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|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
CEE Physical Hydrology. Homework 8. Solar Radiation direct approach handout irkeraslajour.ga 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.
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.
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.
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.