簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 杜晶安
Anh, Do Thi Kim
論文名稱： 資料有限條件下HEC-HMS模式率定之研究：以越南秋盆河農山站上游集水區為例
Calibrating HEC-HMS model for a catchment with limited data: Case study for Nong Son watershed, Thu Bon River, Vietnam
指導教授： 游保杉
Yu, Pao-Shan
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 工學院 - 水利及海洋工程學系
Department of Hydraulic & Ocean Engineering
論文出版年： 2012
畢業學年度： 100
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 128
外文關鍵詞： HEC-HMS, sensitivity analysis, calibration, validation
相關次數： 點閱：119  下載：3 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • The Vu Gia-Thu Bon river basin located in Central Vietnam often affects by large floods and inundations causing damage to people and infrastructure. Flood protection and mitigation in this region have led to increase interest in flood simulation and warning. These tasks become more challenging when facing with limit data about basin characteristics and poorly gauging stations. To address this problem, a distributed hydrological model HEC-HMS was used to simulate floods, a case study in Nong Son basin, a region at upstream of Thu Bon river. In this study, we developed a calibrating procedure of HEC-HMS with two major steps involved in assessing the accuracy of model outputs in order to reduce parameter’s uncertainty and improve model performance. The first step is setting up of the model with aim to identify number of subbasin, loss model and transform model, and identify sensitive model parameters. After finishing the first step we apply HEC-HMS model for simulating floods for Nong Son watershed via further calibration and validation process.
    The results of the setting up of the model indicated that the five-subbasin configuration along with initial loss rate constant and Snyder’s unit hydrograph are loss model and transform model used for Nong Son watershed. Additionally, four important parameters (Snyder lag time, Snyder peaking flow coefficient, loss rate constant and ratio to peak) are the most sensitive model parameters used for further calibration.
    The simulations were performed with ten storm events for calibration and four storm events for validation. Goodness-of-fit of results was evaluated with efficiency indexes for calibrated and validated models of 0.96 and 0.93 average, respectively. The average peak discharge error in the validation process before and after using sensitive parameters in the calibration process is 4.99% and 4.46%, respectively. The simulated process can be seemed satisfied in case limited data as Nong Son watershed.

    Abstract I Acknowledgements II Table of Contents III List of Tables V List of Figures IX Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Problem statements 4 1.3 Objectives of thesis 4 1.4 Thesis overviews 5 Chapter 2 Literature Review 8 2.1 Hydrological modeling 8 2.2 Review of HEC-HMS hydrological model applications 10 2.3 Improvement of HEC-HMS model 14 2.4 Previous studies in the area 18 2.4.1 Rainfall-runoff models used for flood simulation in Vietnam 18 2.4.2 Studies flood simulation and flood forecasting in Nong Son watershed 20 Chapter 3 HEC-HMS Modeling 22 3.1 HEC-HMS modeling 22 3.2 Hydrological modeling 23 3.2.1 Basin model 23 3.2.2 Meteorological model 28 3.2.3 Model parameter calibration and validation 29 3.2.4 Calibration and validation performance 31 Chapter 4 Study Area and Application HEC-HMS for Nong Son Watershed 32 4.1 Description of study area 32 4.1.1 Location and topography 32 4.1.2 Hydro-meteorological features 33 4.2 Data collection 35 4.2.1 Basin characteristics 35 4.2.2 Rainfall and runoff data 36 4.3 Procedure application of HEC-HMS model for NongSon watershed 37 4.3.1 Setting up of the model 38 4.3.2 Application HEC-HMS model for flood simulation in Nong Son watershed 42 Chapter 5 Analyis and Results 44 5.1 Identification the number of subbasin 44 5.2 Identification combinations of loss models and transform models 53 5.3 Identification the sensitive model parameters 57 5.3.1 Parameters affect on peak discharge 58 5.3.2 Parameters affect on runoff volume 60 5.3.3 Parameters affect on time to peak discharge 61 5.4 Calibration results 63 5.5 Validation results 73 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 79 6.1 Conclusions 79 6.2 Recommendations 83 References 85 Appendices 90 Appendix A Model cofiguration analysis 90 Appendix B Combination Loss model and Transform model 119

    1. Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2004. National report on disaster reduction in Vietnam. The World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Kobe-Hyogo, Japan, 18-22 January 2005.
    2. Huynh, L.B., Thi, N.V., Long, B.D. and Mai, D.T., 1999. Flood Disaster Study. Disaster Management Unit, UNDP Project VIE/97/002, Hanoi, Vietnam, 302pp.
    3. Mai, D.T., 2009. Development of Flood Prediction Models for the Huong and Vu Gia-Thu Bon river basins in Central Vietnam. Dissertation of Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.
    4. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 2008. Hydrologic Engineering Corps Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) Version 3.4. http://www.hec.usace.army.mil, accessed on August, 2009.
    5. Pistocchi, A., and Mazzoli, P., 2002. Use of HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS with ArcView for Hydrologic Risk Management. Proceedings of the International Environmental Modeling Software Society, iEMSs, Manno, Switzerland.
    6. Markar, M.S., Clark, S.Q., Yaowu, M., and Jing, Z., 2004. Evaluation of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Models for Real-Time Flood Forecasting Use in the Yangtze River Catchment, 8th National Conference on Hydraulics in Water Engineering, The Institution of Engineers, Gold Coast, Australia, July 13-16, 2004.
    7. Neary, V.S., Habid, E., and Fleming, M., 2004. Hydrologic Modeling with NEXRAS Precipitation in Middle Tennessee. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 9(5), 339-349.
    8. Knebl, M.R., Yang, Z.L., Hutchison, K., and Maidment, D.R., 2005. Regional Scale Flood Modeling Using NEXRAS Rainfall, GIS, and HEC-HMS/RAS: A Case Study for the San Antonio River Basin Summer 2002 Storm Event. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(4), 325-336.
    9. Haan, C.T., Johnson, H.P., and Brajensiedk, D.L., 1982. Hydrologic modeling of small watersheds. ASAE Monograph No.5. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Michigan, 533pp.
    10. Porter, J.W., and McMahon, T.A., 1971. A model for the simulation of streamflow data from climatic records. Journal of Hydrology, 13, 297-324.
    11. Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W., 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 570pp.
    12. Singh, V.P., 1988. Hydrologic Systems, Volume 1: Rainfall-runoff modeling Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 480pp.
    13. Beven, K., 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology- The case of physically-based models. Journal of Hydrology, 105 (1-2), 157-172.
    14. Yusop, Z., Chan, C.H., and Katimon, A., 2007. Runoff characteristics and application of HEC-HMS for modeling stormflow hydrograph in oil palm catchment. Water Science & Technology, 56(8), 41-48.
    15. Kristina, C., and Terri, S.H., 2008. Modeling posfire response and recovery using the hydrologic engineering center hydrologic modeling system (HEC-HMS). Journal of the American Water Resource Association, 45(3), 702-714.
    16. Fleming, M., and Neary, V., 2004. Continuous Hydrologic Modeling Study with the Hydrologic Modeling System. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 9(3), 175-183.
    17. Zorkeflee, A.H., Nuramidah, H., and Mohd, S.Y., 2009. Integrated river basin management (IRBM): Hydrologic modeling HEC-HMS for Sungai Kurau basin, Perak. Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Resource (ICWR’09), River Basin Management Society, pp 1-7.
    18. Razi, M.A.M., Ariffin, J., Tahir, W., and Arish, N.A.M., 2010. Flood Estimation Studies using Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) for Johor River, Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(11), 930-939.
    19. Yener, M.K., Sorman, A.U., and Gezgin, T., 2006. Modeling studies with HEC-HMS and runoff scenarios in Yuvacik Basin, Turkiye. http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/congress2007/chapter-4/123.pdf.
    20. Anderson, M.L., Chen, Z.Q., Kavvas, M.L., and Feldman, A., 2002. Coupling HEC-HMS with atmospheric models for prediction of watershed runoff. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 7, 312-318.
    21. Meselhe, E.A., Habid, E.H., Oche, O.C., and Gautam, S., 2009. Sensitivity of Conceptual and Physically Based Hydrologic Models to Temporal and Spatial Rainfall Sampling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 14(7), 711-720.
    22. Chu, X., ASCE, A.M., and Steinman, A., 2009. Event and Continuous Hydrologic Modeling with HEC-HMS. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 135(1), 119-124.
    23. Alaghmand, S., Rozi, B.A., and Abustan, I., 2011. Selecting the Best Set Value in Calibration Process for Validation of Hydrological Modeling (A Case Study on Kayu Ara River Basin, Malaysia). Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(4), 354-356.
    24. Nielsen, S.A., and Hansen, D., 1973. Numerical simulation of the rainfall runoff process on a daily basis. Nordic Hydrology, 4, 171-190.
    25. Nietsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., and Williams, J.R., 2005. Soil and Water Assessment Tool theoretical documentation version 2005. http://swatmodel.tamu.edu/media/1292/swat2005theory.pdf
    26. Sugawa, M., 1995. Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colo. (USA), 1130 pp.
    27. Batelaan, O., Wang, Z.M., and De Smedt, F., 1996. An adaptive GIS toolbox for hydrological modeling. In: Application of Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources Management ( ed by Kovar, K. & Nachtnebel, H.P) 3-9, IAHS Publ. no 235.
    28. Wang, Z.M., Batelaan, O., and De Smedt, F., 1997. A distributed model for water and energy transfer between soil, plants and atmosphere (Wetspa), Phys. Chem. Earth, 21(3), 189-193.
    29. Bao, D.P., 2005. Study flood forecasting estimation on Vu Gia-Thu Bon River Basin. DaNang University of Technology.
    30. Nam, D.H., Keiko, U., and Akira, M., 2011. Downscaling Global Weather Forecast Outputs Using ANN for Flood Prediction. Journal of Applied Mathematics. Volume 2011, Article ID 246286, 14pages.
    31. Skaggs, R.W., and Khaleel, R., 1982. Infiltration, Hydrologic modeling of small watershed, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Josph, MI.
    32. Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, D.L., and Saxton, K.E., 1982. Estimation of soil water properties. Transactions American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mi, 25(5), 1316-2320.
    33. Hoggan, D., 1996. Computer Assisted Floodplain Hydrology and Hydraulics, Second Edition. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah Sate University, McGraw-Hill.
    34. Connel Wagner., 2001. Wharemauku Stream Stormwater Runoff and Floodplain Assessment.
    35. Bedient, P.B., and Huber, W.C, 1992. Hydrology and floodplain analysis. Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.
    36. Ascough II, J.C., Green, T.R., Ma, L., and Ahjua, L.R., 2004. Criteria and Selection of Sensitivity Analysis Methods Applied to Natural Resource Models. USDA-ARS, Great Plains Systems Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO, 80526.
    37. Cho, S.M., and Lee, M.W., 2001. Sensitivity considerations when modeling hydrologic processes with digital elevation model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(4), 931-934.
    38. Frey, H.C., and Patil, R., 2002. Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods. Risk Analysis, 22, 553-577.
    39. Kleijnen, J.P.C., and Sargent, R.G., 2000. A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 120 (1), 14-29.
    40. Saltelli, A., Chan, K., and Scott, M., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis, Probability and Statistics Series. Wiley, New York.
    41. Lenhart, T., Eckhardt, K., Fohrer, N., and Frede, H.G., 2002. Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Physics and Chemistry of Earth, 27(27), 645-654.
    42. Van Griensven, A., Francos, A., and Bauwens, W., 2002. Sensitivity analysis and auto-calibration of an integral dynamic model for river water quality. Water Science and Technology, 45, 325-332.
    43. Van Griensven, A., 2006. A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multivariable catchment models. Journal of Hydrology, 324 (1-4), 10-23.
    44. Kannan, N., White, S.M., Worrall, F., and Whelan, M.J., 2007. Sensitivity analysis and identification of the best evapotranspiration and runoff options for hydrological modeling in SWAR-2000. Journal of Hydrology, 332, 456-466.
    45. Sharma, D., Das, Gupta, A., and Babel, M.S., 2007. Spatial disaggregation of bias-corrected GCM precipitation for improved hydrologic simulation: Ping River Basin, Thailand. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 4, 35-74.
    46. Muleta, M.K., and Nicklow, J.W., 2005. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis couple with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model. Journal of Hydrology, 306, 127-145.
    47. Wilby, R.L., 2005. Uncertainty in water resource model parameters used for climate change impact assessment. Hydrological Process, 19, 3201-3219.
    48. Gan, T.Y., Dlamini, E.M., and Biftu, G.F., 1997. Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 192, 81-103.
    49. Singh, V.P., 1997. Effect of spatial and temporal variability in rainfall and watershed characteristics on stream flow hydrograph. Hydrological Processes, 11, 1649-1669.
    50. Harmel, R.D., and Smith, P.K., 2007. Consideration of measurement uncertainty in the evaluation of goodness-of-fit in hydrologic and water quality modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 337, 326-336.

    下載圖示 校內：立即公開
    校外：立即公開
    QR CODE