随机降雨的稳健水文评价

IF 5.9 1区 地球科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Thien Nguyen, Bree Bennett, Michael Leonard
{"title":"随机降雨的稳健水文评价","authors":"Thien Nguyen,&nbsp;Bree Bennett,&nbsp;Michael Leonard","doi":"10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As climate conditions evolve, stochastic rainfall models are crucial instruments for assessing hydrological risks, by providing the capability to generate random yet plausible rainfall timeseries. Conventional hydrological risk analysis involves the use of stochastically generated rainfall timeseries as inputs to hydrological models to simulate end-of-system variables that might inform flood-control strategies, water resource management or infrastructure development. To ensure the reliability of these rainfall inputs and subsequent generated streamflow, stochastic rainfall models should be evaluated in terms of their hydrological performance and not merely in terms of rainfall metrics. However, differences within hydrological models could generate different outcomes of a hydrological evaluation despite their similar intent. A hydrological model may either dampen or amplify any potential discrepancies in stochastically generated rainfall when compared to observed rainfall, which poses a challenge for the robustness of interpretation of a hydrological evaluation. Therefore, this paper evaluates the robustness of hydrological assessments by analysing the impact of different hydrological models, catchment characteristics, and evaluation metrics on evaluation outcomes. Stochastically generated timeseries from two rainfall models (a Markov-based model and a latent variable model), as well as observed rainfall timeseries, are inputted to four conceptual rainfall-runoff models (AWBM, IHACRES, GR4J, and Sacramento) to derive daily streamflow timeseries that form the hydrological evaluation. The evaluation is conducted on 25 catchments in Tasmania, Australia. The results show that while the choice of hydrological model has minimal effect on robustness, the evaluation is influenced by variation in catchment features and the selection of evaluation metrics. The results support the use of hydrological models for robustly assessing the performance of stochastically generated rainfall.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":362,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hydrology","volume":"659 ","pages":"Article 133247"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robust hydrological evaluation of stochastic rainfall\",\"authors\":\"Thien Nguyen,&nbsp;Bree Bennett,&nbsp;Michael Leonard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>As climate conditions evolve, stochastic rainfall models are crucial instruments for assessing hydrological risks, by providing the capability to generate random yet plausible rainfall timeseries. Conventional hydrological risk analysis involves the use of stochastically generated rainfall timeseries as inputs to hydrological models to simulate end-of-system variables that might inform flood-control strategies, water resource management or infrastructure development. To ensure the reliability of these rainfall inputs and subsequent generated streamflow, stochastic rainfall models should be evaluated in terms of their hydrological performance and not merely in terms of rainfall metrics. However, differences within hydrological models could generate different outcomes of a hydrological evaluation despite their similar intent. A hydrological model may either dampen or amplify any potential discrepancies in stochastically generated rainfall when compared to observed rainfall, which poses a challenge for the robustness of interpretation of a hydrological evaluation. Therefore, this paper evaluates the robustness of hydrological assessments by analysing the impact of different hydrological models, catchment characteristics, and evaluation metrics on evaluation outcomes. Stochastically generated timeseries from two rainfall models (a Markov-based model and a latent variable model), as well as observed rainfall timeseries, are inputted to four conceptual rainfall-runoff models (AWBM, IHACRES, GR4J, and Sacramento) to derive daily streamflow timeseries that form the hydrological evaluation. The evaluation is conducted on 25 catchments in Tasmania, Australia. The results show that while the choice of hydrological model has minimal effect on robustness, the evaluation is influenced by variation in catchment features and the selection of evaluation metrics. The results support the use of hydrological models for robustly assessing the performance of stochastically generated rainfall.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hydrology\",\"volume\":\"659 \",\"pages\":\"Article 133247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hydrology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169425005852\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hydrology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169425005852","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着气候条件的变化,随机降雨模型能够随机生成可信的降雨时间序列,是评估水文风险的重要工具。传统的水文风险分析包括使用随机生成的降雨时间序列作为水文模型的输入,以模拟系统末端变量,为防洪策略、水资源管理或基础设施开发提供信息。为确保这些降雨输入和随后生成的河水流量的可靠性,应根据随机降雨模型的水文性能,而不仅仅是降雨指标对其进行评估。然而,尽管水文模型的意图相似,但模型内部的差异可能会导致不同的水文评估结果。与观测降雨量相比,水文模型可能会抑制或放大随机生成降雨量的任何潜在差异,这对水文评估解释的稳健性提出了挑战。因此,本文通过分析不同水文模型、流域特征和评估指标对评估结果的影响,对水文评估的稳健性进行了评估。两种降雨模型(基于马尔可夫的模型和潜变量模型)随机生成的时间序列以及观测到的降雨时间序列被输入到四个概念性降雨-径流模型(AWBM、IHACRES、GR4J 和 Sacramento)中,从而得出构成水文评估的日溪流时间序列。评估在澳大利亚塔斯马尼亚州的 25 个流域进行。结果表明,虽然水文模型的选择对稳健性的影响很小,但流域特征的变化和评价指标的选择会对评价产生影响。结果支持使用水文模型对随机生成降雨的性能进行稳健评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Robust hydrological evaluation of stochastic rainfall
As climate conditions evolve, stochastic rainfall models are crucial instruments for assessing hydrological risks, by providing the capability to generate random yet plausible rainfall timeseries. Conventional hydrological risk analysis involves the use of stochastically generated rainfall timeseries as inputs to hydrological models to simulate end-of-system variables that might inform flood-control strategies, water resource management or infrastructure development. To ensure the reliability of these rainfall inputs and subsequent generated streamflow, stochastic rainfall models should be evaluated in terms of their hydrological performance and not merely in terms of rainfall metrics. However, differences within hydrological models could generate different outcomes of a hydrological evaluation despite their similar intent. A hydrological model may either dampen or amplify any potential discrepancies in stochastically generated rainfall when compared to observed rainfall, which poses a challenge for the robustness of interpretation of a hydrological evaluation. Therefore, this paper evaluates the robustness of hydrological assessments by analysing the impact of different hydrological models, catchment characteristics, and evaluation metrics on evaluation outcomes. Stochastically generated timeseries from two rainfall models (a Markov-based model and a latent variable model), as well as observed rainfall timeseries, are inputted to four conceptual rainfall-runoff models (AWBM, IHACRES, GR4J, and Sacramento) to derive daily streamflow timeseries that form the hydrological evaluation. The evaluation is conducted on 25 catchments in Tasmania, Australia. The results show that while the choice of hydrological model has minimal effect on robustness, the evaluation is influenced by variation in catchment features and the selection of evaluation metrics. The results support the use of hydrological models for robustly assessing the performance of stochastically generated rainfall.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Hydrology
Journal of Hydrology 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
1309
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hydrology publishes original research papers and comprehensive reviews in all the subfields of the hydrological sciences including water based management and policy issues that impact on economics and society. These comprise, but are not limited to the physical, chemical, biogeochemical, stochastic and systems aspects of surface and groundwater hydrology, hydrometeorology and hydrogeology. Relevant topics incorporating the insights and methodologies of disciplines such as climatology, water resource systems, hydraulics, agrohydrology, geomorphology, soil science, instrumentation and remote sensing, civil and environmental engineering are included. Social science perspectives on hydrological problems such as resource and ecological economics, environmental sociology, psychology and behavioural science, management and policy analysis are also invited. Multi-and interdisciplinary analyses of hydrological problems are within scope. The science published in the Journal of Hydrology is relevant to catchment scales rather than exclusively to a local scale or site.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信