A Regionalized Flow Duration Curve Method to Predict ...
Transcript of A Regionalized Flow Duration Curve Method to Predict ...
A Regionalized Flow Duration Curve Method to Predict Streamflow for Ungauged Basins: a
Case Study of the Rappahannock Watershed in Virginia, USA
A Regionalized Flow Duration Curve Method to Predict Streamflow for Ungauged Basins: a
Case Study of the Rappahannock Watershed in Virginia, USA
Yusuf Mohamoud and Rajbir ParmarUS EPA – Ecosystems Research Division
Athens, Georgia
Yusuf Mohamoud and Rajbir ParmarUS EPA – Ecosystems Research Division
Athens, Georgia
88thth IAHS Scientific Assembly and 37IAHS Scientific Assembly and 37thth
IAH Congress IAH Congress Hyderabad, IndiaHyderabad, India
Outline Outline
Flow duration curve: historical backgroundFlow duration curve: historical backgroundDevelopment of regionalized flow duration Development of regionalized flow duration curve (RFDC)curve (RFDC)Separation of flow magnitude and time Separation of flow magnitude and time sequence: new paradigm sequence: new paradigm Modeling streamflow for Modeling streamflow for ungaugedungauged sites sites using regionalized flow duration curve using regionalized flow duration curve (RFDC) and HSPF(RFDC) and HSPFComparison of RFDC and HSPF predictive Comparison of RFDC and HSPF predictive performanceperformance
Flow duration curve applicationsFlow duration curve applicationsExtending short period data records and Extending short period data records and filling missing data points filling missing data points
Predicting flow and water quality time series data Predicting flow and water quality time series data for for ungaugedungauged sites sites
Forecasting flow and water quality time seriesForecasting flow and water quality time series
FDC can be used for FDC can be used for baseflowbaseflow separationseparation
FDC can be used for calibrating rainfallFDC can be used for calibrating rainfall--runoff runoff models particularly for models particularly for ungaugedungauged basins basins
Effect of geology on low flows Effect of geology on low flows (Searcy, 1963)(Searcy, 1963)
1
32
54
6
Information content in flow duration curves (after Information content in flow duration curves (after Searcy, 1963)Searcy, 1963)
Prediction of flow duration curve (FDC) and Prediction of flow duration curve (FDC) and
streamflowstreamflow
Step 1. Develop regional regression equations (QStep 1. Develop regional regression equations (Q.1.1 to Qto Q9999) for ) for watersheds in the Appalachian, Ridge and Valley, and watersheds in the Appalachian, Ridge and Valley, and Piedmont physiographic provinces Piedmont physiographic provinces Step 2. Predict FDC for gauged and Step 2. Predict FDC for gauged and ungaugedungauged sites of the Midsites of the Mid--Atlantic regionAtlantic regionStep 3. Convert FDC to streamflow time series dataStep 3. Convert FDC to streamflow time series dataStep 4. Test FDC methodStep 4. Test FDC method’’s predictive performance s predictive performance
Step 5. Compare FDC and HSPFStep 5. Compare FDC and HSPF
Regionalization approaches: MidRegionalization approaches: Mid--Atlantic RegionAtlantic Region
A new paradigm: flow, duration curve, percentile flowsA new paradigm: flow, duration curve, percentile flows
Map of the study watershed showing gauged and ungauged
sites
FDC prediction and streamflow conversion toolFDC prediction and streamflow conversion tool
Soils, climate, geology, geomorphology, land use (watershed descriptors)
R2 = 0.99n = 45
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 100 200 300 400
RFDC predicted percentile flows (l/sec/km 2)
Obs
erve
d pe
rcen
tile
flow
s (l/
sec/
km2 ) R2 = 0.92
n = 45
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
HSPF predicted percentile flows (l/sec/km2)
Obs
erve
d pe
rcen
tile
flow
s (l/
sec/
km2 )
Comparisons of observed percentile flows and percentile flows predicted by HSPF and RFDC methods For Site 9, 13, and 22 (FDC predicts only the magnitude component of streamflow)
HSPF
RFDC
Rapdian River GaugeR2 = 0.8033
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80HSPF Simulated Monthly Streamflow
(m3/sec)
Obs
erve
d M
onth
ly
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
)
Robinson River GaugeR2 = 0.8138
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50HSPF Simulated Monthly Streamflow
(m3/sec)
Obs
erve
d M
onth
ly
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
)Robinson River GaugeR2 = 0.9956
020
4060
80100
0 20 40 60 80RFDC Simulated Monthly Streamflow
(m 3/sec)
Obs
erve
d M
onth
ly
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
)Rapidan River Gauge
R2 = 0.9555
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50RFDC Simulated Monthly Streamflow
(m 3/sec)
Obs
erve
d M
onth
ly
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
)
Ruckersville River GaugeR2 = 0.9449
05
1015202530
0 10 20 30RFDC Simulated Monthly Streamflow
(m3/sec)
Obs
erve
d M
onth
ly
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
) Ruckersville River GaugeR2 = 0.7783
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30
HSPF Simulated Monthly Streamflow (m3/sec)
Obs
erve
d M
onth
ly
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
)
Comparison of observed mean monthly streamflow vs. mean monthlystreamflow simulated by RFDC and HSPF for three gauged sites
Comparisons of observed hydrograph and hydrographs predicted by Comparisons of observed hydrograph and hydrographs predicted by HSPF and RFDC methods for the Robinson Site (Site 13)HSPF and RFDC methods for the Robinson Site (Site 13)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45
Time (days)
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
)
RFDC Predicted (Rapidan Time Sequence)ObservedRFDC Predicted (Robinson Time Sequence)HSPF Predicted (No Correction)HSPF_Predicted (Magnitude Correction)HSPF Predicted (Time Sequence Correction)
`
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45
Time (days)
Stre
amflo
w (m
3 /sec
)
RFDC Predicted (Rapidan Time Sequence)ObservedRFDC Predicted (Ruckersville Time Sequence)HSPF Predicted (No Correction)HSPF Prediced (Magnitude Correction)HSPF Predcited (Time Sequence Correction)
Comparison of observed hydrographs and HSPF and RFDCpredicted hydrographs for the Ruckersville evaluation sites (Site 22)
Comparisons of observed streamflow and streamflow predicted Comparisons of observed streamflow and streamflow predicted byby HSPF for the period between (01/01/1980 through 12/31/1990)HSPF for the period between (01/01/1980 through 12/31/1990)
Destination Site Source Site Model Calibration _____R2 N-S Daily (monthly) Daily (monthly)
Site 9-Rapidan River Site 9 0.65 (0.80) 0.65 (0.76)
Model Evaluation
Site 13-Robinson River Site 9 0.68 (0.66) 0.66 (0.55)
Site 22-Ruckersville Site 9 0.68 (0.64) 0.78 (0.74)
Sequence adjusted-HSPFSite 13- Robinson Site 13 0.92 (0.97) 0.89 (0.91)Site 22-Ruckersville Site 22 0.95 (0.99) 0.93 (0.92)
_______________________________________________________________________
Comparisons of observed streamflow and streamflow predicted by Comparisons of observed streamflow and streamflow predicted by RFDC for the period between (01/01/1980 through 12/31/1990)RFDC for the period between (01/01/1980 through 12/31/1990)
Destination Site Source Site Model Calibration _____________R2 N-S Daily (monthly) Daily (monthly)
Site 9-Rapidan River Site 9 0.96 (1.0) 0.92 (0.95)
Model Evaluation
Site 13-Robinson River Site 9 0.93 (0.98) 0.93 (0.95)
Site 22-Ruckersville Site 9 0.80 (0.95) 0.76 (0.91)
Sequence adjusted-HSPFSite 13- Robinson Site 13 0.93 (0.99) 0.93 (0.95)Site 22-Ruckersville Site 22 0.95 (0.99) 0.94 (0.97)____________________________________________________________________
HSPF Simulated versus RFDC Simulated Streamflow R2 N-S RMSE
Site Daily (monthly) Daily (monthly) (m3/sec/kmSite 25 0.59 (0.78) 0.53 (0.65) 0.017Site 24 0.58 (0.78) 0.51 (0.64) 0.017Site 23 0.53 (0.75) 0.52 (0.68) 0.022Site 22 0.56 (0.77) 0.49 (0.68) 0.017Site 21 0.59 (0.78) 0.51 (0.64) 0.017Site 20 0.57 (0.78) 0.54 (0.65) 0.018Site 19 0.57 (0.77) 0.47 (0.68) 0.019Site 18 0.57 (0.78) 0.53 (0.65) 0.018Site 17 0.58 (0.78) 0.54 (0.66) 0.017Site 16 0.58 (0.78) 0.52 (0.65) 0.017Site 15 0.59 (0.78) 0.52 (0.66) 0.017Site 14 0.58 (0.78) 0.49 (0.65) 0.017Site 13 0.57 (0.77) 0.50 (0.71) 0.016Site 12 0.59 (0.78) 0.47 (0.73) 0.017Site 11 0.59 (0.78) 0.51 (0.72) 0.016Site 10 0.58 (0.78) 0.52 (0.72) 0.016Site 09 0.57 (0.78) 0.51 (0.72) 0.016Site 08 0.58 (0.78) 0.47 (0.72) 0.017Site 07 0.58 (0.78) 0.47 (0.71) 0.017Site 06 0.58 (0.78) 0.48 (0.71) 0.017Site 05 0.56 (0.78) 0.50 (0.65) 0.017Site 04 0.57 (0.78) 0.47 (0.70) 0.017Site 03 0.53 (0.78) 0.34 (0.61) 0.017Site 02 0.58 (0.78) 0.45 (0.65) 0.018Site 01 0.51 (0.78) 0.31 (0.64) 0.017
Comparison of HSPF and RFDC simulated streamflow for 22 ungauged sites and 3 gauged sites of the Rapidan Watershed
Future ResearchFuture Research
Separation of streamflow magnitude and sequence componentsSeparation of streamflow magnitude and sequence componentsWhich variables and parameters are related to magnitude ?Which variables and parameters are related to magnitude ?
Which variables and parameters are related to time sequence?Which variables and parameters are related to time sequence?
Can streamflow prediction be improved through improved magnitudeCan streamflow prediction be improved through improved magnitudeprediction?prediction?
Can streamflow prediction be improved through improved sequence Can streamflow prediction be improved through improved sequence prediction?prediction?
Extend the RFDC method to predicting nutrient, sediment, and patExtend the RFDC method to predicting nutrient, sediment, and pathogen hogen concentration and load duration curvesconcentration and load duration curves
Other Applications: Prediction of total suspended solids using tOther Applications: Prediction of total suspended solids using the RFDC he RFDC methodmethod
Rapidan River
0100200300400
500600700800900
1 26 51 76 101 126 151 176 201 226 251 276 301 326 351Day
Tota
l Sus
pend
ed S
olid
s (m
g/l) Observed
Simulated
ConclusionConclusionFDC only captures the magnitude component of streamflow (FDC FDC only captures the magnitude component of streamflow (FDC has no time sequence)has no time sequence)
Time sequence is obtained from a nearby gauged site (no magnitudTime sequence is obtained from a nearby gauged site (no magnitude e is required)is required)
RFDC method had higher predictive performance than HSPFRFDC method had higher predictive performance than HSPF
RFDC can be useful to improving rainfallRFDC can be useful to improving rainfall--runoff modelsrunoff models
Regionalization methods are suitable for FDC prediction hence flRegionalization methods are suitable for FDC prediction hence flow ow magnitudemagnitude
Predicting magnitude and time sequence components of streamflow Predicting magnitude and time sequence components of streamflow together is a major weakness of rainfalltogether is a major weakness of rainfall--runoff models (e.g., HSPF)runoff models (e.g., HSPF)
Predicting magnitude and time sequence components of streamflowPredicting magnitude and time sequence components of streamflowseparately makes RFDC highly suitable for predictions of separately makes RFDC highly suitable for predictions of ungaugedungauged basinsbasins
QuestionsQuestions