1 / 23

Uncertainty in Lake Erie Residual Net Basin Supplies

Uncertainty in Lake Erie Residual Net Basin Supplies. Jacob Bruxer February 2011. Presentation Overview. Water balance and the definition of Net Basin Supplies (NBS) + both component and residual methods of computing NBS Uncertainty analysis of Lake Erie residual NBS

kort
Download Presentation

Uncertainty in Lake Erie Residual Net Basin Supplies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Uncertainty in Lake Erie Residual Net Basin Supplies Jacob Bruxer February 2011

  2. Presentation Overview • Water balance and the definition of Net Basin Supplies (NBS) + both component and residual methods of computing NBS • Uncertainty analysis of Lake Erie residual NBS • Sources and estimates of uncertainty in each of the various inputs (inflow, outflow, change in storage, etc.) • Combined uncertainty estimates (FOSM and Monte Carlo) • Comparison to results of previous research • Conclusions and next steps for improving residual NBS estimates for Lake Erie

  3. 3

  4. Introduction and Motivation • Net Basin Supplies (NBS) • The net volume of water entering (or exiting) a lake from its own basin over a specified period of time • NBS = P + R – E +/- G • Computed by Environment Canada in coordination with colleagues in the U.S. • Motivation for Study • To reduce uncertainty in NBS it is first necessary to identify and quantify sources of error • Accurate estimates of NBS are required in the Great Lakes basin for: • Operational regulation of Lake Superior and Lake Ontario • Formulation and evaluation of regulation plans • Water level forecasting • Time series analyses • Provide an indicator of climate change • Allows for comparisons of residual NBS to other methods of estimating NBS (i.e. component) and allows comparison of each of the different inputs to alternative methods for computing them 4

  5. Net Basin Supplies (NBS) • Water Balance • Component Method • Residual Method

  6. + ??? uncertainty ΔS

  7. Flow Uncertainty: Overview • Niagara and Welland C. flow accounting is complicated • Summation of a number of different flow estimates • E.g. • Makes accounting for uncertainty difficult, but reduces overall uncertainty to some degree • Detroit River flows also complicated • Stage-fall-discharge equations, Transfer Factors, other models • Non-stationarity, channel changes, ice effects • Uncertainty in model calibration data, models themselves, and model predictor variables ON@BUF = NMOM + PSAB1&2 + PRM + DNYSBC - RN - DWR

  8. Niagara Falls Flow (NMOM) • ≈ 30-40% of total ON@Buf • Stage-discharge equation based on measured water levels at Ashland Ave. gauge and ADCP flow measurements • Uncertainty (95% CL) • Gauged discharge measurements = 5% • Standard error of estimates = 4.2% • Error in the mean fitted relation = 1% • Predictor variable (i.e. water level) = 1% • Combined uncertainty in NMOM ≈ 6.7% • Conservative estimate

  9. Hydropower (PSAB1&2 + PRM) • ≈ 60% of total ON@Buf • Total Hydropower Diversion = Plant Q + ΔS forebays/reservoirs • Plant flows from unit rating tables • Relate measured head and power output to flow • Developed from flows measured using Gibson and Index testing • Uncertainty ≈ 2 to 2.5 % • Also uncertainty in extrapolating to other heads, other units, predictor variables, ΔS , etc. • Overall uncertainty (95% CL) ≈ 4% 9

  10. Local Runoff (RN) • Current estimates (average monthly values) based on 1962 analysis of Grand and Genesee River flows • At the time, data was not available at tributary gauges • Since 1957, anywhere from 27 to 44% of the basin was gauged • Computed local runoff from actual gauged tributary flows by maximizing gauged area without overlap and using area ratios to extrapolate to ungauged areas

  11. Combined Uncertainty in Outflow • Additional inputs (i.e. NY State Barge Canal and Welland River diversions) were also evaluated but found to have a negligible impact in terms of uncertainty in Niagara River flows • Combined uncertainty ON@Buf ≈4% (95% CL) • Welland Canal flow uncertainty (determined to be approximately 8% at 95% CL) contributes only a small additional source of uncertainty to the total Lake Erie outflow and NBS due to its smaller magnitude 11

  12. Detroit River Inflow • Stage-fall-discharge equations: • Uncertainty (95% CL) • Gauged discharge measurements = 5% • Standard error of estimates = 6.6% • Error in the mean fitted relation = 1% • Predictor variables (i.e. water levels) = 2% • Overall uncertainty ≈ 8.6% at 95% confidence level • Conservative estimate • Systematic effects can increase error and uncertainty significantly on a short term basis • E.g. Ice impacts and channel changes due to erosion, obstruction, etc.

  13. Change in Storage (ΔS) • Change in the lake-wide mean water level from the beginning-of-month (BOM) to the end-of-month (EOM) • Sources of Uncertainty: • Gauge accuracy (+/- 0.3 cm) • Rounding error (+/- 0.5 cm) • Temporal variability • Spatial variability • Lake area • Uncertainty is relatively small • Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) • Negligible on a monthly basis • Thermal expansion and contraction 13

  14. Temporal Variability • Evaluated: • Where: • Used daily estimates of each input • Error almost negligible (max < 1 cm); two-day mean provides adequate representation of instantaneous water level at midnight • Need only to know uncertainty of the mean • Computed hourly four-gauge mean for years 1984-1985 • Standard error of the mean = 0.3 cm ε(BOM) 14

  15. Spatial Variability • Caused primarily by meteorological effects (i.e. winds, barometric pressure, seiche) • Differences in water levels measured at opposite ends of the lake can be upwards of a few metres • Gauge measurements at different locations around the lake are averaged to try to balance and reduce these errors • Spatial variability errors result from slope of the lake surface and imbalance in the weighting given to different gauges

  16. Spatial Variability • Compared BOM water levels from four-gauge average to 9-gauge Thiessen weighted network average (Quinn and Derecki, 1976) for period 1980-2009 • Logistic distribution fit differences well • BOM standard error ~= 0.6 to 1.6 cm, depending on the month • Largest errors in the fall/winter

  17. Thermal Expansion and Contraction (ΔSTh) • Normally considered negligible, but can be significant source of error • Measured water column temperature data is not available • Adapted method proposed by Meredith (1975) • Related dimensionless vertical temperature profiles for each month to measured surface temperatures to estimate vertical temperature dist. • Computed volume at BOM and EOM and determined difference • Conclusions based on results of both surface temp. datasets and all three sets of temp. profiles

  18. Combined Uncertainty in NBS: Methods • First-Order Second Moment (FOSM) Method • Model: • Taylor Series Expansion: • Requires only mean and standard deviation of model inputs • Provides mean and standard deviation of model output only • Monte Carlo Analysis Method • Involves repeatedly simulating the output variable, , using randomly generated subsets of input variable values, , according to their respective probability distributions • Requires probability distribution of model inputs, and provides full probability distribution of model output

  19. Combined Uncertainty in NBS • Determining combined estimate of uncertainty in NBS quite simple due to mathematical simplicity of the model • FOSM and Monte Carlo method results almost identical • Linear model • Variance of model inputs described consistently • Uncertainty varies by month • Absolute uncertainty is fairly similar • Relative uncertainty greatest in the summer and November (> than 100% in some cases)

  20. Comparisons • Neff and Nicholas (2005) • Uncertainty in both residual and component NBS • Based primarily on authors’ best professional judgement • Similar results; main difference is uncertainty in change in storage, which was highly underestimated based on the results of this thesis • De Marchi et al (2009) • Uncertainty in GLERL component NBS • Overall uncertainty in component NBS is of a similar magnitude to residual NBS on Lake Erie • Useful for measuring the effects of improvements to each method of computing NBS in the future 21

  21. Conclusions • Evaluating uncertainty in each input the most difficult part of overall NBS uncertainty analysis • FOSM and Monte Carlo methods gave nearly identical results • Uncertainty in BOM water levels as currently computed and change in storage is large • Same magnitude as Detroit River inflow and in some months greater than Niagara River flow uncertainty • Uncertainty due to change in storage due to thermal expansion and contraction is in addition to this • Uncertainty in change in storage possibly easiest to reduce • To reduce uncertainty in Erie NBS must reduce uncertainty in each of the different major inputs (i.e. inflow, outflow and change in storage) • Reduction of uncertainty in one input will not significantly reduce uncertainty in residual NBS

  22. Next Steps • Compare/validate component and residual supplies • Comparisons must account for consumptive use, groundwater, and other inputs normally considered negligible, and the errors this causes • Explain differences, if possible, by systematic errors from this study and others • Incorporate new data/methods as they become available • e.g. horizontal ADCPs/index velocity ratings • Investigate ΔS computation method further • Consider use of local tributary flows or hydrologic model to compute local inflow for Niagara at Buffalo 23

More Related