Application of SWAT for the modelling of sediment yield at Pong reservoir, India A. R. Senthil kumar Tanmoyee Bhattacharya Suhas D Khobragade Manohar Arora National Institute of Hydrology Roorkee-247667, India
Many large reservoirs for spatial and temporal distribution of water High sediment inflow resulting from unpredicted activities (land use changes) reduces the performance of the reservoir during the designed life time Average sediment inflow 200 percent more than inflow assumed during the design
Ichari diversion dam on Tons river got silted up to crest level in just two years Nizam Sagar Reservoir in Andhra Pradesh lost 60 percent capacity Estimation of sediment yield from watershed is very important for ascertaining the useful life of reservoir for meeting its intended purposes Sediment process in a watershed is highly random and depends upon the characteristics of basin and river
Study area Catchment of Beas up to Pong Dam Catchment area 12,562 sqkm Water Spread area of the reservoir 260 sqkm
Study objectives Simulate the discharge and sediment yield at Nadaun Bridge (Pond Reservoir)
Methodology ArcSWAT 2012.10.2.2 for simulating the discharge and Sediment yield Conceptual, time continuous and physically based simulation model to model discharge and sediment yiled and water quality Weather, soil properties, topography, vegetation and land management practices Data Intensive
Data requirements DEM of the catchment LULC of the catchment Soil Map Rainfall Observed discharge and sediment yield
Simulation of discharge and sediment yield at Jwala Mukhi (Nadaun Bridge) Data such as Land Use Land Cover, DEM, Soil Map, Aspect Map generated from NASA, National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSSLUP) and NRSC
Grid based data such as daily rainfall, minimum and maximum temperatures obtained from Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) (ERA Interim data)
Progress during April 2016 to April 2017 Parameters of ARCSWAT for discharge and sediment yield calibrated manually (trial and error method) Calibration data 1993 to 1996 (Daily data) Validation data 1999 to 2002 (Daily data)
DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF THE CATCHMENT UP TO NADAUN BRIDGE
ASPECT MAP OF THE CATCHMENT UP TO NADAUN BRIDGE
LULC MAP OF THE CATCHMENT UP TO NADAUN BRIDGE
SOIL MAP OF THE CATCHMENT UPTO NADAUN BRIDGE
ARCSWAT Conversion of classified LULC map(liss-iii) into SWAT LULC classes: FRSD-Deciduous Forest(SWAT)-Degraded Forest Snow-Snow FRSE-Evergreen Forest(SWAT)-Deep Forest SWRN-Bare rock(swat)-current Fallow PAST-Pasture/Hay(SWAT)-Sparse vegetation WATR (SWAT)-Water AGRR-Row crops(swat)-agriculture
CONVERSION OF NBSSLUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION TO FAO SOIL CLASSIFICATION Typic Udorthents-1-Sandy(FAO) Typic Dystrudepts-2-Loamy(FAO) Lithic Cryorthents-24-Loamy Skeletal(FAO) Rock Outcrop-100-Rock Outcrops(FAO) Glacier and Rock Outcrop-104-Glaciers and Rock Outcrops(FAO)
Rainfall(mm) RAINFALL (INTERIM ERA) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Date
Rainfall(mm) RAINFALL (IMD) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1-Jan-90 1-Jan-91 1-Jan-92 1-Jan-93 1-Jan-94 1-Jan-95 1-Jan-96 Date
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TEMPERATURE (INTERIM ERA)
Temperature( C) MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TEMPERATURE (IMD) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Maximum Temperature Minimum Temperature Date
01-Jan-00 04-Feb-00 09-Mar-00 12-Apr-00 16-May-00 19-Jun-00 23-Jul-00 26-Aug-00 29-Sep-00 02-Nov-00 06-Dec-00 09-Jan-01 12-Feb-01 18-Mar-01 21-Apr-01 25-May-01 28-Jun-01 01-Aug-01 04-Sep-01 08-Oct-01 11-Nov-01 15-Dec-01 18-Jan-02 21-Feb-02 27-Mar-02 30-Apr-02 03-Jun-02 07-Jul-02 10-Aug-02 13-Sep-02 17-Oct-02 Rainfall (mm) RAINFALL (INTERIM ERA) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Temperature ( C) MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TEMPERATURE (INTERIM ERA) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Maximum Temperature Minimum Temperature 0 01-Jan-99 01-Jan-00 01-Jan-01 01-Jan-02-5 -10
PARAMETERS SELECTED FOR STREAMFLOW CALIBRATION Parameters CN2.mgt ALPHA_BF.gw GW_DELAY.gw GWQMN.gw SFTMP.bsn TIMP.bsn SNOWCOVMX.bsn SOL_AWC.sol SOL_BD.sol SOL_Z.sol Description SCS runoff curve number for moisture condition II Base flow alpha factor Groundwater delay time Threshold depth of water in shallow aquifer required for return flow Snowfall temperature Snowmelt temperature lag factor Threshold depth of snow above which there is 100% cover Soil available water storage capacity Soil bulk density Depth from soil surface to bottom of layer
PARAMETERS SELECTED FOR STREAMFLOW CALIBRATION Parameters SOL_K.sol REVAPMN.gw GW_REVAP.gw RCHRG_DP.gw ESCO.hru EPCO.hru SURLAG.bsn SLSUBBSN.hru OV_N.hru CANMX.hru Description Soil hydraulic conductivity Threshold depth of water in shallow aquifer for revap or percolation to the deep aquifer to occur Groundwater revaporation coefficient Deep aquifer percolation fraction Soil evaporation compensation factor Plant uptake compensation factor Surface runoff lag coefficient Average slope length Manning s n value for overland flow Maximum canopy storage
PARAMETERS SELECTED FOR SEDIMENT YIELD CALIBRATION Parameters USLE_K USLE_P SPCON PRF SPEXP ADJ_PKR Description USLE equation soil erodibility (K) factor USLE equation support conservation practice factor Linear parameter for calculating the maximum amount of sediment that can be reentrained during channel sediment routing Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing in the main channel Exponent parameter for calculating sediment reentrained in channel sediment routing Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing in sub basin (tributary channels)
ARCSWAT CALIBRATION OF PARAMETERS FOR STREAMFLOW Parameters Initial value Fitted value Minimum value Maximum value CN2.mgt 35 98 70 ALPHA_BF.gw 0 1 0.42 GW_DELAY.gw 30 450 50.54 GWQMN.gw 0 200 145.32 SFTMP.bsn -20 20 4.56 TIMP.bsn 0 1 0.36 SNOWCOVMX.bsn 0 500 214.84 SOL_AWC.sol 0 1 0.25 SOL_BD.sol 0.9 2.5 1.52 SOL_Z.sol -0.8 8.0 1.40
ARCSWAT CALIBRATION OF PARAMETERS FOR STREAMFLOW Parameters Initial value Fitted value Minimum value Maximum value SOL_K.sol 1 10 1.31 REVAPMN.gw 0 20 10.23 GW_REVAP.gw 0.02 0.2 0.05 RCHRG_DP.gw 0 1 0.60 ESCO.hru 0 1 0.56 EPCO.hru 0 1 0.45 SURLAG.bsn 0.05 24 10.05 SLSUBBSN.hru 10 150 30.56 OV_N.hru 0.01 30 12 CANMX.hru 0 100 59.56
ARCSWAT CALIBRATION PARAMETERS FOR SEDIMENT YIELD Parameters Initial value Fitted value Minimum value Maximum value USLE_K 0 0.65 0.17 USLE_P 0 1 1 SPCON 0.0001 0.01 0.0001 PRF 0 2 1 SPEXP 1 1.5 1 ADJ_PKR 0.5 2 1
Jan-93 Mar-93 May-93 Jul-93 Sep-93 Nov-93 Jan-94 Mar-94 May-94 Jul-94 Sep-94 Nov-94 Jan-95 Mar-95 May-95 Jul-95 Sep-95 Nov-95 Jan-96 Mar-96 May-96 Jul-96 Sep-96 Nov-96 Discharge (m 3 /s) ARCSWAT - CALIBRATION (4YR) RESULTS OF DISCHARGE 400 350 300 250 200 150 observed (m3/s) Simulated(m3/s) 100 50 0 Date
Simulated Discharge (m 3 /s) SIMULATED DISCHARGE Vs OBSERVED DISCHARGE (CALIBRATION) 400 350 R² = 0.928 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Observed Discharge (m 3 /s)
Jan-99 Mar-99 May-99 Jul-99 Sep-99 Nov-99 Jan-00 Mar-00 May-00 Jul-00 Sep-00 Nov-00 Jan-01 Mar-01 May-01 Jul-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Jan-02 Mar-02 May-02 Jul-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Discharge (m3/s) ARCSWAT - VALIDATION (4 YR) RESULTS OF DISCHARGE 350 300 250 200 150 100 Observed (m3/s) Simulated (m3/s) 50 0 Date
Simulated (m3/s) SIMULATED DISCHARGE Vs OBSERVED DISCHARGE (VALIDATION) 350 300 R² = 0.9607 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Observed (m3/s)
Jan-93 Mar-93 May-93 Jul-93 Sep-93 Nov-93 Jan-94 Mar-94 May-94 Jul-94 Sep-94 Nov-94 Jan-95 Mar-95 May-95 Jul-95 Sep-95 Nov-95 Jan-96 Mar-96 May-96 Jul-96 Sep-96 Nov-96 Sediment yield (t/ha) ARCSWAT CALIBRATION (4YR) RESULTS OF SEDIMENT YIELD 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Observed(t/ha) Simulated(t/ha) 2 1 0 Date
Simulated(t/ha) SIMULATED SEDIMENT YIELD Vs OBSERVED SEDIMENT YIELD (CALIBRATION) 10 9 R² = 0.9521 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Observed(t/ha)
Jan-99 Mar-99 May-99 Jul-99 Sep-99 Nov-99 Jan-00 Mar-00 May-00 Jul-00 Sep-00 Nov-00 Jan-01 Mar-01 May-01 Jul-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Jan-02 Mar-02 May-02 Jul-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Simulated (t/ha) ARCSWAT - VALIDATION (4 YR) RESULTS OF SEDIMENT YIELD 14 12 10 8 6 4 Observed(t/ha) Simulated(t/ha) 2 0 Observed (t/ha)
Simulated (t/ha) SIMULATED SEDIMENT YIELD Vs OBSERVED SEDIMENT YIELD (VALIDATION) 14 R² = 0.9232 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Observed (t/ha)
CONCLUSIONS The coefficient of determination for simulation of sediment yield during calibration and validation are 0.95 and 0.92 respectively The results clearly demonstrate the capability of SWAT for simulating the sediment yield at Pong reservoir.
Thank you