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

LERAT ET AL.: VALUE OF UPSTREAM FLOW MEASUREMENTS X - 31Table 3.Performance of models in calibration and validation modes over the 192 catchments(Classical Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency CEff on 384 periods). Efficiency of upstream simulations cannotbe calculated for the UP-Meas model because the model uses measured upstream dischargestel-00392240, version 1 - 5 Jun 2009as input (see Figure 2).Models Benchmark UP-Meas UP-SimInputs P UP ,E UP , Q UP , P UP ,E UP ,P INT ,E INT P INT ,E INT P INT ,E INTCal. Ver. Cal. Ver. Cal. Ver.Upstream simulations (UP)25% quantile 0.47 0.46 - - 0.73 0.70Mean 0.59 0.57 - - 0.79 0.75Median 0.69 0.68 - - 0.83 0.7975% quantile 0.80 0.77 - - 0.88 0.85Downstream simulations (TOTAL)25% quantile 0.82 0.79 0.87 0.84 0.81 0.78Mean 0.86 0.83 0.90 0.88 0.84 0.81Median 0.88 0.86 0.92 0.90 0.88 0.8675% quantile 0.92 0.90 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91Table 4.Results of the linear regression between the physical descriptors and the relativeefficiency REff(UP-Meas/Benchmark) in validation mode.Descriptor Regression Standardformula r 2 Deviation(least square) of residualsSurface REff = 0.62 0.08ratio (RS) 0.65 × RSMean Flow REff = 0.64 0.08ratio (RQM) 0.60 × RQM99% flow percentile REff = 0.67 0.08ratio(RQ99) 0.57 × RQ99D R A F T July 24, 2008, 3:43pm D R A F T