VIEWS: 282 PAGES: 41 POSTED ON: 6/6/2013
Waller Creek Sub-basin HMS Review • Original project idea scrapped • Difficult to find adequate GIS data • No measured flow data to validate model results • Selected new study area New Area Area Characteristics • Located on UT campus at 24th and San Jacinto • Dr. Barrett has a monitoring point at basin outlet • Very urban and hydrologically restricted Goals • Create terrain model in Arcview • Process terrain model with HEC-geoHMS • Create working hydrologic model in HEC- HMS • Calibrate model and evaluate results with measured rainfall and runoff data Data • TIN developed by Esteban Azagra • One-meter DEM (courtesy of Becky) • Vegetation • Vegetation Removed • Dr. Barrett’s rainfall and runoff data at outlet Interesting Questions • Which data source is best suited for this application? • How can we use HEC-geoHMS? • How can we create a hydrologic model of a restricted basin in a meaningful way? • How will this model interact with other models created in the area? Story Begins • It all started with Esteban Azagra’s TIN • Converted TIN to a grid • Projected grid from State Plane to UTM • Overlayed grid onto a DOQQ for position verification Conversion • TIN • GRID (DEM) Projected Grid • Arc-Info Projected Grid • Code Overlayed Grid onto DOQQ Story Progresses • Fun with HEC-geoHMS • Familiar with HEC-geoHMS • Processed terrain data • Analyzed final result Familiar with HEC-geoHMS Familiar with HEC-geoHMS HEC-geoHMS In Action! • Fill Sinks • Flow Direction HEC-geoHMS In Action! • Flow Accumulation • Watershed Delineation HEC-geoHMS In Action! • End Result: Streams! • Cool, but bad! • Why? • Streams are not behaving • No way to modify! Uh – Oh! What now? Pre-Pro In Action! • Drew in sewer system • Burned into grid The Plot Thickens! • Becky provides one-meter DEM of study area (E00 Files) • E00 files no longer a mystery to me • Import 71 • Becky solves vegetation problems Enter LIDAR! • Vegetated • Vegetation Removed Processing Both Grids in Pre-pro • LIDAR Flow Direction • TIN Flow Direction TIN Product LIDAR Product Comparison of Watersheds Comparison of Streams Creation of HMS Schematic • TIN GIS Model • TIN Schematic Creation of HMS Schematic • LIDAR GIS Model • LIDAR Schematic The Winner Is: • LIDAR for HMS • Too cumbersome to do both (out of time) • LIDAR looks better • Checked soil types via SSURGO • Developed curve numbers • Input hydrologic attributes • Ran model Intro to HMS • 3 Parts Basin Model • Chose SCS for loss and transform methods • Chose no baseflow • Chose lag method for reach routing • Parameters by Hand (and Arcview) Getting Soiled With SSURGO • All for this? • Soil type is Ur (urban) • Either C or D • Land use is urban • Curve numbers are either 94 (C) or 95 (D) • I went with 95 Hydrologic Parameters • Sub-basin attributes • Notice SLOPES!! • Those darned buildings!!! Hydrologic Parameters By Hand (and Arcview) • Reach Attributes • Chose lag transform • Easy Meteorologic Model and Control Specifications • User Specified Hyetograph • From 0:00 to 23:55 10/18/99 • 5 minute increments RESULTS!!! • After all of this hard work: I am ready to reap what I have sowed Comparison to measured data: Looks good … • But I’m off by a factor of 10 • Units problem? • Variability in rainfall? • Another problem? • ??? I Would Like To: • Calibrate this model (determine problem) • Try to use HEC-geoHMS in combination with Pre-pro (burn sewers, process with geoHMS) • Figure out how to make Pre-pro transfer hydrologic attributes • Study how this model fits into models already completed Questions?
Pages to are hidden for
"Lee Sherman"Please download to view full document