School of Civil Engineering and GeoSciences

Catchment and River Modelling

CEG 8506 (Hydrosystems Modelling) Coursework

Chinedum C. Eluwa (140538430)

7th January, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report compares the functionality and comparative performance of event-based and
continuous models in the prediction of floods, especially as regards model sources of uncertainty
Merits and demerits are investigated and expounded and model structure is found to be the
highest source of uncertainty in 1-dimensional river models. Continuous based models on the
other hand, are found to be data intensive and are susceptible to parameter uncertainties, and in
cases of sparse data sets, may not function efficiently.
These various merits and demerits, widen risks during non-expert model application and this
report demonstrates the importance of in-depth understanding of model limitations, and the
competent application of such models within these limits.

Contents
1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.

Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1

1.2.

Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1.

Location ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.2.

Weather .......................................................................................................................... 2

1.3.

Data ......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.

Transfer Function Modelling: Generating a 100 - Year Flood Event............................................... 2

3.

NOAH 1-D: Routing a Flood............................................................................................................. 4

4.

3.1.

Model Calibration ................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.

Model Validation..................................................................................................................... 5

3.3.

Model Results ......................................................................................................................... 6

SHETRAN: Simulating Catchment Response to a Flood Event ........................................................ 7

4.1.

Model Calibration ................................................................................................................... 7

4.2.

Calibration Results .................................................................................................................. 7

5.

Results Comparison and Critical Assessment of Methods .............................................................. 9

6.

References .................................................................................................................................... 10

List of Tables
Table 1: Important Physical Catchment Descriptors of the Wansbeck Catchment................................ 2
Table 2: Table of Peak Discharge and Loss Factor .................................................................................. 4
Table 3: Calibration Process (Manning's Coefficient trial values)........................................................... 5
Table 4: Calibration Results (Wansbeck stage at Oldgate Bridge) and Errors ........................................ 5
Table 5: Validation Results from 2nd Alteration of Mannings Coefficient on Validation period .......... 6
Table 6: Nash Sutcliffe and Logarithmic Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency Values .............................................. 8

List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Morpeth, (Source: Google Maps) ................................................................................ 1
Figure 2: Storm Profile for 1% AEP for Wansbeck Catchment ................................................................ 3
Figure 3: Transfer Function Model for Wansbeck Catchment ................................................................ 3
Figure 4: Various Flood Hydrographs on the 1% AEP rainfall event ....................................................... 4
Figure 5: Sensitivity plot of Discharge to Loss Factor ............................................................................. 4
Figure 6: Sensitivity plot of low and high river level simulations ........................................................... 6
Figure 7: Cross Section at selected portion of Wansbeck River. ..... 6
Figure 8: Response Surface of Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency value ............................................................... 8
Figure 9: Time series of modelled and observed flow at Mitford .......................................................... 8

1. Introduction
Relevant information is necessary to support decision making at all levels. Therefore, hydrologic
models, through predictions and estimations, are designed to provide valuable spatial and temporal
information on catchment or regional scale responses to specific hydrologic events. Hydrologic models
are built to extrapolate measurements from available data (Pechlivanidis, et al., 2011) and also
incorporate the impact of future alterations within the hydrologic cycle at various levels. Due to their
important role in disaster mitigation, flood models must represent (as accurately as possible) expected
discharges and consequent water levels.

1.1. Aims and Objectives

This paper is aimed at understanding and critically examining the various means to successfully
calibrate hydrologic models and realize best estimates of desired simulations. To achieve this, data
from a recent hydrologic and hydraulic event which occurred in Morpeth (a city in the Wansbeck
catchment) would be estimated by calibrating two different hydrologic models A 1-dimensional river
flow model (Noah-1D) and, a physically based distributed catchment model (SHETRAN).
Both models would be calibrated using data from the 2012 flood event which occurred in Morpeth.
However, only the 1-D model would be used to forecast responses to an artificial flood event. This
artificial flood event would be generated using a transfer function model.

1.2. Study Area

1.2.1. Location
Morpeth (55.1630 N, 1.6780 W) is a market town which lies 13 miles north of Newcastle upon Tyne,
a similar distance to the south of Alnwick and 12 miles from the North Sea, extending over both north
and south banks of the River Wansbeck where it takes a broad southward loop (Northumberland
County Council; English Heritage, 2009). The river Wansbeck is a major river which flows through
Morpeth. It begins at the Sweethope Loughs lakes in the southern part of Northumberland, about
18 miles (29 km) west of Morpeth (Wikipedia, 2013). It is joined by Swilder Burn, Hart Burn and the
Font before reaching Morpeth and flowing to the coast south of Newbiggin-by-the-sea (Environment
Agency, 2009).

Mitford

Wansbeck River

Morpeth

North

Oldgate Bridge (River level gauge)

River flow gauging station

Map Scale 0m

200m

Figure 1: Map of Morpeth, showing the River Wansbeck and important data source points (Source: Google Maps)

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

1.2.2. Weather
The general climate in Morpeth is typical of usual maritime climate in the United Kingdom with no
defined dry season and precipitation quite evenly dispersed throughout the year. However, its
location in the North Eastern part of England leaves it prone to east or NE winds on the northern flank
of depressions passing to the south of the area (Met Office, 2013). Such frontal interactions (like the
occluded fronts) in the September months of 2008 and 2012 caused periods of intense and extended
rainfall duration. Catchment features responded to these events and riparian areas of the Wansbeck
in Morpeth were inundated.

1.3. Data
In this study, observed hydrological, geological, geographical, hydraulic and meteorological data from
various sources (including Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Environment Agency; Met Office;
Newcastle University Water Resources Group) was used. Simulated data from deterministic and
stochastic models was also used. The observed data was primarily from records taken during years
2008 and 2012 for the Morpeth town and Wansbeck River. Observed hydrological and hydraulic data
came from flow station at Mitford, and stage gauge at Oldgate Bridge, both logged in 15-minute time
series. Observed meteorological data included rainfall data (from 3 stations: Wallington, Harwood and
Font Res at 15-minute resolutions), temperature data (aggregated into two hourly resolved sets of
maximum and minimum), and potential evaporation data (aggregated into one dataset of hourly
resolutions). Other observed data such as cross sections of the Wansbeck River, vegetation, aquifer
characteristics, surface elevation, and soil cover were from GIS and geological surveys of the
catchment. The data used to generate a transfer function for the Wansbeck catchment came from the
Centre for Ecology and Hydrologys Flood Estimation Handbook. The transfer function model then
simulated hourly flood time series flow data which was routed through the 1-D model.

2. Transfer Function Modelling: Generating a 100 - Year Flood Event

The objectives of this task are to design a rainfall event of 1% exceedance probability and generate
the runoff hydrograph resulting from this storm. The transfer function model (unit hydrograph) to be
used is based on the simple triangular version in the Centre for Ecology and Hydrologys Flood
Estimation Handbook. This simple triangular method used to generate the Unit Hydrograph is defined
by three parameters Time to Peak (Tp), Base time (TB) and Peak Discharge (Up), to be estimated for
the particular catchment under consideration. These parameters were estimated using standard
formulae and physical catchment descriptors from the Flood Estimation Handbook. Of these three
parameters, the most important parameter is the catchment time to peak. This is because, the other
parameters are based on various manipulations of the time to peak.
Table 1: Important Physical Catchment Descriptors of the Wansbeck Catchment
River
Wansbeck
AREA

286.88

Area of catchments (square kilometres)

PROPWET

0.45

Proportion of Time with Soil Moisture above field capacity

DPLBAR

21.85

Average drainage path length (kilometres)

DPSBAR

50.8

Average drainage path slope (metre per kilometre)

SAAR

793

Standard Annual Average Rainfall (1961-1990) (millimetres)

BFIHOST

0.347

Base Flow Index derived from Hydrology of Soil Types

URBEXT1990

0.002

Extent of urban and suburban land cover (year 1990)

Important catchment descriptors which help determine the catchment time to peak, using the
formulae below, are given in Table 1.
2

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

() = 1.56 1.09 0.60 (1 + 1990 )3.34 0.28 ;

=

0.65 ()
3.6 ( )

; = 2.52

The unit hydrograph is based on the rainfall-runoff relationship and therefore its convolution requires
a design storm as input. In order to ensure that the entire catchment is contributing to runoff, the
storm duration is calculated using the formula below.
= (1 +

)
1000

Precipitation (Storm) Depth

(mm)

Using this storm duration, a combination

14
of Areal Reduction Factors, Seasonal
12
Correction Factors and Depth-Duration10
Frequency curves (Kjeldsen, 2007), the
total rainfall with a 100-year return period
8
was estimated. This rainfall depth was
6
then transformed to a dimensionless curve
4
(storm profile) also known as mass curve,
with cumulative fraction of time (storm
2
duration) and total precipitation on the
0
horizontal and vertical axes, respectively
0
5
10
15
(Ellouze, et al., 2009). For the Wansbeck
Time (hours)
catchment, the storm duration was 15 Figure 2: Storm Profile for 1% AEP for Wansbeck Catchment
hours. This yielded a storm profile shown
in Figure 2.

Discharge per unit effective

rainfall (m3/s/mm)

Usually, the peak discharge from the 100

7
year hyetograph may be assumed to be
6
the 100 year flood (Viglione & Bloschl,
5
2009). However, there is great uncertainty
associated with this assumption because
4
of the difficulty in correctly assessing the
3
current soil moisture conditions at the
2
onset and during the design storm. To
1
incorporate soil moisture conditions, a loss
factor is applied to the storm profile
0
before it is combined with the unit
0
5
10
15
20
hydrograph. Kjeldsen (2007) describes a
Time (hours)
method of properly estimating and Figure 3: Transfer Function Model for Wansbeck Catchment
applying this loss factor to derive effective
rainfall based partly on the likelihood that the catchment soil moisture would be above or below field
capacity (PROPWET) at the onset of a rainfall event and infiltration capacity during the event;
however, this is beyond the scope of this section.
For the given catchment characteristics, the time to peak for the Wansbeck catchment was calculated
to be 8 hours. The peak discharge was calculated to be 6.52 m3/s/mm-of-effective-rain; base time was
calculated to be 19 hours. These parameters defined the transfer function model and produced the
profile in Figure 3.

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

Discharge (m3/s)

The combination of the design 100-year

300
Loss Factor = 0.7
storm, unit hydrograph convolutions,
Loss Factor = 0.3
250
baseflow
and
other
catchment
Loss Factor = 0.5
characteristics, such as the antecedent soil
Loss Factor = 0.58
200
moisture conditions, produced the
required flood hydrograph. The variability
150
of effective rainfall due to soil moisture
conditions represented by various loss
100
factors gave a range of peak discharges,
50
shown in Figure 4 which all correspond to
the 1% AEP rainfall event. This range
0
introduces high uncertainty and makes it
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
difficult to determine the 100-year flood
Time (Hours)
based on the 100-year storm alone.
Figure 4: Various Flood Hydrographs corresponding various loss
Loss
Factor

Change
in Loss
Factor

Peak
Discharge
(m3/s)

Change in
Peak
Discharge

0.3

107.3

0.4

0.1

141

33.7

0.5

0.2

176

68.7

0.6

0.3

210

102.7

0.7

0.4

244

136.7

0.8

0.5

278

170.7

0.9

0.6

312

204.7

0.7

346

238.7

factors on the 1% AEP rainfall event

300

Change of Discharge relative to a

loss factor of 0.3

Table 2: Table of Peak Discharge and Loss Factor

y = 341.18x + 0.075
250
200
150

Peak Discharge
Variation
Linear (Peak
Discharge
Variation)

100
50

The range of possible peak discharges

0
from application of loss factors from 0.3 to
3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
1 is 238.7 (m /s), as can be seen from
Change of Loss Factor relative to 0.3
Figure 4. This is a highly significant value
Figure
5:
Sensitivity
plot
of Discharge to Loss Factor
that reflects the level of uncertainty
involved in selecting a 100 year design flood based on rainfall.

0.8

It is also evident from Figure 5 that the value of peak discharge is highly sensitive to changes in the
loss factor with a regression slope of 341. This means that a change in loss factor of 0.1 accounts for
a change in discharge by about 34 (m3/s). This sensitivity represents the magnitude of the likely error
made in discharge estimation if the wrong loss factor is used.

3. NOAH 1-D: Routing a Flood

In the event of a storm, generated runoff from all areas of the catchment would travel towards the
main drainage channel. If the generated flood supersedes the volumetric capacity (design discharge)
of the channel, one of two things occur depending on whether the channel is open or closed. In an
open channel, water levels rise above channel edges (banks) and surrounding areas are inundated.
Otherwise, excess storm water backs up through closed channels (pipes) and out into drains. This risk
of fluvial or pluvial flooding depends on the intensity of the storm generating runoff. Fluvial flooding
is the focus of this paper.
The previous chapter generated a storm over the Wansbeck catchment and consequent hydrograph.
This chapter will present the modelled response of the Wansbeck River to the design flood. The
4

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

accuracy of the modelled response is dependent on the ability of the model to reflect actual behaviour
of the river and channel. Model parameters were altered until a suitable fit was found.

3.1. Model Calibration

The model used in this section was the NOAH 1-D river routing model. Being a 1-D hydraulic model, it
assumes flow as predominantly one dimensional (in the stream-wise direction) and follows the St.
Venant equations. In the model, estimation of Mannings roughness coefficient is very important to
the simulation of open channel flows because the coefficient includes the components of surface
friction resistance, form resistance, wave resistance and resistance due to flow unsteadiness (Ding &
Wang, 2004). Because the 1-D model aggregates flow velocity over the cross-sectional area, there is
the underlying assumption that stream flow is normal to the cross section. This means that the
geometry of individual cross sectional areas are quite important to the model.
After model configuration using data from GIS surveys of cross sectional area, initial conditions were
included. Initial conditions require constant inflow over the inflow cross section, this is due to the
model representation of the St Venant momentum equation (University of Technology Hamburg,
2010). This means that the model starts up with an empty channel and constantly fills until it matches
the set initial conditions at the particular time step. An eleven-day period in the 2012 flow time series
(20/09/2012 30/09/2012) was selected, to calibrate the model. The flow hydrograph of this period
was used as initial conditions of the model. The model calibration took place through a repeated
procedure of trial and error involving visual comparisons between field measurements and
simulations of water level (at Oldgate Bridge) whilst changing the roughness coefficient (Table 3). Few
number of trials are due to familiarity with the study area through online maps and tutorials on the
model.
Table 3: Calibration Process (Manning's Coefficient trial values)
Mannings Coefficient
Special Features
Calibration Steps
River Bed Riparian Areas
(Weirs, stepping stones etc.)
Model (as configured)
0.03
0.03
0.03
1st Alteration
0.03
0.05
0.05
2nd Alteration
0.03
0.05
0.015
Table 4: Calibration Results (Wansbeck stage at Oldgate Bridge) and Errors

Average of
High Flows
Peak Flow
Average of Low
Flows
Lowest
Recorded Flow

Observed
River Stage

Model (as
configured)

Error
(%)

1st
Alteration

Error
(%)

2nd
Alteration

Error
(%)

25.72

25.35

-1.45%

25.27

-1.74%

25.34

-1.49%

27.12

26.65

-1.75%

26.54

-2.15%

26.64

-1.76%

24.47

24.08

-1.60%

24.10

-1.50%

24.11

-1.47%

24.33

24.04

-1.21%

24.07

-1.08%

24.08

-1.04%

The adopted calibration (2nd Alteration) was the trial which resulted in the least combined error (Table
4) averaged over high and low flows.

3.2. Model Validation

When the proper Manning coefficients resulting in satisfactory error margins (considered acceptable
due to other model constraints) were established, the model was validated using a different period
(also of high and low flows) of the same 2012 flow dataset (28/06/2012 07/07/2012). Similar results
were observed for the validation period (Table 5). This verified the acceptability of the model to be
used for design purposes.
5

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

Table 5: Validation Results from 2nd Alteration of Mannings Coefficient on Validation period
Observed River Stage 2nd Alteration Error (%)
25.34

24.98

-1.44%

Peak Flow

25.80

25.48

-1.24%

Average of Low Flows

24.46

24.11

-1.43%

Lowest Flow

24.37

24.08

-1.17%

3.3. Model Results

Difference between observed

and simulated levels (m)

Average of High Flows

0.50

The hydrograph generated from the 100-year

0.45
storm event (with antecedent conditions of
0.7) was then set up as model initial conditions,
0.40
and routed through the calibrated river
0.35
channel. Model watches were set up at the
High Flows
Oldgate Bridge to log the time at exceedance
0.30
Low Flows
of average low flow levels and maximum levels.
0.25
Map views and photographs of sections of the
0
0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125
river (from Google Maps) corresponding to
Change in Manning's Coefficient (relative to
survey chainages (as shown in Figure 7) were
default value 0.3)
used to determine river banks for the model Figure 6: Sensitivity plot of low and high river level simulations
against changes in Manning's coefficient during calibration
watch.
The design flood from the 100-year storm caused an overflow in the river banks after about 5 hours,
53 minutes. The maximum flood level recorded at Oldgate Bridge (26.67m about 2.29m above
average low flows) occurred 15 hours 23 minutes into the event. This peak flood with river levels
increased 2.29 metres above average low flow was less than the recorded levels from the peak flood
in 2012 as observed from dataset (2.65m above low flows). This may be used to roughly validate the
assumed approximation for catchment antecedent conditions, because the inundation from the 100

Figure 7: Cross Section at selected portion of Wansbeck River. Reach 5 WANS05_1147

Top: Google Map image of the section immediately downstream of Road bridge A192; red line showing
approximated riparian inundation line during design flood event (loss factor 0.7).
Bottom: NOAH 1-D Model section diagram of same section with water levels (blue line) at low flow; purple line
showing maximum water levels during design flood event.

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

year event supersedes that caused by 2012 flood event (estimated as a 1 in 16 year event) (Carlyon,
et al., 2013).
Sensitivity tests of the model show (Figure 6) steeper curve gradients on visual inspection for the high
flows. This means that the model sensitivity to the Mannings roughness coefficient varies for low and
high flows. This discrepancy shows that the prediction of the low flows may depend on some other
parameter which either is not included in the model, or is not adequately represented or
compensated. This highlights one area of uncertainty in the model as well as a general limitation of
the application of 1-D models on complex flows. Both of these would will be covered more in chapter
5.

4. SHETRAN: Simulating Catchment Response to a Flood Event

In the previous chapter, a specific event was generated and used to predict river levels during the
event. Most of the uncertainty of that method arose from the initial soil moisture due to antecedent
conditions at the start time of the model. Continuous catchment simulation seeks to minimize this
uncertainty by initializing an entire time series and constantly updating antecedent conditions during
simulation.
This chapter will focus on calibrating a physically based distributed model for continuous simulation
of the catchment in focus. The model used here is the SHETRAN model, set up on a 1km square grid
for use with the yearlong 2012 flow data series from the Mitford gauge. For this calibration only one
aspect of the catchment response (discharge within the major drainage channel at the Mitford flow
gauge) would be optimized. Usually, in physically distributed models, the number of parameters
contained in the model and potentially subjected to calibration is huge and increases with model
complexity. According to the principle of parsimony (Hill, 1998), the calibration problem is better
posed if its dimensionality is reduced whilst retaining satisfactory results (Blasone, et al., 2007).

4.1. Model Calibration

Prior to calibration the current model was set up with initial conditions to simplify computations. Two
parameters (hydraulic conductivity and Stricklers surface roughness coefficient) were identified as
particularly influential on model simulations. These were singled out for the calibration process. Other
parameters in the model are soil type, soil depth, and residual and saturated water content values.
Data required by the model was mainly from GIS survey of elevations, land cover, rainfall over the
catchment, potential evaporation and temperature. A systematic method of alteration of parameter
values was adopted. The realistic ranges of parameter values were first established and combined in
the model to determine the practical extremities of responses. After these extreme value sets, other
combinations were taken. For saturated hydraulic conductivity (K), the values for sandstone, which
make up majority of the subsurface formation in the catchment were used. In the case of surface
roughness, the entire range of Stricklers roughness coefficient (C) was used.
Model calibration was assessed using the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency value because it is sensitive to
timing errors, is suitable for continuous simulation modelling and it can be easily transformed (by the
logarithmic functions) to give more emphasis to low flows. Also other objective functions a multiobjective calibration was used to assess the optimum parameter sets for better understanding.

4.2. Calibration Results

In this exercise, the highest Nash-Sutcliffe value attained was 0.75. This showed generally satisfactory
calibration, at least at an operational level (Zhang & Savenije, 2005). This highest efficiency occurred
for only one of the parameter sets (K = 0.000026 (wet soil); C = 20 (slow flow)) from the selected range
7

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

(Table 6). This case of single-valued finality rarely occurs in reality and may have happened due to
the coarse resolution of manually selected and modelled conductivity values. Certain parameter sets
produced poor Nash-Sutcliffe values but better values for logarithmic Nash Sutcliffe values, showing
overland flow sensitivity to aquifer conditions.
Table 6: Nash Sutcliffe and Logarithmic Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency Values

Strickler's Roughness Coefficient (C)

20

40

Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity (K) m/day

NSE

Ln (NSE)

NSE

0.52

0.07

0.473

0.26

0.02

0.35

50

Ln (NSE)

NSE

0.08

0.48

0.02

0.354

60

Ln (NSE)

NSE

0.08

0.48

0.03

0.353

80

Ln (NSE)

NSE

Ln (NSE)

0.08

0.48

0.08

0.473

0.03

0.353

0.03

0.35

0.026

-0.03

-0.055

-0.03

-0.066

-0.03

-0.066

-0.02

-0.067

-0.03

-0.059

0.0026

0.01

-0.05

0.01

-0.049

0.01

-0.050

0.01

-0.051

0.01

-0.05

0.00026

0.60

0.299

0.63

0.339

0.62

0.335

0.62

0.332

0.60

0.299

0.000026

0.75

0.598

0.73

0.588

0.68

0.573

0.69

0.57

0.68

0.559

NASH-SUTCLIFFE EFFICIENCY VALUE

Mass balance (Inflow-Outflow-Storage) for the highest model efficiency was calculated to be 349mm.
This difference from zero may be responsible for antecedent moisture conditions in the catchment
quite sensible for a wet soil of depth 20.4 metres (from model input file) and model accuracy with low
flows. These little verification details available in the model demonstrate one of the merits of
continuous catchment models. It would be
worthwhile to investigate the reaction of
the model to deeper soils and to verify
storage changes.
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10

Multi-criteria calibration was used to

generate a response surface (Figure 8) for
80
the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency value. This
surface (within the uncertainty due to
50
resolution of selected values) shows that
(C)20Stricklers Roughness
the model simulates peak catchment
K (m/day)
contribution to river flows better at low
values of hydraulic conductivity. The model
-0.10-0.00
0.00-0.10
0.10-0.20
0.20-0.30
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.50
0.50-0.60
0.60-0.70
0.70-0.80
predictive efficiency is relatively less
sensitive to Stricklers surface roughness Figure 8: Response Surface of Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency value to
calibration parameters (Hydraulic Conductivity and Surface
coefficient. This can be seen in the steeper roughness)
180
160

Observed Data
Modelled Data (N&SE = 0.75)

Discharge (m3/s)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
291
301
311
321
331
341
351
361

Time (days)
Figure 9: Time series of modelled and observed flow at Mitford

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

gradient along the hydraulic conductivity axis on the response surface plot.

5. Results Analysis and Critical Assessment of Methods

In the generation of storm profiles, errors accumulated from frequency statistics of extreme rainfall
contained in rainfall depth-duration-frequency curves (Overeem, et al., 2008). The effects of these
errors on model are however reduced on appropriate application to the specific catchment. Because
this sort of modelling is based on a particular event, not an entire time series, its greatest uncertainty
is due to initial conditions. The loss factor applied in this method was a simplistic aggregation which
tried to account for antecedent soil moisture conditions. It would be worth investigating the
differences when hydrograph results are compared to the more robust initial conditions method as
stated in the revitalized flood handbook (Kjeldsen, 2007). Another drawback of this method is that it
transfers its uncertainty to any other model which depends on its output.
Predicting flood levels from NOAH 1-D was associated with uncertainty from input hydrograph, model
structure and parameters. The model was configured using physical survey data which may also
contain errors. More importantly, the model was limited in the simulation of certain natural hydraulic
scenarios as are typical of the constantly meandering reaches used in this study. Curved reaches were
assumed straight, therefore water levels over riparian regions enclosed within meanders are not as
realistic as expected. The model was also unable to accurately simulate hydraulic behaviour around
and above obstacles (such as weirs) during low flows (which do not drown such obstacles), especially
when these obstacles are not exactly perpendicular to the flow, thus reducing the reliability of
predictions at low flows. Also, without physical site inspection, or additional data, modellers cannot
define where river banks begin from surveyed data alone. This creates uncertainties in the
reconstruction of flood level progress in time and in the application of results. Also, it is quite difficult
(without adequate knowledge of the varied features and surfaces within and around the river banks)
to apply correct parameter values for Mannings coefficient. These limitations impose uncertainties
(especially underestimations) in the model prediction of flood water levels. Nevertheless, the model
performance, with a few corrections for the systematic errors and proper understanding of its
limitations, was simple enough and sufficient to understand catchment behaviour during high flood
conditions. Results were sufficient for the level of detail and uncertainty involved. For low flows, other
higher level models are more appropriate.
As a distributed model, the large data requirements of SHETRAN expose it to wide uncertainty margins
through error propagation. A major advantage of the physically distributed model is the continuous
simulation which constantly updates initial conditions to current model status. The most uncertainty
was associated with the choice of parameters to collectively and concurrently enhance optimization.
The problem of equifinalty did not occur in this study probably because the model was significantly
simplified and only a few combinations were tried. The model assumed parameter calibration values
for the entire catchment. This is not exactly so in reality, as such values vary spatially. Another
drawback was that the continuous model required about six months of data (half the dataset) to
stabilize during the spin up period after initialization. For this sort of data intensity, a split sample
calibration would yield abysmal results. It would be worth investigating methods and algorithms to
incorporate spatial variation in parameterization (to more realistically represent catchment variables)
and also to reduce spin up periods in models for application to sites with short data series. This lack
of data also affected the Nash-Sutchliffe Efficiency as it was calculated using the entire hydrograph
series including spin up times. The model timings were appropriate, but observed discharges were
underestimated, by about 22% (linear regression ( ) = . ( ) + . ; R2 = 0.83)
even at a Nash-Sutcliffe Value of 0.75 and index of agreement (as defined by Krause, et al. (2005)) of
0.95.
9

140538430

Hydrosystems Modelling

CEG 8506

In conclusion, both models, performed satisfactorily within their limitations. However, the continuous
catchment simulation model performed better during low flows. Large data requirements are the
major drawback of physically distributed models, however, their ability to simulate entire catchment
responses over long periods complements the simplicity of river routing models. After ensuring data
quality, reducing uncertainty in model predictions depends finally on the competence of the modeller
and familiarity with the limitations of the modelling tools.

6. References
Blasone, R. S., Madsen, H. & Rosbjerg, D., 2007. Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological modelling:
comparison of global and local optimisation techniques. Nordic Hydrology, 38(4), pp. 451-476.
Carlyon, H., Hitching, J. & McNeill, A., 2013. Flood Investigation Report: Investigation of the summer 2012 Floods,
Morpeth: Northumberland County Council.
Ding, Y. & Wang, S. S., 2004. Identification of Mannings Roughness Coefficients in Channel Network Using Adjoint
Analysis. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 00(0), pp. 1-11.
Ellouze, M., Abida, H. & Safi, R., 2009. A triangular model for the generation of synthetic hyetographs. Hydrological
Sciences Journal, 2(54), pp. 287-299.
Environment Agency, 2009. Wansbeck and Blyth Catchment Flood Management Plan, Leeds: Environment Agency.
Hill, M. C., 1998. METHODS AND GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE MODEL CALIBRATION, Denver: U.S. Geological Survey .
Kjeldsen, T. R., 2007. Flood Estimation Handbook: Supplementary Report No. 1 (The revitalised FSR/FEH rainfall-runoff
method), Wallingford: Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
Krause, P., Boyle, D. P. & Base, F., 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment.
Advances in Geosciences, pp. 89-97.
Met Office, 2013. North East England: climate. [Online]
Available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/regional-climates/ne
[Accessed 29 December 2014].
Northumberland County Council; English Heritage, 2009. Morpeth: Northumberland Extensive Urban Survey, Morpeth:
Northumberland City Council.
Overeem, A., Buishand, A. & Holleman, I., 2008. Rainfall depth-duration-frequency curves and their uncertainties.
Journal of Hydrology, Volume 348, pp. 124-134.
Pechlivanidis, I., Jackson, B., McIntyre, N. & Wheather, H., 2011. CATCHMENT SCALE HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING: A
REVIEW OF MODEL TYPES, CALIBRATION APPROACHES AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS METHODS IN THE CONTEXT OF
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS. Global NEST Journal, 13(3), pp. 193-214.
University of Technology Hamburg, 2010. 1D Hydrodynamic Models. [Online]
Available at: http://daad.wb.tu-harburg.de/tutorial/flood-probability-assessment/hydrodynamics-of-floods/1dhydrodynamic-models/theory/fundamentals-of-mathematical-river-flow-modelling-1d-water-levelcalculation/derivation-of-the-basic-equation/
[Accessed 31 December 2014].
Viglione, A. & Bloschl, G., 2009. On the role of storm duration in the mapping of rainfall to flood return periods.
Hydrology and Earth System Science, Issue 13, pp. 205-216.
Warmink, J. J., Klis, H. V. d., Booij, M. J. & Hulscher, S. J. M. H., 2011. Identification and Quantification of Uncertainties
in a Hydrodynamic River Model Using Expert Opinions. Journal of Water Resource Management, Volume 25, pp. 601622.
Wikipedia, 2013. Sweethope Loughs. [Online]
Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweethope_Loughs
[Accessed 29 December 2014].

Zhang, G. P. & Savenije, H. H. G., 2005. Rainfall-runoff modelling in a catchment with a complex groundwater flow
system: application of the Representative Elementary Watershed (REW) approach. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences Discussions, pp. 345-359.

10