HSPF runoff simulation and optimization based on PEST automatic calibration
YANG Bo, CHEN Ying, CHEN Xingwei, LIU Meibing, GAO Lu
1. College of Geographical Science, Fujian Normal University, 350007, Fuzhou, China;
2. Cultivation Base of State Key Laboratory of Humid Subtropical Mountain Ecology, 350007, Fuzhou, China;
3. Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center for Monitoring and Assessing Terrestrial Disasters, 350007, Fuzhou, China
Abstract：[Background] In recent years, water cycle and water resource change have become more complicated due to the influence of climate change and human activities. Hydrological model is an approximate simulation of complex hydrological phenomena, which can realize the quantitative study of runoff. And parameter calibration is one of the most important steps in hydrological modeling.[Methods] In order to improve the calibration efficiency and simulation effect of the hydrological model, Hydrological Simulation Program in Fortran (HSPF) used extensively for assessing water quantity issues was selected in this paper. The PEST automatic calibration model with single objective function (squared error of daily flow) and multi-objective functions (squared error of daily flow, squared error of monthly flow, squared error of exceedance flow time) were applied in HSPF model, and the squared error of daily flow was improved by separating wet and dry seasons. These calibration methods were compared with Shanmei Reservoir watershed, southeast China.[Results] 1) Multi-objective calibration performed better with respect to goodness-of-fit measures (NSE, R2, RMSE and PBIAS) than single objective calibration. In multi-objective calibration, the values of the NSE were above 0.79, the values of the R2 were above 0.80, the values of the PBIAS were between -10% and 0%, and the values of the RMSE were <30 m3/s during the calibration and validation. 2) In terms of the results of two multi-objective calibration methods, when the squared error of daily flows was improved by separating wet and dry seasons, the simulation results of daily and monthly runoff were significantly improved during the dry season. Taking daily runoff simulation for example, the values of the NSE increased from -0.04 and 0.43 to 0.25 and 0.54, the values of the R2 increased from 0.37 and 0.59 to 0.47 and 0.64, the values of the PBIAS increased from -33.57% and -22.72% to -24.52% and -16.79%, and the values of the RMSE decreased from 9.54 m3/s and 8.89 m3/s to 8.06 m3/s and 7.96 m3/s during the calibration and validation, respectively.[Conclusions] The objective function has a great influence in the automatic calibration of parameters. Multi-objective calibration performed better with respect to the trend of runoff, total runoff, and flow duration curves than single objective calibration. When the squared error of daily flow is improved by separating wet and dry seasons, the problem of dry flow was neglected in traditional multi-objective calibration was solved and the simulation results of daily and monthly runoff were significantly improved during the dry season.
程卓, YU B, 符素华. 黄土高原小区径流过程预测模型评价[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2016, 14(6):10. CHENG Zhuo,YU B, FU Suhua. An assessment of runoff process-based models for plots in China Loess Plateau[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 14(6):10.
[2]
金鑫, 郝振纯, 张金良. 水文模型研究进展及发展方向[J]. 水土保持研究, 2006, 13(4):197. JIN Xin, HAO Zhenchun, ZHANG Jinliang, Research evolution and development direction of hydrological models[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2006, 13(4):197.
[3]
李兆富, 刘红玉, 李燕. HSPF水文水质模型应用研究综述[J]. 环境科学, 2012, 33(7):2217. LI Zhaofu, LIU Hongyu, LI Yan.Review on HSPF model for simulation of hydrology and water quality processes[J]. Environmental Science, 2012, 33(7):2217.
[4]
王中根, 夏军, 刘昌明, 等. 分布式水文模型的参数率定及敏感性分析探讨[J]. 自然资源学报, 2007, 22(4):649. WANG Zhonggen, XIA Jun, LIU Changming, et al. Comments on sensitivity analysis, calibration of distributed hydrological model[J]. Journal of Natural Resources,2007, 22(4):649.
[5]
CHO J H, LEE J H. Watershed model calibration framework developed using an influence coefficient algorithm and a genetic algorithm and analysis of pollutant discharge characteristics and load reduction in a TMDL planning area[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 163(11):2.
[6]
SEONG C, HER Y, BENHAM B L. Automatic calibration tool for hydrologic simulation program-FORTRAN using a shuffled complex evolution algorithm[J]. Water, 2015, 7(2):503.
[7]
XIE Hua, LIAN Yanqing. Uncertainty-based evaluation and comparison of SWAT and HSPF applications to the Illinois River basin[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2013, 481(2):119.
[8]
BAHREMAND A, DE SMEDT F. Distributed hydrological modeling and sensitivity analysis in Torysa Watershed, Slovakia[J]. Water Resources Management, 2008, 22(3):393.
[9]
MEYER S C, Lin Y F, ROADCAP G S. A hybrid framework for improving recharge and discharge estimation for a three-dimensional groundwater flow model[J]. Ground Water, 2012, 50(3):457.
[10]
KIM S M, BENHAM B L, BRANNAN K M, et al. Comparison of hydrologic calibration of HSPF using automatic and manual methods[J]. Water Resources Research, 2007, 43(1):W01402.
[11]
EFSTRATIADIS A, KOUTSOYIANNIS D. One decade of multi-objective calibration approaches in hydrological modelling:A review[J]. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques, 2010, 55(1):58.
[12]
韩莉, 刘素芳, 黄民生, 等. 基于HSPF模型的流域水文水质模拟研究进展[J]. 华东师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 2015(2):40. HAN Li, LIU Sufang, HUANG Minsheng, et al. Review of simulation research in hydrology and water quality based on HSPF model[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Natural Science), 2015, 2015(2):40.
[13]
DOHERTY J. PEST:model-independent parameter estimation, user manual part I:PEST, SENSAN and global optimizers[R]. Brisbane, Queensland. Australia:Watermark Numeric Computing, 2016:108.
[14]
高伟, 周丰, 董延军, 等. 基于PEST的HSPF水文模型多目标自动校准研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2014, 29(5):859. GAO Wei, ZHOU Feng, DONG Yanjun, et al. PEST-based multi-objective automatic calibration of hydrologic parameters for HSPF model[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2014, 29(5):859.
[15]
DOHERTY J, JOHNSTON J M. Methodologies for calibration and predictive analysis of a watershed model[J]. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2003, 39(2):255.
[16]
PARAJULI P B, NELSON N O, FREES L D, et al. Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT model simulation results in USDA-CEAP agricultural watersheds in south-central Kansas[J]. Hydrological Processes, 2009, 23(5):756.
[17]
BALOCH M A, AMES D P, TANIK A. Hydrologic impacts of climate and land-use change on Namnam Stream in Koycegiz Watershed, Turkey[J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2015, 12(5):1487.
[18]
高颖会, 沙晓军, 徐向阳, 等. 基于Morris的SWMM模型参数敏感性分析[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2016, 27(3):89. GAO Yinghui, SHA Xiaojun, XU Xiangyang, et al. Sensitivity analysis of SWMM model parameters based on Morris method[J]. Journal of Water Resources & Water Engineering, 2016, 27(3):89.
2018, Vol. 16 
