Title: Water Resources Analysis Using Electronic Spreadsheets, Table 3: Approximate Water Budget for Upper Cypress Creek Basin 1966-1983
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000696/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water Resources Analysis Using Electronic Spreadsheets, Table 3: Approximate Water Budget for Upper Cypress Creek Basin 1966-1983
Physical Description: Photograph
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Water Resources Analysis Using Electronic Spreadsheets, Table 3: Approximate Water Budget for Upper Cypress Creek Basin 1966-1983
General Note: Box 7, Folder 1 ( Vail Conference 1987 - 1987 ), Item 89
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000696
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text




Table 3.


Approximate Water Budget for Upper
Cypress Creek Basin, 1966-1983.


A B C 0 E F G H I J K L


(1)
P P
Rain 5 point
moving
inch average


53.46
43.47
46.31
65.75
52.93
52.27
50.31
58.38
60.27
49.87
47.14
49.66
50.75
66.95
43.04
52.87
72.45
75.89

55.10
9.32
0.17


52.38
52.15
53.51
55.93
54.83
54.22
53.19
53.06
51.54
52.87
51.51
52.65
57.21
62.24


(3)
ET ET
E-T 5 point
moving
inch average


41.02
43.68
42.06
40.96
42.09
43.14
42.11
42.44
42.52
42.60
41.19
42.52
42.92
40.26
40.72
44.54
40.12
36.95

41.77
1.63
0.04


41.96
42.39
42.07
42.15
42.46
42.56
42.17
42.25
42.35
41.90
41.52
42.19
41.71
40.52


R R
Runoff 5 point
moving
inch average


11.07
3.95
1.98
7.91
7.91
3.95
0.79
2.37
10.28
3.95
2.93
2.25
4.03
7.99
1.34
0.24
12.89
13.76


6.56
5.14
4.51
4.59
5.06
4.27
4.06
4.36
4.69
4.23
3.71
3.17
5.30
7.24


Notes
Symbol


(5)
H
Well
Elev.
feet

76.68
76.70
75.07
74.58
76.07
76.78
76.13
74.78
75.04
75.76
74.98
74.94
73.50
73.86
73.64
72.97
69.86
74.69
75.52


(6) (7)
DS RL
Delta Residual
S
Inch inch


DH
Delta
H
feet


0.02
-1.63
-0.49
1.49
0.71
-0.65
-1.35
0.26
0.72
-0.78
-0.04
-1.44
0.36
-0.22
-0.67
-3.11
4.83
0.83


5.53
4.15
0.75


1.35
-2.20
2.86
15.09
2.08
5.96
9.03
13.26
6.61
4.26
3.07
6.62
3.37
18.96
1.78
11.82
13.64
24.18

7.87
6.76
0.86


Notes:
1. St. Leo raingage.
2. Lisbon evaporation
3. ET= .72*E


through 1979. Then, average of Padgett and SWFWMD.


4. Runoff at San Antonio based on a drainage area of 47 square miles.
5. Average of wells 5 and 7.
6. Change in storage based on 0.1 inch of water per inch of soil.
7. RL = P-ET-R-DS

CV= coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean).










15

67t/4


0.02
-1.96
-0.59
1.79
0.85
-0.78
-1.62
0.31
0.86
-0.94
-0.05
-1.73
0.43
-0.26
-0.80
-3.73
5.80
1.00


Year


Mean
Std Dev
CV


RL
5 point
moving
average





3.83
4.76
7.00
9.08
7.39
7.82
7.24
6.76
4.78
7.25
6.76
8.51
9.92
14.08










nature of the given problem. Often the problem may be solved

through the sole use of these smaller computer models, or even by

"desk-top" analysis alone. The large models do provide many

options, but local conditions sometimes require special

consideration for accurate modeling. The expert may be forced to

develop his own model, or be satisfied with the results of the

"generic" comprehensive models. Instead of formulating these
models on paper, and eventually developing computer code, it may

be possible to develop these models on the spreadsheet and

eliminate the need for further computer programming.

The electronic spreadsheet allows a variety of formulations

in little time, eliminates the need to use standard scientific

programming languages, and yet is a powerful computational tool.

The models created on a spreadsheet are not "black boxes" for all

formulations, equations, assumptions, and even documentation are

presented, and changes to the structure of the model can be made

at any time.

Experts may differ on assumptions in the design of

hydrologic systems, so step by step explanations can prove

beneficial in the presentation of such designs. An advantage of

the electronic spreadsheet is its ability to combine calculations

and text within the same page (one screen of the spreadsheet).

Each step is explained as it is performed, and each calculation
may be examined when viewed on a microcomputer. The explanations

include assumptions, references to named graphs (those graphs
stored within the spreadsheet file and accessed by the Graph Name


16

9/7










Use command), and any other clarifying comments. The text will

then immediately appear on the screen, and if the calculations

are also given a range name, the user may return in the same

manner. The above procedures may be combined to create a variety

of hydrologic models that can be easily designed, used, and

understood by experts or novices.

Flood Routing Model

The flood routing model, presented in Table 4, routes runoff

through use of a variation of the modified Puls method, as is

described in the South Florida Water Management District Permit-

ting Information Manual for surface water system designs (1984).

This spreadsheet table was set up in the same format as the one

in the existing manual so that users would see that the spread-

sheet was doing the calculations in the same manner as they

currently do by hand. All parameters and assumptions are speci-

fied in the area above the calculation table. The discharge

formula at the weir, the weir equation, and the SCS runoff equa-

tion are also presented on the screen. The discharge equation is

determined by the regulatory agencies in the area of the

development. This discharge relationship for the weir is used

within the flood routing procedure. The model uses an iterative

process, which can be easily accomplished using Lotus 1-2-3.

Columns A through E calculate surface runoff through use of

the SCS method (SFWMD, 1984). They need not be included in this

model if they are calculated in a separate model, but for

demonstration purposes, the runoff model will be included.


17




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs