PDF Download

[1]YANG Jun-jun,GAO Xiao-hong,LI Qi-jiang,et al.SWAT Model Construction and Uncertainty Analysis on Its Parameters for the Huangshui River Basin[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2013,20(01):82-88,93.

Copy

SWAT Model Construction and Uncertainty Analysis on Its Parameters for the Huangshui River Basin

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 20 Number of periods: 2013 01 Page number: 82-88,93 Column: Public date: 2013-02-28

Title:: SWAT Model Construction and Uncertainty Analysis on Its Parameters for the Huangshui River Basin

Author(s):: YANG Jun-jun¹, GAO Xiao-hong¹, LI Qi-jiang², CHEN Qiang², FENG Shi-chao¹; 1. Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education on Environments and Resources in Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, School of Life and Geographical Sciences, Qinghai Normal University, Xi’ning 810008, China;
2. Hydrology and Water Resources Survey Bureau of Qinghai Province, Xi’ning 810008, China

Keywords:: sensitivity analysis; uncertainty analysis; PSO algorithm; SWAT-CUP; SWAT model

CLC:: TV121

DOI:: -

Abstract:: Sensitivity analysis(SA) and uncertainty analysis(UA) are prerequisites for parameter calibration and distributed hydrologic model development. Taking the Huangshui River basin located in Qinghai—Tibetan Plateau and Loess Plateau as a case, firstly, based on SWAT model and SWAT-CUP program, sensitivity analysis was carried out by combing Latin-Hypercube(LH) and One-Factor-At-a-Time(OAT) sampling with Latin hypercube sampling; secondly, uncertainty analysis was conducted by using P-factor and R-factor of SWAT-CUP program; finally, parameter calibration and distributed hydrologic model building for the Huangshui River basin were performed by the coupled method of manual and auto-calibration. The results showed that the average determination coefficient was 0.7 and the average Nash-Sutcliff was 0.68 for the calibration. The average determination coefficient was 0.65 and the average Nash-Sutcliff was 0.53 for the validation, the result could meet the application requirements. PSO algorithm had a good performance in the model calibration. The time for per calibration was 3.5 min and 2.2 min for SWAT model and SWAT-CUP, respectively, obviously the SWAT-CUP’s calibration time was shorter than that of SWAT model. Uncertainty analysis results were not always accordance with the calibration result precision, but it determined the validation precision of the model. So for the validation of the model, the uncertainty of the model should be cut down. Under the same times of the model calibration, SWAT model had a better runoff simulation value for the larger subbasin than the smaller one.

References:: [1] Abbaspour K C, Johnson A, van Genuchten M T. Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure[J]. Vadose Zone Journal,2004,4(3):1340-1352.
[2] 左其亭,王中根.现代水文学[M].郑州:2版.黄河水利出版社,2006.
[3] 黄清华,张万昌.SWAT模型参数敏感性分析及应用[J].干旱区地理,2010,33(1):8-15.
[4] 王中根,朱新军,夏军,等.海河流域分布式SWAT模型的构建[J].地理科学进展,2008,27(4):1-6.
[5] Mansour T, Saeid M, Seyyed A A, et al. Uncertainty analysis in sediment load modeling using ANN and SWAT model[J]. Water Resour Manage,2010,24(9):1747-1761.
[6] Yang J, Abbaspour K C, Reichert P, et al. Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to Chaohe Basin in China In review[J]. Journal of Hydrology,2008,358(1/2):1-23.
[7] 姚允龙,吕宪国,王蕾.流域分布式水文模型SWAT空间输入数据的不确定性研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,2009,25(4):470-475.
[8] 陈德胜,丁爱中,潘成忠,等.基于SWAT模型的沣河流域径流模拟不确定性分析[EB/OL].中国科技论文在线.(2011-03-14)[2011-6-19). http://www.paper.edu.cn/index.php/default/releasepaper/content/201103-581.[9] 薛晨.基于SWAT模型的产流产沙模拟与模型参数不确定性分析[D].北京:华北电力大学(北京),2011.
[10] 陈强,苟思,秦大庸,等.一种高效的SWAT模型参数自动率定方法[J].水利学报,2010,41(1):113-119.
[11] Web Page Eawag Aquatic Research. http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/siam/software/swat/index.
[12] Fontaine T A, Gruickshank T S, Arnold J G, et al. Development of a snowfall-snowmelt routine for mountainous terrain for the soil water assessment tool(SWAT)[J]. Journal of Hydrology,2002,262(1/4):209-223.
[13] 余建英,何旭宏.数据统计分析与SPSS应用[M].1版.北京:人民邮电出版社,2004.
[14] Arnold J G, Kiniry J R, Srinivasan R, et al. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Input/Output File Documentation Version 2009[EB/OL]. Texas A&M University System College station, Texas 77843-2118,2011,365.
[15] Schmalz B, Fohrer N. Comparing model sensitivities of different landscapes using the ecohydrological SWAT model[J]. Advances in Geosciences,2009,21:91-98.
[16] Abbaspour K C. SWAT-CUP2 SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Programs Version 2[R]. Eawag:Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology,2011.
[17] Griensven A V, Meixner T, Grunwald S, et al. A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models[J]. Journal of Hydrology,2006,324(1/4):10-23.
[18] Abbaspour K C, Yang J, Maximova I, et al. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT[J]. Journal of Hydrology,2007,333(2/4):413-430.
[19] Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Zhao K, et al. Evaluation of global optimization algorithms for parameter calibration of a computationally intensive hydrologic model[J]. Hydrological Processes,2008,23(3):430-441.
[20] Motovilov Y G, Gottschalk L, Engeland K, et al. Validation of a distributed hydrological model against spatial observations[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,1999,98/99:257-277.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 1900-01-01