Journal Home Online First Current Issue Archive For Authors Journal Information 中文版

Engineering >> 2018, Volume 4, Issue 5 doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2018.08.012

A Comparison of SWAT Model Calibration Techniquesfor Hydrological Modeling in the Ganga River Watershed

Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India

Received: 2017-10-31 Revised: 2018-05-18 Accepted: 2018-08-31 Available online: 2018-09-07

Next Previous

Abstract

The Ganga River, the longest river in India, is stressed by extreme anthropogenic activity and climate change, particularly in the Varanasi region. Anticipated climate changes and an expanding populace are expected to further impede the efficient use of water. In this study, hydrological modeling was applied to Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) modeling in the Ganga catchment, over a region of 15 621.612 km2 in the southern part of Uttar Pradesh. The primary goals of this study are: To test the execution and applicability of the SWAT model in anticipating runoff and sediment yield; and to compare and determine the best calibration algorithm among three popular algorithmssequential uncertainty fitting version 2 (SUFI-2), the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE), and parallel solution (ParaSol). The input data used in the SWAT were the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model (DEM), Landsat-8 satellite imagery, soil data, and daily meteorological data. The watershed of the study area was delineated into 46 sub-watersheds, and a land use/land cover (LULC) map and soil map were used to create hydrological response units (HRUs). Models utilizing SUFI-2, GLUE, and ParaSol methods were constructed, and these algorithms were compared based on five categories: their objective functions, the concepts used, their performances, the values of P-factors, and the values of R-factors. As a result, it was observed that SUFI-2 is a better performer than the other two algorithms for use in calibrating Indian watersheds, as this method requires fewer runs for a computational model and yields the best results among the three algorithms. ParaSol is the worst performer among the three algorithms. After calibrating using SUFI-2, five parameters including the effective channel hydraulic conductivity (CH_K2), the universal soil-loss equation (USLE) support parameter (USLE_P), Manning’s n value for the main channel (CH_N2), the surface runoff lag time (SURLAG), and the available water capacity of the soil layer (SOL_AWC) were observed to be the most sensitive parameters for modeling the present watershed. It was also found that the maximum runoff occurred in sub-watershed number 40 (SW#40), while the maximum sediment yield was 50 t·a−1 for SW#36, which comprised barren land. The average evapotranspiration for the basin was 411.55 mm·a−1. The calibrated model can be utilized in future to facilitate investigation of the impacts of LULC, climate change, and soil erosion.

Figures

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

References

[ 1 ] Kumar S, Mishra A, Raghuwanshi NS. Identification of critical erosion watersheds for control management in data scarce condition using the SWAT model. J Hydrol Eng 2015;20(6):C4014008. link1

[ 2 ] Khalid K, Ali MF, Rahman NFA, Mispan MR, Haron SH, Othman Z, et al. Sensitivity analysis in watershed model using SUFI-2 algorithm. Procedia Eng 2016;162:441–7. link1

[ 3 ] Salimi ET, Nohegar A, Malekian A, Hosseini M, Holisaz A. Runoff simulation using SWAT model and SUFI-2 algorithm (case study: Shafaroud watershed, Guilan Province, Iran). Caspian J Environ Sci 2016;14:69–80. link1

[ 4 ] Noori N, Kalin L. Coupling SWAT and ANN models for enhanced daily streamflow prediction. J Hydrol 2016;533:141–51. link1

[ 5 ] Qiu Z, Wang L. Hydrological and water quality assessment in a suburban watershed with mixed land uses using the SWAT model. J Hydrol Eng 2014;19 (4):816–27. link1

[ 6 ] Pisinaras V, Petalas C, Gikas GD, Gemitzi A, Tsihrintzis VA. Hydrological and water quality modeling in a medium-sized basin using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). Desalination 2010;250(1):274–86. link1

[ 7 ] Omani N, Tajrishy M, Abrishamchi A. Modeling of a river basin using SWAT model and SUFI-2. Proceedings of the 4th International SWAT Conference, 2007. link1

[ 8 ] Fukunaga DC, Cecílio RA, Zanetti SS, Oliveira LT, Caiado MAC. Application of the SWAT hydrologic model to a tropical watershed at Brazil. Catena 2015;125:206–13. link1

[ 9 ] Shi P, Hou Y, Xie Y, Chen C, Chen X, Li Q, et al. Application of a SWAT model for hydrological modeling in the Xixian Watershed, China. J Hydrol Eng 2013;18 (11):1522–9. link1

[10] Briak H, Moussadek R, Aboumaria K, Mrabet R. Assessing sediment yield in Kalaya gauged watershed (Northern Morocco) using GIS and SWAT model. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 2016;4(3):177–85. link1

[11] Jeong J, Kannan N, Arnold JG, Glick R, Gosselink L, Srinivasan R, et al. Modeling sedimentation-filtration basins for urban watersheds using soil and water assessment tool. J Environ Eng 2013;139(6):838–48. link1

[12] Yesuf HM, Assen M, Alamirew T, Melesse AM. Modeling of sediment yield in Maybar gauged watershed using SWAT, northeast Ethiopia. Catena 2015;127:191–205. link1

[13] Vigiak O, Malagó A, Bouraoui F, Vanmaercke M, Obreja F, Poesen J, et al. Modelling sediment fluxes in the Danube River Basin with SWAT. Sci Total Environ 2017;599–600:992–1012. link1

[14] Sardar B, Singh AK, Raghuwanshi NS, Chatterjee C. Hydrological modeling to identify and manage critical erosion-prone areas for improving reservoir life: case study of Barakar Basin. J Hydrol Eng 2014;19(1):196–204. link1

[15] Psomas A, Panagopoulos Y, Konsta D, Mimikou M. Designing water efficiency measures in a catchment in Greece using WEAP and SWAT models. Procedia Eng 2016;162:269–76. link1

[16] Vigiak O, Malagó A, Bouraoui F, Vanmaercke M, Poesen J. Adapting SWAT hillslope erosion model to predict sediment concentrations and yields in large basins. Sci Total Environ 2015;538:855–75. link1

[17] Vilaysane B, Takara K, Luo P, Akkharath I, Duan W. Hydrological stream flow modelling for calibration and uncertainty analysis using SWAT model in the Xedone River Basin, Lao PDR. Procedia Environ Sci 2015;28:380–90. link1

[18] Ercan MB, Goodall JL, Castronova AM, Humphrey M, Beekwilder N. Calibration of SWAT models using the cloud. Environ Model Softw 2014;62:188–96. link1

[19] Talebizadeh M, Morid S, Ayyoubzadeh SA, Ghasemzadeh M. Uncertainty analysis in sediment load modeling using ANN and SWAT Model. Water Resour Manage 2010;24(9):1747–61. link1

[20] Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Bosch D. Calibration and uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model using Genetic Algorithms and Bayesian Model Averaging. J Hydrol 2009;374(3–4):307–17. link1

[21] Tuo Y, Duan Z, Disse M, Chiogna G. Evaluation of precipitation input for SWAT modeling in Alpine catchment: a case study in the Adige River Basin (Italy). Sci Total Environ 2016;573:66–82. link1

[22] Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Van Liew M. Approximating SWAT model using artificial neural network and support vector machine 1. J Am Water Resour Assoc 2009;45(2):460–74. link1

[23] Romagnoli M, Portapila M, Rigalli A, Maydana G, Burgués M, García CM. Assessment of the SWAT model to simulate a watershed with limited available data in the Pampas region. Argentina. Sci Total Environ 2017;596– 597:437–50. link1

[24] Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR. Soil and water assessment tool. Theoretical documentation version 2009. Report. College Station: Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University System; 2011. Report No.:406. link1

[25] Abbaspour KC. Calibration and uncertainty programs—a user manual.Proceedings of the SWAT-CUP Workshop. Dübendorf: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag); 2014.

[26] Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, et al. SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 2012;55:1491–508. link1

Related Research