calibration - All Forums - SWMM 5 or SWMM or EPASWMM and SWMM5 in ICM_SWMM2024-03-29T08:22:53Zhttps://swmm2000.com/forum/topics/feed/tag/calibrationHow to Use the H2OMAP SWMM Calibrator for RTK Calibrationhttps://swmm2000.com/forum/topics/how-to-use-the-h2omap-swmm-calibrator-for-rtk-calibration2012-07-23T14:28:21.000Z2012-07-23T14:28:21.000ZRobert Dickinsonhttps://swmm2000.com/members/doonePlace<div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US">
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Subject:</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">  How to Use the H2OMAP SWMM Calibrator for RTK Calibration</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<b><span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Step 1.</span></b><span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">  </span> <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Initial Guess of the RTK data as the start of the Messy Genetic Algorithm process</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Gdy5Hdvrh7I/UA1eh7jw3sI/AAAAAAAABvQ/9KhEkV6OhjQ/s1600/image001-747540.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370634747862722" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Gdy5Hdvrh7I/UA1eh7jw3sI/AAAAAAAABvQ/9KhEkV6OhjQ/s400/image001-747540.png" name="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370634747862722" /></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Step 2.</span> <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Use Min and Max Bounds of 50 and 150 Respectively and Apply the Solution at each iteration</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t_SfjSZwfdQ/UA1eiVxCkGI/AAAAAAAABvc/A-PFbYIU3E8/s1600/image002-749062.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370641782870114" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t_SfjSZwfdQ/UA1eiVxCkGI/AAAAAAAABvc/A-PFbYIU3E8/s400/image002-749062.png" name="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370641782870114" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Step 3.</span> <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">Check the Comparison Graph and Correlation Coefficient at Each Step</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GogD97mmQV0/UA1elNZt6GI/AAAAAAAABvo/3AVhMKutnEg/s1600/image003-760028.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370691077171298" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GogD97mmQV0/UA1elNZt6GI/AAAAAAAABvo/3AVhMKutnEg/s400/image003-760028.png" name="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370691077171298" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, serif;">Step 4. </span> <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">It should take just a few iterations if you have a good estimate of the initial RTK parameters</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yJ6pvHB1n_k/UA1elSVmqUI/AAAAAAAABv0/joC-dC9xTJY/s1600/image004-761541.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370692402096450" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yJ6pvHB1n_k/UA1elSVmqUI/AAAAAAAABv0/joC-dC9xTJY/s400/image004-761541.png" name="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370692402096450" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><br />
<span style="color: red;">Step 5.</span> Final Values with a Rsquare of 0.96 between Observed and Simulated</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z0Pwp5EG3rw/UA1el_zqo1I/AAAAAAAABwA/1kqgHKECLok/s1600/image005-763020.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370704607781714" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z0Pwp5EG3rw/UA1el_zqo1I/AAAAAAAABwA/1kqgHKECLok/s400/image005-763020.png" name="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5768370704607781714" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Calibration Conceptshttps://swmm2000.com/forum/topics/calibration-concepts2010-12-11T20:39:17.000Z2010-12-11T20:39:17.000ZRobert Dickinsonhttps://swmm2000.com/members/doonePlace<div><p>From the blog <a href="http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/">Serendipity</a> as useful discussion on calibration</p>
<p> </p>
<p>..ask what is the purpose of a climate model. The second half of the George Box quote is “…but some models are useful”. Climate models are tools that allow scientists to explore their current understanding of climate processes, to build and test theories, and to explore the consequences of those theories. In other words we’re dealing with three distinct systems:</p>
<div id="attachment_2041" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/3systems.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-2041" title="3systems" src="http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/3systems.jpg" alt="" width="550" height="103" /></a>
<p class="wp-caption-text">We're dealing with relationships between three different systems</p>
</div>
<p>There does not need to be any clear relationship between the calculational system and the observational system – I didn’t include such a relationship in my diagram. For example, climate models can be run in configurations that don’t match the real world at all: e.g. a waterworld with no landmasses, or a world in which interesting things are varied: the tilt of the pole, the composition of the atmosphere, etc. These models are useful, and the experiments performed with them may be perfectly valid, even though they differ deliberately from the observational system.</p>
<p>What really matters is the <em>relationship</em> between the <em>theoretical system</em> and the <em>observational system</em>: in other words, how well does our current understanding (i.e. our theories) of climate explain the available observations (and of course the inverse: what additional observations might we make to help test our theories). When we ask questions about likely future climate changes, we’re not asking this question of the the calculational system, we’re asking it of the theoretical system; the models are just a convenient way of probing the theory to provide answers.</p>
<p>By the way, when I use the term theory, I mean it in exactly the way it’s used in throughout all sciences: <a title="McComas W. The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In: The nature of science in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998:53-€“70." href="http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf" target="_blank">a theory is the best current explanation of a given set of phenomena</a>. The word “theory” doesn’t mean knowledge that is somehow more tentative than other forms of knowledge; a theory is actually the kind of knowledge that has the strongest epistemological basis of any kind of knowledge, because it is supported by the available evidence, and best explains that evidence. A theory might not be capable of providing quantitative predictions (but it’s good when it does), but it must have explanatory power.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>More Here:  <a href="http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2032&cpage=1#comment-4945">http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2032&cpage=1#comment-4945</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I redid the above graphic in Powerpoint <a href="http://api.ning.com/files/rzY1YtgTMGxeJmChsm9prlP3KUKUbi9GvVa-FIW9KnUaK8BvmY9h*Q2s01yEXZYEJS95xScFiiWTQQZOFYesPquAngRZe5l2/three_systems_for_calibration.png" target="_blank"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://api.ning.com/files/rzY1YtgTMGxeJmChsm9prlP3KUKUbi9GvVa-FIW9KnUaK8BvmY9h*Q2s01yEXZYEJS95xScFiiWTQQZOFYesPquAngRZe5l2/three_systems_for_calibration.png?width=750" alt="" width="750" /></a></p>
<p>In terms of SWMM 5 and other models let me paraphrase the above:</p>
<div id="attachment_2041" class="wp-caption alignnone">
<p class="wp-caption-text">We're dealing with relationships between three different systems</p>
</div>
<p>There does not need to be any clear relationship between the <em>calculational system</em> and the <em>observational system</em> – I didn’t include such a relationship in my diagram. For example, hydrology/hydraulic models can be run in configurations that don’t match the real world at all: e.g. a watershed without detail or simple assumptions, or a watershed in which interesting things are varied: the modeling detail for catchment complexity, slope, overland path length, impervious connections, soil and infiltration detail and methodology.  You can also leave out important components such as ground water and water quality.  These models are useful, and the experiments performed with them may be perfectly valid, even though they differ deliberately from the observational system.</p>
<p>What really matters is the <em>relationship</em> between the <em>theoretical system</em> and the <em>observational system</em>: in other words, how well does our current understanding (i.e. our theories) of hydrology/hydraulics explain the available observations (and of course the inverse: what additional observations might we make to help test our theories). When we ask questions about likely future watershed changes, we’re not asking this question of the the calculational system, we’re asking it of the theoretical system; the models are just a convenient way of probing the theory to provide answers.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>