task order no 24 subtask 7 upper san joaquin river model calibration n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Task Order No. 24 Subtask 7 Upper San Joaquin River Model Calibration PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Task Order No. 24 Subtask 7 Upper San Joaquin River Model Calibration

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 45

Task Order No. 24 Subtask 7 Upper San Joaquin River Model Calibration - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Task Order No. 24 Subtask 7 Upper San Joaquin River Model Calibration. December 20, 2012. Agenda. Objective Available Data Issues and Uncertainty Approach – Review of 2006 Calibration Process Results Recommendations. Objective.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Task Order No. 24 Subtask 7 Upper San Joaquin River Model Calibration' - elana

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
task order no 24 subtask 7 upper san joaquin river model calibration

Task Order No. 24 Subtask 7Upper San Joaquin River Model Calibration

December 20, 2012

  • Objective
  • Available Data
  • Issues and Uncertainty
  • Approach – Review of 2006 Calibration Process
  • Results
  • Recommendations

The objective of the calibration process is to use the high water mark and flow data from 2006 and 2011 to adjust and/or confirm the in-channel performance of a combined model built out of the approved TO 24 Subtask 6 Upper San Joaquin River models.

available data
Available Data

2006 & 2011 surveyed high water marks

2006 & 2011 surveyed ground points

2008 LiDAR

Reported gage flows and stages

CVHS model routing of 2006 flows

Model results based on 2008 LiDAR

issues and uncertainty
Issues and Uncertainty


Discharge rates

High water marks

System changes & operation

Model parameters

  • Quantified Rates of up to One Foot per Year
  • Subsidence could cause vertical offsets of high water marks
  • Non-uniform subsidence could cause changes in slope and, therefore, changes in conveyance
discharge rates
Discharge Rates
  • Flow measurement & rating curve errors
  • Reported gage flows contain unrealistic abrupt changes
  • Uncertainty in transmission losses & routing from gage locations to model
  • System operations
ash and berenda sloughs
Ash and Berenda Sloughs

Flow split due to weir configuration

  • 2006:
    • Buchanan @5,850 cfs
      • Upstream ASH: 4,180 cfs
      • Upstream BER: 1,670 cfs
    • At SPFC from CVHS
      • Downstream ASH: 3,330 cfs
      • Downstream BER: 1,650 cfs
      • Total: 4,980 cfs (15% peak reduction)
  • Actual flow in 2006 and 2011 is unknown
high water marks
High Water Marks

Observation & staking errors

Surveying errors

Control point issues

Timing – observations may not recorded actually peak conditions

system changes operations
System Changes & Operations
  • Changes in bank vegetation
  • Washout of low-water crossing
    • ASH-180
  • Bifurcations
    • Chowchilla Bypass
    • Mariposa Bypass
bifurcation operations
Bifurcation Operations
  • Manually controlled gates are used at:
    • Chowchilla Bypass
    • Eastside Bypass below Mariposa Bypass
  • Rules adjusted for the calibration events for consistency with reported flows. This is significant for 2011 Mariposa Bypass
model parameters
Model Parameters

We need to consider all of the uncertainties in the source data in the process of setting model parameters so that the model results are appropriate and reasonable, but may not match the source data.

Bridge modeling approach

Inline weir coefficients


  • For 2006 and 2011:
    • Obtain, develop and apply appropriate inflow hydrographs
    • Determine appropriate operating conditions at bifurcations
    • Compare base model results to high water marks and reported gage flows
    • Make appropriate model parameter adjustments
  • Recommend appropriate adjustments
2006 inflow hydrographs
2006 Inflow Hydrographs
  • CVHS flows for upstream limit of:
    • San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers
    • Ash Berenda Sloughs
    • Owens and Bear Creeks
  • Gage flows for:
    • James Bypass
    • Merced River
2006 inflow hydrographs cont d
2006 Inflow Hydrographs (Cont’d)

Lateral inflow added to Mendota Pool to compensate for spilled flows from James Bypass so as to match gaged flows below Mendota Dam

Minor inflows added to the San Joaquin River below Washington Road and to Fresno Slough for modeling purposes

chowchilla bypass reported and computed flows
Chowchilla Bypass Reported and Computed Flows

Thin red line is flow from the model results.

chowchilla canal
Chowchilla Canal



Questionable HWMs

Unreasonable n-value adjustment

Subsidence & survey issues

sjr 008

0.02 n-value adjustment


eastside bypass above washington rd
Eastside Bypass above Washington Rd

Momentum bridge modeling approach turned off

fresno river
Fresno River

Flow uncertainty

HWM issue


No adjustments made

ash slough
Ash Slough

Flow uncertainty


n revised 0.045 to 0.055

Structures modified

berenda slough
Berenda Slough

Flow uncertainty



No revisions made

eastside bypass below washington rd
Eastside Bypass below Washington Rd

Upstream from Mariposa Bypass

Downstream from Mariposa Bypass

eastside bypass and deep slough
Eastside Bypass and Deep Slough

No revisions made

Flows may have been higher

2,000 cfs <1 foot

bear creek
Bear Creek

n-value adjusted from 0.035 to 0.03

sjr 022 and mariposa bypass
SJR-022 and Mariposa Bypass

Mariposa Bypass n-value adjusted from 0.035 to 0.03

san joaquin river above merced river
San Joaquin River above Merced River

If reported flows are correct, modeled flows are too low and adjusted n-values are too high.

2011 calibration process
2011 Calibration Process

Similar approach to 2006, but no CVHS hydrographs

Significant issues with some reported gage flow hydrographs

Subsidence evident without survey uncertainty

2011 chowchilla bypass flow uncertainty
2011 Chowchilla Bypass Flow Uncertainty

Reported stage does not support rapid change in discharge

eastside bypass above washington rd1
Eastside Bypass above Washington Rd


Momentum method


Address subsidence

No changes in n-values are recommended based on results of 2006 and 2011 given the uncertainty in flow rates

Do not use the low flow momentum bridge modeling approach where it produces unrealistic headlosses

Survey inline structures where LiDAR was used and the results are questionable