Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Section 4: Results <br /> <br />A dataSet used for the calibration effort for SAM:SON was run again to verify the status of that <br />datasel and quantify how well it had been calibrated. The output at six gaging stations from <br />Denver to Galesburg is presented in Figures 2-7. The model tracks the peak and low flows for <br />HENDERSON and KERSEY remarkably well. It does not do as well in the quantity of the <br />estimates. It over-estimates the flow at HENDERSON and under-estimates the flow at <br />KERSEY. The discrepancy in quantity continues to grow from WELDONA to BALZAC, <br />being the largest at JULESBURG. The timing of the flo,,~ is still fairly good at BALZAC but <br />the quantity of the estimates is poor, especially at the JULESBURG station. From the results it <br />can be seen that the model does a good job in tracking trends and timing, but the difference <br />between measured and computed flows increases while mo\ing dO,"TIStream. being the worst at <br />the JULESBURG gage. <br /> <br />UailyaHnq:e n.o.. in c{) I 10-1 <br /> <br />'J5..0Il <br />!lO.OO -. <br />!'S.oo- <br /> <br />. I.JI(;"';fo:(ll n'S <br />-n'i;;\.(a:....tl--Cfo~----- <br /> <br />lill.OO- <br />rs.OfI- <br />18.00- <br /> <br />,-,00 . <br />".I*,. <br /> <br />I <br />t.........- <br /> <br />.j--'_'___U <br /> <br />'-------- <br /> <br />55.00 <br /> <br />500.00 - <br />4$.00- <br />~.OO- <br /> <br />-i <br /> <br />:.t.,oe <br />38.00- <br /> <br />::>,09- <br /> <br />"-oo- <br /> <br />$.()l)- <br /> <br />y <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />\~ <br /> <br />1$..111- <br /> <br />10.00- <br /> <br />8,00 J <br />0.00 <br /> <br />11lf. <br /> <br />~llOO <br /> <br />-"-oo <br /> <br />\i_"la" VI'6810 J2<llr.: <br /> <br />......011 <br /> <br />~.110 <br /> <br />....., <br /> <br />Figure 2: Computed and measuredflow$ at gaging station 1. DEJ\l"ER <br /> <br />14 <br />