CCWD: Using DSM2 Historical July20, 2006 1 Two Applications of the DSM2 Historical Model: Modeling...
-
Upload
delaney-pink -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of CCWD: Using DSM2 Historical July20, 2006 1 Two Applications of the DSM2 Historical Model: Modeling...
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
1
Two Applications of the DSM2 Historical Model:
Modeling Contaminant Spills and Using Salinity Fingerprints to Improve DSM2
Real-Time Forecasts
Tom Rose
and
Marianne Guerin
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
2
Background• CCWD uses Delta Water
• WQ Implications– Salinity– DOC
• Supply Issues– Direct delivery– Blending – Emergency storage
• Forecasting WQ at intakes to help Operations vital
– G-Model – zero-dimensional– DSM2 – accuracy variable at
intakes – time-consuming
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
3
Talk Logistics – Using the Historical Model
• Modeling Contaminant Spills– Motivation for the work
– Methodology
– Results
– Future direction
• Improving Forecasts– Background
– Objective
– Method
– Findings
– Future work – suggestions?
• Background– CCWD Water Supply and Quality Issues
– Using DSM2 Historical Model
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
4
Emergency Modeling: Contaminant Spills
• Motivation– Operations – needs to know what to do NOW– CCWD informed immediately, or, after the event
• Operational ?’s: When/Where/How Much/How Long– Safety of water supply
• Toxicity• Concentration
– Ability to deliver water• Arrival time at intakes• Which intakes (Old River, Rock Slough, Mallard)
– Cost• Using Los Vaqueros reservoir• Damage to pumps• Duration of shut-down
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
5
Use Historical Model and PTM
• IDEA – For a given set of hydrological and operational conditions, find two+ times in Historical Model that ‘bound’ this hydrology– SAC Flow and DCC– SJR flow and HORB– Exports – SWP and CVP– CCWD – Old River, Rock Slough
• Use PTM to run particle tracking models for first arrival time of contaminant
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
6
Method – ‘Quick and Dirty’
• Method:– Use prepared plots to find candidate times– Use HEC-DSSVue tables to narrow search– Run PTM at two (or more) times by injecting
particles at source• First arrival times at Old River Rock Slough – ‘flux.txt’
• Visualize for qualitative information for location of contaminant
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
7
Hypothetical Example
Mar99 Jun99 Oct990
0.5
1
1.5
2x 10
4
Year
CF
S
Vern Flow 1999, DSM2 Simulation, Hist-200605
Vern R. Flow 1999
Head Old Riv
Jan00 Apr00 Aug00 Nov000
0.5
1
1.5
2x 10
4
Year
CF
S
Vern Flow 2000, DSM2 Simulation
Vern R. Flow 2000
Head Old Riv
Feb01 May01 Sep01 Dec010
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Year
CF
S
Vern Flow 2001, DSM2 Simulation
Vern R. Flow 2001
Head Old Riv
Historical 2006-05 Plots.m
17-Jul-2006 MG
Mar02 Jul02 Oct020
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Year
CF
S
Vern Flow 2002, DSM2 Simulation
Vern R. Flow 2002
Head Old Riv
03/06/06: spill at 1:00 AM, downstream of Vernalis, ~ DSM2 node 3• SAC+SJ <83K cfs; Exports: ~6.8K cfs; No HORB or DCC
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
8
PTM Results: spill arrives in less than two days
Hypothetical Spill
Sac SJR Sac+SJR CVP SWP CVP+SWP Old River Rock Sl3/6/2006 70331 12209 82,540 4321 2431 6752 243 12Arrival 1Day 19 hrs N/AMax % 2.8% N/A
(pulse only)DSM2 Historical
02/15/99 72,789 13,555 86,344 4323 527 4850 61 44Arrival 1Day 2145 hrs ~ 30 daysMax % 10.6% 0.1%
02/22/00 72,575 12,066 84,641 4133 8442 12575 25 7Arrival 8 days 3 hrs ~ 29 daysMax % 7.2% 0.1%
Flow measurements in CFS
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
9
Compare Real Result and Closest Scenario
Mar 2006 Feb 1999
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
10
Compare Two Scenarios
Feb 2000 Feb 1999Feb 2000 Feb 1999
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
11
Next Step ?
• ‘Quick and Dirty’ – result in ~ hour– Example gave reasonable, fairly conservative
estimates– BUT, may not be able to find good ‘brackets’
• Real-time DSM2 – – fairly time-consuming – need lots of data (but not EC if just a spill)– accuracy variable – see next talk
• More work with Historical DSM2?
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
12
• Use DSM2 salinity fingerprinting in conjunction with field data to characterize the sources of modeled salinity error at CCWD intakes in the Delta, and at selected other locations
• The Objectives are to: – Identify systematic bias (seasonal, operational, …)– Quantity the error to allow us to put error bars on
DSM2 forecasts– Possibly develop relationships to correct bias
• We’re NOT trying to calibrate the model
Using the Historical Model to Improve Forecasts
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
13
CCWD’s Old River Intake
01/01/01 01/01/02 01/01/03 01/01/04 01/01/05 01/01/060
200
400
600
800
1000
1200ROLD034: Comparison of DSM2 EC Output and CCWD EC Data
UM
HO
S/C
M
DSM2 outputCCWD data
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
14
Method
• Compare residual (model – data) with:– Salinity fingerprints– NDOI (Net Delta Outflow Index)– DICU (Delta Island Consumptive Use)– Operations
• DCC (Delta Cross Channel)• HORB (Head of Old River Barrier)• Exports (SWP, CVP)
• Look for and characterize bias at:– Jersey (RSAN018), Holland (ROLD014), Bacon
(ROLD024), CCWD Old R. Intake (ROLD034): – Started looking at Jersey Point – easiest– Started investigating North, moved South
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
15
EC-MTZ: Major Contributor to Jersey Point Modeled Error
Jan94 Jan95 Jan96 Jan97 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
RSAN018: Comparison of Residual EC (Model - Data) and EC-MTZ Fingerprint
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data)
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2400
2700
UM
HO
S/C
M
EC-MTZ Fingerprint
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
16
Residual < 0: Occurs as Salinity is Falling in Late Fall
Jan94 Jan95 Jan96 Jan97 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
RSAN018: Comparison of Negative Residual EC (Model - Data) and EC-MTZ Fingerprint
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data) (Negative Only)
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2400
2700
UM
HO
S/C
M
EC-MTZ Fingerprint
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
17
Residual > 0: Occurs in Fall as Salinity is Rising ….
Jan94 Jan95 Jan96 Jan97 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
RSAN018: Comparison of Positive Residual EC (Model - Data) and EC-MTZ Fingerprint
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data) (Positive Only)
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2400
2700
UM
HO
S/C
M
EC-MTZ Fingerprint
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
18
JP Residual: Interesting Relationship With DICU/NDOI
Jan94 Jan95 Jan96 Jan97 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
RSAN018: Comparison of Residual EC (Model - Data) and (Consumptive Use)/(NDOI)
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data)-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
%
DICU/NDOI
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
19
Holland Tract: EC-MTZ Relationship Evident, But Not as ‘Clean’ as JP
01/01/00 01/01/01 01/01/02 01/01/03 01/01/04 01/01/05 01/01/06-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600ROLD014: Comparison of Residual EC (Model - Data) and EC-MTZ Fingerprint
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data)
0
80
160
240
320
400
480
560
640
UM
HO
S/C
M
EC-MTZ Fingerprint
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
20
Bacon: Residual Changes w/EC-MTZ Are Messy (at Best), Data Questionable
01/01/02 01/01/03 01/01/04 01/01/05 01/01/06
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
ROLD024: Comparison of Residual EC (Model - Data) and EC-MTZ Fingerprint
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data)
0
70
140
210
280
350
420
490
560
630
UM
HO
S/C
M
EC-MTZ Fingerprint
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
21
Old River Intake: Model Usually Underestimates EC, Especially In Summer and Fall as EC-MTZ Peaks
01/01/01 01/01/02 01/01/03 01/01/04 01/01/05 01/01/06-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700ROLD034: Comparison of Residual EC (Model - Data)and EC-MTZ Fingerprint
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data)
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
UM
HO
S/C
M
EC-MTZ Fingerprint
Questionable Data
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
22
Old River & EC-AG: Residual > 0 in Winter or Spring With Ag Events
01/01/01 01/01/02 01/01/03 01/01/04 01/01/05 01/01/06-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700ROLD034: Comparison of Residual EC (Model - Data) and EC-AG Fingerprint
UM
HO
S/C
M
Residual (Model - Data)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
UM
HO
S/C
M
EC-AG Fingerprint
Questionable Data
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
23
Summary of Findings• There is a suggestive relationship between modeled error and
EC-MTZ at all 4 stations investigated:– Clearest at Jersey Point– Story more complicated as move south along Old River
• Relationships w/other salinity sources and operations:– No apparent relationship with DCC or HORB operations– No apparent relationship with EC from SJR, Eastside– Not sure about EC from Ag or Sac R.
• Modeled EC at Old River:– Underestimates EC as salinity increases in late summer and fall; related
to EC-MTZ– Overestimates EC in Winter, Spring; related to EC-AG events
• Modeled EC at Jersey Point related to DICU/NDOI– Error greatest when DICU is a substantial portion of NDOI in the fall
CCWD: Using DSM2 HistoricalJuly20, 2006
24
Future Work• More work with residuals:
– Look for relationship with export operations, including CCWD diversions
– Look at some station on Middle River– Include Volumetric Fingerprinting
• Look closer at ROLD034:– Incorporate more data– Quantify seasonal error– Look for other contributions to error
• Jersey Point:– Quantify error for EC-MTZ