hydrologic modeling of white rock creek watershed with...
TRANSCRIPT
1 / 27
Nam Won Kim, Yoo Seung Won, Jeongwoo Lee* , Jeong Eun Lee, Jaehak Jeong
Hydrologic Modeling of White Rock Creek Watershed with SWAT-
SWMM
2 / 27
SWAT has been developed to evaluate impacts of various
Land use and land management conditions on water yield,
sediment and non-point source loadings.
Components : hydrology, weather, erosion, plant growth,
nutrients, pesticides, land management, stream routing.
SWAT is not able to treat urban drainage system.
3 / 27
SWMM is capable of both single-event and continuous
simulation for runoff and water quality processes within
an urban catchment.
Routing process through a system of pipes, channels,
storage/treatment devices, pumps, and regulators can
be simulated.
SWMM has a difficulty in accounting for land cover types
other than urban.
4 / 27
Comprehensive hydrological model is required to better
represent characteristics of both urban and rural areas.
SWAT-SWMM has been developed in order to overcome
the aforementioned shortcomings of SWAT and SWMM.
Main aims of the presentation
- To explain how to integrate SWAT and SWMM
- To illustrate some simulated results for the White Rock
Creek watershed in USA
5 / 27
Initialize & Read
Start
Compute
Write
End
call getallo
..
.call headout
call simulate
call finalbalcall writeaacall pestw
S- 1
S- 3
S- 2
Initialize & Read
Start
Compute
Write
End
call getallo
..
.call headout
call simulate
call finalbalcall writeaacall pestw
S- 1
S- 3
S- 2
Initialize & Read
Start
Compute
Write
End
call RHYDRO01
call RHYDRO02
call HYDRO
call HCURVEcall PRPOLLcall PRFLOW
W- 1
W- 3
W- 2
Initialize & Read
Start
Compute
Write
End
call RHYDRO01
call RHYDRO02
call HYDRO
call HCURVEcall PRPOLLcall PRFLOW
W- 1
W- 3
W- 2
SWAT SWMM
embedded
Runoff
Transport
Extran
Storage Treatm
6 / 27
HYDRO RDIIRES
GUTTER
WSHED
RDIISHED
QSHED
GUTTER
SMSTAT
RDIIRES
GUTTER
WSHED
RDIISHED
QSHED
GUTTER
SMSTAT
HYDRO
Com
puting
tim
e s
tep
Sim
ula
tion tim
e inte
rval of
SW
AT
W- 2- 1
W- 2- 2
W- 2- 3C
om
puting
tim
e s
tep
Com
puting
tim
e s
tep
HYDRO RDIIRES
GUTTER
WSHED
RDIISHED
QSHED
GUTTER
SMSTAT
RDIIRES
GUTTER
WSHED
RDIISHED
QSHED
GUTTER
SMSTAT
HYDRO
Com
puting
tim
e s
tep
Sim
ula
tion tim
e inte
rval of
SW
AT
W- 2- 1
W- 2- 2
W- 2- 3C
om
puting
tim
e s
tep
Com
puting
tim
e s
tep
subbasin.f
route.f
Separate “hydro” into land phase routing part and channel/pipe routing part
SWATSWMM
7 / 27
Watershed
Sub-watershed
HRU
Catchment
Sub-catchment
SWAT SWMM
Channel Flow
Precip, Temp, PET
SurfQ, GwQ, EVT, SW
One subwatershed can be modelled by SWMM
8 / 27
SWAT
SWAT
SWMM
Subcatchment = HRU
9 / 27
SwatLandUseClassAGRRFRSDFRSEHAYRNGESWRNUIDUURHDURLDURMDWATRWETFWETN
“Dominant Land Use and Soil”“Multiple Land Use and Soil”
10 / 27
SoilClassArentsAustinBurlesonDalcoEddyFerrisFrioHouston BlackLewisvillePitsStephenTrinityUrban landUstorthentsWater
11 / 27
Denton
Dallas
Collins
outlet
Area : 172 km2
Altitude : El. 140-240 m
DEM : 30m x 30m
6 subwatersheds
Subwatershed No.1
= SWMM catchment
12 / 27
13 / 27
14 / 27
SoilClassArentsAustinBurlesonDalcoEddyFerrisFrioHouston BlackLewisvillePitsStephenTrinityUrban landUstorthentsWater
SwatLandUseClassAGRRFRSDFRSEHAYRNGESWRNUIDUURHDURLDURMDWATRWETFWETN
15 / 27
SWAT calibration was performed
for entire watershed
SWMM calibration was performed
for sub-watershed No1.
Major adjusted parameters
CN2 fo
EPCO fc
Ksat n
Gw_delay A1
FIMP A2
16 / 27
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
Feb-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Feb-05 Apr-05 Jun-05
Date (month-year)
Dai
ly S
trea
m F
low
(m3 /s
)
ObservedSimulated
R2 = 0.91 Volume error < 5%
17 / 27
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
Nov-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 May-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Nov-07 Jan-08
Date (month-year)
Dai
ly S
trea
m F
low
(m3 /s
)
ObservedSimulated R2 = 0.87 Volume error < 5%
18 / 27
Outflow from SWAT
(=Inflow to SWMM)
Outflow from SWMM
(=Inflow to SWAT)
19 / 27
20 / 27
21 / 27
y = 3.2961 x + 458.01R2 = 0.9877
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Imperviousness (%)
Annu
al w
ater
yie
ld (m
m)
22 / 27
Variations of downstream flows at outlet
Variations of hydrological components
for the entire watershed
6 Cases of simulations were performed.
- Increase rate of impervious area
Current State, Case 1: 20 % , Case 2: 40 %
Case 3: 60 % , Case 4: 80 % , Case 5: 100 %
Increase of imperviousness
23 / 27
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Feb-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Feb-05 Apr-05 Jun-05
Date (month-year)
Dai
ly S
trea
m F
low
(m3 /s
)
Current stateCase 5
37 %
25 %
(100 %)
24 / 27
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
Nov-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 May-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Nov-07 Jan-08
Date (month-year)
Dai
ly S
trea
m F
low
(m3 /s
)
Current stateCase 5
25 / 27
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Surface flow Groundwater Percolation Evapotranspiraton Total yield
Hydrological components
Ann
ual a
vera
ge v
alue
s (m
m)
Current state 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Increase rate of imperviousness
8 %
5 %
7 %15 %
5 %
26 / 27
Performance of integrated SWAT-SMMM model was verified.
SWAT-SWMM can be effectively used for assessing hydrologic
components for urban as well as rural areas.
Future Works
- To link water quality components of SWAT and SWMM to
each other
- To make SWAT processes be calculated at subdaily time
scale
- To test applicability of SWAT-SWMM for other watersheds
27 / 27
Thank you for listening !