Unraveling the HRU water balance in SWAT (III)

End of the story (this continues the previous post). I read one year of data for one HRU from the output.hru in R (), and I applied the water balance equation described in the linked posts. This is basically the following:

t <- 2:12
tt <- t-1
DStorage <- c(NA, SNOFALL[t] - SNOMELT[t] + 
	SW_END[t] - SW_END[tt] + SA_ST[t] -
	SA_ST[tt] + DA_ST[t] - DA_ST[tt])
Flows <- PRECIP + IRR + GW_RCHG -
	ET - REVAP - (SURQ - TLOSS) -
	LATQ - GW_Q - PERC
BAL = Flows - DStorage

So, applying the previous equations I got:

month DStorage Flows BAL
1 NA 65.756 NA
2 22.953 23.520 0.567
3 -11.305 -12.256 -0.951
4 117.181 121.787 4.606
5 95.580 94.697 -0.883
6 -61.553 -65.376 -3.823
7 -44.491 -45.365 -0.874
8 -41.160 -41.339 -0.179
9 24.627 27.013 2.386
10 95.923 99.808 3.885
11 111.954 111.102 -0.852
12 75.269 73.153 -2.116

As it can be seen, the mass balance error (BAL) is one to two orders of magnitude smaller than the flows or the variation in storage. That’s pretty decent, I think.

Please, note that I only had SWAT2005 output files at hand, so the balance for the snowpack is only approximate (since sublimation is not taken into account) and also QTILE is missing. Also, LATQ_CNT is not reported on SWAT2005, so I used LATQ instead. On SWAT2012 output these terms are correctly outputted in output.hru, so the error should be lower. The absence of the lagged terms surf_bs and bss even in SWAT2012 may still generate a little mass balance error, but I could not test this since I only had SWAT2005 output.

The following plot shows the flows, storage variation and mass balance error as computed from a SWAT2005 output.hru file, for a number of years in one random HRU.

Water balance from SWAT2005 HRU output file.

Water balance from SWAT2005 HRU output file.

Sin comentarios

Deja una respuesta

Tu email nunca será compartido con nadie.Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *