Hello,
I've been trying to bring an existing UBCWM into Raven but I am having issues. I've been following the .WAT file of the older UBCWM to update the Raven files but I end up with a different modelled output than the original.
I'm thinking my problems lie in the water distribution and routing times. I've been building from the Alouette tutorial file which uses 6 soil layers (Top soil, Int1,Int2,Int3,GWUpper,GWDeep). I think I am getting things mucked up from the original UBCWM which has three fast runoff constants (rain, snow, glacial), two interflow constants (rain, snowmelt) and a time constant for both the upper and deep groundwater.
Is there an easier way to convert the older UBCWM to Raven? I've tried Green Kenue but it returns errors.
Thanks!
Updating from old UBCWM to Raven
-
rchlumsk
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:18 pm
Re: Updating from old UBCWM to Raven
Hi there
Have you tried the emulation page from the manual for the UBCWM in Raven? Appendix D.1 on page 427 of the latest manual v2.6 has the rvi template for the UBCWM, which should at least ensure that the processes, and soil layers, soil names, etc. are consistent in the rvi file. From there you will still need to build the rvp, rvh, and rvc files, but at least Raven will give you an informative error message if there are any important parameters not included in the rvp file that are required for the UBCWM emulation.
I am not aware of any easier way to do it at the moment, but that should at least point you in the correct direction. I will reply again if I find a better way to convert the model files.
Have you tried the emulation page from the manual for the UBCWM in Raven? Appendix D.1 on page 427 of the latest manual v2.6 has the rvi template for the UBCWM, which should at least ensure that the processes, and soil layers, soil names, etc. are consistent in the rvi file. From there you will still need to build the rvp, rvh, and rvc files, but at least Raven will give you an informative error message if there are any important parameters not included in the rvp file that are required for the UBCWM emulation.
I am not aware of any easier way to do it at the moment, but that should at least point you in the correct direction. I will reply again if I find a better way to convert the model files.
Robert Chlumsky
rchlumsk@uwaterloo.ca
rchlumsk@uwaterloo.ca
-
jrcraig
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:08 pm
Re: Updating from old UBCWM to Raven
Hi MScruton,
GreenKenue should give at least a template for translation; you are right, though, in that the routing will be a bit off because Raven does not support separate routing coefficients for rain and snow. Typically, for snowmelt dominated basins where you are mostly interested in the freshet, I would lean towards using the snow runoff constants. For coastal basins in BC, stick with the rain constants.
There's also a bit of a trick to translate UBCWM coefficients to Raven equivalent linear reservoir coefficients:
k (raven) = -1/Delta t * ln(TK/(1+TK))
Where TK is the routing coefficient (e.g., P0FRTK) from the original UBCWM input file and K is the linear BASEFLOW_COEFF or PERC_COEFF for the corresponding storage unit in the Raven input file.
The Alouette tutorial is the place to start, so your intuition was good there.
GreenKenue should give at least a template for translation; you are right, though, in that the routing will be a bit off because Raven does not support separate routing coefficients for rain and snow. Typically, for snowmelt dominated basins where you are mostly interested in the freshet, I would lean towards using the snow runoff constants. For coastal basins in BC, stick with the rain constants.
There's also a bit of a trick to translate UBCWM coefficients to Raven equivalent linear reservoir coefficients:
k (raven) = -1/Delta t * ln(TK/(1+TK))
Where TK is the routing coefficient (e.g., P0FRTK) from the original UBCWM input file and K is the linear BASEFLOW_COEFF or PERC_COEFF for the corresponding storage unit in the Raven input file.
The Alouette tutorial is the place to start, so your intuition was good there.