Difference between revisions of "Modelling tool capability overview"

From Hydromodel SA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
−
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   
+
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, ACRU and the Pitman model-based tools (WRSM-Pitman and SPATSIM-Pitman), as well as two tools that were developed overseas, but have been used across various contexts globally, SWAT and MIKE-SHE. Locally developed modelling tools can have certain advantages from being designed with the South African context in mind, in terms of local data availability and local climate characteristics, ecosystems, soils and geologic types, as well as land and water management practices. SWAT and MIKE-SHE have resourced development teams behind them that help to continually update the tools and adapt them to make use of developing globally available data sources, such as remote sensing data and linked products, and generally improved access to greater computing power. This suite of tools covers a diversity of model structure and algorithm type options. 
−
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible"
+
 
 +
The two tables below summarise basic information about these tools: the first gives '''intended uses and broad structural characteristics''' and the second gives an '''overview of modelling capabilities''' across the tools that are likely to be in demand for many typical use-cases.   
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 
|+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
 +
|-
 +
|'''Developed in South Africa'''
 +
|yes
 +
|yes
 +
|yes
 +
|no
 +
|no
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''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 (IWR)
−
|University of  KwaZulu Natal, Centre for Water Resources Research
+
|University of  KwaZulu Natal,  
−
|Texas A&M  University & US Department of Agriculture
+
Centre for Water Resources Research (UKZN-CWRR)
 +
|Texas A&M  University &  
 +
US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
 
|Danish Hydrologic  Institute (DHI)
 
|Danish Hydrologic  Institute (DHI)
 
|-
 
|-
−
|'''Free to access'''
+
|'''Free access'''
 
|yes
 
|yes
 
|yes
 
|yes
Line 36: Line 47:
 
|Theory  manuals:(DHI, 2017a, 2017b);  
 
|Theory  manuals:(DHI, 2017a, 2017b);  
 
User’s manuals:(DHI, 2017d, 2017c)
 
User’s manuals:(DHI, 2017d, 2017c)
−
|-
 
−
|'''Developed in South Africa'''|| yes || yes || yes || no || no
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Intended spatial scale'''  
 
|'''Intended spatial scale'''  
Line 54: Line 63:
 
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/subcatchments,  
 +
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  
  
−
combinations of grids and zones for different process calculations within subcatchments  
+
combinations of grids and zones for
 +
 
 +
different process calculations within subcatchments  
  
 
(if all process zones align, would act like HRUs)
 
(if all process zones align, would act like HRUs)
Line 65: Line 78:
 
|  ||  
 
|  ||  
 
|-
 
|-
−
|'''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,  
 +
 
 +
can vary across processes)
 
|-
 
|-
 
| colspan="6" |'''Intended modelling applications (as documented):'''
 
| colspan="6" |'''Intended modelling applications (as documented):'''
Line 87: Line 103:
 
|''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 for the modelling system''
 +
''as whole, only for certain process''
 +
 
 +
''representation options.)''
 
|-
 
|-
 
|'''Specific development focuses particular to tool'''||  
 
|'''Specific development focuses particular to tool'''||  

Revision as of 16:59, 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, ACRU and the Pitman model-based tools (WRSM-Pitman and SPATSIM-Pitman), as well as two tools that were developed overseas, but have been used across various contexts globally, SWAT and MIKE-SHE. Locally developed modelling tools can have certain advantages from being designed with the South African context in mind, in terms of local data availability and local climate characteristics, ecosystems, soils and geologic types, as well as land and water management practices. SWAT and MIKE-SHE have resourced development teams behind them that help to continually update the tools and adapt them to make use of developing globally available data sources, such as remote sensing data and linked products, and generally improved access to greater computing power. This suite of tools covers a diversity of model structure and algorithm type options.

The two tables below summarise basic information about these tools: the first gives intended uses and broad structural characteristics and the second gives an overview of modelling capabilities across the tools that are likely to be in demand for many typical use-cases.

Background & basic characteristics of reviewed modelling tools
Characteristic WRSM-Pitman SPATSIM-Pitman ACRU SWAT MIKE-SHE
Developed in South Africa yes yes yes no no
Current curator / developer Bailey & Pitman Water Resources Ltd Rhodes University, Institute of Water Resources (IWR) University of KwaZulu Natal,

Centre for Water Resources Research (UKZN-CWRR)

Texas A&M University &

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Danish Hydrologic Institute (DHI)
Free 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)

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/subcatchments,

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,

can vary across 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 for the modelling system

as whole, only for certain process

representation options.)

Specific development focuses particular to tool
  • Flexible network for tracking managed system transfers,
  • GW-SW interaction,
  • IAP & plantation forestry water use
  • Parsimony,
  • Uncertainty assessment,
  • GW-SW interactions
  • Land cover type representation,
  • Crop & irrigation detail,
  • IAP & plantation forestry water use
  • Land cover type representation,
  • Crop & irrigation detail,
  • Coupling to GIS tools
  • Spatial discretisation & fine scale processes,
  • GW-SW interaction,
  • Coupled hydraulic channel model with overbank flood process representation
Retrieved from "https://hydromodel-sa-wiki.saeon.ac.za/index.php?title=Modelling_tool_capability_overview&oldid=112"