curves should be made for every year to prevent mixing of dry years and
wet years.
388 M. Sugawara

Flow chart
After the division of the duration curve into five subsections has been finished, the
definition of RQ(f) and RD(1), the feedback procedure by means of RQ{I) and
RD(I) etc. are easy. The details of the procedure are shown in Fig. 11.
This method has given good results for Japanese rivers and also for many basins
in the Upper Nile region.

Initial Lank model.

Determination of correction factors for rainfall

and parameters for snow model.

working tank model.

Determination of s u b p e n o d s :
Same as the previous method shown in Fig.
except tnat the condition 6) is omitted.

•Jv ision of observed a id cal culatec duration curve S 1 ito f ve subsectio i S .

Duration curve of each year is divided into ive sec tio s successi eiy from
large cart N;v{ 1 ) days, NQ(2) days, , and IiQ(5) d 3ys Where hy I) s the
m mber o f days belong!Iff tO the su period of each ye ar.

Calculation of criteria which are used for adjustment of the working tank model:
HO(I) = fa L ^ < N 0 ) / fa L Q(riO) (1 = 1,2, -••,5)
I ( 1 QE(NO) - I QE(NO))
HD(1) = -HI it-J. 2 r< _ -> , i.)
Nr «- ÏR "
Where QE(hO) and q(NO) are the calculated and observed discharges and NO is the
number of order, l is the summation over ]'th section, 1 / 1 is summation

the left/right half of the I *th section and I is the ation over years.
In the calculation of HD(2), subsection 1 is joined with subsection 2 to make a
new subsection 2.

t^(I)'s and R D ( D ' s defined by small sample

as ir. trie previous system shown in Fig. 9.

Preparation for branching :

AA = (R3(3)-D • (rtO(M-l)
AB = ( K Q C O - 1 ) • (RQ(5)-D

|
KD(I) = 1 + (RD(l)-D/2 (1 = 2 , ? , M

Calcul ition of criteria for evaluation:

MSEQ (ii;ean square error of discnarge)*/(mean discharge)
MSELQ (mean square error of log Q ) *
CHE (NSEW; + MSEL^)/2
M3EDC (mean square error of duration curve)/(mean discharge)
MSELDC mean square error of duration curve of log U
CRDC (M3EDC + M S E L D O / 2
criterion for KQ(I) and RD(I)**
((i(HQ(I)-l) 2 + i(HD(I)-1>2) / U 1 + i.!)) 1 /*
CUE + CRDC + CRiv;D/4
effect of random fluctuation of time lag is under consideration
ected Ky(I)'s and i-*D(l)'s defined by small sample are not counted
ation

FIG. 11. Flow chart of the automatic calibration program of the tank model by means of the criteria
defined by comparison of the duration curves.