My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC07048
CWCB
>
Decision Support Systems
>
DayForward
>
WSPC07048
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2011 2:59:46 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:14:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Decision Support Systems
Title
MODSIM vs STATEMOD - Recommendation for CRDSS Water Resource Planning Model
Description
Colorado River Basin - Colorado River Computer Models-Colorado River Decision Support System
Decision Support - Doc Type
Report
Date
2/16/1995
DSS Category
Surface Water
DSS
All
Basin
Statewide
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />O()005~ <br /> <br />modeling concern, For example, an infeasible solution in the MODSIM <br />prototype took about a month to resolve partly because the identified <br />location of the infeasible solution (a reservoir) had no relation to the actual <br />problem (incorrect return flow rate on a demand). In another example, the <br />DNR team, even with three or four explanations by the consultant team, <br />were unable to understand why modeled return flows were not a direct <br />function of diversions. <br /> <br />STATE MOD uses an easy to understand solution methodology (addition <br />and subtraction). During development and further refinement of this <br />model in the past several months the DNR team has found it easy to <br />identify source of problems and correct those problems. We believe the <br />understandability of this model is reflected in the fact that the <br />implementation of a ST A TEMOD prototype in the Gunnison River Basin <br />took about two man months of effort compared with over 25 man months <br />(excluding time of W.W, Wheeler) of effort to implement a MODSIM <br />prototype, <br /> <br />Because of the ease of use and understandability of ST A TEMOD, the <br />consultant team should find that upcoming development of applications <br />for the remaining west slope basins should be more efficient with <br />STATEMOD than with MODSIM even though the consultant team at this <br />time is more familiar with MODSIM than STATEMOD. <br /> <br />The DNR team believes that future maintenance of the water resource <br />planning model is dependent on the understandability of the model <br />concepts. The DNR team believes that it could maintain the ST A TEMOD <br />model and applications in the future but questions its ability to maintain <br />the MODSIM model or applications. <br /> <br />EXECUTION SPEED: <br /> <br />MODSIM <br />t/t/ <br /> <br />STATEMOD <br />t/t/t/ <br /> <br />BASIS: <br /> <br />Execution time is always important on a multiuser, multitasking system, <br />The execution time of the water resource planning model is especially <br />important since the Gunnison Basin prototype represents only one basin of <br />the six to be modeled, <br /> <br />The execution speed of an application should only be compared when one <br />has two models applied to a similar problem. An "apples to apples" <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.