Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Application of SWAT for the
modelling of sediment yield at Pong
reservoir, India
A. R. Senthil kumar
Tanmoyee Bhattacharya
Suhas D Khobragade
Manohar Arora
National Institute of Hydrology
Roorkee-247667, India
Many large reservoirs for spatial and
temporal distribution of water
High sediment inflow resulting from
unpredicted activities (land use
changes) reduces the performance of
the reservoir during the designed life
time
Average sediment inflow 200 percent
more than inflow assumed during the
design
Ichari diversion dam on Tons river got
silted up to crest level in just two years
Nizam Sagar Reservoir in Andhra
Pradesh lost 60 percent capacity
Estimation of sediment yield from
watershed is very important for
ascertaining the useful life of reservoir
for meeting its intended purposes
Sediment process in a watershed is
highly random and depends upon the
characteristics of basin and river
Study area
Catchment of Beas up to Pong Dam
Catchment area
12,562 sqkm
Water Spread area of the reservoir
260 sqkm
Study objectives
Simulate the discharge and sediment
yield at Nadaun Bridge (Pond
Reservoir)
Methodology
ArcSWAT 2012.10.2.2 for simulating the
discharge and Sediment yield
Conceptual, time continuous and physically
based simulation model to model discharge and
sediment yiled and water quality
Weather, soil properties, topography,
vegetation and land management practices
Data Intensive
Data requirements
DEM of the catchment
LULC of the catchment
Soil Map
Rainfall
Observed discharge and sediment yield
Simulation of discharge and sediment yield at
Jwala Mukhi (Nadaun Bridge)
Data such as Land Use Land Cover, DEM, Soil
Map, Aspect Map generated from NASA,
National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use
Planning (NBSSLUP) and NRSC
Grid based data such as daily rainfall, minimum
and maximum temperatures obtained from Indian
Meteorological Department (IMD) and European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
(ECMWF) (ERA Interim data)
Parameters of ARCSWAT for discharge and
sediment yield calibrated manually (trial and
error method)
Calibration data – 1993 to 1996 (Daily data)
Validation data – 1999 to 2002 (Daily data)
Progress during April 2016 to April 2017
DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF THE
CATCHMENT UP TO NADAUN BRIDGE
ASPECT MAP OF THE CATCHMENT UP TO
NADAUN BRIDGE
LULC MAP OF THE CATCHMENT UP TO
NADAUN BRIDGE
SOIL MAP OF THE CATCHMENT UPTO
NADAUN BRIDGE
Conversion of classified LULC map(LISS-III) into
SWAT LULC classes:
FRSD-Deciduous Forest(SWAT)-Degraded Forest
Snow-Snow
FRSE-Evergreen Forest(SWAT)-Deep Forest
SWRN-Bare rock(SWAT)-Current Fallow
PAST-Pasture/Hay(SWAT)-Sparse vegetation
WATR (SWAT)-Water
AGRR-Row crops(SWAT)-Agriculture
ARCSWAT
Typic Udorthents-1-Sandy(FAO)
Typic Dystrudepts-2-Loamy(FAO)
Lithic Cryorthents-24-Loamy Skeletal(FAO)
Rock Outcrop-100-Rock Outcrops(FAO)
Glacier and Rock Outcrop-104-Glaciers and
Rock Outcrops(FAO)
CONVERSION OF NBSSLUP SOIL
CLASSIFICATION TO FAO SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rai
nfa
ll(m
m)
Date
RAINFALL (INTERIM ERA)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1-Jan-90 1-Jan-91 1-Jan-92 1-Jan-93 1-Jan-94 1-Jan-95 1-Jan-96
Rai
nfa
ll(m
m)
Date
RAINFALL (IMD)
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM
TEMPERATURE (INTERIM ERA)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tem
per
ature
(°C
)
Date
Maximum Temperature
Minimum Temperature
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM
TEMPERATURE (IMD)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120 01-J
an-0
0
04-F
eb-0
0
09-M
ar-
00
12-A
pr-
00
16-M
ay-0
0
19-J
un-0
0
23-J
ul-
00
26-A
ug-0
0
29-S
ep-0
0
02-N
ov-0
0
06-D
ec-0
0
09-J
an-0
1
12-F
eb-0
1
18-M
ar-
01
21-A
pr-
01
25-M
ay-0
1
28-J
un-0
1
01-A
ug-0
1
04-S
ep-0
1
08-O
ct-
01
11-N
ov-0
1
15-D
ec-0
1
18-J
an-0
2
21-F
eb-0
2
27-M
ar-
02
30-A
pr-
02
03-J
un-0
2
07-J
ul-
02
10-A
ug-0
2
13-S
ep-0
2
17-O
ct-
02
Rain
fall (
mm
)
RAINFALL (INTERIM ERA)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
01-Jan-99 01-Jan-00 01-Jan-01 01-Jan-02
Tem
pera
ture
(°
C)
Maximum Temperature
Minimum Temperature
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM
TEMPERATURE (INTERIM ERA)
Parameters Description
CN2.mgt SCS runoff curve number for moisture
condition II
ALPHA_BF.gw Base flow alpha factor
GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay time
GWQMN.gw Threshold depth of water in shallow
aquifer required for return flow
SFTMP.bsn
Snowfall temperature
TIMP.bsn Snowmelt temperature lag factor
SNOWCOVMX.bsn Threshold depth of snow above which
there is 100% cover
SOL_AWC.sol Soil available water storage capacity
SOL_BD.sol Soil bulk density
SOL_Z.sol Depth from soil surface to bottom of layer
PARAMETERS SELECTED FOR
STREAMFLOW CALIBRATION
Parameters Description
SOL_K.sol Soil hydraulic conductivity
REVAPMN.gw Threshold depth of water in shallow aquifer
for ‘revap’ or percolation to the deep
aquifer to occur
GW_REVAP.gw Groundwater ‘revaporation’ coefficient
RCHRG_DP.gw Deep aquifer percolation fraction
ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation factor
EPCO.hru Plant uptake compensation factor
SURLAG.bsn Surface runoff lag coefficient
SLSUBBSN.hru Average slope length
OV_N.hru
Manning’s n value for overland flow
CANMX.hru Maximum canopy storage
PARAMETERS SELECTED FOR
STREAMFLOW CALIBRATION
Parameters Description
USLE_K USLE equation soil erodibility (K) factor
USLE_P USLE equation support conservation practice
factor
SPCON Linear parameter for calculating the maximum
amount of sediment that can be reentrained
during channel sediment routing
PRF Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing
in the main channel
SPEXP Exponent parameter for calculating sediment
reentrained in channel sediment routing
ADJ_PKR Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing
in sub basin (tributary channels)
PARAMETERS SELECTED FOR
SEDIMENT YIELD CALIBRATION
Parameters Initial value Fitted value
Minimum value Maximum value
CN2.mgt 35 98 70
ALPHA_BF.gw 0 1 0.42
GW_DELAY.gw 30 450 50.54
GWQMN.gw 0 200 145.32
SFTMP.bsn -20 20 4.56
TIMP.bsn 0 1 0.36
SNOWCOVMX.bsn 0 500 214.84
SOL_AWC.sol 0 1 0.25
SOL_BD.sol
0.9 2.5 1.52
SOL_Z.sol -0.8 8.0 1.40
ARCSWAT CALIBRATION OF PARAMETERS
FOR STREAMFLOW
Parameters Initial value Fitted value
Minimum value Maximum value
SOL_K.sol 1 10 1.31
REVAPMN.gw 0 20 10.23
GW_REVAP.gw 0.02 0.2 0.05
RCHRG_DP.gw 0 1 0.60
ESCO.hru 0 1 0.56
EPCO.hru 0 1 0.45
SURLAG.bsn 0.05 24 10.05
SLSUBBSN.hru 10 150 30.56
OV_N.hru
0.01 30 12
CANMX.hru 0 100 59.56
ARCSWAT CALIBRATION OF PARAMETERS
FOR STREAMFLOW
ARCSWAT CALIBRATION PARAMETERS
FOR SEDIMENT YIELD
Parameters Initial value Fitted value
Minimum
value
Maximum
value
USLE_K 0 0.65 0.17
USLE_P 0 1 1
SPCON 0.0001 0.01 0.0001
PRF 0 2 1
SPEXP 1 1.5 1
ADJ_PKR 0.5 2 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Jan
-93
Mar
-93
May
-93
Jul-
93
Sep
-93
Nov-9
3
Jan
-94
Mar
-94
May
-94
Jul-
94
Sep
-94
No
v-9
4
Jan
-95
Mar
-95
May
-95
Jul-
95
Sep
-95
Nov-9
5
Jan-9
6
Mar
-96
May
-96
Jul-
96
Sep
-96
Nov-9
6
Dis
char
ge
(m3/s
)
Date
observed (m3/s)
Simulated(m3/s)
ARCSWAT - CALIBRATION (4YR)
RESULTS OF DISCHARGE
R² = 0.928
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Sim
ula
ted
Dis
char
ge
(m3/s
)
Observed Discharge (m3/s)
SIMULATED DISCHARGE Vs OBSERVED
DISCHARGE (CALIBRATION)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jan
-99
Mar
-99
May
-99
Jul-
99
Sep
-99
Nov-9
9
Jan
-00
Mar
-00
May
-00
Jul-
00
Sep
-00
Nov-0
0
Jan
-01
Mar
-01
May
-01
Jul-
01
Sep
-01
Nov-0
1
Jan
-02
Mar
-02
May
-02
Jul-
02
Sep
-02
Nov-0
2
Dis
char
ge
(m3
/s)
Date
Observed (m3/s)
Simulated (m3/s)
ARCSWAT - VALIDATION (4 YR) RESULTS
OF DISCHARGE
R² = 0.9607
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Sim
ula
ted
(m
3/s
)
Observed (m3/s)
SIMULATED DISCHARGE Vs OBSERVED
DISCHARGE (VALIDATION)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Jan
-93
Mar
-93
May
-93
Jul-
93
Sep
-93
Nov-9
3
Jan
-94
Mar
-94
May
-94
Jul-
94
Sep
-94
Nov-9
4
Jan
-95
Mar
-95
May
-95
Jul-
95
Sep
-95
Nov-9
5
Jan
-96
Mar
-96
May
-96
Jul-
96
Sep
-96
Nov-9
6
Sed
imen
t yie
ld (
t/h
a)
Date
Observed(t/ha)
Simulated(t/ha)
ARCSWAT – CALIBRATION (4YR)
RESULTS OF SEDIMENT YIELD
R² = 0.9521
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sim
ula
ted
(t/h
a)
Observed(t/ha)
SIMULATED SEDIMENT YIELD Vs
OBSERVED SEDIMENT YIELD
(CALIBRATION)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Jan
-99
Mar
-99
May
-99
Jul-
99
Sep
-99
Nov-9
9
Jan
-00
Mar
-00
May
-00
Jul-
00
Sep
-00
Nov-0
0
Jan
-01
Mar
-01
May
-01
Jul-
01
Sep
-01
Nov-0
1
Jan
-02
Mar
-02
May
-02
Jul-
02
Sep
-02
Nov-0
2
Sim
ula
ted
(t/
ha)
Observed (t/ha)
Observed(t/ha)
Simulated(t/ha)
ARCSWAT - VALIDATION (4 YR) RESULTS
OF SEDIMENT YIELD
R² = 0.9232
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Sim
ula
ted
(t/
ha)
Observed (t/ha)
SIMULATED SEDIMENT YIELD Vs
OBSERVED SEDIMENT YIELD
(VALIDATION)
CONCLUSIONS
The coefficient of determination for
simulation of sediment yield during
calibration and validation are
0.95 and 0.92 respectively
The results clearly demonstrate
the capability of SWAT for
simulating the sediment yield
at Pong reservoir.
Thank you