Physical hydrology dingman pdf


    Physical Hydrology. Second Edition. S. Lawrence Dingman. University of New Hampshire .. C Normal pdf and cdf C Log-Normal Distribution Physical hydrology by S. L. Dingman, , Prentice Hall edition, in English - 2nd ed. lntroduction to Hydrologic Science . hydrology and civil engineering;the first English- . rate, we can often use physical principles to derive.

    Language:English, Spanish, Arabic
    Published (Last):09.07.2016
    Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
    Uploaded by: MARYLN

    66755 downloads 117325 Views 37.41MB PDF Size Report

    Physical Hydrology Dingman Pdf

    CEE Physical Hydrology. Homework 8. Solar Radiation direct approach handout Dingman, S. L., (), Chapter 7. Physical Hydrology By S. Lawrence Dingman, ; Waveland Press Inc., Long Grove, IL, USA; Physical Hydrology, now in its third edition, is an estab-. S. Lawrence Dingman, Macmillan Publishing. Company, pages, , $ Physical Hydrology is a refreshing addi tion to the literature on.

    I was tasked with analyzing a rainfall hyetograph and corresponding watershed outflow from a past storm event, determining a range of appropriate parameters from this analysis, using these parameter to develop a series of different linear watershed models, calibrating these models to match the given hyetograph of the past rainfall event, and applying these models to predict the outflow of a future storm event. My primary sources of methodology were the assigned texts for this course: Physical Hydrology, Second Edition by S. This base flow is roughly the same for both time periods and does not contribute to basin storage. Groundwater seepage into watershed reservoirs and streams is negligible. Part 1: Quantitative Description The first phase of this project involved a rudimentary quantitative analysis of given data regarding a past storm event with the incorporation of concepts covered earlier in the semester. Deriving an estimate of the total effective rainfall Weff , conversely, required a broad range of assumptions based on the given information. Combining this with the given total observed rainfall gave me an effective rainfall rate, which I multiplied by the entire watershed area to derive the cumulative rainfall amount. Because this method incorporates all storage in the watershed, using it made it easier to accommodate for additional watershed components that would diminish the effective rainfall and runoff amount i. Due to a lack of information on the local meteorological conditions, such as the average wind velocity and pressure gradient, I chose to calculate this amount based on the estimated potential evapotranspiration PET and from that a predicted actual evapotranspiration, as demonstrated in Chapter 7 of Dingman.

    Physical Hydrology by S. Lawrence Dingman (2008, Hardcover)

    Download Launch: Download Learn C the Hard Way: Download Linux for Beginners: Download Love Hurts: Download Machine Trading: Download Macroeconomics: Download Minecraft: Exploded Builds: Medieval Fortress: Download My Health: Download My Life as Eva: Download Nickel and Dimed: Download Our Global Environment: Lawrence Dingman.

    Download Quantitative Methods: Download Radical Self Love: Download Relentless: Download Solving The Procrastination Puzzle: Download Statistics for Business: A step-by-step guide to mastering the skills taught in top business schools Full Book By Steven Silbiger.

    Download The 8th Habit: Download The Artisan Soul: Download The Book of Awakening: Download The Dehydrator Bible: Download The Demonologist: Download The Feldman Method: Download The Goal: Download The Greatest Lie on Earth: Download The Joy of Mixology: Download The Like Switch: Download The Literature Review: Download The Nazi Hunters: Download The Princess Bride: Download The Round House P.

    Full Pages By Louise Erdrich.

    Dingman-Physical Hydrology-Chapter 3.pdf

    ACOE handbook. This design accounted only for the initial outflow and the response time of the given watershed, the latter of which I had initially based on the centroid lag time calculated in Part 1. Needless to say, this initial model greatly exaggerated the expected outflow of the watershed, showing a peak discharge more than twice that of the recorded peak while having a residual outflow towards the end of the recorded period that dropped well below that of the recorded outflow.

    However, when basing the response time instead on the centroid lag time, as suggested on Page in Dingman, the calculated peak outflow dropped by an order of magnitude, signifying my first customization of parameters for the project. Essentially this first reservoir would come to represent the total catchment area of the basin, while the second reservoir that the Weff flow fed into would represent the total precipitation that could contribute to surface runoff i.

    Finally, for the sake of realism I added an evapotranspiration outflow from this new reservoir based on a rounded graph of the given ET data, based on the assumption that the most significant amount of evapotranspiration from tree and plant cover would emanate from this early stage, before feeding into surface and groundwater flow. Outflow ET Effective Precip. The relatively short response time and small ratio of total precipitation to outflow of the watershed suggested the presence of ulterior modes of outflow and secondary reservoirs with differing outflow velocities.

    Going under the assumption that the first of such modes would occur from the interception of precipitation from tree cover and subsequent evaporation, I first added such a fractional flow of the same global response time of the watershed from the first reservoir based on rough assumptions of tree cover regression modeling proposed in Chapter 7 of Dingman, ensuring only residual flow from the treetop would contribute to the effective precipitation ratio.

    Ultimately I reasoned that this first reservoir would primarily represent precipitation suspended by tree and crop cover, the fractional outflow of which would represent water directly evaporated from the plant surface not considered in the evapotranspiration flow. I then added another reservoir after the first outflow with a higher initial water content and much slower outflow rate, representing two areas of starkly contrasting topography.

    Figure 4: First Advanced Model For the second advanced model, I significantly cut the evaporative outflow from tree cover, increased the estimated base flow, and added groundwater GW outflow components, as the watershed description of heterogeneous loamy soils with some tree and agriculture cover suggested the former aspect would have a stronger impact.

    Reasoning that GW infiltration would occur at different rates over different areas of the basin, and likely be highest following areas of greatest concentration reservoirs , I added two GW flows of differing percolation rates on each of the secondary reservoirs, relying on the assumption that stream gain from groundwater compared to surface water runoff was negligible.

    The relatively high assumed hydraulic conductivity and field capacity of the soil and the relatively short response time of the watershed, arguably brought on by high initial water content from the assumed previous storm event, supports this hypothesis.

    Lecture Notes | Groundwater Hydrology | Civil and Environmental Engineering | MIT OpenCourseWare

    Figure 5: Second Advanced Model After inputting the precipitation and evapotranspiration graphs of the recorded storm event into both models, I copied the readings of the output variables into a spreadsheet, plotted the calibrated outflow curve on top of the recorded outflow curves, and computed the respective cumulative outflow and infiltration the total amount of inflow from base flow and effective precipitation, minus the amount of outflow and evapotranspiration.

    For the sake of accuracy in the second model, I also calculated the total infiltration based on the total calculated groundwater outflow of both effective reservoirs in the watershed and was pleased with the narrow range of the results. Most notably, by accounting for groundwater flow, the second model showed a net increase in storage, as opposed to the net decrease predicted in the first model.

    Not only were its results statistically closer to the observed outflow, but its prototype design seemed more realistic in a watershed where the sandy and loamy soils and scattered tree cover would ensure groundwater infiltration would play a much larger role than canopy interception in changes to the overall water storage. Additionally, due to the relatively large elevation gradient over the span of the watershed, one could interpret both the periods of highly different surface flow velocity and high rates of groundwater flow through porous media assumed in the model to be perfectly reasonable.

    Moreover, the response curve of the second model showed considerably less sensitivity towards changes in the initial water content of the three reservoirs in the watershed, further improving its accuracy in cases when initial watershed conditions were unknown. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.

    If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username. Journals Earth's Future Open access.

    Open access. David G. First published: Tools Request permission Export citation Add to favorites Track citation.

    Share Give access Share full text access. Share full text access. Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article. Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below. You previously downloadd this article through ReadCube. Institutional Login.