Difference between revisions of "Modelling tool capability overview"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {| class="wikitable" | + | A set of commonly used modelling tools in South Africa was reviewed for the [[Model inter-comparison study (2020-21)|WRC “Critical catchment model inter-comparison and model use guidance development” project]]. This set included the major tools developed in South Africa, the Pitman model-based tools (WRSM-Pitman and SPATSIM-Pitman), and two tools from overseas that are intended for use across various contexts: SWAT, from the United States, and MIKE-SHE, based on a model co-developed by the European Union and then further developed by the Danish Hydrologic Institute. South African modelling tools can have certain advantages from being developed in response to local data availability and South African catchment contexts in terms of ecosystems, soils and geologic types, and climate as well as land and water management practices. However SWAT and MIKE-SHE have been applied globally and have development teams behind them that help update the |
| + | {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" | ||
|+Background & basic characteristics of reviewed modelling tools | |+Background & basic characteristics of reviewed modelling tools | ||
| − | ! Characteristic !! WRSM-Pitman !! SPATSIM Pitman !! ACRU !! SWAT !! MIKE-SHE | + | ! Characteristic !! WRSM-Pitman !! SPATSIM-Pitman !! ACRU !! SWAT !! MIKE-SHE |
|- | |- | ||
|'''Current curator / developer''' | |'''Current curator / developer''' | ||
|Bailey & Pitman Water Resources Ltd | |Bailey & Pitman Water Resources Ltd | ||
| − | |Rhodes University, Institute of Water Resources | + | |Rhodes University, Institute of Water Resources |
| − | |University of KwaZulu Natal, Centre for Water Resources Research | + | |University of KwaZulu Natal, Centre for Water Resources Research |
|Texas A&M University & US Department of Agriculture | |Texas A&M University & US Department of Agriculture | ||
|Danish Hydrologic Institute (DHI) | |Danish Hydrologic Institute (DHI) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
|no | |no | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | |'''Version reviewed''' | + | |'''Version reviewed''' |
|WRSM-Pitman version 2.9 | |WRSM-Pitman version 2.9 | ||
|SPATSIM GWv3 Global Options Threaded model | |SPATSIM GWv3 Global Options Threaded model | ||
|ACRU 4 | |ACRU 4 | ||
| − | |SWAT & ArcSWAT 2012 | + | |SWAT & ArcSWAT 2012 |
|MIKE-SHE & MIKE Hydro River, version 2017 | |MIKE-SHE & MIKE Hydro River, version 2017 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | |'''Reference documents''' | + | |'''Reference documents''' |
|Theory manual: (Bailey, 2015); | |Theory manual: (Bailey, 2015); | ||
User manual: (Bailey and Pitman, 2016) | User manual: (Bailey and Pitman, 2016) | ||
| Line 36: | Line 37: | ||
User’s manuals:(DHI, 2017d, 2017c) | User’s manuals:(DHI, 2017d, 2017c) | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | '''Developed in South Africa''' || yes || yes || yes || no || no | + | |'''Developed in South Africa'''|| yes || yes || yes || no || no |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | '''Intended spatial scale''' | + | |'''Intended spatial scale''' |
| − | '''(catchment or model area)''' | + | '''(catchment or model area)''' |
| Local to regional: | | Local to regional: | ||
no suggested min-max model size | no suggested min-max model size | ||
| Line 45: | Line 46: | ||
10-10,000’s of km<sup>2</sup>, more typical: | 10-10,000’s of km<sup>2</sup>, more typical: | ||
| − | 100-1,000’s km<sup>2</sup> | + | 100-1,000’s km<sup>2</sup> |
| Field to regional: | | Field to regional: | ||
no suggested min-max model size | no suggested min-max model size | ||
| Line 53: | Line 54: | ||
no suggested min-max model size | no suggested min-max model size | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | rowspan="2" | '''Spatial discretisation''' || Modules (runoff modules (subcat), special sub-areas, channels, reservoirs) linked by routes || Subcatchments + limited internal sub-area types || HRUs within subcatchments || HRUs within subcatchments || Fully distributed (gridded) | + | | rowspan="2" |'''Spatial discretisation'''|| Modules (runoff modules (subcat), special sub-areas, channels, reservoirs) linked by routes || Subcatchments + limited internal sub-area types || HRUs within subcatchments || HRUs within subcatchments || Fully distributed (gridded) |
OR | OR | ||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
(if all process zones align, would act like HRUs) | (if all process zones align, would act like HRUs) | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Intended subcat size < 1,000 km2'' || || ''Intended subcat size 5-50 km2;'' | + | |''Intended subcat size < 1,000 km2''|| ||''Intended subcat size 5-50 km2;'' |
| − | ''HRU size < 30km2'' | + | ''HRU size < 30km2'' |
| || | | || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | '''Timestep''' || Monthly* || Monthly* || Daily || Daily, sub-daily || Daily, sub-daily (dynamic timestep length, specified by processes) | + | |'''Timestep'''|| Monthly* || Monthly* || Daily || Daily, sub-daily || Daily, sub-daily (dynamic timestep length, specified by processes) |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | colspan="6" | '''Intended modelling applications (as documented):''' | + | | colspan="6" |'''Intended modelling applications (as documented):''' |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Water balance estimation'' || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Water balance estimation''|| yes || yes || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Design hydrology (flood peaks)'' || || || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Design hydrology (flood peaks)''|| || || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Supply planning (general)'' || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Supply planning (general)''|| yes || yes || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Reservoir yield'' || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Reservoir yield''|| yes || yes || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Irrigation planning'' || yes || || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Irrigation planning''|| yes || || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Groundwater recharge'' || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Groundwater recharge''|| yes || yes || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Groundwater-surface water (GW-SW) interactions & pumping impacts'' || yes || yes || || || yes | + | |''Groundwater-surface water (GW-SW) interactions & pumping impacts''|| yes || yes || || || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Land cover change impacts'' || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Land cover change impacts''|| yes || yes || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ''Climate change impacts'' || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes | + | |''Climate change impacts''|| yes || yes || yes || yes || yes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | '''Application limitations (as documented)''' || Not for peak flow, flood assessment, or design hydrology || Not for peak flow, flood assessment, design hydrology || Not represent deep GW processes - not for GW pumping impact || Not represent deep GW processes || ''(None listed in documentation for system as whole, only for certain process options within it. The many options do steepen the learning curve for use.)'' | + | |'''Application limitations (as documented)'''|| Not for peak flow, flood assessment, or design hydrology || Not for peak flow, flood assessment, design hydrology || Not represent deep GW processes - not for GW pumping impact || Not represent deep GW processes ||''(None listed in documentation for system as whole, only for certain process options within it. The many options do steepen the learning curve for use.)'' |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | '''Specific development focuses particular to tool''' || | + | |'''Specific development focuses particular to tool'''|| |
| − | * Flexible network for tracking managed system transfers, | + | * Flexible network for tracking managed system transfers, |
| − | * GW-SW interaction, | + | * GW-SW interaction, |
| − | * IAP & plantation forestry water use | + | * IAP & plantation forestry water use |
| | | | ||
| − | * Parsimony, | + | * Parsimony, |
| − | * Uncertainty assessment, | + | * Uncertainty assessment, |
| − | * GW-SW interactions | + | * GW-SW interactions |
| | | | ||
| − | * Land cover type representation, | + | * Land cover type representation, |
| − | * Crop & irrigation detail, | + | * Crop & irrigation detail, |
| − | * IAP & plantation forestry water use | + | * IAP & plantation forestry water use |
| | | | ||
| − | * Land cover type representation, | + | * Land cover type representation, |
| − | * Crop & irrigation detail, | + | * Crop & irrigation detail, |
| − | * Coupling to GIS tools | + | * Coupling to GIS tools |
| | | | ||
| − | * Spatial discretisation & fine scale processes, | + | * Spatial discretisation & fine scale processes, |
| − | * GW-SW interaction, | + | * GW-SW interaction, |
* Coupled hydraulic channel model with overbank flood process representation | * Coupled hydraulic channel model with overbank flood process representation | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 15:26, 27 April 2021
A set of commonly used modelling tools in South Africa was reviewed for the WRC “Critical catchment model inter-comparison and model use guidance development” project. This set included the major tools developed in South Africa, the Pitman model-based tools (WRSM-Pitman and SPATSIM-Pitman), and two tools from overseas that are intended for use across various contexts: SWAT, from the United States, and MIKE-SHE, based on a model co-developed by the European Union and then further developed by the Danish Hydrologic Institute. South African modelling tools can have certain advantages from being developed in response to local data availability and South African catchment contexts in terms of ecosystems, soils and geologic types, and climate as well as land and water management practices. However SWAT and MIKE-SHE have been applied globally and have development teams behind them that help update the
| Characteristic | WRSM-Pitman | SPATSIM-Pitman | ACRU | SWAT | MIKE-SHE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current curator / developer | Bailey & Pitman Water Resources Ltd | Rhodes University, Institute of Water Resources | University of KwaZulu Natal, Centre for Water Resources Research | Texas A&M University & US Department of Agriculture | Danish Hydrologic Institute (DHI) |
| Free to access | yes | yes | yes | yes | no |
| Version reviewed | WRSM-Pitman version 2.9 | SPATSIM GWv3 Global Options Threaded model | ACRU 4 | SWAT & ArcSWAT 2012 | MIKE-SHE & MIKE Hydro River, version 2017 |
| Reference documents | Theory manual: (Bailey, 2015);
User manual: (Bailey and Pitman, 2016) |
Theory papers: (Hughes, 2004, 2013; Kapangaziwiri, 2007);
User manual: (Hughes, 2019) |
Theory manual: (Schulze, 1995);
User manuals: (Clark et al., 2012; Schulze and Davis, 2018) |
Theory manual: (Neitsch et al., 2011);
User manuals: (Arnold et al., 2012) |
Theory manuals:(DHI, 2017a, 2017b);
User’s manuals:(DHI, 2017d, 2017c) |
| Developed in South Africa | yes | yes | yes | no | no |
| Intended spatial scale
(catchment or model area) |
Local to regional:
no suggested min-max model size |
Local to regional:
10-10,000’s of km2, more typical: 100-1,000’s km2 |
Field to regional:
no suggested min-max model size |
Field to regional:
no suggested min-max model size |
Field to regional:
no suggested min-max model size |
| Spatial discretisation | Modules (runoff modules (subcat), special sub-areas, channels, reservoirs) linked by routes | Subcatchments + limited internal sub-area types | HRUs within subcatchments | HRUs within subcatchments | Fully distributed (gridded)
OR combinations of grids and zones for different process calculations within subcatchments (if all process zones align, would act like HRUs) |
| Intended subcat size < 1,000 km2 | Intended subcat size 5-50 km2;
HRU size < 30km2 |
||||
| Timestep | Monthly* | Monthly* | Daily | Daily, sub-daily | Daily, sub-daily (dynamic timestep length, specified by processes) |
| Intended modelling applications (as documented): | |||||
| Water balance estimation | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Design hydrology (flood peaks) | yes | yes | yes | ||
| Supply planning (general) | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Reservoir yield | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Irrigation planning | yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| Groundwater recharge | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Groundwater-surface water (GW-SW) interactions & pumping impacts | yes | yes | yes | ||
| Land cover change impacts | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Climate change impacts | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Application limitations (as documented) | Not for peak flow, flood assessment, or design hydrology | Not for peak flow, flood assessment, design hydrology | Not represent deep GW processes - not for GW pumping impact | Not represent deep GW processes | (None listed in documentation for system as whole, only for certain process options within it. The many options do steepen the learning curve for use.) |
| Specific development focuses particular to tool |
|
|
|
|
|