Scaling input data by GIS for hydrological modelling

Scaling input data by GIS for hydrological modelling An analysis of scaling effects is performed to evaluate whether data aggregation is a useful regionalization tool or whether it leads to an unacceptable loss of information. One issue concerns the appropriate resolution of digital elevation models (DEMs) used to derive geomorphological input parameters for hydrological models. In particular, the scale problem of watershed division by a channel network and smaller sub‐basins is addressed. The investigation involved commercially available data sets with different horizontal and vertical resolutions and systematically aggregated DEMs. A stream network and the contributing subareas were derived from a DEM with a distinct critical support area. By varying this threshold area various watershed configurations were obtained. The sensitivity of surface runoff simulations to all watershed configurations was studied with synthetic storms and by means of an infiltration excess runoff model. The study revealed that elevation data with different resolutions diverge enormously in landscape representation and in the derived parameters such as slopes, flow directions and channel networks. Coarse DEMs show a smoother terrain and shorter flow paths than highly resolved data. The contributing threshold area controls the extent of the watershed configuration and therefore determines the drainage density. These topographic and geomorphological features were used to explain differences in the runoff simulation results. When watershed configurations with a varying extent of the channel network were derived from a distinct DEM and then used to simulate surface runoff, the drainage densities of the configurations correlated with the simulated runoff volume. A distinct drainage density, however, did not necessarily lead to similar simulation results when different DEMs were used. Since the hydrological model permits reinfiltration, the runoff volume depends directly on the lengths of the overland flow. Therefore, the mean length of the overland flow paths might to a certain degree be considered as a scaling factor. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Hydrological Processes Wiley

Scaling input data by GIS for hydrological modelling

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/scaling-input-data-by-gis-for-hydrological-modelling-AiFeMLtE3W
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN
0885-6087
eISSN
1099-1085
D.O.I.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199903)13:4<611::AID-HYP758>3.0.CO;2-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

An analysis of scaling effects is performed to evaluate whether data aggregation is a useful regionalization tool or whether it leads to an unacceptable loss of information. One issue concerns the appropriate resolution of digital elevation models (DEMs) used to derive geomorphological input parameters for hydrological models. In particular, the scale problem of watershed division by a channel network and smaller sub‐basins is addressed. The investigation involved commercially available data sets with different horizontal and vertical resolutions and systematically aggregated DEMs. A stream network and the contributing subareas were derived from a DEM with a distinct critical support area. By varying this threshold area various watershed configurations were obtained. The sensitivity of surface runoff simulations to all watershed configurations was studied with synthetic storms and by means of an infiltration excess runoff model. The study revealed that elevation data with different resolutions diverge enormously in landscape representation and in the derived parameters such as slopes, flow directions and channel networks. Coarse DEMs show a smoother terrain and shorter flow paths than highly resolved data. The contributing threshold area controls the extent of the watershed configuration and therefore determines the drainage density. These topographic and geomorphological features were used to explain differences in the runoff simulation results. When watershed configurations with a varying extent of the channel network were derived from a distinct DEM and then used to simulate surface runoff, the drainage densities of the configurations correlated with the simulated runoff volume. A distinct drainage density, however, did not necessarily lead to similar simulation results when different DEMs were used. Since the hydrological model permits reinfiltration, the runoff volume depends directly on the lengths of the overland flow. Therefore, the mean length of the overland flow paths might to a certain degree be considered as a scaling factor. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal

Hydrological ProcessesWiley

Published: Mar 1, 1999

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off