Abstract

Evapotranspiration (ET) has a decisive effect on groundwater recharge and thus also affects the base flow of the receiving water. This applies above all to low-lying areas with a low depth to groundwater (GW), as is often the case in the north German lowlands. In order to analyze this relation, a coupled rainfall-runoff and hydraulic stream model was set up using the software SWMM-UrbanEVA, a version of the software SWMM that was upgraded by a detailed ET module. A corresponding model was set up for the same site but with the conventional software SWMM to compare the water balance and hydrographs. The total amount of ET calculated with the SWMM software is 7% higher than that computed with the upgraded version in the period considered. Therefore, less water is available for soil infiltration and lateral groundwater flow to the stream. This generally leads to a slight underestimation of base flows, with the exception of a notably wet summer month when the base flows were highly overestimated. Nevertheless, the base flow hydrograph shows a good adaptation to observed values (MAE = 0.014 m3s−1, R = 0.88, NSE = 0.81) but gives worse results compared to SWMM-UrbanEVA. The latter is very well able to reflect the GW-fed base flow in the sample stream in average (MAE = 0.011 m3s−1) and in its dynamics (R = 0.93, NSE = 0.85). By applying the UrbanEVA upgrade, SWMM is applicable to model the seasonal dynamics of near-natural river basins.

Highlights

  • The storm water management model (SWMM) was originally developed for the simulation and evaluation of storm runoff and sewer hydraulics in urban areas [1]

  • Upgrade, SWMM is applicable to model the seasonal dynamics of near-natural river basins

  • The measured and as well the simulated graphs show that the stream flow is composed of direct runoff peak flows and a base flow component

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The storm water management model (SWMM) was originally developed for the simulation and evaluation of storm runoff and sewer hydraulics in urban areas [1]. One of the biggest advantages of SWMM is that it combines both a hydrological rainfall-runoff model with a hydrodynamic drainage model in one software. This makes the numerical calculation very effective and stable, as no external coupling is necessary. The rainfall runoff model enables reliable groundwater simulation, as it uses physical parameters to calculate storage and discharge. As versatile as SWMM is, it has one drawback This consists in the fact that the latest SWMM version (5.1.015) calculates purely physical actual evaporation from different environmental compartments but does not account for the biological transpiration of plants.

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call