Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimization of the Hydrological Tank Model by Downhill Simplex Method

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Hydrological Tank model was used in this study to simulate the rainfall-runoff relationship in the Flint River basin near Carsonville, Georgia, USA. The model’s structure consisted of two tanks (upper and lower), and it depended primarily on a set of eight parameters to simulate daily stream flow components (surface, subsurface, and base flows) from daily precipitation while taking into account the effects of daily evapotranspiration, the water storage height, and the infiltration rate. The parameter set was calibrated, optimized, and validated with data spanning a period of 10 years (Oct. 1st, 2007–Sep. 30th, 2017). Model calibration and validation were performed by using the first and second 5-year periods of water flow data, respectively. The model performance was verified using the coefficient of determination (R2) and the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) coefficient. The results of one- and two-parameter sensitivity analyses showed that the model performance was highly dependent on the parameters Ko and K1 (the coefficients of the surface and subsurface flows, respectively). The Downhill Simplex Method (DSM) was used to find the optimum parameter set via the maximization of R2 and NSE. The optimum parameter set produced by maximizing the NSE values was adopted in this study because it produced a very good correlation between the simulated and observed stream flows for both the calibration and validation time periods. Using the adopted optimum parameter set, the maximum values of R2 and NSE were 0.818 and 0.812 in the calibration time period, respectively, and 0.756 and 0.750 in the validation time period, respectively. Moreover, the DSM has proven to be very reliable in locating global optimums and requires reasonable computational efforts in the calibration of a hydrological model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(source: USGS)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beck MB, Kleissen FM, Wheater HS (1990) Identifying flow paths in models of surface water acidification. Rev Geophys 28(2):207–229. https://doi.org/10.1029/RG028i002p00207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Horsburgh JS, Morsy MM, Castronova AM, Goodall JL, Gan T, Yi H, Stealey MJ, Tarboton DG (2016) Hydroshare: sharing diverse environmental data types and models as social objects with application to the hydrology domain. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 52:873–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kokkonen TS, Jakeman AJ (2001) A comparison of metric and conceptual approaches in rainfall-runoff modeling and its implications. Water Resour Res 37(9):2345–2352. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leavesley GH (1994) Modeling the effects of climate change on water resources—a review. In Assessing the impacts of climate change on natural resource systems. Springer, Dordrecht: Chapter 8:159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0207-0_8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang T, Chen YQ, Xu CY, Chen XH, Chen X, Singh VP (2007) Comparison of hydrological impacts of climate change simulated by six hydrological models in the Dongjiang Basin, South China. J Hydrol 336:316–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang J, Reichert P, Abbaspour KC, Xia J, Yang H (2008) Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China. J Hydrol 358:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shen Z, Chen L, Hong Q, Qiu J, Xie H, Liu R (2013) Assessment of nitrogen and phosphorus loads and causal factors from different land use and soil types in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. Sci Total Environ 454:383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blöschl G, Sivapalan M (1995) Scale issues in hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrol Process 9:251–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360090305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang XL, Swail VR, Cox A (2010) Dynamical versus statistical downscaling methods for ocean wave heights. Int J Climatol J R Meteorol Soc 30:317–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vieux BE, Cui Z, Gaur A (2004) Evaluation of a physics-based distributed hydrologic model for flood forecasting. J Hydrol 298:155–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vaze J, Jordan P, Beecham R, Frost A, Summerell G (2012) Guidelines for rainfall-runoff modeling-towards best practice model application. Water Research Cooperation, Bruce, ACT. https://ewater.org.au/uploads/files/eWater-Guidelines-RRM-(v1_0-Interim-Dec-2011).pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2020

  12. Jaiswal RK, Ali S, Bharti B (2020) Comparative evaluation of conceptual and physical rainfall–runoff models. Appl Water Science 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1122-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Suryoputro N, Suhardjono, Soetopo W, Suhartanto E (2017) Calibration of infiltration parameters on hydrological tank model using runoff coefficient of rational method. In: AIP conference proceedings, AIP Publishing 1887:020056. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5003539

  14. Sugawara M (1979) Automatic calibration of the tank model/L'étalonnage automatique d'un modèle à cisterne. Hydrol Sci Bull 24:375–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mizumura K (1995) Runoff prediction by simple tank model using recession curves. J Hydraulic Eng 121:812–818. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1995)121:11(812)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nagasaka A, Nakamura F (1999) The influences of land-use changes on hydrology and riparian environment in a northern Japanese landscape. Landsc Ecol 14:543–556. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008164123102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yue S, Hashino M (2000) Unit hydrographs to model quick and slow runoff components of streamflow. J Hydrol 227:195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00185-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yokoo Y, Kazama S, Sawamoto M, Nishimura H (2001) Regionalization of lumped water balance model parameters based on multiple regression. J Hydrol 246:209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00372-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hong Y, Hiura H, Shino K, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2005) Quantitative assessment on the influence of heavy rainfall on the crystalline schist landslide by monitoring system-case study on Zentoku landslide, Japan. Landslides 2:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-005-0044-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fumikazu N, Toshisuke M, Yoshio H, Hiroshi T, Kimihito N (2013) Evaluation of water resources by snow storage using water balance and tank model method in the Tedori River basin of Japan. Paddy Water Environ 11:113–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-011-0297-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hong N, Hama T, Suenaga Y, Aqili SW, Huang X, Wei Q, Kawagoshi Y (2016) Application of a modified conceptual rainfall–runoff model to simulation of groundwater level in an undefined watershed. Sci Total Environ 541:383–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. May R, Zainol Z, Shukor MFB (2015) Flood frequency analysis due to climate change condition at the Upper Klang River basin. In: ISFRAM 2014. Springer, Singapore, pp 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-365-1_22

  23. Abdulkareem JH, Pradhan B, Sulaiman WNA, Jamil NR (2018) Review of studies on hydrological modelling in Malaysia. Model Earth Syst Environ 4:1577–1605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0509-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Faris F, Fathani F (2013) A coupled hydrology/slope kinematics model for developing early warning criteria in the Kalitlaga Landslide, Banjarnegara, Indonesia. In Progress of geo-disaster mitigation technology in Asia. Springer, Berlin, pp 453–467

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nielsen GL, Widjaya JM (1989) Modeling of ground-water recharge in Southern Bali, Indonesia. Groundwater 27:473–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1989.tb01967.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sadeghi SHR, Jalili K, Nikkami D (2009) Land use optimization in watershed scale. Land Use Policy 26:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chadalawada J, Havlicek V, Babovic V (2017) A genetic programming approach to system identification of rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Manag 31:3975–3992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1719-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen J, Adams BJ (2006) Integration of artificial neural networks with conceptual models in rainfall-runoff modeling. J Hydrol 318:232–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.06.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Al-Abed N, Al-Sharif M (2008) Hydrological modeling of Zarqa River basin–Jordan using the hydrological simulation program–FORTRAN (HSPF) model. Water Resour Manag 22:1203–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-007-9221-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen RS, Pi LC, Hsieh CC (2005) Application of parameter optimization method for calibrating tank model 1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:389–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03743.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cooper VA, Nguyen VTV, Nicell JA (2007) Calibration of conceptual rainfall–runoff models using global optimisation methods with hydrologic process-based parameter constraints. J Hydrol 334:455–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.10.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Amiri BJ, Fohrer N, Cullmann J, Hörmann G, Müller F, Adamowski J (2016) Regionalization of tank model using landscape metrics of catchments. Water Resour Manag 30:5065–5085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1469-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singh S, Srivastava P, Abebe A, Mitra S (2015) Baseflow response to climate variability induced droughts in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin, USA. J Hydrol 528:550–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Case JL, Zavodsky BT (2018) Evolution of 2016 drought in the Southeastern United States from a Land surface modeling perspective. Results Phys 8:654–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2017.12.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. NASA https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/?fbclid=IwAR1gVVK6FgaLg3vlOdmtMhtkEHfByZ1GbaHwPEGj5qu. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

  36. USGS https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ga/nwis/uv/?site_no=02347500&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060,00062. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

  37. Bormann H (2011) Sensitivity analysis of 18 different potential evapotranspiration models to observed climatic change at German climate stations. Clim Change 104:729–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9869-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jakimavičius D, Kriaučiūnienė J, Gailiušis B, Šarauskienė D (2013) Assessment of uncertainty in estimating the evaporation from the Curonian Lagoon. BALTICA 26(2):177–186. https://doi.org/10.5200/baltica.2013.26.18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sugawara M (1967) The flood forecasting by a series storage type model. In: International symposium on floods and their computation, pp 555–560. Publication No. 84. International Association of Scientific Hydrology, UNESCO. https://hydrologie.org/redbooks/a084/084062.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2020

  40. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Cooper VA, Nguyen VT, Nicell JA (1997) Evaluation of global optimization methods for conceptual rainfall-runoff model calibration. Water Sci Technol 36(5):53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00461-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Escurra JJ (2008) Optimal irrigation management for sloping blocked-end borders. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Dissertation. Utah State University. Department: Biological and Irrigation Engineering. 214. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/214

  43. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Qi Z, Kang G, Chu C, Qiu Y, Xu Z, Wang Y (2017) Comparison of SWAT and GWLF model simulation performance in humid south and semi-arid north of China. Water 9:567. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/9/8/567/pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020

  45. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Legates DR, McCabe GJ Jr (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35:233–241. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998WR900018

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the University of Basrah for providing the facilities necessary for this study. Special thanks to Professor Hoshin V. Gupta for providing the DSM program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq

    Khalid Al-Asadi, Abdulhussain A. Abbas & Ahmed N. Hamdan

Authors
  1. Khalid Al-Asadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdulhussain A. Abbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed N. Hamdan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khalid Al-Asadi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Asadi, K., Abbas, A.A. & Hamdan, A.N. Optimization of the Hydrological Tank Model by Downhill Simplex Method. Int J Civ Eng 18, 1433–1450 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-020-00540-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-020-00540-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation