Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Methodology for Evaluating Hydrologic Model Parameters in an Urban Setting:
Case Study Using Transferred HSPF Parameters in Midlothian and Tinley Creek Watersheds, Illinois
David T. Soong
U.S. Geological Survey, Illinois Water Science Center
Tzuoh-Ying Su
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District
Outline
• Background• Approach and Results• Runoff Coefficient for Consistency in
Observed Data• Simulated Runoff Components for
discrepancies• Summary
APPROACH
Evaluate the accuracy of hydrologic modeling of runoff:At two small watershed (Tinley, Midlothian), Using two parameter sets (CTE, Current), From water years 1996 to 2003.
Study sites
Digitizing from aerial photographTIA = Upper bound of EIA
ScenariosWatershed
Tinley Creek
Midlothian Creek
1Polygons of all impervious areas are assigned as completely impervious
55% 68%
2 Impervious percentages assigned according to Rust ( see table 1) 35% 41%
3 Impervious percentages assigned according to TR-55 (see table 1) 28% 34%
4Impervious percentages assigned according to Du Page (see table 1)
23% 28%
5Medium- and high-density residential areas are assigned as completely impervious, but the low-density residential area is assigned to grass
53% 63%
6Apply EIA percentages determined in this study (table 1) to three residential areas, and adopt the percentages for multifamily and high-rise, commercial, and industrial lands from TR-55
29% 35%
7Apply EIA percentages determined in this study (table 1) to three residential areas, and assign multifamily and high-rise, commercial, and industrial lands to be 100% impervious
33% 39%
Areas (in acres) digitized as grass, forest, and impervious land-uses in Tinley Creek and Midlothian Creek watersheds
Total basin area Grass area Forest area Total impervious area
Tinley Park watershed above Palos Park gage
7196 1520 (21%) 1711 (24%) 3965 (55%)
Midlothian watershed above Oak Forest gage
8075 1743 (22%) 855 (11%) 5477 (68%)
Simulated to recorded (S/R) ratios of annual mean and 10-year mean streamflows for Midlothian Creek at Oak Forest and Tinley Creek at Palos Park, water years 1996 to 2005, using HSPF with CTE and Current parameter sets.
EIA Scenarios
Water year
10-year Average
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Mid
loth
ian
CT
E
3 0.93 1.08 0.98 1.16 0.96 1.00 0.90 0.86 1.03 1.01 0.99
4 0.88 1.03 0.92 1.10 0.89 0.94 0.85 0.78 0.97 0.96 0.93
6 0.95 1.09 0.99 1.18 0.98 1.01 0.92 0.89 1.04 1.03 1.01
7 0.98 1.13 1.03 1.22 1.03 1.06 0.95 0.95 1.09 1.07 1.05
Cu
rrent
3 0.81 1.00 0.91 0.94 0.80 0.87 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.91 0.85
4 0.77 0.96 0.87 0.89 0.74 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.74 0.86 0.80
6 0.82 1.01 0.93 0.95 0.82 0.88 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.92 0.87
7 0.85 1.04 0.96 0.98 0.86 0.92 0.79 0.83 0.82 0.96 0.90
Tin
ley
CT
E
3 0.73 0.90 0.76 0.95 0.71 0.76 0.70 0.61 0.79 0.83 0.77
4 0.68 0.85 0.71 0.89 0.64 0.70 0.65 0.53 0.72 0.78 0.72
6 0.75 0.91 0.77 0.97 0.73 0.78 0.71 0.63 0.80 0.85 0.79
7 0.79 0.94 0.81 1.01 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.85 0.89 0.83
Cu
rrent
3 0.64 0.84 0.71 0.78 0.60 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.60 0.75 0.67
4 0.59 0.80 0.66 0.74 0.54 0.60 0.55 0.46 0.55 0.70 0.62
6 0.65 0.85 0.73 0.79 0.61 0.67 0.60 0.55 0.61 0.76 0.68
7 0.68 0.88 0.76 0.83 0.66 0.71 0.63 0.60 0.64 0.80 0.72
Donigian and others (1984, p-114), the annual or monthly fit is: Very good error < 10%,
Good 10% < error < 15% Fair 15% < error < 25%
Factors Affecting Simulation Results
• Data – adequacy of data network, measurement inaccuracy and recording errors
• Nature – randomness • Model Parameters – how good the original
calibration was, parameters difficult to calibrate
• Model Structure – capability in reflecting the watershed physical processes
• Operators
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E R
UN
OF
F D
EP
TH
, in
che
s
0
50
100
150
200
EXPLANATION
Observed Midlothian CreekObserved Tinley Creek
WY
19
96
WY
19
97 W
Y 1
99
8 WY
19
99 W
Y 2
00
0
WY
20
01
WY
20
02
WY
20
03 W
Y 2
00
4
WY
20
05
Double mass curves for observed stream runoff depth at Tinley Creek at Palos Park (USGS streamflow gaging station 05536500) and at Midlothian Creek at Oak Forest (USGS steamflow gaging station 05536340) with respect to Thiessen weighted precipitation
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
RU
NO
FF
CO
EF
FIC
IEN
TS
TINLEY CREEK WATERSHEDMIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED
Monthly runoff coefficient =
observed streamflow volume / observed precipitation volume
Jan Feb Mar Apr
MONTH
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
Jan Feb Mar Apr
MONTH
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
TINLEY CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTSOBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0R
UN
OF
F C
OE
FF
ICIE
NT
S/R
RA
TIO
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTSOBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTSS/R RATIOS
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CURRENT PARAMETER SET
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0TINLEY CREEK WATERSHED -- CURRENT PARAMETER SET
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTSOBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTSS/R RATIOS
(a)
(d)(c)
(b)
Monthly runoff coefficients for simulated runoff, and simulated to observed runoff (S/R) ratios
TOTAL RUNOFF (PERVIOUS PERO & IMPERVIOUS SURO)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
AC
CU
MU
LAT
ED
OU
TF
LOW
DE
PT
H,
inch
es
CURRENT FOREST
CTE FOREST
CURRENT GRASS
CTE GRASS
CURRENT IMPEVIOUS
CTE IMPEVIOUS
WY
1996 WY
1997 W
Y19
98 WY
199
9
WY
200
WY
2001 W
Y20
02
WY
200
3
WY
200
4 WY
2005
SURFACE OUTFLOW (SURO)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
AC
CU
MU
LAT
ED
OU
TF
LOW
DE
PT
H, i
nche
s
CURRENT FOREST
CTE FOREST
CURRENT GRASS
CTE GRASS
WY
1996
WY
1997
WY
1998
WY
1999
WY
200
WY
200
1
WY
200
2
WY
200
3
WY
2004
WY
2005
INTERFLOW OUTFLOW (IFWO)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
AC
CU
MU
LAT
ED
OU
TF
LOW
DE
PT
H, i
nche
s
CURRENT FoOREST
CTE FOREST
CURRENT GRASS
CTE GRASS
WY
1996
WY
1997
WY
1998
WY
1999
WY
200
0
WY
2001
WY
2002
WY
2003
WY
200
4
WY
2005
ACTIVE GROUNDWATER STORAGE (AGWO)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
AC
CU
MU
LAT
ED
OU
TF
LOW
DE
PT
H, i
nche
s
CURRENT FOREST
CTE FOREST
CURRENT GRASS
CTE GRASS
WY
1996 WY
1997 W
Y19
98 WY
1999
WY
2000
WY
2001
WY
2002 WY
2003
WY
2004 WY
2005
SIMULATED EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FROM PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS LANDS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
AC
CU
MU
LAT
ED
TO
TA
L E
T, i
nche
s
CURRENT Forest
CTE Forest
CURRENT Grass
CTE Grass
CURRENT Impervious
CTE Impervious
WY
1996 W
Y19
97
WY
1998
WY
1999
WY
2000
WY
2001
WY
2002 W
Y20
03
WY
2004 W
Y20
05
Midlothian-CTE
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PE
RO
& S
TR
EA
MF
LO
W
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
TA
ET
PERO CTE GrassPERO CTE ForestOBS DischargeWeighted PrecipTAET CTE GrassTAET CTE Forest
Midlothian-CURRENT
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PE
RO
& S
TR
EA
MF
LO
W
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
TA
ET
PERO CURRENT GrassPERO CURRENT ForestOBS DischargeWeighted PrecipTAET CURRENT GrassTAET CURRENT Forest
Tinley-CTE
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PE
RO
&S
TR
EA
MF
LO
W
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
TA
ET
PERO CTE Grass
PERO CTE Forest
OBS Discharge
Weighted Precip
TAET CTE Grass
TAET CTE Forest
Tinley-CURRENT
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PE
RO
& S
TR
EA
MF
LO
W
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
TA
ET
PERO CURRENT Grass
PERO CURRENT Forest
OBS Discharge
Weighted Precip
TAET CURRENT Grass
TAET CURRENT Forest
Summary
• EIA assessment• S/R ratio for evaluating the accuracy of
simulation – need to check for inconsistency• Use runoff coefficient to examine the
consistency in observed (system) data, to examine the model performance
• Examine components of simulated flow to determine the possible causes of discrepancy
Comments!
WY
199
6 WY
199
7 WY
199
8 WY
199
9 WY
200
0
WY
200
1
WY
200
2
WY
200
3 WY
200
4
WY
200
5
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E R
UN
OF
F D
EP
TH
, in
che
s
0
50
100
150
200
EXPLANATION
Observed Midlothian Creek CTE Simulated Midlothian Creek Current Simulated Midlothian Creek
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
CU
MU
LA
TIV
E R
UN
OF
F D
EP
TH
, in
che
s
0
50
100
150
200
WY
199
6 WY
199
7 WY
199
8 WY
199
9 WY
200
0
WY
200
1 WY
200
2
WY
200
3 WY
200
4
WY
200
5
EXPLANATION
Observed Tinley CreekCTE Simulated Tinley CreekCurrent Simulated Tinley Creek
DMC Analysis of Simulated and Observed Streamflows
Rain Gages Distribution – Thiessen Method
Table 1. Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN rainfall-runoff parameter values used in the Current and CTE models for grass, forest and impervious land segments. [n/a: not available]
Grass land Forest land Impervious land HSPF Parameter Current CTE Current CTE Current CTE CEPSC 0.25 0.1 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a UZSN 1.8 0.5 3.0 3.0 n/a n/a LZSN 9.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 n/a n/a LZETP 0.38 0.38 0.9 0.90 n/a n/a AGWETP 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 n/a n/a INFILT 0.015 0.10 0.01 0.01 n/a n/a DEEPFR 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 n/a n/a INTFW 15.0 10.0 7.5 7.5 n/a n/a LSUR 50 50 400 400 50 50 SLSUR 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 NSUR 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 IRC 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 n/a n/a KVARY 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 n/a n/a AGWRC 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 n/a n/a RETSC 0.25 0.10
Table 2. Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTAN snowmelt parameter values used in the Current and CTE HSPF models for grass, forest and impervious land segments
Grass land Forest land Impervious land HSPF Parameter Current CTE Current CTE Current CTE CCFACT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SNOWCF 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 RDCSN 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 SHADE 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 MGMELT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MWATER 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 COVIND 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 SNOEVP 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 MELEV 610 610 610 610 610 610 TSNOW 32 32 32 32 32 32
Lower surface runoffs were estimated in Tinley Creek watershed because A) Tinley watershed has high percentage of forest areas. B) Higher TAET always results in Tinley watershed.
CTE parameter set results in better S/R ratios than Current parameter set A) Current parameter set estimated higher evapotransporation than CTE
parameter set, and therefore resulted in lower surface-runoff. B) The Current parameter set simulated less infiltrated flows and interflow
outflows, but more groundwater storage and groundwater outflows than the CTE parameter set.
Summary
The EIA percentages assigned in TR-55 are closer to the TIA percentages result from digitizing 11 land-covers from the 2005 aerial photograph.
Simulated flows have better S/R ratio when EIA % specified by RUST or this study are used.
The S/R ratio for Midlothian Creek (WY 1996 to 2003) is 1.06 and for Tinley Creek is 0.94 which are very good and good, respectively, according to classification by Donigian and others (1984).
Summary
Effective Impervious Areas
Table 1. Total impervious area resulting from digitization of rooftops, driveways, sidewalks, streets, and parking lots in 9 selected residential areas
Land-cover categories Average
percentage Range of
percentage High-density residential 41 32 – 48 Medium-density residential 31 23 – 36 Low-density residential 22 21 – 25
Table 1. Percentage of impervious percentages computed from Rust, TR-55, Du Page and two groups of present study
Watershed Rust TR-55 Du Page This study This study + TR-55 Tinley Creek 0.36 0.28 0.27 0.33 0.29 Midlothian Creek 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.39 0.35
Table 13. EIA percentages for the seven scenarios analyzed in the study. [Scenario (1) no percentages assigned, (2) Rust (1993), (3) TR-55, (4) Du Page (1993), (5) entire low-density residential area is attributed to grass area, (6) percentages listed in Table 3 for residential areas and Multifamily and high-rise, commercial, and industrial lands from TR-55, and (7) percentages for residential areas only as listed in table 2; Unit: percent]
Scenario Watershed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tinley Creek watershed 0.55 0.36 0.28 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.33 Midlothian Creek watershed 0.68 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.28 0.35 0.39
Land UseRust
(USACE, 2004)
TR-55(USACE,
2004)
Du Page (USACE,
2004)
Upper Bounds Determined in This Study
1
Forest 0
Open Space/Park 5determined case-by–
case
Low Density Residential: 1.1 acre median lot
19 20 10Mean: 22
Range: 21-25
Medium Density Residential: 1/2 acre median lot
40 25 15Mean: 31
Range: 23-36
High Density Residential: 1/5 acre median lot
56 38 38Mean: 41
Range: 32-48
Multifamily and High Rise
70 65 50
Commercial 85 85 85
Industrial 72 72 85
Highway Corridor
With Grassed Median 50 50
No Median 80 100
Open Water 100 100
Chicago River at Columbus Drive
L a k eM i c h i g a n
C o n t r o l S t r u c t u r e s
G a g i n g s t a t i o n
R o m e o v i l l e
C h i c a g o S a n i t a r y a n d S h i p C a n a l a t R o m e o v i l l e
D i v e r s i o n M e a s u r e m e n t
C o m p o n e n t s o f d i v e r s i o n
• W a t e r s u p p l y
• R u n o f f
• D i r e c t d i v e r s i o n s( c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e s )
PrecipitationInterception ET
Depression Infiltration
Overland flow
Land Use & Management
HSPF Sediment ModuleHSPF PEST Module
InterceptionStorage
Interflow
Overland Flow
Interflow
Lower ZoneStorage
Upper ZoneStorage
GroundwaterStorage
To RCHRES
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Nov2000
ft
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COMPARISOIN OF SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLOWS AT USGS MIDLOTHIAN GAGE
OAK FOREST EDITED GHT
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
May1998
ft
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COMPARISOIN OF SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLOWS AT USGS MIDLOTHIAN GAGE
OAK FOREST EDITED GHT
Chicago River
Columbus Drive
Lake Shore Drive
http://tigger.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/imagebase/chimaps
Michael P. Conzen; Dennis McClendon
Source: Newberry Library
Urbanization in Metropolitan Area of Chicago
C h i c a g oR i v e r s
C a l u m e tR i v e r s
L a k eM i c h i g a n
C r i b
C r i b
P r e - D i v e r s i o n ( p r e - 1 9 0 0 )
P r e - D i v e r s i o n ( p r e - 1 9 0 0 )
L a k eM i c h i g a n
C r i bC h i c a g oR i v e r s
C a l u m e tR i v e r s
C o n t r o l S t r u c t u r e s
P o s t d i v e r s i o n( P o s t 1 9 0 0 )
P o s t d i v e r s i o n( P o s t 1 9 0 0 )
R o m e o v i l l eO ’ B r i e n
C R C W
W i l m e t t e
P e r m itte d D iv e r s io n s 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 9 4P e r m itte d D iv e r s io n s 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 9 4
3,50 0
8 ,1 00
1 0 ,00 0
8 ,6 00
3 ,2 0 0
3 ,1 00
6 ,6 0 0
1,000
3,000
5,000
7,000
9,000
11,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Dis
char
ge,
in c
fs
U .S. Supreme C ourt D ecrees
