1395

DWB ) GLUE :
(

6
1 *2 3 4 5

(1
(*2
*
k.Davary@um.ac.ir :
(3
(4
(5
(6

1395/03/02 : 1394/12/26 :

. DWB
) (
) (GLUE . ) (
( ) ( [ ) ]
. ) ( ) ( d
. GLUE
) 55( 95
.

DWB GLUE :

) .(1381

. .


 / 126

10000 (
1 )2
(1974 Budyko .
. Tekleab
) (2011 DWB

5 ) 1995 2000
( .
-
.

) SWAT 4 .
HBV5 20 12 (
. ) .(Gerrits et al., 2009
DWB

) - (
) (
) Fu,1981 Zhang et al., 2004 Donohue et
al., 2007 Yang et al., 2007 .(2009 Potter
.
Zhang Zhang
) (2008 ) (2008
.
) DWB3 (
6 7 (1974) Budyko
8

.
/ /1 95

) ( .
Fang ) (2009
) 10
4
Soil and Water Assessment Tool
5
Hydrologiska Byr ans Vattenbalansavdelning
6 1 demand and supply framework
Natural uncertainties
7 2 Budyko framework
Model uncertainties
8 3 Dynamic Water Balance Model
Parameter uncertainties
 127 DWB ) GLUE : (/

) (GLUE Beven
DWB (1992) Binley -

. Abbaspour) SUFI2 (2009 MCMC
) Campbell (1999
.
Stedinger ) (2008
1992 2008 500
GLUE .
. -

Hargreaves and
(1982) Samani .
-
) Allen (1998 . 58/35 58/73 58/82 59/95
) (1392 - 36/46 36/66 36/38 36/3
- .
281/5 151
) ( -
-
1393 1472
- .
- . - 12
) 1380-81 -92
Sankarasubramanian And Vogel (1391 144 .
) (2003,2002
0 /33 /33 1 -
1 2 2 3
3 7 .
/ /195

.
DWB
-

 / 128

.
) (1 )
(2 .
= ( ) ( ) )( )(1
= + + )(2

) ( =0 t
) (G=0 . P ET
) (2 -
) (1 ) (2 H G
. .
= + )(3
= + )(4
4 - ) (4
. ) .(2002 Arora
) (
= + )(5
= ( )
) ( . ) ( ) (6
) (5 7 . .
- ) (
= )(6
( )
= + )(7

= )(8
1+
) (2002 Arora 8
.
ET
= )( = )(9
)( 1 +
. - ) (9 Budyko
) ( 1 1974
/ /3 95

) (1 -
) ( 1 ) ) ( )( 10
(1 . . 1
129 DWB ) GLUE : (/

= ( ) Tekleab (2011 ) .1

ET 1
= [tanh( )(1 )] . )(10

( 265
50 2000 -
. DWB -

Fu .
) (1981 11
. ) 5(
) ( ) Fu,1981 Milly, 1994 .(Zhang et al,2004
Zhang )(2008
. ) (DWB
)

= 1+ ( 1+ ) )(11

Zhang ) (2008
)
) P(t t ( -
/ /3 95

) Qd(t
. .
)P(t) = Q (t) + X(t )(12
 / 130

)) (S(t)-S(t-1 )R(t ) X(t

: -
) ET(t
)X(t) = R(t) + S(t) S(t 1) + ET(t )(13
) (1974 ) X (t ) X(t
) P(t ) X (t ) P(t ) Q (t )) (Smax-S(t-1 -
) .(14 ) ETP(t )) X (t
) X (t ) X(t )X (t (
) .(15 )P(t

. Budyko
lim )X(t) = P(t )(14
)(

) (

)lim X(t) = X (t )(15

)(

) (

))) (X(t
( ) ( ) (1 .
.
)X (t
P(t) F , 1 P(t) 0
= )X(t )P(t )(16
0 P(t) = 0
. ) X0(t)/P(t )(16 - ) F(-1
) (1. ) (1981) Fu
) (11 .


) (11
.
) ((
) 12 (16

.

)Q (t) = P(t) X(t )(17
)
( . ( )
)W(t) = X(t) + S(t 1 )(18
t -
/ /3 95

) ET(t )) X(t (13 )(18

) S(t .
) -
( )Y(t (2002) Sankarasubramanian and Vogel
. )Y(t -
 DWB ) GLUE : (131 /

) Y(t ) (22 - ) ETP(t

- ) (Smax )Yo(t
- .
) ETP(t - )) (W(t .
) W(t .
(1948) Budyko - -
) ET(t ) (23 . ) (20 ) (21

)W(t) = ET(t) + S(t) + R(t )(19
)lim Y(t) = W(t )(20
)(

)(

)lim Y(t) = Y (t )(21

)(

)(

( )+
) ( , 2 ( )0
=) ( ) ( )(22
0 ( )=0
)ETP(t
W(t)F , 2 w(t) 0
= )ET(t )W(t )(23
0 w(t) = 0

. ][

Zhang ) (2008 22 DWB

23 - . ][

) ( ) (

.
. - . 22
23 ) (16

)( ) = ( ) + (t )(24
) (25 ) R(t
. ) (24 .
( ) = ( ) ) ( )(25
)
( .
/ /195

=) ( )( 1 )(26
=) ( )( ) + (1 ) ( 1 )(27
=) ( ( )+ )( )(28
) Q (t Q G (t)
. d
 / 132

2/9 . Donohue GLUE

) (2011 97
1/8 Li 3/8 ) (2013
1/3 3/9 Zhang ) (2004 470
1/7 5 . ) (GLUE
][ ][
5 . ) s_max
(mm .
.
) (1392 50 700 :
.
.
: N GLUE

) (LHS . )1992 Beven. and Binley Freer 1996
LHS .(2008Manache and Melching
) ( Zhang
) (2008 ] d[1/Month
.
:
.
][ ][
Yang
. Nash and ) (2007 108
(1970) Sutcliffe (1981) Fu
. - 1/3 4/6

( )
( )
= 1 )(29
( )
: Uj j
) (ASR ( )

/ /3 95

j N
. .
) (NS
) (U ( . ( ) ( )
)
 DWB ) GLUE : (133 /

) 1393
Tekleab .(2011 .
-
. ) (J 10


Vrugt) GLUE (2008 .

100000
) (1 .
1000


DWB
)

(
- .

) ( .
:
-
. .
)
95 (
) (
(2003,2002) Sankarasubramanian and Vogel .
- GLUE

.

.1 DWB -81
1380 1391-92
-
- -

)( )( )( )( )( )( )( )(
3/87 1/56 15/59 0/00 2/98 0/00 25/12 0/00
/ /195

11/11 221/91 268/10 146/70 10/40 55/64 238/48 150/00

5/78 19/75 112/43 20/72 4/89 4/96 117/17 26/18
2/01 28/34 75/24 25/08 1/89 7/96 65/88 30/09
0/35 1/44 0/67 1/21 0/39 1/60 0/56 1/15
 DWB ) GLUE : (134 /

.
) ( GLUE

) (
) (2 .

. .
) (2 -
) (2 .



.
( )
GLUE .


.
) (
(1978) Mein and Brown .
25
.
.
) (1391
- .

) (2 .
) (2
.
/ /3 95

.

 DWB ) GLUE : (135 /

DWB .2
)(%
32/29 141/87 439/34 [ ]
25/69 0/73 2/83 ]_1 [-

5/99 0/11 1/91 ]_2 [-
22/06 0/15 0/67 ]d[1/Month
35/84 155/51 433/87 [ ]

33/38 0/90 2/69 ]_1 [-

4/62 0/07 1/44 ]_2 [-
19/65 0/13 0/68 ]d[1/Month
/ /195

.2 : :

(1996) Beven


 / 136

. ) (4 . GLUE

) )
GLUE ( .
( .
3
.
. NS
. ) (3
.

* DWB .3

NS ]d[1/Month ]_2 [- ]_1 [- [ ]

)0/639(0/565 )0/815(0/715 )1/809(1/400 )2/028(1/810 )686/658(577/020 1
)0.637(0/564 )0/818(0/784 )1/828(1/420 )1/952(1/774 )674/642(675/840 2
)0/636(0/563 )0/602(0/625 )1/848(1/370 )2/102(1/608 )497/358 (690/196 3
)0/634(0/563 )0/716(0/662 )1/847(1/396 )2/246(1/630 )498/817 (625/022 4
)0/634(0/563 )0/842(0/611 )1/823(1/417 )2/062(1/754 )603/810(623/385 5
)0/633(0/561 )0/612(0/614 )1/865(1/410 )2/090(1/644 )540/867(686/785 6
* DWB .

DWB .4
*TV1
686/66 699/92 150/94 [ ]
2/03 5//00 1/71 ]_1 [-
1/81 2/24 1/66 ]_2 [-
0/81 1/00 0/35 ]d[1/Month
577/02 698/92 112/70 [ ]
1/82 4/99 1/46 ]_1 [-
1/40 1/62 1/26 ]_2 [-
0/72 1/00 0/37 ]d[1/Month
*

DWB
DWB

.
/ /1 95

) 1380 (1392

. ) (4 GLUE 3
. -

 DWB ) GLUE : (137 /

)
-
( . -
.
) (spread

) (coverage 5
. ) 4 .
DWB GLUE DWB

- 55
) (
) ( 1 ) ( .
) ) ((1 ) (1392
) ( 1 ) ) SWAT

((1 .
DWB
. 50 ) (
95
)) W(t ) (18 (

) (
.
) (

) (23 ]_2 [-
) (
) (

) (4 .
) _2 [-]=1/4
_2 [-]=1/81 ( 95
) (5 )

) (

) (

/ /195

) ( ) (

) (5 DWB ) ( .

( 15
) (
) 1

) (

( .
1 True Values
 / 138

DWB
-
) (
) (
] _2 [-
.
) ( ) (
) ( ) (

.3 DWB -81
1380 1391-92
.5
)( )(%
4/73 /62
11/7 /55

.4 95 ) ( )(
1380-81 1391-92
/ /1 95
 DWB ) GLUE : (139 /

) (5
] _2 [-
_2 -
- )) (W(t
Zhang )) (2004

- (
_2 )(1
_2 .
. -

) (
) (
) (
) (
.5

.
[ ] ][
.

Zhang
) (2008 DWB
. .
/ /3 95

- GLUE
.
DWB
 / 140

. .
DWB
)
(
. -

. .1392 .
. 227 .
- .1391 . . .
.176-167 . . . . -
. .( - ) .1381 .
. 578
. .1393 .
. 126
.1392 . . . .
.149-137 :64 . . .
- .1392 . . . .
-466 :(7) 4 . .( : )
.477
Abbaspour, K.C. 2009. User Manual for SWAT-CUP SWAT calibration and uncertainty analysis programs.
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dbendorf, Switzerland, 325 pp.
Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop
water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56- FAO, Rome.
Arora, V. K. 2002. The use of the aridity index to assess climate change effect on annual runoff,J. Hydrol., 265:
164177.
Beven K. J. and A. Binley. 1992. The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction.
Hydrological Processes, 6(3): 279-298.
Beven, K.J. 1996. Equifinality and Uncertainty in Geomorphological Modelling, in BL Rhoads and C E Thorn
(Eds.), the Scientific Nature of Geomorphology, Wiley: Chichester, 289-313.
Bowen, I. S. 1926. The ratio of heat losses by conduction and by evaporation from any water surfaceIn:
Rosenberg, N. J. (Eds.) Microclimate: The Biological Environment. Wiley. New York, 124 pp.
Budyko, M. I. 1974: Climate and life, Academic, New York, 185 pp.
Campbell E. P. Fox D. R. and Bates B. C. 1999. A Bayesian approach to parameter estimation and pooling in
nonlinear flood event models. Water Resource Research, 35:211-220.
Donohue RJ, Roderick ML, McVicar2 TR. 2007. On the importance of including vegetation dynamics in
Budykos hydrological model.Hydrological Earth System Science, 11: 983995.
Fang, Z., Zhang, L., and Xu, Z.: 2009.Effects of vegetation cover change on stream flow at a range of spatial
scales, 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress cairns Australia, 1317 July, 134 pp.
95 /1 /

Freer J, Beven KJ, Ambroise B. 1996. Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of
data: an application of the GLUE approach.Water Resources Research, 32(7): 21612173
Fu, B. P., 1981, On the calculation of the evaporation from land surface, Sci. Atmos. Sin., 5(1): 2331.
Gerrits A.M.J. Savenije H.H.G. Veling E.J.M. Pfister L. 2009. Analytical derivation of the Budyko curve based
on rainfall characteristics and a simple evaporation model. Water Resources Research, 45: 44-53.
Hargreaves, G. H. and Samani, Z. A. 1982. Estimating potential evapo-ration. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.-ASCE,
108(3): 225230.
 141 /( : ) GLUE DWB

Manache G, Melching CS. 2008. Identification of reliable regression- and correlation-based sensitivitymeasures
for importance rankingofwater-quality model parametersEnvironmental Modelling & Software, 23:549562.
Mein R. G. and Brown B. M. 1978. Sensitivity of optimized parameters in watershed models. Water Resources
Research, 14: 299-303.
Milly P.C.D. 1994. Climate, soil water storage, and the average annual water balance. Water Resources
Research, 30(7): 2143-2156.
Nash, J.E., and Sutcliffe, J.V. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models, part 1: A discussion of
principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10: 282290.
Potter, N. J. and Zhang, L.2009: Inter annual variability of catchment water balance in Australia, Journal of
Hydrology, 369: 120-129.
Sankarasubramania, A. and Vogel, R. M.: 2003. Hydroclimatology of the contential United States, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 30, 1363, doi:10.1029/2002GL015937.
Sankarasubramanian A. Vogel R.M. 2002. Annual hydroclimatology of the United States. Water Resources
Research, 38(6):1083-1095.
Stedinger J.R., Vogel R.M., Lee S.U., and Batchelder R.. Appraisal of the generalized likelihood
uncertainty estimation (GLUE) method, Water Resources Research, 44: 1-17.
Tekleab.S, S.Uhlenbrook, Y. Mohamed, H. H. G. Savenije, M. Temesgen,J. Wenninger, 2011, Water balance
modeling of Upper Blue Nile catchments using a top-down approach, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15: 21792193
Vrugt J. A. Gupta H. V. Bouten W. and Sorooshian S. 2003. A shuffled complex evolution Metropolis algorithm
for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters, Water Resources Research,
39(8):1-14.
Yang, D., Sun, F., Liu, Z., Cong, Z., Ni, G., Lei, Z., 2007. Analyzing spatial and temporal variability of annual
waterenergy balance in nonhumid regions of China usingthe Budyko hypothesis. Water Resources Research
43, W04426. Doi: 10.1029 /2006.WR005224.
Zhang L. Potter N. Hickel K. Zhang Y. Shao Q. 2008. Water balance modelling over variable time scales based
on the Budyko framework-model development and testing. Journal of Hydrology, 360:117-131.
Zhang, L., K. Hickel, W.R. Dawes, F.H.S. Chiew, A.W. Western, and P.R. Briggs. 2004. A rational function
approach for estimating mean annual evapotranspiration. Water Resources Research, 40,
W02502,doi:10.1029/2003WR002710.
95 /1 /
 Uncertainty assessment DWB model by using GLUE method
(case study: Andrabi and Farvbrman catchments)

Saeed Emamifar1, Kamran Davary2*, Hussain Ansari3, Bijan Ghahraman4, Seyed Mahmoud Hosseini5,
Mohsen Naseri6

1) PhD student Irrigation and Drainage, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi
University Mashhad
2*) Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
*
Corresponding author: k.Davary@um.ac.ir
3) Associate Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad,, Iran
4) Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
5) Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
6) Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tehran University, Tehran,
Iran

Received: 16-03-2016 Accepted: 22-05-2016

Abstract

The analysis uncertainty of hydrological models and identify the statistical properties them basis of existing
relationships between of the model parameters and inputs is numerous of the most important hydrological
modeling. In this context one of the known methods for modeling the water balance at the catchements scale is
Dynamic water balance model (DWB) that By Zhang et al. (2008) developed. In this study, the model calibration
and uncertainty assessment in the Andrab and Farvbrman catchments from the Kalshvr River branches (Nishapur
catchment) respectively at the zarandand and Eyshabad hydrometery stations, located in semi-arid regions by
using Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) method was studied. The results indicated that in
terms of the ability to identify, Between four parameters of the model, Retention efficacy parameter (_1) and
basin water storage capacity (s_max [mm]) in the calibration process was less of the ability to identify (The
specific domain ptimum for their can not be found) and uncertainty in the runoff simulated by the model, have a
greater role. In this direction, the efficacy parameter evapotranspiration (_2) and the gradual flow (d), resistant
behavior of the errors in the runoff observation and are so-called conservative. Evaluation of uncertainty runoff
simulated showed that in general, GLUE method is well managed that it calibrate amount of runoff from case
study, so that more of the runoff data recorded (over 55%) in the range of 95 percent.
Vol. 6, No. 1, Fall 2016

Keywords: Budyko framework, GLUE, DWB model, runoff