Just a friendly reminder that early registration ends on Feb. 6, 2006
for the three-day continuing education workshop on aquifer testing
methods and data analysis techniques featuring AQTESOLV.
WORKSHOP TITLE:
Advanced Aquifer Testing Techniques Featuring AQTESOLV: New Concepts,
Field Methods and Data Analysis Procedures
WHERE:
Knight International Conference Center at the University of Miami in
Miami, Florida, USA
WHEN:
February 28 through March 2, 2006
PRESENTED BY:
Midwest Geosciences Group
CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS:
2.4 CEUs by University of Miami
CEUs pre-approved for MA LSPs, CT LEPs, TX CAPMs, IA CGWPs, OK USTCs,
DE PGs, SC PGs
Pumping tests and slug tests are perhaps the most commonly-used
techniques for measuring hydraulic conductivity in hydrogeologic
investigations relating to water supply, mining, remediation and
groundwater fate/transport. In this workshop, hydrogeologists and
engineers of all experience levels will gain an advantage by improving
their skills in the design, performance and analysis of these tests.
The course covers fundamental methods of aquifer testing as well as
innovative new approaches to field procedures and data analysis
techniques.
THIS IS THE ONLY COURSE that features applied classroom sessions with
hands-on computerized data analysis with AQTESOLV for Windows, the
world's leading software for the analysis of aquifer tests
(http://www.aqtesolv.com/).
For complete course details, please visit the Midwest Geosciences web
site at http://www.midwestgeo.com/.
INSTRUCTORS:
Glenn M. Duffield, president of HydroSOLVE, Inc. and developer of
AQTESOLV for Windows
Jim Butler, Ph.D., Kansas Geological Survey and author of
"The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests"
REGISTRATION AND FEES:
1. Online at http://www.midwestgeo.com/
2. Contact Dan Kelleher by telephone (763.607.0092) or by fax
(763.658.1539) with your credit card or PO number
Three-Day Workshop Fee: $980 ($1195 after February 6, 2006)
Group discounts are accepted for this course – call and inquire.
Registrants are encouraged to bring laptop computers to use during the
course. Computers may be rented prior to February 6, 2006 for an
additional fee of $300.
Those who attend the course will receive a free copy of "The Design,
Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests" by Jim Butler plus a special
discount offer on the AQTESOLV software.
We recently added a session where In-Situ staff will teach you how to
quickly and easily download your field data from their equipment and
enter it into AQTESOLV.
Registration is accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.
Hope to see you in Miami!
Glenn M. Duffield
AQTESOLV: http://www.aqtesolv.com/
Aquifer Test Forum: http://www.aquifertest.com/forum/
Bookstore: http://www.aquifertest.com/forum/bookstore.htm
Dear Sirs,
I am Suresh Babu, a research scholar of Anna University, Chennai, India, doing
research in "Rainfall-runoff modeling especially dealing with SCS CN model
modifications".
I am glad to convey that I am at the verge of final stage of my thesis work.
While I did my first draft report of my thesis work, I (and also my supervisor,
Dr. K. Venugopal) feels something better way of presenting the results in my
thesis outputs.
In this regard, I am very much in need of your kind guidelines and helps on the
following queries.
To brief my work, I have used the USDA-ARS watershed database to propose a
modified version of SCS CN model. After data filtering works like P/S >
0.456inches, etc., I got 82 watersheds data(eventwise data) for the final
analysis. Including existing SCS models, Mishra singh model, and my proposed
models, I have totally 8 models for comparitive analysis. I have used Se and
Bias statistics to compare them in calibration as well as validation. And also
"t-test of related samples" were used to arrive at a conclusion on "significant
difference on the statistics" between the models.
Before going for above statistical comparison among 8 models, My supervisor
adviced me to test each model's validity for the given dataset watershedwise
before comparing one model with the other. ie., Acceptable or not acceptable
'Se' values to be tested to findout the watersheds for which each model provides
acceptable results.
For example, he says that, "if R=0.6 for a watershed data by Model 1, it
explains only around 40% of variance. so the Model 1 may not provide acceptable
results in calibration for that watershed, and can be noted down before
comparitive analysis, to strengthen the outcome of the analysis work."
For this purpose, I have searched to get a acceptable range (values) of Se in
various literatures of "SCS model" as well as in "rainfall runoff models". But I
con't get such guidelines so far.
In this regard, I need your valuable guideline. I like to know the range of 'Se'
or 'BiAS', or 'R' or all the above, to arrive at a grouping of watersheds like,
watersheds that has 'Acceptable results' or 'unacceptable results' based on
above statistic values.
My supervisor told that research works in RR modeling beyond 1970's were tested
like the above, and they have suggested some guidelines on the range of
statistics like R, Se, etc., by which the RR(rainfall runoff) model can be
validated as acceptable one or not, for the data set. I will be appreciating if
you suggested any relavent literatures or even contact persons, for the above
purpose. In the mean while, I am also searching for the same.
Here I have attached the Se values in calibration of Model 1 (M1) of 82
watersheds in ascending order of Se. And also listed the statistical summary of
Se values of all 8 models in calibration. From this, I like to know which are
the watersheds having 'acceptable Se' and 'unacceptable Se values'. I need your
general guidelines on this.
Note: Sy-standard dev. of observed runoff; MQobs-mean of the observed runoff;
Se-standard error of estimate.
M1 results:(Note: I have attached the same file as txt with this mail as the
content below may not appear clear while opening your mail box)
WSName Events Sy MQobs Se
(mm) (mm) (mm)
63103 15 4.1717 5.8208 5.4022
63112 15 8.8046 9.4750 5.4581
26863 36 13.9231 11.3704 6.7886
44026 37 5.7396 5.8286 6.8728
69044 37 9.8723 8.9214 6.9044
44028 40 6.9848 7.6665 7.8309
44020 44 6.9160 8.4685 8.2438
44013 20 6.1303 6.6657 8.9103
44023 42 8.9842 8.1746 8.9386
44007 85 13.2696 11.8178 8.9921
62014 49 18.6457 17.1061 9.0655
44017 37 8.6615 8.5647 9.6811
35009 16 9.4949 10.8449 9.8882
26021 21 9.3489 8.9724 9.9401
69032 31 9.5543 8.8249 10.0145
26029 53 10.4941 10.4955 10.0154
26040 63 11.6743 10.7012 10.0470
44022 31 7.1302 9.4522 10.1289
26010 90 12.1198 10.9922 10.1560
44008 82 12.7710 10.8287 10.1806
34007 47 11.1293 10.9431 10.7415
26791 131 9.6373 9.7578 10.7550
44027 43 9.0744 10.6706 10.8222
26028 53 9.4015 10.2357 10.8846
35010 11 10.2301 15.3314 11.2175
44024 31 8.6303 9.6961 11.4916
44011 49 11.1851 10.2582 11.6090
44009 47 13.3417 12.0965 11.7852
26711 76 10.6391 9.3796 12.0609
44010 61 13.1204 10.2265 12.1105
26030 140 12.2821 10.7395 12.1459
26032 20 8.6132 10.1170 12.1717
26027 38 12.4653 12.9954 12.2935
44014 19 5.9044 8.9996 12.3545
26011 34 11.8960 12.1201 12.4057
69036 15 9.8391 14.7994 12.4461
69045 17 11.1282 13.4914 12.4913
17001 95 22.1141 15.3138 12.5310
26014 59 15.3413 10.7842 12.5397
35008 12 10.6630 15.8801 12.7052
26033 49 11.1931 11.0156 12.8056
26012 44 14.6935 12.3195 12.9230
42015 39 12.9607 14.7399 13.0613
17004 52 20.2314 17.3896 13.1019
42037 27 13.8749 10.4562 13.2315
44001 48 14.6134 12.9868 13.5467
34006 42 13.4229 12.7992 13.6294
26034 48 10.6480 10.9249 13.6664
17002 75 21.7297 15.7697 13.9790
26026 67 11.4805 12.3548 14.0573
26024 21 10.4070 14.4901 14.2240
35003 26 17.4413 14.4993 14.3185
35002 22 13.0009 15.2529 14.3235
42024 70 20.1636 18.7520 14.3441
37001 38 11.1929 10.3631 14.4246
42010 59 20.1552 20.1689 14.4568
62002 39 20.1174 14.9706 14.8544
44003 28 10.9215 16.6570 14.8933
26016 13 16.0291 13.8588 15.0315
62010 29 16.5013 19.1275 15.4813
26036 17 14.0037 15.4892 15.5273
42017 51 14.7288 16.8393 15.7214
26017 22 13.8918 15.2938 15.7923
42028 66 17.3761 16.2956 16.0963
44002 29 13.8726 16.5359 16.3388
10001 60 22.8956 16.9995 16.7243
42003 97 19.5771 19.8283 16.8053
37002 61 22.2161 13.1552 16.8301
42002 47 13.9175 20.7454 16.9301
44004 24 18.2172 19.2916 17.1489
17003 11 21.8828 20.8421 17.3285
42006 125 23.5180 17.6680 17.4145
42012 49 19.9997 21.3530 17.7427
42014 30 15.8213 18.9196 17.8966
42038 26 16.4377 14.9219 17.9292
42016 39 18.3126 18.5301 18.2981
42004 36 16.3793 20.0760 18.7581
42011 38 16.5268 18.6352 18.8492
42007 38 17.4312 20.1907 19.2493
42008 41 18.7420 15.3917 19.4417
42036 37 18.5128 18.8480 20.6648
42035 31 24.2388 24.0673 22.6593
Statistical summary of Se in calibration of 8 models:
Events Sy MQobs -------------------Se (mm)----------------------------------
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8
Min 11.00 4.17 5.82 5.40 4.02 2.83 3.05 3.13 2.92 2.97 2.32
Max 140.00 24.24 24.07 22.66 21.73 19.20 22.15 21.40 19.85 16.86 15.44
Mean 44.55 13.67 13.58 13.19 11.84 9.55 11.29 10.49 9.40 8.97 8.69
Median 39.00 13.06 12.99 12.86 11.41 8.92 10.53 9.85 8.92 8.59 8.09
STDV 26.31 4.72 4.14 3.58 3.61 3.28 3.59 3.50 3.21 2.85 3.07
Skew 1.54 0.36 0.32 0.12 0.23 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.62 0.34 0.32
In addition to the above, I wish your guidance and suggestion to present my 8
models comparison in more efficient ways. For your kind information, some of the
above model pair comparison yield contradict results from an expected one. ie.,
for example, it is expected that M6(3 parameter) should perform better than M3(2
parameter) mostly. But Se values comparison of 82 watershed show only 63% of
watersheds showed the above results in calibration. But M6 is structurally
consistent in its form, when compared to M3 model.
I hope that you might be understood my queries. Sir, Kindly write to me if you
require some more detailed results of my study for the above purpose.
I am expecting your valuable responses. I will be very thankful to you all.
With sincere thanks,
Suresh Babu.
"Defeat the Defeat, Before the Defeat defeats You".
P. SURESH BABU
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
INSTITUTE OF REMOTE SENSING
ANNA UNIVERSITY,CHENNAI-600025.
PH: 22351723 EXTN: 3121
RES:
5/157-A, "CP.GEETHA ILLAM",
1st MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHY NAGAR,
VALLALAR STREET,
OTTERI EXTENSION,
VANDALUR,
CHENNAI-48.
PH:91-44-22751433
Dear all,
I'm a PhD student and I'm looking for a paper. I would like to ask if
anybody has access to it and can send it to me, since I haven't found
it in internet. The requested paper is:
Author: Makridakis, S. et al.
Title: The accuracy of extrapolation (time series) methods: results of
forecasting competition
Year of publication: 1982
Journal: J. Forecasting, 1: 111-153
Yours sincerely,
Alba
Dear Tejaswi
I think you have to re-check your database and it is
better to use SURFER for contouring. the gridding
method depend on your data distribution, if you have
big gabs between data points the errors will be
bigger.
regards
saleh
--- Tejaswi <tejaswi_sh@...> wrote:
> Hello members,
> I am using ArcView 3.2a (demo version) to
> generate contour maps for different physico chemical
> parameters of groundwater samples. The contours are
> being generated by making use of the point
> interpolation method. While generating these maps
> from the database created, i am encountering this
> problem. The problem is, many of the contours are
> displaying negative values. There are no negative
> values in the database and moreover no field in the
> database is left blank. The minimum value for any of
> the parametes is zero. Eventhough for some of the
> parameters there are not even zero values, the
> negative contour values are being displayed.
> Any one knowing the solution for this problem
> is kindly requested to help me in this regard.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Tejaswi
Dear Mr. Shabanlou
Hello
According to me you have to write to Eric W. Strecker
and Wayne C. Huber,the editors of Proceedings of the
Ninth International Conference on Urban Drainage,
Sept. 8-13, 2002, Lloyd Center Doubletree Hotel,
Portland, Oregon; or any sponsor of the conference
such as Urban Water Resources Research Council,
Environmental Water Resources Institute of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, The International
Association for Hydraulic Research and The
International Water Association, Joint Committee on
Urban Drainage to send to you the requested paper,
since it is provided just by payment.
Best Wishes
--- shabanlou_s <saeid.shabanlou@...> wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> I request you help me to find a copy of this paper
> or its author .
> Decision Support System for Flood Control Facility
> Planning Based on
> Inundation Simulation and Flood Damage Estimation
> Using GIS
>
> Masaru
>
Morita<http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&possibl\
e1=Morita%2C+Masaru&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=true>
> 1 and Takayuki
>
Fukuda<http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&possibl\
e1=Fukuda%2C+Takayuki&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=true>
> 2
>
> 1Department of Civil Engineering, Shibaura Institute
> of Technology, 3-9-14
> Shibaura Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8548, Japan
>
> 2Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering,
> Institute of Industrial Science,
> University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo
> 153-8505, Japan
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
Dr. S.H.R. Sadeghi
Ph.D., Soil & Water Conservation Engineering,
Head and Asst. Professor, Department of Watershed Management Engineering,
College of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University,
Noor 46417, Mazandaran, Iran
Tel. +98 122 6253101-3, Fax +98 122 6253499
Alternate E-mail: sadeghi@..., shrsadeghi@...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Speaking of SURFER and GIS, check out SurfLink at
http://www.certaintech.com/surflink.asp which leverage the best of
both technologies.
- David Ward
www.earthwardconsulting.com
--- In hydrologymodel@..., "Xavier Coello-Rubio"
<xcoellor@y...> wrote:
>
> Hello Tejaswi
>
> The problem is that the method that you are using doesn't fit for
> chemical parameters, because those values could be from decimals
to
> thousands. I Strongly recommend you to use Krigging method, BUT
using
> the appropiete variogram. The best software could be SURFER or an
> Arcview extention for krigging (you can find out in the internet).
>
> Regards
>
> Xavier COELLO-RUBIO
> UNESCO-IHE
> The Netherlands
>
>
> --- In hydrologymodel@..., Maribeth Milner
> <mmilner1@u...> wrote:
> >
> > Tejaswi,
> >
> > There are many algorithms for interpolating data. Some
> are "exact" (in
> > that they return the value of the input data) and some
> are "inexact".
> >
> > The Surfer (http://www.goldensoftware.com/) documentation
> provides this
> > list of exact and inexact interpolators...
> >
> > Exact:
> > Inverse Distance to a Power (no smoothing function)
> > Kriging (no specified nugget effect)
> > Nearest Neighbor
> > Radial Basis Function (no R2 specified)
> > Modified Shepard's Method (no smoothing factor)
> > Triangulation with Linear Interpolation (TIN)
> > Natural Neighbor
> >
> > Inexact:
> > Inverse Distance to a Power (with smoothing factor)
> > Kriging (with error nugget)
> > Polynomial Regression
> > Radial Basis Function (with R2 specified)
> > Modified Shepard's Method
> >
> > Note... the ability to return input values may or may not be
> related to
> > surface accuracy. To test accuracy, hold out (don't use) a few
> well
> > positioned data points and compare those values with their
> predicted
> > values. All interpolators have problems at the edges of data
sets,
> so be
> > sure to collect extra data (outside of your study area) to avoid
> this problem.
> >
> > Also, interpolators generally describe local variability or
global
> > variability - not both. The exceptions are geostatistics and
> radial basis
> > functions.
> >
> > Surfer has been a favorite interpolator package, but ESRI's
> Geostatistical
> > Analyst extension (in ArcGIS) is also very good. Besides having
> both
> > radial basis functions and geostatistical functions - it
provides
> surface
> > error analysis tools that produce both graphic and numeric
> descriptors.
> >
> > ESRI has a free online course that covers this extension
> > (http://campus.esri.com/campus/catalog/index.cfm?
> CFID=17792502&CFTOKEN=22787
> > 414 "Introduction to ArcGIS 9 (or 8) Geostatistical Analyst")
that
> will
> > get you started. Looks like this month's free online seminar
> (offered 3
> > times on Jan 26th) will also cover this extension
> (http://campus.esri.com/).
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Maribeth
> >
> > At 04:15 PM 1/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> > >Hello members,
> > > I am using ArcView 3.2a (demo version) to generate
contour
> maps for
> > > different physico chemical parameters of groundwater samples.
The
> > > contours are being generated by making use of the point
> interpolation
> > > method. While generating these maps from the database created,
i
> am
> > > encountering this problem. The problem is, many of the
contours
> are
> > > displaying negative values. There are no negative values in
the
> database
> > > and moreover no field in the database is left blank. The
minimum
> value
> > > for any of the parametes is zero. Eventhough for some of the
> parameters
> > > there are not even zero values, the negative contour values
are
> being
> > > displayed.
> > > Any one knowing the solution for this problem is kindly
> requested
> > > to help me in this regard.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > > Tejaswi
> >
>
Hello Tejaswi
The problem is that the method that you are using doesn't fit for
chemical parameters, because those values could be from decimals to
thousands. I Strongly recommend you to use Krigging method, BUT using
the appropiete variogram. The best software could be SURFER or an
Arcview extention for krigging (you can find out in the internet).
Regards
Xavier COELLO-RUBIO
UNESCO-IHE
The Netherlands
--- In hydrologymodel@..., Maribeth Milner
<mmilner1@u...> wrote:
>
> Tejaswi,
>
> There are many algorithms for interpolating data. Some
are "exact" (in
> that they return the value of the input data) and some
are "inexact".
>
> The Surfer (http://www.goldensoftware.com/) documentation
provides this
> list of exact and inexact interpolators...
>
> Exact:
> Inverse Distance to a Power (no smoothing function)
> Kriging (no specified nugget effect)
> Nearest Neighbor
> Radial Basis Function (no R2 specified)
> Modified Shepard's Method (no smoothing factor)
> Triangulation with Linear Interpolation (TIN)
> Natural Neighbor
>
> Inexact:
> Inverse Distance to a Power (with smoothing factor)
> Kriging (with error nugget)
> Polynomial Regression
> Radial Basis Function (with R2 specified)
> Modified Shepard's Method
>
> Note... the ability to return input values may or may not be
related to
> surface accuracy. To test accuracy, hold out (don't use) a few
well
> positioned data points and compare those values with their
predicted
> values. All interpolators have problems at the edges of data sets,
so be
> sure to collect extra data (outside of your study area) to avoid
this problem.
>
> Also, interpolators generally describe local variability or global
> variability - not both. The exceptions are geostatistics and
radial basis
> functions.
>
> Surfer has been a favorite interpolator package, but ESRI's
Geostatistical
> Analyst extension (in ArcGIS) is also very good. Besides having
both
> radial basis functions and geostatistical functions - it provides
surface
> error analysis tools that produce both graphic and numeric
descriptors.
>
> ESRI has a free online course that covers this extension
> (http://campus.esri.com/campus/catalog/index.cfm?
CFID=17792502&CFTOKEN=22787
> 414 "Introduction to ArcGIS 9 (or 8) Geostatistical Analyst") that
will
> get you started. Looks like this month's free online seminar
(offered 3
> times on Jan 26th) will also cover this extension
(http://campus.esri.com/).
>
> Good luck,
>
> Maribeth
>
> At 04:15 PM 1/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >Hello members,
> > I am using ArcView 3.2a (demo version) to generate contour
maps for
> > different physico chemical parameters of groundwater samples. The
> > contours are being generated by making use of the point
interpolation
> > method. While generating these maps from the database created, i
am
> > encountering this problem. The problem is, many of the contours
are
> > displaying negative values. There are no negative values in the
database
> > and moreover no field in the database is left blank. The minimum
value
> > for any of the parametes is zero. Eventhough for some of the
parameters
> > there are not even zero values, the negative contour values are
being
> > displayed.
> > Any one knowing the solution for this problem is kindly
requested
> > to help me in this regard.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Tejaswi
>
Hiii,
If you have 3D Analysis extension for ArcView3.2a, you
can do it. Otherwise you should find a free GIS
software like GRASS, SAGA GIS, etc…
First you have to create TIN model for each parameter
and from that you can create corresponding contours.
Good luck,
Hunu
--- Tejaswi <tejaswi_sh@...> wrote:
> Hello members,
> I am using ArcView 3.2a (demo version) to
> generate contour maps for different physico chemical
> parameters of groundwater samples. The contours are
> being generated by making use of the point
> interpolation method. While generating these maps
> from the database created, i am encountering this
> problem. The problem is, many of the contours are
> displaying negative values. There are no negative
> values in the database and moreover no field in the
> database is left blank. The minimum value for any of
> the parametes is zero. Eventhough for some of the
> parameters there are not even zero values, the
> negative contour values are being displayed.
> Any one knowing the solution for this problem
> is kindly requested to help me in this regard.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Tejaswi
Tejaswi,
There are many algorithms for interpolating data. Some are "exact" (in
that they return the value of the input data) and some are "inexact".
The Surfer (http://www.goldensoftware.com/) documentation provides this
list of exact and inexact interpolators...
Exact:
Inverse Distance to a Power (no smoothing function)
Kriging (no specified nugget effect)
Nearest Neighbor
Radial Basis Function (no R2 specified)
Modified Shepard's Method (no smoothing factor)
Triangulation with Linear Interpolation (TIN)
Natural Neighbor
Inexact:
Inverse Distance to a Power (with smoothing factor)
Kriging (with error nugget)
Polynomial Regression
Radial Basis Function (with R2 specified)
Modified Shepard's Method
Note... the ability to return input values may or may not be related to
surface accuracy. To test accuracy, hold out (don't use) a few well
positioned data points and compare those values with their predicted
values. All interpolators have problems at the edges of data sets, so be
sure to collect extra data (outside of your study area) to avoid this problem.
Also, interpolators generally describe local variability or global
variability - not both. The exceptions are geostatistics and radial basis
functions.
Surfer has been a favorite interpolator package, but ESRI's Geostatistical
Analyst extension (in ArcGIS) is also very good. Besides having both
radial basis functions and geostatistical functions - it provides surface
error analysis tools that produce both graphic and numeric descriptors.
ESRI has a free online course that covers this extension
(http://campus.esri.com/campus/catalog/index.cfm?CFID=17792502&CFTOKEN=22787
414 "Introduction to ArcGIS 9 (or 8) Geostatistical Analyst") that will
get you started. Looks like this month's free online seminar (offered 3
times on Jan 26th) will also cover this extension (http://campus.esri.com/).
Good luck,
Maribeth
At 04:15 PM 1/10/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello members,
> I am using ArcView 3.2a (demo version) to generate contour maps for
> different physico chemical parameters of groundwater samples. The
> contours are being generated by making use of the point interpolation
> method. While generating these maps from the database created, i am
> encountering this problem. The problem is, many of the contours are
> displaying negative values. There are no negative values in the database
> and moreover no field in the database is left blank. The minimum value
> for any of the parametes is zero. Eventhough for some of the parameters
> there are not even zero values, the negative contour values are being
> displayed.
> Any one knowing the solution for this problem is kindly requested
> to help me in this regard.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Tejaswi
Hello Tejaswi
The problem is that the method that you are using doesn't fit for chemical
parameters, because those values could be from decimals to thousands. I Strongly
recommend you to use Krigging method, BUT using the appropiete variogram. The
best software could be SURFER or an Arcview extention for krigging (you can find
out in the internet).
Regards
Xavier COELLO-RUBIO
UNESCO-IHE
The Netherlands
Tejaswi <tejaswi_sh@...> wrote:
Hello members,
I am using ArcView 3.2a (demo version) to generate contour maps for
different physico chemical parameters of groundwater samples. The contours are
being generated by making use of the point interpolation method. While
generating these maps from the database created, i am encountering this problem.
The problem is, many of the contours are displaying negative values. There are
no negative values in the database and moreover no field in the database is left
blank. The minimum value for any of the parametes is zero. Eventhough for some
of the parameters there are not even zero values, the negative contour values
are being displayed.
Any one knowing the solution for this problem is kindly requested to help
me in this regard.
Thanks in advance
Tejaswi
Dear Tejaswi:
Contouring is a "trend" analysis. While we accept interpolation using known
random points, we do not trust extrapolation, that is program calculating
values outside of domain with known values. You will notice that negative
values are generated in places where field values are missing or spacing
between field points with known values is too big. I have seen maps with
storage coefficients being either negative or more than 1.0; both values
clearly physically impossible. Same as getting negative values, you may
expect also "blown up" values to extremely high ranges.
You may solve the problem in several ways. One is to assign minimum and
maximum contour values to be plotted on the map. Of course, the minimum
values would be a positive number. The other method is to exclude the areas
that have no "positive value" points by cropping the map coverage. For
example, in Ground Water for Windows (GWW) package, you draw a closed area
(enclosing "positive values" points) and allow contours to be plotted only
within that area. In other words, you will not accept extrapolation. Still
another way is to experiment with several methods of solution (krieging,
polynomial, minimum curvature, etc.; see SURFER) and find the one that
produces better results. You may also modify "modeling" paramaters used for
gridding.
Hope this helps.
Jasminko Karanjac, PhD
Consultant Hydrogeologist & Professor (ret.)
karanjac@...
www.geocities.com/karanjac
+381-64-3110304
Hello members,
I am using ArcView 3.2a (demo version) to generate contour maps for
different physico chemical parameters of groundwater samples. The contours are
being generated by making use of the point interpolation method. While
generating these maps from the database created, i am encountering this problem.
The problem is, many of the contours are displaying negative values. There are
no negative values in the database and moreover no field in the database is left
blank. The minimum value for any of the parametes is zero. Eventhough for some
of the parameters there are not even zero values, the negative contour values
are being displayed.
Any one knowing the solution for this problem is kindly requested to help
me in this regard.
Thanks in advance
Tejaswi
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars
online search now
---------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dear Mr. Shabanlou
Hello
I think you can find some more information about the
requested paper in the following address:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0204801
Best Wishes
--- shabanlou_s <saeid.shabanlou@...> wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> I request you help me to find a copy of this paper
> or its author .
> Decision Support System for Flood Control Facility
> Planning Based on
> Inundation Simulation and Flood Damage Estimation
> Using GIS
>
> Masaru
>
Morita<http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&possibl\
e1=Morita%2C+Masaru&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=true>
> 1 and Takayuki
>
Fukuda<http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&possibl\
e1=Fukuda%2C+Takayuki&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=true>
> 2
>
> 1Department of Civil Engineering, Shibaura Institute
> of Technology, 3-9-14
> Shibaura Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8548, Japan
>
> 2Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering,
> Institute of Industrial Science,
> University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo
> 153-8505, Japan
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
Dr. S.H.R. Sadeghi
Ph.D., Soil & Water Conservation Engineering,
Head and Asst. Professor, Department of Watershed Management Engineering,
College of Natural Resources, Tarbiat Modares University,
Noor 46417, Mazandaran, Iran
Tel. +98 122 6253101-3, Fax +98 122 6253499
Alternate E-mail: sadeghi@..., shrsadeghi@...
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Dear All,
Let's farewell to 2005 and welcome to 2006. I hope everybody had a
good progress and prosperity in 2005 and I wish more happiness, peace
and progress in 2006.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Zyad Khamas
Land Care Manager
Simple Grow Pty. Ltd.
Australia
Dear All,
Let's farewell to 2005 and welcome to 2006. I hope everybody had a good
progress and prosperity in 2005 and I wish more happiness, peace and progress in
2006.
Sincerely yours,
Sangam
=============================================
Sangam Shrestha
c/o Dr. Futaba Kazama
Department of Ecosocial System Engineering
Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Medicine and Engineering
University of Yamanashi
4-3-11, Takeda, Kofu, Yamanashi, 400-8511
Japan
---------------------------------
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dear members
I am presently working with rainfall and groundwater level data. Using SPSS (v
13), I did auto-correlation and cross-correlation for water level and rainfall
data.
I like to clarify the output of this analysis.
Data details
Water level – Monthly data from 1984 to 2003
Rainfall - Monthly data from 1984 to 2003.
1) I got an output with a warning “ Some of the missing cases are imbedded
within the series”. I think it may be due to missing values in the water level
data series.
Will it affect the result?
CROSS-CORRELATION
2) In SPSS, I had selected the rainfall as a first variable (for Input) and
water level as a second variable (for Output). I like to give the rainfall data
as input and water level data as output.
Is it right?
3) In the Cross-correlation curve, highest correlation value (CCF , Max) is
observed with negative lag.
How to explain this?
4) In some wells, highest correlation value is not observed as a single point
(one lag) in cross-correlation curve, but it is observed in multiple point
(multiple lag. Eg. 0.2 is observed at 10 lag, 22 lag, etc.).
5) Also, the cross-correlation value (CCF) is less than 0.2. Is it
acceptable?
Can anyone help me to solve this problem?
Thanks in advance
Yours sincerely
Rajmohan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
After much head scratching (and some sleep), I determined the problem
was the divider node acting as a normal junction under dynamic routing.
Switching to kinematic routing solved the problem, but produced other
problems elsewhere in the model. I switch from a divider node to a
combination of junction node and downstream weir link (transverse). This
seems to function properly. To develop the parameters for the transverse
weir, I fit values from a spreadsheet set up for different
slope/flow/length combinations. A longitudinal road slope of 0.003ft/ft,
uniform cross-slope of 0.02ft/ft, and nondepressed curb opening length
of 2.0ft, produced a weir coefficient (Cw) of 6.64 and weir length (L)
of 0.72ft for Q=Cw*L*(d^(5/3)). Holding Cw at 3.0 (typical suggested
value for this general shape) produced a weir length of 1.6ft. Other
weir types were tried (side flow, triangular, trapezoidal), but the
transverse produced the best fit - which was pretty good.
Thanks!
--
Thomas S Blue PE PLS
Principal
BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure
tsblue@... www.blwi.com
Thomas S Blue PE PLS wrote:
> I'm trying to model flow into and bypassing curb inlets/openings along
> a roadway using SWMM (Build 5.0.006a). I am using divider nodes and
> tabular data to split the flow between two links (into the inlet and
> down the street). The problem is that it doesn't matter which of the
> two downstream links I designate as the diverted link, the flow always
> transfers in the same manner to the two links. In other words,
> switching the "road" link with the "inlet" link produces the same
> results. The input file updates correctly per the GUI modified
> parameter changes. Any suggestions on this?
>
> Thanks very much in advance!
>
>--
>Thomas S Blue PE PLS
>Principal
>BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure
>tsblue@... www.blwi.com
>
I'm trying to model flow into and bypassing curb inlets/openings along a
roadway using SWMM (Build 5.0.006a). I am using divider nodes and
tabular data to split the flow between two links (into the inlet and
down the street). The problem is that it doesn't matter which of the two
downstream links I designate as the diverted link, the flow always
transfers in the same manner to the two links. In other words, switching
the "road" link with the "inlet" link produces the same results. The
input file updates correctly per the GUI modified parameter changes. Any
suggestions on this?
Thanks very much in advance!
--
Thomas S Blue PE PLS
Principal
BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure
tsblue@... www.blwi.com
Hello All,
I want to initiate a discussion about riverine modeling using HECRAS.
As most of the HECRAS users know, building and other obstructions are
placed in the model as ‘Blocked Obstructions’ along the respective
cross sections. My concern is, whether using the ‘blocked obstruction’
option on top of the Manning’s n (based on the Landuse/Land cover) would be
a right thing to do. It will be a conservative approach to use the
‘blocked obstruction’ in conjunction with manning’s n. As far as I know,
Manning’s n already considers the landuse (for example: residential) so
it already takes the obstructions from the landuse into account.
Please share your thought on it with the group and let me know there
is a protocol on this issue, if any.
Thanks
Amit
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dear Friend
You can find attched a 2 files dealing with the research that you have in your
hand.
1- using that model you can have historical runoff data generation in daily
time step and less, inputs of the model are rainfall and avererage EVP data
and..
2-you can also have historical rainfall data generation in daily time step
3-neural network methodology (NNM) can be used as well as a black box type model
(not physically base).
with best wishes
F.Sharifi
****************************************************
File attachments are not allowed in the group posts.
Moderator
****************************************************
Hi Alba:
You might try SWAT (soil and water assessment tool). Here's a link:
http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/index.html
Steve
Steven R. Potter
Blackland Research Center - TAES
808 East Blackland Road
Temple, Texas 76502
Tel: 254-774-6111
Fax: 254-770-6561
Alba, you may use
swrrbwq or hec-hms.. they did work pretty well for a
mountanious basin here in Ecuador.. we used just five years
for calibration.
Regards,
Remigio
----- Original Message -----
From: "corbalba" <corbalba@...>
To: <hydrologymodel@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:21 AM
Subject: [hydrologymodel] rainfall-runoff model?
> Hi,
>
> I am a PhD student and I am trying to generate historical flow data
> from precipitacion data (1925-1955). I am looking for a model to
> generate diary flow data. Are there any that can work well?
>
> On the other hand, I have read about neural network methodology (NNM)
> but I don't know if it fits exactly on what I am looking for.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Alba Solans
Try http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/index.html for the EPA BASINS maodel.
Good luckR
Ron Kilmartin
corbalba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a PhD student and I am trying to generate historical flow data
> from precipitacion data (1925-1955). I am looking for a model to
> generate diary flow data. Are there any that can work well?
>
> On the other hand, I have read about neural network methodology (NNM)
> but I don't know if it fits exactly on what I am looking for.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Alba Solans
Hi,
I am a PhD student and I am trying to generate historical flow data
from precipitacion data (1925-1955). I am looking for a model to
generate diary flow data. Are there any that can work well?
On the other hand, I have read about neural network methodology (NNM)
but I don't know if it fits exactly on what I am looking for.
Thank you very much.
Yours faithfully
Alba Solans
hi,
i am student of Anna University,Chennai.
I am doing project in "solute transport modeling" using FEFLOW5.1
Can anybody suggest me, how to go with multi species reactive transport
modeling....
with regards
Subbulakshmi
---------------------------------
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The following references will be helpful to you:
1. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Hydrological Network Design, Needs,
Problems and Approaches, 1969.
2. WMO, Guide to Hydrometeorological Practices, No. 168, 1970.
3. WMO, Guide to Meteorological Instruments and observing practices, No. 8,
TP, 1961.
Engr. Hamza Farooq Gabriel,
Assistant Professor,
NIT/MCE,
National University of Sciences & Technology (NUST)
Risalpur Campus,
Risalpur Cantt., Pakistan
priyantha <hunukubura@...> wrote:
Dear All,
I need to install rain gauge network for one experimental basin. I
found some guideline in standard textbooks but couldn't be able to
find detail documents on rainfall network design. I would be grateful
if you could send me some references or papers related to rainfall
gauge network design.
Thanking you
Priyantha
Offline 
Send Email
Online 