Overview of 1996-2001 IEP PWT Calibration Process

Overview of 1996-2001 IEP PWT Calibration Process

Staff

December 14, 2006

Overview of 1996-2001 IEP PWT Calibration Process

Chris Enright

December 14, 2006

Data Models

Models and Data over time

Models and Data over time

Data

Late 80’s early 90’sLink-Node

andDSM1Models

Models

Mid 90’sUSGS Flow Network

NOAA bathymetry data

1996-2001DSM2

Re-Calibration

Since 2000:• Expanded USGS Flow Network (23 stations)• Bathymetry data collection by DWR CD• Expanded understanding of Delta transport• Stakeholder participation

DSM2 ModelAppears

Where we are today

Since 2000:• Expanded USGS Flow Network• Bathymetry data collection by DWR CD• Expanded understanding of Delta transport• Stakeholder participation

Motivation for 1996-2001 DSM2 Calibration PWT


• Managers were frustrated with modelers



Old RiverNet Flow

Middle River Net Flow

Old River/Middle RiverFlow Split ~ 50/50

FDM

DSM1



• Availability of new Delta flow data

Sacramento R

San Joaquin R

Montezuma SloughChan 511 @ length

Sacramento RiverChan 435 @ middle

Sherman Lake @ Sac R

Chan 281@ 0San Joaquin R @ mouthChan 286@ 0.75*length

New York SloughChan 288 @ middle

Middle Slough Chan 289 @ middle

Sherman Lake @ SJR Chan 295 @ length

Mayberry CutChan 299 @ 0.9*length

Mayberry Slough Chan 283 @ 0.9*length

“Confluence Study 1998”Permanent Flow Permanent Flow Monitoring NetworkMonitoring NetworkUSGSUSGS




• Availability of new Delta bathymetry data

NorthDelta

CentralDeltaBathymetry data

collected in 1999-2000




• Availability of new Delta bathymetry data

• Recognition of the need for consensus among Bay-Delta modelers that DSM2 is accurate enough for the questions we ask of it.

DRAFTFinal Report

Enhanced Calibration and Validation of DSM2 HYDRO and QUAL

byDSM2 Project Work Team

Technical Report XXNovember 2001

Interagency Ecological Programfor the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary

DSM2 Project Work Team

Chapter II

• Need for DSM2 PWT

• Need for a new 1D Bay-Delta Model

• Need for Consensus Calibration/Validation of Models

DSM2 Project Work Team

Chapter III

• New 1D Model Search Process

Chapter IV

• Development of DSM2 Modeling System by DWR

DSM2 Project Work TeamIssue Deliberation

Chapter V• Selection of a Conservative Water Quality

Tracer



Tracer• Use of Surface Salinity as Downstream

Boundary Condition




Boundary Condition• Open Water Area Modeling




Boundary Condition• Open Water Area Modeling • Geometry Development Mechanics




Boundary Condition• Open Water Area Modeling • Geometry Development Mechanics • Verification of Hydro and Qual (convergence

analysis)





analysis)• Forcing Due To Density Gradients





analysis)• Forcing Due To Density Gradients• Optimization Approach to Calibration


Chapter V• Selection of a Conservative Water Quality Tracer• Use of Surface Salinity as Downstream Boundary

Condition• Open Water Area Modeling • Geometry Development Mechanics • Verification of Hydro and Qual (convergence

analysis)• Forcing Due To Density Gradients• Optimization Approach to Calibration • Momentum Transfer at Nodes

DSM2 Project Work TeamInput Data and Data Reliability

Chapter VI

• Stage data

• Flow data

• Salinity data

• DICU data

DSM2 Project Work TeamGeometry Development

Chapter VII

• Bathymetry data collection programs


Chapter VII


• Historical bathymetry data and common coordinate systems


Chapter VII



• Geometry data viewer (CSDP)


Chapter VII




• Historical barrier configurations


Chapter VII




• Historical barrier configurations

• Approach to development of DSM2 geometry…

DSM2 Project Work Team DSM2 geometry

• How DSM2 Uses Cross-Section Data

• Sources of bathymetry and geometry error

• Using the CSDP for channel cross-section design

• Example: preserving plan area in Suisun Bay

Generating DSM2 Channel Geometry in Suisun Bay

Generating DSM2 Channel Geometry in Suisun Bay

DSM2 Project Work TeamCalibration Process

Chapter VIII

• PWT Web-Site


Chapter VIII

• PWT Web-Site

• HYDRO Calibration Web Site


Chapter VIII

• PWT Web-Site


• QUAL Calibration Web Site


Chapter VIII

• PWT Web-Site



• Calibration Outputs


Chapter VIII

• PWT Web-Site



• Calibration Outputs

• PWT Calibration Logistics

DSM2 Project Work TeamCalibration Approach

Chapter IX

• Regions of constant Manning’s n

DSM2 Calibration IEP DSM2 PWT

Initial Regions of

Constant Mannings n

DSM2 Calibration IEP DSM2 PWT

Final Regions of

Constant Mannings n


Chapter IX


• Geometry modification for calibration

(Geometry isn’t untouchable)


Chapter IX



• Choice of historical calibration periods


Chapter IX



• Choice of historical calibration periods

• Goodness-of-fit measuresProposed Error Indices for Field/Model Stage Data

Comparisons

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190

Time

Sta

ge (

ft)

f ield model

Phase error

Amplitude error

RMS error = [ (model(n) – field(n))**2]**1/2 (n**1/2)

Root mean square error of model datacompared to field data. Point by pointcalculation over entire period of record.

Amplitude error = [ (model(max) – field(max))] 2

Amplitude error of model data ascompared to maximum field stage.Average difference in feet over one tidecycle.

Phase error = [ (T(model) – T(field))] 2

Error in timing of peak model stage ascompared to peak field stage. Averagedifference in minutes over one tidecycle.

DSM2 Project Work TeamCalibration Results

Chapter X


Chapter X

• HYDRO


Chapter X

• HYDRO

• QUAL

Let’s do it again!

Date post:	29-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anja
View:	37 times
Download:	0 times

Overview of 1996-2001 IEP PWT Calibration Process

Documents