Example : Computed water level in the muddy mangrove area with

shrimp & fish ponds.

Photograph shows release of water from Introduce Artificial storage into model
shrimp farm on 24 February 2003
Artificial
Main canal storage +0.85 m MSL

Flow

Weir

Bottom of canal

Drainage from shrimp pond to study area

T ime Series WAT ER LEVEL NODES (RESULT 1.PRF)

0.85
Water level (m)

0.80

0.75

0.70 Measure
No artificial storage
0.65
With artificial storage
0.60

00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

19-10-2001 20-10-2001 21-10-2001 22-10-2001 23-10-2001 24-10-2001 25-10-2001 26-10-2001
date
Fig. 1 Result of modeling at Wat Bua Pan station.
 T ime Series WAT ER LEVEL NODES (RESULT 1.PRF)
0.85 P1=0.04 m P2=0.05 m P3=0.02 m
Water level (m)

0.80

0.75
L1=0.16 m L3=0.03 m
0.70 L2=0.11 m Measure
No artificial storage L4=0.05 m
0.65
With artificial storage
0.60

00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

19-10-2001 20-10-2001 21-10-2001 22-10-2001 23-10-2001 24-10-2001 25-10-2001 26-10-2001
date
Note: P = Peak flow difference, L = Low flow difference

Fig. 2 Peak flow and low flow difference between Measure & No artificial storage
During model calibration (Measure data & Computed data), the
computed result is shown in fig. 2 with

RMSE = 0.072 m
EI = -1.834

Percentage of water balance = 4.028 %

Peak flow difference = 0.037 m (Average from 3 Peak flow)
Low flow difference = 0.088 m (Average from 4 Low flow)
Coefficient of determination = 0.004
[Coefficient of determination = (Correlation coefficient)2]
It can be observe that
- Low water level does not match observed data.
- Percentage of water balance shows some value.

Therefore the study team checks observed data again and

checks data of other stations. It shows that all data are correct.
Then the study team go to the field/study area. They finds that
the farmer release water from shrimp pond to a main canal, then
they take photograph as shown in Fig. 1 as evidence. To improve
the mass balance and low water level. The artificial pond as similar
to shrimp pond is introduced.

The computed result is then improved as follows

RMSE = 0.046 m
EI = -0.170

Percentage of water balance = 1.166 %

Peak flow difference = 0.027 m (Average from 3 Peak flow)
Low flow difference = 0.030 m (Average from 4 Low flow)
Coefficient of determination = 0.075
 T ime Series WAT ER LEVEL NODES (RESULT 1.PRF)
0.85 P1=0.04 m P2=0.03 m P3=0.01 m
Water level (m)

0.80

0.75 L1=0.08 m L2=0.00 m L3=0.04 m

L4=0.00 m
0.70 Measure
No artificial storage
0.65
With artificial storage
0.60

00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00

19-10-2001 20-10-2001 21-10-2001 22-10-2001 23-10-2001 24-10-2001 25-10-2001 26-10-2001

date
Note: P = Peak flow difference, L = Low flow difference

Fig. 3 Peak flow and low flow difference between Measure & With artificial storage
Water level drainage from shrimp pond to study area Unit: m
Data no. Measure Computed (no artificial storage) Computed with artificial storage
1 0.69 0.78 0.78
2 0.71 0.72 0.72
3 0.82 0.82 0.82
4 0.85 0.75 0.75
5 0.85 0.80 0.80
6 0.83 0.62 0.73
7 0.84 0.79 0.81
8 0.80 0.64 0.77
9 0.76 0.79 0.82
10 0.75 0.73 0.74
11 0.76 0.78 0.78
12 0.77 0.73 0.80
13 0.80 0.82 0.83
14 0.84 0.74 0.75
15 0.82 0.70 0.75
16 0.76 0.76 0.77
1' 0.75 0.75 0.75
2' 0.79 0.79 0.79
3' 0.82 0.82 0.82
4' 0.76 0.7 0.76
5' 0.75 0.75 0.76
6' 0.76 0.76 0.76
7' 0.82 0.82 0.82
8' 0.77 0.75 0.77