calibration of the phase 5 watershed model progress report
DESCRIPTION
Calibration of the Phase 5 Watershed Model Progress Report. Modeling Subcommittee 4/3/2007. Today’s Presentations. This Presentation Phase 5 calibration strategy overview Progress since January Hydrology model validation First run of 10-year hydrologic periods Jing and Rob - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Calibration of thePhase 5 Watershed Model
Progress Report
Modeling Subcommittee
4/3/2007
Today’s Presentations
• This Presentation– Phase 5 calibration strategy overview– Progress since January– Hydrology model validation– First run of 10-year hydrologic periods
• Jing and Rob– Upgrades to the ground cover database– Nursery targets– Re-calibration of land sediment
• Me– River Calibration
Automated Calibration
• Makes Calibration Feasible
• Ensures even treatment across jurisdictions
• Enables uncertainty analysis
• Fully documented calibration strategy
• Repeatable
View from 30,000 feet
CalibrationProcedures
Input Data
“vortex”
CalibrationData
Calibration ProcessHydrology
Land parametersRiver data
TemperatureLand parametersRiver parameters
River data
Land SedimentLand parameters
Land targets
Land NutrientsLand parameters
Land targets
River Water QualityRiver parameters
River targets
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
Single-processor time
Progress in January
• Stabilized forest calculation and recalibrated
• Work on EOF to EOS Transport Factors
• Full calibration HydrologyLand parameters
River data
TemperatureLand parametersRiver parameters
River data
Land SedimentLand parameters
Land targets
Land NutrientsLand parameters
Land targets
River Water QualityRiver parameters
River targets
Progress Since January - Code
• Modified hydrology and temperature calibration procedures to allow for calibration of smaller basins
• Consolidation of various phase 5 code versions
• Wrote code to generate outputs requested by VA
Progress Since JanuaryExtended data through 2005
• Rainfall, Temperature, PET
• Observed River Flow data
• Atmospheric deposition data
• Point Source data
• Ran hydrology and temperature calibration
Progress Since January – Land Sediment
• Integrated land cover and tillage data into the Vortex (COAST)
• Updated targets as requested by MDE
• Ran the calibration
Progress Since January – Land Nutrients
• Modified nutrient species targets– Labile organics < Refractory organics– Refractory (P:N) < Labile (P:N)
• Ran the calibration
TN TP
DIN OrgN Labile OrgN
Refractory OrgN
Labile OrgP
Refractory OrgP
DIPOrgP
Organic Simulation
Labile ORGN
Labile ORGP
BOD
P:N = 0.1384
Refract ORGN
Refract ORGP
RefractoryORGN
RefractoryORGP
Algae
P:N = 0.1384
DIN
DIP
0.1384
BenthicAlgae
P:N = 0.1384
DIN
DIP
0.13
84
0.13
84
Median Observed ORGN:ORGP ratio is 0.056
Progress Since JanuaryRiver Water Quality
• Derived and used subgrid transport factors– (convert EOF to EOS)
• Extended calibration to 2005
• Ran calibration
Hydrology Recalibration with Validation
• Differences from previous hydrology– Through 2005 rather than 1999– New land use, rainfall, . . .
• Two Scenarios– Calibrate using all data– Calibrate using first and last 40% of Data– Check Validation for Both
1985-2005 Hydro Efficiency - Calibrated with all data
0
10
20
30
40
50
les
s t
ha
n -
1
-0.8
to
-0
.75
-0.5
5 t
o -
0.5
-0.3
to
-0
.25
-0.0
5 t
o 0
0.2
to
0.2
5
0.4
5 t
o 0
.5
0.7
to
0.7
5
0.9
5 t
o 1
1985-2005 Hydro efficiency - calibrated with first and last 40% data
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
les
s t
ha
n -
1
-0.8
to
-0
.75
-0.5
5 t
o -
0.5
-0.3
to
-0
.25
-0.0
5 t
o 0
0.2
to
0.2
5
0.4
5 t
o 0
.5
0.7
to
0.7
5
0.9
5 t
o 1
Slight decrease in efficiency
Efficiency of Validation Data (middle 20%) - Calibrated using first and last 40% of data (1985-2005)
0
10
20
30
40
50
les
s t
ha
n -
1
-0.8
to
-0
.75
-0.5
5 t
o -
0.5
-0.3
to
-0
.25
-0.0
5 t
o 0
0.2
to
0.2
5
0.4
5 t
o 0
.5
0.7
to
0.7
5
0.9
5 t
o 1
Validation better than Calibration
1985-2005 Hydro Efficiency - Calibrated with all data
0
10
20
30
40
50
les
s t
ha
n -
1
-0.8
to
-0
.75
-0.5
5 t
o -
0.5
-0.3
to
-0
.25
-0.0
5 t
o 0
0.2
to
0.2
5
0.4
5 t
o 0
.5
0.7
to
0.7
5
0.9
5 t
o 1
Efficiency of Validation Data (middle 20%) - Calibrated using all data (1985-2005)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
les
s t
ha
n -
1
-0.8
to
-0
.75
-0.5
5 t
o -
0.5
-0.3
to
-0
.25
-0.0
5 t
o 0
0.2
to
0.2
5
0.4
5 t
o 0
.5
0.7
to
0.7
5
0.9
5 t
o 1
Validation period better than total period
Efficiency of Validation Data (middle 20%) - Calibrated using first and last 40% of data (1985-2005)
0
10
20
30
40
50
les
s t
ha
n -
1
-0.8
to
-0
.75
-0.5
5 t
o -
0.5
-0.3
to
-0
.25
-0.0
5 t
o 0
0.2
to
0.2
5
0.4
5 t
o 0
.5
0.7
to
0.7
5
0.9
5 t
o 1
Validation about the same either for either calibration
Observations
• The calibration and the validation are slightly better using all data rather than the first and last 40%
• In both cases the agreement with the validation data set (middle 20%) is better than the calibration
Model Validation
• It has been shown that the hydrology model and calibration procedure can be adequately validated
• Questions:– Should we use the best calibration or the
validated calibration?– Should we do the same thing for water
quality?
The Effect of Different Averaging Periods
The Way to Test
• Well Calibrated Model– Used January Version
• Use 1985 conditions throughout– Used Time-Varying conditions
• Use results to get bounds on effects of hydrology on allocation decisions
Average Change Between 10-year Periods (TN)
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
PA VA MD NY DC WV DE Total
Average Change Between 10-year Periods (TP)
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
PA VA MD NY DC WV DE Total
Average Change Between 10-year Periods (TSS)
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
PA VA MD NY DC WV DE Total
Averaging Period
• Relatively small changes due to averaging period
• Real results (well calibrated model, constant scenario) will be presented to the Water Quality Steering Committee