محدود کردن فیلتر کلمنت گروه برای پیش بینی جریان

Data assimilation techniques such as the Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) are often applied to hydrological models with minimal state volume/capacity constraints enforced during ensemble generation. Flux constraints are rarely, if ever, applied. Consequently, model states can be adjusted beyond physically reasonable limits, compromising the integrity of model output. In this paper, we investigate the effect of constraining the EnKF on forecast performance. A “free run” in which no assimilation is applied is compared to a completely unconstrained EnKF implementation, a ‘typical’ hydrological implementation (in which mass constraints are enforced to ensure non-negativity and capacity thresholds of model states are not exceeded), and then to a more tightly constrained implementation where flux as well as mass constraints are imposed to force the rate of water movement to/from ensemble states to be within physically consistent boundaries. A three year period (2008–2010) was selected from the available data record (1976–2010). This was specifically chosen as it had no significant data gaps and represented well the range of flows observed in the longer dataset. Over this period, the standard implementation of the EnKF (no constraints) contained eight hydrological events where (multiple) physically inconsistent state adjustments were made. All were selected for analysis. Mass constraints alone did little to improve forecast performance; in fact, several were significantly degraded compared to the free run. In contrast, the combined use of mass and flux constraints significantly improved forecast performance in six events relative to all other implementations, while the remaining two events showed no significant difference in performance. Placing flux as well as mass constraints on the data assimilation framework encourages physically consistent state estimation and results in more accurate and reliable forward predictions of streamflow for robust decision-making. We also experiment with the observation error, which has a profound effect on filter performance. We note an interesting tension exists between specifying an error which reflects known uncertainties and errors in the measurement versus an error that allows “optimal” filter updating.