27
Thorsten Arnold, Ph.D. Technical supervisor Source Water Protection, Saugeen Valley, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula
Thorsten Arnold, Ph.D.
Technical supervisor
Source Water Protection, Saugeen Valley, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula
Source Water Protection Saugeen, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula
Source Water Protection Saugeen, Grey Sauble,
Northern Bruce Peninsula
MotivationSource Water Protection & Modeling efforts
Wellhead Protection Area delineation
Water Budget Models
FEFLOW
GAWSER
Tier‐III
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
MODFLOWMODFLOW
Intake Protection Zone delineation
Delft3D Georgian Bay
Wiarton
Lion‘s Head
Delft3D Lake Huron
Kincardine
SouthamptonOwen Sound
Meaford
Thornbury
CESCESCESCESCES
CESCESCESCESCES
Delft3D IPZ‐3 Quality
Visual Modflow Flex
Software Licenses Knowledge !
MotivationSource Water Protection & Modeling efforts “Adaptive” approach to water management
Updates of Assessment Report (Clean Water Act) Legal litigations may require to discuss model‐based analysis
Better data improvement of models Refining existing model for new uses …
BUT HOW CAN WE MANAGE THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THESE MODELS?
Content1. Motivation
2. Model management in Source Water Protection:Tasks, ownership and the role of knowledge
3. The Spatial Data Analyzer©: A tool managing models
4. Summary & Outlookh
Tasks, ownership and the role of knowledge
Model Management: Tasks, ownership and the role of knowledge
Definition: Two types of knowledge Specialist knowledge
Multiple academic disciplines Data management systems Modeling software & Modeling tools
For performing specific tasks
Common knowledge Language/Lingo/Connotation Tools/Methods/Formats/Software Procedures and work flows
For communication/coordination between specialists
Evolution of Tasks in Water Managementand Knowledge Requirements
Specialist knowledge• Science, Methods, Software,
Data handling,
Model Management: Tasks, ownership and the role of knowledge
Access to Specialized Knowledge
Three options:1. Teach it to yourself … Learn by yourself !2. Your colleague knows it … Collaborate in your team!3. Get it from a third party … Cooperate with others!
Both require common knowledge!
WM
R Third party
Shallowcooperation
WM
Specia‐lists R
Everything in‐house
Third party
Deep collaboration
WM
Specia‐lists R
Organizational Design options Interaction requires Common Knowledge
“Deep collaboration” most demanding here!
Collaboration designs & costs:Comparison
In‐house External Common knowledge
requirementsCosts Owner‐ ship
Contracting costs
1. “Shallow”cooperation Low
Low(black box)
High•Mainly within third party organization
2. “Deep”collaboration
Mode‐rate
High(grey box)
Mode‐rate
• High• Both in‐house and in communication with third parties
3. Everythingin‐house High
Full(white box)
None • High• Only in‐house
Collaboration designs & costs:An Adaptive Water Management perspective
In‐house External Common knowledge
requirementsCosts Owner‐ ship
Contracting costs
1. “Shallow”cooperation Low
Low(black box)
High•Mainly within third party organization
2. “Deep”collaboration
Mode‐rate
High(grey box)
Mode‐rate
• High• Both in‐house and in communication with third parties
3. Everythingin‐house High
Full(white box)
None • High• Only in‐house
In‐houseCosts for updating
External Common knowledge
requirementsCosts Owner‐ ship
Contracting costs
1. “Shallow”cooperation Low
Low(black box)
High High•Mainly within third party organization
2. “Deep”collaboration
Mode‐rate
High(grey box)
Mode‐rate
Mode‐rate
• High• Both in‐house and in communication with third parties
3. Everythingin‐house High
Full(white box)
Low None • High• Only in‐house
Preferable for AWM, but ….
Model Management ?!?
Access to specialist knowledge embedded in models Reduce need for common knowledge to handle models
Minimize cost for setting up, applying and updating models
Applied in Source Water Protection
Database ?GISDocument Repository
Information TypesSpatial‐Type• Images
•Polygons
• Grids/surfaces
(plus tables)
Dynamic‐Type•Time series,
•Measurement/ model
• 1D, 2D, 3D•Tracking data
(Location/time/ quantity)
•HUGE DATA (Tbytes)
Text‐Type• Reports• Meta data• ASCII model input files• Forms:
•Applications,•Certificates of approval• etc
Table‐Type• e.g. Customer Database • …
GeoDatabase Spatial Data Analyzer
SDA© Application 1:
Visualization of GIS Data
Shape filesImage FilesRaster files
SDA© Application 2:
Visualization of time series data
Measurement Data (Time series) Climate Stations, daily
AES stations
Climate Stations, hourly AES stations Saugeen Valley meteorological stations
Hydrological data, hourly & daily Flow meters (HYDAT) Saugeen Valley flow stations Groundwater Monitoring (Level)
MOE water quality data Provincial (Stream) Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) data, 2002‐2009 Drinking Water Inspection (DWIS) data, 2005‐2008 Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) data, 1998‐2009 Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) data, 2004‐2009
Climate Station Data
Flow and Climate Data
SDA© Application 3:
GAWSER Runoff model
Video
Spatial entities: Routing with DEM Sub watersheds Zones of Uniform Meteorology (ZUM) HRUSDA uses: Visualization by spatial entity Calibration(Walkerton)
Detail analysis (Walkerton)
SDA© Application 4:
Lake current & water quality model Delft3D
Visualization of flows Comparison of flow scenarios Particle Tracking (IPZ) Water Quality Scenarios
(Events‐based approach)
Summary (1) –A need for model management
WM
R Third party
“Shallow” cooperation
Third party
“Deep” collaboration
WM
Specia lists R
Specialist knowledge Common knowledge
Summary (2) –SDA as model management tool One‐stop ‐shop:
Visualize measurements, model input and output data Analyze model outputs, compare scenarios Compatibility with many types of models
Model management Tool Proposed as standard for model delivery in collaboration Deepened (and simplified) peer review and quality control Access to internal model behavior
Simplified updating Simplified Legal litigations
One‐stop‐shop reduces knowledge (and license) needs for software
Enables water managers to take “ownership” of models (grey box) without getting lost in modeling
Outlook/Next steps Conservation Authorities, Source Water Protection: Status quo on model management practices ? Priorities and needs on model management ?
Cost Comparison: Status‐Quo practices vs. proactive model managemen
Open questions:Who could administer a software such as SDA? Software & Proprietary rights?
Other features Importing from various models and data formats Data Analysis tools
Time series analysis (statistical, hydrological) Water balancing along cross sections Extracting data from one grid to another Backward Particle Tracking (IPZ‐2 delineation) Forward Particle Tracking (IPZ‐3 screening)
Extracting/exporting of data Automated publishing of maps
Model Compatibility
Technical Discussion (1) Advantages/Opportunities
Simple, one‐stop shop software to manage vast amounts (>1 TBytes) of time‐dependent data series
Convenient and intuitive use, no programming skills required Simple data format, import options for several regular formats (e.g. NetCDF)
Basic data analysis functionalities Compatibility with several models; Strong ASCII import functionality Excellent data visualization capabilities (Dynamic & GIS) Template functionality for convenient map creation
Technical Discussion (2) Disadvantages
Design for model evaluation, not for model management No output options to write model input files Data analysis options limited
Several minor workarounds still necessary currently increases entry barrier
Proprietary code
