Skip to main content

SWAT-MODFLOW stream flow routing problem

Surface water hydrology and groundwater hydrology are coupled together in natural ecosystem. While it is easy to say so, it is not easy to model both of them simultaneously.

In my earlier posts I have covered a lot on related topics including MODFLOW, PRMS and GSFLOW.

For example: 

Today I will discuss some other issues related to SWAT-MODFLOW. SWAT is another widely used surface hydrology model and there are ongoing efforts trying the couple MODFLOW with SWAT.

Unlike PRMS, SWAT in general does NOT use grid based approach to run simulation. Instead, SWAT uses subbasin and HRU to represent the watershed. And this difference may cause a list of challenge for us. I will discuss a few of them in details below.

Because SWAT and MODFLOW are not fully coupled from the mathematic perspective, some balance may not be achieved. Let's temporally ignore the issue brought out by HRU and MODFLOW grid overlap. Both model simulate the river routing, but only the SWAT routing result is used as "true" output. 

Conceptually, these two model behave different as well. For SWAT, the routing is defined by the fig file and the stream segment numbering is not important. However, in MODFLOW, the order matters, even if you are using RIV package.

"Note 5: Reach information is read in sequential order from upstream to downstream, first by segments, and then sequentially by reaches. If segments are not numbered sequentially in downstream order, then the inflow to a segment during the current MODFLOW iteration will be the outflow from an upstream segment calculated during the previous iteration. Lagging the inflow by one iteration does not change the solution for flows into and out of a segment after MODFLOW converges; however, this approach may require an additional iteration for the model to converge. Reaches must be listed and read sequentially because the order determines the connections of inflows and outflows within a stream segment." (SFR2 user manual)

Even though after the model converges, the difference will be not significant, it will still bring uncertainty in the following simulation.

Therefore, it is obvious that these two model use different index system to identify stream networks. It is inevitably we can not use SWAT numbering as the input for MODFLOW and addition efforts will be required to link them together.

However, there are some solutions to this issue:
  1. We can just go ahead and prepare SWAT and MODFLOW model as usual. After that, we can manually link them using the indices. This method requires less modifications on the original model but we need to generate new stream ID for MODFLOW.
  2. We can change the ArcSWAT results so that the SWAT stream ID are sequentially numbered. The SWAT stream ID can then be used directly by MODFLOW. This method requires good understanding of the ArcSWAT mechanism. Given that ArcSWAT is not open source, we need to check SWAT input/output carefully to see whether the modification is successful or not.
  3. We can also change the SWAT fig and related files and then generate new Stream ID for MODFLOW. In this case, we do not have to modify ArcSWAT. But we have to check through SWAT input to make sure all related files are updated. Because SWAT is open source, this is straightforward.
Method 2 and 3 require more efforts. In short term, method 1 should be used.

Updates: in the RIV package, the order does not matter because the MODFLOW does not calculate the river routing at all!


Popular posts from this blog

Spatial datasets operations: mask raster using region of interest

Climate change related studies usually involve spatial datasets extraction from a larger domain.
In this article, I will briefly discuss some potential issues and solutions.

In the most common scenario, we need to extract a raster file using a polygon based shapefile. And I will focus as an example.

In a typical desktop application such as ArcMap or ENVI, this is usually done with a tool called clip or extract using mask or ROI.

Before any analysis can be done, it is the best practice to project all datasets into the same projection.

If you are lucky enough, you may find that the polygon you will use actually matches up with the raster grid perfectly. But it rarely happens unless you created the shapefile using "fishnet" or other approaches.

What if luck is not with you? The algorithm within these tool usually will make the best estimate of the value based on the location. The nearest re-sample, but not limited to, will be used to calculate the value. But what about the outp…

Numerical simulation: ode/pde solver and spin-up

For Earth Science model development, I inevitably have to deal with ODE and PDE equations. I also have come across some discussion related to this topic, i.e.,

In an attempt to answer this question, as well as redefine the problem I am dealing with, I decided to organize some materials to illustrate our current state on this topic.

Models are essentially equations. In Earth Science, these equations are usually ODE or PDE. So I want to discuss this from a mathematical perspective.

Ideally, we want to solve these ODE/PDE with initial condition (IC) and boundary condition (BC) using various numerical methods.

Because of the nature of geology, everything is similar to its neighbors. So we can construct a system of equations which may have multiple equation for each single grid cell. Now we have an array of equation…

Lessons I have learnt during E3SM development

I have been involved with the E3SM development since I joined PNNL as a postdoc. Over the course of time, I have learnt a lot from the E3SM model. I also found many issues within the model, which reflects lots of similar struggles in the lifespan of software engineering.

Here I list a few major ones that we all dislike but they are around in almost every project we have worked on.

Excessive usage of existing framework even it is not meant to Working in a large project means that you should NOT re-invent the wheels if they are already there. But more often, developers tend to use existing data types and functions even when they were not designed to do so. The reason is simple: it is easier to use existing ones than to create new ones. For example, in E3SM, there was not a data type to transfer data between river and land. Instead, developers use the data type designed for atmosphere and land to do the job. While it is ok to do so, it added unnecessary confusion for future development a…