Application and Testing of The Simple Rainfall-Runoff Model Simhyd

Chiew, F.H.S., Peel, M.C. and Western, A.W., 2002.
Application and testing of

the simple rainfall-runoff model SIMHYD. In: V.P. Singh and D.K. Frevert
(Editors), Mathematical models of small watershed hydrology and applications.
Water Resources Publications, pp335-367.

APPLICATION AND TESTING OF
THE SIMPLE RAINFALL-RUNOFF
MODEL SIMHYD

Francis H.S. Chiew
Murray C. Peel
Andrew W. Western

Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Melbourne
Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia

ABSTRACT: This chapter describes the application and testing of the
simple conceptual daily rainfall-runoff model SIMHYD on over 300
catchments across Australia with a wide range of climatic and physical
characteristics. SIMHYD has seven parameters and estimates
streamflow from daily rainfall and areal potential evapotranspiration
data. Model calibration and cross-validation studies are carried out to
investigate whether SIMHYD can be calibrated successfully and whether
the calibrated model can estimate streamflow for an independent test
period. The results indicate that SIMHYD can estimate streamflow
satisfactorily for practically all the catchments. The simulations are
always good in wet and temperate catchments with poor simulations
sometimes observed only in the dry or ephemeral catchments. The study
also indicates that there is a high statistical significance between some of
the model parameters and the catchment physical and climatic
characteristics. However, the correlations observed in the simple
investigation here are probably too low to develop meaningful
relationships between model parameters and catchment characteristics
for use in ungauged catchments.

Chiew, F.H.S., Peel, M.C. and Western, A.W., 2002. Application and testing of

1. INTRODUCTION

HYDROLOG is a daily conceptual rainfall-runoff model that
estimates daily streamflow from daily rainfall and areal potential
evapotranspiration data. HYDROLOG, and its subsequent
modification MODHYDROLOG, have been used extensively (see
references below).

This chapter describes the application and testing of a simplified
version of the HYDROLOG model (SIMHYD) on over 300
catchments that reflect the range of climate and physical
characteristics across Australia. The model calibration and
validation are discussed in detail and a simple investigation of the
relationship between optimised model parameters and catchment
climate and physical characteristics is presented.

SIMHYD has much fewer parameters than HYDROLOG and
MODHYDROLOG. This chapter therefore investigates whether
the use of a simple conceptual rainfall-runoff model is sufficient to
estimate runoff in different areas. The smaller number of model
parameters also increases the likelihood of successfully relating
the model parameters to the catchment characteristics.

2. HYDROLOG AND MODHYDROLOG

The daily conceptual rainfall-runoff model, HYDROLOG, was
developed in 1972 (see Porter, 1972; and Porter and McMahon,
1975, 1976). The model has 17 parameters, and it includes as
many component parts as necessary to simulate the hydrological
processes that can be described adequately in terms of physical
significance. Algorithms that could extend the flexibility of the
model but are not physically based are not included. For this
reason, the model is purported to be physically based and the
model parameters should relate to the catchment characteristics.
However in practice the model parameters can take a large range
of values and are optimised in most applications.

2

Model comparison studies by Moore and Mein (1975) and Weeks
and Hebbert (1980) indicate that HYDROLOG generally performs
better or as well as other well-known rainfall-runoff models
developed in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Stanford watershed model
(Crawford and Linsley (1966) and Sacramento model (Burnash et
al., 1973)). Chiew et al. (1993) also showed that
MODHYDROLOG gives better estimates of streamflow compared
with simple conceptual approaches and time-series equations.

Chiew and McMahon (1991a) modified the groundwater
algorithms in HYDROLOG to improve the simulations of stream-
aquifer interaction and groundwater seepage process. The quality
of runoff simulations from HYDROLOG and the modified model,
MODHYDROLOG, are similar, except in ephemeral catchments
with low runoff coefficients, where MODHYDROLOG generally
performs better than HYDROLOG. The structure of
MODHYDROLOG is shown in Figure 1, with the 19 model
parameters highlighted in bold italics.

Chiew and McMahon (1994) tested MODHYDROLOG on 28
Australian catchments and showed that MODHYDROLOG can
estimate daily streamflow satisfactorily on all 28 catchments. The
study also indicated that the use of nine or fewer parameters is
sufficient to give adequate estimates of streamflow, and the use of
four or five parameters may be sufficient in temperate catchments
and in applications where only approximate estimates of runoff are
required.

3. SIMHYD

The structure of the simple lumped conceptual daily rainfall-runoff
model, SIMHYD, is shown in Figure 2, with its seven parameters
highlighted in bold italics.

In SIMHYD, daily rainfall first fills the interception store, which is
emptied each day by evaporation. The excess rainfall is then
subjected to an infiltration function that determines the infiltration

3

F
R
S
D INSC
RAIN
PET
interception
store
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
I
N
F
)
RUN
surface
runoff
(SRUN)
DSC
TRAP
PET
interflow (INT)
depression store
SMF
ET
REC
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
SMS
soil
moisture
store
baseflow (FLW)
river recharge (FLW)
SEEP
SMSC
groundwater
store
GW
DLEV
channel
store
STREAM
FLOW
F = Infiltration function
D = Depression flow function
S = Soil moisture function
R = Nonlinear routing function (with two parameters,
CO and POWER for storage delay)
PET = areal potential evapotranspiration (input data)
EXC = RAIN - INSC, EXC >0
INF = lesser of { COEFF exp (-SQ x SMS/SMSC) , EXC }
RUN = EXC - INF
TRAP = (DSC - ADS x ARGD) exp (-MD x DSC / RUN)
SRUN = RUN - TRAP
INT = SUB x SMS/SMSC x INF
REC = CRAK x SMS/SMSC x (INF - INT)
SMF = INF - INT - REC
ET = lesser of { EM x SMS/SMSC , PET }
FLW = K1 x |GW| + K2 x [1 - exp (K3 x |GW|)]
SEEP = VCOND x (GW - DLEV)
SEAS and LOCATE allow monthly fluctuations to
COEFF, SUB and CRAK.
EXC

Figure 1 Structure of the conceptual daily
rainfall-runoff model MODHDROLOG
(model parameters are highlighted in bold italics)

4

F
S
INSC
interception
store
RAIN
PET
EXC
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
I
N
F
)
SMF
SMS
SMSC
soil
moisture
store
RUNOFF
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
GW
baseflow (BAS)
groundwater
store
REC
interflow and saturation
excess runoff (INT)
ET
infiltration excess
runoff (SRUN)
PET = areal potential evapotranspiration (input data)
EXC = RAIN - INSC, EXC >0
INF = lesser of { COEFF exp (-SQ x SMS/SMSC) , EXC }
SRUN = EXC - INF
INT = SUB x SMS/SMSC x INF
REC = CRAK x SMS/SMSC x (INF - INT)
SMF = INF - INT - REC
ET = lesser of { 10 x SMS/SMSC , PET }
BAS = K x GW
Model parameters
INSC interception store capacity (mm)
COEFF maximum infiltration loss (mm)
SQ infiltration loss exponent
SMSC soil moisture store capacity (mm)
SUB constant of proportionality in interflow equation
CRAK constant of proportionality in groundwater recharge equation
K baseflow linear recession parameter

Figure 2 Structure of the simple conceptual
daily rainfall-runoff model SIMHYD
(model parameters are highlighted in bold italics)

capacity. The excess rainfall that exceeds the infiltration capacity
becomes infiltration excess runoff.

5

Moisture that infiltrates is subjected to a soil moisture function that
diverts the water to the stream (interflow), groundwater store
(recharge) and soil moisture store. Interflow is first estimated as a
linear function of the soil wetness (soil moisture level divided by
soil moisture capacity). The equation used to simulate interflow
therefore attempts to mimic both the interflow and saturation
excess runoff processes (with the soil wetness used to reflect parts
of the catchment that are saturated from which saturation excess
runoff can occur). Groundwater recharge is then estimated, also as
a linear function of the soil wetness. The remaining moisture
flows into the soil moisture store.

Evapotranspiration from the soil moisture store is estimated as a
linear function of the soil wetness, but cannot exceed the
atmospherically controlled rate of areal potential
evapotranspiration. The soil moisture store has a finite capacity
and overflows into the groundwater store. Baseflow from the
groundwater store is simulated as a linear recession from the store.

The model therefore estimates runoff generation from three
sources infiltration excess runoff, interflow (and saturation
excess runoff) and baseflow. The routing of streamflow is not
considered in this study. Nevertheless, like HYDROLOG and
MODHYDROLOG, streamflow routing can also be simulated in
SIMHYD with the use of two more parameters.

4. APPLICATION OF SIMHYD

4.1 Data

The SIMHYD model is applied and tested on 331 unimpaired
Australian catchments (see Figure 3). Unimpaired is defined
here as data from unregulated rivers or where regulation changes
the natural monthly streamflow volumes by less than five percent.
The determination of whether the streamflow data is unimpaired is
based on local knowledge of the respective water agencies and/or

6

Figure 3 Catchment locations

whether there is a significant dam upstream of the gauging stations
(as listed in the register of dams prepared by ANCOLD
Australian National Committee on Large Dams, see Institution of
Engineers, Australia, 1999).

7

The catchment areas range from 50 km
2
to 2000 km
2
and the
length of streamflow data range from 10 years to 90 years (see
Table 1 for distribution). The spatial scale of 50 km
2
to 2000 km
2

is chosen so that the lumped daily rainfall used in the modelling
has similar meaning and the optimised model parameter values can
be compared across catchments. Where catchments are nested, the
smallest sub-catchment is used, with the subsequent bigger sub-
catchment used only if it is more than 20% bigger than the smaller
sub-catchment. I thought the bigger one had to be 5 times bigger
ie. smaller is no mor ethan 20% of the big one??

Table 1 Summary of catchment characteristics

Percentiles
10% 25% 50% 75% 90%
Catchment area (km
2
) 82 150 300 570 970
Length of data (years) 11 15 24 31 41
Mean annual rainfall (mm) 640 760 920 1200 1500
Mean annual runoff (mm) 38 81 170 320 520
Runoff coefficient 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.28 0.37

The 331 catchments are located in the more populated and
important agricultural regions of Australia. They do not represent
all available data that fits the above criteria, but except for north-
east Australia (where streamflow data are not freely available),
they reflect historical streamflow data availability across Australia.

The 331 catchments have different physical characteristics
(Section 6 shows the wide ranging terrain and soil characteristics)
and are located in various climate regions across Australia (the
mean annual rainfall and the proportion of annual rainfall that
becomes runoff (runoff coefficient) are presented in Table 1).

The northern and north-eastern coast of Australia has a tropical
climate, with practically all the annual rainfall and runoff
occurring in summer and early autumn. The runoff coefficients of

8

the catchments here are typically greater than 0.25. The eastern
part of Australia has a temperate climate and is also dominated by
summer rainfall, although further south, rainfall is more evenly
distributed through the year. The runoff coefficients in the coastal
catchments east of the Great Dividing Range (see Figure 3)
typically range between 0.2 to 0.3, while catchments west of the
Great Dividing Range are drier with runoff coefficients generally
less than 0.15.

In south-east Australia, a little more than half the annual rainfall
and about three-quarters of the annual runoff occur in the winter-
half of the year. The climate here is also temperate with runoff
coefficients of about 0.2 to 0.3. The catchments in Tasmania are
generally wet throughout the year, with more than 30% of the
annual rainfall typically becoming runoff.

The South Australian Gulf and the south-west coast have a
Mediterranean climate, with more than three quarters of the annual
rainfall occurring in the winter half of the year. Most of the
streams here are ephemeral with significant runoff occurring only
in winter and early spring. The runoff coefficients in the
catchments here are less than 0.15 close to the coast, and less than
0.1 further inland.

The inland and western part of Australia is arid. The mean annual
rainfall here is less than 400 mm, practically all of which becomes
evapotranspiration.

Continuous daily rainfall and areal potential evapotranspiration
data are required as input into the daily rainfall-runoff model. The
source of the daily rainfall data is the Queensland Department of
Natural Resources 0.05
o
x 0.05
o
(about 5 km x 5 km) interpolated
gridded rainfall data based on over 6000 rainfall stations in
Australia (see www.dnr.qld.gov.au/silo). The interpolation uses
Ordinary Kriging of monthly rainfall data and a variogram with
zero nugget and a variable range. The monthly rainfall for each 5
km x 5 km point is then disaggregated to daily rainfall using the
daily rainfall distribution from the station closest to the point. The

9

lumped catchment-averaged daily rainfall used here is estimated
from the daily rainfall in 5 km x 5 km points within the catchment.

Compared to rainfall, evapotranspiration has little influence on the
water balance at a daily time scale. The inter-annual variability of
areal potential evapotranspiration is also relatively small (typically
less than 0.05). For these reasons, the mean monthly areal
potential evapotranspiration is used here. The 12 mean monthly
areal potential evapotranspiration values are obtained from the
evapotranspiration maps produced jointly by the Cooperative
Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology and the Australian
Bureau of Meteorology (see Wang et al., 2000). The areal
evapotranspiration values are derived using the wet environment
evapotranspiration algorithms proposed by Morton (1983) (see
also Chiew and McMahon, 1991b).

4.2 Model calibration and validation

A model calibration and a cross validation exercise are carried out
in this study. The model calibration is carried out to assess
whether SIMHYD can be calibrated successfully. In the model
calibration, SIMHYD is calibrated against all the available
historical streamflow data. The cross-validation is carried out to
assess whether the optimised parameter values can successfully
estimate streamflow for an independent test period that is not used
in the model calibration. This is done by dividing the available
streamflow data into three almost equal parts. Each part is left out
in turn, and SIMHYD is calibrated against streamflow data in the
remaining two parts. The optimised parameter values are then
used to estimate runoff for the part that was left out, and the
estimated flows are compared with the recorded flows.

In both the calibration and cross-validation exercises, the model is
run for one extra year prior to when the streamflow time series
starts to remove the effect of initial conditions from the model
storeage levels. The model runs on a daily time step, but is
calibrated against the monthly streamflows.

10

The seven model parameters are optimised to minimise an
objective function defined as the sum of squares of the difference
between the estimated and recorded monthly streamflows, with
penalties applied if the total estimated and recorded runoff
volumes differ significantly and/or the coefficient of variation
(standard deviation divided by mean) of the estimated annual
runoff differ significantly from that of the recorded annual runoff
(see Table 2). An automatic pattern search optimisation method
(Hookes and J eeves, 1961; and Monro, 1971) is used to calibrate
the model, with several parameter starting points used to increase
the likelihood of finding the global optimum of parameter values.

Table 2 Objective function used in model calibration

OBJ =
(EST
i
- REC
i
)
2
eqn. (1)
=
n
1 i

where EST is the monthly estimated runoff, REC is the monthly
recorded runoff and n is the number of months of available
historical streamflow data.

Penalty 1
if the total estimated and recorded runoff volumes differ by
more than 5%, OBJ =OBJ x 5

Penalty 2
if coefficient of variation of mean annual estimated runoff and
coefficient of variation of mean annual recorded runoff differ by

11

The first constraint (penalty) attempts to ensure that the total
estimated and recorded runoff volumes do not differ significantly,
although a good model calibration against the objective function
described by eqn. (1) generally leads to similar estimated and
recorded total runoff volumes.

Almost all model calibrations that minimise some difference
between the estimated and recorded runoffs will lead to a lower
variability (both interannual and seasonal) in the estimated runoff
compared to the recorded runoff. This is because the model
calibration tends to favour an underestimation of the higher flows
and an overestimation of the lower flows to reduce the errors at
both extremes. This can be a problem in some model applications,
for example, where the calibrated model is used to extend the
streamflow time series to study inter-annual variability in the
runoff. The use of the second constraint attempts to overcome this
problem. The second constraint/penalty is used only in the
calibration of 200 of the 331 catchments where there are more than
15 years of streamflow data to interpret the inter-annual variability
meaningfully.

4.3 Measures of model performance

Visual plots (see Section 5) and three objective measures that
relate to the objective function defined in Table 2 are used to
assess the performance of SIMHYD. The first objective measure
is the coefficient of efficiency,

E =
( ) ( )
( )

=
= =

n
1 i
2
i
n
1 i
2
i i
n
1 i
2
i
REC REC
REC EST REC REC
eqn. (2)

where RECis the mean recorded runoff.

12

The coefficient of efficiency expresses the proportion of variance
of the recorded runoff that can be accounted for by the model
(Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) and provides a direct measure of the
ability of the model to reproduce the recorded flows with E =1.0
indicating that all the estimated flows are the same as the recorded
flows. It relates directly to the objective function defined in eqn.
(1), with a lower objective function value giving a higher E and
vice versa. However, unlike the objective function whose value
depend on the magnitude of runoff, the coefficient of efficiency is
dimensionless and can therefore be used to compare model
performances across catchments.

The second objective measure compares the total estimated and
recorded streamflow volumes

VOL =

=
= =

n
1 i
i
n
1 i
i
n
1 i
i
REC
| REC EST |
x 100% eqn. (3)

The third objective measure compares the interannual variability
of streamflow estimated by the model with that of the recorded
streamflow

CV =
flow rec of Cv
| flow rec of Cv - flow est of Cv |
x 100% eqn. (4)

5. MODELLING RESULTS

5.1 Model calibration and validation

Rainfall-runoff models are used for a range of purposes, including
catchment and reservoir yield analyses, to infill missing flow
records, to extend streamflow sequences, for low flow analyses
and for flood forecasting. The quality and types of streamflow

13

estimates required from a rainfall-runoff model will therefore
depend on the objectives of the modelling exercise. For example,
in yield studies, reliable estimates of high flows and runoff
volumes are required, while in environmental flow studies, good
estimates of low flows are needed.

The plots in Figure 4 summarise the E, VOL and CV values
resulting from the simulations in the 331 catchments. The E and
VOL values for the cross-validation simulations for each
catchment are shown in the maps in Figures 5 and 6.

Both the calibration and cross-validation results in this section
assess the model performance against all available streamflow
data, and can therefore be compared directly. In evaluating the
cross-validation results, the streamflow estimates for each of the
three data parts that are not used in the model calibration (see
Section 4.2) are combined into a single composite series and
compared with the recorded flows.

As expected, Figure 4(a) shows that the E values are higher in the
model calibration compared to the cross-validation. The high E
values in the model calibration suggest that SIMHYD can be
calibrated successfully in practically all the 331 catchments.

However, it is more important to assess the cross-validation results
because they reflect the ability of a calibrated model to estimate
streamflow for an independent test period. Figure 4(a) indicates
that the E values in the model cross-validation are also generally
high. Figures 7 and 8 show example plots comparing the monthly
estimated and recorded flows for a range of E values.

The cross-validation results indicate that the E values are greater
than 0.43 in 90% of the simulations (where the runoff estimates
can be considered reasonable), greater than 0.60 in 75% of the
simulations (where the runoff estimates can be considered
acceptable for most applications see survey results of Chiew
and McMahon, 1991c), and greater than 0.75 in 50% of the
simulations (where the runoff estimates can be considered good).

14

100
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
o
t
a
l

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

a
n
d
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

r
u
n
o
f
f

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

(
V
O
L
)
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

i
n
t
e
r
a
n
n
u
a
l

C
v

o
f

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
a
n
d

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

r
u
n
o
f
f

(
C
V
)
0
10
20
30
40
Percentage of catchments where value in y-axis is not exceeded
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 20 40 60 80
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
f

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

E
Percentage of catchments where E value is exceeded
0
5
10
15
20
0 20 40 60 80
Percentage of catchments where value in y-axis is not exceeded
Calibration Cross validation
(a)
(b)
(c)

Figure 4 Cumulative plots of E, VOL and CV summarising
the model performance in the 331 catchments

15

Figure 5 E values from the cross-validation
simulations in the 331 catchments

It is difficult to interpret the modelling results adequately and there
is little point in discussing the simulations in each of the 331
catchments in detail, particularly when the quality and types of
streamflow estimates required depends on the objectives of the
modelling exercise. Nevertheless, although some of the above
interpretations may be subjective, the simulations on the 331
catchments are generally consistently good, and they suggest that
SIMHYD can estimate monthly streamflow satisfactorily for most
areas.

16

Figure 6 VOL values from the cross-validation
simulations in the 331 catchments

The plot in Figure 4(b) indicates that SIMHYD can estimate total
streamflow yields very reliably. The good agreement between the
total estimated and recorded runoff volumes in the model
calibration is expected because of the first penalty/constraint used
in the objective function. However, the cross-validation results
also indicate that there is good agreement between the total runoff
volumes estimated for the independent test period and the total
recorded runoff volumes. The results indicate that the total
estimated and recorded runoff volumes differ by more than 20% in

17

only four of the 331 catchments, and are within 10% in 90% of the
simulations, and within 5% in 80% of the simulations.

0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
20
40
60
80
0 20 40 60 80
0
50
100
150
0 50 100 150
0
300
600
900
0 300 600 900
E=0.43 (exceeded by
90% of simulations)
south-east coast
E=0.60 (exceeded by
75% of simulations)
Murray-Darling
E=0.73 (exceeded by
50% of simulations)
south-west coast
E=0.76 (exceeded by
50% of simulations)
E=0.86 (exceeded by
75% of simulations)
Murray-Darling
E=0.92 (exceeded by
90% of simulations)
east coast
Recorded monthly runoff (mm)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

m
o
n
t
h
l
y

r
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)
south-east coast
0
100
200
300
0 100 200 300

Figure 7 Scatter plots comparing monthly estimated
and recorded runoff for various E values

18

0
20
40
60
80
100
E=0.60 (exceeded by 75% of simulations)
Catchment 418024
(Murray-Darling)
0
50
100
150
1966 1989
1965 1996
Catchment 404208
(Murray-Darling)
Recorded Estimated
0
100
200
300
1985 1998
Catchment 207015
(south-east coast)
M
o
n
t
h
l
y

r
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)

Figure 8 Hydrographs comparing monthly estimated
and recorded runoff for various E values

It is more difficult for a model to reproduce the inter-annual
variability in the recorded streamflow compared to the total runoff
volumes. Nevertheless, the plot in Figure 4(c) shows reasonable
agreement between the inter-annual variability in the streamflow

19

estimated by SIMHYD and the inter-annual variability in the
recorded streamflow. The 5%, 10% and 20% thresholds can again
be seen in the calibration, as a result of the use of the second
constraint/penalty in the objective function. The cross-validation
results indicate that the inter-annual variability of streamflow
estimated by SIMHYD and the inter-annual variability in the
recorded streamflow differ by 20% in 80% of the simulations and
by only 10% in 60% of the simulations. These results are
remarkable considering that the coefficient of variation is
calculated from relatively short streamflow records (average of 25
years).

Figure 9 shows the E values from the cross-validation simulations
plotted against the rainfall and runoff characteristics. The plots
indicate that the E values are always high in catchments with high
rainfall and runoff, with poor model simulations occurring only in
some of the catchments with low rainfall and runoff. The maps in
Figures 5 and 6 also suggest that the poorer model simulations
tend to occur in the drier catchments west of the Great Dividing
Range in eastern Australia and in the ephemeral catchments in the
South Australian Gulf.

As SIMHYD is calibrated here against monthly streamflow, the
results therefore indicate that SIMHYD can estimate monthly
streamflow satisfactorily in most catchments. Although it is
calibrated against monthly flows, comparisons of the daily flow
estimates against recorded daily flows where daily data are
available also show that the daily flow characteristics estimated by
the calibrated SIMHYD are generally similar to the characteristics
of the recorded daily flows. The model here estimates the high
daily flows much better than the very low flows (less than 1 mm)
because it is calibrated to reproduce monthly flow volumes and
because the objective function used favour the choice of
parameters for good agreement between the larger estimated and
recorded monthly flows. In any case, where daily flow estimates
are required, the model should be calibrated directly against daily
flows, and for the larger catchments, the routing of the simulated
runoff may be necessary.

20

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 1000 2000 3000
Mean annual rainfall (mm)
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

o
f

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
E
)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Mean annual runoff (mm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Runoff coefficient

Figure 9 E values from cross-validation simulations
versus rainfall and runoff characteristics

21

0.1
1
10
100
0.1
1
10
100
0.1
1
10
24
Catchment 120216
(north-east coast)
Catchment 226218
(south-east coast)
Catchment 312001
(Tasmania)
1 2 5 10 20 50 70 30 80 90 95 98 99
Percentage time daily runoff is exceeded
D
a
i
l
y

r
u
n
o
f
f

(
m
m
)
Recorded Estimated

Figure 10 Example flow duration plots comparing daily flow
characteristics estimated by SIMHYD and the recorded flows

22

5.2 Model parameters in different calibration periods

An automatic pattern search optimisation routine was used to
calibrate the model, with ten different parameter starting points
used to increase the likelihood of finding the global optimum. In
most calibration runs, almost all the ten starting points led to
similar objective function values. However, there are also many
runs where the different starting points led to very different sets of
optimised parameter values with similar objective function values.
This suggests that in many of the calibration runs, there is not only
one unique set of parameter values that can provide a good model
simulation. Although the set of parameter values giving the lowest
objective function value was used here for further analyses in
Section 5.1, it is likely that a different set of parameter values may
give similar modelling results. It is not possible to define a unique
set of best optimised parameter values because of cross-
correlations between the seven model parameters (see Table 3),
likely errors in the model structure, input data and streamflow
calibration data and the potential differences in the rainfall-runoff
characteristics in the different calibration periods.

It is therefore not surprising that the optimised parameter values
for a catchment can be different in the three different calibration
periods used in the cross-validation analyses. Figure 11 shows the
optimised parameter values from the first calibration (model
calibrated against the first and second part of the available
streamflow data) for the 331 catchments plotted against the
optimised parameter values from the third calibration (model
calibrated against the second and third part of the available
streamflow data). Despite a concurrent calibration period (the
second part of the available historical streamflow data), there is
only a fair agreement between the optimised parameter values in
the two calibration periods (R
2
of 0.2 to 0.3 in the linear regression
between the parameter values).

23

0
2
4
6
0 2 4 6
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
4
8
12
0 4 8 1
Figures plot optimised
parameter values for model
calibration using the second
and third thirds of streamflow
data (y-axis) against optimised
parameter values for model
calibration using the first and
second thirds of streamflow
data (x-axis)
INSC (mm)
COEFF (mm) SQ
2
R =0.21
2
R =0.08
2
R =0.28
2

Figure 11 Optimised parameter values from the first cross-
validation calibration in the 331 catchments versus optimised
parameter values from the second cross-validation calibration
(first of two plots)

Nevertheless, an R
2
value of 0.2 to 0.3 is very highly statistically
significant. This should be expected because SIMHYD attempts
to mimic the actual hydrological processes. However, because of
the difficulty in finding a unique set of optimised parameter
values, the model simulations of the internal processes should be
interpreted cautiously. For example, although the relative values
of the model simulations of some of the internal variables are
meaningful (e.g., soil wetness defined as the soil moisture level
(SMS) divided by the soil moisture store capacity (SMSC), see
Figure 2), the actual values from which they are derived from

24

should be interpreted cautiously (SMS and SMSC). The same
caution applies to interpreting the model simulations of the
proportion of runoff from the three runoff components, although
the results clearly indicate that once calibrated, SIMHYD can
estimate total runoff satisfactorily for another time period.

0
200
400
600
0 200 400 600
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
SMSC (mm) SUB
CRAK K
R =0.22
2
R =0.29
2
R =0.37
2
R =0.22
2

Figure 11 Optimised parameter values from the first cross-
validation calibration in the 331 catchments versus optimised
parameter values from the second cross-validation calibration
(second of two plots)

Table 3 Cross-correlation between optimised model parameter
values in the 331 catchments

25

R INSC COEFF SQ SMSC SUB CRAK K
INSC -0.07 -0.17 0.11 0.16 0.03 -0.14
COEFF
-0.07 0.18 0.18 -0.21 0.02 -0.03
SQ -0.17 0.18 0.31 -0.03 0.37 -0.02
SMSC 0.11 0.18 0.31 0.01 0.31 -0.15
SUB 0.16 -0.21 -0.03 0.01 0.15 -0.23
CRAK 0.03 0.02 0.37 0.31 0.15 -0.09
K -0.14 -0.03 -0.02 -0.15 -0.23 -0.09

R
2
INSC COEFF SQ SMSC SUB CRAK K
INSC 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02
COEFF
0.00 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00
SQ 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.00
SMSC 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.10 0.02
SUB 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05
CRAK 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.02 0.01
K 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.01

6. MODEL PARAMETERS AND CATCHMENT
CHARACTERISTICS

As the simple rainfall-runoff model SIMHYD simulates
conceptually the hydrological processes, it is possible that the
model parameters are related to catchment characteristics, like
climate, topography, soil, vegetation, catchment shape, geology,
drainage network and other characteristics. The maps in Figure 12
summarise spatially the range of optimised parameter values in the
331 catchments. Although there appears to be some regional
groupings of some of the parameter values, it is difficult to identify
them objectively from Figure 12. To objectively investigate the
relationship between model parameters and catchment
characteristics, the correlations between the model parameters and
four arbitrarily chosen indices that reflect the climate, terrain and
soil characteristics are presented here.

26

Figure 12 Spatial summary of calibrated parameter values

27

These parameters were chosen for the following reasons. The
climate is likely to affect the relative importance of different
processes occurring within a catchment and especially the degree
to which seasonal drying may occur, which is likely to influence
the soil moisture storage. The rainfall and areal potential
evapotranspiration data utilised in the modelling were used to
calculate the climate parameters. Processes such as lateral flow,
saturation excess runoff and groundwater processes are influenced
by relief. We chose the difference between the 90th percentile and
10th percentile elevation as an index of typical releif in a
catchment. The AUSLIG 9 second Digital Elevation Model of
Australia was used to estimate this relief index.Soil characteristics
also affect a range of hydrological processes including infiltration,
soil moisture storage, lateral flow and groundwater recharge.
Therefore it would be expected that model parameters may be
related to soil properties. We chose to use soil depth and plant
available water holding capacity to relate the model parameters to
since these parameter should reflect the soil moisture storage
behaviour of the catchments. A range of other soil parameters
could also have been chosen and will be considered in a more
detailed analysis in the future. The soil parameters were estimated
for each catchment from estimations of soil properties (McKenzie
et al., 2000) for soil types classified using the Northcote (1979)
classification scheme and the Atlas of Australian Soils (Northcote
et al., 1960-1968). The Atlas of Australian Soils is a reconasaince
level mapping of soil-landscape types and each soil-landscape
category may encompass several soil types. The parameters were
estimated for each catchment by assuming each soil-landscape unit
could be represented by the dominant soil type (identified by
McKenzie et al., 2000) and that the catchment could then be
represented by the most common of these dominant soil types
within the catchment. The parameters of this soil provided by
McKenzie et al were then used. Obviously there is potential for
significant error in the estimation of soil properties using this
approach. However, this is the most detailed source of soils data
available for all of Australia and we therefore chose to use this
approach.

28

Table 4 presents the correlations (coefficients of determination) of
the linear regression between the optimised parameter values and
the four catchment characteristics. The correlations are presented
for the analyses of parameter values for all 331 catchments, as well
as analyses of parameter values for three different climate regions.
The three climate regions are chosen to roughly coincide with the
Koppen climate classification system (Petterssen, 1958). The Cwa
region is defined in the Koppen classification as temperate with
dry winter and hot summer. The Csa region is temperate with dry
and hot summer. The Cfa/Cfb region is defined as temperate with
no dry season and a warm to hot summer, although the rainfall in
the catchments in the Cfa/Cfb region here varies from being
uniform throughout the year to being dominated by winter rainfall.
Geographically, the Cfa/Cfb region is in the southern part of east
Australia, the Cwa region consists of coastal catchments in east
Australia and the Csa region consists of catchments west of the
Great Dividing Range in east Australia (see Figures 1 and 12)

There are 123 catchments in the Cwa region, 91 catchments in the
Csa region and 75 catchments in the Cfa/Cfb region. The
correlations are only presented in Table 4 if they are statistically
significant at = 0.05 (with 100 data points, R
2
> 0.04 is
statistically significant at =0.05). Coefficient of determination
values of 0.10 and above are highlighted in bold and values of 0.20
and above are highlighted in underlined bolds.

Table 4 Coefficient of determination (R
2
) of the linear regression
between optimised parameter values and catchment characteristics

Correlation against climate index (mean annual rainfall divided by mean
annual areal potential evapotranspiration)

INSC
COEFF
SQ SMSC SUB CRAK K
All data 0.05 0.13 0.20
Cwa 0.09
Csa 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.07 0.23 0.06
Cf 0.05 0.24 0.25 0.12 0.17 0.18

29

Correlation against terrain index (90
th
percentile minus 10
th
percentile elevation
in catchment)

INSC
COEFF
SQ SMSC SUB CRAK K
All data 0.12
Cwa 0.08
Csa 0.11 0.05 0.05
Cf 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.11

Correlation against soil depth

INSC
COEFF
SQ SMSC SUB CRAK K
All data 0.06
Cwa 0.07
Csa 0.13
Cf 0.14 0.05 0.05

Correlation against plant available water holding capacity

INSC
COEFF
SQ SMSC SUB CRAK K
All data 0.09
Cwa 0.11
Csa 0.07 0.05
Cf 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.08

The climate is likely to be the main factor distinguishing the 331
catchments. In the analyses of optimised parameter values for all
the 331 catchments, statistically significant correlations against the
climate index are identified for three of the seven model
parameters (SMSC, SUB and CRAK) while statistically significant
correlations are identified only for one parameter (CRAK) in the
correlations against terrain and the two soil characteristics. It is
for this reason that the relationship between model parameters and
catchment characteristics are investigated separately for the three
climate regions. As climate is the main driving factor, analyses
within similar climate regions should lead to the identification of
better relationships between model parameters and catchment
characteristics.

Nevertheless, in the analyses for individual climate regions, the
highest correlations are also obtained against the climate index.

30

The correlations between the model parameters and the climate
index are statistically significant for all seven parameters in the
Csa region and six parameters in the Cfa/Cfb region, but only for
one parameter in the Cwa region. In the relationship against the
terrain index, the correlations are significant for one, three and
four parameters respectively in the Cwa, Csa and Cfa/Cfb regions.
In the relationship against the soil depth, the correlations are
significant for three parameters in the Cfa/Cfb region and but
statistically significant for only one parameter in the Cwa and Csa
regions. In the relationship against the plant available water
holding capacity, the correlations are significant for four
parameters in the Cfa/Cfb region but only for one and two
parameters respectively in the Cwa and Csa regions.

The correlations are highest in CRAK (used in the estimation of
groundwater recharge see Figure 2), being statistically
significant in almost all the results presented in Table 3. The next
highest correlations are in SMSC, the soil moisture store capacity.
There are also reasonable correlations in SQ (exponent in
infiltration capacity equation) and SUB (used in the estimation of
interflow), but little to no correlation between INSC (interception
capacity), COEFF (maximum infiltration capacity), and K
(baseflow linear recession parameter) and the catchment
characteristics. It is also interesting to note that the highest
parameter cross-correlations are between CRAK, SMSC and SQ.

As SIMHYD uses only algorithms to simulate the hydrological
processes that can be described adequately in terms of physical
significance, a higher correlation between the model parameters
and catchment characteristics than observed here was expected.
The relatively low correlations here probably result from the
difficulty in identifying a unique set of optimum parameter values
(for example, the correlations here should not be any higher than
those presented in Section 5.2), and likely errors in the input data
and streamflow calibration data, and incomplete or too complex
representations of some of the physical processes. In any case,
although many of the correlations here are statistically significant,

31

they are too low to meaningfully relate the parameter values to the
catchment characteristics for use in ungauged catchments.

Nevertheless, some of the correlations are very highly statistically
significant, particularly for CRAK and SMSC in the Cfa/Cfb (see
Figure 13) and to a lesser extent Csa regions. They suggest some
potential for relating some of the model parameter values to
catchment characteristics. It is possible that a more detailed
analyses of the results can show better relationships between the
model parameters and catchment characteristics. For example, a
non-linear relationship may describe the data better than the
statistics of the linear regression presented here. The use of a
multivariate analysis that also considers parameter cross-
correlation and combinations of different types of catchment
characteristics may also lead to better results. A smarter choice of
optimum parameter values (for example, choosing an alternative
set of optimum parameter values that are similar across
catchments, rather than the one non-unique optimum set that
results in the lowest objective function value) may also give better
results. These will be explored further in a separate paper.

32

0
100
200
300
400
500
0 500 1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 500 1000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 500 1000
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 100 200 300
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Mean annual rainfall divided by areal potential evapotranspiration
90th percentile minus 10th percentile elevation (m)
Soil plant water holding capacity (mm)
SQ SM SC (mm) CRAK
R =0.24
2
R =0.25
2
R =0.17
2
R =0.10
2
R =0.21
2
R =0.12
2
R =0.10
2
R =0.10
2
R =0.08
2

Figure 13 Optimised parameter values for catchments in
Cfa/Cfb region versus several catchment characteristics

7. CONCLUSIONS

This chapter describes the application and testing of the simple
conceptual daily rainfall-runoff model SIMHYD on 331 Australian
catchments. The results indicate that SIMHYD can estimate
streamflow satisfactorily for practically all the catchments. The
simulations are always good in wet and temperate catchments with

33

poor simulations sometimes observed only in the dry or ephemeral
catchments.

The study also indicates that there is a high statistical significance
between some of the model parameters and the catchment physical
and climatic characteristics. However, the correlations observed in
the simple investigation here are probably too low to develop
meaningful relationships between model parameters and
catchment characteristics for use in ungauged catchments.

Northcote, K. H., A factual key for the recognition of
Australian Soils, 123 pp., Rellim Technical Publications,
Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia, 1979.
Northcote, K. H., with G. G. Beckmann, E. Bettanay, H. M.
Churchward, D. C. Van Dijk, G. M. Dimmock, G. D. Hubble,
R. F. Isbell, W. M. McArthur, G. G. Murtha, K. D. Nickolls, T.
R. Paton, C. H. Thompson, A. A. Web, and M. J . Wright,
Atlas of Australian Soils, Sheets 1-10, with explanatory data,
CSIRO Aust. and Melbourne University Press, Melbourne,
1960-1968.
McKenzie, N. J ., D. W. J acquier, L. J . Ashton, and H. P.
Cresswell, Estimation of soil properties using the Atlas of
Australian Soils, Technical Report, /00, pp., CSIRO Land
and Water, 2000.

34

35

Application and Testing of The Simple Rainfall-Runoff Model Simhyd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application and Testing of The Simple Rainfall-Runoff Model Simhyd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chiew, F.H.S., Peel, M.C. and Western, A.W., 2002.

Application and testing of

You might also like