YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Model Performance Sensitivity to Objective Function during Automated Calibrations

    Source: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering:;2012:;Volume ( 017 ):;issue: 006
    Author:
    Misgana K. Muleta
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000497
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: Previous studies have reported limitations of the efficiency criteria commonly used in hydrology to describe goodness of model simulations. This study examined sensitivity of model performance to the objective function used during automated calibrations. Nine widely used efficiency criteria were evaluated for their effectiveness as objective function, and goodness of the model predictions were examined using 13 criteria. Two cases (Case I: Using observed streamflow data and Case II: Using simulated streamflow) were considered to accomplish objectives of the study using a widely used watershed model (SWAT) and good-quality field data from a well-monitored experimental watershed. Major findings of the study include (1) automated calibration results are sensitive to the objective function group—group that work based on minimization of the absolute deviations (Group I), group that work based on minimization of square of the residuals (Group II), and groups that use log of the observed and simulated streamflow values (Group III)—but not to objective functions within the group; (2) efficiency criteria that belong to Group I were the most effective when used as objective function for accurate simulation of both low flows and high flows; (3) Group I and Group II objective functions complement each other’s performance; (4) with regard to the capability to describe goodness of model simulations, efficiency criteria that belong to Group I showed superior robustness; (5) for the study watershed, use of the long-term interannual calendar day mean as baseline model did not improve capability of an efficiency criterion to describe model performance; and (6) even for ideal conditions where uncertainty in input data and model structure are fully accounted for, identifying the so-called global parameters values through calibration could be daunting as parameter values that were significantly divergent from predetermined values produced model simulations that can be considered near perfect even when judged using multiple efficiency criteria.
    • Download: (878.0Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Model Performance Sensitivity to Objective Function during Automated Calibrations

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/63382
    Collections
    • Journal of Hydrologic Engineering

    Show full item record

    contributor authorMisgana K. Muleta
    date accessioned2017-05-08T21:49:13Z
    date available2017-05-08T21:49:13Z
    date copyrightJune 2012
    date issued2012
    identifier other%28asce%29he%2E1943-5584%2E0000518.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/63382
    description abstractPrevious studies have reported limitations of the efficiency criteria commonly used in hydrology to describe goodness of model simulations. This study examined sensitivity of model performance to the objective function used during automated calibrations. Nine widely used efficiency criteria were evaluated for their effectiveness as objective function, and goodness of the model predictions were examined using 13 criteria. Two cases (Case I: Using observed streamflow data and Case II: Using simulated streamflow) were considered to accomplish objectives of the study using a widely used watershed model (SWAT) and good-quality field data from a well-monitored experimental watershed. Major findings of the study include (1) automated calibration results are sensitive to the objective function group—group that work based on minimization of the absolute deviations (Group I), group that work based on minimization of square of the residuals (Group II), and groups that use log of the observed and simulated streamflow values (Group III)—but not to objective functions within the group; (2) efficiency criteria that belong to Group I were the most effective when used as objective function for accurate simulation of both low flows and high flows; (3) Group I and Group II objective functions complement each other’s performance; (4) with regard to the capability to describe goodness of model simulations, efficiency criteria that belong to Group I showed superior robustness; (5) for the study watershed, use of the long-term interannual calendar day mean as baseline model did not improve capability of an efficiency criterion to describe model performance; and (6) even for ideal conditions where uncertainty in input data and model structure are fully accounted for, identifying the so-called global parameters values through calibration could be daunting as parameter values that were significantly divergent from predetermined values produced model simulations that can be considered near perfect even when judged using multiple efficiency criteria.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleModel Performance Sensitivity to Objective Function during Automated Calibrations
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume17
    journal issue6
    journal titleJournal of Hydrologic Engineering
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000497
    treeJournal of Hydrologic Engineering:;2012:;Volume ( 017 ):;issue: 006
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian