Hydrology Modelling

Uppsala University
Department of Earth Sciences

Hydrology
TEXTBOOK
OF
HYDROLOGIC MODELS
(Lrobok i Avrinningsmodeller)
(edition 2002)
Chong-yu Xu
2002-10-20
Postal address Visiting address Telephone Fax Electronic mail

Villavgen 16 Earth Sciences Centre +46 - 18 471 22 72 (direct) +46 - 18 55 11 24 Chong-yu.Xu@hyd.uu.se
SE-752 36 UPPSALA Villavgen 16 +46 - 18 471 25 28 (secretary) http://www.hyd.uu.se/chong-yu/
Sweden Uppsala
PREFACE
_____________________________________________________________________________________
According to the official document of UNESCO (1985) - 'Teaching aids in

Hydrology': "The main purpose of using hydrological models in the teaching process is
not to duplicate the complicated hydrological process in detail by a sophisticated model,
but to demonstrate the principal elements of the process, their combination into a simple
or comprehensive model, and the importance of the model in solving typical problems
of engineering hydrology".
The course Hydrological analysis and modelling at the Department of Earth
Sciences, Uppsala University consists of two parts, the first part deals with statistical
analysis of hydrological data and the second part deals with modelling of runoff
processes. This monograph serves as the lecture book for the second part. In particular,
it is concerned with hydrologic models of precipitation-runoff process on catchment
scale (groundwater modelling and urban storm flow modelling are not included). We
will discuss their uses, formulations and methodology for model evaluation. The subject
matter is divided into eight chapters.
Chapter 1 is to give students a basic knowledge about modelling in hydrology. That
includes: (1) the reasons of using models in problem solving in hydrology; (2) some
definitions commonly used in the literature of hydrological modelling; (3) classification
of runoff models; and (4) objectives of hydrologic models.
Chapter 2 is to give an introduction to the students about the concept of the time
series analysis and stochastic models. By this chapter, students will learn how to analyse
a given time series of a hydrological variable, how stochastic models are formulated and
what are their application fields.
Chapters 3 through 5 show how the principal hydrological processes, such as,
precipitation (rainfall and snowfall), evapotranspiration, streamflow, infiltration, etc.,
are generally treated in different kinds of runoff models.
Chapter 6 is to study the methodology of model evaluation, which includes the
issues in model selection, in model calibration (parameter estimation), in model
verification, and estimation of its range of applicability. Although it is important to
recognise that all four evaluations are of equal fundamental importance, estimation of
the parameters and verification of model performance will receive more attention in this
chapter.
Some topics in optimisation are discussed in Chapter 7. Since the automatic
optimisation procedures have attracted increasing interests in the field of conceptual
catchment modelling, and they are, nowadays, widely used to minimise differences
between selected features of modelled and observed streamflows by systematic trial
alterations in the values of the model parameters. Although it is not necessary that the
user himself writes programs, since a great number of these programmes are stored in
many computer libraries. Nevertheless it is useful to have an idea of the principles of
these algorithms in order to judge the results obtained, and moreover to choose the
algorithm in such a way that it is adapted to the problem proposed.
In chapter 8, some particular catchment models are discussed in more detail to
illustrate how such models are formulated and what are their uses. The proposed models
for discussion include, but not limited to, the HBV model (a simple conceptual
0-1
deterministic model), WASMOD model (a simple stochastic-conceptual snow and
water balance model), the TOPMODEL (a relatively simple physically-based model),
and the SHE model (a physically-based, distributed-parameter model).
Moreover, this course includes a certain amount of individual computer work,
which is not specified in this text: preparation of the inputs, running of different models
and analysis of the outputs, etc. Several computer exercises will be done. By these
means, the students learn to use hydrological models and develop them into powerful
tools in the process of decision making.
The content presented in the above chapters may be refined during the lecture time
according to the interests of the students, and the orders of the appearance of the
chapters may be changed.
I accept the full responsibility for any omissions, shortcomings, or mistakes that
remain. I would benefit and be obliged if readers would transmit to me any errors,
omissions, or criticisms.
This lecture note is intended for internal use only.
Chong-yu Xu
Docent in Hydrology
2002-08-05
New edition
0-2
CONTENTS
_____________________________________________________________________
PREFACE 0-1
CHAPTER 1 MODELLING IN HYDROLOGY 1-1
1.1 Why hydrological models are needed 1-1

1.2 Historical perspective 1-1
1.3 Hydrologic system analysis and modelling 1-4
1.4 Classification of hydrologic models 1-6
1.4.1 Material models 1-7
1.4.2 Symbolic or formal models 1-7
1.4.3 The distinction between theoretical, conceptual and empirical models 1-8
1.4.4 The distinction between linearity and non-linearity in the
system-theory sense and in the statistical regression sense 1-8
1.4.5 The distinction between time-invariant and time-variant models 1-8
1.4.6 The distinction between lumped and distributed models 1-9
1.4.7 The distinction between deterministic and stochastic models 1-10
1.5 The use of hydrologic models 1-10
1.7 Methodology for using hydrologic models 1-10
References 1-11
CHAPTER 2 TIME SERIES ANALYSIS AND STOCHASTIC MODELLING 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1

2.2 Time series 2-1
2.3 Properties of time series 2-3
2.4 Analysis of hydrologic time series 2-4
2.4.1 Trend component 2-5
2.4.2 Periodic component 2-7
2.4.3 Stochastic component 2-10
2.5 Time series synthesis 2-12
2.6 Some stochastic models 2-13
2.6.1 Purely random stochastic models 2-13
2.6.2 Autoregressive models 2-13
2.6.3 First order Markov process with periodicity:
Thomas-Fiering model 2-15
2.6.4 Moving average models 2-17
2.6.5 ARMA models 2-18
2.6.6 Daily data generation models 2-22
2.6.7 Miscellaneous models 2-23
2.7 The uses of stochastic models 2-23
References 2-25
I
CHAPTER 3 PRECIPITATION IN CATCHMENT MODELS 3-1

3.2 Separation of snowfall from precipitation 3-1
3.3 Modelling of snowmelt 3-4
3.3.1 Energy balance approach 3-4
3.3.2 Simplifications 3-5
3.3.3 Temperature index approach (degree-day method) 3-6
3.4 Snowmelt in hydrologic models 3-7
References 3-9
CHAPTER 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS 4-1
4.1 General 4-1

4.2 Estimation of free water evaporation and potential evapotranspiration 4-1
4.2.1 Climatological methods 4-2
4.2.1.1 Air temperature-based methods 4-2
4.2.1.2 Solar radiation-based methods 4-5
4.2.1.3 The Penman combination method 4-8
4.2.1.4 Penman-Monteith method 4-10
4.2.2 Micrometeorological models 4-14
4.2.2.1 The mass-transfer-based methods 4-14
4.2.2.2 Aerodynamic method 4-16
4.2.2.3 Bowen ration-energy balance method 4-16
4.2.3 The pan method 4-17
4.2.4 Relationship between free water evaporation and potential
evapotranspiration 4-17
4.3 Estimation of actual evapotranspiration in hydrologic models 4-18
References 4-21
CHAPTER 5 RUNOFF IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS 5-1

5.2 Sources and components of runoff 5-1
5.3 Approximate infiltration models 5-4
5.4 Simulating runoff with lumped models 5-9
5.4.1 Event-based models 5-9
5.4.1.1 Determination of effective rainfall hyetograph (ERH) 5-9
5.4.1.2 Computation of direct runoff hydrograph (DRH) 5-10
5.4.1.3 The instantaneous unit hydrograph 5-10
5.4.1.4. The Nash linear conceptual model 5-11
5.4.2 Flow routing 5-17
5.4.3 Continuous streamflow simulation models 5-17
5.4.3.1 Comparison with event-based models 5-17
5.4.3.2 Simulation of subsurface runoff 5-19
5.4.3.3 Building a continuous streamflow simulation model 5-20
5.5 Distributed modelling of runoff processes 5-20
5.6 A review of models used in water resources assessment 5-23
5.6.1 Long-term water balance models 5-23
5.6.2 Monthly water balance models 5-24
II
5.6.3 Conceptual lumped-parameter models 5-24
5.6.4 Macroscale hydrologic models 5-25
5.7 When can lumped models be used, and when must
distributed models be used 5-26
5.8 A call for new generation distributed models 5-27
5.8.1 The present situation of hydrological modeling 5-27
5.8.2 State-of-the-art of the new generation models 5-28
5.8.3 Approaches in developing the new generation distributed models 5-30
5.8.4 Approaches of coupling hydrologic models with atmospheric
models (GCMs) 5-30
References 5-33
CHAPTER 6 THE METHODOLOGY OF MODEL EVALUATION 6-1
6.1 Phases of model evaluation 6-1

6.2 Model selection 6-2
6.2.1 Problems to be considered 6-2
6.2.2 Criteria of selection 6-2
6.3 Issues in model calibration-parameter estimation 6-3
6.3.1 Introduction to model calibration 6-3
6.3.1.1 Model parameters 6-3
6.3.1.2 Methods of parameter determination 6-3
6.3.2 Manual calibration 6-4
6.3.3 Automatic calibration 6-4
6.3.3.1 Introduction 6-4
6.3.3.2a Objective functions 6-6
6.3.3.2b Multiple objectives 6-11
6.3.3.3 Optimisations algorithms (to be discussed in chapter 7) 6-13
6.3.3.4 Termination criteria 6-13
6.3.3.4a Function convergence 6-13
6.3.3.4b Parameter convergence 6-13
6.3.3.4c Maximum iterations 6-13
6.3.3.4d Limitations 6-14
6.3.3.5 Calibration data 6-14
6.3.3.5a Quantity of data 6-14
6.3.3.5b Quality of data 6-14
6.4 Model verification (test) 6-15
6.4.1 Introduction 6-15
6.4.2 Methods of model validation 6-16
6.4.3 Items to be tested in model validation 6-17
6.4.4 Comparing modelled and observed runoff time series 6-23
6.5 Regional parameterization of hydrological models 6-23
6.5.1 The aims and principles of regionalization 6-23
6.5.2 The methods of regional parameterization 6-23
6.5.2.1 Point estimation methods 6-24
6.5.2.2 Interval estimation methods 6-26
References 6-27
III
CHAPTER 7 SOME TOPICS IN OPTIMISATION 7-1
7.1 Generalities 7-1

7.2 Optimisation algorithms 7-2
7.2.1 Local search methods 7-2
7.2.1.1 Direct search methods 7-3
7.2.1.1a Linear search algorithms 7-3
7.2.1.1b Optimisation along the directions of the axes 7-5
7.2.1.1c An algorithm with "conjugated" directions 7-6
7.2.1.1d The simplex search method 7-7
7.2.1.2 Gradient methods 7-7
7.2.1.2a Method of steepest descent or ascent 7-10
7.2.1.2b Newton algorithm 7-10
7.2.1.3 Choice of local search methods 7-12
7.2.2 Global search methods 7-12
7.2.2.1 Random search methods 7-13
7.2.2.2 Multi-start algorithms 7-14
7.2.2.3 Shuffled complex algorithms 7-15
7.3 Difficulties in optimisation 7-17
References 7-20
CHAPTER 8 SOME PARTICULAR CATCHMENT MODELS 8-1
The following hydrological models will be discussed in details during the lecture.
Documents about the listed models will be distributed to the students before the
course starts. Other hydrological models, which are not listed below might also be
discussed.
8.1 WASMOD A conceptual-stochastic snow and water balance model.
8.2 HBV-model A conceptual-deterministic, lumped (semi-distributed) rainfall-

runoff model.
8.3 TOPMODEL A physically-based, semi-distributed model.
8.4 SHE model A physically-based, deterministic, distributed model.
IV
CHAPTER 1
MODELLING IN HYDROLOGY
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1.1. WHY HYDROLOGICAL MODELS ARE NEEDED?
Recently, mathematical models have taken over the most important tasks in
problem solving in hydrology (UNESCO, 1985). Many discussions regarding modelling
have appeared in the scientific literature, but the rationale for model building was
perhaps best expressed by Rosenblueth and Wiener (1945):
No substantial part of the universe is so simple that it can be

grasped and controlled without abstraction. Abstraction consists
in replacing the parts of the universe under consideration by a
model of similar but simpler structure. Models, formal or
intellectual on the one hand, or material on the other, are thus a
central necessity of scientific procedure.
Most hydrologic systems are extremely complex, and we cannot hope to understand
them in all detail. Therefore, abstraction is necessary if we are to understand or control
some aspects of their behaviour. Indeed, man has found through experience that
understanding and predicting the behaviour of any significant part of his environment
requires abstraction.
The catchment hydrologic models have been developed for many different reasons
and therefore have many different forms. However, they are in general designed to meet
one of the two primary objectives. One objective of catchment modelling is to gain a
better understanding of the hydrologic phenomena operating in a catchment and of how
changes in the catchment may affect these phenomena. Another objective of catchment
modelling is the generation of synthetic sequences of hydrologic data for facility design
or for use in forecasting. They are also providing valuable for studying the potential
impacts of changes in landuse or climate. The variety of uses and the rapid increase both
in scientific understanding and in technical support, from data collection systems and
computer technology, have produced an enormous range in levels of sophistication.
1.2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The development and application of hydrological models have gone through a long
time period, the remarkable dates in the history of the development of hydrological
models are:
In the 19th century: The origins of rainfall-runoff modelling in the broad sense
can be found in the middle of the 19th century arising in response to three types
of engineering problems: (1) urban sewer design, (2) land reclamation drainage
systems design, and (3) reservoir spillway design. In all three problems the
design discharge was the major parameter of interest. The concept of the rational
method for determining flood peak discharge from measurements of rainfall
depths owes its origins to Mulvaney (1850), an Irish engineer who was
1-1
Ch1. Modelling in Hydrology
concerned with land drainage. Some Americans attribute first mention of the
formula to one of their engineers engaged upon sewer design (Kuichiling, 1889).
The method to give the peak flow Qp is:
Qp = CiA (1.1)
Where C is the coefficient of runoff (dependent on catchment characteristics) i is

the intensity of rainfall in time Tc and A is the area of catchment. Tc is the time
of concentration, the time required for rain falling at the farthest point of the
catchment to flow to the measuring point of the river. The well-known rational
formula may be seen as the first generation of hydrologic models, where Qp is
the output variable, i and A are input variables, and C is the model parameter. By
its main assumption, i.e., rainfall intensity and catchment characteristics are
uniformly distributed in space and time, the use of rational formula is limited to
small urban catchments.
In the 1920s: During the 1920s, when the need for a corresponding formula for
large catchments was perceived, many modifications were introduced in the
rational method in order to cope with the non-uniform distribution, in space and
time, of rainfall and catchment characteristics. The modified rational method,
based on the concept of isochrones or lines of equal travel time, can be seen as
the first basic rainfall-runoff model based on a transfer function whose shape
and parameter were derived by means of topographic maps and the use of
Mannings formula to evaluate the different travel times.
In the 1930s: A major step forward in hydrological analysis was the concept of
the unit hydrograph introduced by the American engineer Sherman in 1932 on
the basis of superposition principle. Although not yet known at the time, the
superposition principle implied many assumptions, i.e., the catchment behaves
like a causative, linear time invariant system with respect to the rainfall/surface
runoff transformation. The use of unit hydrograph made it possible to calculate
not only the flood peak discharge (as the rational method does) but also the
whole hydrograph (the volume of surface runoff produced by the rainfall event).
At the end of 1930s and during the 1940s a number of techniques were proposed
in order to improve the objectivity of the method and results, and the techniques
of statistical analysis were invoked. A discussion on the different approaches
and the relevant bibliography can be found in a report by Dooge (1973).
In the 1950s: The real breakthrough came in the 1950s (Todini, 1988) when
hydrologists became aware of system engineering approaches used for the
analysis of complex dynamic systems. They finally realised that the unit
hydrograph was the solution of a causative, linear time invariant system and that
the use of mathematical techniques such as Laplace, Fourier and Z transforms
could lead to the derivations of the response function from the analysis of input
and output data. This was the period when conceptual models originated.
The derivation of the unit hydrograph in discretized form (the unit graph) from
sampled data (known as the inverse problem) still remained a big problem by
that time, due to the non-particularly linear behaviour of the system and the
generally large errors in input and output data. To overcome this problem,
hydrologists found that shapes of the unit hydrograph could be provided on the
basis of the solution of more or less simplified differential equations, such as for
instance those describing the time behaviour of the storage in a reservoir or in a
cascade of reservoirs (Nash, 1958, 1960). The unit hydrograph could then be
1-2
Hydrologic Models
expressed in terms of few parameters to be estimated from catchment

characteristics or by means of statistical procedures: moments, regression,
maximum likelihood, etc. a bloom of these models gave rise an unbelievable
variety of solutions: a cascade of linear reservoirs, linear channels, linear
channels and reservoirs, nonlinear reservoirs (Prasad, 1967). However, in
deriving the unit graph shape from actual data, very few advances were made
before the work of Tikhonov (1963a,b) and the introduction of continuity and
regularization constraints in the estimation phase (Eagleson et al, 1965; Natale
and Todini, 1977) more realistic and reliable estimates of the unit hydrograph
were obtained.
From the 1960s: Many other approaches to rainfall-runoff modelling were
considered in the 1960s. In search for a more physical interpretation of the
process one could represent the behaviour of single components of the
hydrologic cycle, at the catchment scale, by using a number of interconnected
conceptual elements, each of which represented the purpose of a particular
subsystem. A large number of conceptual, lumped, rainfall-runoff models
appeared thereafter include: Dawdy and ODonnell (1965), Stanford Model IV
(Crawford and Linsley, 1966), Sacramento Model (Burnash et al., 1973), the
HBV model (Bergstrm and Forsman, 1973), the Tank model (WMO, 1975)
which represented differently the interconnected subsystems and were
considered the leading models of 1960s and 1970s.
In the 1970s:
o Box and Jenkins (1970) provided hydrologists with an alternative model
type i.e. the autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model and other
forms of time series stochastic models.
o The real-time forecasting models as an answer for the need of warning in
flood prone areas, and as a tool for reservoirs or hydraulic structure
management were developed. Generally based on recent updating and
recalibrating techniques such as Kalman filters (Kalman, 1960; Kalman
and Bucy, 1961; Todini, 1978; Todini and Wallis, 1978; OConnell,
1980; Wood, 1980; Wood and OConnell, 1985).
o One of the remark model developed in the late 1970s is the TOPMODEL
(Beven and Kirkby, 1979) that is based on the idea that topography
exerts a dominant control on flow routing through upland catchments is
called. TOPMODEL calculates not only the streamflow hydrograph but
information that is useful for linking hydrological calculations to
hydrochemical models.
In the 1980s: To meet the need of forecasting (1) the effects of land-use
changes, (2) the effects of spatially variable inputs and outputs, (3) the
movements of pollutants and sediments, and (4) the hydrological response of
ungauged catchments where no data are available for calibration of a lumped
model, the physically-based distributed-parameter models were developed. The
most sophisticated models take a three-dimensional view of water exchange,
with meshes superimposed vertically. These techniques have opened the way for
major advances in modelling by linking them with elevation models
(DTM/DEM) derived from maps, or with other data derived from raster-based
satellite imagery, which may indicate vegetation cover, soil moisture patterns
and lines of subsurface drainage. The Systme Hydrologique Europen (SHE)
model developed during the 1980s in a multinational programme stimulated by
1-3
the European Community is a good example of such models (Abbott et al.,

1986).
From the late 1980s: The evolution of continental-scale hydrology has placed
new demands on hydrologic modellers. The macro-scale hydrological models
were developed on the basis of the following motivations. First, for a variety of
operational and planning purposes, water resource managers responsible for
large regions need to estimate the spatial variability of resources over large
areas, at a spatial resolution finer than can be provided by observed data alone.
Second, hydrologists and water managers are interested in the effects of land-use
and climate variability and change over a large geographic domain. Third, there
is an increasing need of using hydrologic models as a base to estimate point and
non-point sources of pollution loading to streams. Fourth, hydrologists and
atmospheric modellers have perceived weaknesses in the representation of
hydrological processes in regional and global atmospheric models. Examples of
GIS supported macro-scale hydrological models include those developed by
Vrsmarty et al. (1989), the VIC model (Wood et al., 1992) and the Macro-
PDM (Arnell, 1999). These models are state-of-the-art tools in assessing
regional and continental scale water resources.
Nowadays, mathematical models have taken over the most important tasks in
problem solving in hydrology.
1.3. HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND MODELLING
We begin by defining some terms as they are to be used throughout this course.
- a hydrological system: A more general definition is given by Dooge (1973). In a
simplified way it can be said as a set of physical, chemical and/or biological processes
acting upon an input variable or variables, to convert it (them) into an output variable
(or variables).
- a variable: is understood to be a characteristic of a system which may be
measured, which assumes different values when measured at different times. Daily
rainfall, runoff, evaporation, temperature, infiltration, soil moisture, etc. are some of
examples.
- a parameter: is a quantity characterising a system. It may or may not remain
constant in time (in most cases of modelling we consider it as time constant).
- a model: is a simplified representation of a complex system. Consequently, a
model always describes the basic and most important components of a complex system,
or as pointed out by Dooge (1977), a model involves similarity without identity and it
simulates some, but not all the characteristics of the prototype system.
The watershed can be considered as a hydrologic system. The system boundary is
drawn around the watershed by projecting the watershed divide vertically upwards and
downwards to horizontal planes at the top and bottom (Fig1.1). Rainfall is the input,
distributed in space over the upper plane; streamflow is the output, concentrated in
space at the watershed outlet. Evaporation and subsurface flow are also outputs. By
using the system concept, effort is directed to the construction of a model relating inputs
and outputs rather than to the extremely difficult task of exact representation of the
system details, which may not be significant from a practical point of view or may not
be known. Nevertheless, knowledge of the physical system helps in developing a good
model and verifying its accuracy.
The objective of hydrologic system analysis is to study the system operation and
predict its output. A hydrologic system model is an approximation of the actual system;
1-4
Hydrologic Models
its inputs and outputs are measurable hydrologic variables and its structure is the
concept of system transformation.
Fig.1.1 The watershed as a hydrologic system (from Chow et al, 1988)
A general model of the hydrologic system may be derived as follows. Let the input
and output be expressed as functions of time, I(t) and Q(t) respectively, for t belonging
to the time range T under consideration. The system performs a transformation of the
input into the output represented by
Q(t) = I(t) (1.2)
which is called the transformation equation of the system. The system is a transfer
function between the input and the output. If this relationship can be expressed by an
algebraic equation, then is an algebraic operator. For example, if
Q(t) = C I(t) (1.3)
where C is a constant, then the transfer function is the operator
Q(t )
= =C (1.4)
I (t )
If the transformation is described by a differential equation, then the transfer

function serves as a differential operator. For example, a linear reservoir has its storage
S related to its outflow Q by
S = kQ (1.5)
where k is a constant having the dimensions of time. By continuity, the time rate of
change of storage dS/dt is equal to the difference between the input and the output
1-5
dS
= I (t ) Q(t ) (1.6)
dt
Eliminating S between the two equations and rearranging,
dQ
k + Q(t ) = I (t ) (1.7)
dt
so
Q(t ) 1
= = (1.8)
I (t ) 1 + kD
where D is the differential operator d/dt. If the transformation equation has been
determined and can be solved, it yields the output as a function of the input. Equation
(1.8) describes a linear system if k is a constant. If k is a function of the input I or the
output Q then (1.8) describes a nonlinear system which is much more difficult to solve.
1.4. CLASSIFICATION OF HYDROLOGIC MODELS
Hydrologic models can be variously classified. One of the classification methods

used by Singh (1988) is used here which distinguishes hydrologic models as (1)
material and (2) symbolic or formal. (Fig.1.2)
Fig.1.2. A classification of hydrologic models
1-6
Hydrologic Models
1.4.1 Material models
A material model (also called a physical model in the literature, e.g. Chow et al,
1988) is the representation of the real system by another system, which has similar
properties but is much easier to work with. Material (physical) models can be classified
as iconic, scale, or "look-alike" models and analog models. A scale model represents the
system on a reduced scale and bears a physical resemblance to the prototype system.
Examples in this class may include laboratory watersheds, lysimeters, and hydraulic
model of a dam spillway. Analog models measure different physical substances than the
prototype (i.e. use another physical system having properties similar to those of the
prototype), such as flow of electric current which represents the flow of water. An
analog model does not physically resemble the prototype but depends on the
correspondence between the symbolic models describing the prototype and the analog
system.
Material models are useful in the following cases:
1). They may assist the researcher in replacing a phenomenon in an unfamiliar
field.
2). A material model may permit experiments to be conducted under more
favourable conditions than would be normally available with the prototype system.
A material model that does not involve a change in scale may still be valuable
because experiments can be carried out more conveniently or can be repeated at will.
Some experimental watershed systems installed in the NOPEX project area can be
considered to be of prototype scale.
1.4.2 Symbolic or Formal models
A formal model (also called an abstract model in the literature, e.g. Chow et al.,
1988) is a symbolic expression in logical terms of an idealised, relatively simple
situation sharing the structural properties of the original system. Symbolic models can
be variously expressed, in this course we are concerned with symbolic models of
mathematical nature.
A mathematical model expresses the system behaviour by a set of equations,
perhaps together with logical statements expressing relationships between variables and
parameters. Equation (1.9) is an example of a mathematical model,
yt = f * ( xt , xt 1 , xt 2 ,; yt 1 , yt 2 ,; a1 , a2 , ) + t (1.9)
where xt is the input variable, f * ( ) is a function of specified form and ai, i=1,2, ..., are
measured or estimated parameters, and t is a residual expressing lack of fit between
observed output yt and fitted output f * ( ) . In order to classify models it is necessary to
consider what features they have in common and the respects in which they differ. The
feature that all mathematical models have in common is that the observed output
variable yt (often discharge from a basin) derived from its fitted values f * ( ) by a
residual amount t ; the respects in which they differ are the assumptions made about
f * ( ) and assumptions made about t . The most important terms, which are often seen
in the hydrological literature, are explained in the following paragraphs.
1-7
1.4.3 The distinction between theoretical, conceptual and empirical models
Theoretical models (sometimes called white-box models or physically-based

models) presumably are the consequences of the most important laws governing the
phenomena. A theoretical model has a logical structure similar to the real-world system
and may be helpful under changed circumstances. Examples of theoretical models may
include watershed runoff models based on St. Venant equations, infiltration models
based on two phase flow theory of porous media (Morel-Seytoux, 1978), evaporation
models based on theories of turbulence and diffusion (Brutsaert and Mawdsley, 1976),
and groundwater models based on fundamental transport equations (Freeze, 1971). An
example of physically-based models is the SHE model (Abbott et al., 1986).
Empirical models (sometimes called black-box models or input output models) do
not aid in physical understanding. They contain parameters that may have little direct
physical significance and can be estimated only by using concurrent measurements of
input and output. Examples are stochastic time series models. In many situations,
empirical models can yield accurate answers and can, therefore, serve a useful tool in
decision-making. The ARMA (autoregressive moving average model) and other time
series models are examples of this class.
Conceptual models (sometimes called grey-box models) are intermediate between
theoretical and empirical models. Hydrologic models are here considered as conceptual
if the form of the function of equation (1.9) is, suggested by consideration of the
physical processes acting upon the input variable(s) to produce the output variable(s).
Generally, conceptual models consider physical laws but in highly simplified form.
They are very many models belong to this class; an example which is familiar for us is
the HBV model.
All three types of mathematical models are useful but in somewhat different
circumstances. Each has its own effectiveness, depending upon the objective of study,
the degree of complexity of the problem, and the degree of accuracy desired. There is
no conflict between these models; they represent different levels of approximation of
reality.
1.4.4 The distinction between linearity and non-linearity in the system-theory sense
and in the statistical regression sense.
Models whether theoretical, conceptual or empirical may be linear or non-linear.

Usage of the term linearity has at least two meanings. A model is linear in the system-
theory sense (LST) if the principle of superposition holds: that is, given that y1(t), y2(t)
are the outputs corresponding to inputs x1(t), x2(t), a model is LST if the output
corresponding to input x1(t)+x2(t) is y1(t)+y2(t). This is the sense in which linearity is
most widely used in the literature. However, linearity has an alternative meaning; the
model is linear in the statistical regression sense (LSR) if it is linear in the parameters to
be estimated, and it is in this sense that it is used by mathematical modellers in fields
other than hydrology. Thus if input x(t) and output y(t) were related by the equation y =
a + bx + cx2, this model is linear in statistical regression sense, but non-linear in the
system-theory sense; the converse is true for y = a + x/b.
1.4.5 The distinction between time-invariant and time-variant models
A model is time-invariant if its input-output relationship does not change with time.
The form of the output depends only on the form of the input and not on the time at
1-8
Hydrologic Models
which the input is applied. Models do not have this property are called time-variant.
Most hydrologic systems are time-variant due to variations in solar activity during the
day and seasonal variations during the year. For simplicity, they are assumed to be time-
invariant.
1.4.6 The distinction between lumped and distributed models
In terms of spatial discretization or resolution we can identify an ascending scale of

sophistication beginning with lumped models treating the complete basin as a
homogeneous whole, through semi-distributed models, which attempt to calculate flow
contributions from separate areas or sub-basins that are treated as homogeneous within
themselves, to fully distributed models, in which the whole basin is divided into
elementary unit areas like a grid net and flows are passed from one grid point (node) to
another as water drains through the basin (Fig. 1.3). Becker and Serban (1990) further
distinguished spatial variability of the models into geometrically-distributed models,
which express spatial variability in terms of the orientation of the network points one to
another and their distance apart (Fig.1.3), and probability-distributed models describe
the spatial variability without reference to the geometrical configuration of the points in
the network at which an input variable such as rainfall is measured, or for which a
model parameter is to be measured or estimated. For example, the Stanford watershed
model (Crawford and Linsley, 1966) is of this type. It is assumed that infiltration
capacity at any time varies over the segment. For lack of better information this
variation is assumed to be linear.
Fig.1.3 Graphic representation of geometrically distributed and lumped models.

(from Jones, 1997). I is input and O is output.
1-9
1.4.7 The distinction between deterministic and stochastic models
If any of the variables xt , yt , t in equation (1.8) are regarded as random variables

having distributions in probability, then the model is a stochastic model: stochastic,
rather than statistical (probabilistic), to emphasise the time-dependence of the
hydrological variables related by the model. If all variables in equation (1.8) are
regarded as free from random variation, so that none is thought of as having a
distribution in probability, then the model is here regarded as deterministic.
1.4.8 Summary on classification
The two most often used classification methods are that according to the description
of the physically processes hydrological models may be classified as conceptual and
physically based, and according to the spatial description of catchment processes as
lumped and distributed. In this respect, two typical model types are lumped conceptual
and the distributed physically based ones. Typical examples of lumped conceptual
model codes are the Stanford watershed model (Crawford and Linsley, 1966), the HBV
model (Bergstrm, 1976) and the Sacramento (Burnash, 1995). Typical models of
distributed physically based are the SHE (Abbott et al., 1986a,b), the IHDM (Beven et
al., 1987) and the Thales (Grayson et al., 1992a,b). A code such as TOPMODEL
(Beven and Kirkby, 1979) may by characterized as conceptual distributed.
1.5 THE USE OF HYDROLOGIC MODELS
Physically-based or theoretical models are often use in research purpose to gain a

better understanding of the hydrologic phenomena operating in a catchment and of how
changes in the catchment may affect these phenomena. The hydrologic phenomena they
calculate are generally defined by the laws of continuity, energy and momentum. As
such these models are seldom used to generate synthetic data.
All other type of models, vary from deterministic form, using much information
about the physical processes involved, to black box forms, where physical processes
are not involved, are used in operational purpose to generate synthetic sequences of
hydrologic data for facility design or for use in forecasting.
1.6 METHODOLOGY FOR USING HYDROLOGIC MODELS

Dooge (1972) outlined a rational methodology for the use of hydrologic models.
This methodology consists of a number of steps. These, with slight modifications, are as
follows (see also Singh, 1988):
1. Define the problem.
2. Specify the objective.
3. Study the data available.
4. Determine the computing facilities available.
5. Specify the economic and social constraints.
6. Choose a particular class of hydrologic models.
7. Select a particular type of model from the given class.
8. Calibrate the model (that is, optimise the parameters).
9. Evaluate the performance of the model.
10. Use the model for prediction purposes.
11. Embed the model in a more general model.
1-10
Hydrologic Models
In a systematic application of the methodology, steps 6-9 could be iterated until a

satisfactory model was obtained. Step 9 is, however, crucial in this entire operation.
Only when a model has been objectively calibrated and evaluated can it be applied to a
specific problem with assurance that the best use is being made of the data and that
something is known about the order of magnitude of the accuracy of prediction. There
exists a multitude of hydrologic models. However, a rational methodology for their
choice is yet to be developed.
1-11
REFERENCES OF CHPATER 1
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O'Connell, P.E. and Rasmussen, J.: 1986. An
introduction to the European Hydrological System - Systeme Hydrologique
Europeen, "SHE", 1: History and philosophy of a physically-based distributed
modelling system, and 2: Structure of a physically-based distributed modelling
system. J. Hydrol. 87, 45-59 and 61-77.
Arnell, N.W., 1992. Factors controlling the effects of climate change on river flow regimes in a
humid temperate environment, J. Hydrol., 132: 321-342.
Becker, A. and P Serban, 1990. Hydrological models for water-resources system design
and operation. Geneva, WMO Operational Hydrology Report No 34:80pp.
Bergstrm, S., 1976. Development and application of a conceptual runoff model for
Scandinavian catchments. SMHI report, Nr. RHO 7.
Beven, K.J. and M.J. Kirkby, 1979. A physically based, variable contributing area
model of basin hydrology, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 24: 43-69.
Beven, K.J., Calver, A. And Morris, E.M., 1987. The Institute of Hydrology distributed
model. Institute of Hydrology Report 98, Wallingford, UK.
Brutsaert, W. and J.A. Mawdsley, 1976. The applicability of planetary boundary layer
theory to calculate regional evapotranspiration. Water Resour. Res. 12: 852-858.
Burnash, R.J.C., Ferral, R.L. and McGuire, R.A., 1973. A generalised streamflow
simulation system conceptual modelling for digital computers, US Department of
Commerce, national Weather Service and State of California, Department of Water
resources.
Chow, V.T., et al., 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources.
Crawford, N.H. and R.K. Linsley, 1966. Digital simulation in hydrology. Stanford
Watershed Model IV. Stanford, Dept of Civil Engineering, University of California,
Technical Report No 39.
Dawdy, D.R. and ODonnell, T., 1965. Mathematical models of catchment behaviour.
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers: Journal of the Hydraulics
Divisions of the ASCE 91(HY4): 123-137.
Dooge, J.C., 1972. Mathematical models of hydrologic systems. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Modelling Techniques in Water Resources Systems,
Ottawa, Canada, vol.1, 171-189.
Dooge, J.C., 1977. Problems and methods of rainfall-runoff modelling. In: T.A. Ciriani,
V. Malone and J.R. Wallis (Eds). Mathematical models for surface water hydrology.
John Wiley and Sons Ltd. London, England.
Dooge, J.C.I., 1973. Linear theory of hydrologic system. Technical Bulletin No 1468.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA. Washington D.C.
Eagleson, P.S., Mejia, R. and March, F., 1965. The computation of optimum realizable
unit hydrographs from rainfall and runoff data. Hydrodynamic Laboratory Report No
84, MIT.1970 Dynamic Hydrology, New-York, McGraw-Hill.
Freeze, R.A., 1971. Three-dimensional, transient, saturated-unsaturated flow in a
groundwater basin. Water Resour. Res. 7(2):347-366.
Grayson, R.B., Moore, I.D. and McHahon, T.A., 1992a,b. Physically based hydrologic
modelling. Water Resources Research 28(10), 2639-2658.
Jones, J.A.A., 1997. Global Hydrology, Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate,
Harlow, England.
Kalman, R.E. and Bucy, R., 1961. New results in linear filtering and prediction. J. Basic
Eng. (ASME), 83D, 95-108.
1-12
Hydrologic Models
Kalman, R.E., 1960. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J.
Basic Eng. (ASME), 82D, 35-45.
Kuichling, E. 1889. The relation between the rainfall and the discharge of sewers in
populous districts. ASCE Trans., 20: 1.56.
Morel-Seytoux, H.J., 1978. Derivation of equations for variable rainfall infiltration.
Water Resour. Res. 14(4): 561-568.
Mulvaney, T.J., 1850. On the use of self-registering rain and flood gauges. Trans. Inst.
Civ. Eng. Ireland, 4(2): 1-8.
Nash, J.E., 1958. The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. IUGG Gen. Assem.
Toronto, Vol III Publ No 45, IAHS, Gentbrugge, p114-121.
Nash, J.E., 1960. A unit hydrograph study with particular reference to British
catchments. Proc Inst Civ Eng.
Natale, L. and Todini, E., 1977. A constrainted parameter estimation technique for
linear models in hydrology. Mathematical models for Surface Water Hydrology,
Ciridni, T.A. et al. (Eds), Wiley, New York.
OConnell, P.E., 1980. Real time hydrological forecasting and control, Rep. Inst
Hydrol., Wallingford.
Prasad, R., 1967. A non linear hydrologic system response model. J. Hydraul. Div.,
ASCE HY4.
Rosenblueth, A. and N. Wiener, 1945. Role of models in science. Philosophy of
Science. 7(4):316-321.
Sherman, L.K., 1932. Streamflow from rainfall by the unit-graph method. Engineering
News Record, 108: 501-505.
Singh, V.P., 1988. Hydrologic Systems. Volume 1: Rainfall-runoff modelling. Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Tikhonov, A.N., 1963a. Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the
regularization method. Sov. Math. 4, 1035-1038.
Tikhonov, A.N., 1963b. Regularization of incorrectly posed problems. Sov. Math. 4,
1624-1627.
Todini, E. and Wallis, J.R., 1978. A real-time rainfall-runoff model for an on-line flood
warning system. Proc. AGU Chapman Conf. Appl. Kalman Filtering Tech. Hydrol.,
Hydraul., Water Resour., Dept Civ Eng University of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Todini, E., 1978. Mutually interactive state parameter (MISP) estimation. Proc. AGU
Chapman Conf. Appl. Kalman Filtering Tech. Hydrol., Hydraul., Water Resour.,
Dept Civ Eng University of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Todini, E., 1988. Rainfall-runoff modelling past, present and future. Journal of
Hydrology 100: 341-352.
UNESCO, 1985. Teaching aids in hydrology, Universitaires de France, Vendome.
Vrsmarty, C.J., Moore, B., Grace, A.L., et al., 1989. Continental scale models of water
balance and fluvial transport: an application to South America. Global Biogeochem. Cycles
3, 241265.
WMO, 1975. Intercomparison of conceptual models used in operational hydrological
forecasting. Oper. Hydrol. Report 7, WMO No 429, Geneva.
Wood, E.F. and OConnell, P.E., 1985. Real-time forecasting. Hydrological
Forecasting, Anderson, M.G. and Burt, T.P. (Eds).
Wood, E.F., 1980. Recent developments in real-time forecasting/control of water
resources systems (Vansteenkiste, G.E. ed), Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
Wood, E.F., Lettenmaier, D.P., Zartarian, V.G., 1992. A land-surface hydrology
parameterisation with subgrid variability for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. 97,
D3, 2717-2728.
1-13
CHAPTER 2
TIME SERIES ANALYSIS AND STOCHASTIC MODELLING
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Methods and procedures of time series analysis and stochastic modelling will be
discussed in the chapter, while the remaining chapters of this monograph deal with
problems and approaches used in modelling hydrologic systems and components. In
general, they describe the physical processes involved in the movement of water onto,
over, and through the soil surface. Quite often the hydrologic problems we face do not
require a detailed discussion of the physical process, but only a time series
representation of these processes. Stochastic models may be used to represent, in
simplified form, these hydrologic time series.
Unlike the models that to be discussed in the remaining chapters, stochastic
modelling places emphasis on the statistical characteristics of hydrologic processes.
Some background in probability and statistics is necessary to fully understand this
chapter. However, references and examples throughout the chapter should give readers
with a more limited background an appreciation of the role of stochastic models in
hydrology.
The material presented in this chapter can be divided into four major parts. The first
part is a discussion of the statistical properties and components of a time series. The
next part of the chapter is a discussion of the methods for identifying and modelling of
different components of a hydrologic time series. The third part of the chapter is a
discussion of different kinds of stochastic models that are available. The last part of the
chapters is a presentation of the application fields of stochastic models.
Since this chapter concentrates on the basic concepts of stochastic processes and
not on models of specific processes, details of such models may not be described. Many
such models are described in the listed references.
2.2 TIME SERIES
The measurements or numerical values of any variable that changes with time
constitute a time series. In many instances, the pattern of changes can be ascribed to an
obvious cause and is readily understood and explained, but if there are several causes
for variation in the time series values, it becomes difficult to identify the several
individual effects. In Fig.2.1, the top graph shows a series of observations changing
with time along the abscissa; the ordinate axis represents the changing values of y with
time, t. From visual inspection of the series, there are three discernible features in the
pattern of the observations. Firstly, there is a regular gradual overall increase in the size
of values; this trend, plotted as a separate component y1(t), indicates a linear increase in
the average size of y with time. The second obvious regular pattern in the composite
series is a cyclical variation, represented separately by y2(t), the periodic component.
The third notable feature of the series may be considered the most outstanding, the
single high peak half way along the series. This typically results from a rare catastrophic
event which does not from part of a recognisable pattern. The definition of the function
y3(t) needs very careful consideration and may not be possible. The remaining hidden
2-1
Ch2. Time series analysis and stochastic models
feature of the series is the random stochastic component, y4(t), which represents an
irregular but continuing variation within the measured values and may have some
persistence. It may be due to instrumental of observational sampling errors or it may
come from random unexplainable fluctuations in a natural physical process. A time
series is said to be a random or stochastic process if it contains a stochastic component.
Therefore, most hydrologic time series may be thought of as stochastic processes since
they contain both deterministic and stochastic components. If a time series contains only
random/stochastic component is said to be a purely random or stochastic process.
The complete observed series, y(t), can therefore be expressed by:
y ( t ) = y1 ( t ) + y 2 ( t ) + y 3 ( t ) + y 4 ( t ) (2.1)
The first two terms are deterministic in form and can be identified and quantified fairly
easily; the last two are stochastic with major random elements, and some minor
persistence effects, less easily identified and quantified.
Fig.2.1 The time series components.
2-2
Hydrological Models
2.3 PROPERTIES OF TIME SERIES
The purpose of a stochastic model is to represent important statistical properties of

one or more time series. Indeed, different types of stochastic models are often studied in
terms of the statistical properties of time series they generate. Examples of these
properties include: trend, serial correlation, covariance, cross-correlation, etc. Therefore,
before reviewing the different types of stochastic models used in hydrology, some
distribution properties of stochastic processes will be discussed. The following basic
statistics are usually used for expressing the properties/characteristics of a time series.
Name Sample estimation Notation

for population
1 n
Mean E( X t ) = X = Xt (2.2)
n t =1
1 n
Variance S2 = ( X t X )2 2 (2.3)
n 1 t =1
1 n L
Covariance cov( X t , X t + L ) = ( X t X )( X t + L X ) L (2.4)
n L t =1
Where L is the time lag.
Stationary time series

If the statistics of the sample (mean, variance, covariance, etc.) as calculated by
equations (2.2)-(2.4) are not functions of the timing or the length of the sample, then the
time series is said to be stationary to the second order moment, weekly stationary, or
stationary in the broad sense. Mathematically one can write as:
E( X t ) =
Var ( X t ) = 2
Cov( X t , X t + L ) = L
In hydrology, moments of the third and higher orders are rarely considered because
of the unreliability of their estimates. Second order stationarity, also called covariance
stationarity, is usually sufficient in hydrology. A process is strictly stationary when the
distribution of Xt does not depend on time and when all simultaneous distributions of
the random variables of the process are only dependent on their mutual time-lag. In
another words, a process is said to be strictly stationary if its n-th (n for any integers)
order moments do not depend on time and are dependent only on their time lag.
Nonstationary time series

If the values of the statistics of the sample (mean, variance, covariance, etc.) as
calculated by equations (2.2)-(2.4) are dependent on the timing or the length of the
sample, i.e. if a definite trend is discernible in the series, then it is a non-stationary
series. Similarly, periodicity in a series means that it is non-stationary. Mathematically
one can write as:
E ( X t ) = t
2-3
Var ( X t ) = t2
Cov( X t , X t + L ) = L,t
White noise time series

For a stationary ties series, if the process is purely random and stochastically
independent, the time series is called a white noise series. Mathematically one can write
as:
E( X t ) =
Var ( X t ) = 2
Cov( X t , X t + L ) = 0 for all L 0
Gaussian time series

A Gaussian random process is a process (not necessarily stationary) of which all
random variables are normally distributed, and of which all simultaneous distributions
of random variables of the process are normal. When a Gaussian random process is
weekly stationary, it is also strictly stationary, since the normal distribution is
completely characterised by its first and second order moments.
2.4 ANALYSIS OF HYDROLOGIC TIME SERIES
Records of rainfall and river flow form suitable data sequences that can be studied
by the methods of time series analysis. The tools of this specialized topic in
mathematical statistics provide valuable assistance to engineers in solving problems
involving the frequency of occurrences of major hydrological events. In particular,
when only a relatively short data record is available, the formulation of a time series
model of those data can enable long sequences of comparable data to be generated to
provide the basis for better estimates of hydrological behaviour. In addition, the time
series analysis of rainfall, evaporation, runoff and other sequential records of
hydrological variables can assist in the evaluation of any irregularities in those records.
Cross-correlation of different hydrological time series may help in the understanding of
hydrological processes.
Tasks of time series analysis include:
(1) identification of the several components of a time series,

(2) mathematical description (modelling) different components identified.
If a hydrological time series is represented by X1, X2, X3, ..., Xt, ..., then
symbolically, one can represent the structure of the Xt by:
X t Tt , Pt , E t
where Tt is the trend component, Pt is the periodic component and Et is the stochastic
component. The first two components are specific deterministic features and contain no
element of randomness. The third, stochastic, component contains both random
2-4
Hydrological Models
fluctuations and the self-correlated persistence within the data series. These three
components form a basic model for time series analysis.
The aims of time series analysis include but not limited to:
(1) description and understanding of the mechanism,

(2) Monte-Carlo simulation,
(3) forecasting future evolution,
Basic to stochastic analysis is the assumption that the process is stationary. The
modelling of a time series is much easier if it is stationary, so identification,
quantification and removal of any non-stationary components in a data series is under-
taken, leaving a stationary series to be modelled.
2.4.1 Trend component
This may be caused by long-term climatic change or, in river flow, by gradual
changes in a catchment's response to rainfall owing to land use changes. Sometimes, the
presence of a trend cannot be readily identified.
Methods of trend identification:

Different statistical methods, both nonparametric tests and parametric tests, for
identifying trend in time-series are available in the literature. Two commonly used
methods for identifying the trend are discussed briefly in this section.
(1) Mann-Kendall test

The test uses the raw (un-smoothed) hydrologic data to detect possible trends. The
Kendall statistic was originally devised by Mann (1945) as a non-parametric test for
trend. Later the exact distribution of the test statistic was derived by Kendall (1975).
The Mann-Kendall test is based on the test statistic S defined as follows:
n 1 n
S = sgn( x j xi ) (2.5)
i =1 j = i +1
where the x j are the sequential data values, n is the length of the data set, and
1 if > 0

sgn( ) = 0 if = 0 (2.6)
- 1 if < 0

Mann (1945) and Kendall (1975) have documented that when n 8 , the statistic S is
approximately normally distributed with the mean and the variance as follows:
E (S ) = 0 (2.7)
q
n(n 1)(2n + 5) t p (t p 1)(2t p + 5)
p =1
V (S ) = (2.8)
18
2-5
where n = number of data

t p = the number of ties for the pth value (number of data in the pth group)
q = the number of tied values (number of groups with equal values/ties)
The standardised Mann-Kendall test statistic ZMK is computed by
S 1
S>0
Var ( s )

Z MK = 0 S=0 (2.9)
S +1
S<0
Var ( s )
The standardised MK statistic Z follows the standard normal distribution with mean of
zero and variance of one.
The hypothesis that there has not trend will be rejected if
Z MK > Z1 (2.10)
2
where Z1 is the value read from a standard normal distribution table with being
2
the significance level of the test.
(2) Linear regression method

Linear regression method can be used to identify if there exists a linear trend in a
hydrologic time series. The procedure consists of two steps, fitting a linear regression
equation with the time T as independent variable and the hydrologic data, Y as
dependent variable, i.e.
Y = + T (2.11)
and testing the statistical significance of the regression coefficient .
Test of hypothesis concerning can be made by noting that ( o ) / S has t

distribution with n-2 degrees of freedom. Thus the hypothesis H o : = o versus
H a : o is tested by computing
o
t= (2.12)
S
where S is the standard deviation of the coefficient with
S = S (2.13)
n
2
(Ti T )
i =1
2-6
Hydrological Models
and
1 n
S= (Yi Yi ) 2 (2.14)
n 2 i =1
where S is the standard error of the regression, Yi and Yi are observed and estimated
hydrologic variable from the regression equation, respectively.
The hypothesis H o , i.e. no trend, is rejected if t > t1 / 2, n 2
Models for trend:

The shape of the trend depends on the background of the phenomenon studied. Any
smooth trend that is discernible may be quantified and then subtracted from the sample
series. Common models for trend may take the following forms:
Tt = a + bt (a linear trend, as in Fig.2.1) (2.15)

or
Tt = a + bt + ct2 + dt3 + ... (a non-linear trend) (2.16)
The coefficients a, b, c, d, ... are usually evaluated by least-squares fitting. The number
of terms required in a polynomial trend being primarily imposed by the interpretation of
the studied phenomenon. The number of terms is usually based on statistical analysis,
which determines the terms contributing significantly to the description and the
interpretation of the time series. Restriction is made to the significant terms because of
the principle of parsimony concerning the number of unknown parameters (constants)
used in the model. One wishes to use as small a number of parameters as possible,
because in most cases the addition of a complementary parameter decreases the
accuracy of the other parameters. Also prediction- and control procedures are negatively
influenced by an exaggerated number of parameters. This principle of parsimony is not
only important with respect to the selection of the trend function but also with respect to
other parts of the model.
2.4.2 Periodic component
In most annual series of data, there is no cyclical variation in the annual

observations, but in the sequences of monthly data distinct periodic seasonal effects are
at once apparent. The existence of periodic components may be investigated
quantitatively by (1) Fourier analysis, (2) spectral analysis, and (3) autocorrelation
analysis. Of which, the autocorrelation analysis method is widely used by hydrologists
and will be discussed briefly in this section.
Identification of periodic component by autocorrelation analysis:

The procedure consists of two steps, calculating the autocorrelation coefficients and
testing their statistical significance. For a series of data, Xt, the autocorrelation
coefficient rL between Xt and Xt+L are calculated and plotted against values of L
(known as the lag), for all pairs of data L time units apart in the series:
2-7
1 n L 1 n 2
rL = ( X t X )( X t + L X ) / ( X t X ) (2.17)
n L t =1 n t =1
where X is the mean of the sample of n values of Xt and L is usually taken for values
from zero up to n/4. A plot of rL versus L forms the correlogram. The characteristics of
a time series can be seen from the correlogram. Examples of correlograms are given in
Fig.2.2. Calculation of equation (2.17) for different L gives the following cases:
If L = 0, rL = 1 . That is, the correlation of an observation with itself is one.
If rL 0 for all L 0, the process is said to be a purely random process. This

indicates that the observations are linearly independent of each other. The
correlogram for such a complete random time series is shown in Fig.2.2(a).
If rL 0 for some L 0, but after L > , then r 0 , the time series is still
referred to as simply a random one (not purely random) since it has a memory
up to L = . When r 0 , the process is said to have no memory for what
occurred prior to time t-. The correlogram for such a non-independent
stochastic process is shown in Fig.2.2(b). This is representative of an auto
regressive process. Typically, such a correlogram could be produced from a
series described by the Autoregressive model:
X t = a1 X t 1 + a2 X t 2 + a3 X t 3 + L + t (2.18)
where ai are related to the autocorrelation coefficients ri and t is a random

independent element.
In the case of data containing a cyclic (deterministic) component, then rL 0

for all L 0, the correlogram would appear as in Fig.2.2(c). Where T is the
period of the cycle.
2-8
Hydrological Models
Fig.2.2 Examples of correlograms.
Modelling of periodic component:

A periodic function Pt is a function such that
Pt +T = Pt for all t
The smallest value of T is called the period. The dimension of T is time, T thus being a
number of time-units (years, months, days or hours, etc.) and we also have
Pt + nT = Pt for all t and for all integer n.
The frequency is defined as the number of periods per time-unit:
1
frequency =
period
Trigonometric functions are simple periodic functions. For example,
sin (t + )
has a period of 2/, because
2-9
sin [(t+2/)+] = sin(t+2+) = sin(t + )
The pulsation or angular frequency is defined as
2
= = 2 frequency
period
the constant is termed the amplitude and the phase (with respect to the origin) of the
sine-function.
A simple model for the periodic component may be defined as (for more
discussions refer to the literature of Time Series Analysis):
Pt = m + C sin(2t / T ) (2.19)
where C is the amplitude of the sine wave about a level m and of wavelength T.
The serial (auto) correlation coefficients for such a Pt are given by:
rL = cos(2L / T ) (2.20)
The cosine curve repeats every T time units throughout the correlogram with rL = 1 for
L = 0, T, 2T, 3T, . Thus periodicities in a time series are exposed by regular cycles in
the corresponding correlograms.
Once the significant periodicities, Pt, have been identified and quantified by t (the
means) and t (the standard deviations) they can be removed from the original times
series along with any trend, Tt, so that a new series of data, Et, is formed:
X t Tt mt
Et = (2.21)
st
Simple models for periodic component in hydrology can be seen in the literature.
For example, in many regions, typical monthly potential evapotranspiration variation
during the year can be modelled more or less by a sinusoidal function, with a couple of
parameters to tune the annual mean and the amplitude (Xu and Vandewiele, 1995).
This behavior leads to the idea to model ept by a truncated Fourier series
ept = {a + b sin[(2 / 12)(t c)]}+
where again t is time in month. The plus sign at the end is necessary for avoiding
negative values of ept which otherwise may occur in rare cases. Again parameters a, b
and c are characteristics of the basin.
2.4.3 Stochastic component
Et represents the remaining stochastic component of the time series free from non-
stationary trend and periodicity and usually taken to be sufficiently stationary for the
next stage in simple time series analysis. This Et component is analysed to explain and
2-10
Hydrological Models
quantify any persistence (serial (auto) correlation) in the data and any residual
independent randomness. It is first standardized by:
Et E
Zt = (2.22)
sE
where E and s E are the mean and standard deviation of the Et series. The series, Zt,
then has zero mean and unit standard deviation. The autocorrelation coefficients of Zt
are calculated and the resultant correlogram is examined for evidence and recognition of
a correlation and/or random structure.
For example, in Fig.2.3a for a monthly flow, the correlogram of the Zt stationary
series (with the periodicities removed) has distinctive features that can be recognised.
Comparing it with Fig.2.2, the Zt correlogram resembles that of an auto regressive
(Markov) process. For a first order Markov model
Z t = r1 Z t 1 + et (2.23)
where r1 is the autocorrelation coefficient of lag 1 of the Zt series and et is a random

independent residual. A series of the residuals et may then be formed from the Zt series
and its known lag 1 autocorrelation coefficient, r1:
et = Zt r1Zt 1 (2.24)
The correlogram of residuals is finally computed and drawn (Fig.2.3b). For this
data this resembles the correlogram of 'white noise', i.e. independently distributed
random values. If there are still signs of autoregression in the et correlogram, a second-
order Markov model is tried, and the order is increased until a random et correlogram is
obtained. The frequency distribution diagram of the first order et values (Fig.2.3c)
demonstrates an approximate approach to the normal (Gussian) distribution.
At this stage, the final definition of the recognisable components of the time series
has been accomplished including the distribution of the random residuals. As part of the
analysis, the fitted models should be tested by the accepted statistical methods applied
to times series. Once the models have been formulated and quantified to satisfactory
confidence limits, the total mathematical representation of the time series can be used
for solving hydrological problems by synthesizing non-historic data series having the
same statistical properties as the original data series.
2-11
Fig.2.3 River Thames at Teddingtom Weis (82 years of monthly flows, from Shaw, 1988)
2.5 TIME SERIES SYNTHESIS
The production of a synthetic data series simply reverses the procedure of the time
series analysis. First, for as many data items as are required, a comparable sequence of
random numbers, drawn from the et distribution, is generated using a standard computer
package. Second, the corresponding synthetic Zt values are recursively calculated using
equation 2.23 (starting the series with the last value of the historic Zt series as the Zt-1
value). Third, the Et series then derives from equation 2.22 in reverse:
Et = Z t sE + E (2.25)
The periodic component Pt represented by mt and st for time period t is then added to the
Et values to give:
X t = Tt + Et st + mt (from equation 2.21) (2.26)
The incorporation of the trend component Tt then produces a synthetic series of Xt

having similar statistical properties to the historic data series.
2-12
Hydrological Models
2.6 SOME STOCHASTIC MODELS
Ultimately design decisions must be based on a stochastic model or a combination

of stochastic and deterministic models. This is because any system must be designed to
operate in the future. Deterministic models are not available for generating future
watershed inputs in the form of precipitation, solar radiation, etc., nor is it likely that
deterministic models for these inputs will be available in the near future. Stochastic
models must be used for these inputs.
2.6.1 Purely random stochastic models
Possibly the simplest stochastic process to model is where the events can be
assumed to occur at discrete times with the time between events constants, the events at
any time are independent of the events at any other time, and the probability distribution
of the event is known. Stochastic generation from a model of this type merely amounts
to generating a sample of random observations from a univariate probability
distribution. For example, random observations for any normal distribution can be
generated from the relationship,
y = R N + (2.27)
where RN is a standard random normal deviate (i.e. a random observation from a

standard normal distribution) and and are the parameters of the desired normal
distribution of Y. Computer routines are available for generating standard random
normal distribution.
2.6.2 Autoregressive models
Where persistence is present, synthetic sequences cannot be constructed by taking a

succession of sample values from a probability distribution, since this will not take
account of the relation between each number of sequences and those preceding it.
Consider a second order stationary time series, such as an annual time series, made up
of a deterministic part and a random part. The deterministic part is selected so as to
reflect the persistence effect, while it is assumed that the random part has a zero mean
and a constant variance. One of the models to simulate such a series is the
Autoregressive model. The general form of an autoregressive model is
( yt ) = 1 ( yt 1 ) + 2 ( yt 2 ) + ... + k ( yt k ) + t (2.28)
where is mean value of the series, is the regression coefficient, the {y1, y2, ,
yt,} is the observed sequence and the random variables t are usually assumed to be
Normally and independently distributed with zero mean and variance 2 . In order to
determining the order k of autoregression required to describe the persistence
adequately, it is necessary to estimate k+2 parameters: 1, 2, k, and the variance
of residuals 2 . Efficient methods for estimating these parameters have been described
by Kendall and Stuart (1968), Jenkins and Watts (1968), and illustrated in the
hydrological context by Carlson et al, (1970), see also Clarke (1973, page 44).
2-13
The first order autoregression
yt = 1 ( yt 1 ) + t (2.29)
has found particular application in hydrology. When equation (2.29) is used to model
annual discharge series, the model states that the value of y in one time period is
dependent only on the value of y in the preceding time period plus a random
component. It is also assumed that t is independent of yt.
Equation (2.29) is the well-known first order Markov Model in the literature. It has
three parameters to be estimated: , 1, and 2 .
For the moment method of parameter estimation, parameter can be computed
from the time series as the arithmetic mean of the observed data.
As for 1, the Yule-Walker equation (Delleur, 1991) shows that
P
k = j k j , k>0 (2.30)
j =1
the above equation, written for k = 1, 2, , yields a set of equations. Where k is the
autocorrelation coefficient for time lag k. As the autocorrelation coefficients 1, 2, ,
can be estimated from the data using equation (2.17), these equations can be solved for
the autoregressive parameters 1, 2, , p. This is the estimation of parameters by the
method of moments. For example, for the first order autoregressive model, AR(1), the
Yule-Walker equations yield
1 = 1 o = 1 since o = 1 (2.31)
in the similarly way we can derive the equations for computing 1 and 2 for the AR(2)
model as
1 (1 2 ) 2 12
1 = 2 = (2.32)
1 12 1 12
It can be shown that 2 is related to y2 (the variance of the yt series) by:
2 = y2 (1 12 ) (2.33)
If the distribution of y is N(y, y2 ) then distribution of is N(0, 2 ). Random values yt

can now be generated by selecting t randomly from a N(0, 2 ) distribution. If z is
N(0,1) then z or z y 1 12 is N(0, 2 ). Thus, a model for generating Ys that are
N(y, y2 ) and follow the first order Markov model is
yt = y + 1( yt 1 y ) + zt y (1 12 ) (2.34)
2-14
Hydrological Models
The procedure for generating a value for yt is:
(1) estimate y, y, and 1 by y , s x , and r1 (eq.2.17) respectively,

(2) select a zt at random from a N(0, 1) distribution, and
(3) calculate yt by eq. (2.34) based on y , s x , and 1 , and yt-1.
The first value of yt, i.e. y1, might be selected at random from a N(y, y2 ). To
eliminate the effect of y1 on the generated sequence, the first 50 or 100 generated values
might be discarded.
Equation (2.34) has been widely used for generating annual runoff from watersheds
(Fiering and Jackon, 1971, see also Haan, 1976).
2.6.3 First order Markov process with periodicity: Thomas - Fiering model
The first order Markov model of the previous section assumes that the process is
stationary in its first three moments. It is possible to generalise the model so that the
periodicity in hydrologic data is accounted for to some extent. The main application of
this generalisation has been in generating monthly streamflow where pronounced
seasonality in the monthly flows exists. In its simplest form, the method consists of the
use of twelve linear regression equations. If, say, twelve years of record are available,
the twelve January flows and the twelve December flows are abstracted and January
flow is regressed upon December flow; similarly, February flow is regressed upon
January flow, and so on for each month of the year.
q jan = q jan + b jan (qdec qdec ) + jan

q feb = q feb + b feb (q jan q jan ) + feb

Fig.2.4 shows a regression analysis of qj+1 on qj, pairs of successive monthly flows for
the months (j+1) and j over the years of record where j = 1, 2, 3, ..., 12 (Jan, Feb, ...
Dec) and when j = 12, j+1 = 1 = Jan (there would be 12 such regressions). If the
regression coefficient of month j+1 on j is bj, then the regression line values of a
monthly flow, q j +1 , can be determined from the previous months flow qj, by the
equation:
q j +1 = q j +1 + b j (q j q j ) (2.35)
To account for the variability in the plotted points about the regression line
reflecting the variance of the measured data about the regression line, a further
component is added:
Z s j +1 ( 1 r j2 )
where s j+1 is the standard deviation of the flows in month j+1, rj is the correlation
coefficient between flows in months j+1 and j throughout the record, and Z = N(0, 1), a
2-15
normally distributed random deviate with zero mean and unit standard deviation. The
general form may written as
q j +1,i = q j +1 + b j (q j ,i 1 q j ) + Z j +1,i s j +1 (1 r j2 ) (2.36)
Where b j = r j s j +1 / s j , there are 36 parameters for the monthly model

( q , r and s for each month). The subscript j refers to month. For monthly synthesis j
varies from 1 to 12 throughout the year. The subscript i is a serial designation from year
1 to year n. Other symbols are the same as mentioned earlier.
Fig.2.4 Thomas-Fiering model
The procedure for using the model is as follows:
(1) For each month, j = 1, 2, 12, calculate
1
(a) the mean flow q j = q j ,i ; (i = j , 12 + j , 24 + j , L)
n i
( q j ,i q j ) 2
(b) the standard deviation S j = i
n 1
(c) the correlation coefficient with flow in the preceding month,
(q j ,i q j )(q j +1,i q j +1 )
r j= i =1
(q j ,i q j ) 2 (q j +1,i q j +1 ) 2
i i
(d) the slope of the regression equation relating the months flow to flow in the
preceding month:
S j +1
b j = rj
Sj
(2) The model is then set of twelve regression equations
2-16
Hydrological Models
q j +1,i = q j +1 + b j (q j ,i 1 q j ) + Z j +1,i s j +1 (1 r j2 )
where Z is a random Normal deviate N(0, 1).
(3) To generate a synthetic flow sequence, calculate (generate) a random number

sequence {Z1, Z2, }, and substitute in the model.
2.6.4 Moving average models
The model form:

The moving average has frequently been used to smooth various types of
hydrologic time series such as daily or weekly air temperature, evaporation rates, wind
speed, etc. The moving average process used in the stochastic generation hydrologic
data is somewhat different. In this use, the moving average process describes the
deviations of a sequence of events from their mean value.
A process {xt } defined as
xt = et + 1et-1 + 2et-2 + ...+ qet-q (2.37)
where {et } is an uncorrelated stationary process, is called a moving average process of

order q, denoted MA(q)-process.
It can also be written as
xt = et - 1et-1 - 2et-2 - ...- qet-q (2.38)
with 1 = -1, 2 = -2, ..., q = -q.
The properties of the moving average process:

The autocovariance of the process is obtained by forming the product xi xt k and
taking the expectation:
[ ]
k = E (et 1et 1 ... q et q )(et k 1et k 1 ... q et k q ) (2.39)
For k = 0 we obtain the variance of the process
q
2
= o = e2 (1 + 12 + 22 + ... + q2 ) = e2 2j (2.40)
j =0
with the convention o = -1
qk
k = e2 ( k + 1 k +1 + 2 k + 2 + ... + q k q ) = e2 j j + k for k q (2.41)
j =0
k = 0 for k > q (2.42)
The autocorrelation function is then
2-17
qk
j j + k
j =0
k = k = , kq
o q (2.43)
2j
j =0
=0 k>q
Equations (2.40) and (2.41) can be used for the estimation of the parameters by method
of moments. For this purpose they are rewritten as follows:
o
e2 = (2.44)
1 + 12 + 22 + ... + q2
j
j = ( + + ... + q j q ) (2.45)
e 1 j +1 2 j + 2
Equ. (2.44) and (2.45) are used recursively. For example for the MA(1) model
xt = et - 1et-1 (2.46)
we have
o 1
e2 = 1 = (2.47)
1 + 12 e2
where o and 1 are estimates of the auto-covariance and computed from the data.
2.6.5 ARMA models
Model form:
In stochastic hydrology ARMA models are known as Auto-Regressive Moving
Average (ARMA) models. They combine any direct autocorrelation properties of a data
series with the smoothing effects of an updated running mean through the series. The
two components of the model for a data series xt, e.g. annual river flows, are described
by:
Auto-regression (AR(p))
xt = 1xt 1 + 2 xt 2 + L + p xt p + et (2.48)
Moving average (MA(q))
xt = et - 1et-1 - 2et-2 - ...- qet-q (2.49)
where et are random numbers with zero mean and variance e2 .

The Auto-regressive moving average (ARMA(p, q)) model is defined as:
2-18
Hydrological Models
xt = 1xt 1 + 2 xt 2 + L + p xt p + et 1et 1 2et 2 ... q et q (2.50)
One of the merits of the ARMA process is that, in general, it is possible to fit a model
with a small number of parameters, i.e. p+q. This number is generally smaller than the
number of parameters that would be necessary using either an AR model or a MA
model. This principle is called the parsimony of parameters.
The first order model ARMA(1, 1) is:
xt = 1 xt 1 + et + 1et 1 (-1 < 1 < 1) and (-1 < 1 < 1) (2.51)
Properties of ARMA model:

Consider in the ARMA(1, 1) model which has been used extensively in hydrology:
xt = 1xt 1 + et + 1et 1 (2.52)
Multiplying both sides of (2.52) by xt k
xt k xt = 1xt k xt 1 + xt k et + 1xt k et 1
and taking the expectation of both sides we obtain the autocovariance
k = 1 k 1 + E ( xt k et ) 1E ( xt k et 1 ) (2.53)
For k = 0, equ (2.53) becomes
o = 1 1 + E ( xt et ) 1E ( xt et 1 )
but
[ ]
E ( xt et ) = E 1xt 1et + et2 + 1et 1et = e2
and
[
E ( xt et 1 ) = E 1xt 1et 1 + et et 1 + 1et21 ]
= E1[xt 1et 1 ] 1 e2 (2.54)
= ( 1 1 ) e2
Thus
o = 1 1 + e2 1 ( 1 1 ) e2 (2.55)
For k = 1 equ (2.53) becomes
1 = 1 0 + 0 1 e2
2-19
Combining with the previous equation
o = 12 o 11 e2 + e2 1 ( 1 1 ) e2
or
1 + 12 2 11
o = (2.56)
1 12
and
( 1 1 )(1 11 ) 2
1 = e (2.57)
1 12
For k 2
k = 1 k 1 k2 (2.58)
the autocorrelation function (ACF) is obtained by dividing (2.56), (2.57) and (2.58) by
to obtain
k = 1 k=0 (2.59a)
( 1 1 )(1 11 )
= k=1 (2.59b)
1 + 1 2 11
= 1 k 1 k2 (2.59c)
Observe that the MA parameter 1 enters only in the expression for 1. For 2 and
beyond the behaviour of the autocorrelation is identical to that of the AR(1) model.
Estimates of the parameters 1 and 1 can be obtained from equations (2.59b) and
(2.59c), since the serial (auto) correlation coefficients 1 and 2 can be computed from
data. More efficient methods of estimating ARMA parameters are to be found in
advanced texts (e.g. Box & Jenkins, 1970).
In general for an ARMA(p, q) model the autocovariance is
k = 1 k 1 + ... + p k p + E [xt k et ] 1E [xt k et 1 ] ...

[
q E xt k et q] k < q+1 (2.60a)
k = 1 k 1 + ... + p k p k q+1 (2.60b)
and the ACF is
k = 1 k 1 + ... + p k p k q+1 (2.61)
2-20
Hydrological Models
after lag q+1 the ACF tails off as for an AR(p) process. For the first q lags, the ACF
depends on AR and MA parameters.
Hydrologic justification of ARMA models

A physical justification of ARMA models for annual streamflow simulation is as
follows. Consider a watershed with annual precipitation Xt, infiltration aXt and
evapotranspiration bXt. The surface runoff is (1-a-b)Xt = dXt. (See Fig 2.5).
Fig.2.5 Conceptual representation of the precipitation-streamflow process after Salas and Smith
(1980)
Let the groundwater contribution to the stream be cSt-1.

Thus,
Z t = cSt 1 + dX t (2.62)
The conservation of mass for the groundwater storage is
St = St 1 + aX t cSt 1 (2.63)
or
St = (1 c) St 1 + aX t (2.64)
Rewriting (2.62)
Z t 1 = cSt 2 + dX t 1
or
1 d
St 2 = Z t 1 + X t 1 (2.65)
c c
2-21
and rewriting (2.64) as
St 1 = (1 c) St 2 + aX t 1 (2.66)
Combining (2.62), (2.66) and (2.65) we obtain
Z t = c(1 c) St 2 + acX t 1 + dX t
Z t = (1 c) Z t 1 d (1 c) X t 1 + acX t 1 + dX t
Z t = (1 c) Z t 1 + dX t [d (1 c) ac ]X t 1 (2.67)
which has the form of an ARMA (1, 1), i.e. equation (2.52) model when the
precipitation, Xt is an independent series and when (1-c) = 1, d = 1, and [d(1-c)-ac)] =
1..
2.6.6 Daily data generation models
The synthetic generation of series of daily events is an extremely complicated problem

for certain types of data. Data which can be considered nearly independent from one
day to the next are not particularly difficult and can be handled by any of the previously
described processes. However, daily processes such as temperature, solar energy, and
streamflow have characteristics that are much more difficult to model. Streamflow, for
example, is extremely difficult.
The high degree of persistence, due to the drainage of flood water from the channel
system within which it has been stored, makes streamflow difficult to model on a daily
basis. During the recession, correlation between the flow for period and that either
preceding or following is very high. The magnitude of the autocorrelation (slope of the
recession) is a function of many things such as the irregularity (roughness) of the
channel, slope of the channel, size of the channel, temperature of the water, sediment
content, and the amount and condition of vegetation on channel banks. Changes in these
factors can cause the autocorrelation coefficients to vary from event to event, season to
season and even year to year. Moreover, streamflow is made up of two components of
entirely different character. One component is surface runoff which is a nonlinear
response due to the high degree of control that solar energy, vegetation growth,
evapotranspiration and soil moisture exercise on flow characteristics. The other
component is groundwater flow which is much more linear in response because it acts
primarily like drainage from one or more reservoirs. The magnitude of the different
components varies considerably from one site to another. It can be entirely surface
runoff, for example, where streams have small headwater catchments and are in soils of
very low permeability, to entirely subsurface runoff such as is experienced in some sand
soil or coastal plain soil areas.
These characteristics of streamflow make the synthetic generation of daily data
extremely difficult. Few studies (Weiss, 1973, 1977, OConnell, 1977; see also Haan et
al., 1982), nevertheless, have been made to use shot-noise model to represent daily flow
records as a stochastic process. Fitting of such a model to daily hydrologic data is quite
complex and can be a laborious task. No details will be given here. In many respects,
the best model of daily data may be obtained from catchment rainfall-runoff models as
discussed in other chapters of this book.
2-22
Hydrological Models
2.6.7 Miscellaneous models
The models of some hydrologic processes are such that they cannot be classified
into any of the previous categories. Several rainfall models fall into this group. Since
these are quite important from the standpoint of stochastic models, they are mentioned
here. However, since they were developed to model a specific process and are not
general models of runoff process, they will not be described extensively. Readers who
are interested in this specific model types, can easily found many examples in the
literature with the keyword of rainfall models.
2.7 THE USES OF STOCHASTIC MODELS
(1) To make predictions of frequencies of extreme events

Stochastic models have been used to make predictions about the frequency of
occurrence of certain extreme events of interest to the hydrologist. Models such as that
given by equation (2.29) are selected, and the residual t is taken to be random variable
with probability distribution whose parameters are specified. The parameters are
estimated from data; so-called "synthetic" sequence {yt} can then be constructed, and
the frequency with which the extreme event occurs in them can be taken as an estimate
of the "true" frequency with which it would occur in the long run.
(2) For the investigation of system operating rules

A further use for synthetic sequences generated by stochastic models is in reservoir
operation, such as the investigation of the suitability of proposed operating rules for the
release of water from complex systems of interconnected reservoirs. By using the
generated sequence as inputs to the reservoir system operated according to the proposed
rules, the frequency with which demands fail to be met can be estimated. This may lead
to revision of the proposed release rules; the modified rules may be tested by a similar
procedure.
(3) To provide short-term forecasts

Stochastic models have been used to make forecasts. Given the values xt, xt-1, xt-2,
...; yt, yt-1, yt-2, ... assumed by the input and output variables up to time t, stochastic
models have been constructed from this data for forecasting the output from the system
at future times, t+1, t+2, ..., t+k, .... In statistical terminology, k is the lead-time of the
forecast. Many stochastic models have a particular advantage for forecasting purposes
in that they provide, as a by-product of the procedure for estimating model parameters,
confidence limits for forecasts (i.e. a pair of values, one less than the forecast and one
greater, such that there is a given probability P that these values will bracket the
observed value of the variable at time t+k). Confidence limits therefore express the
uncertainty in forecasts; the wider apart the confidence limits, the less reliable the
forecast. Furthermore, the greater the lead-time k for which forecasts is required, the
greater will be the width of the confidence interval, since the distant future in more
uncertain than the immediate.
(4) To "extend" records of short duration, by correlation

Stochastic models have been used to "extend" records of basin discharge where this
record is short. For example, suppose that it is required to estimate the instantaneous
2-23
peak discharge with a return period of T years (i.e. such that it would recur with
frequency once in T years, in the long run). One approach to this problem is to examine
the discharge record at the site for which the estimate is required, to abstract the
maximum instantaneous discharge for each year of record, and to represent the
distribution of annual maximum instantaneous discharge by a suitable probability
density function. The abscissa, Yo, say, that is exceeded by a proportion 1/T of the
distribution then estimates the T-year flood.
It, however, frequently happens that the length of discharge record available is
short, say ten years or fewer. On the other hand, a much longer record of discharge may
be available for another gauging site, such that the peak discharges at the two sites are
correlated. In certain circumstances, it is then permissible to represent the relation
between the annual maximum discharges at the two sites by a regression equation and
to use this fitted equation to estimate the annual maximum instantaneous discharges for
the site with short record.
(5) To provide synthetic sequences of basin input

Suppose that the model has been developed for a system consisting of a basin with
rainfall as input variable, streamflow as output variable. If a stochastic model were
developed from which a synthetic sequence of rainfall could be generated having
statistical properties resembling those of the historic rainfall sequence, the synthetic
rainfall sequence could be used as input to the main model for transformation to the
synthetic discharge sequence. The discharge so derived could then be examined for the
frequency of extreme events.
This approach to the study of the frequency of extreme discharge events is
essentially an alternative to that described in paragraph (1) above. In the latter, a
synthetic sequence is derived from a stochastic model of the discharge alone; in the
former, a synthetic discharge sequence is derived by using a model to convert a
synthetic sequence of rainfall into discharge.
2-24
Hydrological Models
REFERENCES OF CHAPTER 2
Box, G.E.P. and Jenkins, G.M., 1970. Time series analysis, Forecasting, and control.
Halden-day, San Francisco. 543p.
Clarke, R.T., 1973. A review of some mathematical models used in hydrology, with
observations on their calibration and use. J. Hydrol. 19: 1-20.
Clarke, R.T., 1994. Statistical Modelling in Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Delleur, J.W., 1991. Time Series Analysis Applied to Hydrology. V.U.B.-Hydrologie
(19), Free University Brussels.
Fiering, M.B. and Jackson, B.B., 1971. Synthetic Streamflows. Water Resources
Monograph 1, Amer. Geophys. Union, Washington, DC, 1-98.
Haan, C.T., 1976. Statistical Methods in Hydrology. The Iowa University Press, Ames,
p378.
Haan, C.T., Johnson, H.P. and Brakenslek, D.L., 1982. Hydrologic Modeling of Small
Watersheds. An ASAE Monograph Number 5 In a Series published by American
Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Jenkins, G.M. and Watts, D.G., 1968. Spectral analysis and its applications, Holden
Day, 525pp.
Kendall, M.G. and Stuart, A., 1968. The advanced theory of statistics. Vol3: design and
Analysis, and time series, Hafner, 557pp.
Kendall, M.G., 1975. Rank Correlation Methods. Griffin, London.
Mann, H.B., 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13, 245-259.
OConnell, P.E., Shot noise models in synthetic hydrology. In: Mathematical models for
surface water hydrology by Ciriani, Maione and Wallis. John Wiley and Sons. Pp19-
26.
Salas, J.D. and Smith, R.A., 1980. Physical basis of stochastic models of annual flows.
Water Resources Research.
Shaw, E.M., 1988. Hydrology in Practice 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold (UK) Co.
Ltd.
Weiss, G., 1973. Shot noise models for synthetic generation of multisite daily
streamflow data. Symposium UNESCO World Meteorological Organisation, Intr.
Assoc. of Hydrol. Sci., Madrid.
Weiss, G., 1977. Shot noise models for the generation of synthetic streamflow data.
Water Resources Research 13(1).
Xu, C-Y and Vandewiele, G.L., 1995. Parsimonious monthly rainfall-runoff models for
humid basins with different input requirements, Advance in Water Resources 18: 39-
48.
2-25
CHAPTER 3
PRECIPITATION IN CATCHMENT MODELS
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In general precipitation is the largest quantity in the hydrological cycle and in a

water balance equation. Precipitation is the main input to most hydrologic models. The
accuracy of measurement and computation of precipitation from a network of stations
determines to a considerable extent the reliability of water balance computations. No
reliable water balance computation is possible with insufficient knowledge of the spatial
rainfall patterns. The main reason for errors in the areal mean of precipitation is the high
spatial-temporal variability of precipitation and the resulting complicated statistical
structure of precipitation data.
The proposed use of a hydrologic model dictates the needed detail and complexity
of precipitation input. Economic considerations usually determine whether the desired
sampling detail is actually achieved. For example, data from a single standard rain-gage
may be sufficient to determine average annual or seasonal rainfall on a small watershed.
A single recording rain-gage may provide enough information to predict average annual
erosion and surface water yield. A network of recording gages is needed to describe the
variation of precipitation in time and space. Data from a network of recording gages
may be needed to estimate flood peaks, erosion, and sedimentation from individual
events, or spatial variability of runoff production. Other hydrologic measurements, like
temperature, humidity, solar radiation, evapotranspiration, and antecedent soil moisture,
may be needed as well as precipitation for accurate water balance calculations or
accurate crop yield estimates.
For details concerning point precipitation measurement, calculation of areal
precipitation, etc., refer to the course "Catchment Hydrology".
3.2 SEPARATION OF SNOWFALL FROM PRECIPITATION
Precipitation includes rainfall, snowfall, and other processes by which water falls to
the land surface, such as hail and sleet. The first two forms constitute the major part of
precipitation and are of importance in hydrologic models.
Snow and snowfall play a significant part in the hydrologic regime in many parts of
the world. Snow has received attention as a water resource, primarily in the northern
part of North America, Europe, and Asia. All of Sweden receives snow in
hydrologically significant amounts. For hydrologic purposes, the water content is more
important than depth, unless one is interested in the insulating properties of the snow as
in soil freezing studies. Snow water equivalent and snow density are more useful for
hydrologic modelling.
Whether precipitation falls as rain or snow can have a very significant influence on
the estimation of runoff, especially for the spring flows. Model performance is therefore
sensitive to decisions made concerning the form of precipitation. The problem with
determination of the form of precipitation is usually solved in a rather simple manner in
most modelling processes. The air temperature is accepted as a determining factor
3-1
Ch3. Precipitation in catchment models
meaning that snow accumulation starts as soon as the temperature is lower than a certain
threshold value. It may be noted that some models use a fixed value of the threshold
temperature, whereas others treat it as a calibration parameter. This method has been
used by the U.S. Corps of Engineers (1956), Anderson (1973) and HBV model among
others. According to an investigation made by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the
threshold value may vary between -1.7oC and +4.4oC when studying hourly values. An
investigation of daily values made at the Lilla Tivsjn climate station in Sweden is
shown in Fig.3.1 (Bergstrm, 1975). This investigation shows that the threshold value
may vary between -2.5oC and +4.0oC when studying daily values.
Fig.3.1. The observer's note on the form of precipitation related to mean daily
temperature. Each point represents one day with precipitation.
Methods used in conceptual hydrological models for distinguishing the rainfall and
snowfall are quite simple. Some examples of such methods are discussed as follows:
(1) In the HBV model and many others,
Ps = 0, Pr = Pt when Ta To (3.1)
Pr = 0, Ps = Pt when Ta < To
Where
Pr = amount of precipitation in the form of rain (mm)
Ps = amount of precipitation in the form of snow (mm)
Pt = total precipitation (mm)
Ta = mean daily air temperature (oC)
To = Threshold temperature (oC)
(2) In the Hydrocomp (1969) model the division is based on the expression shown in
equation (3.2).
Ps = 0, Pr = Pt when To (33oF 0.6 oC) (3.2)

Pr = 0, Ps = Pt when To < (33oF 0.6 oC)
And To is calculated by
To = Ta (Ta Td )(0.12 + 0.008Ta ) (3.3)
3-2
Hydrologic Models
where
Td = dew-point temperature, and other notations have the same meaning as in

equation 3.1.
(3) Willen (1971) and Moussavi (1988) used the following equation for estimating the
form of precipitation in their runoff models:
Ps = 0, Pr = Pt when Tmin To
Pr = 0, Ps = Pt when Tmax < To (3.4)
percent rain = [(tmax - to)/(tmax - tmin)]100 when Tmin To Tmax
where: tmax is the daily maximum air temperature, tmin is the daily minimum air
temperature, and other notations have the same meaning as before.
(4) Shih et al (1972) specify the division by the functions shown in equation (3.5)
Ps = 0, Pr = Pt when Ta Tr
Pr = 0, Ps = Pt when Ta Ts (3.5)
T Ts
Pr = Pt a when Ts Ta Tr
Tr Ts
where
Tr = limiting temperature above which precipitation will be rain, e.g., 38oF (3.3oC)
Ts = limiting temperature below which precipitation will be snow, e.g., 30oF (-
1.1oC). Other notations have the same meaning as before.
(5) Xu et al. (1996) used the following equation in the monthly snow and water balance
model.
{
Ps = pt 1 exp[ (Ta Tr ) / (Tr Ts )]2 }+ Tr Ts (3.6)
Pr = Pt - Ps
where
Tr = threshold temperature above which precipitation will be rain (2oC).
Ts = threshold temperature above which snowmelt process begins (-2oC).
Other notations have the same meaning as before.
3-3
3.3 MODELLING OF SNOWMELT
Problems of snowmelt runoff modelling associated with the climatic and

physiographic conditions of these regions are functions of data availability, regional
characteristics, modelling approach, and model application. Many of these problems are
common to all models and regions, whereas others are unique to specific models or
regions. The more universal problems are generally associated with data constraints,
whereas the more unique problems are associated with model formulation and the
climatic and physiographic conditions of a region.
Most models of snowmelt use variations of the energy balance method pioneered
by Wilson (1941) in which he outlined the sources of energy that cause snowmelt. In
this section, the use of the energy balance method and its simplifications are first
outlined, and secondly, the application of various techniques of snowmelt calculations
as incorporated into currently used models is described.
3.3.1 Energy balance approach:
The energy balance approach uses a form of the energy balance equation for a
snowpack that can be written as (US Army, 1956):
H = H sn + H ln + H c + H e + H g + H p + H q (3.7)
where
H = energy available for snowmelt (net heat transfer to snowpack from its
environment).
Hsn = net shortwave radiation
Hln = net longwave radiation
H c = convective heat flux
H e = latent heat flux
H g = conduction of heat from the ground
H p = heat content of rain drops
Hq = change in energy content of the snowpack.
If H is the total net change in energy, the melt M, is calculated as (Haan et al., 1982):
M = H/Lf (3.8)
where Lf is the latent heat of fusion of ice.
The use of energy balance technique results in a model which may be very close to
being correct, but which may be unwieldy to use, except in very specialised, highly
instrumented situations (Kuzmin, 1973; Haan et al., 1982). Among the variables
necessary for a complete heat budget computation according to equation (3.7), can be
mentioned:
-total solar radiation,

-albedo,
-longwave radiation balance (effective radiation)
-air temperature,
3-4
Hydrologic Models
-air humidity,
-wind speed,
-temperature gradients in the soil and in snow,
-precipitation.
In addition to these variables some physical parameters governing heat exchange

with the atmosphere, heat transfer within the snowpack, liquid water content in the
snow and drainage of the snowpack, would have to be estimated. Limits on the
availability of some of these data and on techniques to extrapolate point measurements
to areal mean values have restricted most applications of equation (3.7) to snowmelt
studies at a point or on small plots (Leavesley, 1989). A few basin scale models that use
equation (3.7) are currently being developed and tested; these models include the
Institute of Hydrology Model, IHDM (Morris, 1980) and the SHE model (Jonch-
Clausen, 1979).
To work with limits imposed by data availability on the energy balance approach,
many investigators have studied the relative importance of the various energy balance
components, this greatly aids in simplifying the computations when the situation
justifies it or more detailed data are not available. Various modified versions of
equation (3.7) have been used. In most of these models, Hsn, Hln, H p and H q are
computed using measured data and the remaining components are parameterized and
fitted, or are assumed to be negligible. Examples include the Precipitation and Runoff
Modelling System, PRMS (Leavesley et al., 1983) and the Snowmelt Model,
MELTMOD (Leaf & Brink, 1973).
3.3.2 Simplifications
Zuzel and Cox (1975) measured daily values of wind, air temperature, vapor
pressure, net radiation, and melt at a point. They found that for an area with continuous
snow cover, vapour pressure, net radiation, and wind run explained 78% of the
variations in melt, whereas air temperature and net radiation explained 60%.
Temperature alone had a coefficient of determination of 0.51 and net radiation was 0.40.
Raffelson (1974) investigated the energy balance of isolated snowdrifts in
Wyoming during melt. He found the sensible and latent heat components were about the
same size, and both substantially larger than the radiation component. ONeill (1972)
and Gray and ONeill (1974) found that net radiation was the predominant energy
source for snowmelt for the Canadian Prairies when the snow cover was continuous,
supplying 93% of the melt energy. For non-continuous cover, advection of heat from
bare ground to isolated drifts caused 44% of melt energy to be supplied by sensible heat
transfer and 56% by net radiation. For an isolated drift, Cox and Zuzel (1976) found that
69% of the energy available for melt and evaporation came from sensible heat input.
The Crops of Engineers (1960) assigned a constant value to shortwave radiation during
rain periods. King and Molnau (1976) noted that temperature index methods seem to
work well for calculating snowmelt during overcast periods, indicating that radiation
was relatively unimportant during those periods. Kuzmin (1973) explored five different
simplifications of the basic energy balance method. He found that the use of
temperature was possible for plains when mean daily temperature was greater than 2C.
In conceptual hydrologic models, emphasis has been put on determining snowmelt
by use of air temperature or a temperature index because of the ease of obtaining air
temperatures and because temperature is the most easily extrapolated meteorological
variable.
3-5
3.3.3 Temperature index approach (degree-day method):
Usually, an air temperature index approach has the form of:
M = Cm(Ta-Tb) (3.9)
where
M = snow melt (mm/day);
Cm = degree day coefficient (mm/day/oC);
Ta = air temperature (oC); and
Tb = a base temperature (oC).
For most cases, Tb is assumed to be constant. It can either be determined by

experience, e.g. Granger and Male (1977) used Tb = 0, or be estimated by model
calibration.
Cm and Ta are assumed to integrate the effects of several of the individual energy-
budget components in equation (3.7). This is a very broad assumption and is a source of
error for a variety of conditions. To minimize this error, most temperature index models
apply a number of adjustments to Cm and Ta. Cm is adjusted to incorporate knowledge
of the relations between it and measurable spatial and temporal variations in basin and
climate characteristics. Anderson (1973) allows Cm to vary from a minimum on
December 21 to a maximum on June 21, using a sine curve. For an Iowa watershed with
no forest cover, the Cm ranged from 7.3 to 3.6 mm/C/day. McKay (1968) presents
curves of degree day factors for a shallow prairie snowpack. Gartska (1944) noted a
strong correspondence between cumulative runoff and cumulative degree-hours above 0
C. This relationship seemed consistent within a storm, but varied between storms. King
(1976) used the degree-day method on small watersheds in the Palouse Prairie. He used
Cm as a function of cumulative degree-hours with good success. However, he found that
different functions may be needed for basins with different aspects because of the
rolling topography.
Bengtsson (1976) developed the idea of an equilibrium temperature to use in place
of the base temperature. This is the temperature at which no net transfer of heat between
the air and snow takes place. By equating the energy balance approach with degree-day
factor, he found that Cm could be determined as a function of wind speed for a forested
watershed and a function of solar radiation for nonforested areas
HBV Model (Bergstrm, 1976, 1995) and the Snowmelt Runoff Model, SRM
(Martinec et al., 1983) use a different value of Cm in each basin zone depending on the
vegetation characteristics of the zone. The HBV model holds each value of Cm constant
for the entire melt season while SRM varies Cm as a function of snowpack density. In
distributed models, different values of Cm for each basin zone or grid cell are used, they
also vary the magnitude of Cm through the melt season to account for the effects of
seasonal variation in day length on Cm. The Streamflow Synthesis and Reservoir
Regulation Model, SSARR (US Army, 1975) uses an antecedent temperature index to
adjust Cm seasonally.
3-6
Hydrologic Models
In the literature, there are many different versions of equation (3.9) in which Ta is
replaced by, e.g., maximum daily temperature, minimum daily temperature, and
combinations of these variables. Examples are:
1) M = Cm(Tmax - Tb) (Martinec & Range, 1986)

2) M = CmTmax (Power, 1986)
3) M = Cm (Tmax)2 (Woo, 1972)
4) M = Cm (Tmax - Tb) + b (Lang, 1984)
5) M = Cm (Tmax - Tmin) + b (Moussavi, 1988)
where b is a model parameter.
A different temperature index equation was used by Xu et al. (1996) in the snow and
water balance model, where snowmelt, Mt is considered as a function of temperature
and the snow storage, spt.
{
M t = spt 1 exp[(Ta Ts ) / (Tr Ts )]2 }
+
(3.10)
where Tr and Ts have the same meaning as in equ (3.6).
3.4 SNOWMELT IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS
Many hydrologic models include routines which will compute the amount of
snowmelt by any one or combination of methods mentioned in previous sections. Very
few models have been designed primarily as snowmelt models; normally, the snowmelt
routine is added to the precipitation section where the water input to the main part of the
hydrologic model is determined. Few examples of such snowmelt routine are discussed
in this section.
Utah Water Research Laboratory Model

The flow chart for this hybrid model (Riley et al., 1969) is shown in Fig.3.2. This is
a routine in a hybrid computer model and illustrates some of necessary steps in a mass
budget of snow on the ground. This model has been used successfully in mountain
snowpack situations, but there is nothing in its development which suggests it would not
work on agricultural catchments.
Ohio State University Model

The Ohio State University Model (OSUM) (Fig.3.3) is derived from the Kentucky
Watershed Model (KWM) (Ricca, 1972). The OSUM includes a snowmelt routine
developed specially for agricultural watersheds and was tested on the Coshocton
Watersheds. The model includes simplified versions of each of the energy balance terms
and requires daily average dewpoint, wind run, solar radiation, maximum and minimum
temperature.
3-7
Fig.3.2 Snow accumulation and ablation (from Riley et al., 1969)
Fig.3.3 Block diagram of snowmelt for the Ohio State University Model (from Ricca,
1972)
3-8
Hydrologic Models
Anderson, E.A., 1973. National weather service river forecasting system- Snow
accumulation and ablation model. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS HYDRO-
17, Silver Spring, MD.
Bengtsson, L., 1976. Snowmelt estimated from energy budget studies. Nordic
Hydrology 7: 3-18.
Bergstrm, S., 1975. The development of a snow routine for the HBV-2 model. Nordic
Hydrology, 6(2).
Bergstrm, S., 1976. Development and application of a conceptual runoff model for
Scandinavian catchments. SMHI report, Nr. RHO 7.
Bergstrm, S., 1995. The HBV model. In: Singh, V.P. (Ed.) Computer Models of
Watershed Hydrology. Water Resources Publication, Highlands, Ranch, CO, USA,
pp 443-476.
Cox, L.M. and J.F. Zuzel, 1976. A method for determining sensible heat transfer to late-
lying snowdrifts. Western Snow Conf. Proc. 44: 23-28.
Crops of Engineers, 1960. Runoff from snowmelt. US Army Crops of Engineers.
Gartska, W.U., 1944. Hydrology of small watersheds under winter conditions of snow
cover and frozen soil. Geophys. Union Trans., Part 6: 838-871.
Granger, R.J. D.H. Male, 1977. Melting of a prairie snowpack. American
Meteorological Society, Proc. 2nd Conf. On Hydrometeorol. pp 261-268.
Gray, D.M. and A.D.J. ONeill, 1974. Application of the energy budget for predicting
snowmelt runoff. In: Henry S. Stanford and James L. Smith (ed.), Advanced
Concepts and Techniques in the Study of Snow and Ice Resources, National
Academy of Sciences.
Haan, C.T., et al., 1982. Hydrologic Modeling of small Watersheds, Americam Society
of Agricultural Engineers.
Hydrocomp, Inc. 1969. Hydrocomp simulation programming operation manual (2nd
edition). Hydrocomp, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
Jonch-Clausen, T., 1979. Systeme Hydrologique Europeen: a short description. SHE
Report 1, Danish Hydraulics Institute, Horsholm, Denmark.
King, D.L., 1976. Simulation of the snow hydrology of the Paluse Prairie. University of
Idaho, Master of Science Thesis.
Kuzmin, P.P. 1973. Melting of snow cover. Israel Program of Scientific Translation,
published for National Science Foundation, Translation TT 71-50095.
Lang, H., 1984. Forecasting meltwater runoff from snow-covered areas and from glacier
basins. In: J.R. Moll (Ed), Real-time river flow forecasting. Landbhouwhoge school,
Wageningen, The Netherlands, Report 6: 113-146.
Leaf, C.F. and Brink, G.F., 1973. Computer simulation of snowmelt within a Colorado
subalpine watershed. US dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper RM-99.
Leavesley, 1989
Leavesley, et al., 1983
Martinec, et al., 1983
Martinec, J. and A. Rango, 1986. Parameter values for snowmelt runoff modelling. J.
Hydrol., 84:197-219.
Mckay, G.A., 1968. Problems of measuring and evaluating snow-cover. In: snow
Hydrology, Proc. Of Workshop Seminar, Canadian Nat. Comm. For the Int. Hydrol.
Decade, pp49-65.
3-9
Molnau, M., 1971. Comparison of runoff from a catchment snow pillow and a small
forested watershed, Western Snow Conf. Proc. 39: 39-43.
Morris, E.M., 1980. Modelling the flow of mass and energy within a snowpack for
hydrological forecasting. Ann. Glaciol., 4:198-203.
Moussavi, M.,1988. Hydrologic Systems Modelling of Mountainous Watersheds in
Semi-arid Regions. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
Oneill, A.D.J., 1972. The energetics of shallow prairie snowpacks. University of
Saskatchewan, PhD Dissertation.
Power, J.M., 1986. Canada case study: water supply. In: G. Young (Ed). Techniques for
prediction of runoff from glacierized areas. IAHS publ. No. 149. Institute of
Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Raffelson, C.N., 1974. Evaporation from snowdrifts under oasis conditions. University
of Wyoming, Master of Science Thesis.
Ricca, V.T., 1972. The Ohio State University version of the Stanford streamflow
simulation model: Part 1 Technical aspects. Ohio State University, Water
Resources Center.
Riley, J.P. et al., 1969. Snowmelt simulation. Western Snow Conf. Proc. 37: 49-56.
Shih, G.B., et al., 1972. Computer modelling of a coniferous forest watershed. In: Age
of Changing Priorities for land and water, ASCE.
US Army, 1975
US Crops of Engineers, 1956. Snow Hydrology. US Army, Crops of Engineers, North
Pacific Division, Portland.
Vandewiele, G.L. and Ni-Lar-Win, 1993. Monthly water and snow balance models on
basin scale, In: Runoff and Sediment Yield Modelling, K. Banasik and A. zbikowski
(eds), Warsaw, 83-88.
Willen, D.W., et al., 1971. Simulation of daily snow water equivalent and melt. Western
Snow Conference Proceedings, Billings, Mont.:1-8.
Wilson, W.T., 1941. An outline of the thermodynamics of snowmelt. Am. Geophys.
Union Trans., Part 1: 182-195.
WMO, 1986.
Woo, M.K., 1972. A numerical simulation model for snow storage in small coastal
basins, Southern British Columbia. IAHS Publ. no. 107, 2:992-1014.
Xu, C-Y, S. Halldin and J. Seibert, 1996. Regional water balance modelling in the
NOPEX area: development and application of monthly water balance models. J.
Hydrol. 180: 211-236.
Zuzel, J.F. and L.M. Cox, 1975. Relative importance of meteorological variables in
snowmelt. Water Resour. Res. 11(1): 174-176.
3-10
CHAPTER 4
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4.1 GENERAL
Three terms are used in this course. (1) The term evaporation, ET0 is used for
open/free water evaporation, i.e. the physical process involving a phase change from
liquid to vapor by which water is returned to the atmosphere from lakes and reservoirs
and, in some cases, from river channels in a river catchment. (2) The term actual
evapotranspiration, AET describes all the processes by which liquid water at or near the
land surface becomes atmospheric water vapor. Looking at a global average, two-thirds
of the precipitation that falls on the continents is evapotranspired. Of this amount, 97%
is from land surfaces and 3% is open-water evaporation. (3) The term potential
evapotranspiration, ET is the maximum rate of evapotranspiration from a vegetated
catchment under conditions of unlimited moisture supply. Of the three terms, the
potential evapotranspiration or free water evaporation is usually used as an input
together with precipitation to many hydrologic models. The term actual
evapotranspiration is an important output for most hydrologic models.
Accurate spatial and temporal estimations of evapotranspiration are required for
hydrologic models. Many methods of estimating evapotranspiration, whether for
hydrologic models or irrigation scheduling, have been developed. In general, the
procedure is to first estimate a potential evapotranspiration based on meteorological
factors, then compute the amount of that potential that is utilized by the actual
evapotranspiration processes, given the current status of the plant- and soil-moisture-
related characteristics.
4.2 ESTIMATION OF FREE WATER EVAPORATION AND POTENTIAL

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
The potential for evapotranspiration is usually defined as an atmospheric

determined quantity. There exist a multitude of methods for measurement and
estimation of ET. Certain of these methods are accurate and reliable; others provide
only a rough approximation. Most of the methods were developed for use in specific
studies and are most appropriate for use in climates similar to where they were
developed. It is not uncommon to use an equation for determination of evaporation from
open water that was actually developed for determination of potential
evapotranspiration from vegetated lands, and vice versa (see also Winter et al. 1995)
although they are not the same as defined in previous section.
In general, techniques for estimating potential ET or ET0 are based on one or more
atmospheric variables, like solar or net radiation and air temperature and humidity, or
some measurement related to these variables, like pan evaporation. Because climatic
variables usually do not vary significantly over small areas, ET estimates can often be
transferred some distance with minimal error. For most hydrologic applications, this is
necessary because data are rarely available on the area where needed.
In the sections that follow many of the most commonly used techniques for
estimating evaporation and potential evapotranspiration are described.
4-1
Ch4. Evapotranspiration in hydrologic models
4.2.1 Climatological Methods
4.2.1.1 Air temperature-based methods
In certain regions of the world, meteorological and climatological data may be quite
limited. Models based almost solely on air temperature may be used in such cases to
provide estimates of ET. The temperature methods are some of the earliest methods for
estimating ET (Jensen et al., 1990). If estimates are made for periods of several weeks
or a month, reasonable approximations are possible. Some of the more common
temperature-based models are described below. Most temperature-based equations take
the form:
= cTa (4.1)
or
= c1dlT(c2-c3h) (4.2)
in which ET is potential evapotranspiration, T is air temperature, h is a humidity term,

c1, c2, c3 are constants, dl is day-length. Many temperature-based equations have been
developed and used. The following seven temperature-based equations each
representing a special form of the equations (4.1) or (4.2) are discussed, namely:
Thornthwaite (1948), Linacre (1977), Blaney-Criddle (1950), Hargreaves (1985),
Kharrufa (1985), Hamon (1961), and Remanenko (1961) methods.
(1) Thornthwaite method:

A widely used method for estimating potential evapotranspiration was derived by
Thornthwaite (1948) who correlated mean monthly temperature with evapotranspiration
as determined from water balance for valleys where sufficient moisture water was
available to maintain active transpiration. In order to clarify the existing method, the
computational steps of Thornthwaite equation are discussed as follows:
Step 1: The annual value of the heat index I is calculated by summing monthly indices
over a 12-month period. The monthly indices are obtained from the equation
Ta 1.51
i= ( ) (4.3a)
5
and
12
I = ij (4.3b)
j =1
in which I = annual heat index; i = monthly heat index for the month j, (which is zero
when the mean monthly temperature is 0 C or less); Ta = mean monthly air temperature
(degree Celsius); and j = number of months (1 - 12).
4-2
Hydrologic Models
Step 2: The Thornthwaite general equation, Eq. 4a, calculates unadjusted monthly
values of potential evapotranspiration, ET' (in mm), based on a standard month of 30
days, 12 hr of sunlight/day.
10T
ET '= C ( a ) a (4.4a)
I
in which C = 16 (a constant); and a = 67.5 10 8 I 3 77.1 106 I 2 + .0179 I + .492 .

The value of the exponent a in the preceding equation varies from zero to 4.25
(e.g. Jain and Sinai, 1985), the annual heat index varies from zero to 160, and ET' is
zero for temperature below zero degree Celsius.
Step 3: The unadjusted monthly evapotranspiration values ET' are adjusted depending
on the number of days N in a month (1 N 31) and the duration of average monthly
or daily daylight d (in hr) which is a function of season and latitude.
d N
ET = ET ' ( )( ) (4.4b)
12 30
in which ET = adjusted monthly potential evapotranspiration (mm); d = duration of

average monthly daylight (hr); and N = number of days in a given month, 1 - 31 (days).
Thornthwaites equation has been widely criticized for its empirical nature but is
widely used. Because Thornthwaites method of estimating ET can be computed using
only temperature, it has been one of the most misused empirical equations in arid and
semi-arid irrigated areas where the requirement has not been maintained (Thornthwaite
and Mather, 1955).
(2) Linacre Method

For the case of well-watered vegetation with an albedo of about 0.25, Linacre
(1977) simplified Penman formula to give the following expression for the evaporate
rate:
500Tm /(100 A) + 15(Ta Td )

ET = (4.5)
(80 Ta )
where ET = Linacre potential evapotranspiration in mm/d, Tm = T+0.006h, h is the

elevation (meters). A is the latitude (degrees) and Td is the mean dew-point temperature.
Ta, Tm and Td are in C. This formula requires only geographical data (A and h), the
mean and the dew-point temperature.
(3) Blaney-Criddle method

The Blaney-Criddle (1950) procedure for estimating ET is well known in the
western USA and has been used extensively elsewhere also (Singh, 1989). The usual
form of the Blaney-Criddle equation converted to metric units is written as:
ET = kp(0.46Ta + 8.13) (4.6)
where ET is evapotranspiration from reference crop, in mm, for the period in which p is
expressed. Ta is mean temperature in C, p is percentage of total daytime hours for the
4-3
used period (daily or monthly) out of total daytime hours of the year (36512), and k is
monthly consumptive use coefficient, depending on vegetation type, location and
season. According to Blaney-Criddle, for the growing season (May to October) k varies
from 0.5 for orange tree to 1.2 for dense natural vegetation.
(4) Kharrufa method

Kharrufa (1985) derived an equation through correlation of ET/p and T in the form
of:
ET = 0.34 p Ta 1.3 (4.7)
where ET = Kharrufa potential evapotranspiration in mm/month, Ta and p have the

same definitions as given in equ (4.6).
(5) Hargreaves method

Hargreaves and Samani (1982, 1985) proposed several improvements for the
Hargreaves (1975) equation for estimating grass-related reference ET. Because solar
radiation data frequently are not available, Hargreaves and Samani (1982, 1985)
recommended estimating Rs from extraterrestrial radiation, RA, and the difference
between mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, TD in C. The resulting
form of the equation is:
ET = 0.0023 RA TD1/2 (Ta+17.8) (4.8)
The extraterrestrial radiation, RA, is expressed in equivalent evaporation units. For a

given latitude and day RA is obtained from tables or may be calculated using a set of
equations (see Jensen et al., 1990, page 179). The only variable for a given location and
time period is air temperature. Therefore, the Hargreaves method has become a
temperature-based method.
(6) Hamon method

Hamon (1961) derived a potential evapotranspiration method based on the mean air
temperature and is expressed as
ET = 0.55 D2 Pt (4.9)
where ET is potential evapotranspiration in inch/day, D is the hours of daylight for a

given day in units of 12 hr, and Pt is a saturated water vapour density term calculated
by:
4.95e( 0.062Ta )
Pt = (4.10)
100
where Ta is daily mean air temperature in C.
(7) Remanenko method

Remanenko (1961) derived an evaporation equation based on the relationship using
mean temperature and relative humidity:
ET = 0.0018 (25+Ta)2 (100-Rh) (4.11)
4-4
Hydrologic Models
where Ta is the mean air temperature in C, Rh is the mean monthly relative humidity,
which is calculated by:
eo (Td )
Rh = (4.12)
eo (Ta )
in which e(T) is the saturated vapour pressure calculated by (see Bosen, 1960):
[
eo (T ) = 33.8679 (.00738T + .8072)8 .0000191.8T + 48 + .001316 ] (4.13)
A comparative study of the above discussed temperature-based methods was done by

Xu and Singh (2001).
4.2.1.2 Solar radiation-based methods
The radiation-based approach has had wide application in estimation of potential

evapotranspiration (ET) of land areas. Many empirical formulae have been derived
based on this approach (Jensen et al., 1990; Xu and Singh, 1999). Certain methods
based on solar radiation also involve a temperature term.
Empirical radiation-based equations for estimating potential evaporation generally
are based on the energy balance (Jensen et al., 1990). Most radiation-based equations
take the form:
ET = Cr(wRs) or ET = Cr(wRn) (4.14)
where is the latent heat of vaporisation (in calories per gram), ET is the potential
evapotranspiration (in mm per day), Rs is the total solar radiation (in calories per cm2
per day), Rn is the net radiation (in calories per cm2 per day), w is the temperature and
altitude-dependent weighting factor, and Cr is a coefficient depending on the relative
humidity and wind speed. Eight popular radiation-based equations were evaluated and
compared in this study: Turc (1961), Makkink (1957), Jensen and Haise (1963),
Hargreaves (1975), Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977), McGuinness and Bordne (1972),
Abtew (1996), and Priestley and Taylor (1972) equations. For the sake of completeness,
these equations are briefly summarised in what follows. For more complete discussion,
the reader is referred to the cited literature.
(1) Turc method
Under general climatic conditions of western Europe, Turc (1961) computed ET in

millimetres per day for 10-day periods as
T
E t = 0.013 ( Rs + 50) for RH 50 (4.15)
T + 15
T 50 RH
Et = 0.013 ( Rs + 50)(1 + ) for RH < 50 (4.16)
T + 15 70
4-5
where T is the air temperature in C, Rs is the total solar radiation in cal/cm2/day, and
RH is the relative humidity in percentage.
(2) Makkink Method
Makkink (1957) estimated ET in millimetres per day over 10-day periods for
grassed lands under cool climatic conditions of the Netherlands as:
Rs
ET = 0.61 0.012 (4.17)
+ 58.5
where is the slope of saturation vapour pressure curve (in mb/C), (in mb/C) is the
psychromatic constant. These quantities are calculated as (see also Singh, 1989):
= 33.8639[0.05904(0.00738T+0.8072)7-0.0000342] (4.18)
cpP
(mb / C ) = (4.19)
0.622
(cal/g) = 595-0.51T (4.20)
P = 1013-0.1055 EL (4.21)
where EL is elevation (in metres), (in calories per gram) is latent heat, and P (in
millibar) is atmospheric pressure. The specific heat of air cp (in cal/g/C) varies slightly
with atmospheric pressure and humidity, ranging from 0.2397 to 0.260. An average
value of 0.242 is reasonable.
On the basis of later investigation in the Netherlands and at Tstrup, Hansen (1984)
proposed the following form of the Makkink equation
Rs
ET = 0.7 (22)
+
where all the notations have the same meaning and units as in (4.17).
(3) Jensen-Haise method
Jensen and Haise (1963) evaluated 3000 observations of ET as determined by soil

sampling procedures over a 35-year period, and developed the following relation:
ET = Ct (T Tx ) Rs (4.23)
where and Rs have the same meaning and units as before, ET is in mm/day, CT
(temperature constant) = 0.025, and Tx = -3 when T is in degree Celsius. These
coefficients were considered to be constant for a given area.
(4) Hargreaves method
4-6
Hydrologic Models
Hargreaves (1975) and Hargreaves and Samani (1982, 1985) proposed several
equations for calculating potential evapotranspiration, ET (in mm/day). One of the
equations is written as
ET = 0.0135(T + 17.8) Rs (4.24)
All variables have the same meaning and units as before. The Hargreaves method was
derived from eight years of cool season Alta fescue grass lysimeter data from Davis,
California.
(5) Doorenbos and Pruitt Method
Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) presented a radiation method for estimating ET using
solar radiation. The method is an adaptation of the Makkink (1957) method and was
recommended over the Penman method when measured wind and humidity data were
not available or could not be estimated with reasonable confidence.

ET = a Rs + b (4.25)
+
where Rs is solar radiation in mm/day, b = -0.3 mm/day and a is an adjustment factor

that varies with mean relative humidity and daytime wind speed. The adjustment factor
a was presented in graphic and tabular forms, and can also be calculated from
a = 1.066 0.13 10 2 RH + 0.045U d 0.20 10 3 RH U d

(4.26)
0.315 10 4 RH 2 0.11 10 2 U d2
where RH is the mean relative humidity in percentage and Ud is the mean daytime wind
speed in m/s.
(6) McGuinness and Bordne method
McGuinness and Bordne (1972) proposed a method for calculating potential

evapotranspiration based on an analysis of a lysimeter data in Florida.
ET = {(0.0082T 0.19)( Rs / 1500)}2.54 (4.27)
where ET is in cm/day for a monthly period, T is in degrees Fahrenheit, and Rs is in

cal/cm2/day.
(7) Abtew method
Abtew (1996) used a simple model that estimates ET from solar radiation as follows
R
ET = K s (4.28)

4-7
where ET is in mm/day, Rs is in MJm-2d-1, is in MJ kg-1, and K is a dimensionless

coefficient.
(8) Priestley and Taylor method
Priestley and Taylor (1972) proposed a simplified version of the combination

equation (Penman, 1948) for use when surface areas generally were wet, which is a
condition required for potential evaporation, ET. The aerodynamic component was
deleted and the energy component was multiplied by a coefficient, = 1.26, when the
general surrounding areas were wet or under humid conditions.
Rn
ET = (4.29)
+
where Rn is the net radiation (cal cm-2d-1), and other notations have the same
meaning and units as in equation (4.17).
A comparative study of the radiation-based methods was done by Xu and Singh (2000).
4.2.1.3 The Penman combination method
Penman (1948) was among the first to develop a method considering the factors of
both energy supply and turbulent transport of water vapour away from an evaporating
surface. The physical principles combine the two approaches, i.e. the mass-transfer and
the energy balance. The basic equations are later modified and rearranged to use
meteorological constants and measurements of variables made regularly at
climatological stations. Following Shaw (1989), the Penman equation (4.34) may be
derived as follows:
In a simplified energy balance equation:
H = Eo + Q (4.30)
where H is the available heat energy, Eo is energy for evaporation (latent heat flux) and
Q is energy for heating the air (sensible heat flux).
The values of Eo and Q can be defined by the aerodynamic equations:
Eo = f (u )(es ed ) (4.31)
and
Q = f1 (u )(Ts Ta ) (4.32)
is the hygrometric constant (0.27 mm of mercury/F) to keep units consistent. It is

generally assumed that f (u ) = f1 (u ) . If the aerodynamic equation (4.31) is based on the
air humidity using the air temperature Ta, then:
Ea = f (u )(ea ed ) (4.33)
4-8
Hydrologic Models
where ea is the saturated vapor pressure at air temperature Ta, and thus (ea ed) is the
saturation deficit (ed, the vapor pressure of the air, is the saturated vapor pressure at the
dew point Td). The temperature, Ta, is easily measured, whence ea is easily obtained,
whereas es in equation (4.31) is difficult to evaluate.
If represents the slope of the curve of saturated vapor pressure plotted against
temperature, then:
de es ed ea ed
= (if gradients are small)
dT Ts Td Ta Td
then from equation (4.32):
Q = f (u )[(Ts Td ) (Ta Td )]
(e e ) (e e )
= f (u ) s d a d

E E
= o a

substituting for Q in the energy balance equation (equation 4.30):
Eo Ea
Eo = H +

Eo + Eo = H + Ea

Eo = ET = H+ Ea (4.34)
+ +
This final equation is the basic Penman formula for open water evaporation. It requires
values of H and Ea as well as for its application.
If net radiation measurements are available, then H, the available heat may be
obtained directly. More often, H is calculated from incoming (RI) and outgoing (RO)
radiation determined from sunshine records, temperature and humidity, using:
H = RI (1 r ) RO (4.35)
where r is the albedo and equals 0.05 for water. RI is a function of Ra, the theoretical
radiation (fixed by latitude and season) modulated by a function of the ratio, n/N, of
measured to maximum possible sunshine duration. Using r = 0.05 givens:
RI (1 r ) = 0.95Ra (0.18 + 0.55n / N ) (4.36)
the term RO in equation (4.35) is given by:
RO = Ta4 (0.56 - 0.09 ed )(0.10 + 0.90n/N) (4.37)
4-9
Where Ta4 is the theoretical black body radiation at Ta which is then modified by
functions of the humidity of the air (ed) and the cloudiness (n/N).
Thus H in equation (4.34) is obtained from values found via equations (4.36) and
(4.37) inserted into equation (4.35).
Next, Ea in equation (4.34) is found using the coefficients derived by experiment for
open water:
Ea = 0.35(0.5 + u2 / 100)(ea ed ) (4.38)
Finally, a value of is found from the curve of saturated vapor pressure against
temperature corresponding to the air temperature, Ta.
The equations given are those originally published by Penman. The four
measurements required to calculate the open water evaporation are thus:
Ta mean air temperature for a week, 10 days or a month, F or C

ed mean vapor pressure for the same period, mm of mercury
n bright sunshine over the same period, h day-1
u2 mean wind speed at 2 m above the surface, miles day-1
With meteorological observations made in various units and the tendency to work
now in SI units, care is needed in converting measurements into the appropriate units
for the formula. The evaporation ET is finally in mm/day.
4.2.1.4 Penman-Monteith method
The Penman combination method (equ (4.34)) was further developed by many
researchers, an excellent work was done by Monteith (1963, 1964) who introduced
resistance terms and arrived at the following equation for ET from surfaces with either
optimal or limited water supply:
c p (es ea )
( Rn G ) +
ra
ET = (4.39)
r
+ 1 + s
ra
where: ET = evapotranspiration; Rn = net radiation; = rate of increase with

temperature of the saturation vapor pressure of water at air temperature; = density of
air; c p = specific heat of air at constant pressure; (es-ea) = vapor pressure deficit of air;
ra = aerodynamic resistance to water vapor transport; = latent heat of vaporization of
water; = psychometric constant; rs = bulk (canopy) surface resistance to water
transport. G = soil heat flux.
The Penman-Monteith approach as formulated above includes all parameters that
govern energy exchange and corresponding latent heat flux (evapotranspiration) from
uniform expanses of vegetation. This model requires data on ra and rs which are not
readily available. The FAO (Allen et al. 1998) recommended equations for computing
ra and rs and substituted them into equation (4.39). From the original Penman-Monteith
4-10
Hydrologic Models
equation (equation 4.39) and the equations of the aerodynamic and surface resistance,
the FAO Penman-Monteith method for calculating reference (potential)
evapotranspiration ET can be expressed as (Allen et al. 1998):
900
0.408( Rn G ) + u 2 (e s e a )
Ta + 273
ET = (4.39a)
+ (1 + 0.34u 2 )
where: ET = reference evapotranspiration [mm day-1], Rn = net radiation at the crop

surface [MJ m-2 day-1], G = soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1], T = mean daily air
temperature at 2 m height [C], u2 = wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1], es = saturation
vapour pressure [kPa], ea = actual vapour pressure [kPa], es - ea = saturation vapour
pressure deficit [kPa], = slope vapour pressure curve [kPa C-1], = psychrometric
constant [kPa C-1].
Apart from the site location, the FAO Penman-Monteith equation requires air
temperature, humidity, radiation and wind speed data for daily, weekly, ten-day or
monthly calculations.
The procedure for using equ (4.39a) for computing reference evapotranspiration has
been given in Chapter 3 of the FAO paper 56 (Allen et al., 1998), which is briefly
summarized in what follows. It is important to verify the units in which the weather data
are reported.
Latent Heat of Vaporization ()
= 2.501 - (2.361 10-3) Ta
where: = latent heat of vaporization [MJ kg-1], Ta = air temperature [C].
Atmospheric Pressure (P)
5.26
293 0.0065 z
P = 101.3
293
where: P = atmospheric pressure [kPa] at elevation z [m].
Saturation Vapour Pressure (es)
17.27Ta
e s (Ta ) = 0.611 exp
Ta + 237.3
where: es(Ta) = saturation vapour pressure function [kPa] and Ta = air temperature [C].
Actual vapour pressure (ea)
17.27Td
ea (Td ) = 0.611 exp
T
d + 237 . 3
4-11
where: ea(Td) = actual vapor pressure function [kPa] and Td = dew point temperature
[C].
Slope Vapour Pressure Curve ()
17.27Ta
2504 exp
4098es (Ta ) T
a + 237.3
= 2
= 2
(Ta + 237.3) (Ta + 237.3)
where: = slope vapour pressure curve [kPa C-1] and Ta = air temperature [C].
Psychrometric Constant ()
CpP P
= 10 3 = 0.00163

where: = psychrometric constant [kPa C-1], cp = specific heat of moist air = 1.013 [kJ
kg-1 C-1], P = atmospheric pressure [kPa], = ratio molecular weight of water
vapour/dry air = 0.622 and = latent heat of vaporization [MJ kg-1].
Short Wave Radiation on a Clear-Sky Day (Rso)
The calculation of Rso is required for computing net long wave radiation. A good
approximation for Rso according to FAO (Allen et al., 1998) for daily and hourly
periods is:
Rso = (0.75 + 2 10-5 z)Ra
where: Rso = short wave radiation on a clear sky day [MJ m-2 d-1], z = station elevation
[m], Ra = extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m-2 d-1].
Extraterrestrial radiation for daily periods (Ra)
The extraterrestrial radiation, Ra, for each day of the year and for different latitudes is
estimated from the solar constant, the solar declination and the time of the year by:
24(60)
Ra = G sc d r [ s sin( ) sin( ) + cos( ) cos( ) sin( s )]

where: Ra = extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m-2 day-1], Gsc = solar constant = 0.0820 MJ
m-2 min-1, dr = inverse relative distance Earth-Sun, s = sunset hour angle, = latitude
[rad] and = solar decimation.
The equations for calculating dr, s, and are given in chapter 3 of FAO paper 56
(Allen et al., 1998).
4-12
Hydrologic Models
Net solar or net shortwave radiation (Rns)
The net shortwave radiation resulting from the balance between incoming and reflected
solar radiation is given by:
Rns = (1-)Rs
Where: Rns = net solar or shortwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1], = albedo or canopy
reflection coefficient, which is 0.23 for the hypothetical grass reference crop
[dimensionless] and Rs = the incoming solar radiation [MJ m-2 day-1].
Net longwave radiation (Rnl)
The net outgoing longwave radiation is calculated by
Tmax,
4 4
Rnl =
K + Tmin, K
2
( ) R
0.34 0.14 ea 1.35 s 0.35
Rso

where: Rnl = net outgoing longwave radiation [MJ m-2 day-1], = Stefan-Boltzmann
constant [4.903 10-9 MJ K-4 m-2 day-1], Tmax, K = maximum absolute temperature during
the 24-hour period [K = C + 273.16], Tmin, K = minimum absolute temperature during
the 24-hour period [K = C + 273.16], ea = actual vapour pressure [kPa], Rs/Rso =
relative shortwave radiation (limited to 1.0), Rs = measured solar radiation [MJ m-2
day-1] and Rso = calculated clear-sky radiation [MJ m-2 day-1].
Net radiation (Rn)
The net radiation (Rn) is the difference between the incoming net shortwave radiation
(Rns) and the outgoing net longwave radiation (Rnl):
Rn = Rns - Rnl
Soil heat flux (G)
For vegetation covered surface and calculation time steps are 24 hours or longer, a
calculation procedure proposed by FAO (Allen et al., 1998), based on the idea that the
soil temperature follows air temperature is as follows,
Ti Ti 1
G = cs z
t
where: G = soil heat flux [MJ m-2 day-1], cs = soil heat capacity [MJ m-3 C-1], Ti = air
temperature at time i [C], Ti-1 = air temperature at time i-1 [C], t = length of time
interval [day], z = effective soil depth [m], which for a time interval of one or few days
is about 0.10 0.20 m. Different equations are proposed by Allen et al. (1998) in
calculating G depending on the computation time periods.
4-13
4.2.2 Micrometeorological Methods
4.2.2.1 The mass-transfer-based methods
The mass-transfer method is one of the oldest methods (Dalton, 1802; Meyer, 1915;
Penman, 1948) and is still an attractive method in estimating free water surface
evaporation, ET0, because of its simplicity and reasonable accuracy. The mass-transfer
methods are based on the Dalton equation which for free water surface can be written
as:
ET0 = C(es-ea) (4.40)
where ET0 is free water-surface evaporation, es is the saturation vapor pressure at the
temperature of the water surface, ea is the actual vapor pressure in the air, and C is an
empirically determined constant involving some function of windiness.
Therefore equation (1) is expressed as:
ET0 = f(u)(es-ea) (4.41)
where f(u) is the wind function. This function depends, among other factors, on the
observational heights of the wind speed and vapor pressure measurements. Although the
two heights need not be the same, the same experimental layout must be used for a
particular value of the function. The mass-transfer method has had wide application in
the estimation of lake evaporation and many empirical formulae have been derived
based on this approach (Singh, 1989). Examples of empirical equations of this type are
included in Table 4.1.
An inspection of the above mass-transfer-based equations reveals that three major
meteorological factors considered to affect evaporation are (1) vapor pressure gradient,
(2) wind speed, and (3) temperature. The air pressure, fluid density, and water surface
elevation for a given location may not greatly affect the rate of evaporation. Table 1 also
shows that specific formulas have resulted from the analysis of limited and site specific
meteorological data. The data collection procedures are not only varied but are
frequently inconsistent. Usually, such inconsistencies are a major source of site specific
modifications and adaptations of these types of equations. Specifically, the elevations at
which temperature and vapor pressure are measured vary widely. As a result, estimates
of moisture gradient and wind velocity are affected.
An evaluation and comparison of mass-transfer methods was performed by Singh and

Xu (1997a). More recently, a cross-comparison of mass-transfer, radiation and
temperature based evaporation models was done by Xu and Singh (2002).
4-14
Hydrologic Models
Table 4.1 Some mass-transfer-based evaporation equations for estimation of

evaporation.
______________________________________________________________________
No. Author Equation remarks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Dalton (1802) ET0 (in./mo)=a(es-ea) a=15 for small, shallow
water, and a=11 for
large deep water
2) Fitzgerald (1886) ET0 (in./mo)=(.4+.199u)(es-ea)
3) Meyer (1915) ET0 (in./mo)=11(1+.1u)(es-ea) ea is measured at 30 ft
above the surface
4) Horton (1917) ET0 (in./mo)=.4[(2-exp(-2u))(es-ea)]
5) Rohwer (1931) ET0 (in./da)=.77(1.465-.0186pb). pb= barometric pressure
(.44+.118u)(es-ea) in in. of Hg.
6) Penman (1948) ET0 (in./da)=.35(1+.24u2)(es-ea)
7) Harbeck et al (1954) ET0 (in./da)=.0578u8(es-ea)
ET0 (in./da)=.0728u4(es-ea)
8) Kuzmin (1957) ET0 (in./mo)=6.0(1+.21u8)(es-ea)

9) Harbeck et al (1958) ET0 (in./da)=.001813u(es-ea) Ta = average air
(1-.03(Ta-Tw)) temperature oC +1.9oC;
Tw = average water
surface temperature oC.
10) Konstantinov (1968) ET0 (in./da)=.024(tw-t2)/u1+.166u1)(es-ea)
11) Remanenko (1961) ET0 (cm/mo)=.0018(Ta+25)2(100-hn) hn =relative humidity
.623 K o2 (u8 u2 )(e2 e8 )
12) Sverdrup (1946) ET0 (in. / h) = Ko=von Karman's const
p[ln(800 / 200)]2
= density of air
p=atmospheric pressure
.623 K o2 (u8 u2 )(e2 e8 )
13) Thornthwaite & ET0 (in. / h) =
p[ln(800 / 200)]2
Holzman (1939)
______________________________________________________________________
The wind speed (monthly mean) u is measured in miles per hour and vapor pressure e,
in inches of Hg. The subscripts attached to u refer to height in meters at which the
measurements are taken; no subscript refers to measurements near the ground or water
surface.
4-15
4.2.2.2 Aerodynamic method
Theories, principles, and procedures involved in the aerodynamic methods are

discussed in the course Process Hydrology. One example of such methods is briefly
shown here. Thornthwaite and Holzman (1942) were among the first modern
micrometeorologists to apply the aerodynamic approach to measurement of ET. They
proposed a relationship involving the gradients of specific humidity q and the
logarithmic wind profile. Their expression, given here without derivation, is
(q2 q1 )(U 2 U1 )
ET = a k 2 (4.42)
ln( z2 / z1 ) 2
where a = density of moist air, k = von Karmans constant. Over a rough cropped
surface z - d is substituted for z. An error analysis of this method is given by Thompson
and Pinker (1981).
Following Thornthwaite and Holzmans work, many others (e.g., Pasquil, 1950;
Pruitt, 1963; Dyer, 1974) have proposed stability-corrected aerodynamic methods for
estimating the flux of vapor. Aerodynamic methods require stringently accurate
observations of wind speed and specific humidity or vapour pressure at a number of
heights above the surface, as well as temperature measurement to permit stability
corrections to be made. Because of its origins in classical fluid dynamics theory,
aerodynamic methods have been popular with scientists. However, the methods have
not reached a degree of development that makes them applicable for routine use, for
example, in hydrological modeling.
4.2.2.3 Bowen ration-energy balance method
Bowen (1926) introduced a relationship between latent heat flux, E and sensible
heat flux, H known as the Bowen ration . This is defined by
H PC p M a K h T z Kh
T
z
= = = (4.43)
E M w K w e K w e
z z
where Mw and Ma are the molecular weights of water vapor and air, Kh and Kw are the
turbulent exchange coefficients for sensible heat and water vapor. Other notations are
previously defined.
This relationship is generally simplified by assuming that the turbulent exchange
coefficient for heat transport Kh = the exchange coefficient for water vapor transport Kw
and that (T / z ) /(e / z ) T / e where T = T2 T1, and e = e2 e1. Equation
(4.43) then becomes
T
(4.44)
e
a simplified form of energy balance equation at the earths surface can be written as:
Rn + S + E + H = 0 (4.45)
4-16
Hydrologic Models
From (4.43), H = E. Substitution into (4.45) and solution for E yields
Rn + S R +S
E = = n (4.46)
1+ 1 + T
e
Equation (4.46) is the so called Bowen ratio-energy balance (BREB) method of

estimating E.
4.2.3 The pan Method
Measured evaporation from a shallow pan of water is one of the oldest and common
methods for estimating ET0. It is an indirect integration of the principal atmospheric
variables related to ET0. Pans are inexpensive, relatively easy to maintain and simple to
operate. In humid regions, pans may also give realistic estimates of potential
evapotranspiration, ET. However, care must be taken in relating evaporation from pans
to ET in arid climates (Rosenberg et al., 1983, page 262). Given some standardization
of pan shape, environmental setting, and operation, good correlations have been
developed between pan evaporation, Ep, and potential evaporation, ET, by a simple
relation
ET = CET E p (4.47)
where CET is a coefficient.

Pan-to-ET coefficients (CET) are necessary because evaporation for a pan is
generally more than for a well-wetted vegetated surface, or even a pond, due to the
pans excessive exposure and lower reflectance of solar radiation. The values of CET
vary normally from 0.5 to 1.0. The actual value depends, among other factors, on the
type of pan, the location of the measurement, and the season. Although specific
coefficient values for application to any given situation or pan may have to be found by
calibration, mean monthly values are usually shown in a table or graphically shown in a
map for some major meteorological stations or regions.
4.2.4 Relationship between ETo and ET
Most subsequent refinements of Penmans formula for ET0 have been concerned
with adapting it to calculate potential evapotranspiration, ET. Penman himself began
with a purely empirical approach, comparing calculated ET0 with ET losses from well-
watered plots covered in base soil and short-cropped grass at Rothamsted Research
Station, near London. Collecting data from similar plots in a wide variety of climates
from Europe to the humid tropics, Penman produced the empirical formula
ET = f ET0
Where f is a seasonal correction factor which covers the effects of differing insolation
intensity, day length, stomatal response and geometry. He concluded from the
experiment that:
4-17
(1) The evaporation rate (as measured by f in the equation) for continuously wet bare
soil is 0.9 times that an open water surfaces exposed to the same weather
conditions in all seasons.
(2) The corresponding relative evaporation rate from turf with a plentiful water
supply varies with season of the year. Provisional value of f for southern England
are:
Midwinter (Nov Feb) 0.6
Spring and autumn (Mar, Apr, Sep, Oct) 0.7
Midsummer (May Aug) 0.8
Whole year 0.75
He still recommended local empirical confirmation wherever possible, because of
the large variation that factors such as age and species can cause.
4.3 ESTIMATION OF ACTUAL ET IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS
A large number of methods have been developed in recent years for actual ET
predictions each has its own requirements and emphases. The available methods range
from quite simple to very complex. The most complex and physical realistic method
used for actual evapotranspiration calculation used in the physically-based models is the
Penman-Monteith equation (Equation 4.39a) as discussed in the previous section. It is
seen that this method requires many variables that might not be available. For most
conceptual hydrological models, this method is too sensitive to data requirement.
In conceptual catchment models, the most investigators have found it necessary to
derive "actual" evapotranspiration as a function of potential evapotranspiration and the
dryness of the soil (Palmer, 1965; Saxton and McGuinness, 1982; Dyck, 1983). As the
model storage ratio (actual soil moisture storage divided by the maximum storage) is
representative of the wetness of the soil, it would be conceptually acceptable to extract
moisture at the potential rate when the storage was full, that is at field capacity, and
reduce the extraction to zero when the storage was empty (when the soil moisture deficit
had reached its maximum). However, the nature of the function that estimates actual
evapotranspiration for conditions between these limits is not known. A number of
functions operating between the limits of potential rate and zero have been tried by a
number of modellers. A general form of such equations can be shown as
AET = ET f(SMT / SMC) (4.48)
where SMT is the actual soil moisture storage, and SMC is the soil moisture storage at
field capacity.
Some examples for f(SMT / SMC) and other functions are given in Table 4.2. The
ratio of actual evapotranspiration (AET) to potential evapotranspiration (ET) varies with
drying of soil and that the shape of this curve differs, amount other factors, with the
type of soil, as illustrated in Figure 4.1.
4-18
Hydrologic Models
Table 4.2 Some examples for function f(SMT / SMC) .

_____________________________________________________________________
Reference f(SMT / SMC) =
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY VALUES
1 exp(SMT )
Minhas et al. (1974) (4.49)
1 2 exp(SMC ) + exp(SMT )
Norero(1969) [1 + (SMT / SMC) ] b k 1
(4.50)
0.62
k = 2 . 69 exp( 0. 09 PET ) (4.51)
n
Baier & Robertson (1966) k j (SMT j,i 1 / SMC j )Z j (4.52)
j =1
1 SMTi 1
Koitzsch & Golf (1983) (4.53)
1 0.533M i SMC
SMT
HBV & many others (4.54
LP
(in the following equations RAT = SMT / SMC )
Roberts (1978) (RAT)0.5 (4.55)

RAT 2 /(( RAT 2 ) + (1 RAT ) 2 ) (4.56)
2 RAT 2 (1 /(1 + RAT ) RAT ) (4.57)

2 RAT (1 /(1 + RAT ) RAT ) (4.58)
RAT 1 / 2 + ( RAT 1 / 2 RAT ) (4.59)
2
RAT (4.60)
RAT (4.61)
5-DAY VALUES
Renger et al. (1974) 0.2 + 2.0 RAT 1.2 RAT 2 (4.62)
MONTHLY VALUES
Budyko & Zubenok (1961) RAT (4.63)
Xu et al. (1996) 1 a1(( SMTi 1 + Pi ) / ET ) (4.64)
_____________________________________________________________________
Where: SMT = actual soil moisture; SMC = soil moisture at field capacity; SMTj,i-1 =
actual soil moisture in the j-th zone at the end of the previous day (i-1); Zj = fraction of
available soil moisture at which AET<ET and plant stress sets in; Kj = fraction of soil
moisture extraction at that zone; = free parameter; b = soil specific constant; M =
vegetation canopy density.
4-19
Fig.4.1 The graph compares the rates of reduction in evapotranspiration as the soil dries out
(right to left) for sand, loam and clay, quantified as a proportion of the total water-holding
capacity of the root zone, the part of the soil that contains water available to plants (the
available water capacity). In sand, plants can extract water at full potential rates until near their
wilting point, but in clay the supply is restricted by smaller soil pores so that uptake and
transpiration rates can rapidly fall below potential much earlier. Based on Dunne and Leopold
(1978), see also Jones (1997).
4-20
Hydrologic Models
Abtew, W., 1996. Evapotranspiration measurement and modeling for three wetland
systems in South Florida. Water Resources Bulletin, 32, 465-473.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration
guidelines for computing crop water requirements FAO Irrigation & Drainge Paper
56. FAO, 1998. ISBN 92-5-104219-5.
Baier, W. and Robertson, G.W., 1966. A new veraltile soil moisture budget. Can. J.
Plant Sci., 46.
Blaney, H.F. and Criddle, W.D., 1950. Determining water requirements in irrigated area
from climatological irrigation data. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service Tech. Pap. No. 96, 48pp.
Bosen, J.F., 1960. A formula for approximation of saturation vapor pressure over water.
Monthly Weather review 88(8):275-76.
Bowen, I.S., 1926. The ratio of heat losses by conduction and by evaporation from any
water surface. Phys. Rev. 27: 779-787.
Brutsaert, W.H., 1982. Evaporation into the Atmosphere: Theory, History, and
applications. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, Massachusetts.
Budyko, M. and Zubenok, L.I., 1961. Opredelenie isparenija poverchnosti sushi. AN
SSSR Ser. Geogr., 6.
Dalton, J., 1802. Experimental essays on the constitution of mixed gases: on the force of
steam or vapor from water or other liquids in different temperatures, both in a
Torricelli vacuum and in air; on evaporation; and on expansion of gases by heat.
Manchester Literary Philosophical Society Mem. Proceedings 5: 536-602.
Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W.O., 1977. Crop water requirements. FAO, Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 24, 144pp.
Dyck, S., 1983. 'Overview on the present status of the concepts of water balance
models'. New Approaches in Water Balance Computations (Proceedings of the
Hamburg Workshop), Van der Beken, A. and Herrmann, A. (Eds), IAHS Publ.
No.148: p3-19.
Dyer, A.J., 1874. A review of flux-profile relationship. Boundary-layer Meteorol. 7:
363-372.
Fitzgerald, D., 1886. Evaporation. Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 98(HY12): 2073-85.
Gurney, R.J. and Camillo, P.J., 1984. Modelling daily evapotranspiration using
remotely sensed data. J. hydrol., 69:305-324.
Hamon, W.R., 1961. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J. Hydraul. Div., Proc.
Am. Soc. Civil Eng., 87: 107-120.
Harbeck, G.E., 1962. A practical field technique for measuring reservoir evaporation
utilizing mass-transfer theory. Geological Survey Professional Paper 272-E, 101-5,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Harbeck, G.E., et al. 1954. Water loss investigations, Vol.1, Lake Hefner studies. U.S.
Geological Survey Paper 269, Washington, D.C.
Harbeck, G.E., et al. 1958. Water loss investigations, Lake Mead studies. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 298, Washington, D.C.
Hargreaves, G.H. and Samni, Z.A., 1982. Reference crop evapotranspiration from
temperature. TRANSACTION of the ASAE.
4-21
Hargreaves, G.H. and Samni, Z.A., 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from
temperature. TRANSACTION of the ASAE
Hargreaves, G.H., 1975. Moisture availability and crop production. TRANSACTION of
the ASAE 18, 980-984.
Haude, W., 1955. Zur Bestimmung der Verdunstung auf mglichst einfacher Weise.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes, Nr.11, Band 2, Bad Kissingen.
Helfrich, K.R., Adams, E.E., Godbey, G.E. and Harleman, D.R.F., 1982. Evaluation of
the models for predicting evaporative water loss in cooling impoundments. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Res. Inst. (Interim report no. CS-2325).
Horton, R.E., 1917. Rainfall interception. Monthly Weather Review 47(9):603-23.
Hounam, C.E., 1971. Problems of evaporation assessment in the water balance. Report
No.3 on WMO/IHD Projects, Geneva.
Jain, P.K. and Sinai, G., 1985. Evapotranspiration model for semiarid regions. Journal
of Irrigation and drainage Engineering 111(4): 369-379.
Jensen, M.E. and Haise, H.R., 1963. Estimation of evapotranspiration from solar
radiation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 89, 15-41.
Jensen, M.E., 1973. Consumptive use of water and irrigation requirements. ASAE, New
York.
Jensen, M.E., Burman, R.D. and Allen, R.G., 1990. Evapotranspiration and Irrigation
Water Requirements. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1990.
Jones, D.M.A., 1966. Variability of evapotranspiration in Illinois. Circular 89, Illinois
State Water Survey, Urbana, Ill.
Jones, J.A.A., 1997. Global Hydrology Processes, resources and environmental
management. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England, 399pp.
Kharrufa, N.S., 1985. Simplified equation for evapotranspiration in arid regions.
Beitrge zur Hydrologie, Sonderheft 5.1, 39-47.
Klemes, V., 1986. Operational testing of hydrological simulation models, Hydrol. Sci.,
J., 31(1):13-24.
Kohler, M.A., 1957. Meteorological aspects of evaporation phenomena, 421-436. IUGG
Meeting held September in Toronto, Canada.
Kohler, M.A., Nordenson, T.J. and Fox, W.E., 1955. Evaporation from pans and lakes.
Weather Bureau Research Paper 38, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington,
D.C.
Koitzsch, R. and Golf, W., 1983. Algorithmus zur Berechnung der realen verdunstung.
Konstantinov, A.R., 1968. Evaporation in nature, Leningrad.
Kuzmin, P.O., 1957. Hydrophysical investigations of land waters. International
Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication 3:468-78.
Linacre, E.T., 1977. A simple formula for estimating evaporation rates in various
climates, using temperature data alone. Agricultural Meteorology, 18, 409-424.
Linsley, R.K., Jr., M.A. Kohler and J.L.H. Paulhus, Hydrology for Engineers, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1982.
Makkink, G.F., 1957. Testing the Penman formula by means of lysimeters. Journal of
the Institution of Water Engineers, 11, 277-288.
McCulloch, J.S.G., 1965. Tables for the rapid computation of the Penman estimate of
evaporation. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal XXX(3):286-95.
McGuinness, J.L. and Bordne, E.F., 1972. A compariosn of lysimeter-derived potential
evapotranspiration with computed values. Tech. Bull. 1452, 71pp. Agric. Res. Serv.,
U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C., 1972.
4-22
Hydrologic Models
Meyer, A.F., 1915. Computing runoff from rainfall and other physical data.
Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers 79:1055-155.
Meyer, A.F., 1944. Evaporation from lakes and reservoirs. Minnesota Resources
Commission, St. Paul, Minn.
Minhas, B.S., et al., 1974. Toward the structure of a production function for wheat
yields with dated input of irrigation water. Wat. Resour. Res. 10(3):383-393.
Monteith, J.L., 1963. Gas exchange in plant communities. Environmental Control of
Plant Growth (L.T. Evans, ed.) Academic Press, New Rork.
Monteith, J.L., 1964. Evaporation and evironment. The state and movement of water in
living organisms. 19th Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol., Academic Press, New Rork.
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment, Proc. Symp. Exptl. Biol., 19: 205-
234.
Morton, F.I., 1968. Evaporation and climate: a study in cause and effect. Scientific
Series no.4, Inland Water Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources,
Ottawa, Canada.
Morton, F.I., 1990. Studies in evaporation and Their lessons for the Environmental
Sciences. Canadian Water Resources Journal 15(3):261-285.
Morton, F.I., 1994. Evaporation research - A critical review and its lessons for the
Environmental Sciences. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology, 24(3):237-280.
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models
Part I. A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol., 10: 282-290.
Norero, A.L., 1969. A formula to express evapotranspiration as a function of soil
moisture and evaporative demands of the atmosphere. Utah State University thesis.
Palmer, W.C., 1965. Meteorologic drought. Res. Pap. US Weather Bur., 45, p58.
Pasquill, F., 1950. Some further considerations of the measurements and indirect
evaluation of natural evaporation. Q.J.Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 76: 287-301.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass.
Proceedings, Royal Society, London 193:120-45.
Priestley, C.H.B. and Taylor, R.J., 1972. On the assessment of the surface heat flux and
evaporation using large-scale parameters. Monthly Weather Review, 100, 81-92.
Pruitt, W.O., 1963. Application of several energy balance and aerodynamic evaporation
equations under a wide range of stability. Final report to USAEPG, Univ. of
California-Davis. pp107-124.
Renger, M., et al. 1974. Beurteilung bodenkundlicher, kulturtechnischer und
hydrologischer Fragen mit Hilfe von klimatischer Wasserbilanz und
bodenphysikalischen Kennwerten. Z. Kulturtechnik u. Flurbereinigung 15, 148-160.
Roberts, P.J.T., 1978. A Comparison of the Performance of Selected Conceptual Models
of the Rainfall-runoff Process in Semi-arid Catchments Near Grahamstown, Report
1/78, Hydrological Research Unit, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Rohwer, C., 1931. Evaporation from free water surfaces. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 271, Washington, D.C.
Remanenko, V.A., 1961. Computation of the autumn soil moisture using a universal
relationship for a large area. Proc. of the Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Research
Institute, No.3, Kiev.
Rosenberg,N.J., et al., 1983. Microclimate: The Biological Environmental. Wiley, New
York, 495p.
Saxton, K.E., and McGuinness, J.L. ,1982. 'Evapotranspiration'. In: Hydrologic
Modeling of Small Watersheds, Haan, C.T., Johnson, H.P. and Brakensiek, D.L.,
4-23
Saxton, K.E., H.P. Johnson and R.H. Shaw, 1974. Modeling evapotranspiration and soil
moisture. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 17(4): 668-672.
Schulz, E.F., 1962. A graphical procedure to estimate potential evapotranspiration by
the Penman method. Report CER 62EFS49, Department of Civil Engineering,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.
Sill, B.L., 1981. Free and forced convection effects on evaporation. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 109(9):1216-31.
Singh, V.P. and Xu, C-Y, 1997a. Evaluation and generalization of 13 equations for
determining free water evaporation. Hydrological Processes, 11, 311-323.
Singh, V.P. and Xu, C-Y, 1997b. Sensitivity of mass transfer-based evaporation
equations to errors in daily and monthly input data. Hydrological Processes, 11,
1465-1473.
Singh, V.P., 1989. Hydrologic Systems Vol.II Watershed Modelling, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Sledgley, R.A., 1977. A simple evapotranspiration model for use in assessing
hydrologic changes in catchments response to changing land use. Proceedings,
Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Institution of Engineers (Australia),
Perth, Australia, 123-7.
Sutton, O.G., 1949. The application to Micrometeorology of the theory of turbulent
flow over rough surfaces. Royal Meteorological Society, Quart. J., 75, No.236.
Sverdrup, H.U., 1946. The humidity gradient over the sea surface. Journal of
Meteorology 3:1-8.
Tanner, C.B., 1966. Comparison of energy balance and mass transport methods for
measuring evaporation. Proceedings, ASAE Conference on Evapotranspiration and
Its Role in Water Resources Management, 45-48, Held December 5-6, in Chicago,
Ill.
Thompson, O.E. and R.T. Pinker, 1981. An error analysis of the Thornthwaite-Holzman
equations for estimating sensible and latent heat fluxes over crop and forest canopies.
J. Appl. Meteorol. 20: 250-254.
Thornthwaite, C.W. and Holzman, B., 1939. The determination of land and water
surfaces. Monthly Weather Review 67:4-11.
Thornthwaite, C.W. and Holzman, B., 1942. Measurement of evaporation from land and
water surface. USDA Tech. Bull. 817: 1-75.
Thornthwaite, C.W. and Mather, J.R., 1955. The water balance. Publ. Climatol. Lab.
Climatol. Dresel Inst. Technol., 8(1):1-104.
Thornthwaite, C.W., 1944. A contribution to the report of the Cttee. on tarnspiration and
evaporation, Trans. AGU, 25:686-693.
Thornthwaite, C.W., 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate.
Geogr. Rev., 38(1): 55-94.
Turc, L., 1961. Estimation of irrigation water requirements, potential
evapotranspiration: a simple climatic formula evolved up to date. Annals of
Agronomy, 12: 13-49.
Van Bavel, C.H.M., 1968. Discussion of "Climate and Evaporation from Crops."
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 68:533-5.
Visentini, M., 1936. Association international d'hydrologie scientifique. Bulletin No.22:
119-137.
Weisman, R.N., 1975. Comparison of warm water evaporation equations. Journal of
Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers
101(HY10):1303-13.
4-24
Hydrologic Models
Winter, T.C., Rosenberry, D.O. and Sturrock, A.M., 1995. Evaluation of 11 equations
for determining evaporation for a small lake in the north central United States. Wat.
Resour. Res. 31(4):983-993.
Xu, C-Y and Singh, V.P., 1998. Dependence of evaporation on meteorological variables
at different time-scales and intercomparison of estimation methods. Hydrological
Processes, 12, 429-442.
Xu, C-Y and Singh, V.P., 2000. Evaluation and generalization of radiation-based
methods for calculating evaporation. Hydrological Processes 14, 339-349.
Xu, C-Y and Singh, V.P., 2001. Evaluation and generalization of temperature-based
methods for calculating evaporation. Hydrological Processes 15, 305-319.
Xu, C-Y and Singh, V.P., 2002. Cross-comparison of mass-transfer, radiation and
temperature based evaporation models. Water Resources Management 16, 197-219.
Xu, C-Y, J. Seibert and S. Halldin, 1996. Regional water balance modelling in the
NOPEX area: development and application of monthly water balance models, J.
Hydrol. 180: 211-236.
Young, A.A., 1947. Evaporation from water surface in California: Summary of pan
records and coefficients, 1881-1946. Bulletin 54, Public Works Department,
Sacramento, California.
4-25
CHAPTER 5
RUNOFF IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Runoff, which may be variously referred to as streamflow, stream or river discharge, or

catchment or watershed yield, is normally expressed as a volume per unit of time. The
m3/s, i.e., one cubic meter per second. Runoff may also be expressed as a depth
equivalent over a catchment, i.e., millimeters per day or month or year. This is a
particularly useful unit for comparing precipitation and runoff rates and totals since
precipitation is almost invariably expressed in this way.
Runoff or streamflow comprises the gravity movement of water in channels which
may vary in size from the one containing the smallest ill-defined trickle to the ones
containing the large river. In a general sense, this water representing the excess of
rainfall over evapotranspiration, when allowance is made for storage on and under the
ground surface.
Models of runoff processes have been developed for a wide variety of purposes,
from the one-off design of engineering structures and water supply systems to modern
real-time models used continuously in river regulation schemes, they are also providing
valuable for studying the potential impacts of changes in landuse or climate. Model
outputs vary from predictions of peak discharges or total volumes of flood flow to the
complete specification of the distribution of flow over time, either for individual storm
events in event models or for continuous sequences of flows in continuous or sequential
models. In this chapter, event-based models and continuous models of runoff processes
are discussed separately and more details are placed on the former. This emphasis has
been chosen because event-oriented models provide a direct means of continuous
simulation. Continuous simulations can be obtained by specifying a continuous
precipitation input.
5.2. SOURCES AND COMPONENTS OF RUNOFF
In order to select a method of modelling, it is essential to recognize the different

runoff components and their regime. The different runoff terminologies used in the
literature have resulted in much confusion and ambiguity about the sources and
components. Ward (1972) provided a consistent and unambiguous terminology which
has been adopted in this chapter. The total runoff from a typically heterogeneous
catchment area may be conveniently divided into four component parts: channel
precipitation, overland flow, interflow, and groundwater flow (see figure 5.1).
Channel precipitation
Direct precipitation onto the water surfaces of streams, lakes, and reservoirs makes an
immediate contribution to streamflow. In relation to other components, however, this
amount is normally small in view of the small percentage of catchment area normally
covered by water surfaces. In catchments containing a large area of lakes or swamps
channel precipitation may make a substantial contribution to streamflow.
5-1
Ch5. Runoff in hydrologic models
Fig.5.1 Diagrammatic representation of the runoff process (Ward, 1972)
Overland flow
Overland flow comprises the water which, falling to infiltrate the surface, travels over
the ground surface towards a stream channel either as quasi-laminar sheet flow or, more
usually, as flow anastomosing in small trickles and minor rivulets. The main cause of
overland flow is the inability of water to infiltrate the surface and in view of the high
value of infiltration characteristic of most vegetation-covered surfaces it is not
surprising that overland flow is a rarely observed phenomenon (except on laboratory
models!). Conditions in which it assumes considerable importance include the
saturation of the ground surface, the hydrophobic nature of some very dry soils, the
deleterious effects of many agricultural practices on infiltration capacity, and freezing of
the ground surface. Surface runoff may then be defined as that part of the total runoff
which travels over the ground surface to reach a stream channel and thence through the
channel to reach the drainage basin outlet.
Interflow
Water which infiltrates the soil surface and then moves laterally through the upper soil
horizons towards the stream channels, either as unsaturated flow or, more usually, as
shallow perched saturated flow above the main groundwater level is known as
interflow. Alternative terms found in the literature include subsurface storm flow,
storm-seepage, and secondary base flow. The general condition favouring the
5-2
Hydrologic Models
generation of interflow is one in which lateral hydraulic conductivity in the surface

horizons of the soil is substantially greater than the overall vertical hydraulic
conductivity through the soil profile. Then during prolonged or heavy rainfall water will
enter the upper part of the profile more rapidly then it can pass vertically through the
lower part, thus forming a perched saturated layer from which water will 'escape'
laterally, i.e., in the direction of greater hydraulic conductivity. They may be several
levels of interflow below the surface corresponding to textural changes between
horizons and to the junction between weathered mantle and bedrock. In addition, some
hydrologists argue that water may travel downslope through old root holes and animal
burrows and other subsurface pipes. In view of the variety of possible interflow routes it
is to be expected that some will result in more rapid movement of water to the stream
channels than will others, so that it is sometimes helpful to distinguish between rapid
and delayed interflow (see Fig.5.1). The experimental evidence has long indicated that
the interflow may account for up to 85 per cent of total runoff (Ward, 1972).
Groundwater flow
Most of the rainfall which percolates through the soil layer to the underlying
groundwater will eventually reach the main stream channels as groundwater flow
through the zone of saturation. Since water can move only very slowly through the
ground, the outflow of groundwater into the stream channels may lag behind the
occurrence of precipitation by several days, weeks, or often years. Groundwater flow
also tends to be very regular, representing as it does, the overflow from the slowly
changing reservoir of moisture in the soil and rock layers. In general, groundwater flow
represents the main long-term component of total runoff and is particularly important
during dry spells when surface runoff is absent.
Snowmelt
In some areas, particularly at high altitudes or in high latitudes, a large proportion of
streamflow may be derived from the melting of snows and glaciers. Although, in terms
of the phase relationship between precipitation and runoff, snow accumulation and melt
pose particular problems, in terms of the present discussion snowmelt does not represent
a special case or merit consideration as a fifth component of runoff. Snow falling
directly on to the stream surface has already been discussed under the heading of
channel precipitation, while water generated by the process of snowmelt will either flow
over the ground surface as overland flow or will infiltrate to become interflow and
groundwater flow depending on whether the sub-snowpack surface is saturated and/or
frozen.
Surface and subsurface runoff

The foregoing discussion should have clarified the definition and role of four other
runoff terms, illustrated in Fig.5.1, which are used somewhat indiscriminately in the
literature, i.e., surface and subsurface runoff and quickflow and baseflow. Surface
runoff, as has been shown, is that part of total runoff which reaches the drainage basin
outlet via overland flow and the stream channels, although it may in some
circumstances also include interflow which has discharged at the ground surface at
some distance from the stream channel. Subsurface runoff is the sum of interflow and
groundwater flow and is normally equal to the total flow of water arriving at the stream
as saturated flow into the stream bed itself, and as percolation from the seepage faces on
the stream bank.
5-3
Quickflow and baseflow

Quickflow, or direct runoff, is the sum of channel precipitation, surface runoff and
rapid interflow and will clearly represent the major runoff contribution during storm
periods and is also the major contributor to most floods. It will be observed that
quickflow and surface runoff as defined above cannot be used synonymously. Baseflow
or base runoff may be defined as the sustained or fair-weather runoff and is the sum of
groundwater runoff and delayed interflow, although some hydrologists prefer to include
the total interflow as illustrated by the broken line in Fig.5.1. Again it will be observed
that baseflow and groundwater flow, as defined above cannot be used synonymously;
indeed Hewlett (1961, 1963) demonstrated that baseflow from steep mountain drainage
basins may consist almost entirely of unsaturated lateral flow from the soil profile.
Hewlett and Nutter (1969) suggested that in upland forested catchments about 85 per
cent of total runoff might consist of baseflow.
The separations of runoff components can be done by using of hydrograph analysis, to
this point refer to the course of "Catchment Hydrology".
5.3 APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION MODELS
Before modelling of various runoff components is discussed, modelling of

infiltration process is described. Infiltration is the process of entry of water into a soil
through the soil surface. For example, it is the infiltration capacity of the soil that
determines for a given storm, the amount and time distribution of rainfall excess that is
available for runoff and surface storage. Hence, an understanding of infiltration and
factors affecting it is important to the determination of surface runoff as well as the
subsurface movement and storage of water within the catchment. Philip (1969) and
Morel-Seytoux (1973) have presented excellent reviews of the infiltration processes.
Infiltration can be characterized for most initial and boundary conditions of interest by
solving the governing differential equations using numerical methods. Although these
solutions provide a physically consistent means of quantifying infiltration in terms of
soil properties governing movement of water and air, such elaborate procedures are
rarely used in practice. One reason is that numerical solutions are usually expensive due
to computational requirements. A more severe limitation is the difficulty of obtaining
necessary soil property data. Attempts to characterize infiltration for field applications
have usually involved simplified concepts which permit the infiltration rate or
cumulative infiltration volume to be expressed algebraically in terms of time and certain
soil parameters. Some of the approximate models have been developed by applying
principles governing soil water movement for simplified boundary and initial
conditions. The parameters in such models can be determined from soil water
properties, when they are available. Other models are strictly empirical and the
parameters must be obtained from measured infiltration data or estimated using more
approximate procedures. The most obvious characteristics of the infiltration process are
that for ponded surfaces the rate decreases rapidly with time during the early part of an
infiltration event. Although attributed to different physical phenomena, this
characteristic is reflected by all of the approximate infiltration equations.
Considerable literature exists on approximate infiltration models. This section
presents, as an example, one empirical and one conceptual infiltration models.
Physically based models employing the Richards equation will be discussed separately
in Chapter 8 together with the SHE model.
We define a number of terms that are to be used in this section and give their
notations and dimensions here.
5-4
Hydrologic Models
The infiltration rate, f is the rate at which water enters into the soil surface. It is
expressed as volume per unit area per unit time and has the dimensions of length
per unit of time.
Cumulative infiltration, F denotes the volume of infiltration from the beginning
of time t, or the rainfall event. It also is called infiltration volume or
accumulated infiltration and is measured in centimetres.
Infiltration capacity, fp is the maximum rate at which soil can absorb water
through its surface and has the dimensions of length per unit of time. A
distinction should be made between f and fp; 0 f f p .
Horton Model
The Horton model (Horton, 1939, 1940) is one of the best-known infiltration models in
hydrology. Horton recognised that the infiltration capacity decreased with time until it
approached a more-or-less constant rate. He expressed the view that the decrease in
infiltration capacity was controlled probably more by the factors operating at the soil
surface than by the flow process in the body of the soil.
Horton (1940) hypothesized that infiltration is similar to exhaustion process
according to which the rate of performing work is proportional to the amount of work
remaining to be performed. In case of infiltration, the work remaining to be performed
at any time t is equal to that of changing the infiltration rate f to its ultimate constant
value fc. The rate of performing work is df/dt. The amount of work remaining to be
performed is (f fc). Since f decreases with t,
df
= k ( f fc ) (5.1)
dt
where k is a proportionality factor dependent on soil type and initial moisture content.
The initial condition is:
When t = 0, f = f0,
Equation (5.1) can be integrated to yield
f = f c + ( f o f c )e kt (5.2)
and
dF
= f c + ( fo f c )e kt where f = dF/dt (5.3)
dt
The initial condition is: When t = 0, F = 0. Then

1
F = f ct + ( f o f c )(1 e kt )
k
1 1 1 1
= f ct + f o f c f oe kt + f c e kt
k k k k
1 1
= f ct + ( f o f c ) ( f o f c )e kt (5.4)
k k
5-5
This model is simple and fits well to experimental data. The principal weakness of this
model lies in determination of its parameters fo, fc, and k. These have to be determined
by data fitting. The parameters fo, fc, and k can be estimated in two ways (see Singh,
1989).
First taking the logarithm of equation (5.2)
ln( f f c ) = ln( f o f c ) kt (5.5)
Equation (5.5) represents a straight line on a semilog plot whose slop, -k, and intercept,
ln( f o f c ) , can readily be determined (Toebes, 1963). For given infiltration data, fc is
taken to be the lowest value of f where it tends to become constant. The value of (f fc)
at t = 0 is ( f o f c ) .
Second, a least squares method can be used (Blake, et al., 1968) directly to estimate
parameters of equation (5.3), which is of the form
1
F = a0 + a1t a0e kt , a0 = ( f o f c ), a1 = f c
k
This equation can be fitted to the experimental data. During the last 5 min or so
(assuming that the experiment is continued until the runoff becomes constant), the
exponential term becomes small. Therefore,
F = a0 + a1t
the values of ao and a1 can be estimated using the data for this time interval.
To determine k, we can write
F ao a1t
kt = ln
ao
By applying the linear regression analysis to the remainder of the data, excluding those
for which
F < (a0 + a1t )
the parameter k can be obtained.
The Green-Ampt method:

A simple conceptual model, based on Darcys law, was proposed by Green and Ampt
(1911). For details about the assumptions, deriving procedure, etc., refer to the course
Process hydrology. The section presents only the calculation procedure of the method
(see also Chow et al., 1988):
Following the flow chart (Fig.5.2):
Step 1: Calculate the current potential infiltration rate, ft from the known value of
cumulative infiltration Ft. For the Green-Ampt method, one uses
5-6
Hydrologic Models

ft = K + 1 (5.6)
Ft
where:
is the moisture content, i.e. the ratio of the volume of water to the total volume,
= (1 se ) e is the change of moisture content,
se is the effective saturation,
e is the effective porosity
is suction head,
K is hydraulic conductivity
Step 2: Calculation of Cumulative infiltration, Ft

Case 1: If ft it then (ponding occurs throughout the interval), and
F +
Ft + t = Ft + ln t + t = Kt (5.7)
Ft +
Case 2: if ft > it and no ponding at the beginning of the interval. Assume that this
remains so throughout the interval, then the infiltration rate is it and a tentative value for
cumulative infiltration at the end of the time interval is
F 't + t = Ft + it t (5.8)
Step 3: Calculate a corresponding infiltration rate ft'+ t from Ft'+ t .

If ft'+ t is greater than it, then Ft + t = Ft'+ t , no ponding throughout the interval.
If ft'+ t is less than or equal to it, ponding occurs during the interval. The cumulative
infiltration Fp at ponding time is found by setting ft = it and Ft = Fp in equation (5.6) and
solving for Fp to give, for the Green-Ampt equation,
K
Fp = (5.9)
it K
The ponding time is then t + t ' , where
Fp Ft
t ' = (5.10)
it
and the cumulative infiltration Ft + t is found by substituting Ft = Fp and t = t t '

in equation (5.7).
The excess rainfall values are calculated by subtracting cumulative infiltration and
other losses from cumulative rainfall and then taking successive differences of the
resulting values. Direct runoff can then be calculated from excess rainfall.
5-7
Fig.5.2 Flow chart for determining infiltration and ponding time under variable rainfall
intensity (after Chow et al., 1988).
5-8
Hydrologic Models
5.4 SIMULATING RUNOFF WITH LUMPED MODELS
The number of runoff components to be analysed depends on the characteristics of

the basin and the objective of the separation including the time base to be considered
(Figure 5.1). In most conceptual lumped catchment models, the following four
components (left) or even the right two components may be identified and modelled
explicitly:
surface flow
fast components
fast interflow
slow interflow
slow components
base flow
A lumped approach to the modelling of runoff considers the catchment as a

spatially singular entity which transforms rainfall excess into an outflow hydrograph.
The approach ranges from the use of a mathematical transfer function, or black-box
approach, to a modelling of the detailed interrelationship of processes for hydrologically
significant phenomena.
5.4.1 Event-based models
Streamflow simulation for individual storms is needed to solve a wide variety of water
resources problems, including design of hydraulic structures such as dams, culverts,
bridges, spillways; urban and highway drainage; planning of flood-control works;
source pollution; disposal of waste material; evaluation of environmental impacts of
land use and management practices; and planning of soil conservation works.
Many event-based streamflow simulation models have been developed (Renard et
al., 1982; Singh, 1988). Some of the models are summarised in Table 5.1. The objective
of this section is to present the general concepts of event-based streamflow simulation
and then make some comments about the models. No attempt is made to describe all the
models. Complete details of the models can be found in the cited references.
5.4.1.1 Determination of effective/excess rainfall hyetograph (ERH)
Excess rainfall, or effective rainfall, is that rainfall which is neither retained on the land
surface nor infiltrated into the soil. The graph of excess rainfall vs. time, or excess
rainfall hyetograph (ERH), is a key component of the study of rainfall runoff
relationships. The excess rainfall hyetograph (ERH) may be determined from rainfall
(hyetograph) data in one of two ways, depending on whether streamflow data are
available for the storm or not.
In case the rainfall and streamflow data area available, the ERH can be determined
by using the index method which consists of the following steps:
Estimate the baseflow by applying a base flow separation method.
Calculate the direct runoff which equals to the observed streamflow minus
baseflow.
Compute the volume and depth of direct runoff, Vd and rd. And
5-9
1 Vd
Vd = Qd ,i t rd = (5.11)
i =1 catchment area
where Qd is the ordinate of the direct runoff.

Estimate the rainfall loss rate , and M, the number of nonzero pulses of excess
rainfall, by solving the following equation with a trial and error method (an
example can be sound on page 138 of Chow et al, 1988).
M
rd = ( Rm t ) (5.12)
m =1
where Rm is the rainfall depth in pulse m.

Calculate the excess rainfall hyetograph (ERH). The ordinates of ERH are found
by subtracting t from the ordinates of the observed rainfall hyetograph.
In case, the streamflow data are not available, the ERH can be calculated from
either the SCS curve-number method or infiltration abstraction method (Chow et al.,
1988).
5.4.1.2 Computation of direct runoff hydrograph (DRH)
At this stage a decision has to be made regarding the type of the model to be used in
light of available data. This approach ranges from the use of a mathematical transfer
function, or "block-box" approach, such as the time-area method, and unit hydrograph
method (For details refer to the course of Process Hydrology), to conceptual method,
such as the linear-channel and linear-reservoir (Nash, 1957).
Suppose, a linear conceptual model is chosen for this purpose. Then the IUH
(instantaneous unit hydrograph) for this model must be derived as well as a method for
estimating the IUH parameters. Thereafter, the IUH is convoluted with the ERH
estimated already to obtain the DRH. To summarise, three tasks are performed for this
choice: (a) computation of the IUH, (b) determination of the IUH parameters, and (C)
convolution of the IUH with the ERH.
5.4.1.3 The Instantaneous unit hydrograph
If the excess rainfall is of unit amount and its duration is infinitesimally small, the
resulting hydrograph is an impulse response function called the instantaneous unit
hydrograph (IUH). For an IUH, the excess rainfall is applied to the drainage area in zero
time. Of course, this is only a theoretical concept and cannot be realized in actual
catchments, but it is useful because the IUH characterizes the catchments response to
rainfall without reference to the rainfall duration. Therefore, the IUH can be related to
catchment geomorphology.
The convolution integral is
t
Q(t ) = 0 u (t ) I ( )d (5.13)
If the quantities I() and Q(t) have the same dimensions, the ordinate of the IUH
must have dimensions [T-1]. The properties of the IUH are as follows, with l = t .
5-10
Hydrologic Models
0 u(l) some positive peak value for l > 0

u(l) = 0 for l 0
u(l) 0 as l

0 u (l )dl = 1 and 0 u (l )ldl = t L
The quantity tL is the lag time of the IUH. It can be shown that tL gives the time
interval between the centroid of an excess rainfall hyetograph and that of the
corresponding direct runoff hydrograph.
The IUH can be determined by various methods of mathematical inversion, using,
for example, orthogonal functions such as Fourier series (ODonnell, 1960) or Laguerre
functions (Dooge, 1973); integral transforms such as the Laplace transform (Chow,
1964), the Fourier transform (Blank et al., 1971), and the Z transform (Bree, 1978). The
complexity of the methods has deterred practising engineers from applying them in day-
to-day problems. Techniques incorporating catchment parameters have had their
attractions. These methods, based on unit hydrograph theory, are more akin to
mathematical models, and will be discussed hereafter.
5.4.1.4 The Nash linear conceptual model
In view of the difficulty of directly deriving instantaneous unit hydrographs (IUHs),

the influence of a catchment in transferring rainfall excess into direct runoff was viewed
conceptually as equivalent to transferral through a series of reservoirs linked by
channels (Nash, 1957).
A linear reservoir is a conceptual reservoir in which the storage, S, is directly

proportional to the outflow, Q, or
S = KQ (5.14)
The proportionality constant K, is known as the storage coefficient. The difference

between inflow (I) and outflow (Q), is the time rate of change in storage, i.e., by
continuity,
I - Q = dS/dt (5.15)
Substituting equation (5.14) in equation (5.15),
I -Q =KdQ/dt (5.16)
or
dQ/dt + Q/K = I/K (5.17)
the solution for which is:
Q = I(1-e-t/K) (5.18)
5-11
If the inflow stops at time t = t0 at which time the outflow Q = Q0, then from
equation (5.16) with I = 0 and = t - t0 ,
dQ / d + Q / K = 0 (5.19)
for which the solution is:
Q = Qo e / K (5.20)
For an instantaneous inflow which fills a reservoir of storage S0 in time t0 = 0,
Q0 = S0/K (5.21)
combining equations (5.20)and (5.21), and since = t
Q = ( So / K )e t / K (5.22)
The IUH for a linear reservoir, in which S0=1 and inflow is instantaneous, is
u( t ) = ( 1 / K )e t / K for t 0 (5.23)
u(t) = 0 fot t < 0
as shown in Fig.5.3 (left). If the inflow were a unit pulse of duration D, the UH u(D, t),
as shown in Fig.5.3(right), and the direct runoff Q(t) (ignoring the dimensions of u(D, t)
and Q(t)) would be
Q(t ) = u ( D; t ) = I [ 1 e t / k ], tD (5.24)
and
Q(t ) = u ( D; t ) = Q p e (t D ) / k t>D (5.25)
where Qp represents the hydrograph peak and is given by
Q p = I [ 1 e D / k ] (5.26)
Here I = 1/D. the hydrograph peak will occur at the end of the duration of unit pulse.
As t , Q(t) = I(t). This implies an equilibrium conditions: outflow becoming
equal to inflow. As t 0, Q = 0. As I(t) terminates at t = D, the recession starts
immediately. For an instantaneous inflow, which fills the reservoir of storage S in t = 0,
Qp = S/k. The equation of outflow is simply
S t / k
Q(t ) = e (5.27)
k
For a unit inflow, S = 1 and I(t) = (t). Consequently Q(t) u(t), the IUH is the same
as given by equation 5.23.
5-12
Hydrologic Models
u(t)
Fig.5.3 A linear reservoir: hydrograph due to a pulse of instantaneous input (left);

hydrograph due to a pulse of duration D hours duration (right).
A linear channel is a fictitious channel in which the cross-sectional flow area at a

section is proportional to the discharge, or
A = CQ (5.28)
The proportionality constant, C, is known as the translation coefficient. The velocity at

a section of the channel therefore remains constant, but may vary from section to
section. An inflow hydrograph or excess rainfall hyetograph routed through a linear
channel remains unchanged in shape and is merely translated in time, i.e., y(t) = x(t-T)
and this is shown in figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4. A linear channel which is just a translation

without changing of the hydrograph.
Cascaded reservoirs: A conceptual model of a catchment having the same

hydrologic response as a series of n linear reservoirs, each having the same storage
coefficient, K, was formulated by Nash (1957). This model has proved to be a
simple but effective method for deriving catchment IUHs.
As shown diagrammatically in Fig.5.5, a hydrograph-shaped outflow curve is
developed and modified by successively routing the outflow from one reservoir as
inflow to the next lower reservoir.
5-13
Fig.5.5 Cascaded reservoirs of the Nash model. Catchments having considerable impervious
area, such as small urban catchments, commonly exhibit IUHs of the one or two reservoir shape
due to the rapid response. Conversely, large flat agricultural catchments having little channel
formation exhibit the considerable lag of a large number of reservoir routings.
Assuming instantaneous unit input into the initial reservoir, the outflow from this
reservoir (previously developed as equation (5.23) may in turn be considered as input to
the second reservoir. Using as the variable in the convolution integral, the outflow
from the second reservoir may be obtained as
Q 2 = 0t I( ) u( t )d = (1 / K)e / K (1 / K)e ( t )/ K d
(5.29)
= ( t / K 2 )e t / K
For n repetitions of the above convolution, the generalised formula for the IUH of
the conceptualized drainage basin may be derived as
1
Qn = u (t ) = (t / K ) n 1 e t / K (5.30)
K (n 1)!
in which the value n is not necessarily an integer. When n is not an integer, (n-1)! is
replaced by (n) in equation (5.30). (n) can be interpolated from tables of the gamma
function. This equation expresses the instantaneous unit hydrograph of the proposed
model; mathematically, it is a gamma probability distribution function. The integral of
the right side of the equation over t from zero to infinity is equal to 1.
The two parameters, K, the storage constant for each of the reservoirs and n, the
number of reservoirs, may be simply evaluated by taking incremental moments of the
5-14
Hydrologic Models
excess rainfall hyetograph (ERH) and the direct runoff hydrograph (DRH), and
substituting in the formulas
M D1 M E1 = nK (5.31)
and
M D2 M E 2 = n( n + 1) K 2 + 2 nKM E1 (5.32)
in which:
MD1 = first moment of the DRH about the time origin divided by the total direct runoff
MD2 = second moment of the DRH about the time origin divided by the total direct
runoff
ME1 = first moment of the ERH about the time origin divided by the total effective
rainfall
ME2 = second moment of the ERH about the time origin divided by the total effective
rainfall
The value nK, as indicated by equation (5.31), represents the time lag between
centroids of the rainfall and runoff curves.
An example: Given the ERH and the DRH shown in Fig.5.6, determine n and K for the
IUH.
Solution: Determine the moments of the excess rainfall hyetograph and the direct runoff
hydrograph. Each block in the ERH and DRH has duration 6 h = 63600 s = 21600 s.
The rainfall has been converted to units of m3/s by multiplying by the watershed area to
be dimensionally consistent with the runoff. The sum of the ordinates in the ERH and in
the DRH is 700 m3/s, so the area under each graph = 700 6 =4200 (m3/s) h.
incremental area moment arm

M E1 =
total area
6
= [100 3 + 300 9 + 200 15 + 100 21]
4200
= 11.57 h
The second moment of area is calculated using the parallel axis theorem.
ME2 = {[incremental area (moment arm)2]
+ [second moment about centroid of each increment]}/total area

6
= { [ 100 32 + 300 92 + 200 152 + 100 212 ]
4200
1
+ 63 [100 + 300 + 200 + 100]}
12
=166.3 h2
5-15
By a similar calculation for the direct runoff hydrograph
MD1 = 28.25 h
MD2 = 882.8 h2
Solve for nK using (5.31):
nK = MD1 ME1
= 28.25 11.57
= 16.68
Solve for n and K using (5.32):
MD2 ME2 = n(n+1)K2 2nKME1

= n2K2 + nKK + 2nKME1
Hence
882.8 166.3 = (16.68)2+16.68K+216.6811.57
and solving yields K = 3.14 h
Thus
n = 16.68/K
= 16.68/3.14
= 5.31
These values of n and K
can be substituted into
Eq. (5.30) to determine
the IUH of this
watershed. By using the
methods described in
Process Hydrology
Course, the
corresponding unit
hydrograph can be
determined for a
specific rainfall
duration. Surface
(direct) runoff
hydrograph of any Fig.5.6 Excess rainfall hyetograph (ERH) and direct runoff
rainfall event can then hydrograph (DRH) for calculation of n and K in a linear
be calculated. reservoir model (from Chow et al., 1988).
5-16
Hydrologic Models
5.4.2 Flow routing
Depending upon the drainage pattern and the existence of dams or reservoirs, bridges,
and the like, within the basin, the calculated direct runoff hydrograph, DRH of each
sub-basin is to be routed during its journey to the catchment outlet. Here again, a
decision has to be made about the routing method. Suppose that the Muskingum method
is chosen for flow routing through channels, and Level-pool method is used for routing
through reservoirs. Then the parameters of the Muskingum method (weighting factor,
X, and lag time, K) are estimated first for each channel reach. Because this model is
linear, it will be sufficient to obtain its IUH and then convolute it with the reach inflow
hydrograph, which is usually the DRH, to compute the reach-outflow hydrograph. For
reservoir flow routing, storage-elevation and outflow-elevation relationships must be
established for each reservoir. These relationships are then combined to form a storage-
outflow graph, which is then used to perform flow routing through the reservoir. These
and other reservoir flow routing and channel flow routing methods are discussed in the
course of Catchment hydrology.
5.4.3 Continuous streamflow simulation models
Continuous streamflow simulation (CSS) has many applications, such as (1) extending
streamflow records, (2) flow forecasting, (3) evaluating the effect of land-use practices
on catchment response, (4) design urban drainage, highway culverts, reservoirs, and the
like, water-quality modelling, (5) irrigation planning and management. An extensive
listing of applications of the CSS models is given by James et al (1982).
5.4.3.1 Comparison with event based models
As the name suggests, CSS models allow simulation of streamflow for long periods
of time and thus more fully utilise capability of the digital computer. These models
maintain a more or less continuous accounting of the water in storage in the catchment.
Because of long periods of time, such hydrologic processes as evaporation and
transpiration, infiltration, interception, depression storage, subsurface flow, and
baseflow assume added significance. These processes are calculated separately in most
conceptual models. In event-based streamflow simulation some of these processes are
neglected, some are lumped, and some are considered with considerable approximation,
for the period of simulation is usually as long as the duration of the DRH. The emphasis
in CSS is on simulation of the entire land phase of the hydrologic cycle, whereas the
emphasis in EBSS is on modelling the DRH or its peak characteristics. Thus, CSS
models are models of the hydrologic cycle, whereas EBSS models are models of
rainfall-runoff cycle. It is logical to say that CSS models are more general and
encompass EBSS models as their special cases.
Naturally then, discussion of CSS models involves what has already been presented
about EBSS models plus discussion of components not included in EBSS models, such
as, evapotranspiration (chapter 4), snowmelt (chapter 3), subsurface runoff
(groundwater runoff plus delayed interflow, to be discussed in the section), soil
moisture storage (to be discussed in this section).
5-17
5-18
Hydrologic Models
5.4.3.2 Simulation of subsurface runoff
In general, quantitative simulation of interflow and baseflow is much less advanced

than is the simulation of either infiltration or movement of subsurface water within its
own domain. Further, except in few physically-based models, almost no one has tried to
include physically-based simulation of subsurface flow in general watershed models.
Fleming (1975) briefly discussed subsurface processes and how hydrologic
models commonly handle them. The usual method is to consider subsurface water as
resident in one or more storages or reservoirs. The following storage concepts might be
applied:
single linear reservoir S = K 'Q Q = K S

single logarithmic reservoir S = K ' ln Q Q = K eS
single nonlinear reservoir S = K 'Qm Q = K S1/ m
where S = storage; Q = reservoir outflow (discharge); K and K = storage constants; and

m = exponent.
The storage is usually updated by a balance equation, which is usually a simple
accounting of inflows and outflows,
St = St 1 + It Ot (5.33)
where
St = total water in storage at time t
I = a summation of such inflow rates as infiltration or inflowing seepage.
O = a summation of such outflow as evapotranspiration, outflowing seepage
(baseflow, interflow, etc.)
Subsurface outflow rates are usually expressed as functions of the amount of
subsurface water remaining in storage.
For example, in the HBV model, the interflow and groundwater flow are calculated
by the following equations, respectively:
Q1 = K1 Suz (5.34)
Q2 = K2 Slz (5.35)
where Q1, Q2 = Runoff components, K1 and K2 = recession coefficients (parameters),

Suz and Suz are the storages at upper zone and lower zone, respectively.
where
The Stanford Watershed model computes the interflow on a 15-min time interval
according to equation:
{ }
qi = 1.0 ( IRC )1 / 96 SRGX (5.36)
where
qi = interflow volume entering the channel during a 15-min time interval
IRC = daily recession rates of interflow (1/96 converts to 15-min interval)
SRGX = volume of interflow storage.
5-19
The ground water discharge for each 15-min time interval is computed by:
Gg = ( 1 ( KK 24 )1/ 96 ( 1 + KU S )S gw (5.37)
where
KK24 = minimum observed daily ground water recession constant
KU = variable ground water recession parameter
S = ground water slope
Sgw = ground water storage
More equations used in other models will be discussed in Chapter 8 while

discussing the particular models.
5.4.3.3 Building a continuous streamflow simulation model
From the preceding discussion, it is clear that building a catchment model involves
modelling the various components of the hydrologic cycle and maintaining a continuous
water balance involving these components. Some of these components are interactive
and involve iterative calculation. Larson et al. (1982) presented a good discussion on
assembling these components into a catchment model. Fig.5.7 shows a general
conceptual framework for building a catchment model. Many of the models, as
summarized in Table 5.2, posses similar arrangements of components.
5.5 DISTRIBUTED MODELING OF RUNOFF PROCESSES
A truly distributed hydrologic model would require the development and solution
of a comprehensive set of partial differential hydrodynamic and porous media flow
equations. The solution of such equations is highly boundary value dependent. A
detailed description of the infinite variety of boundary conditions present in a natural
watershed is not currently feasible. Therefore, those models that are currently classified
as distributed parameter models only approximate this approach.
Models can be classified as distributed when they utilize data concerning the spatial
distribution of controlling parameter variations in conjunction with computational
algorithms to evaluate the influence of this distribution on simulated behaviour. Such
models attempt to increase the accuracy of the simulation by preserving and utilizing
information concerning the areal distribution of all spatial non-uniform processes
characterized by the model. This increased accuracy usually comes at the expense of
increased computational and data preparation effort. The ready availability on Internet
and CD-ROM of data describing the land surface, especially digital elevation data for
land surface terrain, has made it practical for the first time to delineate catchments in a
few minutes in an automated way, and to compute the hydrologic properties of those
catchments.
More details about distributed models will be discussed in chapter 8 using the SHE
model as an example.
5-20
Hydrologic Models
Fig.5.7 Components of a continuous catchment model (from Singh, 1988)
5-21
5-22
Hydrologic Models
5.6 A REVIEW OF MODELS USED IN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
5.6.1 Long-term water balance models
A traditional way of water resources assessment was based on the long-term average
water balance equation over a basin in a form of
P = AE + Q (5.38)
where P, AE and Q are the long-term average annual precipitation, evapotranspiration

and streamflow, respectively. To solve equation (5.38) and get available water
resources, Q, two terms, P and AE, must be known. Areal precipitation P is usually
computed from point measurement. The key element in the long-term water balance of a
large catchment or a region is the value of the actual long-term evapotranspiration (AE).
The first attempts at linking actual evapotranspiration to precipitation and potential
evapotranspiration were made in the early years of last century on the basis of available
measurements of catchment rainfall and runoff. The fundamental assumption in the
formulae commonly suggested for the long-term water balance of catchments is that the
ratio of actual to potential evapotranspiration may be expressed as a function of the ratio
of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. Well-known formulae of this type
include Schreiber (1904); see also Dooge (1992),
AE P PE
= 1 exp (5.39)
PE PE P
It was formulated on the basis of measured precipitation and runoff in a number of

catchments in Europe. A few years later, Oldekop (1911) suggested
AE P
= tanh (5.40)
PE PE
based on measurements in Russia.
Budyko and Zubenok (1961) examined the long-term water balance data for 1200
regions throughout the U.S.S.R. and found that these data fell within the limits of the
formulae proposed by Schreiber and Oldekop. Turc (1954) proposed a simpler formula
based on measurements from African catchments, which later was somewhat modified
by Pike (1964) on the basis of further measurements:
P
AE PE
= (5.41)
PE
1+ P( PE
)
2
The long-term water-balance method for estimating renewable water resources from
meteorological data, though being very simple, has a number of essential disadvantages.
First, in arid and semiarid regions, river runoff is very small by the absolute value and
close to the error of determination of evaporation and precipitation. Second, it is
impossible to estimate water resources for seasons and months. These data are crucial
5-23
for modern planning of water management. Third, this technique is inapplicable to

estimate water resources of the countries and regions located in the basins of
international rivers. In this case a larger volume of river runoff comes from outside
rather than is formed on the territory at issue.
5.6.2 Monthly water balance models
Simple water balance models that simulate hydrographs of streamflow on the basis of
available meteorological data and few physically relevant parameters, have been used
by hydrologists and agricultural engineers in the assessment of regional water resources.
Such models were first developed in the 1940s by Thornthwaite (1948) and have since
been adopted, modified, and applied to a wide spectrum of hydrological problems (e.g.
Alley, 1984; Schaake and Liu, 1989; Xu, 1999). A general review on monthly water
balance models being used all over the world is made by Xu and Singh (1998).
The general structure of all water balance models is similar and building such a
model involves writing equations that relate the rates of change of water properties
within the control volume to flow of those properties across the control surface. For
example, a simple soil water balance model for a control volume drawn around a block
of topsoil is:
S(t+1) = S(t) + P(t) AE(t) Q(t) (5.42)
In which S(t) represents the amount of soil moisture stored at the time t, i.e. at the
beginning of a month, S(t+1) the storage at the later time t+1, i.e. at the beginning of
next month, and the flow across the control surface during the interval [t, t+1], i.e.
during the month considered, consists of precipitation P(t), actual evapotranspiration,
AE(t), and soil moisture surplus, Q(t), which supplies streamflow and groundwater
recharge. Solving this equation requires dealing with time series of the four variables: S,
P, AE, Q, and possibly of other variables related to them. The water balance models
differ in how AE and Q are conceptually considered and mathematically represented.
One of the limitations of monthly water balance models is its inability to adequately
account for possible changes in individual storm runoff characteristics at the time steps
they are applied.
5.6.3 Conceptual lumped-parameter models
Many conceptual lumped-parameter models have been developed since the 1960s with
the primary objective of flood forecasting of river basins. They are since then also used
for simulation purpose for hydrologic design and water resources assessment at
different scales. A few representative models will be briefly mentioned herewith as
examples and for details the cited references should be consulted.
The remarkable Stanford Watershed Model IV by Crawford and Linsley (1964)
represents the first great success in combining all the main hydrological processes
within a computer model. This model is widely known and has been applied to many
catchments throughout the world. Several models have followed, developing the
concept further. A frequently used model in this group is the Sacramento Soil Moisture
Accounting Model (Burnash et al., 1973). This model has been used by many
researchers as one of the standard tools in the United States in flood forecasting, water
resources assessment and studies on the impact of climate change. The HBV model
(Bergstrm, 1976) is widely used in the Nordic countries as a standard tool to forecast
5-24
Hydrologic Models
stream floods, to assess surface water resources and to simulate climate change effects.
Applications of the HBV models have been made in some 30 countries (Bergstrm,
1992). In China and other Asian countries, the Xinanjiang model is used as a standard
tool for a number of hydrologic simulation purposes. The model was developed in 1973
and published in 1980 (Zhao et al., 1980; Zhao, 1992). It has also been tested in the
United States, Germany, Belgium, France, and Sweden.
Many other models having a similar structure but with different process
conceptualisations, have been used in many regions of the globe (See also Leaveley,
1994). Among others, the Institute of Royal Meteorology Belgium model (Bultot and
Dupriez, 1976) has been applied to basins in Belgium (Bultot et al., 1988) and
Switzerland (Bultot et al., 1992). The HYDROLOG model (Porter and McMahon,
1971) was applied to two basins in South Australia (Nathan et al., 1988). The
Hydrologic Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) model (U.S.E.P.A., 1984) has
been applied to a basin in Newfoundland, Canada (Ng and Marsalek, 1992).
Compared with monthly water balance models, conceptual lumped-parameter
models enable a more detailed assessment of the magnitude and timing of process
response to climate change. However, these capabilities are accompanied by an increase
in the number of process parameters and in the amount and types of input data needed
to run the simulations.
5.6.4 Macroscale hydrologic models a GIS supported modelling system
According to Maidment (1996), a spatial hydrologic model is one which simulates the
water flow and transport in a specified region of the earth using GIS data structures.
There are at least four primary motivations for the development of such a system.
First, for a variety of operational and planning purposes, water resource managers
responsible for large regions need to estimate the spatial variability of resources
over large areas, at a spatial resolution finer than can be provided by observed data
alone.
Second, hydrologists and water managers are interested in the effects of land-use
and climate variability and change over a large geographic domain.
Third, there is an increasing need for using hydrologic models as a base to estimate
point and non-point sources of pollution loading to streams.
Fourth, hydrologists and atmospheric modellers have perceived weaknesses in the
representation of hydrological processes in regional and global atmospheric models.
Leading models in this category include the one developed by Vrsmarty et al.
(1989), the VIC model (Wood et al., 1992) and the Macro-PDM (Arnell, 1999). These
spatial hydrologic models, in the literature named macro-scale hydrologic models
(MHM), are conceptual water balance accounting models, which can be applied
repeatedly over a large geographic domain on a regular grid without the need for
calibration at the catchment scale. This is because what is feasible on the catchment
scale, where parameters may be derived from careful observations or be calibrated using
observed data is not feasible over a large area. Compared with the conceptual lumped-
parameter models the macro-scale models have considerably fewer parameters. Their
parameters can furthermore be estimated from spatial data sets, covering attributes as
diverse as land cover, soil type and climate. Macro-scale hydrologic models are state-of-
the-art tools in assessing regional and continental scale water resources.
5-25
5.7 WHEN CAN LUMPED MODELS BE USED, AND WHEN MUST

DISTRIBUTED MODELS BE USED?
The distinction between lumped and distributed models is not only one of lesser or
greater sophistication, but also intimately bound up with the purposes for which such
models are to be used; answers to certain questions can only be attempted by using
models with spatially distributed parameters. Blackie and Eeles (1985) give a good
account of the uses of lumped models, under five headings:
(i) quality control and infilling of missing data;

(ii) extensions of historic flow records;
(iii) generation of synthetic data runs for civil engineering design work and other
applications;
(iv) water resources assessment;
(v) water resources management including real-time forecasting.
In a paper which appeared in the same collection as Blackie and Eeles (1985),
Beven (1985) quotes Beven and O'Connel (1982) as defining the role of distributed
models in hydrology. The four areas offering the greatest potential are given as:
(i) forecasting the effects of land-use changes;

(ii) forecasting the effects of spatially variable inputs and outputs;
(iii) forecasting the movements of pollutants and sediments;
(iv) forecasting the hydrological response of ungauged catchments where no data are
available for calibration of a lumped model.
Distributed-parameter models remain the most objective approach to answering

questions such as: how the pattern of runoff will be changed in the area above 500 m in
a catchment is planted to forest; or, if an accidental spillage of toxic chemical occurs at
the bridge crossing this stream, how far the river channel network will be affected, how
long its effects will last, and to what extent groundwater will be affected. Lumped-
parameter models have little to offer for such questions.
In recent years, however, there has been a stocktaking of what is being, and can be,
achieved by the use of distributed models, even with the most powerful computer
support. Grayson et al. (1992) expressed the doubts as follows, in a paper discussing
future directions for physically-based, distributed-parameter models (that is, those in
which parameters describing processes are allowed to vary spatially over the river
basin):
The attraction of these models is their potential to provide information about the
flow characteristics at points within the catchments, but current representations in
process-based models are often too crude to enable accurate, a priori application
to predictive problems. The difficulties relate to both the perception of model
capabilities and the fundamental assumptions and algorithms used in the models.
In addition, the scale of measurement for many parameters is often not compatible
with their use in hydrologic models. The most appropriate uses of process-based,
distributed-parameter model are to assist in the analysis of data, to test hypotheses
in conjunction with field studies, to improve our understanding of processes and
their interactions and to identify areas of poor understanding in our process
descriptions. The misperception that model complexity is positively correlated
5-26
Hydrologic Models
with confidence in the results is exacerbated by the lack of full and frank
discussion of a model's capability/limitations and reticence to publish poor
results... Model development is often not carried out in conjunction with field
programs designed to test complex models, so the link with reality is lost.
5.8 A CALL FOR NEW GENERATION DISTRIBUTED MODELS
5.8.1 The present situation of hydrological modelling
As is shown in figure 5.8, successful analyses have been performed using physically-
based distributed models with fine resolution data and using conceptual hydrologic
models with coarse-scale data. One of the challenging fields in the hydrological
modelling exercises is the application of physically-based distributed models to the
meso or regional scale. There are at least four motivations for developing new
generation distributed models that can be used in meso or regional scale (in the
literature they are also referring as macro-scale hydrological modeling and spatial
hydrology modelling):
Water balance assessment of ungauged sites and large geographical regions,
Assessment of the effects of land-use and climate variability,
Estimating point and non-point sources of pollution loading to streams, and
Improve the representation of hydrological processes in regional and global
atmospheric models.
The traditional physically-based distributed models cannot be directly applied to

large scales with coarse resolutions because: (1) The physically-based partial
differential equations used in most distributed models are defined based on the fine
resolution data and may not valid in large scale with coarse resolution due to the spatial
heterogeneity and nonlinear nature of soil-vegetation-atmosphere transfer processes. (2)
Large amount of data used to estimate the parameters of those models may not be
available in large geographical regions. (3) Calibration of the large number of
parameters of such models might not be feasible in large geographical regions.
The new generation distributed models should, therefore, have the following key
characteristics:
The model should be transferable from one geographical location to another. Model
parameters should therefore be physically relevant.
The model should be applied either to every sub-basin in the spatial domain or on a
regular grid.
Runoff must be routed from the point of generation (the fundamental unit) through
the spatial domain along the river network.
As to the first characteristics, it requires, on the one hand the equations and parameters
should be physically relevant, and on the other hands, the models should not be too
specific with respect to local conditions. It requires some kind of generality and
averaging. The number of model parameters should be fewer than the traditional
distributed models. Refer to the second characteristics; the question arises as to how
these area elements can be defined. One option is to subdivide the catchment into so-
called "hydrological response units (HRUs)" which are similar with regard to selected
characteristics and which are modelled separately. Another option is to subdivide the
catchment into equally-spaced square grid elements. The problems related to the first
subdivision method include which characteristics should be considered relevant to the
5-27
hydrological processes. If too many, the partitioning will be very detailed resulting in
too much data need to be handled. If too few, we neglect the heterogeneity of the others.
The problems related to the second subdivision method include that the physical
characteristics within each grid cell that considered being homogeneous may be highly
heterogeneous, reducing the size of grid cells reduces the heterogeneity, but increases
computation time. Considering the coupling with atmospheric models (GCMs), the
second sub-division method, i.e. regular grid cells are used. Finally, considering the
large scale that the new generation distribution models are applied, flow routing both
within the grid cells and between the cells constitute the important part of the models.
The general structure of a new generation distribution model includes three parts:
Runoff generation at each grid cell,
Routing within the cells using Time-area method,
Routing between cells using river flow routing methods.
Model type
Physically-based Conceptual/empirical
distributed models model models
Fine resolution
hourly, daily
< 11 km
OK
?
Scale
Coarse resolution
weekly, monthly
10 50 km
OK
?
Fig.5.8 Conceptual matrix for hydrologic modelling and scale. Successful analyses have
been performed using physically-based distributed models with fine resolution data and
using conceptual hydrologic models with coarse-scale data. (Modified from Vrsmarty
et al., 1993).
5.8.2 State-of-the-art of the new generation models
State-of-the-art new distributed model is an intergraded modeling system that combines

SVAT model, groundwater model, snow model and hydrodynamic routing model and
couples with GIS, DEM/DTM and GCMs.
What is a GCM?
GCM is a General Circulation Model of global atmospheric process. The outputs of
such models include wind direction/speed, temperature, humidity, air pressure,
precipitation, evaporation, streamflow, etc. The main inputs include CO2 and other
gases. Typical spatial resolution of a GCM is 300300 km.
5-28
Hydrologic Models
With the original purpose of weather forecasting, the GCMs nowadays are used in
predicting future climate scenarios (Loaiciga et al., 1996; Xu, 1999c).
What is a RCM?
RCM is a Regional scale atmospheric model, being similar to GCM in principle but
with finer spatial resolution of 3030 km. In the literature it is also referred as limited-
area atmospheric model and regional climate model. It is the result of dynamic
downscaling of a GCM (e.g. Giorgi et al., 1990).
What is a SVAT?
SVAT is a Soil-Vegetation-Atmosphere-Transfer scheme/model with the aim of
simulating at higher performance in terms of hydrological, biogeochemical and
vegetation dynamic processes. The general structure of a SVAT is shown in figure 5.9.
Figure 5.9 Generalized structure of a SVAT model.
5-29
There are two directions for further developments of SVATs:

To design more comprehensive ecohydrological SVAT models capable of
describing the various complex interrelationships and interdependencies between the
different process variables, parameters and influencing characteristics.
To derive simplified SVAT models, especially for use in larger scales, which are
capable of simulating main processes based on a small set of key parameters, to be
linked up to quantities used in the description of land-surface processes at the larger
scales.
5.8.3 Approaches in developing the new generation distributed models
In principle, there are two approaches:

Bottom-up approach: identifies representative hydrological areas and applies
highly-detailed physically-based hydrological models, then aggregates upwards to
all catchments or fundamental units in a large area (e.g. the Institute of Hydrology
macromodel, Arnell, 1993; Kite et al., 1994).
Top-down approach: treats each of the fundamental units as a single lumped
catchment, and applies to each of them a simple conceptual hydrological model
(Vrsmarty et al., 1989; Liston et al., 1994; Wood et al., 1992).
In practice, there are also two approaches:
One is improving the energy balance processes within an existing hydrological

model and enabling it to couple with an atmospheric model (e.g. Xu et al., 1994).
Another approach is the improvement of the hydrological processes in land surface
models developed for atmospheric models (Kim et al, 2001).
5.8.4 Approaches of coupling hydrologic models with atmospheric models (GCMs)
As mentioned before, one of the important motivations of the development of the new
generation distributed models is to improve the representation of hydrological processes
in regional and global atmospheric models. Coupling the hydrological models with the
GCMs is perhaps the best way of doing so.
The traditional hydrological models cannot be coupled directly with the GCMs
because of a number of gaps between them (see Table 5.3). The approaches that have
been used to link GCM and hydrological models are presented in figure 5.10.
Global atmospheric GCMs have been used directly to simulate streamflow under
present climate and to predict the impact of future climatic change in macroscale
catchments. The analysis of GCM-predicted runoff showed that a simplistic
representation of the hydrologic cycle within a global model of general atmospheric
circulation leads to poor hydrologic predictive skill (e.g. Kuhl and Miller, 1992). The
problem from a hydrologic point of view is that the most GCMs contain no lateral
transfer of water within the land phase.
The results of literature survey showed that coupling the macroscale hydrological
model with the GCM produces a better representation of the recorded flow regime than
GCMs predictions of runoff for very large river basins. However, GCMs cannot see
smaller scale river basins because of their coarse grid resolution. Subgrid-scale
hydrologic models and nesting schemes are needed to resolve the large-scale GCM
predictions and predict smaller scale hydrologic phenomena (Hostetler and Giorgi,
1993).
5-30
Hydrologic Models
Table 5.3: Some existing gaps between GCMs ability and hydrology need
______________________________________________________________________
Better simulated Less-well simulated Not well simulated
______________________________________________________________________
Spatial scales Global Regional Local
Mismatch 300300 km 3030 km 0 50 km
Temporal scales Mean annual Mean monthly Mean daily

Mismatch & seasonal
Vertical scale 500 hPa 800 hPa Earth surface

Mismatch
Working variables Wind Cloudiness Evapotranspiration

Mismatch Temperature Precipitation Runoff
Air pressure Humidity Soil moisture
______________________________________________________________________
GCMs ability declines
Hydrological importance increases
______________________________________________________________________
To circumvent these problems, downscaling techniques have subsequently

emerged as a mean of relating large-scale atmospheric models to regional or even basin
scale hydrological models (Xu, 1999b). Two broad classes of downscaling approaches
exist: dynamic methods, involving the explicit solving of the process-based physical
dynamics of the system (e.g. Giorgi and Mearns, 1991); and statistical methods that use
identified system relationships derived from observed data (e.g. Wigley et al., 1990; Xu,
1999c).
Due to the reason that the present GCMs and/or RCMs give different values of some
climate variables and often do not provide a single reliable climate that could be
advanced as a deterministic forecast for hydrological planning. Accordingly, methods of
simple alteration of the present conditions are widely used by hydrologists (approach 5
in figure 5.10). Various hypothetical climate change scenarios have been adopted and
climate predictions for double CO2 conditions have become a standard in such
sensitivity studies (e.g. Loaiciga et al., 1996). The general procedure for estimating the
impacts of hypothetical climate change on hydrological behavior has the following
stages:
Determine the parameters of a CHM model by calibration,

Perturb the historical time series of observed climatic data according to some
climate change scenarios by:
o estimating average annual changes (%) in precipitation and temperature
using
GCM result or
historical measurements of change or
personal estimates
5-31
o adjusting historic time series by multiplying the historic precipitation by

a percentage change and adding an absolute change to the historic
temperature.
Simulate the hydrological characteristics of the catchment under the perturbed
climate using the calibrated hydrological model.
Compare the model simulations of the current and possible future hydrological
characteristics.
In the recent studies, approaches 3 and 4 have received more efforts than others.
This is because, statistical downscaling approaches linking GCMs to meteorologic and
hydrologic models resolved at finer scales provide the possibility of bridging the gaps
between the coarse-resolution GCMs and hydroclimatic modelling at the river-basin
scale, while dynamic downscaling approach and nesting schemes provide the possibility
of double-way coupling between atmospheric and hydrologic modeling. This double-
way coupling is important not only because it provides better simulations of regional
hydrologic scenarios, but also because it provides a feed back to meteorological
modelers which in its turn is important for improving the skills of GCMs and RCMs.
Water Resources Scenario

1
2 MHM
3
Dynamic MHM
GCM downscaling
Statistical
4
downscaling
CHM
5 Hypothetical
T, P
CHM
Where: CHM = catchment-scale hydrologic models

MHM = macro-scale hydrologic models
Figure 5.10 Schematic representation of the methods for assessing water resources
under changing climate
5-32
Hydrologic Models
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O'Connell, P.E. and Rasmussen, J., 1986.
An introduction to the European Hydrological System - Systeme Hydrologique
Europeen, "SHE", 1: History and philosophy of physically-based, distributed
modeling system. J. Hydrol., 87: 45-59.
Abbott, M.B., Bathurst, J.C., Cunge, J.A., O'Connell, P.E. and Rasmossen, J., 1986.
An introduction to the European Hydrological System - Systeme Hydrologique
Europeen, "SHE", 2: Structure of a physically-based, distributed modeling system.
J. Hydrol., 87: 61-77.
Alley, W.M., 1984: On the treatment of evapotranspiration, soil moisture accounting
and aquifer recharge in monthly water balance models. Water Resources Research
20(8), 1137-1149.
Arnell, N.W., 1993. Data requirements for macroscale modeling of the hydrosphere, In:
Macroscale Modeling of the Hydrosphere, IAHS publ. No. 214, pp. 139-149.
Arnell, N.W., 1999: A simple water balance model for the simulation of streamflow
over a large geographic domain, Journal of Hydrology 217 (3-4), 314-335.
Bergstrm, S., 1976: Development and application of a conceptual runoff model for
Scandinavian catchments. Department of Water Resources Engineering, Lund
Institute of Technology, Bulletin Series A-52, Swedish Meteorological and
Hydrological Institute, Norrkping, Sweden.
Bergstrm, S., 1992: The HBV model its structure and applications. SMHI RH report
No 4. Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Norrkping, Sweden.
Blake, G.J., et al., 1968. Infiltration in the Puketurua experimental basin. J. Hydrol.
7(1), 38-46.
Blank, D., J.W. Delleur, and A. Giorgini, 1971. Oscillatory kernel functions in linear
hydrologic models. Water Resources Research 7(5): 1102-1117.
Bree, T., 1978. The stability of parameter estimation in the general linear model,
Journal of Hydrology 37(1/2): 47-66.
Budyko, M-I. and Zubenok, L.I., 1961: On the determination of evaporation from the
land surface. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Geogr. 6, 3-17.
Bultot, F. and Dupriez, G.L., 1976: Conceptual hydrologic model for an average-sized
catchment area: Concepts and relationships. Journal of Hydrology 29, 251-272.
Bultot, F., Coppens, A., Dupriez, G.L., Gellens, D. and Meulenberghs, F., 1988:
Repercussions of a CO2-doubling on the water cycle and on the water balance: a
case study for Belgium. Journal of Hydrology 99, 319-347.
Bultot, F., Gellens, D., Spreafico, M., and Schdler, B., 1992: Repercussions of CO2
doubling on the water balance - a case study in Switzerland. Journal of Hydrology
137, 199-208.
Burnash, R.J.C., Ferral, R.L. and McGuire, R.A., 1973: A generalized streamflow
simulation system, conceptual modeling for digital computer. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Weather Service and State of California, Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento, CA.
Chow, V.T., 1964. Runoff, in Handbook of Applied Hydrology, sec 14. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment and L.W. Mays, 1988. Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
5-33
Crawford, N.H. and Linsley, R.K., 1964: A conceptual model of hydrologic cycle.
IAHS Publ. 63, 573-587.
Dooge, J.C.I., 1973. Linear theory of hydrologic system, Tech. Bull. No. 1468, Agric.
Res. Serv., pp117-124. October, U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Dooge, J.C.I., 1992: Hydrologic models and climate change, Journal of Geophysical
Research D3, 97, 2677-2686.
Fleming, G., 1975. Computer simulation techniques in hydrology. Elsevier Publishing
Co., New York.
Giorgi, F., 1990. Simulation of regional climate using a limited area model nested in a
general circulation model. Journal of Climate 3, 941-963.
Giorgi, F. and Mearns, L.O., 1991. Approaches to the simulation of regional climate
change: a review. Reviews of Geophysics 29, 191-216.
Green, W.H. and Ampt, C.A., 1911. Studies on soil physics, I. Flow of air and water
through soils. J. of Agricultural Sciences, 4: 1.24.
Hewlett, J.D., 1961. Watershed management, in USFS Southeast, Forest Expt. Sta.
Rept. pp61-66.
Hewlett, J.D., and A.R. Hibbert, 1963. Moisture and energy conditions within a sloping
soil mass during drainage, JGR, 68:1081-1087.
Hewlett, J.D., and W.L. Nutter, 1969. An outline of forest hydrology, Univ. of Georgia
Press, Athens.
Horton, R.E., 1919. Rainfall Interception. Monthly Weather Review 47(9): 603-623.
Horton, R.E., 1933. The role of infiltration in the hydrologic cycle. Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union 14: 446-460.
Horton, R.E., 1939. Analysis of runoff plat experiment with varying infiltration
capacity. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 20:693-711.
Horton, R.E., 1940. An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration
capacity. Soil Science Society of American Proceedings 5: 399-417.
Hostetler, S.W. and Giorgi, F., 1993. Use of output from high-resolution atmospheric models in
landscape-scale hydrologic models: an assessment. Water Resources Research 29, 1685-
1695.
James, L.D., et al., 1982. A taxonomy for evaluating surface water quantity model
reliability. In Applied modelling in Catchment Hydrology, (ed.) V.P. Singh, 189-228.
Littleton, Colo: Water Resources Publication.
Kite, G.W., Dalton, A. and Dion, K., 1994. Simulation of streamflow in a macroscale
watershed using general circulation model data. Water Resources Research 30, 1547-
1599.
Kuhl, S.C. and Miller, J.R., 1992. Seasonal river runoff calculated from a global
atmospheric model. Water Resources Research 28, 2029-2039.
Larson, C.L. et al., 1982. Some particular Watershed Models. Chapter 10 in Hydrologic
Modeling of Agricultural Watersheds, (ed.) H.T. Haan, 409-434. ASAE Monograph
No.5 St. Joseph, Mich.: American Society of Agricultural Watersheds.
Lawler, 1964
Leavesley, G.H., 1994: Modelling the effects of climate change on water resources A
review. Climatic Change 28, 159-177.
Liston, G.E., Sud, Y.C. and Wood, E.F., 1994. Evaluating GCM land surface hydrology
parameterisations by computing river discharges using a runoff routing model:
application to the Mississippi Basin. Journal of applied meteorology 33, 394-404.
Loaiciga, H.A., Valdes, J.B., Vogel, R., Garvey, J., and Schwarz, H. (1996) Global
warming and the hydrologic cycle. Journal of Hydrology 174, 83-127.
5-34
Hydrologic Models
Maidment, D.R., 1996: GIS and hydrologic modelling an assessment of progress.

Presented at The Third International Conference on GIS and Environmental
Modeling, January 22-26, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Meriam, R.A., 1960. A note on the interception loss equation. J. of Geophysical
Research 65(11): 3850-3851.
Meyer, A.F., 1942. Introduction to Runoff. Chapter 11A in Meinzer, O.E. (Ed.),
Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1942.
Morel-Seytoux, H.J., 1973. Two-Phase flows in porous media. In: Advances in
Hydroscience, vol 9, edited by V.T. Chow, New York: Academic Press, 119-201.
Nash, J.E., 1957. The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph. International
Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication 45(3):114-121.
Nathan, R.J., McMahon, T.A. and Finlayson, B.L., 1988: The impact of the Greenhouse
effect on catchment hydrology and storage-yield relationships in both winter and
summer rainfall zones. In Pearman, G.I. (ed.), Greenhouse, Planning for Climate
Change, Division of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO, East Melbourne, Australia.
Ng, H.Y.F., and Marsalek, J., 1992: Sensitivity of streamflow simulation to changes in
climatic inputs. Nordic Hydrology 23, 257-272.
ODonnell, T., 1960. Instantaneous unit hydrograph by harmonic analysis, Proc. Gen.
Ass. Helsinki, IASH, publ.51, pp546-557.
Oldekop, E.M., 1911: On evaporation from the surface of river basins. Tr. Meteorol.
Observ. Iurevskogo Univ. Tartu., 4.
Philip, J.R., 1969. Theory of infiltration. In: Advances in Hydroscience, vol 5, edited by
V.T. Chow, New York: Academic Press, 215-296.
Pike, J.G., 1964: The estimation of annual runoff from meteorological data in a tropical
climate. Journal of Hydrology 2, 116-123.
Porter, J.W. and McMahon, T.A., 1971: A model for the simulation of streamflow data
from climatic records. Journal of Hydrology 13, 297-324.
Renard, K.G., W.J. Rawls, and M.M. Fogel. 1982. Currently available models.
Chapter 13 in Hydrologic Modeling of Agricultural Watersheds, (ed.) H.T. Haan,
507-522. ASAE Monograph No.5 St. Joseph, Mich.: American Society of
Agricultural Watersheds.
Rovey, C.E.K. and E.V. Richardson, 1975. Mathematical model of flow in a stream-
aquifer system. Proc. 2nd Annual Symp. on Model Technology, San Francisco, CA.
(Published by ASCE, New York), pp439-457.
Schaake, J.C. and Liu, C., 1989: Development and application of simple water balance
models to understand the relationship between climate and water resources. New
Directions for Surface Water Modeling (Proceedings of the Baltimore Symposium,
May 1989), IAHS Publ. no.181.
Schreiber, P., 1904: On the relationship between precipitation and the runoff of rivers in
Central Europe, Z. Meteorol. 21, 441-452.
Singh, V.P., 1988. Hydrologic Systems. Volume 1: Rainfall-runoff modelling. Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Singh, V.P., 1989. Hydrologic Systems, II, Watershed Modeling, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Thornthwaite, C.W., 1948: An approach toward a rational classification of climate.
Geogr. Rev. 38(1), 55-94.
Toebes, C., 1963. Applied Hydrology 2: 37-59. Technical Correspondence School, New
Zealand Dept of Education.
Turc, L., 1954: The water balance of soils. Relation between precipitation evaporation
and flow. Ann. Agron. 5, 491-569.
5-35
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.E.P.A.), 1984: Users manual for

hydrological simulation program-FORTRAN (HSPF), EPA-600/3-84-066,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
Ullah, W. and W.T. Dickinson, 1979. Quantitative description of depression storage
model using digital surface model: part I and part II, J. Hydrology 42: 63-99.
Vrsmarty, C.J., Moore, B., Gildea, M.P., Peterson, B., Melillo, J., Kicklighter, D.,
Raich, J., Rastetter, E. and Steudler P., 1989: A continental-scale model of water
balance and fluvial transport: Application to South America. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles 3, 241-65.
Vrsmarty, C.J., Gutowski, W.J., Person, M., Chen, T-C and Case, D. Linked
atmosphere-hydrology models at the macroscale. In: Macroscale Modelling of the
Hydrosphere, IAHS Publ No 214, 3-30.
Ward, R.C., 1972. Estimating streamflow using Thornthwaite's climatic water-balance,
Weather, Feb. pp-73-84.
Wigley, T.M.L., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R. and Smith, G., 1990. Obtaining sub-gridscale
information from coarse-resolution general circulation model output. Journal of
Geophysical Research 95, 1943-53.
Wood, E.F., Lettenmaier, D.P. and Zartarian, V.G., 1992: A land-surface hydrology
parameterisation with subgrid variability for general circulation models. Journal of
Geophysical Research 97, D3, 2717-2728.
Xu, C-Y, 1999a: Estimation of parameters of a conceptual water balance model for
ungauaged catchments. Water Resources Management 13(5), 353-368.
Xu, C-Y, 1999b. Climate change and hydrologic models: a review of existing gaps and
recent research developments. Water Resources Management 13(5): 369-382.
Xu, C-Y, 1999c. From GCMs to river flow: a review of downscaling techniques and
hydrologic modeling approaches. Progress in Physical Geography 23(2): 229-249.
Xu C-Y and Singh, V.P., 1998: A review on monthly water balance models for water
resources investigations. Water Resources Management 12, 31-50.
Xu, L., Lettenmaier, D.P., Wood, E.F. and Burges, S.J., 1994. A simple hydrologically
based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models.
J. Geophys. Res. 99(D7), 14415-14428.
Zhao, R.J., 1992: The Xinanjiang model applied in China. Journal of Hydrology 135,
371-381.
Zhao, R.J., Zhang, Y.L., Fang, L.R., Liu, X.R. and Zhang, Q.S., 1980: The Xinanjiang
model. Hydrological forecasting proceedings, Oxford Symposium, IAHS Publ. 129,
351-356.
5-36
CHAPTER 6
THE METHODOLOGY OF MODEL EVALUATION
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6.1 PHASES OF MODEL EVALUATION
In general several levels of evaluation are necessary before the model should be
applied to estimate the output from a catchment (See Fig.6.1). These are:
(i) model selection choice of working hypotheses

(ii) model calibration - estimation of the parameter values
(iii) model validation - testing the fitted model to verify its accuracy; and
(iv) estimation of its range of applicability
Conceptually, these evaluations are distinct and follow in sequence. In practice, the
boundaries for many types of models are often blurred. Of the four types of evaluation,
estimation of the parameter values generally receives most attention. Nevertheless, it is
important to recognise that all four evaluations are of equal fundamental importance,
and neglect of any one can lead to serious error.
Fig. 6.1 Phases of model analysis
6-1
Ch6. The methodology of model evaluation
6.2 MODEL SELECTION
6.2.1 Problems to be considered
Hydrological practice would be improved if models were objectively chosen on

the basis of making the best use of the information available and following some
systematic procedure of selection and verification (Dooge, 1984). The choice of the best
model depends to a large extent on the problem. Generally speaking, items that should
be considered in the selection process include (Haan et al. 1982):
(a) The nature of the physical processes involved,
(b) The use to be made of the model,
(c) The quality of the data available and
(d) The decisions that rest on the outcome of the model's use.
In examining the nature of the physical processes involved, one should ask and
attempt to answer such questions as: what are the processes that interact to produce the
phenomenon under investigation? Are they amenable to solution by stochastic
processes? Are they independent processes? Are they independent of time? Are values
of the parameters likely to change with time, i.e., are they seasonal? Is the process
stationary? Must future man-induced changes to be represented? If so, how?
In studying the use to be made of the model, one needs to answer: How much
information is needed concerning the process being modelled? Do the data need to be
presented in short time intervals or is monthly or annual data sufficient?
The quality of hydrological data describing a phenomenon affects the problem of
fitting useful information from complex processes that produced the phenomenon.
Several models may be capable of describing the same process, and, to a great extent,
selection of the one to be used depends on a comparison of sampled data and model
output.
Finally, in model selection, decisions that may rest upon the outcome of the
models use must be considered. To a great extent, these decisions will dictate the
criteria that should be used to judge the quality of the models performance. As an
example, suppose that streamflow sequences will be used to determine the size of a dam
to be used for water supply. In this case, the model is selected and its parameters
estimated in such a way as to minimise the costs of uncertainty inherent in decisions
regarding the size of the dam. Alternatively, suppose aerial rainfall data were used to
study the spatial variability of soil moisture in assessing crop conditions. In this case,
the model and its parameters must be selected to minimize the costs inherent in either
overirrigation or losses in productivity brought on by drought induced growth stress.
These are rather simplistic examples, but they serve to show the needs of the decision-
maker, who may not know how to judge the quality of a models response.
6.2.2 Criteria of selection
Thus far the problems to be considered in choosing a suitable model in general

have been discussed. In most situations, however, absolute objective methods of
choosing the best model for a particular problem have not yet been developed, so this
choice remains a part of the art of hydrological modelling. Dawdy and Lichty (1968)
suggested four criteria that can be used to choose between alternative models:
1). Accuracy of prediction

2). Simplicity of the model
6-2
Hydrologic Models
3). Consistency of parameter estimates

4). Sensitivity of results to changes in parameter values
Accuracy of prediction of system output is obviously very important; it is desired

when all other factors being equal, the model with minimum error variance would be
superior. Simplicity refers to the number of parameters that must be estimated and the
ease with which the model can be explained to clients or public bodies. When all other
factors are being equal, one should choose the simplest model. Consistency of
parameter estimation is an important consideration in developing hydrological models
using parameters estimated by optimization techniques. If the optimum values of the
parameters are very sensitive to the particular period of the record used, or if they vary
widely between similar catchments, the model will probably be unreliable. Finally,
models should not be extremely sensitive to input variables that are difficult to measure.
6.3 ISSUES IN MODEL CALIBRATION - PARAMETER ESTIMATION
6.3.1. Introduction to model calibration
Whatever the model form is chosen, there are some unknown constants used to
represent the physical process. These so called parameters of the model must be
assigned fixed numerical values before the model may be used to predict the runoff, in
other words one needs to estimate these parameters such that the best agreement
between modelled and observed runoff can be obtained. The process by which the
parameters are selected is called model calibration. The emphasis here is directed
towards the calibration of conceptual hydrologic model of streamflow.
6.3.1.1 Model parameters
Many hydrologic models are based on conceptual representations of the physical

processes that govern the flow of water through and over the soil. Such models usually
have two types of parameters: physical parameters and process parameters
(Sorooshian and Gupta, 1995).
(a) Physical parameters: physical parameters represent physically measurable

properties of the watershed. Examples are: the area of the watershed, the fraction
of the watershed area that is impervious, the surface area of the streams and
open water bodies, surface slopes, and so on.
(b) Process parameters: process parameters represent watershed properties that are
not directly measurable. Examples include: the average or effective depth of
surface soil moisture storage, the effective lateral interflow rate, the coefficient
of nonlinearity controlling rate of percolation to the groundwater storage, and so
on.
6.3.1.2 Methods of parameter determination
There are two parts of parameter determination process: parameter specification

and parameter estimation.
(a) Parameter specification: Here, we use prior knowledge about the watershed
properties and behaviour to specify initial estimates for the parameters of the
6-3
model. For physical parameters, estimates are made using measurements

obtained from maps in the field. The parameters are then typically fixed at these
measured values and not adjusted further unless determined to be in error. For
process parameters, estimates of the range (minimum and maximum values)
of possible values for these parameters are determined based on judgement and
understanding of the hydrology of the watershed. This uncertainty in the
parameter estimates is then reduced by the process of parameter estimation
described below.
(b) Parameter estimation: Here, we use various techniques designed to reduce the
uncertainty in the estimates of the process parameters. A typical approach is to
first select an initial estimate for the parameters, somewhere inside the ranges
previously specified. The parameter values are then adjusted to more closely
match the model behaviour to that of the watershed. The process of adjustment
can be done manually or using computer-based automatic methods, as
discussed below.
6.3.2 Manual calibration
To calibrate a model, we must select some aspect of watershed behaviour to which

the model is to be matched: typically, we might select the streamflow hydrograph at one
or more locations on the river. We then adjust the model parameters to get the simulated
streamflow hydrograph to resemble the observed hydrograph for some historical data
period. In manual calibration, we use a trial-and-error process of parameter adjustment;
after each parameter adjustment is made, the simulated and observed hydrographs are
visually compared to see if the match is improved.
With training and a good deal of experience, it is possible to obtain very good
calibration using the manual approach. However, for the inexperienced and untrained
person, manual calibration can be a rather frustrating and time-consuming exercise. This
is mainly because the logic by which the parameters should be adjusted to improve the
match is difficult to determine (due to the compensating effects which the model
parameters usually have on the model output). Recent developments in computer
graphics have made the process of manual calibration somewhat less tedious by
enabling the effects of a parameter adjustment to be rapidly observed and compared to
previous parameter trials (Brazil, 1988).
The main weakness of manual calibration is that the absence of generally accepted
objective measures of comparison makes it difficult to know when the process should
be terminated i.e., whether the best possible fit has been obtained. Because manual
calibration involves a great deal of subjective judgement, different persons may obtain
very different parameter values for the same watershed. This makes it difficult to
explicitly assign measures of confidence to the calibrated model and to its simulations
and predictions.
6.3.3 Automatic calibration
6.3.3.1 Introduction
The development of computer-based methods for automatic calibration of

watershed models has been motivated by:
(a) the need to speed up the process of calibration;
6-4
Hydrologic Models
(b) the fact that there are few model calibration experts available for each watershed
model; and
(c) the need to assign some measure of objectivity and confidence to model
predictions.
Early attempts to develop automatic calibration methods were reported by Dawdy

and O'Donnell (1965), Nash and Sutcliffe (1970), and Ibbitt (1970), among others.
These researchers set the stage by bringing the vast body of research on statistical
regression and model fitting techniques to bear on the calibration problem.
Since these beginnings, a great deal of progress has been made. However, it is
important to clearly state that automatic calibration methods have not yet matured to the
point that they can entirely replace manual methods. Although quick to provide
solutions, automatic methods still require user expertise and are typically used in
conjunction with a manual procedure.
Automatic optimisation procedures are mathematical search algorithms that seek
to minimize differences between selected features of modelled and observed
streamflows by systematic trial alterations in the values of the model parameters. These
trial alterations are called "iterations". The objective function, i.e., the quantitative
measure of the fit of modelled runoff to the observed runoff, is calculated after each
parameter iteration. Successful iterations are those which cause a reduction in the value
of the objective function (for direct search method). During the search only the
parameter set associated with the current least objective function value is retained,
which, at the end of a search, is regarded as the optimal parameter set.
To illustrate the concept, a one-parameter model and a two-parameter model are
used as examples. A response surface is formed when the objective function is plotted
against the parameters. Typical response surfaces for one and two parameter models are
shown in Fig6.2 for illustrative purpose. This concept can be extended for a model with
n parameters to a response surface in (n+1) dimensional space and obviously it cannot
be represented visually. The optimal parameter set is defined by the lowest point on the
surface in the case of minimization of the objective function. This lowest point is known
as the global optimum and discovery of the optimum is known as convergence. There
are may be other points on the surface which are lower than all others in their immediate
vicinity, but not lower than the global optimum. Such points are known as local optima,
as shown in Fig.6.2.
A typical automatic parameter estimation procedure consists of four major
elements:
(1) objective function,

(2) optimisation algorithm (to be discussed in Chapter 7),
(3) termination criteria, and
(4) calibration data, as discussed below.
In addition, processes of verification and sensitivity analysis (section 6.4) are

necessary to establish confidence in the results.
6-5
Fig.6.2 Response surface. A: one parameter model; B: two-parameter model
6.3.3.2a Objective functions
An objective function is an equation that is used to compute a numerical measure

of the difference between the model-simulated output (typically the streamflow
hydrograph) and the observed (measured) watershed output. The purpose of automatic
model calibration is, therefore: to find those values of the model parameters that
optimise (minimize or maximize, as appropriate) the numerical value of the objective
function.
(A) Least squares methods: Drawing from statistical regression and model-fitting
theory, the most commonly used objective function has been some form of the
Weighted Least Squares (WLS) function:
n
[
F ( ) = wt qtobs qtsim ( ) ]
2
(6.1)
t =1
6-6
Hydrologic Models
where:
qtobs = observed (measured) streamflow value at time t;

qtsim ( ) = model simulated streamflow value at time t;
= vector of model parameters;
wt = weight at time t; and
n = the number of data points to be matched.
The weights wt indicate the importance to be given to fitting a particular

hydrograph value. If the weights are all set equal to 1.0, the WLS function reduces to
the familiar Simple Least Squares (SLS) function. Notice that the minimum value of the
objective function F() that can be attained is 0.0 (zero) if the model is able to perfectly
reproduce the observed streamflow hydrograph. In general, however, a zero value is not
attainable, and the purpose of automatic calibration is to find the value for which
minimizes the value of the function.
For a proper evaluation of the model calibration, it is necessary to translate the
overall calibration objective into more operational terms. The following objectives are
usually considered:
1) A good agreement between the average of simulated and observed catchment

runoff volume (i.e. a good water balance).
2) A good overall agreement of the shape of the hydrograph.
3) A good agreement of the peak flows with respect to timing, rate and volume.
4) A good agreement for low flows.
In this respect, it is important to note that, in general, trade-offs exist between the
different objectives. For instance, one may find a set of parameters that provide a very
good simulation of peak flows but a poor simulation of low flows, and vice versa. The
following numerical performance statistics that are defined here measure the different
calibration objectives stated above:
1) Overall volume error
N
[
wt qtobs qtsim ( ) ]
F1 ( ) = t =1 (6.2)
N
wt
t =1
2) Overall root mean square error (RMSE)
[ ]
1/ 2
N 2 obs sim 2
wt qt q t ( )
F2 ( ) = t =1 N
(6.3)
2
wt
t =1
6-7
3) Average RMSE of peak flow events
1/ 2
1
Mp
n j 2 obs
w q
t t [
qt
sim
( )
2
]
F3 ( ) = t =1 (6.4)
M p j =1 nj
wt2
t =1
4) Average RMSE of low flow events
1/ 2
1
n j 2 obs
M l wt qt [ 2
qtsim ( ) ]
F4 ( ) = t =1 n

(6.5)
M l j =1 j
wt2
t =1
In equations (6.2) (6.5), N is the total number of time steps in the calibration
period, Mp the number of peak flow events, Ml the number of low flow events, nj is the
number of time steps in peak/low flow event no. j, is the set of model parameters to be
calibrated, and wt is a weighting function. Peak flow events are defined as periods
where the observed discharge is above a given threshold level. Similarly, low flow
events are defined as periods where the observed discharge is below a given threshold
level.
Many other objective functions have been proposed or used in the literature; few
of them are as follows:
(qt ,obs qt , sim ) r r>2 (6.6)
(1 / qt ,obs 1 / qt , sim ) 2 (6.7)
(for use when emphasis must be placed upon low flows)
(log(qt ,obs ) log(qt , sim ))2 (6.8)
( qt ,obs qt , sim ) 2 (6.9)
The coefficient of determination or the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient (Nash and

Sutcliffe, 1970) which is commonly adopted for evaluating the goodness-of-fit of the
simulated hydrograph is a transformed and normalised measure of the overall RMSE
(normalised with respect to the variance of the observed hydrograph)
[ ]
N 2
wt2 qtobs qtsim
2 t =1
R = 1 (6.10)
[ ]
N 2
wt2 qtobs qobs
t =1
6-8
Hydrologic Models
where qobs is the average observed discharge. In many applications, the weight, wt is set
to 1.
Use of the SLS function (6.1) and its modified forms is equivalent to making the
following assumptions concerning the probability distribution of the residuals t =
qtobs qtsim (Clarke, 1973):
(a) that the t have zero mean and constant variance 2 (i.e., E(t) = 0,
E( t2 ) = 2 );
(b) that the t are mutually uncorrelated ( E ( t t k ) = 0 for all k 0).
If it were known that either assumption (a) or (b), or both, were invalid, then eqn.
(6.1) and it modified forms would not be the most sensible objective function; estimates
of model parameters would, of course, still be obtained by minimising eqn.(6.1), but
their interpretation would be fallacious.
Clarke (1973) also stated that if approximate confidence intervals are to be given
for the estimated model parameters, a further assumption must be made about the
probability distribution of the residuals, that is:
(c) that the t are distributed normally.
The above assumptions need to be tested. The success or otherwise of the fitted
model as a description of the relation between rainfall and streamflow from the
catchment is illustrated by the model residuals, which also give evidence of the validity
or invalidity of the assumptions (such as (a), (b) and (c) above) made in the model
formulation. The procedure for testing the above assumptions is exemplified in a
recently study of Xu (2001).
(B) Maximum likelihood methods: The method of maximum likelihood was

developed by R.A. Fisher (1922). He reasoned that the best value of a parameter of
probability distribution should be that value which maximizes the likelihood or joint
probability of occurrence of the observed sample. Suppose that the sample space is
divided into intervals of length dx and that a sample of independent and identically
distributed observations x1, x2, , xn is taken. The value of the probability density for X
= xi is f(xi), and the probability that the random variable will occur in the interval
including xi is f(x)dx. Since the observations are independent, their joint probability of
occurrence is given as the product
[ ]
f ( x1 )dxf ( x2 )dx... f ( xn )dx = in=1 f ( xi ) dx n
and since the interval size dx is fixed, maximizing the joint probability of the observed
sample is equivalent to maximizing the likelihood function
n
L = f ( xi ) (6.11)
i =1
6-9
Because many probability density functions are exponential, it is sometimes more

convenient to work with the log-likelihood function
n
ln L = ln[ f ( xi )] (6.12)
i =1
Since the logarithmic function is nonotonic, the values of the s that maximize the
logarithm of the likelihood function also maximize the likelihood function.
Example: Find the maximum likelihood estimator for the parameter of the
distribution f ( x) = e x for X > 0.
Solution: For a given value xi, the exponential probability density is
f ( xi ) = e xi
so, from Eq.(6.12), the log-likelihood function is
n
ln L = ln[ f ( xi )]
i =1
n
= ln(e xi )
i =1
n
= (ln xi )
i =1
n
= n ln xi
i =1
The maximum value of ln L occurs when (ln L) / = 0; that is, when
(ln L) n n
= xi = 0
i =1
so
1 1 n
= xi
n i =1
1
=
x
i.e., the parameter is equal to one over the sample average.
The method of maximum likelihood is the most theoretically correct method of
fitting probability distributions to date in the sense that it produces the most efficient
parameter estimates those which estimate the population parameters with the least
average error. But for many probability distributions, there is no analytical solution for
all the parameters in terms of sample statistics; and the log-likelihood function must
then be numerically maximized using an iterative procedure, which may be quite
difficult.
6-10
Hydrologic Models
Sorooshian and Dracup (1980) developed Maximum Likelihood based objective

functions to properly account for the presence of either autocorrelation
(nonindependence) or heteroscedasticity (changing variance) of the streamflow data
errors. The most successful form of the Maximum Likelihood criteria has been one
called HMLE (heteroscedastic Maximum Likelihood Estimator) that accounts for
nonstationary variance in the streamflow measurement errors (Sorooshian, 1978, 1981;
Sorooshian and Dracup, 1980; Sorooshian and Gupta, 1995). This estimator in
simplified form is:
1
n 1/ n
n 2
min HMLE ( , ) = wt t n wt (6.13)
t =1 t =1
where
wt = ft 2( 1) (6.14)
and , the unknown transformation parameter which stabilizes the variance, is estimated
by solving the implicit equation
n n 2 n 2
ln( f t )
wt t n wt ln( ft ) t = 0 (6.15)
t =1 t =1 t =1
where ft = qt ,obs . Details of the derivation of the latter criterion and the two-stage
optimisation procedure for its implementation are given by Sorooshian (1978, 1981).
6.3.3.2b Multiple objectives
Calibration based on a single performance measure is often inadequate to measure

properly the simulation of all the important characteristics of the system that are
reflected in the observations. This aspect is basically what causes certain scepticism in
the hydrological profession for applying automatic calibration. Automatic routines that
use a general multi-objective formulation of the calibration problem have been applied
in rainfall-runoff modelling (Lindstrm, 1997; Liong et al., 1996, 1998; Gupta et al.,
1998; Yapo et al., 1998; Madsen, 2000).
When using multiple objectives, the calibration problem can be stated as follows:
Min{F1 ( ), F2 ( ),..., Fp ( )}, (6.16)
The optimisation problem is said to be constrained in the sense that is restricted to the
feasible parameter space . The parameter space is usually defined as a hypercube by
specifying lower and upper limits on each parameter. These limits are chosen according
to physical and mathematical constraints in the model and/or from modelling
experiences (prior knowledge).
The solution of eq.(6.16) will not, in general, be a single unique set of parameters
but will consist of the so-called Pareto set of solutions (non-dominated solutions),
6-11
according to various trade-offs between the different objectives. Formally, any member
j of the Pareto set has the properties (Gupta et al., 1998):
1) For all non-members j there exists at least one member i where
Fk ( i ) < Fk ( j ) for all k = 1,2,,p.
2) It is not possible to find j within the Pareto set such that Fk ( j ) < Fk ( i ) for
all k = 1,2,p.
Concerning (1), the parameter space can be divided into good (Pareto optimal) and
bad solutions, and concerning (2) none of the good solutions can be said to be
better than any of the other good solutions. A member of the Pareto set will be
better than any other member with respect to some of the objectives, but because of the
trade-off between the different objectives it will not be better with respect to other
objectives.
When solving the multi-objective calibration problem, the problem is usually
transformed into a single-objective optimisation problem by defining a scalar that
aggregates the various objective functions. One such aggregate measure is the Euclidean
distance
[
Fagg ( ) = ( F1 ( ) + A1 ) 2 + ( F2 ( ) + A2 ) 2 + L + ( Fp ( ) + Ap ) 2 ]
1/ 2
(6.17)
where Ai are transformation constants assigned to the different objectives, which allows
the user to select relative priorities to certain objectives. The selection of transformation
constants, however, is not straightforward, since the priority also depends on the value
of Fi itself. For instance, if all Ai are set to zero, implicitly larger weights are given to
objectives with larger F-values. For investigating the entire Pareto front, the aggregated
distance measure can be adopted by performing several optimisation runs using
different values of Ai .
In practical applications, the entire Pareto set may be too expensive to calculate,
and one is only interested in part of the Pareto optimal solutions. In this case, it is
proposed to use an aggregated objective function that puts equal weights on the
different objectives. A balanced measure can be defined by assigning transformation
constants in eq.(6.17) such that all ( Fi + Ai ) have about the same distance to the origin.
When using a population-based (global search method) optimisation algorithm, an
initial population within the feasible region is evaluated. The minimum values of
Fi ( Fi , min ) are estimated from this initial population, and each of the objective functions
is transformed to having the same distance to the origin as the objective function with
the largest minimum value of Fi , i.e.
Ai = Max{F j , min , j = 1,2,..., p} Fi , min, j = 1,2,... p (6.18)
6-12
Hydrologic Models
6.3.3.3 Optimisation algorithms (to be discussed in Chapter 7)
6.3.3.4 Termination criteria
The optimisation strategies are all iterative procedures which search for the
optimal parameter values by means of incremental improvement steps. Therefore,
criteria are needed to determine when to stop the search. In principle, the solution exists
at that point in the parameter space where the slope of the function response surface is
zero and the function value is a minimum. In practice, it is virtually impossible to know
when this point has been reached; hence, the criteria discussed below are more
commonly used.
6.3.3.4a Function convergence
One simple way to terminate the search is to stop when the algorithm is unable to
appreciably improve the value of the function over one or more iterations. While this
can indicate arrival at the location of an optimum, it could also mean only that a very
flat region of the response surface has been reached. If precise detection of an optimum
is not considered important, then function convergence can be a very useful stopping
criterion. One typical implementation of this criterion is to stop when:
( fi 1 fi ) / fi <= f (6.19)
where fi 1 and fi are the function values at the (i-1)th and ith steps, respectively, and f
is the function convergence criterion (for example f = 10-3).
6.3.3.4b Parameter convergence
Another way to terminate the search is to stop when the algorithm is unable to
appreciably change the parameter values and simultaneously improve the function value
over one or more iterations. While this can indicate arrival at an optimum, it could also
mean only that a region of high parameter interaction (long narrow valley) on the
response surface has been reached. One typical implementation of this criterion is to
stop when:
( ( j )i 1 ( j )i ) /( ( j ) max ( j ) min ) <= for each (j) (6.20)
where ( j )i 1 and ( j )i are the values of the jth parameter at the (i-1)th and ith steps,
respectively, and is the parameter convergence criterion (for example = 10-3).
6.3.3.4c Maximum iterations
If computer time is limited, and to ensure that the algorithm does not somehow
enter an infinite loop, it is normal to terminate the search if a prespecified maximum
number of iterations is exceeded, unless the parameter or function convergence criteria
are met first. For random search methods, this is the normal way to terminate the search.
It is not really possible to give guidelines on the value for this criterion, because it is
both algorithm- and problem dependent. The maximum iterations criterion is used as a
6-13
backup to prevent waste of computer time; if the algorithm does not terminate within a
reasonable number of iterations, the computer code may need to be examined for
bugs.
6.3.3.4d Limitations
None of these termination criteria guaranty that the search arrival at the global
optimum, except in the most trivial cases where the function is convex and well
behaved. These criteria can be used in the same program, so the search will terminate
when the first criterion is reached.
6.3.3.5 Calibration data
It is generally agreed that proper choice of the calibration data can do much to
reduce the difficulties encountered during calibration of a hydrologic model. However,
little is known objectively about what constitutes good calibration data. The criteria
issues here are how much data are necessary and sufficient for calibration and what kind
of data will give the best results (most precisely specified parameter estimates).
6.3.3.5a Quantity of data
It has been a common practice to use as much data as were available for the
calibration, after setting aside part of the data set for verification (see section 6.4) of the
results. However, studies by Sorooshian et al (1983) and Xu and Vandewiele (1994)
indicated that the use of longer data sets than what is necessary served only to
marginally improve the parameter estimates. In general, from a statistical point of view,
the data set used should be at least of length 20 times the number of parameters to be
estimated (for example, if there are 10 parameters, then at least 200 streamflow data
points should be used for computing the function). This is of course an approximate rule
of thumb. Gupta and Sorooshian (1985) showed that the standard error (j) of the
estimate of parameter (j) decreases with sample size n approximately according to the
formula:
1
( j) (6.21)
n
Because the marginal improvement in 1/n becomes small after 500 to 1000 data points,
this suggests that two to three years of calibration data should be sufficient for a daily
model with not more than 10 parameters, provided the data are of the right kind. This
brings us to a discussion of data quality.
6.3.3.5b Quality of data
From the viewpoint of model calibration, the quality of the data is dependent on
the information (about the parameters) contained in the data and the noise (errors) in the
data. Clearly, we wish the information content to be as large as possible and the noise to
be as small as possible.
6-14
Hydrologic Models
Informativeness
Qualitatively, an informative data set is one which contains or represents enough
variability in watershed behaviour that the different modes of operation of the
hydrologic processes are properly represented. For example, if the data selected are
from a relatively dry year, certain runoff processes may not be activated, therefore, the
model response will be insensitive to some of the model parameters that determine the
partitioning of moisture between the various subsurface and overland flow components.
However, if the data selected are from a year that is so wet that the watershed remains
saturated most of the time, the model response may be insensitive to other subsurface
flow controlling parameters. The best choice seems to be a data set that contains a lot of
hydrologic variability. Thus, the more often the hydrologic regime switches from
between dry, medium and wet modes, the more informative the data are likely to be.
Data errors
The presence of measurement and logging errors in the data causes the quality to
deteriorate, thereby resulting in less confidence in the parameter estimates. In selection
data for model calibration, it is desirable that the data be carefully examined for various
errors.
6.4 MODEL VERIFICATION (TEST)
6.4.1. Introduction
Testing or verification or validation of a model after the parameter values are

estimated is the third level of model analysis. As no model is perfect, verification
requires both subjective and objective judgements on many aspects to determine
whether the results provide adequate information for answering the question facing the
decision-makers, and all models can be expected to fail at least on some occasions.
Faulty results may stem from a variety of causes, common problems may be:
(1) Errors in the data used in calibration. Both the data used as input to the model
and the data used to check model output should be checked very carefully. Data with
large errors should not be used for calibration. In addition, the data used to calibrate or
to test are always only a sample of the possible population of values. Relative to values
predicted by a model, the actual values contain a probabilistic or stochastic component
as a result of physical factors that are not modelled at all.
(2) Use of a period of record that does not contain enough events of the physical
processes needed to calibrate key parameters.
(3) Inadequate or miss-representation by the model of hydrological processes
found in the catchment. Model results should be compared visually with the recorded
data series to look for consistent variations.
Therefore the model test in some cases is also called "diagnostic checking". If the
model is good enough, then we can pass on to application. If not, one begins the whole
process all over again by changing one or more working hypotheses and checking the
data used. In which direction the model has to be changed mostly appears during model
test.
6-15
6.4.2 Methods of model validation
Klemes (1986) proposed a model validation framework for testing the conceptual
hydrologic models according the modelling tasks. Four major categories, corresponding
modelling tasks and test methods are summarised in Table 6.1.
Simple split-sample testing involves dividing the available measured time-series data
for the test catchment into two sets, each of them should be used in turn for calibration
and validation, and results from both arrangements compared. For differential split-
sample testing, the same approach is followed, but the data are divided according to
rainfall rate or some other variable in an attempt to show that the model has general
validity in that it can predict the values of the output variables for conditions different
from those for which it was calibrated. For example, if the model is intended to simulate
streamflow for a wet climate scenario then it should be calibrated on a dry set of the
historic record and validated on a wet set. If it is intended to simulate flows for a dry
climate scenario, the opposite should be done. In general, the model should demonstrate
its ability to perform under the transition required: from drier to wetter conditions or the
opposite. Proxy-catchment tests use data for two catchments. These tests can be used to
show the model has even greater general validity as they involve calibrating the model
against data for one catchment and then running a validation test using data for the other
catchment. For differential proxy-catchment testing, the available measured time-series
data for each catchment are divided into two sets according to rainfall rate or some other
variable. The model is then calibrated against one of the sets (e.g. the dry period data for
the first catchment) and a validation test run using a contrasting set (e.g. the wet period
data for the second catchment). Calibration is required in all the four validation methods
discussed above.
Beven et al. (1984) and Loague (1990) used another type of test in which the
model is not calibrated, and predictions are simply compared against measurements.
Recently, Ewen and Parkin (1996) proposed a method, namely a blind approach. The
central feature of this method is that it involves making predictions for a test catchment
as if it were a hypothetical catchment. The modeller is, therefore, not allowed sight of
the output data for the test catchment (i.e. the method involved blind testing), and, as a
result, cannot calibrate the model for the test catchment.
Table 6.1 Hierarchical scheme for operational testing of hydrologic simulation models
______________________________________________________________________
Stationary conditions Transient conditions
___________________________ ___________________________________
Basin A Basin B Basin A Basin B
______________________________________________________________________
Basin A Split-sample test Proxy-basin test Differential split-sample Proxy-basin differential
test split-sample test
Basin B Proxy-basin test Split-sample test Proxy-basin differential Differential split-sample

split-sample test test
_____________________________________________________________________
6-16
Hydrologic Models
6.4.3. Items to be tested in model validation
The models may be tested on the following aspects.
Parameter analysis:
The evaluation of the parameter values during the optimization. The stabilization of the
parameter values can be studied on the graphs of the parameter values versus number of
iterations. An example of such graphs is given in Fig.6.3
Fig.6.3 Stabilization of the parameter values during iteration process
Detailed analysis of the variance-covariance matrix. The correlation matrix of the

parameters has to be checked. If the correlation coefficient between two parameters is
very near to +1 or -1, this means that perhaps a model can be found with a smaller
number of parameters and with the same explanatory power, or that perhaps the
parameters have to be built into the model in a different way, so that their explanatory
effects are more dissociated, and optimization is easier.
For answering the question whether all parameters are really necessary, one can
test the hypotheses that parameters a1, a2, ... are significantly different from zero. This
can be done by checking whether the zero value belongs to the 95% confidence interval
(Xu, 2001).
Residuals analysis:
The basic issue in model testing is to determine if the hydrologic estimates
(residual error) achieved by the calibration are acceptable. Residual analysis is checking
whether the residuals ut behave as is required by the model hypotheses, especially
whether they are independent, homoscedastic and normally distributed with zero
expectation.
Check on independence
The hypothesis that the residuals are mutually uncorrelated can be checked by
computing the autocorrelations of the residuals, k , with time lag k and the
corresponding confidence interval. In general, the autocorrelations k with time lag k is
6-17
k = E [( xt )( xt +k )]/ 2 (6.22)
where and 2 are the mean and variance of the residuals, respectively.
An estimate of k is
nk 1 nk n
xt xt + k ( xt )( xt )
t =1 n k t =1 t = k +1
k = 1/ 2 1/ 2
(6.23a)
n k 2 1 nk 2 n 2 1 n
2
t n k ( xt )
x t n k xt )
x (
t =1 t =1 t = k +1 t = k +1
when n is large and k is small, n/(n-k) 1, a simpler estimator of autocorrelation

coefficient is
nk
( xt x )( xt + k x )
rk = t =1 (6.23b)
n
2
( xt x )
t =1
The confidence interval for the autocorrelation coefficient of an independent series is

given by the limits (Haan, 1977)
rk (95%) =
1
nk
[
1 1.96 (n k 1) ] (6.24)
If the calculated rk falls outside these confidence limits, the hypothesis that k is zero
(Ho: k = 0 versus Ha: k 0) is rejected. Examples of the tests are shown in Figure
6.4.
Autocorrelation of residual
Autocorrelation of residual
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20 -0.20
-0.40 -0.40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time lags Time lags
Figure 6.4. Autocorrelation of residuals. (Left) Correlated case. (Right) Uncorrelated

case.
Check on trend and homoscedasticity

The residuals homoscedasticity can be checked using both the graphic method
and the Kruskal-Wallis test method. In the graphic method, the general behaviour of the
residuals is judged by graphs of the residuals versus important variables such as time
itself, the input variables precipitation pt and evaporation et, and computed runoff dt.
6-18
Hydrologic Models
The residuals versus time diagram is used for checking the absence of trend and
also homoscedasticity. It could also reflect what kinds of violations are involved in the
residual time series. The hypotheses of homoscedasticity and uncorrelatedness then
result in a diagram such as in Fig.6.5(a). The other diagrams in Fig6.5 show violations
of these hypotheses. Combinations of these violations are possible, and other
possibilities exist.
The residual versus expected response diagram. Conditional expectations of the
residuals have to be zero for all dt, and conditional variances have to be equal. This
appears not to be the case in Fig 6.6 where the expected residual appears to increase
with dt and the variance decreases. Both aspects lead to serious doubt on the validity of
the model-hypotheses.
The residual versus observed factor diagrams. Considering all residuals at the
same time leads to a marginal diagram. When only residuals are considered where all or
part of the other observed factors are held constant approximately, a conditional
diagram is obtained. Again violations are at the origin of reformulating the model.
Fig6.7 and Fig6.8 are examples of marginal scatter-grams, which appear to satisfy
model-hypotheses.
The Kruskal-Wallis test, or H test enables us to test the null hypothesis that k
independent random samples come from identical populations. It is a nonparametric
test. The method assumes that the variable has a continuous distribution, but nothing is
said about the form of the population distribution or distributions from which the
samples were drawn. The test is based on the statistic
12 k R2
H= i 3(n + 1) (6.25)
n(n + 1) i =1 ni
In the test, all observations are ranked jointly, and Ri is the sum of the ranks
occupied by the ni observations of the ith sample, and n1 + n2 + ... + nk = n . When
ni > 5 for all i and the null hypothesis is true, the sampling distribution of the H statistic
is well approximated by the chi-square distribution with k-1 degrees of freedom. The
null hypothesis of homoscedasticity will be rejected for a given significance level, , if
computed H is bigger than 12 , k 1 . Detailed examples of the test can be found in Xu
(2001).
Check on the normality

The hypothesis that residuals are distributed normally is needed if the estimated
confidence regions for the parameters are required. The normality can be tested using
different methods. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test method is discussed here. The test has
several advantages. It is easy to use and the procedure is graphic; a large number of
samples can be tested on the same plot; the test is nonparametric and is not subject to
the very small sample limitation. The test is conducted as follows:
1) Let F(x) be the completely specified theoretical cumulative distribution function
under the null hypothesis.
2) Let F e (x) be the sample cumulative density function based on n observations.
For any observed x, F e (x) = k/n where k is the number of observations less than
or equal to x.
3) Determine the maximum deviation, D, defined by
6-19
D = max F ( x) F e ( x) (6.26)
4) If, for the chosen significance level, the observed value of D is greater than or
equal to the critical tabulated value of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, the
hypothesis is rejected. The deviation between F(x) and F e (x) is graphically
shown in Fig.6.9.
Fig.6.5 Residuals versus time diagrams. A: shows the residuals are homoscedastic
and uncorrelated; B: shows the residuals are autocorrelated; C: shows a
periodic component in the residuals.
6-20
Hydrologic Models
Fig.6.5 Residuals versus time diagram. D: shows the variance is time-dependent

(heteroscedasticity); E and F: show the mean is time-dependent (trend)
6-21
Fig.6.6 Residual versus expected response diagram. (The expected residual appears
to increase with dt and the variance decreases)
Fig.6.7 Residuals versus precipitation.
Fig.6.8 Residuals versus evaporation.
6-22
Hydrologic Models
Fig.6.9 Deviation between experimental Fe(x) and the theoretical F(x) distribution
function values
6.4.4 Comparing modelled and observed runoff time series
Since the main aim of a rainfall-runoff model is to simulate the runoff series on
the basis of rainfall record, perhaps the first and most striking comparison that can be
made on the performance of a model can be seen from the plot of the observed and
computed runoff series.
6.5 REGIONAL PARAMETERIZATION OF HYDROLOGICAL MODELS
6.5.1 The aims and principles of regionalization
The use of hydrological models in ungauged sites and in large geographical regions
becomes a more and more important issue in hydrological study. The aim of
regionalization study is to estimate parameter values of the hydrological models for
any/every grid cell, sub-catchment or large geographic region without a need of
calibration or tune the model to get the best fit. Regionalization methods aim to relate
the model parameters to catchment characteristics and/or geographical location.
To be successful in the regionalisation study, the following principle is important:
The parameter classes (soil types, vegetation types, climatological zones,
geological layers, etc.) should be selected so that it becomes easy, in an
objective way, to associate parameter values.
It should explicitly be evaluated which parameters can be assessed from field
data alone and which need some kind of calibration.
The number of real calibration parameters should be kept low, both from
practical and methodological points of view.
6.5.2 The methods of regional parameterization
6-23
A number of regionalization methods have been reported in the hydrological literature,

which might be classified into two categories: point estimation methods and interval
estimation methods.
6.5.2.1 Point estimation methods
The point estimation methods intend to provide unique value of each parameter for the
ungauged catchment in case of lumped models or for each regular grid cell in case of
distributed models. The point estimation methods usually do not take into consideration
of parameter uncertainty.
It is noted here that in order to have better chance of success in the regionalization
study it is important to list some basic requirements on the model, the model parameters
and the catchments.
First, to have meaningful statistical regression analysis, the number of gauged
catchments used to optimized model parameters and establish regression equations
should be more than 20, in any case not less than 10.
Second, the number of parameters that needs to be regionalized should be kept to
minima, i.e. the principle of parsimony is important in the analysis.
Third, the automatic optimization technique should be used in order to get unique
and repeatable value for each parameter in each gauged catchment. With manual
calibration, every person who calibrates the model will get different values for the
same parameter on the same catchment and one never knows which value should be
used in the regression analysis.
Four, most regionalisation methods assume that model parameters are independent
and identically distributed for all catchments. Methods of statistical analysis of
parameter values, as discussed in section 6.4.3 and more details in Xu (2001) should
be performed in order to test the hypothesis, i.e., whether they are uncorrelated,
identically distributed and statistically significant.
The proxy basin method

The proxy basin method for testing the geographic transferability of the hydrological
models is used for any model that is assumed to be geographically transferable within a
region hydrologically and climatically homogeneous. If the goal is to simulate
streamflow for an ungauged basin C, then the model to be used should be calibrated on
basin A and validated on basin B and vice versa. Only if both proxy-basin tests are
acceptable should one consider the model as geographically transferable (Klemes,
1986). The proxy basin test has been the most common regionalization method. The
main problems of the method include: (1) it is not possible to have any idea on the error
of estimation on both parameter values and streamflow simulations, (2) it is not easy if
not impossible to determine the degree of similarity between the ungauged catchment
and the reference catchments, (3) last but not least, if there do not exist gauged
catchments at the region the method is not useful. Examples of such tests include Xu
(1999), Motovilov et al., (1999) and Refsgaard (1997).
Spatial interpolation methods

Spatial interpolation of model parameters is also a common method for hydrological
regionalization. In order to get regional parameter values, the model parameters are
firstly calibrated on all gauged catchments at the region, parameter values for the
6-24
Hydrologic Models
ungauged catchments are interpolated by considering the soil type, vegetation

distribution map, etc. using one of the following two techniques:
1) Direct interpolation: with the help of GIS and other computer tools, parameter
values for the interested site or the whole region are interpolated. Examples of such
a study include: Vandewiele and Elias (1995) interpolated parameters of a monthly
water balance model to ungauged catchments using parameter values from
neighbouring catchments, 75 in all, in Belgium. Bergstrm (1990) used the
technique to make the map of parameter values of the HBV model for Sweden.
Abdulla and Lettenmaier (1997) compared the interpolation technique with the
multiple regression method. Guo (2001) used the interpolation technique to get the
parameter values for the grid cells in ungauged sub-catchments and applied the
macro-scale water balance model in a number of big catchments in China.
2) Geostatistical method Kriging: Vandewiele and Elias (1995) compared the kriging
method with the interpolation method in their geographical regionalization study
and concluded that kriging method was better.
Multiple regression methods

Many attempts have been tried in the hydrological regionalization study to relate
optimized parameter values (dependent variables) to catchment characteristics
(independent variables) using the multiple regression technique (e.g., Jaboe and Haan,
1974; Magette et al., 1976; Andersen et al., 1983; Abdulla and Lettenmaier, 1997; Xu,
1999). Different forms of regression equations have been tried, among others, the
common equations include:
The linear method
Y = 1X1+2X2+...
The square root method 1
Y = 1X1+2X2+...
The square root method 2
Y = 1X1+2X2+...
The logarithmic method 1
Log(Y) = o+1log(X1)+2log (X2)+...
The logarithmic method 2
Y = o+1log(X1)+2log (X2)+...
Where Y is a dependent variable (model parameters in our case), X1, X2, ... are
independent variables (catchment attributes), and 1, 2, ... are unknown regression
parameters.
The dependent and independent variables might be transformed to account for
nonlinear relationships as showed in some of the above equations. A multiple regression
analysis is performed for each model parameter and which catchment characteristics to
include for each parameter is an essential point. Sefton and Howarth (1998) presented a
guide of how to carry out the analysis including exploratory correlation analysis,
principal component analysis, stepwise regression and multiple regression.
6-25
An alternative to the univariate multiple regression is the multivariate regression

(see Tung et al., 1997 and Engeland, 2002), which is not discussed in details in this
section.
Regional calibration method

The above discussed regionalisation methods require at-site calibrations on each gauged
site. This traditional at-site approach treats each site independently in an effort to obtain
the best possible calibration at each site. The regional calibration approach, as described
in Fernandez et al. (2000) attempts to get the best possible calibration at each site while
simultaneously obtaining the best possible regional relationships between model
parameters and basin characteristics. In this case the objective is to:
1 m 2 Ra2 + Rb2 + Rc2 + ...

Maximiza Ri + (6.27)
m i =1 n
where there are m = number of sites in the region, Ri2 represents the coefficient of
determination for site i which measures the goodness of fit of the logarithms of the
modelled flows at site i and Ra2 , Rb2 , Rc2 , represent the coefficient of determination
associated with each of the regression models for the model parameters a, b, c, , on
basin characteristics, respectively. For example, Ra2 is the coefficient of determination
for parameter a regressed on basin characteristics. The idea of the objective function in
equation (6.27) is to maximize the average goodness of fit of the model across all sites
as well as to maximize the average goodness of fit of the regression equations that relate
model parameters to basin characteristics. The results of the study showed that using the
regional calibration approach improved the regional relationships between model
parameters and basin characteristics significantly as compared with the traditional two-
step regionalization approach, i.e. the multiple regression approach.
6.5.2.2 Interval estimation methods
Unlike in the point estimation methods, the interval estimation method intends to
provide not a unique value for each parameter, they rather provide for each parameter
with the most possible (maximum likelihood) value together with a probability
distribution of the parameter values on the catchments. In other words, the methods
provide a description of parameter uncertainty (Engeland, 2002).
The Bayesian method

The methodology, procedure and results of application are described in details in
Engeland et al. (2001).
6-26
Hydrologic Models
Abdulla, F. And Lettenmaier, D.P., 1997a. Development of regional parameter

estimation equations for a macroscale hydrologic model, Journal of Hydrology 197,
230-257.
Abdulla, F. And Lettenmaier, D.P., 1997a. Application of regional parameter estimation
schemes to simulate the water balance of a large continent river, Journal of
Hydrology 197, 258-285.
Andersen et al., 1983. Hydrologisk model for flomberegninger (in Norwegian),
Hydrology department report no 2-83, NVE, Oslo, Norway, 40pp.
Bergstrm, S., 1990. Parametervrden fr HBV-modellen I Sverige Erfarenheter frn
modellkalibreringar under perioden 1975-1989 (in Swedish), SMHI Report
Hydrology No 28, Norrkping, Sweden, 35pp.
Beven, K.J., Kirkby, M.J., Schofield, N. and Tagg, A.F., 1984. Testing a physically-
based flood forecasting model (TOPMODEL) for three U.K. catchments, J. Hydrol.,
69: 119-143.
Brazil, L.E., 1985. Multilevel calibration strategy for complex hydrologic simulation
models. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Dawdy, D.R. and R.W. Lichty, 1968. Methodology of hydrologic model building. In
The use of analog and digital computers in hydrology. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol. Symp.
Proc., Tucson, AZ, 2(81):347-355.
Dooge, J.C.I., 1984. The water of the earth. Hydrol. Sci. J., 29(2):149-176.
Duan, Q., 1991. A global optimisation strategy for efficient and effective calibration of
hydrologic models, PhD Dissertation, Dept. of hydrology and Water Resources, The
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Engeland, K., 2002. Parameter Estimation in Regional Hydrological Models, PhD
thesis, Department of Geophysics, University of Oslo.
Engeland, K., Gottschalk, L. and Tallaksen, L., 2001. Estimation of regional parameters
in a macroscale hydrological model, Nordic Hydrology 32, 161-180.
Ewen, J. and Parkin, G., 1996. Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use
and climate change impacts. 1. Method, J. Hydrol. 175: 583-594.
Fernandez, W., Vogel, R.M. and Sankarasubramanian, A., 2000. Regional calibration of
a watershed model, Hydrological Sciences Journal 45(5), 689, 707.
Fulton, J., 1982. Discussion, modification, and extension of some maximum likelihood
techniques for model calibration with application to rainfall-runoff models. M.S.
Thesis, Case Western Reserve University.
Guo, S.L., Wang, J.X. and Yang, J., 2001. A semi-distributed hydrological model and
its application in a macroscale basin in China, IAHS Publ No 270, 167-174.
Gupta, V.K. and S. Sorooshian, 1985. The relationship between data and the precision
of estimated parameters, J. Hydrol. 81: 57-77.
Gupta, V.K. et al., 1998. Toward improved calibration of hydrological models: multiple
and noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resour. Res. 34(4), 751-
763.
Gupta, V.K., 1984. The identification of conceptual watershed models, PhD
Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Haan, C.T., et al., 1982. Hydrologic modelling of small watersheds. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.
6-27
Ibbitt, R.P. and O'Donnell, T., 1971. Designing conceptual catchment models for
automatic fitting methods. Mathematical Models in Hydrology (Proc. of the
International Conf., Sept. 24-28, Wageningen, p21-28.
Ibbitt, R.P., 1970. Systematic parameter fitting for conceptual models of catchment
hydrology, PhD Dissertation, Imperial College of Science and Technology,
University of London, London.
Jarboe, J.E. and Haan, C.T.: 1974. Calibrating a water yield model for small ungaged
watersheds, Wat. Resour. Res. 10(2): 256-262.
Klemes, V., 1986. Operational testing of hydrological simulation models, Hydrol. Sc. J.,
31: 13-24.
Lindstrm, G., 1997. A simple automatic calibration routine for the HBV model. Nordic
Hydrology 28(3), 153-168.
Liong, S.Y. et al., 1996. Construction of multi-objective function response surface with
genetic algorithm and neural network. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference of Water resources and Environmental Research, 29-31 October, Kyoto,
Japan, Vol.II, pp31-38.
Liong, S.Y. et al., 1998. Derivation of Pareto front with accelerated convergence genetic
algorithm, ACGA. In: Babovic, V. and Larsen, L.C. (eds.). Hydroinformatics98,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp889-896.
Loague, K.M., 1990. R-5 revisited 2. Reevaluation of a quasi-physically based rainfall-
runoff model with supplemental information, Water Res. Resour., 21: 973-987.
Madsen, H. 2000. Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model using
multiple objectives, J. Hydrol. 235: 276-288.
Magette, W.L., Shanholtz, V.O. and Carr, J.C., 1976. Estimating selected parameters for
the Kentucky watershed model from watershed characteristics, Wat. Resour. Res.
12(3): 472-476.
Motovilov, Y.G., Gottschalk, L, Engeland, K and Rodhe, A., 1999. Validation of a
distributed model against spatial observations, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
98-99, 257-277.
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models.
Part I - a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol., 10: 282-290.
Refsgaard, J.C., 1997. Parameterization, calibration and validation of distributed
hydrological models, Journal of Hydrology 198, 69-97.
Sefton, C.E.M. and Howarth, S.M., 1998. Relationships between dynamic response
characteristics and physical descriptors of catchments in England and Wales, Journal
of Hydrology 211, 1-16.
Sorooshian, S. 1981. Parameter estimation of Rainfall-runoff models with
heteroscedastic streamflow errors: noninformative data case, In: Y. Haimes and J.
Knolles (eds.), Water and Related Land Resources Systems, IFAC Symposium,
Cleveland, Ohio, May 28-31. Pergamon Press, New York, N.Y., pp477-485.
Sorooshian, S. and J.A. Dracup, 1980. Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for
hydrologic rainfall-runoff models: correlated and heteroscedastic error cases, Water
Resour. Res. 16(2): 430-442.
Sorooshian, S. and V.K. Gupta, 1995. Chapter 2: Model calibration. In: V.P. Singh (ed.)
Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Water Resources Publications,
Colorado, USA.
Sorooshian, S., 1978. Considerations of Stochastic Properties in Parameter Estimation
of Hydrologic Rainfall-Runoff Models, PhD Dissertation, University of California-
Los Angeles, 1978.
6-28
Hydrologic Models
Sorooshian, S., V.K. Gupta and J.L. Fulton, 1983. Evaluation of maximum likelihood
parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall-runoff models influence of
calibration data variability and length on model credibility, Water Resour. Res.
19(1): 251-259.
Tung, Y.K., Yeh, K.C. and Yang, J.C., 1997. Regionalization of unit hydrograph
parameters: a. Comparison of regression analysis techniques, Stochastic Hydrology
and Hydraulics 11, 145-171.
Vandewiele, G.L. and Elias, A., 1995. Monthly water balance of ungauged catchments
obtained by geographical regionalization, Journal of Hydrology 170, 277-291.
Xu, C-Y, 1999. Estimation of parameters of a conceptual water balance model for
ungauged catchments, Water Resources Management 13(5): 353-368.
Xu, C-Y, 2001. Statistical analysis of a conceptual water balance model, methodology
and case study, Water Resources Management 15: 75-92.
Xu, C-Y, 2001. Statistical analysis of parameters and residuals of a conceptual water
balance model methodology and case study, Water Resources Management 15: 75-
92.
Xu, C-Y and G.L. Vandewiele, 1994. Sensitivity of Monthly Rainfall-Runoff Models to
Input Errors and Data Length, Hydrological Science Journal, 39(2): 157-176.
Yapo, P.O. et al., 1998. Multi-objective global optimisation for hydrological models. J.
Hydrol. 204, 83-97.
Yevjevich, V.M., 1972. Probability and statistics in hydrology. Water Resources
Publication, Fort Collins, Co.
6-29
CHAPTER 7
SOME TOPICS IN OPTIMIZATION
_____________________________________________________________________________
7.1 GENERALITIES
In operational research one mostly reduces a decision problem to the choice of the
values of real variables, the so-called decision variables. Therefore for all possible
values one assesses the cost or the expected cost, or the profit or another value-criterion.
One thus constructs a so-called objective function or criterion function or economic
function. As a consequence the resulting problem is the optimization of a real function
of a number of real variables, of which all real values are not necessarily admissible for
all kinds of reasons. One thus imposes constraints in advance.
Also in statistics optimization problems appear when unknown model parameters
have to be estimated. For example for finding the maximum likelihood estimates one
has to maximize the likelihood function with respect to unknown parameters, of which
the set of admissible values is given in advance (for example one knows that an
unknown standard deviation is positive). Another example is the minimization of the
sum of squared deviations (the so-called least squares method).
Also in other branches optimization problems appear.
These are examples of so-called mathematical programs.
A mathematical program is a problem of optimization of a real function f(X), the
objective/criterion function, with respect to a number of real variables x1, x2, ..., xn, put
together in the vector
X = (x1, x2, ..., xn)
and where constraints on X are imposed in advance. These constraints imply that the
vector X only takes values in a subset of R n , the set of admissible values of X. In
short a mathematical program has the form
optimum f(X)
X
An optimization can be a maximization or a minimization. If we have a method for

maximizing f(X), then we have at the same time a method for minimizing it by
maximizing - f(X).
In this context we are talking about global optimization, as opposed to the search
for local optima, which are only in a neighbourhood, see Fig.7.1.
In some cases we have that
= Rn ,
and then the problem is said to be a problem of unconstrained optimization, but mostly
is a proper subset of R n , and then it is said to be a problem of constrained
optimization.
7-1
Ch7. Some topics in optimisation
Fig.7.1. Global and local minima of a function f(x) of a scalar variable x
Nevertheless the case of unconstrained optimization is very important, either

because the constraints are inactive practically or because the algorithms for constrained
optimization often are reduced to a series of unconstrained optimizations.
The algorithm strongly depends on the form of f(X) and of .
7.2 OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS
7.2.1 Local search methods
Many different optimisation algorithms and computer codes are available, which
can be categorized as local search methods and global search methods. Local search
methods are designed to efficiently find the minimum of unimodal functions functions
for which any strategy that seeks to continuously proceed downhill (a direction of
improving function value) must eventually arrive at the location of the function
minimum, irrespective of where in the parameter space the search procedure is started.
To understand this process, it is helpful to imagine that you are a blind person standing
on the side of a mountain and must find a way from your present location to the lowest
point of the valley. You would have to:
a) select a direction in which to move;

b) move some distance in that direction; and then
c) repeat the procedure over and over again until you are satisfied that no further
improvement can be achieved.
Therefore, the procedure involves three main decisions:

(a) which direction to move,
(b) how far to move in that direction, and
(c) how to decide that no further improvement is possible.
Different local search strategies differ in the methods by which these decisions are
made. Based on such differences, local search methods can be further classified as
7-2
Hydrologic Models
direct search methods and gradient methods. We discuss these methods in more
details below.
7.2.1.1 Direct search methods
A direct search optimisation strategy uses only (objective) function value

information in the decision process described above. A typical method is the following.
Starting at the initial point, the strategy selects some direction and step size and
evaluates the function at the new point. It may do this for more than one new point.
Then, based on the differences in function values between the initial and new point(s), a
prediction is made of which is the best direction to move to improve the function and
how large a step should be taken in that direction. Each direct search strategy has its
own idea about how this should be done in order to quickly solve the problem. A step
is taken in the trial direction, and if the new point has a lower function value than the
previous point, it replaces the old one, and the procedure is repeated. If the new point
turns out to be worse than the previous point, the step size is reduced and another try is
made at a new location. The search stops when the strategy is unable to find a direction
in which improvement is possible. In this section we discuss a number of simple
methods, most of which are used as a base for more complicated methods, which try to
compensate the disadvantages.
7.2.1.1a Linear search algorithms
With many search algorithms the following problem arises: starting in a point X0
and with a given straight line through this point, find a new point on this line with
smaller f(X) (supposing we have a minimization problem). A method solving this
problem is called a linear search algorithm.
Let D be a set of direction numbers of the given line through X0; the vector D thus
has n components: all points X on the line then have the form
X = X 0 + D
where is a real number. We are looking for a value of such that
f ( X 0 + D ) < f ( X 0 )
we even can try to find a value of such that f ( X 0 + D ) is as small as possible. This
is a problem of so-called "linear minimization".
There are many linear search algorithms. We discuss one of them, the "doubling
and halving algorithm" for illustrating purposes; it is not necessarily an efficient
algorithm. For n = 2 it is illustrated in Figs.7.2 to 7.4.
Suppose it is known in which of both directions starting from X0 the criterion
function decreases; e.g. for > 0. Starting with a value 0 ( > 0 ) of , we compare
f ( X 0 ) and f ( X 0 + 0 D )
If
f ( X0 + 0D ) < f ( X 0 )
7-3
we try the point X 0 + 2 0 D
If
f ( X 0 + 2 0 D ) < f ( X 0 + 0 D )
we redouble the value of and compare f (X 0 + 2 0 D ) and f (X 0 + 4 0 D ) . We

continue redoubling until the new function value is greater than the preceding. The new
(better) point is the penultimate value of . If on the contrary (9) is not true:
f (X 0 + 0 D ) > f ( X 0 )
0
then we try X 0 + D
2
If
0
f (X 0 + D ) f ( X 0 ),
2
we halve again, until the new function value is smaller than f(X0). The new (better)
point then is the last value of .
This algorithm computes function values excluding computations of the
derivatives. This algorithm can be ameliorated easily by quadratic or higher order
interpolations. We do not insist further on this point.
Fig.7.2. The linear minimization problem for n=2. The curves are contours of f(X).
Fig.7.3. The algorithm of the text with f ( X 0 + D ) < f ( X 0 )
7-4
Hydrologic Models
Fig.7.4. The algorithm of the text with f (X 0 + 0 D ) > f ( X 0 )
7.2.1.1b Optimization along the directions of the axes
We now return to our original optimization problem. Starting in a first point X0 we

apply a linear search algorithm along the straight line through X0 and parallel to the x1-
axis. In this way we find a second point X1, where we apply a linear search algorithm
along the straight line through X1 and parallel to the x2-axis, etc. This is illustrated in
Fig.7.5 for n = 2.
For most functions f(X) an infinite number of steps are necessary for reaching the
optimum. Therefore we have to use a rule for stopping the search; e.g. the search is
stopped when the difference of two consecutive function values is smaller than a given
quantity.
This method, like all methods discussed hereafter, leads to a local minimum, which
is not necessarily the required global minimum. Therefore the choice of the initial point
X0 is important; it has to be chosen in the neighbourhood of the global minimum. This
can be done taking account of the interpretation of the variables. It is recommended to
repeat the optimization procedure for several initial points X0; see Fig.7.6. Certainty is
seldom achieved.
When a suitable linear search algorithm is used, the whole algorithm needs not to
compute derivatives of f(X).
This algorithm makes very slow progress in narrow valleys of the f-hypersurface.
7-5
Fig.7.5. Minimization along the directions of the axes. The curves are contours of f(X).
Fig.7.6. Criterion function with several minima.
7.2.1.1c An algorithm with "conjugated" directions
Methods based on the principle of conjugated directions try to bypass low progress
in narrow valleys as mentioned in sections 7.2.1.1a and 7.2.1.1b.
The procedure of the algorithm with conjugated directions is illustrated
schematically in Fig. 7.7 and with contours in Fig.7.8.
For n = 2 the simplest such method goes as follows.

Along two neighbouring parallel lines with arbitrary direction D we search for
the optima X 11 and X 12 .
Along the line X 11X12 we search for the optimum X13 . Let D1 be the direction of
this line:
D1 = X12 X 11
Repeat step one and two. In general the i-th iteration optimizes along
neighbouring lines with direction D, of which one line goes through X 3i-1. These
two optima define a line with direction
7-6
Hydrologic Models
Di = X i2 X i1
along which we find by linear optimization the initial point X i3 of the (i+1)-th
iteration.
The conjugated directions algorithm can be generalized to n variables.
Fig.7.7. Scheme of a simple algorithm with conjugated directions.
Fig.7.8. A simple algorithm with conjugated directions.
7-7
7.2.1.1d The Simplex search method
The Simplex search strategy is presented below and is illustrated in Fig.7.9 (after
Sorooshian and Gupta, 1995).
(0) Select n+1 points (n = dimension) in the feasible parameter space and compute
the function value at each point. This set of n+1 points is called a simplex
(Fig.7.9).
(1) Identify the point with the worst (largest) function value.
(2) Compute the centroid of the best n points of the simplex (i.e., exclude the worst
point).
(3) Locate a new point by reflecting the worst point through the centroid (see
Fig.7.9a). If the function value at the reflection point is better than the worst
point, go to Step 4; otherwise, go to Step 5.
(4) Locate a new point by expanding the reflection step by a factor of 2 (see
Fig.7.9b). If the function value at the expansion point is better than the reflection
point, replace the worst point by the expansion point. If not, replace the worst
point by the reflection point. Go to step 7.
(5) Locate a new (contraction) point halfway between the worst point and the
centroid (see Fig.7.9c). If the function value at the contraction point is better
than the worst point, replace the worst point by the contraction point, and go to
step 7. If not, go to Step 6.
(6) Shrink the simplex by moving each point (except the best point) to a location
halfway between its current location and the best point (Fig.7.9d).
(7) Repeat Steps 1-6 until the size of the simplex becomes smaller than some
convergence criterion. The point with the best function value is selected as an
estimate of the optimum.
7-8
Hydrologic Models
Fig.7.9 The Simplex direct search algorithm
7.2.1.2 Gradient methods
A gradient search optimisation strategy uses information about both the function
value and the function gradient in the decision processes listed above. Most gradient
methods are based on the following equation:
I +1 = I A I
where I is the present (initial) point (parameter vector), I is the function gradient
matrix at the present point, is a step size parameter, A is a specially chosen square
matrix, and I +1 is the new point. It can be mathematically shown that, if the matrix A
is any positive definite matrix, the vector in the direction from I to I +1 will be a
7-9
local improvement direction. Each gradient method uses different methods for selecting
and A. For example, the steepest descent approach uses the identity matrix (all
diagonal values are one and off-diagonal values are zero). In general, most gradient
methods use some approximation to the Hessian matrix (matrix of second partial
derivatives of the function with respect to the parameters). If the exact Hessian matrix
were to be used, the optimisation method would be the well-know Newton method
which is the fastest way to solve a quadratic problem.
As with the direct search methods, if the new point has a lower function value than
the previous point, the new point replaces the old one, and the procedure is repeated. If
the new point turns out to be worse than the previous point, then the step size is reduced
and another try is made at a new location. The search stops when the strategy is unable
to find a direction in which improvement is possible. At this point, the gradient value
will be numerically very close to zero.
7.2.1.2a Method of steepest descent or ascent
Here successive linear minimizations are applied along straight lines in the
direction opposite to the local gradient (see Fig.7.10)
For n = 2 we know that G is the direction of the steepest line in the tangent plane of
the f-surface. Therefore this algorithm is called the method of steepest descent
(minimization problem) or of steepest ascent (maximization problem); it is called also
the Cauchy-method. The efficiency of the method depends strongly on scale-
transformations on the axes, since the concept of right angle is Euclidic. The method
progresses very slowly in narrow valleys of the f-hypersurface.
Fig.7.10. Method of steepest descent or ascent
7.2.1.2b Newton-Raphson algorithm
General aspect:
If the criterion function f(X) is differentiable, the vector of first derivatives is called
the gradient
f ( X ) f ( X ) f ( X )
G( X ) = ( , ,..., )
x1 x2 xn
7-10
Hydrologic Models
If the criterion function is differentiable twice, the matrix of second derivatives is called
the Hessian
2 f ( X ) 2 f ( X ) 2 f ( X )
...
x12 x1x2 x1xn
2 f ( X ) 2
f(X) 2 f ( X )
H ( X ) = x x ...
2 1 x22 x 2 x n
... ... ... ...
2 2 2
f(X) f(X) f(X)
...
xn x1 x n x 2 xn2
Under very general conditions the Hessian is symmetrical:
2 f ( X ) 2 f ( X )
=
xi x j x j xi
If the Taylor expansion of f(X) exists for a value X0 of X, it is written
1
f ( X ) = f ( X 0 ) + G( X 0 ) ( X X 0 )T + ( X X 0 ) H ( X 0 ) ( X X 0 )T + . . .
2
or for short
1
f ( X ) = f 0 + G0 ( X X 0 )T + ( X X 0 ) H0 ( X X 0 )T + ...
2
where T indicates transposition and where
f 0 = f ( X 0 ), G0 = G( X 0 ), H0 = H ( X 0 )
The Taylor expansion of the gradient is
G ( X ) = G ( X 0 ) + ( X X 0 ) H ( X 0 )+ . . .
or
G( X ) = G0 + ( X X 0 ) H0 + . ..
If the second derivatives of f(X) are continuous for all X, then a necessary
~ ~ ~
condition for X being a local or global minimum is that G ( X ) = 0 , and that H ( X ) is
~ ~
positive semidefinite. A sufficient condition is that G ( X ) = 0 , and that H ( X ) is
positive definite.
An obvious solution method of the optimization problem is to solve the vector
~
equation G ( X ) = 0 .
7-11
Newton-Raphson method:
When f(X) is a quadratic function, its Taylor expansion is a quadratic polynome in
X. The Hessian H(X) does not depend then on X (second derivatives of a quadratic
~
function!). This quadratic function has a minimum X if H(X) is positive definite, and
we have
~
G( X ) = 0
The Taylor expansion of the gradient then is

~ ~
G( X ) = G( X ) + ( X X ) H ( X ) = 0
or
~
X = X G ( X ) H ( X ) 1
~
As a consequence, starting with an arbitrary point X, we can find the minimum X by
computing gradient G(X) and H(X).
The Newton algorithm (also called the Newton-Raphson algorithm) is based on the
idea that f(X) can be approximated by its Taylor expansion truncated after the quadratic
terms in X; consequently f(X) would be a quadratic function approximately. With an
arbitrary point X we then associate the direction
G( X ) H ( X )1
along which we perform a linear optimization. In the new point obtained, we repeat this
operation, etc., until a stopping rule stops the algorithm.
This method requires the computation of first and second derivatives of f and also
function values of f in view of the line minimizations. An important disadvantage in
many circumstances is to have to compute second derivatives and to inverse the
Hessians. The Hessian can even be singular, so that iteration is impossible. Locally, far
from the minimum searched for, the Hessian can even be non-positive definite, which
renders the methods much less attractive.
7.2.1.3 Choice of local search methods
In case the derivatives of f(X) are not available (e.g. f(X) is not differentiable), one
has to use direct search algorithms. A first criterion thus is the availability of the
elements, necessary for the algorithm.
Remark that gradient methods can be transformed into direct search algorithms, by
approximating differentials by differences.
A second criterion is the amount of computation, which is necessary for sufficiently
approaching the optimum. Computer time depends on the number of function values,
first and second derivatives to be computed and on other computations (inversion of
matrices, etc.) It is often difficult to estimate the convergence speed of an algorithm,
especially the number of iterations necessary. Therefore the algorithms are tried out on
so-called "test-functions". A theoretical criterion is the number of linear optimizations
taken for reaching the optimum of a quadratic function.
The main weak-point of the local search methods is that most practical problems
involving calibration of nonlinear hydrologic models have response surfaces that are
7-12
Hydrologic Models
multi-modal that is, there are several locations of the parameter space where the value
of the function is a local minimum. In such cases, the point where a local search
algorithm terminates will depend on the location where it is started. As a result, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to know with certainty if the procedure has located the actual
global minimum of the function.
7.2.2 Global search methods
Global search strategies are designed to efficiently discover the minimum of multi-
modal functions. Such strategies fall into three categories: deterministic, stochastic, or a
combination of deterministic and stochastic. Deterministic strategies require that certain
criteria related to the continuity of the function and its derivatives be satisfied to
guarantee convergence to the global solution. These conditions are usually not met in
the calibration of nonlinear hydrologic models. Only stochastic (random) and
combination methods have been applied to the calibration of hydrologic models.
7.2.2.1 Random search methods
Random (stochastic) search methods use the random number generators built into
modern digital computers to randomly sample the parameter space in search of points
with improved function values. The samples are generated according to some
probability distribution applied to feasible parameter space. In pure random search,
the sampling is done using a uniform distribution. This assumes no prior knowledge of
where in the feasible space the best parameter set exists. However, because pure random
search does not make use of the function value information obtained during the search
to guide the search, it is not very efficient, especially for problems with many
parameters. Other random search methods have been developed which adaptively adjust
the probability distribution used for sampling based on the function value information
obtained during the search. One such method is the adaptive Random Search (ARS)
proposed by Masri et al. (1978) and modified by Pronzato et al. (1984).
The ARS strategy is as follows (see also Sorooshian and Gupta, 1995):
(0) Choose a focal point (for example, this can be the best point obtained in the
preliminary process of defining the parameter space, or it can be some arbitrary
point such as the centroid of the feasible space);
(1) Generate a set of N points randomly distributed in the entire feasible space (for
example, according to a uniform or normal distribution) and centered on the
focal point. Store the location of the point with the best function value;
(2) Repeat Step (1) a pre-specified number of times, on the ith time using the initial
parameter range divided by 10i and centered on the focal point (Fig.7.11) to
restrict the search space. Each time, store the location of the point with the best
function value;
(3) Compare all the stored points and determine the point with the best function
value. Re-define this point to be the new focal point. Record in which range
level this point was found; and
(4) Repeat Steps (1 3) until the best point is found in the smallest range level a
user-specified successive number of times (say three). This point is chosen as
the optimal parameter set.
7-13
Reports in the optimisation literature indicate that the ARS strategy works well in
practice. However, Duan et al. (1992) found that the algorithm was neither effective nor
efficient on a simple hydrologic model calibration problem. The best result they were
able to obtain was a 30% success rate (30 out of 100 trials located the known region of
the global optimum) after sampling the space 250 000 times.
Fig.7.11 The adaptive random search algorithm
7.2.2.2 Multi-start algorithms
A simple combination method for dealing with multiple optima has been suggested
in the hydrologic literature (e.g., Johnston and Pilgrim, 1976). In this method, one runs
several trials of a local search optimisation method from randomly selected starting
points in the feasible space. The validity of this multi-start approach can be
demonstrated by the following arguments. To have confidence in the results of any
stochastic optimisation procedure, we require that it has a relatively small failure
probability on the problem of interest. Let us suppose that the failure probability of a
local search optimisation method is F (i.e., if we were to run 100 independent randomly
initiated tests of the method, we would find that 100 F of them would fail to locate the
global optimum). Then, if we run the procedure r times from r independent randomly
selected locations, the overall failure probability will decrease according to the equation
F (r ) = F (1) r and tend to zero as r becomes large. For example, if F is 0.65 (65 failures
out of 100), then r equal to 12 will give a failure rate of less than 1 in 100.
The efficiency of any multi-start procedure varies nonlinearly with F, so that the
number of restarts r required to achieve an overall failure probability of F(r) is given by
r = lh( F (r )) / ln( F (1)). the curve of r versus F(1) is plotted in Fig.7.12 for the case of
F(r) equal to 0.01 (1 failure in 100) and 0.05 (5 failure in 100). Clearly, for single-start
failure probabilities F(1) that are less than 0.8, we do not require a very large number of
restarts. However, as F(1) increases above 0.8 towards 1.0, the number of restarts
required rapidly increases towards infinity, making the procedure impractical.
7-14
Hydrologic Models
In Duan et al. (1992), it was demonstrated that a multi-start procedure based on the
nonlinear simplex method (described earlier) worked well on simple hydrologic
watershed model.
Fig.7.12 Theoretical performance of any multi-start algorithm
7.2.2.3 Shuffled complex algorithms
The Shuffled Complex Evaluation (SCE-UA) method, developed by Duan et al.

(1993), is a global optimisation strategy designed to be effective and efficient for a
broad class of problems. The SCE-UA strategy is presented below (see also Sorooshian
and Gupta, 1995):
(0) Initialize: Select p 1 and m n + 1, where p = number of complexes, m =

number of points in each complex, and n = dimension of the problem. Compute
the sample size s = p m.
(1) Generate sample: Sample s points x1,,xs in the feasible space = Rn.
Compute the function value fi at each point xi. In the absence of prior
information, use a uniform sampling distribution.
(2) Rank points: Sort the s points in order of increasing function value. Store them
in an array D = {xi , fi , i = 1,..., s} , so that i = 1 represents the point with the
smallest function value.
(3) Partition into complexes: Partition D into p complexes A1,..., A p , each
containing m points, such that
Ak = {x kj , f jk x kj = xk + p ( j 1) , f jk = f k + p ( j 1) , j = 1,..., m} .
7-15
(4) Evolve each complex: Evolve each complex Ak , k = 1,..., p, according to the
Competitive Complex Evolution (CCE) algorithm outlined separately.
(5) Shuffle complexes: Replace A1,..., A p into D, such that D = { Ak , k = 1,..., p}.
Sort D in order of increasing function value.
(6) Check convergence: If the convergence criteria are satisfied, stop; otherwise,
return to Step (3).
The Competitive Complex Evolution (CCE) algorithm required for the evolution of
each complex in Step (4) of the Shuffled Complex Evolution method is represented
below:
(0) Initialize: Select q, and where 2 q m, 1, and 1.

(1) Assign weights: Assign a trapezoidal probability distribution to Ak , i.e.,
2(m + 1 i )
i = , i = 1,..., m
m(m + 1)
The point x k has the highest probability 1 = 2 /(m + 1). The point xmk has the
lowest probability m = 2 / m(m + 1).
(2) Select parents: Randomly choose q distinct points u1,,uq from Ak according
to the probability distribution specified above (the q points define a
subcomplex). Store them in array B = {ui , vi , i = 1,..., q}, where vi is the
function value associated with point ui. Store in L the locations of Ak which are
used to construct B.
(3) Generate offspring:

a. Sort B and L so that the q points are arranged in order of increasing
function value. Compute the centroid g using the expression:
1 q 1
g= u j
q 1 j =1
b. Compute the new point r = 2g-uq (reflection step).
c. If r is within the feasible space , compute the function value fr, and go
to step (d); otherwise, compute the smallest hypercube HRn that
contains Ak , randomly generate a point z within H, compute fz, set r = z
and set fr = fz (mutation step).
d. If fr < fq , replace uq by r, go to step (f); otherwise, compute c = (g + uq)/2
and fc (contraction step).
e. If fc < fq, replace uq by c, go to step (f); otherwise, randomly generate a
point z within H and compute fz (mutation step). Replace uq by z.
f. Repeat Steps (a) through (e) times, where 1 is a user-specified
parameter.
(4) Replace parents by offspring: Replace B into Ak using the original locations
stored in L. Sort Ak in order of increasing function value.
7-16
Hydrologic Models
(5) Iterate: Repeat Steps (1) through (4) times, where 1 is a user-specified
parameter which determines how many offspring should be generated (how far
each complex should evolve).
The version of SCE-UA used by Duan et al. (1993) used the values m = (2n+1), q =
(n+1), = 1, and = (2n+1). Hence, the only variable to be specified by the user is the
number of complexes p. In Duan et al. (1992) and Sorooshian et al. (1993), it was
demonstrated that the performance of the SCE-UA method is far superior to that of the
multi-start simplex (MSX) procedure. He claimed that the SCE-UA method appears to
be the best method currently available for parameter estimation of conceptual watershed
models.
7.3 DIFFICULTIES IN OPTIMIZATION
The successful application of a hydrologic watershed model depends on how well

the model is calibrated. In recent years, automated approaches to calibration, such as
those discussed in this chapter, have received much attention, and several difficulties in
the application of such methods are (see also Ibbitt, 1970; Johnston and Pilgrim, 1976;
Picup, 1977; Sorooshian and Gupta, 1983; Gan and Burges, 1990a,b):
(i) Interdependence between model parameters, by which a large number of

combinations of parameter values will give similarly low values of the objective
function - a change in the value of one parameter may be compensated by changes
in one or more of the other parameters. For a two parameters model, a long flat-
bottomed valley results in the response surface, as shown in Fig 7.13. A large
number of combinations of parameter values will give similar low values of the
objective function. Optimization methods make little or no progress along the
floor of such valley towards its lowest point. It could be argued, of course, that
this interdependence is not a problem, since any of the pairs of values in the valley
is almost an optimum and the resulting output sequence is none the worse for the
interdependence. However, if any meaning is to be attached to individual
parameter values - if, say, parameter values are to be correlated with catchment
characteristics - the values obtained from such an optimization would be
meaningless (Gorgens, 1983a,b).
(ii) Indifference of the objective function to the value of a parameter, the calculated
model output, and thus the value of the objective function, is not affected by
changes in the value of a parameter because either the parameter is redundant or it
is not active in the particular set of input data and even worse in a particular region
of parameter space. Indifference causes zero gradients in some areas of the
response surface, and optimization methods are not able to make further progress
from such areas, as shown in Fig.7.13 for high values of X1.
(iii)Discontinuities, or points on the response surface at which the objective function,
while still continuous, is non-differentiable.
(iv) Local optima, these are points on the response surface that have lower values of
the objective function than any surrounding point but have greater values than
another point or points in another region of the response surface. As is shown in
Fig.6.2 for a two dimensional response surface on which there is more than one
closed contour for a given value of F. The 'peak' P1 inside the contour F = 3 is the
global optimum. If a local search method starts its search at point A in Fig.6.2 it
would, in all probability, find a nearby local optimum such as P2. Once at the local
7-17
optimum, the technique would be able to satisfy its built-in tests for convergence.
For example, it would find that for small perturbations about P2 only worse points
could be found. Search methods have no tactics for moving to a higher peak from
a lower one since they assume that only one peak exists. Local optima have all the
properties of the global optimum except the value of the objective criterion F.
(v) Scaling of parameters. Different scaling of parameters changes the configuration
of the response surface, affecting the difficulty of optimization, as is illustrated in
Fig.7.14. Progress may be greatly improved by rescaling of parameters with the
aim of producing near-circular contours of the objective function. However, the
form of the response surface, particularly in multidimensional space, and the best
selection of transformations are not known. Experimentation with scaling
parameters is therefore desirable and may lead to more rapid progress.
Fig.7.13 A two-dimensional response surface (hypothetical)
Fig.7.14 The influence of scaling on steepest descent searches
7-18
Hydrologic Models
Moreover, deficiencies in model structure can also cause problems in

optimization, since even the most complex models are imperfect representations of
physical processes and this imperfection may lead to difficulties in optimization.
The choice and the role of the objective function are aspects of optimization that
also offer serious difficulties to the modeller. It is axiomatic that the optimal set of
parameters arrived at by optimization is in fact optimal only in the context of the
objective function used during the process. A substantially different objective function
may converge on substantially different optimum parameter set, though other conditions
of optimization remain unchanged (Diskin and Simon, 1977; Pilgrim, 1975).
Studies of some effects of these difficulties have been reported by O'Connell,
Nash and Farrell (1970), Mandeville, et al. (1970), Ibbitt and O'Donnell (1971), Plinston
(1971), Johnson and Pilgrim (1973, 1976); Pilgrim (1975) and Gorgens (1983a).
Strategies for overcoming some of these problems are suggested, although not all the
problems can be solved. Possible solutions to these problems include the following
measures (Gorgens, 1983a). Problem (i) can be partially redressed by optimizing
interdependent parameters individually in separate searches. Problem (ii) can be
avoided by setting indifferent parameters to constant values. Problem (iii) affects only
steepest descent algorithms and cannot be solved except by multiple searches from
different points on the response surface. Problem (iv) can often be overcome by
changing initial points. Point (v) is less a problem in direct search than in steepest
descent methods and can be redressed by either scaling parameters to the same order of
magnitude or weighting the search steps for individual parameters according to
parameter scale.
A measure that is often used to cope with more than one of the above difficulties
is to constrain the values of certain parameter to a "likely range" during optimization,
i.e., to prevent 'impossible' values from being chosen by the search routine or for the
routine to wander into one of the difficulty-prone areas of the response surface.
However, Pilgrim (1975) argues that this procedure is unjustifiable because a parameter
value might pass through an impossible region during the search but then return to a
realistic level. Imposition of limits also implies that the model structure and the
parameters are indeed physically realistic and that the data contain no serious errors.
Chapman (1975) argues conversely, i.e., that modellers should consciously strive to
make their models more physically-based; then crucial parameters must be constrained
to known physical limits commensurate with each catchment situation.
7-19
Chapman, T.G., 1975. Trends in catchment modelling, Prediction in Catchment

Hydrology, Chapman, T.G. and Dunin, F.X. (Eds.), Australian Academy of Science,
Canberra, p459-482.
Diskin, M. and Simon, E., 1977. A procedure for the selection of objective functions for
hydrologic simulation models. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation XXIV,
North-Holland Publishing Company, 122-130.
Duan, Q., Gupta, V.K. and Sorooshian, S., 1993. A Shuffled complex evolution
approach for effective and efficient global minimization, J. of Optimisation Theory
and Applications 76(3): 501-521.
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S. and Gupta, V.K., 1992. Effective and efficient global
optimisation for conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water resour. Res. 28(4): 1015-
1031.
Gan, T.Y. and S.J. Burges, 1990a,b. An assessment of a conceptual rainfall-runoff
models ability to represent the dynamics of small hypothetical catchments 1&2.
Water Resour. Res. 26(7).
Gorgens, A.H.M., 1983a. Conceptual modelling of the rainfall-runoff process in
semiarid catchments. Report 1/83, Hydrological Research Unit, Rhodes University,
Grahamstown, 347p.
Gorgens, A.H.M., 1983b. Reliability of calibration of a monthly rainfall-runoff model:
the semiarid case. Hydrol. Sci. J., 28(4):485-498.
Ibbitt, R.P. and ODonnell, T., 1971. Designing conceptual catchment models for
automatic fitting methods. Mathematical Models in Hydrology (Proceedings of
Warsaw Symposium), IAHS Publ. No.101: p461-475.
Johnson, P.R. and Pilgrim, D.H., 1973. A study of parameter optimisation for a rainfall-
runoff model, Report No.131, Water Resources Laboratory, University of New South
Wales, Austrlia.
Johnson, P.R. and Pilgrim, D.H., 1976. Parameter optimization for watershed models.
Wat. Resour. Res., 10(2):256-262.
Mandeville, A.N., et al., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part
III - the Ray catchment at Grendon Underwood, J. Hydrol., 11: 109-128.
Masri, S.F., et al., 1978. An adaptive random search method for identification of large
scale nonlinear systems, Proceedings of 4th IFAC Symposium on identification and
system parameter estimation 1976, North-Holland.
O'Connell, P.E., et al., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part II -
the Brosna catchment at Ferbane, J. Hydrol., 10: 317-329.
Picup, G., 1977. Testing the efficiencies of algorithms and strategies for automatic
calibration of rainfall-runoff models. Hydrological Science Bulltin 22(2): 257-274.
Pilgrim, D.H., 1975. Model evaluation, testing and parameter estimation in hydrology.
Prediction in Catchment Hydrology, Chapman, T.G. and Dunin, F.X. (Eds.),
Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, p305-333.
Plinston, D.T., 1971. Parameter sensitivity and interdependence in hydrological models.
British Ecological Society 12th Symposium, Grange-over-Sands, p237-247.
Pronzato, L.E. et al., 1984. A general purpose global optimiser: implementation and
applications, Mathematics and computers in Simulation, Vol.26: 412-422.
Sorooshian, S. and V.K. Gupta, 1983. Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-
runoff models: the question of parameter observability and uniqueness, Water
Resour. Res. 19(1): 251-259.
7-20
Hydrologic Models
Sorooshian, S. and V.K. Gupta, 1995. Model calibration, In: V.P. Singh (ed.) Computer
Models of Watershed Hydrology, Chapter 2.
7-21
CHAPTER 8
SOME PARTICULAR CATCHMENT MODELS
______________________________________________________________________
The following hydrological models will be discussed in details during the lecture.
Documents about the listed models will be distributed to the students before the
course starts. Other hydrological models, which are not listed below might also be
discussed.
8.1 WASMOD A conceptual, stochastic, lumped water balance model.

Reference: Xu, C-Y, 2002. WASMOD The Water And Snow Balance Modeling
system. In: Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications
(Chapter 17), V.P. Singh and D.K. Frevert (eds), Water Resources Publications,
LLC, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA.
8.2 HBV-model A conceptual, deterministic, lumped (semi-distributed) daily rainfall-
runoff model.
Reference: Bergstrm, S., 1995. The HBV Model. In: Computer Models of
Watershed Hydrology (Chapter 13), V.P. Singh (ed.), Water Resources
Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA.
8.3 TOPMODEL A physically-based, semi-distributed model.

Reference: Beven, K. et al., 1995. TOPMODEL. In: Computer Models of Watershed
Hydrology (Chapter 18), V.P. Singh (ed.), Water Resources Publications, Highlands
Ranch, Colorado, USA.
8.4 SHE model A physically-based, deterministic, distributed model.

Reference: Abbott, M.B., et al., 1986. An introduction to the European Hydrological
System Systeme Hydrologique Europeen, SHE, 2: Structure of a physically-
based, distributed modelling system. Journal of Hydrology 87: 61-77.

Hydrology Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrology Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrology Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uppsala University

Department of Earth Sciences

Postal address Visiting address Telephone Fax Electronic mail

According to the official document of UNESCO (1985) - 'Teaching aids in

CHAPTER 1 MODELLING IN HYDROLOGY 1-1

1.1 Why hydrological models are needed 1-1

CHAPTER 2 TIME SERIES ANALYSIS AND STOCHASTIC MODELLING 2-1

2.1 Introduction 2-1

3.1 Introduction 3-1

CHAPTER 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS 4-1

4.1 General 4-1

CHAPTER 5 RUNOFF IN HYDROLOGIC MODELS 5-1

5.1 Introduction 5-1

CHAPTER 6 THE METHODOLOGY OF MODEL EVALUATION 6-1

6.1 Phases of model evaluation 6-1

7.1 Generalities 7-1

CHAPTER 8 SOME PARTICULAR CATCHMENT MODELS 8-1

8.1 WASMOD A conceptual-stochastic snow and water balance model.

8.2 HBV-model A conceptual-deterministic, lumped (semi-distributed) rainfall-

8.3 TOPMODEL A physically-based, semi-distributed model.

8.4 SHE model A physically-based, deterministic, distributed model.

1.1. WHY HYDROLOGICAL MODELS ARE NEEDED?

No substantial part of the universe is so simple that it can be

1.2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Where C is the coefficient of runoff (dependent on catchment characteristics) i is

expressed in terms of few parameters to be estimated from catchment

the European Community is a good example of such models (Abbott et al.,

1.3. HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND MODELLING

Fig.1.1 The watershed as a hydrologic system (from Chow et al, 1988)

Q(t) = I(t) (1.2)

Q(t) = C I(t) (1.3)

where C is a constant, then the transfer function is the operator

If the transformation is described by a differential equation, then the transfer

Eliminating S between the two equations and rearranging,

1.4. CLASSIFICATION OF HYDROLOGIC MODELS

Hydrologic models can be variously classified. One of the classification methods

Fig.1.2. A classification of hydrologic models

1.4.1 Material models

1.4.2 Symbolic or Formal models

1.4.3 The distinction between theoretical, conceptual and empirical models

Theoretical models (sometimes called white-box models or physically-based

Models whether theoretical, conceptual or empirical may be linear or non-linear.

1.4.5 The distinction between time-invariant and time-variant models

1.4.6 The distinction between lumped and distributed models

In terms of spatial discretization or resolution we can identify an ascending scale of

Fig.1.3 Graphic representation of geometrically distributed and lumped models.

1.4.7 The distinction between deterministic and stochastic models

If any of the variables xt , yt , t in equation (1.8) are regarded as random variables

1.4.8 Summary on classification

1.5 THE USE OF HYDROLOGIC MODELS

Physically-based or theoretical models are often use in research purpose to gain a

1.6 METHODOLOGY FOR USING HYDROLOGIC MODELS

In a systematic application of the methodology, steps 6-9 could be iterated until a

2.2 TIME SERIES

Fig.2.1 The time series components.

2.3 PROPERTIES OF TIME SERIES

The purpose of a stochastic model is to represent important statistical properties of

Name Sample estimation Notation

Stationary time series