Back
 CWEEE  Vol.7 No.1 , January 2018
The Influence of Rain Gauge Network Density on the Performance of a Hydrological Model
Abstract: Rain gauge data suffers from spatial errors because of precipitation variability within short distances and due to sparse or irregular network. Use of interpolation is often unreliable to evaluate due to the aforementioned irregular sparse networks. This study is carried out in the Nette River catchment of Lower Saxony to alleviate the problem of using gauge data to measure the performance of interpolation. Radar precipitation data was extracted in the positions of 53 rain gauge stations, which are distributed throughout the range of the weather surveillance radar (WSR). Since radar data traditionally suffers from temporal errors, it was corrected using the Mean Field Bias (MFB) method by utilizing the rain gauge data and then further used as the reference precipitation in the study. The performances of Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) and Ordinary Kriging (OK) interpolation methods by means of cross validation were assessed. Evaluation of the effect of the gauge densities on HBV-IWW hydrological model was achieved by comparing the simulated discharges for the two interpolation methods and corresponding densities against the simulated discharge of the reference precipitation data. Interpolation performance in winter was much better than summer for both interpolation methods. Furthermore, Ordinary Kriging performed marginally better than Inverse Distance Weighting in both seasons. In case of areal precipitation, progressive improvement in performance with increase in gauge density for both interpolation methods was observed, but Inverse Distance Weighting was found more consistent up to higher densities. Comparison showed that Ordinary Kriging outperformed Inverse Distance Weighting only up to 70% density, beyond which the performance is equal. The hydrological modelling results are similar to that of areal precipitation except that for both methods, there was no improvement in performance beyond the 50% gauge density.
Cite this paper: Andiego, G. , Waseem, M. , Usman, M. and Mani, N. (2018) The Influence of Rain Gauge Network Density on the Performance of a Hydrological Model. Computational Water, Energy, and Environmental Engineering, 7, 27-50. doi: 10.4236/cweee.2018.71002.
References

[1]   Shope, C.L. and Maharjan, G.R. (2015) Modeling Spatiotemporal Precipitation: Effects of Density, Interpolation, and Land Use Distribution. Advances in Meteorology, 2015, Article ID: 174196.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/174196

[2]   Merayyan, S. and Safi, S. (2014) Feasibility of Groundwater Banking under Various Hydrologic Conditions in California, USA. Computational Water, Energy, and Environmental Engineering, 3, 79.
https://doi.org/10.4236/cweee.2014.33009

[3]   Daghighi, A., Nahvi, A. and Kim, U. (2017) Optimal Cultivation Pattern to Increase Revenue and Reduce Water Use: Application of Linear Programming to Arjan Plain in Fars Province. Agriculture, 7, 73.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7090073

[4]   Xu, H. (2015) Impact of Density and Location of Rain Gauges on Performances of Hydrological Models.

[5]   Xu, H., Xu, C.Y., Saelthun, N.R., Xu, Y., Zhou, B. and Chen, H. (2015) Entropy Theory Based Multi-Criteria Resampling of Rain Gauge Networks for Hydrological Modelling—A Case Study of Humid Area in Southern China. Journal of Hydrology, 525, 138-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.034

[6]   Booker, D.J. and Woods, R.A. (2014) Comparing and Combining Physically-Based and Empirically-Based Approaches for Estimating the Hydrology of Ungauged Catchments. Journal of Hydrology 508, 227-239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.007

[7]   Archfield, S.A., Clark, M., Arheimer, B., Hay, L.E., Farmer, W.H., McMillan, H., Seibert, J., Kiang, J.E., Wagener, T., Bock, A., Hakala, K., Andréassian, V., Attinger, S., Viglione, A., Knight, R.R. and Over, T.M. (2015) Accelerating Advances in Continental Domain Hydrologic Modeling. Water Resources Research 51, 10078-10091.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017498

[8]   Chandrasekar, V. and Cifelli, R. (2012) Concepts and Principles of Rainfall Estimation from Radar: Multi Sensor Environment and Data Fusion. Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics, 41, 389-402.

[9]   Haberlandt, U. (2007) Geostatistical Interpolation of Hourly Precipitation from Rain Gauges and Radar for a Large-Scale Extreme Rainfall Event. Journal of Hydrology, 332, 144-157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.028

[10]   Goudenhoofdt, E. and Delobbe, L. (2009) Evaluation of Radar-Gauge Merging Methods for Quantitative Precipitation Estimates. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 13, 195-203.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-195-2009

[11]   Wagner, P.D., Fiener, P., Wilken, F., Kumar, S. and Schneider, K. (2012) Comparison and Evaluation of Spatial Interpolation Schemes for Daily Rainfall in Data Scarce Regions. Journal of Hydrology, 464, 388-400.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.07.026

[12]   Daghighi, A. (2017) Harmful Algae Bloom Prediction Model for Western Lake Erie using Stepwise Multiple Regression and Genetic Programming.

[13]   Gascon, T., Vischel, T., Lebel, T., Quantin, G., Pellarin, T., Quatela, V., Galle, S., et al. (2015) Influence of Rainfall Space-Time Variability over the Ouémé Basin in Benin. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 368, 102-107.
https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-368-102-2015

[14]   Buytaert, W., Celleri, R., Willems, P., De Bievre, B. and Wyseure, G. (2006) Spatial and Temporal Rainfall Variability in Mountainous Areas: A Case Study from the South Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Hydrology, 329, 413-421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.031

[15]   Goovaerts, P. (2000) Geostatistical Approaches for Incorporating Elevation into the Spatial Interpolation of Rainfall. Journal of Hydrology, 228, 113-129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00144-X

[16]   Otieno, H., Yang, J., Liu, W. and Han, D. (2014) Influence of Rain Gauge Density on Interpolation Method Selection. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 19, Article ID: 04014024.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000964

[17]   Dirks, K.N., Hay, J.E., Stow, C.D. and Harris, D. (1998) High-Resolution Studies of Rainfall on Norfolk Island: Part II: Interpolation of Rainfall Data. Journal of Hydrology, 208, 187-193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00155-3

[18]   Ruelland, D., Ardoin-Bardin, S., Billen, G. and Servat, E. (2008) Sensitivity of a Lumped and Semidistributed Hydrological Model to Several Methods of Rainfall Interpolation on a Large Basin in West Africa. Journal of Hydrology, 361, 96-117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.07.049

[19]   Haberlandt, U. and Kite, G.W. (1998) Estimation of Daily Space-Time Precipitation Series for Macroscale Hydrological Modelling. Hydrological Processes, 12, 1419-1432.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199807)12:9<1419::AID-HYP645>3.0.CO;2-A

[20]   Villarini, G., Mandapaka, P.V., Krajewski, W.F. and Moore, R.J. (2008) Rainfall and Sampling Uncertainties: A Rain Gauge Perspective. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113, 71.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009214

[21]   Berndt, C., Rabiei, E. and Haberlandt, U. (2014) Geostatistical Merging of Rain Gauge and Radar Data for High Temporal Resolutions and Various Station Density Scenarios. Journal of Hydrology, 508, 88-101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.10.028

[22]   Duncan, M.R., Austin, B., Fabry, F. and Austin, G.L. (1993) The Effect of Gauge Sampling Density on the Accuracy of Streamflow Prediction for Rural Catchments. Journal of Hydrology, 142, 445-476.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(93)90023-3

[23]   Krajewski, W.F. and Smith, J.A. (1991) On the Estimation of Climatological Z-R Relationships. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 30, 1436-1445.
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1991)030<1436:OTEOCR>2.0.CO;2

[24]   Ding, J., Haberlandt, U. and Dietrich, J. (2014) Estimation of the Instantaneous Peak Flow from Maximum Daily Flow: A Comparison of Three Methods.

[25]   Wallner, M. and Haberlandt, U. (2015) Non-Stationary Hydrological Model Parameters: A Framework Based on SOM-B. Hydrological Processes, 29, 3145-3161.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10430

[26]   Hannover City Climate Graph.
https://www.google.de/search?q=Hannover+City+Climate+Graph&dcr=0&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=l9Bp2cC_
R8l4fM%253A%252CqNEBlaWbURFczM%252C_&usg=__3K1NdLgJj8fAwCmRYCXm4Bao_
g%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieMLz5YvXAhVDYVAKHRJNCJQQ9QEILDAA#imgrc=l9Bp2cC_R8l4fM


[27]   Sun, R., Yuan, H., Liu, X. and Jiang, X. (2016) Evaluation of the Latest Satellite-Gauge Precipitation Products and Their Hydrologic Applications over the Huaihe River Basin. Journal of Hydrology, 536, 302-319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.02.054

[28]   Vergara, H., Hong, Y., Gourley, J.J., Anagnostou, E.N., Maggioni, V., Stampoulis, D. and Kirstetter, P.E. (2014) Effects of Resolution of Satellite-Based Rainfall Estimates on Hydrologic Modeling Skill at Different Scales. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 15, 593-613.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-0113.1

[29]   Zubieta, R., Getirana, A., Espinoza, J.C. and Lavado, W. (2015) Impacts of Satellite-Based Precipitation Datasets on Rainfall-Runoff Modeling of the Western Amazon Basin of Peru and Ecuador. Journal of Hydrology, 528, 599-612.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.064

[30]   Rabiei, E. and Haberlandt, U. (2015) Applying Bias Correction for Merging Rain Gauge and Radar Data. Journal of Hydrology, 522, 544-557.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.020

[31]   Chumchean, S., Seed, A. and Sharma, A. (2006) Correcting of Real-Time Radar Rainfall Bias using a Kalman Filtering Approach. Journal of Hydrology, 317, 123-137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.013

[32]   Cole, S.J. and Moore, R.J. (2008) Hydrological Modelling using Raingauge- and Radar-Based Estimators of Areal Rainfall. Journal of Hydrology, 358, 159-181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.025

[33]   Krause, P., Boyle, D.P. and Bäse, F. (2005) Comparison of Different Efficiency Criteria for Hydrological Model Assessment. Advances in Geosciences, 5, 89-97.
https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005

 
 
Top