Fubo Zhao

Prof. Fubo Zhao

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

9Years (2018-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2021 in Journal of Hydrology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JHJingyi Hu
Jingyi Hu
Yiping WuYiping Wu
Yiping Wu
LWLijing Wang
Lijing Wang
PSPengcheng Sun
Pengcheng Sun
FZFubo Zhao
Fubo Zhao
YLYanqing Lian
Yanqing Lian

25 May 2018 in Water
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FZFubo Zhao
Fubo Zhao
Yiping WuYiping Wu
Yiping Wu
LQLinjing Qiu
Linjing Qiu
YSYuzhu Sun
Yuzhu Sun
Liqun SunLiqun Sun
Liqun Sun
GWGuoqing Wang
Guoqing Wang
Hydrological models play an important role in water resource management, but they always suffer from various sources of uncertainties. Therefore, it is necessary to implement uncertainty analysis to gain more confidence in numerical modeling. The study employed three methods (i.e., Parameter Solution (ParaSol), Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI2), and Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE)) to quantify the parameter sensitivity and uncertainty of the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model in a mountain-loess transitional watershed—Jingchuan River Basin (JCRB) on the Loess Plateau, China. The model was calibrated and validated using monthly observed streamflow at the Jingchuan gaging station and the modeling results showed that SWAT performed well in the study period in the JCRB. The parameter sensitivity results demonstrated that any of the three methods were capable for the parameter sensitivity analysis in this area. Among the parameters, CN2, SOL_K, and ALPHA_BF were more sensitive to the simulation of peak flow, average flow, and low flow, respectively, compared to others (e.g., ESCO, CH_K2, and SOL_AWC) in this basin. Although the ParaSol method was more efficient in capturing the most optimal parameter set, it showed limited ability in uncertainty analysis due to the narrower 95CI and poor P-factor and R-factor in this area. In contrast, the 95CIs in SUFI2 and GLUE were wider than ParaSol, indicating that these two methods can be promising in analyzing the model parameter uncertainty. However, for the model prediction uncertainty within the same parameter range, SUFI2 was proven to be slightly more superior to GLUE. Overall, through the comparisons of the proposed evaluation criteria for uncertainty analysis (e.g., P-factor, R-factor, NSE, and R2) and the computational efficiencies, SUFI2 can be a potentially efficient tool for the parameter optimization and uncertainty analysis. This study provides an insight into selecting uncertainty analysis method in the modeling field, especially for the hydrological modeling community.

1 December 2019 in Science of The Total Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PSPengcheng Sun
Pengcheng Sun
Yiping WuYiping Wu
Yiping Wu
JXJingfeng Xiao
Jingfeng Xiao
JHJinyu Hui
Jinyu Hui
JHJingyi Hu
Jingyi Hu
SLShuguang Liu
Shuguang Liu

1 February 2020 in Journal of Hydrology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FZFubo Zhao
Fubo Zhao
YWYiping Wu
Yiping Wu
YYYingying Yao
Yingying Yao
KSKe Sun
Ke Sun
XZXuesong Zhang
Xuesong Zhang
YSYuzhu Sun
Yuzhu Sun

1 January 2019 in Journal of Hydrology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FZFubo Zhao
Fubo Zhao
Yiping WuYiping Wu
Yiping Wu
BSBellie Sivakumar
Bellie Sivakumar
ALAihua Long
Aihua Long
LQLinjing Qiu
Linjing Qiu
HHHongchang Hu
Hongchang Hu

1 January 2020 in Science of The Total Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PSPengcheng Sun
Pengcheng Sun
Yiping WuYiping Wu
Yiping Wu
JGJianen Gao
Jianen Gao
YYYingying Yao
Yingying Yao
FZFubo Zhao
Fubo Zhao
LQLinjing Qiu
Linjing Qiu