Scale Effects in Large Scale Watershed Modeling

Transcription

1 Scale Effects in Large Scale Watershed Modeling Mustafa M. Aral and Orhan Gunduz Multimedia Environmental Simulations Laboratory School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA USA

2 SCHEMATIC OF AN INTEGRATED WATERSHED MODEL 2-D Overland Flow Model Precipitation 1-D Channel Flow Model 1-D Unsaturated Zone Model 2-D Saturated Zone Model

3 COMPLEXITIES... Multi-pathway flow and contaminant transport problem. Integrated modeling of all pathways is the key. Each process pathway has its own characteristic scale. What should be the optimal scale of a fully integrated model?

4 MODELING TOOLS Lumped parameter models Distributed parameter models

5 MAP ALGEBRA Regional Response Curve R U N O F F Precipitation Runoff data map Precipitation data map

6 MAP CALCULUS Function or Model Output Pixel Level Data

7 DEM data Precipitation data Runoff Function Land use map Function Accumulated load Concentration map Function Groundwater data Lumped Par. Models

8 WHAT IS A SCALE? Spatial or temporal dimensions at which entities, patterns, and processes can be observed and characterized to capture the important details of a hydrologic/hydrogeologic hydrogeologic process.

9 SCALING The transfer of data or information across scales or linking sub-process models through a unified scale is referred to as scaling. scaling.

10 FRAME OF REFERENCE 2-D Overland Flow Model Precipitation 1-D Channel Flow Model 1-D Unsaturated Zone Model 2-D Saturated Zone Model Absolute and Relative frame of reference

11 SCALE EFFECTS Heterogeneity. Sub-process scales. Nonlinearity.

12 SCALING PROBLEMS When large-scale models are used to predict small-scale scale events, or when small- scale models are used to predict large- scale events, problems may arise. Problems also arise when integrated models are used across scales.

13 FUNCTIONAL SCALE At what spatial and temporal scale does the final model performs optimally; and, What scale should be selected to implement the final integrated model?

14 SUB-PROCESSES Integrated river channel flow and groundwater flow. Integrated overland flow, unsaturated and saturated groundwater flow. Integrated watershed model.

15 COUPLED SURFACE WATER AND COUPLED SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL 0 ) ( = + + q x Q t A A s o c 0 ) / ( 2 = L S S x h ga x A Q t Q s e f r m β ( ) ( ) t h S I Q y h K z h y x h K z h x g y n k w g y b g g x b g w k = =1 Channel flow Groundwater flow Interaction parameter between two domains Key parameters of interest

16 COUPLING OVER THE INTERFACE RIVER q w r h g h r m r? z r AQUIFER Impervious Layer Datum z b Type-3 boundary condition of the groundwater flow model couples with the lateral inflow/outflow term in the stream flow equation

17 COUPLED SYSTEM Analysis domain Channel network Groundwater flow discretization Channel flow discretization

18 GLOBAL MATRIX EQUATION A x = B A GW 0 x GW B GW = 0 A RIVER x RIVER B RIVER

19 DISCRETIZATION OF DOMAIN 1-D river domain elements 2-D groundwater domain elements River node Groundwater node

20 APPLICATION Simulation scenarios: Two set of runs are done to simulate: lateral flow from stream to groundwater and from groundwater to stream Time lag between the timing of stream flow peak and groundwater head peak Flow reversal conditions RUN-1: RUN-2: Lateral flow towards groundwater flow domain Lateral flow towards stream flow domain

21 Groundwater flow model APPLICATION Initial conditions: RUN-1: h g = 32 m RUN-2: h g = 35 m Boundary conditions: No flux boundary, q = 0 Head-dependent boundary Fixed head boundary RUN-1: h = 32 m RUN-2: h = 35 m Fixed head boundary RUN-1: h = 32 m RUN-2: h = 35 m No flux boundary, q = 0

22 APPLICATION Boundary and Initial Conditions: Stream flow model Initial conditions: Uniform flow discharge Q = 100cms Uniform flow depth d = 3.57m Upstream BC: Trapezoidal discharge hydrograph Q (cms) t (days) Downstream BC: Single-valued rating curve that maps the discharge to its uniform flow depth

23 River Discharge at Upstream Boundary (cms) /1/97 0:00 9/7/97 0:00 9/13/97 0:00 9/19/97 0:00 9/25/97 0:00 10/1/97 0:00 Time River Stage Groundwater Head River Discharge Groundwater Head and River Stage (m)

24 35 34 Groundwater Head (m) 33 t=0 days t=5 days t=10 days t=15 days t=20 days t=25 days t=30 days Distance from River Centerline (m)

25 River Discharge at Upstream Boundary (cms) /1/97 0:00 9/7/97 0:00 9/13/97 0:00 9/19/97 0:00 9/25/97 0:00 10/1/97 0:00 Time River Stage Groundwater Head River Discharge Groundwater Head and River Stage (m)

26 Groundwater Head (m) t=0 days t=5 days t=10 days t=15 days t=20 days t=25 days t=30 days Distance from River Centerline (m)

27 COUPLED OVERLAND FLOW AND SAT/UNSAT GROUNDWATER MODEL Overland Flow Zone ho ho ho = Kox + Koy + R I t x x y y Overland flow surface Soil surface Unsaturated Flow Zone S w S s ψ + t θ = t z K u ψ + 1 z Key parameters of interest Groundwater table Saturated Flow Zone hg h h S y = K gx g b gy g b w + k t x x + y y + k =1 nw g g ( h z ) K ( h z ) Q I Impervious layer Note: Figure not to scale

28 INTEGRATED MODEL 2-D Two dimensional finite element modeling 1-D One dimensional finite difference modeling 2-D Two dimensional finite element modeling

29 OVERLAND, UNSATURATED and SATURATED GROUNDWATER MODEL STRUCTURE 2-D Overland flow discretization Static ground surface Dynamic water table 2-D Saturated groundwater flow discretization 1-D Unsaturated groundwater flow discretization z y x Impervious strata

30 COUPLING OVER INTERFACES At the ground surface, overland flow and unsaturated zone models are coupled via the infiltration flux. Infiltration flux becomes a sink/source term in overland flow model. The top boundary condition for the unsaturated column depends on the presence of overland flow. Present Head condition Not present Flux condition

31 Simulation scenarios: APPLICATION Response of clay and sand soils to a two-peaked precipitation event to simulate: Response of overland flow generation to different soil types Response of groundwater recharge to different soil types Response of unsaturated column moisture migration to intermittent rainfall Response of groundwater levels to arbitrary precipitation events over different soils Interactions between different pathways RUN-1: RUN-2: Clay soil Sand soil

32 Physical Setup: APPLICATION 40 m wide X 500 m long hypothetical rectangular plot 0 < x < 500 m and 0 < y < 40 m Uniform slope in x-direction, S ox = m/m No slope in y-direction, S oy = 0.0 m/m Essentially one-dimensional flow Response to a two-peaked precipitation event: Rainfall Rate (m/s) 8E-005 6E-005 4E-005 2E Time (sec)

33 RESULTS Overland flow depth time series 0.1 SANDY SOIL 0.16 CLAY SOIL Overland Flow Depth (m) Overland Flow Depth (m) Time (sec) Time (sec) Node 13 Node 123 Node 243

34 RESULTS Groundwater head time series SANDY SOIL CLAY SOIL GW head (m) GW head (m) Time (sec) Time (sec) Node 13 Node 123 Node 243

35 RESULTS Unsaturated zone moisture distribution NODE NODE Elevation (m) 90 Elevation (m) Pressure Head (m) 89.2 Both soils, t=0sec Sandy soil, t=9000sec Clay soil, t=9000sec Sandy soil, t=18000sec Clay soil, t=18000sec Pressure Head (m) 89.2

36 SCALES OF IMPORTANCE Unsaturated GW zone Overland flow River Channel flow Saturated GW zone Space (cm) Time (sec)

37 HYBRID MODELS ARE THE SOLUTION TO INTEGRATED WATERSHED MODELING SYSTEMS

38 APPLICATION: Analysis of Coastal Georgia Ecosystem Stressors Using GIS Integrated Remotely Sensed Imagery and Modeling: A Pilot Study for Lower Altamaha River Basin Georgia Sea Grant College Program of the National Sea Grant Program.

39 ALTAMAHA APPLICATION UPPER OCMULGEE UPPER OCONEE LOWER OCONEE OHOOPEE LOWER OCMULGEE LITTLE OCMULGEE ALTAMAHA Kilometers

40 ALTAMAHA RIVER SYSTEM Data Available Topography data Gage discharge data Precipitation data Cross-section data at bridges Data Required Channel slopes, bottom elevations, cross-section top width vs depth data Roughness coefficients Discharge hydrographs at upstream BCs Rating curve at downstream exit point Groundwater BCs data Unconfined aquifer thickness data Aquifer conductivity data Infiltration data Well data River bottom sediment conductivity and thickness data

41 BASIN REPRESENTATION for LUMPED PARAMETER PROCESES Land discretization BASINS automatic delineation tool National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD) reach file and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data 89 sub-watersheds 352 PERLN 30 IMPLND

42 BASINS Automatic Delineation

43 Basins Representation Land discretization Land Use Land Use Urban or Build-up up Land Cropland and Pasture Evergreen Forest Land Mixed Forest Land Water Forested Wetlands Barren Land TOTAL Area (acres) 10, , ,147 72,631 5,164 67,345 2, ,272 %

44 Precipitation (PREC) Meteorological Data Stations: Jesup and Dublin Fill in missing data Normal Ratio Method Jesup Jacksonville-Savannah Savannah-Dublin Dublin Macon Potential Evapotranspiration (PETINP) Jesup Potential Evaporation (POTEV) Jesup

45 For modeling: Jesup and Dublin

46 Inflows Calibration

47 ALTAMAHA RIVER SYSTEM USGS Reidsville, GA USGS Baxley, GA Ohoopee River 0 11/14/84 8/11/87 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/ Altamaha River USGS Doctortown, GA /14/84 8/11/87 5/7/90 1/31/93 10/28/95 7/24/98 4/19/ /14/84 08/11/87 05/07/90 01/31/93 10/28/95 07/24/98 04/19/01

48 Ohoopee River at Reidsville, GA USGS AltamahaRiver at Baxley, GA USGS Altamaha River at Doctortown, GA USGS

49 Comparison of results for

50 Detailed comparison of results for 1989

51 Detailed comparison of results for 1994

52 Comparison of results for a low flow period

53 Comparison of results for a high flow period

54 GROUNDWATER

55 GW CROSS SECTION 28 t=0days t=35days 26 Groundwater head (m) Distance from river centerline (m)

56 CONCLUSIONS Order of importance of the sub-process; Domain of importance; Functional scales; and, Hybrid modeling concepts

57 CONCLUSIONS Selection of the smallest scale in an integrated model as functional scale is not possible. Hybrid modeling approach is necessary. Functional scale based on...

58 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research is partly sponsored by the Georgia Sea Grant College Program. We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Mac Rawson, Director of Georgia Sea Grant College Program for his continuous support throughout this study.

59 For additional information or questions, you may contact: M. M. Aral: MESL