Abstract
This study investigates the comparative performance of event-based and continuous simulation modelling of a stormwater management model (EPA-SWMM) in calculating total runoff hydrographs and direct runoff hydrographs. Myponga upstream and Scott Creek catchments in South Australia were selected as the case study catchments and model performance was assessed using a total of 36 streamflow events from the period of 2001 to 2004. Goodness-of-fit of the EPA-SWMM models developed using automatic calibration were assessed using eight goodness-of-fit measures including Nash–Sutcliff efficiency (NSE), NSE of daily high flows (ANSE), Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE), etc. The results of this study suggest that event-based modelling of EPA-SWMM outperforms the continuous simulation approach in producing both total runoff hydrograph (TRH) and direct runoff hydrograph (DRH).
Highlights
Rainfall–runoff (RR) models are important tools for planning, design and management of water resource systems
This paper presents a comparative study of event-based and continuous simulation rainfall-runoff modelling performances in reproducing total runoff hydrograph and direct runoff hydrograph
Two catchments in South Australia: Myponga upstream and Scott Creek were used as case studies and EPA-SWMM model was used to formulate event-based and continuous simulation models for these catchments
Summary
Rainfall–runoff (RR) models are important tools for planning, design and management of water resource systems. According to Brocca et al [2], RR models can be classified based on their spatial structure (lumped versus semi-distributed or distributed), time representation (continuous time versus event-based) or process description (physically meaningful versus data-driven). Daniel et al [3] adopted four different classifications for RR models based on: (i) parameter specification (deterministic or stochastic); (ii) the nature of the basic algorithms (empirical, conceptual or physically-based); (iii) spatial representation (lumped, semi-distributed or distributed); and (iv) the temporal representation (event-based or continuous time). Spatial and temporal representations are the most commonly adopted model types [7,8], while event-based (EB) and continuous simulation (CS) models are the most recognized category within the temporal domain [4,5]. In EB modelling, only the infiltration process is modelled in order to account for losses, while in CS modelling, the evapotranspiration loss is accounted for [9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
