comparing hydrological behaviour of catchments …claps/eguleonardo/5_casper_et...simulation...

M.C. Casper et al. - Leonardo 2010, Luxemburg

Comparing Hydrological Behaviour of Catchments with Rainfall-Runoff Models using Signature Indices

1M. C. Casper1G. Grigoryan, 1O. Gronz, 1M. Herbst,

²G. Heinemann, 1R. Ley, 1A. Rock

1Dept. of Physical Geography²Dept. Of Environmental Meteorology

University of Trier, Germany


Context: Project KlimLandRP

Interdisciplinary research project financed by 2 federal ministries

„Climate and landscape change in Rhineland-Palatinate“

www.klimlandrp.de

Ministerium für Umwelt, Forsten und Verbraucherschutz

Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und Weinbau

Modul BodenLandesamt für Geologie und Bergbau

Geologiedirektor Dr. Spies (in Kooperation mit FAWF)

Modul LandwirtschaftInstitut für Agrarökologie/AgroScience

Privatdozent Dr. Kubiak

Modul WaldUniversität Freiburg

Institut für LandespflegeProf. Dr. Konold

Modul BiodiversitätUniversität Mainz

Institut für ZoologieProf. Dr. Seitz

Modul WasserUniversität Trier

Physische GeographieProf. Dr. Casper

FAWF Rheinland-Pfalz

ProjektleitungDr. Matthes

LUWG Klimatologie

Dipl. MeteorologinKraus

PIK Beratung

Prof. Dr. Stock

FAWF: Forschungsanstalt für Waldökologie und Forstwirtschaft PIK: Potsdam Institut für KlimafolgenforschungLUWG: Landesamt für Umwelt, Wasserwirtschaft und Gewerbeaufsicht















LUWG Klimatologie


PIK Beratung

Prof. Dr. Stock


Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Consumer Protection

ghsfghhjkfhjk

Module ForestUniversity of FreiburgInstitute of Landscape

ManagementProf. Dr. Konold

dfagsdfgdyg<fgadfgadfgdafg

ghsfghhjkfhjk



ghsfghhjkfhjk

FAWFRhineland-PalatinateProject Management

Dr. Matthes

Module WaterUniversity of Trier

Physical GeographyProf. Dr. Casper

Module SoilState Office of geology and miningChief Geology Director Dr. Spies

(in cooperation with FAWF)

LUWGClimatologyDipl. Meteo.

Kraus

PIKadvice

Prof. Dr. Stock

Module AgricultureInstitute of Agroecology

Associate Prof. Dr. Kubiak

Ministry of Economics, Transport, Agriculture and Viniculture

FAWF: Research Institute for Forest Ecology and ForestryPIK: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchLUWG: State Office of Environment, Water Economy and Trade Control















LUWG Klimatologie


PIK Beratung

Prof. Dr. Stock
















LUWG Klimatologie


PIK Beratung

Prof. Dr. Stock


Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Consumer Protection

ghsfghhjkfhjk



dfagsdfgdyg<fgadfgadfgdafg

ghsfghhjkfhjk



ghsfghhjkfhjk

FAWFRhineland-PalatinateProject Management

Dr. Matthes

Module WaterUniversity of Trier

Physical GeographyProf. Dr. Casper

Module SoilState Office of geology and miningChief Geology Director Dr. Spies

(in cooperation with FAWF)

LUWGClimatologyDipl. Meteo.

Kraus

PIKadvice

Prof. Dr. Stock

Module AgricultureInstitute of Agroecology

Associate Prof. Dr. Kubiak

Ministry of Economics, Transport, Agriculture and Viniculture

FAWF: Research Institute for Forest Ecology and ForestryPIK: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchLUWG: State Office of Environment, Water Economy and Trade Control

2


Project KlimLandRP

Material

•Measured discharge at 53 gaging stations in Rhineland-Palatinate/W-Germany

•Measured hourly climatic data (1997-2003)

•Simulated climatic data: COSMO-CLM 5km/1.3km resolutionthis includes the direct simulation of convective cells!

Reference run: „1991-2000“Projection (A1B): 2015-2024

Goal

•Detecting climatic change signal

•Make (simulation) results hydrologically interpretable

3


4

Calibrated Rainfall Runoff Model LARSIM

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

W0 / Wmax

frac

tion

of s

atur

ated

are

a

BSF = 0.3BSF = 1BSF = 1.5

W0 / Wmax

Wmax

ETPPT

f(BSF,W0)

W0

A2

Dmax

Dmin

EQD

EQD2

Q

β

Wz

Qi

Qof

Qof2

Qb

EQI

EQB


The Nahe catchment (W-Germany)

5

Kronweiler

Kellenbach

Kaiserslautern


6

How to compare „hydrological behavior“

problems• short time series (no statistics possible)• comparison of real with simulated climate input (no direct correlation)• results have to be hydrologically interpretable

solutionFor intercomparison of catchments/simulation models we use:

Signature Indices: Introduced by: Gupta et al. 2008, HP, Yilmaz et al. 2008, WRR, extended by Herbst et al. 2009, NHESSEmpirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) of event runoff

coefficients (Merz et al. 2006, JoH)


7

Model evaluationWhat value is the determination of goodness of fit measures?• Information becomes apperent on the basis of the context of data

• e.g R²: „how much of the observed variance is explained by the model…“

How is your model

performing?Perfectly! R²=0.815

• hydrologically interesting: difference in water balance, difference in runoff reactivity etc.


Extracting diagnostic „Signature Indices“

%BiasRunoff_All

= long term behaviour

Bias in overall runoff

Flow Duration Curve (FDC)

Gupta et al. (2008) in: Hyd. Proc. Yilmaz et al. (2008) in: Water Resour. Res.


Δp

ΔQ

error in FDC mid-segment slope

= „flashiness“ or reactivity

%Bias_slopeflashinessHigh

flowsIntermediate

flowsLow flows





High flows

Intermediate flows

Low flows


error in FDC high-segment volume

= reproduction of peak discharges

%BiasPeaks




High flows

Intermediate flows

Low flows


error in FDC low-segment volume

= reproduction of „baseflow“

%BiasBaseflow





50%

bias in median of log. flows

= differences in mid range flow levels

%BiasMedian




method by Merz et al., TU Vienna

ECDF of event runoff coefficients1. automatic detection of events

2. Empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF)


ECDF of event runoff coefficients

53 catchments in Rhineland-Palatinate

Wide rangeSensitive measureHydrologically meaningfulPossibility to sample

indices from curveExample: 2 catchments

Kronweiler and Kellenbach

Mea

n an

nual

pre

cipi

tatio

n [m

m]

Mean event runoff coefficient


Short time series

Shape of both curves is not very sensitive to extremes and length of time series

Characteristic shape even for shorter data sets (with approx. 10 years)


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 110-2

10-1

100

101

102

Zeile 5

SimulationMeasured

Model performance: Kronweiler vs. Kellenbach

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 110-1

100

101

102

103

Zeile 13

SimulationMeasured

Comparing model performance

Kronweiler(1997-2003)

Kellenbach(1997-2003)

based on“hydrological behavior”

“very good model”


The Nahe catchment (W-Germany)

17

Kronweiler

Kellenbach

Kaiserslautern


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 110-2

10-1

100

101

102

Zeile 5

SimulationMeasured

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 110-2

10-1

100

101

102

Zeile 9

SimulationMeasured

COSMO-CLMReference run“1991-2000”

Measured climate1997-2003

1. “model validation”

Kronweiler – detecting climatic change

“visible differences”“similar direction oferrors”


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 110-2

10-1

100

101

102

Zeile 9

SimulationMeasured

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 110-2

10-1

100

101

102

Zeile 7

SimulationMeasured

Kronweiler – detecting climatic change

2. “Impact of climate change”

“visible differences”“less high flows”

COSMO-CLMProjection A1B“2015-2024”



Kronweiler – additional information


Real climate1997-2003

From event runoff coefficients

COSMO-CLM2015-2024


Kronweiler – Seasonality: Summer



COSMO-CLM2015-2024


Kronweiler – Seasonality: Winter

Catchment conditionschange dramatically

Lower runoff coefficientsDifferent annual rainfall

patterns

But:Differences very large

BIAS correction forCOSMO_CLM needed?(yearly precip. too low!)

??



COSMO-CLM“2015-2024


Conclusions & Outlook

Signature Indices combined with ECDF of event rainfall runoffgive a good description of hydrological behavior of models

Future work

Simulation for a larger number of catchments/modelswith COSMO-CLM-Data

Derivation of additional „signature indices“ from ECDF of event runoff coefficients

BIAS-correction of hourly precipitation for COSMO-CLM simulations!


KlimLandRPKlima- und Landschaftswandel

in Rheinland-Pfalz

Thank you very much for your attention!


25

Indices of uppermost 2% of FDC

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

10

15

20

25

Exceedance probability [%]

Q [m

³/s]

0.42

„volume lower“„volume upper“

„slope upper“

„slope lower“

0 20 40 60 80 10010-1

100

101

102

Flow exceed. probab. %

Q [m

³/s]

max. HQX

comparing hydrological behaviour of catchments …claps/eguleonardo/5_casper_et...simulation...

Documents