1 / 29

RHESSys and SWAT simulations for modeling of long term water yield

RHESSys and SWAT simulations for modeling of long term water yield. GEOG711 December 6, 2007 Yuri Kim. Objectives. Understanding RHESSys and SWAT Try RHESSys simulation with 1) only hydrologic calibration 2) including vegetation calibration Comparing two SWAT simulation results

raphaela-cochran
Download Presentation

RHESSys and SWAT simulations for modeling of long term water yield

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. RHESSys and SWAT simulations for modeling of long term water yield GEOG711 December 6, 2007 Yuri Kim

  2. Objectives • Understanding RHESSys and SWAT • Try RHESSys simulation with 1) only hydrologic calibration 2) including vegetation calibration • Comparing two SWAT simulation results • Capturing Long term water yield trend in land cover conversion area by model simulation

  3. Simulation setting • Simulation area: Flat river watershed • Precipitation data: averaged precipitation data with three stations • Three time series 1) Daily scale: Calibration and Validation 2) Monthly scale: 1926 ~ 2005 3) Annual scale: 1926 ~ 2005 • Streamflow residual analysis Q Residual = Observed – Simulated stream discharge value

  4. Results 1: RHESSys Simulation

  5. Parameter Sensitivity • m mutiplier is the most sensitive parameter (testing parameters: Ksat, m, mv, Ksatv, and gsmax)

  6. Calibration (1998~1999)

  7. Validation (1996~1997)

  8. Calibration and Validation results • Calibration result—NS and LogNS values—of two simulations are similar. • Validation “w/o growth” simulation show too low LogNS value. Therefore, “with growth” result is better than “w/o growth” one in terms of lowflow. However, validation NS value of “with growth” simulation is too low, 0.12. • Therefore, RHESSys simulation needs more calibration.

  9. Monthly scale (1926~2005) • Red circle: rainfall related • Yellow circle: non-rainfall related

  10. Monthly scale (1926~2005) (continue) • Model overestimated streamflow during low rainfall events. • Model underestimated streamflow during high rainfall events.

  11. RHESSys month by month result analysis • February, August, and December show decreasing trend though R2 is not that high. • High Q residual means large difference between observed and simulated value. This can be acceptable in earlier period of the simulation because this difference can be caused by the LULC change. However, the problem is that Q residual value also high at some point during calibration and validation period. • Again, RHESSys needs more calibration.

  12. Annual scale • Two simulation show similar pattern and value.

  13. Result 2: SWAT Simulation

  14. Parameter Sensitivity • Three parameters show sensitivity with LogNS (i.e. low flow) out of 15 parameters.

  15. Calibration #3907 (1998~1999) • Plot with maximum (95%) and minimum (5%) boundary of SWAT simulation (Threshold=LongNS 0.5)

  16. Calibration #1325 (1998~1999) • Two simulation have same LogNS value, whereas #3907 is better fit in terms of high stream flow.

  17. Validation result of #3907 (1996~1997)

  18. Validation result of #1325(1996~1997) • #1325 has higher NS value than that of #3907 but lower LogNS value than that of #3907 in validation process • #1325 validation NS value is the highest value of all NS values.

  19. Monthly scale 1 (with #3907) • Red circle: rainfall related • Yellow circle: non-rainfall related • Jan., Feb., Mar., and Apr. trend line: Observed > Simulated

  20. Monthly scale1 (with #3907) (continue) • Oct. trend line: Observed < Simulated

  21. Monthly scale 2 (with #1325) • Feb., Mar., and Apr. trend line: Observed > Simulated

  22. Monthly scale2 (with #1325) (continue) • Aug., Sep., Oct., and Nov. trend line: Observed < Simulated

  23. Monthly scale #3907 and # 1325 comparison • #3907 • #1325 • Calibration and validation period of Q residual value tend to be minus; simulation value is higher than observed value. This phenomena is more prominent with #1325 than #3907.

  24. Monthly scale #3907 and # 1325 comparison (continue) • #1325 • #3907 • Similar trend in both simulations but a little bit more overestimated simulation value with #1325 during calibration period.

  25. Annual scale (1926~2005) • According to the trend line, #3907 produce more Q residual than #1325. • #1325 has higher NS value than that of #3907. Also #1325 simulation overestimate stream flow during calibration and validation period.

  26. Discussion: RHESSys & SWAT

  27. Monthly simulation comparison • SWAT #3907 • RHESSys

  28. Annual simulation comparison • Water yield difference: RHESSys > SWAT

  29. Conclusions • Both RHESSys and SWAT can capture annual long term water yield trend in land use/land cover conversion area. However, the trend lines change sensitively with each currently calibrated parameter set. • By current calibration and validation results, RHESSys needs more calibration than SWAT. • According to the month by month analysis, there are exceptional big residual difference during calibration and validation period. Model did not appropriately respond to some extreme rainfall events. • Joint analysis with precipitation pattern is also required in order to improve modeling process.

More Related