Download PDF
Download page Task 3 - Verify Model Linking within HEC-HMS.
Task 3 - Verify Model Linking within HEC-HMS
The next step is to verify that the HEC-MetVue output is linked to the HEC-HMS model correctly by running the HMS model and viewing results.
Verify Gridded Data Input to HEC-HMS
Run the HEC-HMS model for the QPF alternative by highlighting the HMS icon within the QPF - 70H0 alternative and selecting Compute from the Actions menu below.
Highlighting the model alternative will update the Actions tab below to reflect the options available for that model type.
When the model run has finished, open the forecast.dss file by selecting the CWMS-Vue icon (
) in the upper CAVI window.
View the HMS timeseries output by filtering to the following pathnames and plotting the data:
| Dataset | Pathname |
|---|---|
| Precipitation | //SubbasinName/PRECIP-INC//15Minute/70H0/ |
| Temperature | //SubbasinName/TEMPERATURE-AIR//15Minute/70H0/ |
| SWE | //SubbasinName/SWE//15Minute/70H0/ |
It is recommended to sort first by the F-Part 70H0 (which signifies it is output from the HMS QPF Alternative since the MetVue QPF alternative key is 7 and HMS is H, respectively), then by the C-Part (which is the data type).
Look closely at the HMS timeseries results.
Question: Do the results indicate that HEC-HMS is receiving and processing the gridded data correctly from MetVue in the QPF Alternative?
Precipitation
The precipitation results appear to have consistent output in the lookback period (25Mar-03Apr) as-expected. Looking forward to the forecast period (04-09Apr), it appears that the 6-hour QPF grids are being correctly distributed as specified in the Temporal TIN Transformation editor (Peaked_Center).
The precipitation pattern within HMS also matches the output from MetVue which is expected. However, notice the difference in scale between the MetVue (70) and HMS (70H0) precipitation output plots below. The MetVue scale is much larger than the HMS scale and looking more closely at the peak on 07 Apr, the MetVue peak is 0.17 inches while the HMS peak is 0.0425 inches. This is the MetVue output data is hourly while the HMS output is written out on a 15-minute timestep for this model. Therefore, the volumes should be the same, but the hourly MetVue precipitation is being evenly distributed within 15-minute timesteps within the HMS model.
Temperature
The temperature results in both the lookback and forecast periods appear as-expected with consistent hourly data that includes daily highs and lows.
SWE
The HMS model takes its initial SWE values from the MetVue SWE output and computes its own SWE values based on model parameters beyond the initial timestep. Since the initial SWE values match the MetVue output at the same timestep (between 0.5-1.0 inches), it appears that the SWE data is coming into HMS as-expected.
Repeat the above process for the NoQPF alternative.
Question: Do the results indicate that HEC-HMS is receiving and processing the gridded data correctly from MetVue in the NoQPF Alternative?
Precipitation
The precipitation results appear to have consistent output in the lookback period (25Mar-03Apr) as-expected and no precipitation is present in the forecast period (04-09Apr). Just like the QPF alternative, the scale of the HMS precipitation is less than that of MetVue since HMS is running at a 15-minute timestep and the hourly MetVue precipitation grids are being distributed evenly over at 15-minute time interval within each hour.
Temperature
The temperature results in both the lookback and forecast periods appear as-expected with consistent hourly data that includes daily highs and lows.
SWE
The HMS model takes its initial SWE values from the MetVue SWE output and computes its own SWE values based on model parameters beyond the initial timestep. Since the initial SWE values match the MetVue output at the same timestep (between 0.5-1.0 inches), it appears that the SWE data is coming into HMS as-expected.