SWAT-CUP을 이용한 SWAT 모형 검·보정 I: 목적함수에 따른 불확실성 분석 = SWAT model calibration/validation using SWAT-CUP Ⅰ: analysis for uncertainties of objective functions

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to quantify the uncertainty that can be induced by the objective function when calibrating SWAT parameters using SWAT-CUP. SWAT model was constructed to estimate runoff in Naesenong-cheon, which is the one of mid-watershed in Nakdong River basin, and then automatic calibration was performed using eight objective functions (R2, bR2, NS, MNS, KGE, PBIAS, RSR, and SSQR). The optimum parameter sets obtained from each objective function showed different ranges, and thus the corresponding hydrologic characteristics of simulated data were also derived differently. This is because each objective function is sensitive to specific hydrologic signatures and evaluates model performance in an unique way. In other words, one objective function might be sensitive to the residual of the extreme value, so that well produce the peak value, whereas ignores the average or low flow residuals. Therefore, the hydrological similarity between the simulated and measured values was evaluated in order to select the optimum objective function. The hydrologic signatures, which include not only the magnitude, but also the ratio of the inclining and declining time in hydrograph, were defined to consider the timing of the flow occurrence, the response of watershed, and the increasing and decreasing trend. The results of evaluation were quantified by scoring method, and hence the optimal objective functions for SWAT parameter calibration were determined as MNS (342.48) and SSQR (346.45) with the highest total scores.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 SWAT-CUP을 이용한 SWAT 모형 매개변수 보정을 수행할 때, 목적함수로 인해 발생할 수 있는 불확실성을 정량화하는 것을 목표로 수행되었다. 먼저 낙동강 권역의 내성천 유역을 대상으로 유출량 산정을 위한 SWAT 모형을 구축한 후, SWAT-CUP을 이용하여 8개 목적함수(R2, bR2, NS, MNS, KGE, PBIAS, RSR 및 SSQR)를 기준으로 자동 보정을 수행하였다. 최종 매개변수는 목적함수에 따라 서로 다른 범위를 나타내었으며, 모의 결과의 수문특성 또한 상이하게 도출되는 것을 확인하였다. 이것은 각각의 목적함수가 특정 수문특성에 대하여 민감하게 반응하여 서로 다른 모의 성능을 평가하기 때문이다. 즉, 특정 목적함수는 극치값의 잔차에 대해 민감하게 반응하여 첨두값을 잘 모의하는 반면, 저유량 또는 평균유량에 대한 모의 성능이 떨어질 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 최적 목적함수를 선정하기 위해 8개의 목적함수에 따라 산정된 모의값과 관측값 사이의 수문학적 유사성을 평가하였다. 단순히 유량의 크기 비교 뿐 아니라 유량의 발생 시기, 유역의 반응 및 증가·감소 경향성을 함께 고려하기 위해 수문곡선의 증수부 및 감수부 유지시간 비율을 수문특성으로 정의하여 SWAT 모형을 평가하였으며, 평가 결과를 점수로 정량화하여 나타냈다. 그 결과 최종적으로 SWAT 매개변수 보정을 위한 최적 목적함수는 총점이 높은 MNS (342.48) 및 SSQR (346.45)로 선정되었다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 조형경, "충주댐 유역의 유출량에 대한 SWAT 모형의 예측 불확실성 분석 기법 비교" 한국수자원학회 45 (45): 861-874, 2012

2 류지철, "소양강댐 유역의 유출 자동보정을 위한 SWAT-CUP의 적용 및 평가" 한국물환경학회 28 (28): 347-358, 2012

3 최흥식, "섬강시험유역에서 SWAT-CUP을 이용한 SWAT모형 매개변수 추정" 대한토목학회 33 (33): 529-536, 2013

4 Gupta, H. V., "Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models : Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information" AGU 34 (34): 751-763, 1998

5 Van Liew, M. W., "Suitability of SWAT for the conservation effects assessment project : comparison on USDA agricultural research service watersheds" ASCE 12 (12): 173-189, 2007

6 Gupta, H. V., "Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models : comparison with multilevel expert calibration" ASCE 1999 (1999): 135-143, 1999

7 Houshmand, K. D., "Sensitivity of calibrated parameters and water resources estimates on different objective functions and optimization algorithms" MDPI 9 (9): 384-, 2017

8 이은형, "SWAT-CUP을 이용한 대청호 유역 장기 유출 유량 보정 및 검증" 한국수자원학회 44 (44): 711-720, 2011

9 이웅희, "SWAT 모형의 매개변수와 유역의 지형학적 특성 관계" 응용생태공학회 3 (3): 35-45, 2016

10 Dechmi, F., "SWAT application in intensity irrigation system : model modification, calibration and validation" Elsevier 470-471 : 227-238, 2012

11 Arnold, J. G., "SWAT : model use, calibration, and validation" ASABE 55 (55): 1491-1508, 2012

12 Shafii, M., "Optimizing hydrological consistency by incorporating hydrological signatures into model calibration objectives" AGU 51 : 3796-3814, 2015

13 Abbaspour, K. C., "Modeling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/apline Thur watershed using SWAT" Elsevier 333 : 413-430, 2007

14 Teshager, A. D., "Modeling agricultural watersheds with the soil and water assessment tool(SWAT) : calibration and validation with a novel procedure for spatially explicit HRUs" Springer 57 : 894-911, 2016

15 Muleta, M. K., "Model performance sensitivity to objective function during automated calibrations" ASCE 17 (17): 756-767, 2012

16 Arnold, J. G., "Large-area hydrologic modeling and assessment : Part I. Model development" Wiley 35 (35): 73-89, 1998

17 Li, T., "Impacts of climate change scenarios on non-point source pollution in the Saemangeum watershed, South Korea" MDPI 11 (11): 1982-, 2019

18 Kumar, S., "Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on SWAT model calibration and parameter uncertainty" Wiley 45 (45): 1179-1196, 2009

19 Ahl, R. S., "Hydrologic calibration and validation of SWAT in a snow-dominated Rocky mountain watershed, Montana, U. S. A" Wiley 44 (44): 1411-1430, 2008

20 Sorooshian, S., "Evaluation of maximum likelihood parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall-runoff models : Influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility" AGU 19 (19): 251-259, 1983

21 Feyereisen, G. W., "Evaluation of SWAT manual calibration and input parameter sensitivity in the Little River watershed" ASABE 50 (50): 843-855, 2007

22 Me, W., "Effects of hydrologic conditions on SWAT model performance and parameter sensitivity for a small, mixed land use catchment in New Zealand" EGU 19 : 4127-4147, 2015

23 Gupta, H. V., "Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria : Implications for improving hydrological modeling" Elsevier 377 : 80-91, 2009

24 Yang, J., "Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe basin in China" Elsevier 358 : 1-23, 2008

25 Malago, A., "Comparing calibrated parameter sets of the SWAT model for the Scandinavian and Iberian peninsulas" Taylor & Francis 60 (60): 949-967, 2015

26 Booij, M. J., "Balance between calibration objectives in a conceptual hydrological model" Taylor & Francis 55 (55): 1017-1032, 2010

27 Madsen, H., "Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfallrunoff model using multiple objectives" Elsevier 235 : 276-288, 2000

28 Lee, J., "Assessment of baseflow estimates considering recession characteristics in SWAT" MDPI 10 (10): W10040371-, 2018

29 Blazkova, S., "A limits of acceptability approach to model evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation : Skalka catchment, Czech Republic" AGU 45 : W00B16-, 2009

30 Abbaspour, K. C., "A guideline for successful calibration and uncertainty analysis for soil and water assessment: a review of papers from the 2016 international SWAT conference" MDPI 10 : W10010006-, 2016

31 Arnold, J. G., "A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model" Elsevier 142 : 47-69, 1993