Difference between revisions of "Process representation across tools"
m |
|||
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | <span id="Process rep - pg top"></span> | |
− | + | The tables below summarise information about different process representation [[Terminology#algorithm anchor|algorithms]] across the set of modelling tools. They cover the inputs used to model the occurrence and rate (amount per model calculation timestep) of the given hydrological process (e.g. infiltration of water into the soil) as well as some general characteristics of the equations, particularly noting if there are thresholds involved and what these are. The tables can be used to understand what is being considered in the calculation of each process and what inputs each modelling tool needs. Not all the processes listed are represented explicitly by all the tools. This is highlighted in the tables below and an overview is also presented in the [[Modelling tool capability overview#Modelling tool capabilities summary|capabilities overview table]]. The nature of the algorithms used and their inputs are linked to the '''spatial and temporal scale''' at which the process is being represented in the given tool, described further for each one [[Model units & connections|here]]. | |
+ | </br></br> | ||
+ | In these tables '''thresholds''' refer to limits that determine when a process would start to occur or would stop occurring. For example, the field capacity soil moisture of a soil is often used as the threshold soil moisture level for percolation of water downwards (to a lower soil layer or to recharge groundwater). If soil moisture is lower than this, no percolation will be calculated in the model. There may be multiple thresholds considered when modelling a process. For example, evapotranspiration of soil moisture may be assumed to stop once the atmospheric demand in the timestep has been met or once the soil moisture has reached wilting point level, even if demand has not yet been met. | ||
+ | </br></br> | ||
+ | The inputs to a process algorithm can include: | ||
+ | * input data (e.g., rainfall, using the rainfall input for a particular modelled unit, for a given timestep), | ||
+ | * property parameter values that the user inputs in the model set-up (e.g., soil moisture content at saturation for a soil layer in a modelled unit) | ||
+ | * states or water storage levels that the model calculated internally for the timestep, so not directly input by the user (e.g., soil moisture content in a certain soil layer at a given timestep) | ||
+ | Different software tools may refer to equivalent inputs using different words and sometimes they require the user to input different specific property values, but end up calculating the same derived property. For example, on software tool may require porosity of soil to be input, another may require bulk density, and another may as for volumetric soil moisture at saturation, any of these, coupled with soil layer depth, can be used to calculate the maximum (or saturation) soil water storage volume. Where possible, similar terms have been used across tools in the tables below to highlight their conceptual similarities where these exist. Details about some of the contrasting terminology used in the interfaces of different tools can be found [[Terminology#Hydrological process and parameter terms across tools|here]]. | ||
+ | </br> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
== Canopy interception and evaporation (vs throughfall) == | == Canopy interception and evaporation (vs throughfall) == | ||
Line 72: | Line 79: | ||
timestep interception capacity ''(calculated)'' | timestep interception capacity ''(calculated)'' | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Line 178: | Line 187: | ||
<br/>Saturation soil moisture | <br/>Saturation soil moisture | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Line 266: | Line 277: | ||
<br/>Detention storage | <br/>Detention storage | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Line 389: | Line 402: | ||
<br/>Wilting point SM | <br/>Wilting point SM | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Line 493: | Line 508: | ||
<br/>Water table depth vs root depth | <br/>Water table depth vs root depth | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Line 593: | Line 610: | ||
| style="background: #FFFFF5; vertical-align: top" | | | style="background: #FFFFF5; vertical-align: top" | | ||
'''yes:''' | '''yes:''' | ||
− | <br/> | + | <br/>Field capacity SM |
| style="background: #F5FCFF; vertical-align: top" | | | style="background: #F5FCFF; vertical-align: top" | | ||
'''yes:''' | '''yes:''' | ||
Line 599: | Line 616: | ||
<br/>IZ storage threshold for outflow | <br/>IZ storage threshold for outflow | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Line 736: | Line 755: | ||
<br/>Aquifer max storage | <br/>Aquifer max storage | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Line 809: | Line 830: | ||
|} | |} | ||
[[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | [[#Process rep - pg top|Back to top of page]] | ||
+ | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:37, 1 December 2023
The tables below summarise information about different process representation algorithms across the set of modelling tools. They cover the inputs used to model the occurrence and rate (amount per model calculation timestep) of the given hydrological process (e.g. infiltration of water into the soil) as well as some general characteristics of the equations, particularly noting if there are thresholds involved and what these are. The tables can be used to understand what is being considered in the calculation of each process and what inputs each modelling tool needs. Not all the processes listed are represented explicitly by all the tools. This is highlighted in the tables below and an overview is also presented in the capabilities overview table. The nature of the algorithms used and their inputs are linked to the spatial and temporal scale at which the process is being represented in the given tool, described further for each one here.
In these tables thresholds refer to limits that determine when a process would start to occur or would stop occurring. For example, the field capacity soil moisture of a soil is often used as the threshold soil moisture level for percolation of water downwards (to a lower soil layer or to recharge groundwater). If soil moisture is lower than this, no percolation will be calculated in the model. There may be multiple thresholds considered when modelling a process. For example, evapotranspiration of soil moisture may be assumed to stop once the atmospheric demand in the timestep has been met or once the soil moisture has reached wilting point level, even if demand has not yet been met.
The inputs to a process algorithm can include:
- input data (e.g., rainfall, using the rainfall input for a particular modelled unit, for a given timestep),
- property parameter values that the user inputs in the model set-up (e.g., soil moisture content at saturation for a soil layer in a modelled unit)
- states or water storage levels that the model calculated internally for the timestep, so not directly input by the user (e.g., soil moisture content in a certain soil layer at a given timestep)
Different software tools may refer to equivalent inputs using different words and sometimes they require the user to input different specific property values, but end up calculating the same derived property. For example, on software tool may require porosity of soil to be input, another may require bulk density, and another may as for volumetric soil moisture at saturation, any of these, coupled with soil layer depth, can be used to calculate the maximum (or saturation) soil water storage volume. Where possible, similar terms have been used across tools in the tables below to highlight their conceptual similarities where these exist. Details about some of the contrasting terminology used in the interfaces of different tools can be found here.
Canopy interception and evaporation (vs throughfall)
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman | SPATSIM-Pitman | ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed & fully distributed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
|
|
|
Function type |
exponential & threshold | exponential & threshold | threshold | threshold | |
Thresholds |
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
Infiltration into soil moisture (vs surface runoff or surface ponding)
Note: This excludes the case of a modelling unit (HRU, grid cell, area within a subcatchment, etc.) is designated as impervious. In this case, rain inputs would become surface runoff, potentially with a portion staying behind as surface storage/ponding if the area has attenuation specified (to represent roughness and flatness).
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman | SPATSIM-Pitman | ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function type |
non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | power & threshold | power & threshold | linear (rate) & threshold | non-linear & threshold |
Thresholds |
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
Surface runoff to channel network
Note on surface runoff vs ponding and surface storage: In the Pitman models, all water not calculated to infiltrate in a timestep, which is a month, is assumed to be runoff. For models with shorter timesteps, water reaching the land surface which does not infiltrate into soil in a timestep can become surface runoff or remain as surface ponding/surface storage. In subsequent model timesteps, water still on the land surface can evaporate, infiltrate, and/or become surface runoff in the next timestep. Some models have relatively short timesteps (subdaily, daily) compared to the rate at which water would move all the way across a modelled land unit (which could be large, rough, and/or flat, slowing the flow rate). This is why some water will be 'surface storage' in one timestep and then 'surface runoff' in the next timestep. MIKE-SHE can also consider that land surfaces can be very rough, or have dips that trap water, and so some amount surface water will not be able to run off at all (detention storage). This water will both evaporate and infiltrate over time.
ACRU4 differs notably, assuming the water that does not infiltrate into soil accounts for both surface runoff and interflow runoff.
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman | SPATSIM-Pitman | ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function type |
(no transformation) | (no transformation) | (no transformation) | non-linear | non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold |
Thresholds |
no*
|
no*
|
no*
|
no*
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
Evapotranspiration (ET) from soil moisture (SM)
Note: More coverage of evapotranspiration related terminology and inputs across different tools can be found here
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman | SPATSIM-Pitman | ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
*determines linear decline of ET with soil moisture decline
|
*determines linear decline of ET with soil moisture decline
|
*ET assumed to also decline if soil gets close to saturation, waterlogging, unless wetland plants
|
|
|
|
Function type |
linear & threshold | linear & threshold | multi-part linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | multi-part linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold |
Thresholds |
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
Evapotranspiration (ET) from groundwater (GW)
Note: More coverage of evapotranspiration related terminology and inputs across different tools can be found here
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman (Sami GW) |
SPATSIM-Pitman (Hughes GW) |
ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
|
+ all inputs for ET from soil
|
+ all inputs for ET from soil
|
+ vegetation property inputs for ET from soil
|
Function type |
non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | |
Thresholds |
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
Interflow generation & routing to channel network
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman | SPATSIM-Pitman | ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
*Lag coefficient separates "quickflow"~surface runoff from "delayed-flow"~interflow. The lagged flow that doesn't reach the channel on the rain day, but instead reaches the channel over subsequent days can be considered interflow
|
|
to calc outflow from IZ:
|
|
Function type |
non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | two step: non-linear & threshold, linear reservoir & threshold | ||
Thresholds |
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
Aquifer recharge
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman (Sami GW) |
SPATSIM-Pitman (Hughes GW) |
ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function type |
two step: non-linear & threshold, non-linear | non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | two step: non-linear & threshold, non-linear & threshold | two step: non-linear & threshold, linear reservoir & threshold | non-linear & threshold |
Thresholds |
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
yes:
|
Groundwater (GW) flow: lateral flow within the saturated zone
Note: This refers to groundwater flow between modelled land units, such as grid cells, HRUs, or subcatchments, depending on the scale that groundwater stores and flows are modelled at (see more on scales of process representation for GW here)
For coverage of groundwater outflow into a river channel, see the table below
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman (Sami GW) |
SPATSIM-Pitman (Hughes GW) |
ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function type |
non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | non-linear | |||
Thresholds |
yes:
|
yes:
|
n/a |
Aquifer exchanges with channel: aquifer outflow to channel and channel transmission loss
Algorithm description |
WRSM-Pitman (Sami GW) |
SPATSIM-Pitman (Hughes GW) |
ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE, semi-distributed, more conceptual |
MIKE-SHE, fully-distributed, more physical |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm inputs (input data, model calculated states / storages, property parameters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function type |
non-linear & threshold | non-linear & threshold | rate | non-linear & threshold | linear reservoir & threshold | non-linear & threshold |
Thresholds |
yes - to switch flow direction:
|
yes - to switch flow direction:
|
no |
yes - to switch flow direction:
|
yes - for aquifer-to-channel:
|
yes - to switch flow direction:
|