Next Article in Journal
Abacus to Predict Groundwater Recharge at Non-Instrumented Hydrographic Basins
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of the Mean Daily Air Temperature Calculation on the Rainfall-Runoff Modelling
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation and Comparison of Daily GPM/TRMM Precipitation Products over the Tianshan Mountains in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Nonhomogeneous Soil Characteristics on the Hydrologic Response: A Case Study
Article

Long-Term Modelling of an Agricultural and Urban River Catchment with SWMM Upgraded by the Evapotranspiration Model UrbanEVA

Department of Water Management, University of Rostock, Satower Straße 48, 18059 Rostock, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(11), 3089; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113089
Received: 24 September 2020 / Revised: 30 October 2020 / Accepted: 2 November 2020 / Published: 4 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modelling Hydrologic Response of Non­-homogeneous Catchments)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: storm water management model (SWMM); evapotranspiration; streamflow; hydrologic/hydraulic modelling; SWMM-UrbanEVA storm water management model (SWMM); evapotranspiration; streamflow; hydrologic/hydraulic modelling; SWMM-UrbanEVA
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Kachholz, F.; Tränckner, J. Long-Term Modelling of an Agricultural and Urban River Catchment with SWMM Upgraded by the Evapotranspiration Model UrbanEVA. Water 2020, 12, 3089. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113089

AMA Style

Kachholz F, Tränckner J. Long-Term Modelling of an Agricultural and Urban River Catchment with SWMM Upgraded by the Evapotranspiration Model UrbanEVA. Water. 2020; 12(11):3089. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113089

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kachholz, Frauke; Tränckner, Jens. 2020. "Long-Term Modelling of an Agricultural and Urban River Catchment with SWMM Upgraded by the Evapotranspiration Model UrbanEVA" Water 12, no. 11: 3089. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113089

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop