09.01.2013 Views

PhD Thesis Emmanuel Obeng Bekoe - Cranfield University

PhD Thesis Emmanuel Obeng Bekoe - Cranfield University

PhD Thesis Emmanuel Obeng Bekoe - Cranfield University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

147<br />

6.1.1 Dry Season<br />

The daily streamflow results of the lumped mode simulation for the entire<br />

modelling period were given in Chapter 5 in Figures 5.8 and 5.10 and Table 5.3<br />

for the calibration and validation periods. In Table 6.1, analyses of the<br />

simulated results for the dry periods (defined from the beginning of November to<br />

the end of February) for the lumped mode are shown for both calibration and<br />

validation periods.<br />

From Table 6.1 the daily RMS for the dry periods remains constant i.e. 0.64 mm<br />

for both calibration and the validation periods, while the weekly RMS differs<br />

slightly. However, the daily NSE was unacceptable for both calibration (-1.12)<br />

and validation (-10.68) periods. The ACRU model overestimated the daily<br />

streamflow during the dry periods by over 50% (PBIAS) during the calibration<br />

period and by over 330% (PBIAS) in the validation period. The PME statistic<br />

failed during both calibration and validation periods.<br />

Table 6.1 Performance Statistics for Daily/Weekly Lumped<br />

Simulations at Manhia for the dry period<br />

Daily Calibration Daily Validation 11<br />

1968-1970 1970-1972 1971-31/12/72<br />

01/11-28/02 01/11-28/02 01/11-28/02<br />

Daily Weekly Daily Weekly Daily Weekly<br />

RMS (mm) 0.64 4.33 0.64 4.15 0.19 1.33<br />

PBIAS (%) -50.19 -48.03 --330.58 -367.17 -164.85 -193.43<br />

NSE -1.12 -1.35 -10.68 -13.85 -3.98 -3.13<br />

PME -ve -ve -ve -ve -ve -ve<br />

In considering the lumped mode performance in relation to the PBIAS statistics<br />

for the entire period of simulation (i.e. wet and dry seasons), Tables 5.3 and 5.4<br />

showed that there was overestimation of 4% (48 mm) within the calibration<br />

period, but nearly 70% (188.7mm) in the validation period. However, this<br />

overestimation in the calibration period is entirely accounted for during the dry<br />

period where the PBIAS of 50% gave a total simulated streamflow of 144 mm<br />

as against 96 mm observed. In the entire validation period, the overestimation<br />

11 For period with observed data<br />

<strong>Emmanuel</strong> <strong>Obeng</strong> <strong>Bekoe</strong> <strong>PhD</strong> <strong>Thesis</strong> Chapter 6 Discussion of Results

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!