Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2
Siqing Liu, Bob Suits
DWR, Bay Delta Office, Modeling Support Branch
2011 CWEMF Annual Meeting, February 28 –March 2 1 Topics
• Project objectives
• Aqueduct System modeled
• Assumptions / issues with modeling
• Model results –Flows / Storage, EC, Bromide 2 Objectives
Simulate Aqueduct hydraulics and water quality
• 1990 – 2010 period
• DSM2 Aqueduct version calibrated by CH2Mhill
Achieve 1st step in enabling forecasting Physical System Canals simulated
• South Bay Aqueduct (42 miles)
• California Aqueduct (444 miles)
• East Branch to Silverwood Lake
• West Branch to Pyramid Lake (40 miles)
• Delta‐Mendota Canal (117 miles) 4 Physical System, cont Pumping Plants Banks Pumping Plant Buena Vista (Check 30)
Jones Pumping Plant Teerink (Check 35)
South Bay Chrisman (Check 36)
O’Neill Pumping-Generating Edmonston (Check 40)
Gianelli Pumping-Generating Alamo (Check 42)
Dos Amigos (Check 13) Oso (West Branch)
Las Perillas (Costal branch) Pearblossom (Check 58) 5 Physical System, cont Check structures and gates
• Pools separated by check structures throughout the aqueduct system
(SWP: 66, DMC: 21 )
• Gates at check structures regulate flow rates and water surface elevation 6 Physical System, cont Turnout and diversion structures
• Water delivered to agricultural and municipal contractors through diversion structures
• Over 270 diversion structures on SWP
• Over 200 turnouts on DMC 7 Physical System, cont Reservoirs / Lakes Represented as complete mixing of water body
• O’Neill Forebay
• Quail Lake Head boundaries
• Santa Clara Terminal Reservoir
• The Mendota Pool
• Silverwood Lake
• Pyramid Lake 3 Physical System, cont 8 Pumping Plants
• Banks Pumping Plant
• Jones Pumping Plant
• O’Neill Pumping-Generating
• Gianelli Pumping-Generating
• Pacheco Tunnel
• Dos Amigos (Check 13)
• Buena Vista (Check 30)
• Teerink (Check 35)
• Chrisman (Check 36)
• Edmonston (Check 40)
• Oso (West Branch)
• Pearblossom (Check 58) 9 Assumptions / Issues with Modeling
Model Assumptions
• Check structures treated as weirs to control water elevation
• Pipes, siphons, and tunnels treated as open channels
• Instantaneous transfer of water
• Complete and instantaneous mixing of water in reservoir
Hydraulics Issues
• Gains / Losses
• Monthly diversion data
• Channel dry-up 10 Issues with Modeling, Cont
Water Quality
• Uncertainty for Groundwater Pump‐in, Storm water Inflow
• Missing data at Banks / Jones PP for extended periods
• Data errors at Banks / Jones PP
Data Collection / Generation
• Hydraulic data compiled by Bryant Giorgi of O & M
• Water quality data compiled by Marcia Scavone‐Tansey of MWQI 11 Hydraulic Simulation of Aqueduct System
Boundary Conditions
•Flow at Banks and Jones Pumping Plants
• San Luis Reservoir Operations
• DMC and O’Neill Forebay Operations
• Diversions to South Bay Aqueduct and West Branch
• Contractor Diversions 12 Hydraulic Simulation of Aqueduct System
Output
• Flows at typical Checks
• Stages of San Luis Reservoir
Locations with measured data
• Measured flow data at SWP Checks 21, 30, 35, 40 and 58
• Storage of San Luis Reservoir 13 Model Results: Hydraulics Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 14 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 15 16 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 17 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont 18 Model Results: Hydraulics, Cont EC Simulation of Aqueduct System 19
Input • EC boundary at Banks (measured) and Jones PP (measured and DSM2 output)
• EC for source flows, i.e. Groundwater Pump‐in, Storm water inflow (WDL, USBR sample data)
Output
• At typical Checks
• San Luis Reservoir Available measured data
• SWP Checks 12, 13, 18, 21, 29, 41, 66
• DMC Checks 13, 21
• South Bay Aqueduct, Del Valle Check 7
• San Luis Reservoir (using Pacheco Pumping Plant) Model Results: EC 20 Model Results: EC, Cont 21 Model Results: EC, Cont 22 Model Results: EC, Cont 23 Model Results: EC, Cont 24 Model Results: EC, Cont 25 Model Results: EC, Cont 26 Model Results: EC, Cont 27 Model Results: EC, Cont 28 Model Results: EC, Cont 29 Model Results: EC, Cont 30 Model Results: EC, Cont 31 32 Bromide Simulation of Aqueduct System
Input • Br at Banks PP and Jones PP (both measured and DSM2 output)
• Br for source flows, i.e. Groundwater Pump‐in, Storm water inflow (WDL, USBR sample data)
Output • At typical Checks • San Luis Reservoir
Locations with measured data • SWP Checks 13, 29, 41, 66 • DMC Checks 12 • South Bay Aqueduct, Del Valle Check 7 • San Luis Reservoir Model Results: Bromide 33 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 34 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 35 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 36 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 37 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 38 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 38 Model Results: Bromide, Cont 40 41 Conclusions
• DSM2-Aqueduct model simulates hydraulics, EC, and bromide over historical 1990-2010 period reasonably well.
• Treating San Luis Reservoir as completely mixed body of water is sufficient for meaningful results
• Other assumptions make sense for available information Acknowledgments
• MWQI
• DWR O&M
• Real‐time Data Forecasting (RTDF) committee
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California