Abstract

River discharges are often predicted based on a calibrated rainfall-runoff model. The major sources of uncertainty, namely input, parameter and model structural uncertainty must all be taken into account to obtain realistic estimates of the accuracy of discharge predictions. Over the past years, Bayesian calibration has emerged as a suitable method for quantifying uncertainty in model parameters and model structure, where the latter is usually modelled by an additive or multiplicative stochastic term. Recently, much work has also been done to include input uncertainty in the Bayesian framework. However, the use of geostatistical methods for characterizing the prior distribution of the catchment rainfall is underexplored, particularly in combination with assessments of the influence of increasing or decreasing rain gauge network density on discharge prediction accuracy. In this article we integrate geostatistics and Bayesian calibration to analyze the effect of rain gauge density on river discharge prediction accuracy. We calibrated the HBV hydrological model while accounting for input, initial state, model parameter and model structural uncertainty, and also taking uncertainties in the discharge measurements into account. Results for the Thur basin in Switzerland showed that model parameter uncertainty was the main contributor to the joint posterior uncertainty. We also showed that a low rain gauge density is enough for the Bayesian calibration, and that increasing the number of rain gauges improved model prediction until reaching a density of one gauge per 340 km2. While the optimal rain gauge density is case-study specific, we make recommendations on how to handle input uncertainty in Bayesian calibration for river discharge prediction and present the methodology that may be used to carry out such experiments.

Highlights

  • Uncertainty analysis has garnered considerable attention in hydrological modelling during the past decades (e.g., Pappenberger & Beven, 2006; Han & Coulibaly, 2017)

  • We assume that the relation between y and z, which is governed by the model H, is affected by multiplicative measurement and model structural errors, which after log-transformation gives: log(y) = log(H (z,φ)) + ε + η where φ is a vector comprising model parameters and the initial state, ε = [ε1 ε2 ...εT ]T

  • Since model structural uncertainty is incorporated explicitly it is unlikely that input uncertainty compensates for deficits in the model structure (Thyer et al, 2009)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Uncertainty analysis has garnered considerable attention in hydrological modelling during the past decades (e.g., Pappenberger & Beven, 2006; Han & Coulibaly, 2017). Kavetski, Kuczera & Franks (2006) found that input (rainfall) uncertainty has a considerable effect on the predicted outflow and output prediction intervals. In addition to these three main sources, there is usually uncertainty in the measurements of the model output (Di Baldassarre & Montanari, 2009). This source of uncertainty must be taken into account if these measurements are used to calibrate the model

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.