Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-250
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-250

Submitted as: model experiment description paper 20 Sep 2021

Submitted as: model experiment description paper | 20 Sep 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

Effects of dimensionality on the performance of hydrodynamic models

Mayra Ishikawa1, Wendy Gonzalez2, Orides Golyjeswski3, Gabriela Sales3, J. Andreza Rigotti4, Tobias Bleninger5, Michael Mannich5, and Andreas Lorke1 Mayra Ishikawa et al.
  • 1Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, 76829, Germany
  • 2Institute for Water and River Basin Management, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, 76131, Germany
  • 3Graduate Program in Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, 82590-300, Brazil
  • 4Postgraduate Program in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, 81531-990, Brazil
  • 5Department of Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, 82590-300, Brazil

Abstract. Numerical models are an important tool for simulating temperature, hydrodynamics and water quality in lakes and reservoirs. Existing models differ in dimensionality by considering spatial variations of simulated parameters (e.g., flow velocity and water temperature) in one (1D), two (2D) or three (3D) spatial dimensions. The different approaches are based on different levels of simplification in the description of hydrodynamic processes and result in different demands in computational power. The aim of this study is to compare three models with different dimensionality and to analyze differences between model results in relation to model simplifications. We analyze simulations of thermal stratification, flow velocity, and substance transport by density currents in a medium-sized drinking water reservoir in the subtropical zone, using three widely used open-source models: GLM (1D), CE-QUAL-W2 (2D) and Delft3D (3D). The models were operated with identical initial and boundary conditions over a one-year period. Their performance was assessed by comparing model results with measurements of temperature, flow velocity and turbulence. Results show that all models were capable of simulating the seasonal changes in water temperature and stratification. Flow velocities, only available for the 2D and 3D approaches, were more challenging to reproduce, but 3D simulations showed closer agreement with observations. With increasing dimensionality, the quality of the simulations also increased in terms of error, correlation and variance. None of the models provided good agreement with observations in terms of mixed layer depth, which also affects the spreading of inflowing water as density currents, and the results of water quality models that build on outputs of the hydrodynamic models.

Mayra Ishikawa et al.

Status: open (until 15 Nov 2021)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-250', Laura M. V. Soares, 19 Oct 2021 reply

Mayra Ishikawa et al.

Mayra Ishikawa et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 285 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
245 36 4 285 18 1 1
  • HTML: 245
  • PDF: 36
  • XML: 4
  • Total: 285
  • Supplement: 18
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 1
Views and downloads (calculated since 20 Sep 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 20 Sep 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 241 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 241 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Discussed

Latest update: 22 Oct 2021
Download
Short summary
Reservoir hydrodynamic is often described in numerical models differing in dimensionality. 1D and 2D models assume homogeneity along the unresolved dimension. We compare the performance of three models: 1 to 3 dimensions. All models presented reasonable results for seasonal temperature dynamics. Neglecting longitudinal transport resulted in the largest deviations in temperature. Flow velocity could only reproduced by the 3D model. Our results support the selection of models and their assessment.