SWAT Calibration Techniques

Calibration, Validation & Verification

F CALIBRATION: model testing with known input
and output used to adjust or estimate factors

F VALIDATION: comparison of model results with

an independent data set (without further
adjustment).

F VERIFICATION: examination of the numerical

technique in the computer code to ascertain that it
truly represents the conceptual model and that
there are no inherent numerical problems
 Calibration/Validation Periods
distinct time period
similar range of
conditions
adequate time period to
simulate conditions
Flow

Time

Setup Calibration Validation

 Model Configuration
F Land use categories
land use types in watershed, existing and future land
uses, management techniques employed, management
questions
F Subwatersheds
location, physical characteristics/soils, gaging station
locations, topographic features, management questions.
F Reaches
topographic features, stream morphology, cross-section
data available

Calibration Issues:
individual land use parameter determination
location of gaging station data
location of water quality monitoring information
available information on stream systems
 Model Configuration
Calibration Points Example
 Calibration/Validation
Procedures
F Hydrology - first and foremost
F Sediment - next
F Water quality - last (nitrogen, phosphorus,
pesticides, DO, bacteria)

F Check list for model testing

4 water balance - is it all accounted for?
4 time series
4 annual total - stream flow & base flow
4 monthly/seasonal total
4 frequency duration curve
4 sediment and nutrients balance
 Calibration Time Step

F Calibration sequence
annual water balance
seasonal variability
storm variability
u time series plot
u frequency duration curve

baseflow
overall time series
 Calibration/Validation
Statistics

Mean and standard deviation of the

simulated and measured data
Slope, intercept and regression
coefficient/coefficient of determination
Nash-Suttcliffe Efficiency
 Calibration/Validation
Common Problems
F too little data - monitoring period too short
F small range of conditions
only small storms
only storms during the spring...
F prediction of future conditions which are
outside the model conditions
F calibration/validation does not adequately
test separate pieces of model
accuracy of each land use category prediction
F calibration adjustments destroy physical
representation of system by model
F adjustment of the wrong parameters
 Calibration/Validation
Suggested References
F Neitsch, S. L., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry and J. R. Willams. 2001. Soil and Water
Assessment Tool Manual, USDA-ARS Publications. pp: 341-354.
http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/manual.

F Santhi, C., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Williams, W. A. Dugas, R. Srinivasan and L. M. Hauck.

2001. Validation of the SWAT Model on a Large River Basin with Point and Nonpoint
Sources. J. American Water Resources Association 37(5): 1169-1188.

F Srinivasan, R., T. S. Ramanarayanan, J. G. Arnold and S. T. Bednarz. 1997. Large area

hydrologic modeling and assessment: Part II - Model application. J. American Water
Resources Association 34(1): 91-102.

F Arnold, J.G., R. S. Muttiah, R. Srinivasan and P. M. Allen. 2000. Regional estimation of

baseflow and groundwater recharge in the upper Mississippi basin. J. Hydrology
227(2000): 21-40.
 Hydrology Calibration
Summary
F Key considerations
Water balance
u overall amount
u distribution among hydrologic components

Storm sequence
u time lag or shifts
time of concentration, travel time
u shape of hydrograph
peak
recession
consider antecedent conditions
Example Calibration Plot
 Example Calibration Plot
Calibration of flow at Hico, Bosque River Watershed, TX

Observed Simulated
350

300
Flow Volume (mm/year)

250

200

150

100

50

0
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Time
Example Calibration Plot
 Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 1

Simulated
Observed
Flow (cfs)

Time (hours)
 Hydrologic Calibration
Model failed to simulate some peak
flows
F Rainfall station is not Simulated
representative Observed

Flow (cfs)
F Localized storm -no
response
F Malfunctioning gages
(precipitation or flow) Time (hours)

Solutions
F Use precipitation data from representative
meteorological stations
F Carefully review precipitation and flow data for the
particular duration
 Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 2

Simulated
Observed
Flow (cfs)

Time (hours)
 Hydrologic Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
flow
F High Surface flow Simulated
Observed

Flow (cfs)
Time (hours)
Solutions
F Curve number for different land uses-decrease by 10%
(CN in .mgt)
F Soil available water - increase upto 0.04
(SOL_AWC in .sol)
F Soil evaporation compensation factor increase up to 1.0
(ESCO in *.sub)
 Hydrologic Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
flow
F High base flow Simulated
Observed

F Too little

Flow (cfs)
evapotranspiration

Time (hours)
Solutions
F Increase deep percolation loss (Adjust threshold depth of
water in shallow aquifer required for the base flow to
occur) (max 100mm, GWQMN in .gw)
F Increase groundwater revap coefficient (max of 0.40,
GW_REVAP in .gw)
F Decrease threshold depth of water in shallow aquifer for
revap to occur (min of 0.0, REVAPMN in .gw)
 Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 3

Simulated
Observed
Flow (cfs)

Time (hours)
 Hydrologic Calibration
Simulated flow follows the observed pattern
but lags the actual flow consistently
F Time of concentration is too
long
F Less than actual slope for Simulated
Observed

overland flow

Flow (cfs)
F Over estimated surface
roughness
F Snow melt parameters Time (hours)
F Flood routing coefficients
Solutions
F Increase slope (up to 20%) for overland flow (SLOPE)
F Mannings roughness coefficient- lower it after checking
OV_N tables (OV_N)
F The value of overland flow length- lower to 5-10m, if
necessary (SLSUBBSN)
 Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 4

Simulated
Observed
Flow (cfs)

Time (hours)
 Hydrologic Calibration
Simulated flow over predicts peak flows but
under predicts all other times

Simulated
F Too little base flow Observed

Flow (cfs)
F Too high surface runoff

Solutions Time (hours)

F Adjust surface runoff until reasonable by lowering CN,

increasing SOL_AWC and adjusting ESCO
F Adjust base flow until reasonable with GW parameters
F Iterate between surface runoff and base flow until both
look reasonable
Sediment Calibration Summary

F Key considerations
Sources of sediment loadings
u Loadings from HRUs/Subbasins
u Channel degradation/deposition

Sediment loading distribution

u overall amount
u Seasonal loading
distribution by storm sequence
rising and falling limb of hydrograph
peak concentration
Example Calibration Plot
 Sediment Calibration
Scenario 1
Sediment

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated
Sediment tons/ha

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
 Sediment Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
Sediment

sediment 0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated

F Low sediment yield

Sediment tons/ha
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

Solutions 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months

F Calibrate HRU/Subbasin Loading

USLE crop management factor (P) Increase after checking
USLE table for reasonable values (USLE_P in .sub)
USLE slope length factor -- Increase by up to 10m (LS)
(SLSUBBSN in .sub)
Slope of HRUs--Increase by up to 20% (SLOPE in .sub)
Crop practice factor (C) for land use -- Increase by reasonable
amount to account for local conditions (USLE_C in crop.dat)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; increase crop residue
coefficient upto 0.10 ( RSDCO) and increase bio-mixing efficiency
upto to 0.3 for heavy biological activity (BIOMIX in .bsn)
 Sediment Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
sediment Sediment

0.60

F Low sediment yield 0.50

Observed
Simulated

Sediment tons/ha
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months

Solutions
F Calibrate Channel degradation/deposition
Linear and exponential parameters used for channel sediment
routing Increase SPCON upto 0.01 & SPEXP to 2.0 (SPCON and
SPEXP in .bsn)
Channel erodibility factor Increase to 0.3 to 0.4 if channel is
erodible (CH_EROD in .rte)
Channel cover factor Increase upto 1.0 if no vegetation exists
on bank/channel bottom (CH_COV in .rte)
 Sediment Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
sediment
F Often only have total sediment yield or
concentration at gage/outlet of watershed
F Not sure if source is upland fields or channel
erosion
F Visit watershed to see if significant channel
erosion is occurring
F Check subbasin yields (t/ha) to make sure they are
reasonable. The remainder must come from the
channels
Sediment Calibration
Scenario 2
Sediment

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated
Sediment tons/ha

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
 Sediment Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the Sediment

sediment 0.60

0.50
Observed
Simulated

F High sediment yield

Sediment tons/ha
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

Solutions 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months

F Calibrate HRU/Subbasin Loading

USLE crop management factor (P) decrease after checking USLE
table for reasonable values (USLE_P in .sub)
USLE slope length decrease by up to 10m (LS) (SLSUBBSN in .sub)
Slope of HRUs decrease by up to 20% (SLOPE in .sub)
Crop practice factor (C) for land use decrease by reasonable
amount to account for local conditions, check USLE Handbook
(USLE_C in crop.dat)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient
decrease down to 0.01 if appropriate for plant (RSDCO) and bio-
mixing efficiency decrease down to 0.01 for lower biological activity
if appropriate (BIOMIX) in .bsn
 Sediment Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
sediment 0.60
Sediment

Observed

F High sediment yield 0.50 Simulated

Sediment tons/ha
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Solutions
Time in Months

F Calibrate Channel degradation/deposition

Linear and exponential parameters used for channel sediment
routing decrease SPCON down to 0.0005 and SPEXP down to
1.0 (SPCON and SPEXP in .bsn)
Channel erodibility factor decrease to 0.01 if bedrock or non-
erosive bank material is present (CH_EROD in .rte)
Channel cover factor decrease down to .01 if 100% vegetation
cover exists (CH_COV in .rte)
Nutrients Calibration Summary

F Key considerations
Sources of nutrient loadings
u Loadings from HRUs/Subbasins
u In-stream processes

Nutrient loading distribution

u overall amount
u Seasonal loading
distribution by storm sequence
rising and falling limb of hydrograph
peak concentration
Example Calibration Plot
Organic N

2.00

Org N kg/ha
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
1

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57
Months(93-97)
Obs Org N kg/ha Sim org N kg/ha

Mineral N

0.60
Min N kg/ha

0.40

0.20

0.00
1

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53

57
Months(93-97)

Obs min N kg/ha Sim min N kg/ha

Monthly calibration of nitrogen at Hico, Bosque Watershed, TX

Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 1
Mineral Nitrogen

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated

0.40
Mineral N kg/ha

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
 Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
Mineral Nitrogen

mineral nitrogen 0.60

0.50
Observed
Simulated

F Low mineral nitrogen loading 0.40

Mineral N kg/ha
0.30

0.20

Solutions 0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

F Calibrate mineral nitrogen loading Time in Months

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils increase to realistic

levels (SOL_NO3 in .sol)
Verify fertilizer application rates and make sure if fertilizer
application fraction to surface layer (FRT_LY1) = 1, if there is
surface application of fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient
increase up to 0.10 ( RSDCO); bio-mixing efficiency decrease
down to 0.01 (BIOMIX) in .bsn
Nitrogen percolation coefficient--increase up to 1.0 (NPERCO in
.bsn)
F Calibrate in-stream mineral nitrogen processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water
quality -- increase up to 0.10 (AI1 in.wwq)
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 2
Mineral Nitrogen

0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
Mineral N kg/ha

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
 Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
Mineral Nitrogen

mineral nitrogen 0.60

0.50
Observed
Simulated

High mineral nitrogen loading

Mineral N kg/ha
0.40

F 0.30

0.20

0.10

Solutions 0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Time in Months
6 7 8

F Calibrate mineral nitrogen loading

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils decrease to near
zero if appropriate (SOL_NO3 in .sol)
Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient
decrease down to 0.01 ( RSDCO) and bio-mixing efficiency
increase to 0.4 (BIOMIX) in .bsn
Nitrogen percolation coefficient (NPERCO in .bsn)--decrease
down to 0.01
F Calibrate in-stream mineral nitrogen processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water quality
decrease to 0.06 (AI1 in.wwq)
Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 1
Organic Nitrogen

0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
Organic N kg/ha

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
 Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
organic nitrogen 0.60
Organic Nitrogen

F Low Organic nitrogen 0.50

Observed
Simulated

Organic N kg/ha
0.40
loading 0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Solutions 1 2 3 4 5
Time in Months
6 7 8

F Calibrate organic nitrogen loading

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGN in .sol) --
increase to a reasonable level
Verify fertilizer application rates; make sure if fertilizer
application fraction to surface layer = 1, if there is surface
application of fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
F Calibrate in-stream organic nitrogen processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water quality (AI1
in.wwq) -- increase upto 0.10
Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 2
Organic Nitrogen

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated

0.40
Organic N kg/ha

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
 Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
organic nitrogen 0.60
Organic Nitrogen

Observed

F High Organic nitrogen 0.50 Simulated

loading 0.40

Organic N kg/ha
0.30

0.20

0.10

Solutions 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months

F Calibrate organic nitrogen loading

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGN in .sol)--
decrease to a reasonable level
Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
F Calibrate in-stream organic nitrogen processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water quality (AI1
in.wwq)-- decrease to 0.06.
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 1
Soluble Phosphorus

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated

0.40
Soluble P kg/ha

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
Soluble Phosphorus

soluble phosphorus 0.60

0.50
Observed
Simulated

F Low soluble phosphorus loading

Soluble P kg/ha
0.40

0.30

0.20

Solutions 0.10

0.00

F Calibrate soluble phosphorus loading 1 2 3 4 5

Time in Months
6 7 8

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils increase to reasonable

levels, up to 250-300ppm if manure has been applied for several
years (SOL_MINP in .sol)
Verify fertilizer application rates; make sure if fertilizer application
fraction to surface layer = 1, if there is surface application of
fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient
increase up to 0.10 ( RSDCO); bio-mixing efficiency decrease
down to 0.01 (BIOMIX in .bsn)
Phosphorus percolation coefficient decrease down to 10 (PPERCO
in .bsn)
Phosphorus soil partitioning coefficient decrease down to 100
(PHOSKD in .bsn)
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
soluble phosphorus Soluble Phosphorus

0.60

F Low soluble phosphorus loading 0.50

Observed
Simulated

0.40

Soluble P kg/ha
0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months

Solutions
F Calibrate in-stream soluble phosphorus processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality
increase up to 0.03 (AI2 in.wwq)
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 2
Soluble Phosphorus

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated

0.40
Sol P kg/ha

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
soluble phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated

F High soluble phosphorus 0.40

Sol P kg/ha
0.30

loading 0.20

0.10

Solutions 0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Time in Months
6 7 8

F Calibrate soluble phosphorus loading

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils decrease to near
zero if appropriate (SOL_MINP in .sol)
Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient
decrease down to 0.01 ( RSDCO) and bio-mixing efficiency
increase to 0.4 (BIOMIX in .bsn)
Phosphorus percolation coefficient increase up to 20 (PPERCO
in .bsn)
Phosphorus soil partitioning coefficient increase up to 200
(PHOSKD in .bsn)
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
soluble phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
F High soluble phosphorus 0.60
Observed

loading 0.50

0.40
Simulated

Sol P kg/ha
0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months

Solutions
F Calibrate in-stream soluble phosphorus processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality
decrease down to 0.01 (AI2 in.wwq)
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 1
Organic Phosphorus

0.60

Observed
0.50 Simulated

0.40
Organic P kg/ha

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
organic phosphorus 0.60
Organic Phosphorus

Low organic phosphorus

Observed

F 0.50 Simulated

0.40

Organic P kg/ha
loading 0.30

0.20

0.10

Solutions 0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Time in Months
6 7 8

F Calibrate organic phosphorus loading

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGP in .sol) --
increase to a reasonable level
Verify fertilizer application rates; make sure if fertilizer
application fraction to surface layer = 1, if there is surface
application of fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
F Calibrate in-stream organic phosphorus processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality
(AI2 in.wwq) -- increase up to 0.03 (AI2 in.wwq)
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 2
Organic Phosphorus

0.60
Observed
0.50 Simulated

0.40
Organic P kg/ha

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Months
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
organic phosphorus 0.60
Organic Phosphorus

Observed

F High organic phosphorus 0.50

0.40
Simulated

Organic P kg/ha
loading 0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Solutions Time in Months

F Calibrate organic phosphorus loading

Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGP in .sol)--
decrease to a reasonable level
Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
F Calibrate in-stream organic phosphorus processes
Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality --
decrease down to 0.01 (AI2 in.wwq)
 Calibration/Validation
Suggestion

F Information given here are for

guidance. It is suggested to take care
to adjust the various parameters
appropriately depending on the local
watershed conditions.