HL Distributed Hydrologic Modeling

Mike Smith
Victor Koren, Seann Reed, Ziya Zhang, Fekadu Moreda, Fan Lei, Zhengtao Cui, Dongjun Seo, Shuzheng Cong, John Schaake

DSST Feb 24, 2006

1/59

Overview
Today:
Goals, expectations, applicability R&D

Next Call
Development Strategy Implementation RFC experiences

2/59

Goals and Expectations

Potential
History
Lumped modeling took years and is a good example Were first to do operational forecasting

Expectations
As good or better than lumped Limited experience with calibration May not yet show (statistical) improvement in all cases due to errors and insufficient spatial variability of precipitation and basin features but is proper future direction!

New capabilities
Gridded water balance values and variables e.g., soil moisture Flash Flood e.g., statistical distributed Land Use Land cover changes

3/59

Expectations: Effect of Data Errors and Modeling Scale

Simulation error compared to fully distributed Relative error, Ek, %

30
Noise 0% 25% 50% 75%

25 20 15 10 5 0 1 (lumped) 10 Relative Sub-basin Scale A/Ak 100 (distributed)

Truth is simulation from 100 subbasin model

Data errors (noise) may mask the benefits of fine scale modeling. In some cases, they may make the results worse than lumped simulations.

4/59

Goals and Expectations

Rationale
Scientific motivation
Finer scales > better results Data availability

Field requests NOAA Water Resources Program NIDIS

5/59

Goals and Expectations

Applicability
Distributed models applicable everywhere Issues
Data availability and quality needed to realize benefits Parameterization Calibration

6/59

Goals and Expectations

Measures of Improvement
Hydrographs at points (DMIP 1)
Guidance from RFC

Spatial
Runoff Soil moisture Point to grid

7/59

HL R&D Strategy
Goal: produce models, tools, guidelines to improve field office operations

Conduct in-house work Collaborate with partners

U. Arizona, Penn St. University DMIP 1, 2 ETL

Work closely with RFC prototypes

ABRFC, WGRFC: DMS 1.0 MARFC, CBRFC: in-house

Publish results NAS Review of AHPS Science

8/59

R&D Topics
1. Parameterization/calibration (with U. Arizona and Penn State U.) 2. Soil Moisture 3. Flash Flood Modeling: statistical distributed model, other 4. Snow (Snow-17 and energy budget models in HLRDHM) 5. DMIP 2 6. Data assimilation (DJ Seo) 7. Links to FLDWAV 8. Impacts of spatial variability of precipitation 9. Data issues
9/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization-Calibration

Strategy for Sacramento Model Explore STATSGO data as its has national coverage (available in CAP) Explore SSURGO fine scale soils data for initial SAC model parameters (deliverable: parameter data sets in CAP) Investigate auto-calibration techniques
HL: Simplified Line Search (SLS) with Korens initial SAC estimates. U. Arizona: Multi-objective techniques with HL-RDHM and Korens initial SAC parameters.

Continue expert-manual calibration

10/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

HL-RDHM Parameterization - Calibration Steps

Water balance parameters
Spatial data Lumped Hourly Calb.
Variable basin properties (STATSGO 1x1 km grids: Soil texture, Hydrologic Soil Group, Land cover/use) Transform. relationships Variable model parameters Scale adjusted parameters

Observed outlet hydrograph

Lumped, Semi-lumped calibration

Outlet calibrated parameters

Area average parameters

Rescaled variable parameters

Observed outlet hydrograph

Channel routing parameters

Measured data at outlet (discharge, top width, cross-section) Channel routing parameters at outlets Geomorpho logical relations Variable channel routing parameters Fitting curve parameter adjustment

Spatially variable basin properties (slope, area, drainage density)

Observed outlet hydrographs

11/59

Parameterization and Calibration R&D Strategy

a priori parameter estimates auto-calibration techniques Combine Improved a priori parameter estimates with Auto-calibration techniques HL: STATSGO SAC parms. (in CAP at RFCs) HL: Mod STATSGO SAC parms.
Reduce uncertainty

1 2

HL Lumped auto calibration using SCE and SLS HL Dist auto calibration of HLRDHM adj. factors: SCE, SLS HL Dist auto calibration of HLRDHM grid parms: SLS

HL: SSURGO SAC parms 3 HL: Climate SAC Parm adjustment (large area runs)

Gridded Parm Values

U. Arizona: Parameter Uncertainty

U. Az: Multi-objective Optimization of 1) HLRDHM adj. factors, 2) grid parameters

12/59

SCE: Shuffled Complex Evolution SLS: Simplified Line Search

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

Soils Data for SAC Parameters

Description of SSURGO data*
Polygon a soil map unit; it
represents an area dominated by one to three kinds of soil

Polygon Components

* The Penn State Cooperative Extension, Geospatial Technology Program (GTP) Land Analysis Lab

Components

are different kinds of soil. Components are each separate soils with individual properties and are grouped together for simplicity's sake when characterizing the map unit. that are approximately parallel to the surface. Up to six horizons may be recorded for each soil component.

Horizons

Horizons are layers of soil

13/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

Soils Data for SAC Parameters

Demonstration of scale difference between polygons in STATSGO and SSURGO
SSURGO STATSGO

14/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

Results of SSURGO and STATSGO Parameters for Distributed Modeling

Basin Locations and Land Cover

7 1 6 2 5 10 9 Oklahoma Arkansas

3 11 8

7 4 2 5 10 9 1 6

12

2 km Grid Connectivity for Distributed Channel Routing

3 11 8

15/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization Calibration

Results of SSURGO and STATSGO Parameters for Distributed Modeling

Comparison of Rm for whole time series of 11 basins

1

Rm (STATSGO, Overall)

0.8

0.6

0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Rm: Modified correlation coefficient. It is calculated by reducing normal correlation coefficient by the ratio of the standard deviations of the observed and simulated hydrographs.

Rm (SSURGO, Overall)

Overall Rm--SSURGO-based > Rm--STATSGO-based for most basins More physically-based representation of the soil layers! More detailed spatial variability
16/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

Results of SSURGO and STATSGO Parameters for Distributed Modeling

SSURGO

Hydrograph Comparison
__ Observed flow __ SSURGO-based __ STATSGO-based
STATSGO

Cave Springs

17/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

Comparison of SCE and SLS calibration processes

70

39.5

Min (SCE)
60

SCE

SLS

Multi-scale OF

39
50

40

MSOF
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

38.5

30

38
20

Number of function evaluations Distance Distance from starting parameters

37.5 0 1 2 3

Relative distance
2

1) SLS needs less function evaluations, but it leads to similar result; 2) SLS stops much faster and closer to the start point (a priori parameters); 3) On some basins, SCE misses the nearest best solution. 4) SLS in AB-OPT

SCE soil SLS soil

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Number of function evaluations

18/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

HL-RDHM Kinematic Wave Solution

Uses implicit finite difference solution technique Need Q vs. A for each cell to implement distributed routing
Derive relationship at outlet using observed data Extrapolate upstream using empirical/theoretical relationships

Two methods are available in HL-RDHM

Rating curve method : parameters a and b in Q = aAb estimated based on empirical relationship Channel shape method: parameters estimated from estimates of slope, roughness, approximate channel shape, and Chezy-Manning equation
19/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

Channel Width (E) and Shape (F) Parameter Estimation

1. Assume relationship between top width and depth: 2. Solve for E and F using streamflow measurement data:

B ! EH F

 B ! E ? F  1 H A
Example cross section E = 36.6, F = 0.6)
6 5

F
900

Illinois River at Watts, OK

Cross Section Flow Area, Ax (m2)
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

B F 1 ! E [( F  1) Ax ]F

Depth (m )

4 3 2 1 0 -60 -40 -20 0

B H
20 40 60

52

102

152

Top Width, B (m)

Distance (m)

20/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization Calibration

Estimate Upstream Parameters Using Relationships from Geomorphology

1. Channel Model Parameterization

21/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration 1. Parameterization

Probabilistic Channel Routing Parameters

Basic concepts
Discharge cross-section relationship obeys multiscale lognormal bivariate Gaussian distribution The scale dependence of hydraulic geometry is a result of the asymmetry in channel cross-section (CS)

Application
Define CS geometry as a function of scale from site measurements Define channel planform geometry as a function of scale Define floodplain CS geometry as a function of scale from DEM Monte-Carlo simulations to fit to multiscale lognormal model
22/59

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

DERIVED PROBABILISTIC HG: Accounting for the variability of channel and floodplain shapes.
Exp{E[lnCA|lnQ]}

Exp{E[lnV|lnQ]}

exp{E[ln V | ln Q ]} ! exp{ p1E1 [lnV | ln Q ]  p2 E 2 [ln V | ln Q ]}, where

      p1 ! wJ1 (ln Q ) [ wJ1 (ln Q )  (1  w)J2 (ln Q )] and p2 ! (1  w)J2 (ln Q ) [ wJ1 (ln Q )  (1  w)J2 (ln Q )]   J ,J  marginal PDFs of discharge 23/59
1 2

1. Distributed Model Parameterization/Calibration

Probabilistic Channel Routing Parameters: BLUO2 Hydrographs

With flood plain

Without flood plain Observed

24/59

2. Soil Moisture

2. Distributed Modeling and Soil Moisture

Use for calibration, verification of models New products and services
NCRFC: WFO request OHRFC: initialize MM5 NIDIS NOAA Water Resources

25/59

Modified Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model

(developed for Frozen Ground) 2. Soil Moisture
Modified Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model
In each grid and in each time step, transform conceptual soil water content to physically-based water content Sacramento Model Storages
UZTWC LZFPC UZFWC

15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40

LZTWC

Gridded precipitation, temperature

SMC3 SMC4 SMC5

CONUS scale 4km gridded soil moisture products using SAC and Snow-17

LZTWC

LZFSC

LZFSC

LZFPC

082 - 042

042 - 002

20

083 - 023 023 - 082 002 - 061 061 - 021

50 60 10

021 - 08

08

04

ataD oN - 04 - 0 mwtzL

Physically-based Soil Layers and Soil Moisture

SMC1 SMC2

60 50 40 30 20

Sacramento Model Storages

UZTWC UZFWC

26/59

2. Soil Moisture

Validation of Modified Sacramento Model

Soil moisture
Computed and observed soil Moisture and temperature: Valdai, Russia, 1972-1978

Soil temperature

27/59

2. Soil Moisture

Validation of Modified Sacramento Model

observed Frozen ground Non frozen ground

Comparison of observed, non-frozen ground, and frozen ground simulations: Root River, MN
28/59

2. Soil Moisture

Modified SAC
Publications
Koren, 2005. Physically-Based Parameterization of Frozen Ground Effects: Sensitivity to Soil Properties VIIth IAHS Scientific Assembly, Session 7.2, Brazil, April. Koren, 2003. Parameterization of Soil Moisture-Heat Transfer Processes for Conceptual Hydrological Models, paper EAE03-A-06486 HS18-1TU1P0390, AGU-EGU, Nice, France, April. Mitchell, K., Koren, others, 2002. Reducing near-surface cool/moist biases over snowpack and early spring wet soils in NCEP ETA model forecasts via land surface model upgrades, Paper J1.1, 16th AMS Hydrology Conference, Orlando, Florida, January Koren et al., 1999. A parameterization of snowpack and frozen ground intended for NCEP weather and climate models, J. Geophysical Research, 104, D16, 19,569-19,585. Koren, et al., 1999. Validation of a snow-frozen ground parameterization of the ETA model, 14th Conference on Hydrology, 10-15 January 1999, Dallas, TX, by the AMS, Boston MA, pp. 410-413. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/frzgrd/index.html

29/59

2. Soil Moisture

NOAA Water Resources Program: Prototype Products

Initial efforts focus on CONUS soil moisture
HL-RDHM soil moisture for April 5m 2002 12z

Soil moisture (m3/m3)

30/59

2. Soil Moisture

Comparison of Soil Moisture Estimates

HL-RDHM
1 Corr. 0.5

MOSAIC
HL-RDHM: Higher Correlation
1 Co rr. 0.5 0

0 0 2000 4000 6000 Area km2

2000

4000

6000

Area km2

Upper 10cm

Lower 30cm Source: Moreda et al., 2005.

31/59

3. Flash Flood

A Statistical-Distributed Model for Flash Flood Forecasting at Ungauged Locations

Historical

Real-time
Realtime QPE/QP F Distributed hydrologic model (HLRDHM)

Archived QPE

Why a frequencybased approach?

 Frequency grids provide

Initial hydro model states

Distributed hydrologic model (HLRDHM)

Max forecasted peaks

a well-understood historical context for characterizing flood severity; values relate to engineering design criteria for culverts, detention ponds, etc.  Computation of frequencies using modelbased statistical distributions can inherently correct for model biases
32/59

Statistical Post-processor
Simulated peaks distribution (Qsp) (unique for each cell)

simulated historical peaks (Qsp)

Forecasted frequencies

Next step to define requirements for prototype

3. Flash Flood

Statistical Distributed Flash Flood ModelingExample Forecasted Frequency Grids Available at 4 Times on 1/4/1998
15 UTC

14 UTC

In these examples, frequencies are derived from routed flows, demonstrating the capability to forecast floods in locations downstream of where the rainfall occurred.

16 UTC

17 UTC

33/59

Statistical Distributed Flash Flood Modeling Example Forecast Grid and Corresponding Forecast Hydrographs for 1/4/1998 15z
Flow (CMS)

~11 hr lead time

1000

Eldon (795 km2)

0 Simulated flow Observed flow

800

QPF - 1/4/1998 3:00:00 PM UTC Adjusted fcst peak

10

600

Fcst Time

20

400

30

200

40

Implicit statistical adjustment

0 50 1/4/98 0:00 1/4/98 12:00 1/5/98 0:00 1/5/98 12:00 1/6/98 0:00 1/6/98 12:00 1/7/98 0:00 1/7/98 12:00 Date

~1 hr lead time
600

Dutch (105 km2)

Simulated flow Observed flow QPF - 1/4/1998 3:00:00 PM UTC

500

20

400 Flow (CMS)

Adjusted fcst peak Forecast time 40

300 60 200

80 100

3. Flash Flood

0 1/4/98 0:00

1/4/98 12:00

1/5/98 0:00 Date

1/5/98 12:00

1/6/98 0:00

100 1/6/98 12:00

34/59

3. Flash Flood

Where does Site Specific fit?

modeling capability
In this domain: -Statistical Distributed -Distributed -Site Specific with snow Var, routing

RFC

Site Specific, FFG, other

WFO

spatial scale

Perception of Modeling Trends

35/59

4. Distributed modeling and snow

Transition from Snow-17 to Energy Budget Model for RFC Operations: HL Activities
100

% Model Use

Snow-17 at RFCs

Energy Budget Model

0 Today Time Today + (?) years

HL Activities
36/59

4. Distributed modeling and snow

Distributed Snow-17
Strategy: use distributed Snow-17 as a step in the migration to energy budget modeling: what can we learn? Snow-17now in HL-RDHM Tested in MARFC area and over CONUS (delivered historical data) Further testing in DMIP 2 Gridded Snow-17 parameters for CONUS under review (could be delivered in CAP) Related work: data needs for energy budget snow models
37/59

4. Distributed modeling and snow

Current approach SNOW-17 model within HL-RDHM

SNOW-17 model is run at each pixel Gridded precipitation from multi-sensor products are provided at each pixel Gridded temperature inputs are provided by using DEM and regional temperature lapse rate The area depletion curve is removed because of distributed approach Other parameters are studied either to replace them with physical properties or relate them to these properties, e.g., SCF.
38/59

4. Distributed modeling and snow

HL-RDHM
P, T & ET SNOW -17 Rain + melt SAC-SMA or CONT-API surface runoff base flow hillslope routing Channel routing Flows and State variables
39/59

Features:
 Gridded (or small basin) structure  Independent snow and rainfallrunoff models for each grid cell  Hillslope routing of runoff  Channel routing (kinematic & Muskingum-Cunge)

4. Distributed modeling and snow

Parameterization of Distributed Snow-17

Min Melt Factor

Derived from: 1. Aspect 2. Forest Type 3. Forest Cover, % 4. Andersons recs.

Max Melt Factor

40/59

4. Distributed modeling and snow

Case Study

Snow Cover Simulation

Snow cover obtained from energy-budget and Snow-17 model qualitatively agree well Energy-budget model assimilated Distributed Snow-17

December 12, 2003 12Z

41/59

4. Distributed modeling and snow

Flow simulation during snow periods

(using lumped API model parms in each grid)
Snow cover % 100 50 0
1101200200 1201200220 0101200316 0201200312 0304200308 0404200304

600

140 120

Flow m3/s

400

100 80 60

200

40 20

0
1101200200 1201200220 0101200316 0201200312 0304200308 0404200304

0 Hyd_obs Hyd_simul swe

Snow Water Equivalent (mm)

42/59

5. DMIP 2
HL distributed model is worthy of implementation: we need to improve it for RFC use in all geographic regions Partial funding from Water Resources Much outside interest HMT collaboration
43/59

5. DMIP 2

DMIP 2 Science Questions

Confirm basic DMIP 1 conclusions with a longer validation period and more test basins Improve our understanding of distributed model accuracy for small, interior point simulations: flash flood scenarios Evaluate new forcing data sets (e.g., HMT) Evaluate the performance of distributed models in prediction mode Use available soil moisture data to evaluate the physics of distributed models Improve our understanding of the way routing schemes contribute to the success of distributed models Continue to gain insights into the interplay among spatial variability in rainfall, physiographic features, and basin response, specifically in mountainous basins Improve our understanding of scale/data issues in mountainous area hydrology Improve our ability to characterize simulation and forecast uncertainty in different hydrologic regimes Investigate data density/quality needs in mountainous areas (Georgakakos et al., 1999; Tsintikidis, et al., 2002)

44/59

Distributed Model Intercomparison Project (DMIP)

Nevada American River Carson River

5. DMIP 2

Phase 2 Scope
Missouri Kansas
Elk River

HMT
California

Oklahoma

Illinois River Arkansas

Blue River Texas Tests with Complex Hydrology

1. 2. 3. 4. Snow, Rain/snow events Soil Moisture Lumped and Distributed Data Requirements in mtn West

Additional Tests in DMIP 1 Basins

1. 2. 3. 4. Routing Soil Moisture Lumped and Distributed Prediction Mode

45/59

5. DMIP 2

46/59

5. DMIP 2

DMIP 2 & HMT-West

Research to Operations
1. Basic precip and temp data (gage only gridded) Basic data enhanced by HMT observations:
-Network Density 1 -Network Density 2 -Network Density 3

2.

Distributed model simulations

USGS HL-RDHM USBR Others

Analyses, conclusions, recommendations for data and tools for RFCs

What new data types are becoming available? What densities of observations are needed? Which models/approaches work best In mountainous areas?
47/59

5. DMIP 2

DMIP 2: Potential Participants

Witold Krajewski Praveen Kumar Mario DiLuzio, ARS, TAES Sandra Garcia (Spain) Eldho T. Iype (India) John McHenry, BAMS Konstantine Georgakakos Ken Mitchell (NCEP) Hilaire F. De Smedt (Belgium) HL Vincent Fortin, Canada Robert Wallace, USACE, Vicksburg Murugesu Sivapalan, U. Illinois Hoshin Gupta, U. Arizona Thian Gan, (Can.) Newsha Ajami (Soroosh) Vazken Andreassian (Fra) George Leavesley (USGS) Kuniyoshi Takeuchi (Japan) Vieux and Associates John England (USBR) Andrew Wood, Dennis Lettenmaier, U. Washington Martyn Clarke South Florida Water Mngt. District David Tarboton, Utah St. U. David Hartley, NW Hydraulic Consultants

Names in red have officially registered

48/59

5. DMIP 2

Basic DMIP 2 Schedule

Feb. 1, 2006: all data for Ok. basins available July 1, 2006: all basic data for western basins available Feb 1, 2007: Ok. simulations due from participants July 1, 2007: basic simulations for western basins due from participants
49/59

6. Data Assimilation for Distributed Modeling

Needed since manual OFS run-time mods will be nearly impossible Strategy based on Variational Assimilation developed and tested for lumped SAC model Initial work in progress

50/59

WTTO2 in ABRFC Assimilation period: streamflow, PE, precip

WTTO2 channel network

Initial simulation

6. Data Assimilation

51/59

Comparison of Unadjusted and 4DVAR-Adjusted Model States (WTTO2)

6. Data Assimilation

52/59

7. Distributed Modeling and Links to FloodWave

rain depth
20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 20 60 10 0 30 40 50 60

Rocky Mount

Tarboro

Rainfall Data

Channel Routing and Flood Mapping Of Tar River below Rocky Mount

Tarboro

Distributed Model of Tar River Basin

Estuary Model
53/59

7. Distributed Modeling and FloodWave

Inflow hydrograph From HL-RDHM

HL-RDHM grid In this example, HL-RDHM provides: 1. Upstream inflow hydrograph.at 1. 2. 5 lateral inflow hydrographs to floodwave between cross sections 1 and 2.

floodwave
Floodwave lateral inflow reaches 2

54/59

7. Distributed Modeling and FloodWave: Example

Hydrographs at Greenville, Tar River
400 350

300

250

SAC-SMA warm-up

200

150

100

50

Date

observed

simulated

Initial Simulation of Tar River using HL-RMS (no Flood Wave). No calibration. After the warm up period, the simulation is good. Uses only Victors a priori parameters.
55/59

8. Impact of Spatial Variability

Question: how much spatial variability in precipitation and basin features is needed to warrant use of a distributed model? Goal: provide guidance/tools to RFCs to help guide implementation of distributed models, i.e., which basins will show most bang for the buck? Initial tests completed after DMIP 1: trends seen but no clear thresholds
56/59

8. Impact of Precipitation Spatial Variability

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50

precipitation at time t

precipitation at time t +(t

60

input
precipitation at time t + 2(t

filter

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30

flow
60 50 40 30 40 50 60 0 10 20

output
57/59

time

Topic
DMIP 2 Parameterization: SSURGO/STATSGO Regionalized SAC-Snow Parameters Auto Calibration: Arizona Auto Calibration: HL Snow-17 and HL-RDHM Large Area Simulation for WR products Statistical Distributed VAR for Distributed Modeling Spatial Variability DHM 2.0 AWIPS (HSEB)

06 Funding AHPS WR
0 100 30 75 0 30 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 31

HOSIP Stage 1 2 3 4

30 0 0 200

0 0 0 ?

58/59

Conclusions
Distributed models are proper direction
Account for spatial variability:
Parameterization Calibration Better results at outlets of some basins Amenable to new data sources

Scientifically supported flash flood modeling New products and services

59/59