4.7 Article

Towards improving the calibration practice of conceptual hydrological models of extensive green roofs

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 607, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127548

关键词

Green roof; Conceptual Hydrological Model; Multi-objective calibration

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway through the Centre for Research-based Innovation Klima 2050

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conceptual rainfall-runoff models (CRRMs) can be used as a design tool for green roofs. This study showed how changing the calibration practice can reduce the uncertainty of CRRM parameters and enhance their interpretation. The study also demonstrated the ability of the CRRM to simulate runoff from green roofs across different climatic conditions and roof configurations.
Conceptual rainfall-runoff models (CRRMs) can be used as a design tool for green roofs due to their simplicity and acceptable accuracy. This study showed how the uncertainty of CRRM parameters could be reduced by changing the calibration practice, which can enhance the interpretation and identifiability of CRRM parameters. A CRRM was developed and tested on a dataset of 14 extensive green roofs located in four Norwegian cities with different climatic conditions. Two calibration schemes were compared: a common scheme using runoff data as a basis for calibration (single-objective), and a scheme combining runoff and soil moisture data for the calibration (multi-objective scheme). The results confirmed the ability of the CRRM to simulate runoff from extensive green roofs across multiple climatic zones and different roof configurations (Kling Gupta Efficiency > 0.75). The multiobjective calibration scheme was found to reduce the uncertainty of the CRRM parameters, especially the storage parameters, enhancing the physical interpretation of parameter values. The study attempted to give guidelines to estimate parameters of the CRRM which can be used by practitioners for new roof configurations under different climatic conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据