8 Calibration and Validation

SWAT is a semi-physically based model. Not all processes are described completely physically
‘like they happen in nature’. Some processes are depicted in a simplified manner. For instance,
water movement in the soil is explained with the concept of different storage pools instead of using
the Richard’s equation to describe soil water movement in the unsaturated zone. Since SWAT
incorporates a mix of process descriptions, some use a concept, some are physically based,
eventually it is termed semi-physically based.

All processes, and especially our descriptions of these processes (what Beven (2012) calls the
conceptual and perceptual model) include a number of parameters. ‘It is unfortunate that it is not,
in general, possible to estimate the parameters of models by either measurement or prior
estimation. Studies that have attempted to do so have generally found that, even using an intensive
series of measurements of parameter values, the results have not been entirely satisfactory’ (Beven
2012)

We can distinguish ‘between physical parameters, which define the physical structure of the
system under study, and process parameters, which define the order of magnitude of processes.
Most Models will contain both types of parameters. Definition of these process parameters is
known as calibration or model tuning.’ (Wainwright and Mulligan 2013)

Generally physical parameters can be found simply by measurement, however, as mentioned

above there are often profound problems to that, e.g. that measured and model parameters are
incommensurate, that they are measured on a different spatial scale (Beven 2012).

• Read Wainwright and Mulligan (2013, chapter 2) to know more about model building,
calibration and validation. The PDF is available on Moodle and CIP server.

Therefore, and also to address all model parameters that can simply not be measured, we use ‘a
process of optimization [. . . ] [to measure] the agreement between model results and a set of
observations used for calibration.’ (Section 2.2.3 of the Chapter 2 of Wainwright and Mulligan
2013).

The aim is to modify model outputs in order to approximate observed data. The model’s quality
can be evaluated with what is called performance ratings/ goodness of fit characteristics/ objective
functions (see Chapter 9 later). Depending on the specific requirement to your results, your model
can be termed calibrated if it fulfills your specific performance ratings - so it is to some extent a
subjective attribute. To check whether your calibration is successful and to evaluate if your model
can produce good and veritable results under different circumstances (i.e. on a different time
period) one commonly uses a split-sample approach where your data set is divided into a
calibration and a validation period (see Figure 8.1).

49
Figure 8.1: Warmup period, calibration and validation period. Prior to model runs, a warm-up
period is used to initialize storage pools. These two periods are strictly separated.

According to Moriasi et al. (2007) calibration should involve the following points:

• The calibration period shall include wet, average and dry years and last at least 3 years to
5 years (excluding a warmup period).

This ensures that the used data encompasses an adequate range of hydrologic events like low flows
or flood peaks. The aim is to activate as many model processes as possible.
Example: If the used calibration period encompasses only dry years with short rainfall events of
low intensity, only parameters influencing low-flow events will be adjusted whereas parameters
governing peak flows won’t be calibrated. If the model is then used to simulate flow patterns for
wet conditions, it may fail to successfully simulate the observed runoff.

• Usage of multiple evaluation techniques to evaluate model performance.

If only one evaluation statistic is used (such as the R2), emphasis is put on optimizing this single
value. Other aspects of the hydrograph may be neglected.
Example: The user decides to evaluate the model solely based on R2. One weakness of R2 is that
it is sensitive to proportional effects. So if the simulation overestimates low flow for a given period
but underestimates peak flows for a period of comparable length, these errors may balance
themselves. Multiple performance ratings reveal such influences.

• Calibration of all constituents of interest (hydrologic cycle, transport of nitrogen, sediment

and phosphorus)
In SWAT, the calibration of the hydrologic cycle is a precondition for the calibration of other
transport processes. Nonetheless, these single processes (nitrogen transport, etc.) have to be
calibrated, too.

50
8.1 Procedures for Calibration

For your model calibration you can follow these steps:

1. Identification of parameters available for calibration
2. Sensitivity analysis of parameters
3. Calibration (manual or automatic)

8.1.1 Parameter identification and sensitivity analysis

For the hydrologic cycle, SWAT offers 49 parameters (Figure 8.2). Based on your Group work,
does this Figure 8.2 contain all parameters and at the correct level that you expect? If no,
then what parameters are missing? The parameters have a different impact level. Some can be
specified on the basin level: a change in value will affect the entire basin. In contrast, parameters
on the HRU level can (but don’t necessarily have to) be modified for each HRU.

But so far we don’t know which parameters have a strong effect on the model output and which
ones can be used for fine-tuning model results or can be neglected. These strategies are possible:
Without using the own model a literature review reveals which parameters are used most often.
The intersection of parameters used in different publications would be a good point to start. This
also shows which sector of the hydrologic cycle strongly influences model results, like
groundwater related parameters for instance. However, due to the interactions between parameters,
the identified sensitive parameters may vary from different study areas with different initial
parameter values. Therefore, it would be always better to run a site-specific sensitivity analysis to
determine the sensitive parameters for a given study area.

Another possibility to identify sensitive parameters is to run a sensitivity analysis. The simplest
method is to change one parameter at a time (while leaving the other values as they are) and to
track the results. If a change in value exerts a strong influence on model results, the parameter is
sensitive. If not, then it is insensitive. In our exercise, we can update our Group work to gain
a better understanding of the effects of parameters for our Thann catchment, check the
details later on Page 53.

• For more theoretical information, read the corresponding chapters in Wainwright and
Mulligan (2013, chapter 2, provided already).

8.1.2 Calibration

Calibration can be done manually or automatically. Manual calibration involves changing sensitive
parameters in order to increase the agreement between simulated and observed values in terms of
the performance rating of the model. For some models where only a few parameters have to be
changed this is still appropriate. On the other hand, manual calibration is labor-intensive especially
when the number of parameters and the model complexity are high. However, this kind of manual

51
calibration is more helpful for improving our understanding of the model and effects of parameters,
and thus we will start with manual calibration first during our exercise.

Automatic calibration basically uses two things: An error statistic that reveals the predictive error
of the model. In this case the error statistic is termed objective function; and a search algorithm
that searches for parameter values that minimizes the predictive error of the model and maximizes
the value of the objective function. There are numerous search algorithms. One of them will be
presented with SWAT-CUP. The availability of automatic calibration highly improved the
utilization of SWAT. Figure 8.3 shows the steps in the iterative process of calibration.

Figure 8.2: Parameters for the hydrologic cycle in SWAT

8.1.3 Validation

Calibration adjusts a model’s behavior to hydrologic events of a certain period. But will a
simulation result in acceptable performance ratings for other periods? This is tested with the so
called validation. The calibrated model is simply applied to another period. In this case there must
not be any overlap of the calibration with the validation period for an independent evaluation.
Moreover, parameters will not be modified any more. If performance ratings remain acceptable,
this suggests that the calibration yields a robust model. If the calibration is carried out erroneously
or the calibration period does not encompass a sufficient range of hydrologic events the calibration
has to be redone.

52
Hands-on exercise

This chapter gives a general idea about calibration and validation, now we will do some exercise
regarding the calibration.
1. How to change the parameters in the SWAT model for the calibration purpose?

Please read the Section 12, 13 and 14.4 of the ArcSWAT_The User's Guide _2012 to learn how
to change the parameter values using ArcSWAT tool, in particular using the “Manual
Calibration Helper” for a relative change for all involved files (described in details in the
Section 14.4 of the ArcSWAT_The User's Guide _2012. After each change, please check the
corresponding Text files under the folder …\Scenarios\Default\TxtInOut to see the changed
values there.

2. Finalizing the Group work about the effect of changes in the parameters on simulated
flow.

After you gain the knowledge of how to change the parameters, then you will be able to update
your answer to the Group work about the actual effect of a given parameter. Because some
parameters are involved in many equations and some of equations are not straightforward, then
you most likely were not sure to infer the effect by just checking the respective equations in the
theory document. Now actually you can find the right answers by changing the parameter values
and running the model to check the actual effect on simulated streamflow (reflected by the
FLOW_OUT in the output.rch).

Important remarks:
 Since we are more interested in the simulated streamflow at the main outlet of the Thann
catchment, we need to check the simulated time-series of streamflow for the final reach
(No.16 in our case, we have a total of 16 sub-basins). After Exercise 05_06, you are
expected to understand the output.rch file and be able to find the right simulated
streamflow time-series.

 It should be noted that during the adjustment/change of parameter values, we have to take
into account the spatial variability of that parameter to maintain a rather consistent
change for the whole watershed. For example, for the parameter CN2 in the .mgt file, we
know already this parameter is spatial variable (Level: HRU), then we should make a
relative change, that is, for instance increasing by 10% for the CN2 to all HRU files via
the “Manual Calibration Helper” (by multiplying the CN2 with a value of 1.1 in this
case).

In the case of a parameter that was assigned as Constant values for the entire watershed,
then we can just change that value by replacing it with a new value. For example, for the
parameter ESCO, the level of it is HRU, but SWAT used a constant value for the whole
watershed (ESCO = 0.95). To make a change for the ESCO parameter, we can simply
adjust it using an absolute value of 1.0 (increase) or 0.5 (decrease) to all HRU files.

53
Figure 8.3 Calibration procedure in SWAT, from (Moriasi et al. 2007)

54