1 / 18

Final Presentation

Final Presentation. UNSA, Nice HydroEurope 05 th March, 2010. What are or what should be the reasonable criteria for the Var model calibration (MIKE 11 & MIKE SHE) ?. Team Members Claire Elodie Freda Yi Gopi Sandor Sun-Ah. MODEL CALIBRATION IN GENERAL MIKE SHE MIKE 11

ata
Download Presentation

Final Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Final Presentation UNSA, Nice HydroEurope 05th March, 2010

  2. What are or what should be the reasonable criteria for the Var model calibration (MIKE 11 & MIKE SHE) ? Team Members Claire Elodie Freda Yi Gopi Sandor Sun-Ah

  3. MODEL CALIBRATION IN GENERAL MIKE SHE MIKE 11 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION HYDROEUROPE Presentation Layout

  4. Before Calibration *Details of the model area *Input data *Model selection *Sensitivity analysis During calibration *Physical meaning of parameters After calibration *Compare with validation data Model Calibration

  5. MIKE SHE • Spatial discretisation: • 300 m grid resolution • Not able to consider sharp changes in topography • Discharge is underestimated • Simulated discharge Q= 100 cu.m/sec • Coupling would help to overcome this problem

  6. Simulation Period • Selection ( 1 or 3 days ) • Influence – before & after MIKE SHE 3 days result 1 day result

  7. Data Accuracy & Reliability • Height is known but the discharge value is estimated from height MIKE SHE

  8. Do we need to calibrate everytime? MIKE SHE

  9. Built only for the Lower Var River Provided data i.e. network, x-sects Upstream boundary – Q at Var and Esteron confluence from MIKE SHE/ MIKE 11 coupled model of entire Var catchment. Downstream – Sea level Strickler, M = 30 m1/3/s (default) Weir coeff same for all ≈ 0.486 (provided in river network file) MIKE 11 - Model build up

  10. MIKE 11 - Sensitivity analysis Rougness decreases , discharge downstream increases Rougness decreases , Max water level increases Weir coeff decreases, Max Water level increases Weir 8 Weir 7

  11. MIKE 11 - calibration • No reliable observed discharge values – no calibration done with discharge. • Max water level - discharge relation only established for the low usual discharge values of stage • Calibration done using maximum water levels over river length. • After Calibration, • Strickler, M = 24 • Weir coeff = 0.465

  12. Strickler, M Calibration • Strickler = 24 . Accept value - within range for river beds with gravel and boulders similar to sediment present • This value is not due to only grain size of sediment according to Strickler’s equation. It also contains: • Energy loss due to turbulence effects • Friction due to river bed geometry and banks • Energy loss due to vegetation • Considered uniform along entire length of river – not reality (sediment and boulders differ along river) • Also not even along a cross section – ie the river, sediment deposits, sand bars and banks

  13. Honma weir equation with an original, C ≈ 0.486 =c √2g and calibrated coefficient C = c √2g = 2 Calibrated value of C= 2 (has a factor of √2g) Without the factor, c ≈0.465 for all weirs. Usu.range is 0.5 – 0.7 but 0.465 is acceptable – higher energy loss due to power station. Not realistic for all weirs to have similar coeffs. Weir coefficient Calibration Weir 7 Weir 6 Weir 4 Weir 5

  14. Sediment transport not simulated Flooding over the river banks not accounted for by model Weirs 10 and 16 are currently submerged Weirs 2 and 3 washed away during flood of 1994 but existed during the flood, so also had a effect on the flood routing Cross sections are always changing. Flood was in 1994. sections measured in 2001 and we are designing for the future. Model questionable??? Upstream boundary is from a model, with uncertainty Downstream boundary is also not very certain (sea level???) No validation data available MIKE 11 Model vs reality

  15. Set up more data collection/metrological stations in entire catchment i.e. rainfall • Use updated data • Observations during flood • Cross sections • Weir characteristics • Appropriate resolutions give better results according to study objectives • During calibration, do not forget to think about the physical processes and significance of parameters. • Including the flooded zone (e.g. MIKE FLOOD) is recommended to have better model calibration i.e. simulate water that flows over the river banks. • Seek the opinion of the experts and model for a wider range of possible events CONCLUSIONS

  16. Team 6 Team AQUAHOLIX

  17. Happy B’day Kate !!!

  18. Thanks for your attention !!! Merci Cảm ơn Danke Gràcies Gracias 謝謝 Asante sana köszönöm a figyelmet Mwanyala nnabi Спасибо 감사합니다 Bedankt Хвала धन्यवाद ありがとう

More Related