nach oben

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Erschienen in:

16.11.2019 | Research Article - Civil Engineering

WRF-Hydro Model Application in a Data-Scarce, Small and Topographically Steep Catchment in Samsun, Turkey

verfasst von: Arzu Ozkaya, Zuhal Akyurek

Erschienen in: Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Floods due to heavy rainfall are one of the most frequent and widespread natural hazards. Rainfall is one of the key variables in flood modeling. For topographically steep catchments, flood modeling requires accurate rainfall sources in both time and space. The objective of this study is to compare different rainfall sources in physics-based distributed hydrologic model, (Weather Research and Forecasting) WRF-Hydro, in a data-scarce, small and topographically steep catchment. For this purpose, the model was calibrated and validated for the three catastrophic flood events that occurred in the Terme basin of eastern Black Sea region in Samsun, Turkey. The rainfall datasets include weather radar data and the Hydro-Estimator satellite rainfall product as nowcasting products, and WRF model precipitation data as a forecasting product and gauge-based data. Our results indicated that the tested rainfall products have different limitations and potentials depending on the rainfall process, so the accuracy of the results is greatly affected by the accuracy of rainfall products. Among the flood hydrographs, WRF precipitation data, bias-adjusted radar data and gauge data gave best Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) results with calibrated parameters in simulations belonging to floods observed on November 22, 2014, August 2, 2015, and May, 28, 2016, respectively.

Vorheriger Artikel Predicting Convergence Rate of Namaklan Twin Tunnels Using Machine Learning Methods

Nächster Artikel Comparative Study on Electrochemical Treatment of Arsenite: Effects of Process Parameters, Sludge Characterization and Kinetics

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nyeko, M.: Hydrologic modelling of data scarce basin with SWAT model: capabilities and limitations. Water Resour. Manage 29, 81–94 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0828-3 CrossRef

Bangira T (2013) Mapping of flash flood potential areas in the Western Kape, South Africa, using remote sensing and in situ data. Master Thesis, University of Twente Faculty of Geo-Information and Earth Observation (ITC)

Bitew, M.M.; Gebremichael, M.: Assessment of satellite rainfall products for streamflow simulation in medium watersheds of the Ethiopian highlands. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1147–1155 (2011)CrossRef

Vasiloff, S.V.; Seo, D.-J.; Howard, K.W.; et al.: Improving QPE and very short term QPF: an initiative for a community-wide integrated approach. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 88, 1899–1911 (2007)CrossRef

Habets, F.; LeMoigne, P.; Noilhan, J.: On the utility of operational precipitation forecasts to served as input for streamflow forecasting. J. Hydrol. 293, 270–288 (2004)CrossRef

Petty, G.W.; Krajewski, W.F.: Satellite estimation of precipitation over land. Hydrol. Sci. J. 41, 433–451 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669609491519 CrossRef

Sapiano, M.R.P.; Arkin, P.A.: An intercomparison and validation of high-resolution satellite precipitation estimates with 3-hourly gauge data. J. Hydrometeorol. 10, 149–166 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM1052.1 CrossRef

Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Anagnostou, E.N.; Borga, M.: Using high-resolution satellite rainfall products to simulate a major flash flood event in Northern Italy. J. Hydrometeorol. 14, 171–185 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-09.1 CrossRef

Gourley, J.J.; Hong, Y.; Flamig, Z.L.; et al.: Hydrologic evaluation of rainfall estimates from radar, satellite, gauge, and combinations on Ft. Cobb basin, Oklahoma. J. Hydrometeorol. 12, 973–988 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1287.1 CrossRef

10.

Mei, Y.; Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Anagnostou, E.N.; et al.: Error analysis of satellite precipitation-driven modeling of flood events in complex alpine terrain. Remote Sens. 8, 293 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8040293 CrossRef

11.

Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Anagnostou, E.N.; Hossain, F.; et al.: Understanding the scale relationships of uncertainty propagation of satellite rainfall through a distributed hydrologic model. J. Hydrometeorol. 11, 520–532 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JHM1169.1 CrossRef

12.

Zahidul, Islam; Yew, Gan Thian: Hydrologic modeling of the blue river basin using NEXRAD precipitation data with a semidistributed and a fully distributed model. J. Hydrol. Eng. 20, 04015015 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001179 CrossRef

13.

Vieux, B.E.; Bedient, P.B.: Estimation of rainfall for flood prediction from WSR-88D reflectivity: a case study, 17–18 October 1994. Weather Forecast. 13, 407–415 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1998)013%3c0407:EORFFP%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRef

14.

Kalinga, O.A.; Gan, T.Y.: Semi-distributed modelling of basin hydrology with radar and gauged precipitation. Hydrol. Process. 20, 3725–3746 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6385 CrossRef

15.

Javelle, P.; Demargne, J.; Defrance, D.; et al.: Evaluating flash-flood warnings at ungauged locations using post-event surveys: a case study with the AIGA warning system. Hydrol. Sci. J. 59, 1390–1402 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.923970 CrossRef

16.

Li, Y.; Grimaldi, S.; Walker, J.P.; Pauwels, V.R.N.: Application of remote sensing data to constrain operational rainfall-driven flood forecasting: a review. Remote Sens. 8, 456 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8060456 CrossRef

17.

Shrestha, D.L.; Robertson, D.E.; Wang, Q.J.; et al.: Evaluation of numerical weather prediction model precipitation forecasts for short-term streamflow forecasting purpose. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 1913–1931 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1913-2013 CrossRef

18.

Lorenz, E.N.: The predictability of a flow which possesses many scales of motion. Tellus 21, 289–307 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00444.x CrossRef

19.

Rogelis, M.C.; Werner, M.: Streamflow forecasts from WRF precipitation for flood early warning in mountain tropical areas. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 853–870 (2018)CrossRef

20.

Wu, X.: Quarterly numerical weather prediction model performance summary October to December 2009. Aust. Meteorol. Oceanogr. J. 60, 87–90 (2010)CrossRef

21.

Chintalapudi, S.; Sharif, H.O.; Furl, C.: High-resolution, fully distributed hydrologic event-based simulations over a large watershed in Texas. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 42, 1341–1357 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2446-x CrossRef

22.

Liang, X.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Wood, E.F.; Burges, S.J.: A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 99, 14415–14428 (1994)CrossRef

23.

Arnold, J.G.; Atwood, J.D.; Benson, V.W.; et al.: Potential Environmental and Economic Impacts of Implementing National Conservation Buffer Initiative Sedimentation Control Measures. USDA, NRCS Staff Paper (1998)

24.

Beven, K.J.; Kirkby, M.J.: A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology/Un modèle à base physique de zone d’appel variable de l’hydrologie du bassin versant. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 24, 43–69 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491834 CrossRef

25.

Devia, G.K.; Ganasri, B.P.; Dwarakish, G.S.: A review on hydrological models. Aquat. Procedia 4, 1001–1007 (2015)CrossRef

26.

Maidment, D.R.: Conceptual framework for the national flood interoperability experiment. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 53, 245–257 (2017)CrossRef

27.

Gochis, D.J.; Yu, W.; Yates, D.N.: The WRF-Hydro Model Technical Description and User’s Guide, Version 3.0, NCAR Technical Document (2015)

28.

Yucel, I.; Onen, A.; Yilmaz, K.K.; Gochis, D.J.: Calibration and evaluation of a flood forecasting system: utility of numerical weather prediction model, data assimilation and satellite-based rainfall. J. Hydrol. 523, 49–66 (2015)CrossRef

29.

Senatore, A.; Mendicino, G.; Gochis, D.J.; et al.: Fully coupled atmosphere-hydrology simulations for the central Mediterranean: impact of enhanced hydrological parameterization for short and long time scales. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 7, 1693–1715 (2015)CrossRef

30.

Arnault, J.; Wagner, S.; Rummler, T.; et al.: Role of runoff-infiltration partitioning and resolved overland flow on land-atmosphere feedbacks: a case study with the WRF-Hydro coupled modeling system for West Africa. J. Hydrometeorol. 17, 1489–1516 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0089.1 CrossRef

31.

Kerandi, N.; Arnault, J.; Laux, P.; et al.: Joint atmospheric-terrestrial water balances for East Africa: a WRF-Hydro case study for the upper Tana River basin. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 131, 1337–1355 (2018)CrossRef

32.

Silver, M.; Karnieli, A.; Ginat, H.; et al.: An innovative method for determining hydrological calibration parameters for the WRF-Hydro model in arid regions. Environ. Model. Softw. 91, 47–69 (2017)CrossRef

33.

Sensoy, S.: The mountains influence on Turkey climate. Paper presented at the BALWOIS conference on water observation and information system for decision support, Macedonia, May 25–29 (2010).

34.

Oyj, V.: Weather Radar Documentation User Guide IRIS Radar (2017)

35.

Marshall, J.S.; Palmer, W.M.K.: The distribution of raindrops with size. J. Meteorol. 5, 165–166 (1948)CrossRef

36.

Ozkaya, A.: Assessment of different rainfall products in flood simulations. Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University (2017)

37.

Ozkaya, A.; Akyurek, Z.: Evaluating the use of bias-corrected radar rainfall data in three flood events in Samsun, Turkey. Nat. Hazards 98, 643–674 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03723-z CrossRef

38.

Scofield, R.A.; Kuligowski, R.J.: Status and outlook of operational satellite precipitation algorithms for extreme-precipitation events. Weather Forecast. 18, 1037–1051 (2003)CrossRef

39.

Vicente, G.A.; Scofield, R.A.; Menzel, W.P.: The operational GOES infrared rainfall estimation technique. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 1883–1898 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079%3c1883:TOGIRE%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRef

40.

NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations. In: Global Hydro-Estimator—Algorithm Description. https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/ghe/algo.html. Accessed 10 Sept 2018

41.

Yucel, I.: Assessment of a flash flood event using different precipitation datasets. Nat. Hazards 79, 1889–1911 (2015)CrossRef

42.

Skamarock, W.C.; Klemp, J.B.; Dudhia, J.: Prototypes for the WRF (Weather Research and Forecasting) model. In: Preprints, Ninth Conference Mesoscale Processes, J11–J15, Am. Meteorol. Soc., Fort Lauderdale, FL (2001)

43.

Yucel, I.; Onen, A.: Evaluating a mesoscale atmosphere model and a satellite-based algorithm in estimating extreme rainfall events in northwestern Turkey. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 611–624 (2014)CrossRef

44.

Chen, C.-S.; Lin, Y.-L.; Peng, W.-C.; Liu, C.-L.: Investigation of a heavy rainfall event over southwestern Taiwan associated with a subsynoptic cyclone during the 2003 Mei-Yu season. Atmos. Res. 95, 235–254 (2010)CrossRef

45.

Liu, J.; Bray, M.; Han, D.: A study on WRF radar data assimilation for hydrological rainfall prediction. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 3095–3110 (2013)CrossRef

46.

Hong, S.-Y.; Dudhia, J.; Chen, S.-H.: A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation. Mon. Weather Rev. 132, 103–120 (2004)CrossRef

47.

Kain, J.S.: The Kain-Fritsch convective parameterization: an update. J. Appl. Meteorol. 43, 170–181 (2004)CrossRef

48.

Que, L.-J.; Que, W.-L.; Feng, J.-M.: Intercomparison of different physics schemes in the WRF model over the Asian summer monsoon region. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. Lett. 9, 169–177 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2016.1158618 CrossRef

49.

Wöhling, T.; Samaniego, L.; Kumar, R.: Evaluating multiple performance criteria to calibrate the distributed hydrological model of the upper Neckar catchment. Environ. Earth Sci. 69, 453–468 (2013)CrossRef

50.

Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282–290 (1970)CrossRef

51.

Mitchell, K.E.: The Community Noah Land Surface Model (LSM)—user’s guide (v2. 2) (2001)

52.

Cencetti, C.; Rosa, P.D.; Fredduzzi, A.; et al.: A statistical test for drainage network recognition using MeanStreamDrop analysis. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 6, 534–553 (2015)CrossRef

53.

Frissell, C.A.; Liss, W.J.; Warren, C.E.; Hurley, M.D.: A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ. Manag. 10, 199–214 (1986)CrossRef

54.

Tarboton, D.G.; Bras, R.L.; Rodriguez-Iturbe, I.: On the extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data. Hydrol. Process. 5, 81–100 (1991)CrossRef

55.

Seo, Y.; Schmidt, A.R.: Evaluation of drainage networks under moving storms utilizing the equivalent stationary storms. Nat. Hazards 70, 803–819 (2014)CrossRef

56.

Özcan, E.: Sel Olayı ve Türkiye. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 26, 35–50 (2006). https://doi.org/10.17152/gefd.15296 MathSciNetCrossRef

57.

Huang, D.; Gao, S.: Impact of different cumulus convective parameterization schemes on the simulation of precipitation over China. Tellus A: Dyn. Meteorol. Oceanogr. 69, 1406264 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/16000870.2017.1406264 CrossRef

Titel: WRF-Hydro Model Application in a Data-Scarce, Small and Topographically Steep Catchment in Samsun, Turkey
verfasst von: Arzu Ozkaya
Zuhal Akyurek
Publikationsdatum: 16.11.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 2193-567X
Elektronische ISSN: 2191-4281
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04251-5

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

Transfer Length of Fully Bonded and Partially Bonded Prestressing Strands by Finite Element Method

Prediction of Properties of Concrete Cured Under Hot Weather Using Multivariate Regression and ANN Models

Utilization of Glass Powder and Oil Palm Fibers to Develop Thermally Efficient Blocks

Comparison of Master Sigmoidal Curve and Markov Chain Techniques for Pavement Performance Prediction

Properties of Eco-Friendly Concrete Contained Limestone and Ceramic Tiles Waste Exposed To High Temperature

Experimental Investigations of End Bearing Anchors Under Uplift Load Using Transparent Soil and Numerical Simulation

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten