A distributed simple dynamical systems approach (dS2 v1.0) for computationally efficient hydrological modelling at high spatio-temporal resolution

Joost Buitink,Adriaan J Teuling,James W Kirchner,Lieke A Melsen

doi:10.5194/gmd-13-6093-2020

Abstract

Abstract. In this paper, we introduce a new numerically robust distributed rainfall–runoff model for computationally efficient simulation at high spatio-temporal resolution: the distributed simple dynamical systems (dS2) model. The model is based on the simple dynamical systems approach as proposed by Kirchner (2009), and the distributed implementation allows for spatial heterogeneity in the parameters and/or model forcing fields at high spatio-temporal resolution (for instance as derived from precipitation radar data). The concept is extended with snow and routing modules, where the latter transports water from each pixel to the catchment outlet. The sensitivity function, which links changes in storage to changes in discharge, is implemented by a new three-parameter equation that is able to represent the widely observed downward curvature in log–log space. The simplicity of the underlying concept allows the model to calculate discharge in a computationally efficient manner, even at high temporal and spatial resolution, while maintaining proven model performance. The model code is written in Python in order to be easily readable and adjustable while maintaining computational efficiency. Since this model has short runtimes, it allows for extended sensitivity and uncertainty studies with relatively low computational costs. A test application shows good and consistent model performance across scales ranging from 3 to over 1700 km2.

Highlights

Hydrological models are essential tools for applications ranging from sensitivity analysis to impact assessment and forecasting
There is an ongoing debate about whether the hydrological modelling community should move towards a community model (Weiler and Beven, 2015), different models representing a wide range of complexity and different process representations might be necessary to adequately characterise uncertainty
We investigated the response of the model to the five main parameters (α, β, γ, and τ ; excluding the snow parameters) by plotting the response surface over realistic parameter ranges

Summary

Introduction

Hydrological models are essential tools for applications ranging from sensitivity analysis to impact assessment and forecasting. This, in combination with the inherent complexity and heterogeneity of (sub)surface hydrological processes, has led to the development of numerous different hydrological models over the past decades, each with its own focus. Examples of such rainfall–runoff models and modelling tools include, amongst many others, SWAT (Arnold et al, 1998), HBV (Lindström et al, 1997), TOPMODEL (Beven and Kirkby, 1979), VIC (Liang et al, 1994, 1996), SPHY (Terink et al, 2015), FUSE (Clark et al, 2008), SUMMA (Clark et al, 2015), PCR-GLOBWB (Sutanudjaja et al, 2018) and WALRUS (Brauer et al, 2014). There is an ongoing debate about whether the hydrological modelling community should move towards a community model (Weiler and Beven, 2015), different models representing a wide range of complexity and different process representations might be necessary to adequately characterise uncertainty

Objectives

Discussion

Conclusion