Dr. J. A. Cunge1 NUMERICAL MODELLING PARADIGM Modelling paradigm Dr. J. A. Cunge117/11/2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ARCHITECTURES FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS
Advertisements

WinTR-20 Calibration ProceduresFebruary WinTR-20 Calibration Procedures.
CHAPTER FOUR Stream flow measurement
Science Break Out Session New Math and Science Teacher Dec 2008 Becky Smith.
Type your name in Footer Type file name in Footer Annotating Course Work – A PowerPoint Application Year 8, Unit 5 Use this set of PowerPoint slides to.
4 th International Symposium on Flood Defence, 6 th – 8 th May 2008, Toronto, Canada Efficiency of distributed flood mitigation measures at watershed scale.
7/18/05 Interdisciplinary Modeling for Aquatic Ecosystems Curriculum Development Workshop Water Quality Modeling John J. Warwick, Director Division of.
QM Spring 2002 Business Statistics Introduction to Inference: Hypothesis Testing.
Professor Paul Bates SWOT and hydrodynamic modelling.
Paul Bates SWOT and hydrodynamic modelling. 2 Flooding as a global problem According to UNESCO in 2004 floods caused ….. –~7k deaths –affected ~116M people.
Texas A&M University Department of Civil Engineering Cven689 – CE Applications of GIS Instructor: Dr. Francisco Olivera Logan Burton April 29, 2003 Application.
Lean Six Sigma: Process Improvement Tools and Techniques Donna C. Summers © 2011 Pearson Higher Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All Rights Reserved.
UNIFORM FLOW AND DESIGN OF CHANNELS
Section 2: Science as a Process
Sediment transport in wadi systems
FNR 402 – Forest Watershed Management
Hydrologic Modeling: Verification, Validation, Calibration, and Sensitivity Analysis Fritz R. Fiedler, P.E., Ph.D.
WinTR-20 SensitivityMarch WinTR-20 Sensitivity to Input Parameters.
Final Presentation UNSA, Nice HydroEurope 05 th March, 2010.
KING FAHD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & MINERALS DHAHRAN, SAUDI ARABIA ARE-512 Life Cycle Costing – Cost Data Bank For By G. C. SOFAT S.K. TYAGI Presented.
Prof. Jan Rotmans Pieter Valkering Prof. Anne van der Veen Jörg Krywkow De Maaswerken In collaboration with The case study of the Maaswerken A negotiation.
August 20th, CONTENT 1. Introduction 2. Data and Characteristics 3. Flood analysis 1. MOUSE 2. SOBEK 3. ARC-SWAT 4. Conclusions and suggestions.
Unit 1 – Preparation for Assessment LO 1.1&1.2&1.3.
Variables Control Chart Chapter 10. Variables Control Chart Dr. Walter Shewhart ( ) –Father of Statistical Process Control –Inventor of Control.
Section Copyright © 2014, 2012, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Lecture Slides Elementary Statistics Twelfth Edition and the Triola Statistics Series.
Dr. J. A. Cunge1 2014: SOME CHALLENGES IN NUMERICAL MODELLING Challenges in modelling Dr. J. A. Cunge111/10/2015.
National Research Council Mapping Science Committee Floodplain Mapping – Sensitivity and Errors Scott K. Edelman, PE Watershed Concepts and Karen Schuckman,
Lecture 16 Section 8.1 Objectives: Testing Statistical Hypotheses − Stating hypotheses statements − Type I and II errors − Conducting a hypothesis test.
Introduction For best practice, clinicians must make numerous decisions during the therapeutic process Clinical reasoning: “ Complex multi-faceted cognitive.
Team 10 Presentation Vol. II 18th February 2011 Sophia Antipolis, France Improvement by calibration or with geometry?
19th Engineers International Conference:
Introduction to Earth Science Section 2 Section 2: Science as a Process Preview Key Ideas Behavior of Natural Systems Scientific Methods Scientific Measurements.
Chapter 10 Verification and Validation of Simulation Models
LECTURE 20 26/11/15. Summary - Testing ◦ Testing affects all stages of software engineering cycle ◦ One strategy is a bottom-up approach – class, integration,
SWOT Hydrology Workshop Ka-band Radar Scattering From Water and Layover Issues Delwyn Moller Ernesto Rodriguez Contributions from Daniel Esteban-Fernandez.
Hydrological forecasting: application, uncertainty, estimation, data assimilation and decision making EGU – Wien, 7th april 2011 The Po flood management.
IMPACT 3-5th November 20044th IMPACT Project Workshop Zaragoza 1 Investigation of extreme flood Processes and uncertainty IMPACT Investigation of Extreme.
Interill Erosion. Interill Detachment and Sediment Delivery to Rills.
US Army Corps of Engineers ® Engineer Research and Development Center West Bay Diversion Evaluation Integration of Results 6 Month Progress ERDC West Bay.
PSY 432: Personality Chapter 1: What is Personality?
Stages of Test Development By Lily Novita
Model Performance Evaluation Dealing with uncertainties in hydrologic modeling and forecasting Prof. Ke-Sheng Cheng Department of Bioenvironmental Systems.
From Fread, D.L., Flood routing models and the Manning n.
TEAM 1 st Topic Presentation, Friday 18 th February 2011 Polytech’Nice - Sophia I NTEREST OF DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGICAL MODELS ( Mike SHE & HEC-HMS.
BHS Methods in Behavioral Sciences I April 14, 2003 Chapter 3 (Ray) – Developing the Hypothesis.
HydroEurope Final Presentation Pranav DHAWAN, Wooseok JANG, Kalpesh MALANI, Pablo SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ Clément LUCAS, Anna MSIGWA, Hakim OUERTANI, Malo LAMBERT.
Overview of the handbook Chapter 5: Levee inspection, assessment and risk attribution.
Beach Modelling: Lessons Learnt from Past Scheme Performance Project: SC110004/S Project Summary.
FLOODPLAIN REPRESENTATION AND ACCURACY OF PROCESSES 1D/2D
Ground Water Modeling Concepts
Computer Aided Simulation Model for Instream Flow and Riparia
MODELLING OF STRUCTURES
UNIFORM FLOW AND DESIGN OF CHANNELS
Week 1.
Modeling and Simulation (An Introduction)
Concept of Test Validity
The research process András István Kun.
Approaches to Continental Scale River Flow Routing
Better Characterizing Uncertainty in Geologic Paleoflood Analyses
THE SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL:
The research process András István Kun.
Hydrologic Simulation Models
Chapter 10 Verification and Validation of Simulation Models
Statistical Inference: One- Sample Confidence Interval
Modelling tools - MIKE11 Part1-Introduction
Water level observations from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for improving probabilistic estimations of interaction between rivers and groundwater Filippo.
CHAPTER FOUR Stream flow measurement
(with ) by clicking on it and then
CHAPTER FOUR Stream flow measurement
CHAPTER FOUR Stream flow measurement
Presentation transcript:

Dr. J. A. Cunge1 NUMERICAL MODELLING PARADIGM Modelling paradigm Dr. J. A. Cunge117/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge2 Current paradigm of good practice in modelling. a) Instantiation or set up or 'construction'. b) Calibration = executing a number of simulations of past observed events and varying parameters so that computed results are near observed c) Validation = executing with a calibrated model a number of simulations of past-observed events (different from those used for calibration) to check if the model results correspond to observed d) Exploitation runs (studies of future situations) with the model recognised as a validated tool. These four stages historically come from hydrological correlative or black box modelling practice. They are a natural and indisputable approach when data-driven 'models' are concerned Modelling paradigm Dr. J. A. Cunge217/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge3 Modelling paradigm CALIBRATION SHOULD BE ABANDONED IN MECHANISTIC- DETERMINISTIC MODELS Dr. J. A. Cunge317/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge4 Modelling paradigm (i) Meaningful alibration must be limited to the model parameters that are invariant between the instantiation and exploitation stages Example: Strickler – Manning coefficient is invariant for a uniform flat gravel bed ; its calibration is legitimate but how can it be carried out? Example: if the river is alluvial, with sand bed and if the exploitation runs involve water discharges and stages such that the dunes or other bed-forms appear, Strickler coefficient calibrated for the flat bed is not invariant. Calibration is meningless. Dr. J. A. Cunge417/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge5 Modelling paradigm (ii) To calibrate parameters that will subsequently be modified during the exploitation runs used for simulating the impact of future projects is most often useless, as well as costly Example: a natural river stretch of length of few kilometres, with vegetation, variation of bed sediments; global Manning coefficient calibrated for a stretch is useless if the works are planned and the model is supposed to be used to study their effects Dr. J. A. Cunge517/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge6 Modelling paradigm (iii) Calibration of 'global' head loss coefficients along a river stretch including features the characteristics of which vary between calibrated situation and exploitation runs (structures, sills, narrowing or widening of the river bed, etc.), may lead to a non predictive black box model Indeed: there is no difference in concept between such calibrated model and calibrated black box: the results are valid only within the range of the sample used to calibration Dr. J. A. Cunge617/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge7 Modelling paradigm In practice, is a meaningful calibration possible? The answer is negative for most cases, because of :  impossibility to isolate invariant parameters  lack of appropriate data or  cost of the data acquisition. 'obvious' applications of a paradigm including calibration may well lead to serious errors because of the belief that calibration is meaningful or because of a wrong choice of calibrated parameter EXAMPLE: next 3 slides Dr. J. A. Cunge717/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge8 Modelling paradigm Var River Event of modelled with MIKE SHE using a DEM resolution of 75m. Model 75a includes river network and Model 75 is without the river network. Source: Ref.1 Dr. J. A. Cunge817/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge9 Modelling paradigm Var River Event of modelled with MIKE SHE using a DEM resolution of 300m. Model 300a includes river network and Model 300 without the river network. Source: Ref.1 Dr. J. A. Cunge917/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge10 Modelling paradigm Var River Event of modelled with MIKE SHE including river network. Using a DEM resolution of 75m, with Model 75a. Model 300a uses a DEM resolution of 300m. Source: Ref.1 Dr. J. A. Cunge1017/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge11 Modelling paradigm It is clear that no reasonable calibration of MIKE SHE parameters could bring the results of the model without river network near the “observed” results of outflow discharge. It is also clear that the refining of resolution of the DEM from 300m to 75m would not help if the rivers are not modelled as such. The introduction of essential hydraulic/topographic feature (rivers along which the propagation of the flood wave is basically different from the propagation across watershed areas) is modifying results in correct direction. And when the topography refinement and river network are taken into account then THE CALIBRATION IS USELESS. Dr. J. A. Cunge1117/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge12 Modelling paradigm Calibration is still a common practice because it makes both sides happy: the modeller and the end-user/client. Their satisfaction is most often related to a formal coincidence and not to any understanding of physical problems, while this last criterion is the most important point for projects and future developments, and the very reason for commissioning the model at all. Dr. J. A. Cunge1217/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge13 Modelling paradigm EXPERIENCE IS A LANTERN CARRIED ON YOUR BACK BUT IT ENLIGHTENS ONLY THE PAST ROAD NOT THE FUTURE ONE; Confucius Dr. J. A. Cunge1317/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge14 Modelling paradigm Proposed modified paradigm of modelling: a)Instantiation of the model: construction and definition of the methodology necessary to define the range of uncertainty in the results of the computations. b) Validation : simulation of a number of past-observed events with the model, computing or otherwise finding the range of uncertainty for the results, and finding physically logical reasons for differences between the simulated and observed results. Analysis of the impact of the differences as well as of the uncertainties upon the results. c) Exploitation runs : simulation of future situations, supplying the results and impacts and their range of uncertainty to the end-user or client under an intelligible interpretation form. Dr. J. A. Cunge1417/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge15 Modelling paradigm THIS NEW PARADIGM GIVES AN IDEA WHY NUMERICAL MODELS ARE NOT PANACEA, WHY MODELS MUST NOT BE USED ALONE FOR COMPLEX PROBLEMS, WHY ENGINEERING EXPERTISE, SURVEYS, SCALE MODELS, KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS(HYDRAULICS) AND EVEN INTUITION MUST NOT BE DISCARDED FROM DECISION MAKING PROCESSES. Dr. J. A. Cunge1517/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge16Dr. J. A. Cunge1617/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge17 Modelling paradigm Ref. 1 Journal of Hydroinformatics 5 (2003) Calibration of physically based models: back to basics? Vincent Guinot and Philippe Gourbesville Dr. J. A. Cunge1717/11/2015

Dr. J. A. Cunge18 Modelling paradigm IN TWO COMPLEMENTARY CHAPTERS: -On Manning formula AND -On « observed » discharge hydrographs ARE SHOWN REASONS WHY KNOWLEDGE OF HYDRAULICS IS ESSENTIAL AND WHY CALIBRATION PARAMETERS MAY HAVE ILLUSORY MEANING Dr. J. A. Cunge1817/11/2015