Transcript Slide 1

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
Study
sites
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.
Digitizing
from aerial
photograph
TIA = Upper
bound
of EIA
Watershed
Scenarios
Tinley
Creek
Midlothia
n Creek
1
Polygons 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%
4
Impervious percentages assigned according to Du Page (see table
1)
23%
28%
5
Medium- and high-density residential areas are assigned as
completely impervious, but the low-density residential area is
assigned to grass
53%
63%
6
Apply 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%
7
Apply 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
area
Grass area
Forest area
Total impervious
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%)
Donigian and others (1984, p-114), the annual or monthly fit is: Very good
error < 10%,
Good
10% < error < 15%
Fair
15% < error < 25%
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
CTE
Current
Midlothian
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
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
CTE
Tinley
Current
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
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
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
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
WY 1997
50
WY 1998
WY 2001
WY 2000
100
WY 1999
WY 2004
WY 2005
150
WY 2002
Observed Midlothian Creek
Observed Tinley Creek
WY 2003
EXPLANATION
WY 1996
CUMULATIVE RUNOFF DEPTH, inches
200
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
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
3.0
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED
TINLEY CREEK WATERSHED
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly runoff coefficient =
observed streamflow volume / observed precipitation volume
3.0
3.0
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
2.5
2.5
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
-0.5
0.0
Jan Feb Mar
Apr May Jun
Jul
MONTH
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
4.0
3.0
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
3.5
2.5
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
3.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
-0.5
0.0
Jan Feb Mar
Apr May Jun
Jul
MONTH
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
4.0
3.0
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
3.5
(a)
3.0
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK WATERSHED -- CURRENT PARAMETER SET
2.5
3.5
S IMU LA TE D R U N OFF C OE FFIC IE N TS
(b)
2.5
OB S E R V E D R U N OFF C OE FFIC IE N TS
S /R R A TIOS
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
4.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3.0
4.0
TINLEY CREEK WATERSHED -- CTE PARAMETER SET
3.5
S/R RATIO
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
3.0
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
4.0
(c)
3.0
TINLEY CREEK WATERSHED -- CURRENT PARAMETER SET
(d)
2.5
3.5
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OB S E R V E D R U N OFF C OE FFIC IE N TS
3.0
S /R R A TIOS
0.5
SIMULATED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
OBSERVED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
S/R RATIOS
0.5
0.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly runoff coefficients for simulated runoff, and
simulated to observed runoff (S/R) ratios
2.5
2.0
TOTAL RUNOFF (PERVIOUS PERO & IMPERVIOUS SURO)
0
WY2005
WY2004
WY200
3
0
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
50
100
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
INTERFLOW OUTFLOW (IFWO)
WY2005
WY200
4
WY2003
WY2002
WY2001
WY200
0
WY1998
WY1997
WY1996
WY1999
60
60
40
20
0
350
400
WY2005
WY2004
WY2002
CTE GRASS
WY2003
CURRENT GRASS
80
WY2001
CTE GRASS
80
20
300
CTE FOREST
100
WY1996
ACCUMULATED OUTFLOW DEPTH, inches
CURRENT GRASS
40
250
CURRENT FOREST
CTE FOREST
100
200
ACTIVE GROUNDWATER STORAGE (AGWO)
120
CURRENT FoOREST
WY1997
120
150
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
WY2000
100
WY1999
50
WY1998
0
0
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
50
100
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
150
200
SIMULATED EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FROM PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS LANDS
400
WY2004
CURRENT Forest
CURRENT Grass
CURRENT Impervious
WY2001
CTE Impervious
WY1998
150
100
50
WY2000
200
WY1999
250
WY2002
CTE Grass
300
WY2003
CTE Forest
350
0
0
50
250
300
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
WY2005
100
WY1997
50
WY1996
0
ACCUMULATED TOTAL ET, inches
ACCUMULATED OUTFLOW DEPTH, inches
WY200
2
20
WY200
1
40
WY200
50
60
WY1999
100
CTE GRASS
WY1998
WY1997
150
WY199
9
WY1998
200
WY200
250
CURRENT GRASS
80
WY1997
CTE IMPEVIOUS
CTE FOREST
100
WY1996
WY2001
CURRENT IMPEVIOUS
WY2002
CTE GRASS
WY200
3
CURRENT GRASS
300
CURRENT FOREST
ACCUMULATED OUTFLOW DEPTH, inches
WY200
4
CTE FOREST
350
WY1996
ACCUMULATED OUTFLOW DEPTH, inches
CURRENT FOREST
SURFACE OUTFLOW (SURO)
120
WY2005
400
100
150
200
250
ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
300
350
400
350
400
Midlothian-CURRENT
Midlothian-CTE
PERO CTE Grass
PERO CTE Forest
OBS Discharge
Weighted Precip
TAET CTE Grass
TAET CTE Forest
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
0.0
Jan
Dec
Feb
Mar
Apr
Tinley-CTE
7.0
PERO CTE Grass
PERO CTE Forest
OBS Discharge
Weighted Precip
TAET CTE Grass
TAET CTE Forest
6.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
PERO & STREAMFLOW
4.0
Feb
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
7.0
PERO CURRENT Grass
PERO CURRENT Forest
OBS Discharge
Weighted Precip
TAET CURRENT Grass
TAET CURRENT Forest
6.0
5.0
4.0
Jan
Jun
7.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
TAET
PERO &STREAMFLOW
5.0
May
Tinley-CURRENT
7.0
6.0
6.0
TAET
4.0
TAET
4.0
0.0
7.0
PERO CURRENT Grass
PERO CURRENT Forest
OBS Discharge
Weighted Precip
TAET CURRENT Grass
TAET CURRENT Forest
0.0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
TAET
6.0
PERO & STREAMFLOW
7.0
7.0
PERO & STREAMFLOW
7.0
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 1997
50
WY 1998
WY 2001
WY 2000
100
WY 1999
WY 2005
WY 2004
WY 2003
150
WY 2002
EXPLANATION
Observed Midlothian Creek
CTE Simulated Midlothian Creek
Current Simulated Midlothian Creek
WY 1996
CUMULATIVE RUNOFF DEPTH, inches
200
0
300
350
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
150
100
50
WY 2005
WY 2004
Observed Tinley Creek
CTE Simulated Tinley Creek
Current Simulated Tinley Creek
WY 2003
EXPLANATION
WY 2002
CUMULATIVE RUNOFF DEPTH, inches
DMC Analysis of Simulated
and Observed Streamflows
200
WY 2001
250
WY 2000
200
WY 1999
150
WY 1998
100
WY 1997
50
WY 1996
0
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION DEPTH, inches
350
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]
HSPF
Parameter
CEPSC
UZSN
LZSN
LZETP
AGWETP
INFILT
DEEPFR
INTFW
LSUR
SLSUR
NSUR
IRC
KVARY
AGWRC
RETSC
Grass land
Current
CTE
0.25
0.1
1.8
0.5
9.5
8.5
0.38
0.38
0.05
0.05
0.015
0.10
0.05
0.05
15.0
10.0
50
50
0.01
0.01
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.7
1.7
0.98
0.98
Forest land
Current
CTE
0.2
0.2
3.0
3.0
9.5
9.5
0.9
0.90
0.15
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
7.5
7.5
400
400
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
1.7
1.7
0.98
0.98
Impervious land
Current
CTE
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
50
50
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
HSPF
Parameter
CCFACT
SNOWCF
RDCSN
SHADE
MGMELT
MWATER
COVIND
SNOEVP
MELEV
TSNOW
Grass land
Forest land
Impervious land
Current
CTE
Current
CTE
Current
CTE
1.0
1.4
0.12
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
610
32
1.0
1.4
0.12
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
610
32
1.0
1.4
0.12
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
610
32
1.0
1.4
0.12
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
610
32
1.0
1.4
0.12
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
610
32
1.0
1.4
0.12
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
610
32
Summary
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).
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
High-density residential
Medium-density residential
Low-density residential
Average
percentage
41
31
22
Range of
percentage
32 – 48
23 – 36
21 – 25
Table 1. Percentage of impervious percentages computed from Rust, TR-55, Du Page and
two groups of present study
Watershed
Tinley Creek
Midlothian Creek
Rust
0.36
0.42
TR-55
0.28
0.34
Du Page
0.27
0.32
This study
0.33
0.39
This study + TR-55
0.29
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]
Watershed
Tinley Creek watershed
Midlothian Creek watershed
1
0.55
0.68
2
0.36
0.42
3
0.28
0.34
Scenario
4
5
0.27
0.23
0.32
0.28
6
0.29
0.35
7
0.33
0.39
Land Use
Rust
(USACE,
2004)
Forest
0
Open Space/Park
5
Low Density
Residential:
1.1 acre median lot
19
TR-55
(USACE,
2004)
Du Page
(USACE,
2004)
Upper Bounds
Determined in This Study
1
determined
case-by–
case
20
10
Mean: 22
Range: 21-25
Medium Density
Residential:
1/2 acre median lot
40
25
15
Mean: 31
Range: 23-36
High Density
Residential:
1/5 acre median lot
56
38
38
Mean: 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
Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal at Romeoville
Lake
Michigan
Romeoville
Gaging station
Control Structures
Diversion Measurement
Components of diversion
• Water supply
• Runoff
• Direct diversions
(control structures)
Precipitation
ET
Interception
Land Use & Management
Overland
flow
Depression
Infiltration
Interflow
HSPF Sediment Module
HSPF PEST Module
Interception
Storage
Overland Flow
Lower Zone
Storage
Upper Zone
Storage
Interflow
Groundwater
Storage
To RCHRES
COMPARISOIN OF SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLOWS AT USGS MIDLOTHIAN GAGE
COMPARISOIN OF SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLOWS AT USGS MIDLOTHIAN GAGE
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
ft
ft
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
5
6
OAK FOREST EDITED GHT
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
16 2 17
Nov2000
3 18
OAK FOREST EDITED GHT
4 19
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M
Chicago River
Columbus Drive
Lake Shore Drive
Urbanization in Metropolitan Area of Chicago
http://tigger.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/imagebase/chimaps
Michael P. Conzen; Dennis McClendon
Source: Newberry Library
Permitted Diversions 1900 - 1994
11,000
Discharge, in cfs
9,000
10,000
8,600
6,600
7,000
U.S. Supreme Court Decrees
5,000
3,000
8,100
3,500
3,100
3,200
1,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990