Niger River Basin - Hydrological Modelling: Enhancing Framework Accuracy

Salif Koné 1, 2

1. Department of Geology, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs -Abderhamane Baba Touré (ENI-ABT)

410, Av. Van Vollenhoven, BP: 242 – Phone: (+223) 20 22 27 36 / Bamako-Mali. 24 th
Colloquium of
2. PhD candidate at Institut Supérieur de Formation et de Recherche Appliquée (ISFRA)
Sis N'Golonina Road 268, Gate: 238, BP: E475 – Phone/Fax: (+223) 20 21 04 66 /Bamako. African Geology –
(Email: skonemaat@yahoo.fr) Addis Ababa 2013
Abstract: Modelling has become a central component in model (either varying the influence of the controlling-
river basin management and surface water assessment parameter on input information or dealing with a global
tools; on such river as Niger where more effort is needed or semi-distributed structure), we showed the high
to improve understanding of hydrological processes by performance and the validity of the proposed framework.
riverside country researchers and decision-makers, Our results demonstrate that, in conceptual modelling,
handling and enhancing models are good ways to merge extending the influence of the input-controlling-
towards an efficient Framework. We used a framework parameter to all the model inputs allows more flexibility
with 2 parameters and 3 input variables to simulate the to the model to better simulate the output information
output of 16 watersheds on Niger River and its tributaries and to have good accuracy in the simulated data . At
over 50 years. The first parameter of the model controls all each time step, this parameter is directly applied to the
the 3 input variables and the second controls the output variables rain and evaporate-transpiration and its inverse
information. We modified an existing Water Balance is applied to the variable Water Holding Capacity. The
Model (WBM)-Genie Rural at 2 parameters and Monthly other parameter controls the model output. The
time step (GR2M), which previously had its first parameter modification from a 2-input-controlled-variables to a 3-
that controlled only 2 of its 3 input information. Based on input-controlled-variables, in the framework, produced
an inter-comparison approach of different versions of a an improvement in simulation results both in global

(lumped hydrological modelling) and in semi-global (semi-distributed) modelling. This proposed framework on Simulation of Hydrological systems is called SimulHyd. It would be interesting
to repeat this study in other regions and to apply the same modification on other Water Balance Models that showed some efficiency on Niger River.
Key-words: Niger river basin; hydrological Modelling; SimulHyd; Inter-comparison; Accuracy

Framework
Inter-comparison Method Components
ETP P Nash Criteria of Efficiency F irs t p ro p o s e d C rite ria b y G a rric k a n d a l. (1 9 7 7 ) : " C rite ria N a s h -G a rric k "
1 K
If q k represents the observed runoff and S upposed : q  d .  q d , k , q d c o rre s p o n d s to th e in te r-a n n u a l ru n o ff a v e ra g e
K k 1
qk the simulated runoff: a t th e d a te d ( d = J a n u a ry fo r e x a m p le )
ETP’ = X1.ETP simulated
P’ = X1.P
 
2 In a m o n th ly tim e s te p m o d e llin g :
k k
The sum of the residual square is: F 2   q  q simulated q d , k w o u ld b e th e o b s e rv e d ru n o ff a t th e d a te d a n d a t th e k th y e a r o f m o d e llin g ;
1 k
K w o u ld b e th e to ta l n u m b e r o f y e a rs o f m o d e llin g p e rio d .
which can be compared with a reference model q d w o u ld b e th e a v e ra g e o f th e o b s e rv e d ru n o ff a t th e d a te d (e x a m p le : a ll J a n u a ry )

 
2 2
k k  d ,k 
F 2   q q T h e s u m o f th e re s id u a l s q u a re is : F 2  q q d , k

0 k 1d k  s im u la te d 
w h ic h c a n b e c o m p a re d w ith a re fe re n c e m o d e l
Pn where q k is the average of the observed runoff. 2
En 2  d ,k d 
F  q q 
F 2  F 2  F 2  d k  
Nash efficiency is defined as : R 2  1  1   0 1 
 2 2 
F2 F2 F2  F d  F1 d 
A= (1/X1)*WHC 0 0 N a s h -G a rric k e ffic ie n c y is d e fin e d a s : R 2  1  1 d   
d F2 F2
k is an index-number on the time step.. d d

{ “ Soil Reservoir ”
Pe

K2
Double Samples Technique (DST)
 q  q
k k

2


K

 q  q
k k

2 
 If :
"Double Calibration Protocol"
X 1
semi  global semi  global
-X 1  X 1
global global
-X1 0 ,

{ F  1
k  K1 1
simulated
k  K 2 1
simulated


PC1 PC2 PC1 PC2
 then (the score of global =1, against 0 for semi-global),
 
K 2
H  q  M
k

“ Gravity Reservoir ” k  K1 1  or else (the score of semi-global =1, against 0 for global).
A =WHC
 Idem for parameter X2

k : is the index-number on the modelling time step.
q k : is the observed runoff corresponding to the k th time step.  The Nash criteria results used here are those obtained (in validation) when
S k 
qsimulated : is the simulated runoff corresponding to the k th time step.  processing " the cross validation " between the two periods : PC1 and PC2
H n+1 – Hn K1 : number of time step of the " Runing period"* 
  semi  global semi  global global global
K 2 : the end of the first period, on which the model was calibrated.  If: Nash -Nash  Nash -Nash 0 ,
Lg = X2.S K: the total number of the modelling time step.  ( X1, X 2) PC2 ( X1, X 2) PC1 ( X1, X 2) PC2 ( X1, X 2) PC1
ETR  PC1 PC2 PC1 PC2
M : the average of q k on the totality of the two periods.  then (the score of global =1, against 0 for semi-global),

 
k K
1
M  
K  ( K1  1) k  K1 1
q k  qsimulated
k  or else (the score of semi-global =1, against 0 for global).

Q  We sum up the scores. The model version that will have the highest score
*The concept of "Runing period" of models, permits to mitigate the  will be the one with the lowest "variance" ; its parameters are the less sensitive to the samples.

influence of initials conditions; simulation results are not take into account on it.
GR2M with [A= WHC (Water Holding Capacity) ]: 0.0001 < X1 < 1 ; 0.0001 < X2 < 1 16 Basins
Modified Model, “GR2M .1/X1*WHC” or “SimulHyd”, modification about : A= (1/X1)*WHC. Inter-comparison Results (Totalizing approach)
GR2M
residual GR2M
Efficiency Actions Models Semi-
Results of Inter-comparison between SimulHyd and GR2M 68 global
GR2M global
16 Basins 14% Semi-global Evaluation Nash-Garrick
167 82 110
(calibration)
35% Evaluation Nash-Garrick
54 90
Bias

Efficiency Actions Models SimulHyd GR2M (validation)

GR2M
global Calibration Nash 2 14
Evaluation Nash-Garrick (calibration) 160 30 245 Validation Nash 4 8
Evaluation Nash-Garrick (validation) 128 16 51% Robustness (DST method) 5 7
Bias

Calibration Nash 15 1
Variance

X1 7 5
Validation Nash 12 0 Sensitivity to
X2 7 5
Robustness (DST method) 12 0 Samples
Nash (val) 6 6
Variance

X1 Score 167 245

Sensitivity to
X2
Samples Bibliographical Reference
Nash (val)
Score 327 47 Intercomparison Results ("Approach by Basins") ARDOIN B. S., 2004. « Variabilité hydroclimatique et
30 impacts sur les ressources en eau de grands Basins
29
Intercomparison Scores SimulHyd vs GR2M 28 hydrographique en zone Soudano-Sahélienne ». PhD.
27
26
Sector 2 Sector 3 University Montpellier II.
residual 25 Sector 1 Sector 4 GARRICK M., CUNNANE C., Nash J.E., 1977. A criterion
24

106 23
of efficiency for rainfall-runoff models. Journal of
22 Kerouane
22% 21
Hydrology, 36 (1978) 375-381.
20 Sector 5
GR2M Semi-Global

19 KONE S., 2007. “Comparaison entre une modélisation semi-

GR2M 18 Ouaran
17 Banankoro globale et une modélisation globale. MSc..University
47 SimulHyd
16
15 Mandiana Kouroussa Montpellier II.
10% 327 14
Siguiri (Tiguibery)Sector 6
13 PERRIN C., 2000. Vers une amélioration d’un modèle global
68% 12
11 Kankan pluie-débit au travers d’une approche comparative. PhD.
10
9 Baranama Tinkisso Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble.
8 Sector 7 SERVAT E., DEZETTER A., 1990. Sélection de critères
7 Gouala Kissidougou
6 Baro numériques de calage dans le cadre d’une modélisation pluie-
5 Dialakoro
4 Faranah Iradougou débit en zone de savane soudanaise. Hydrol. Continent, vol.
3
2 Sector 8 Koulikoro 5, n°2, 1990: 147 165.
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
http://www.cemagref.fr/webgr/index.htm
GR2M Global Point-Basin http://www.hydrosciences.org
SESSION 4.4: GROUNDWATER RESSOURCES CAG24-AA2013, January 8th – 14th, 2013