Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-78
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-78
28 Feb 2018
 | 28 Feb 2018
Status: this discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion.

Practical experience and framework for sensitivity analysis of hydrological models: six methods, three models, three criteria

Anqi Wang and Dimitri P. Solomatine

Abstract. Sensitivity Analysis (SA) and Uncertainty Analysis (UA) are important steps for better understanding and evaluation of hydrological models. The aim of this paper is to briefly review main classes of SA methods, and to presents the results of the practical comparative analysis of applying them. Six different global SA methods: Sobol, eFAST, Morris, LH-OAT, RSA and PAWN are tested on three conceptual rainfall-runoff models with varying complexity: (GR4J, Hymod and HBV) applied to the case study of Bagmati basin (Nepal), and also initially tested on the case of Dapoling-Wangjiaba catchment in China. The methods are compared with respect to effectiveness, efficiency and convergence. A practical framework of selecting and using the SA methods is presented. The result shows that, first of all, all the six SA methods are effective. Morris and LH-OAT methods are the most efficient methods in computing SI and ranking. eFAST performs better than Sobol, thus can be seen as its viable alternative for Sobol. PAWN and RSA methods have issues of instability which we think are due to the ways CDFs are built, and using Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics to compute Sensitivity Indices. All the methods require sufficient number of runs to reach convergence. Difference in efficiency of different methods is an inevitable consequence of the differences in the underlying principles. For SA of hydrological models, it is recommended to apply the presented practical framework assuming the use of several methods, and to explicitly take into account the constraints of effectiveness, efficiency (including convergence), ease of use, as well as availability of software.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Anqi Wang and Dimitri P. Solomatine
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Anqi Wang and Dimitri P. Solomatine
Anqi Wang and Dimitri P. Solomatine

Viewed

Total article views: 2,216 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,722 440 54 2,216 72 70
  • HTML: 1,722
  • PDF: 440
  • XML: 54
  • Total: 2,216
  • BibTeX: 72
  • EndNote: 70
Views and downloads (calculated since 28 Feb 2018)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 28 Feb 2018)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,985 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,966 with geography defined and 19 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 18 May 2024
Download
Short summary
This paper presents a brief review and classification of sensitivity analysis (SA) methods. Six different global SA methods: Sobol, FAST, Morris, LH-OAT, RSA and PAWN are tested on the three conceptual rainfall-runoff models with varying complexity: (GR4J, Hymod and HBV), with respect to effectiveness, efficiency and convergence. Practical framework of selecting and using the SA methods is presented, which may be of assistance for practitioners assessing reliability of their models.