12.07.2015 Views

Quels apports hydrologiques pour les modèles hydrauliques? Vers ...

Quels apports hydrologiques pour les modèles hydrauliques? Vers ...

Quels apports hydrologiques pour les modèles hydrauliques? Vers ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

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

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

0.95(a) Tahlequah, Calibration0.95(b) Tahlequah, Validation0.900.90NSENSE0.85Option 1 (Point + Unif)0.850.80Option 2 (Point Only) (0.78)0.801 2 3 4 5 61 2 3 4 5 60.95(c) Siloam Springs, Calibration0.95(d) Siloam Springs, Validation0.900.90tel-00392240, version 1 - 5 Jun 2009NSENSENSE0.850.800.850.800.750.700.650.60(0.49)1 2 3 4 5 6(e) Kansas, CalibrationNSE0.850.800.850.800.750.700.650.60(0.34)1 2 3 4 5 6(f) Kansas, Validation0.551 2 3 4 5 6Number of tributaries0.551 2 3 4 5 6Number of tributariesFig. 6. Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies (NSE) averaged over the two sub-periods in calibrationand validation mode at the Tahlequah (downstream end of the reach),Siloam Springs (interior of the reach) and Kansas (tributary) stations with an increasingnumber of tributaries modelled individually. Two options were consideredfor lateral inflow injections: option 1 makes use of point and uniformly distributedinflows, option 2 uses only point inflows. The criteria were not calculated at theKansas station for the configuration having only one tributary (see section 4).38

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!