[논문]HSPF와 SWAT 모형을 이용한 산림유역의 유출 및 유사량 추정

임상준; 조재필

[국내논문] HSPF와 SWAT 모형을 이용한 산림유역의 유출 및 유사량 추정
Predicting Runoff and Sediment Yield on a Forest Dominated Watershed using HSPF and SWAT Models 원문보기

농촌계획 : 韓國農村計劃學會誌, v.9 no.4 = no.21, 2003년, pp.59 - 64

임상준 (Water Resources Res. Dept., Korea Institute of Construction Technology) , (Biological Sys. Engineering Dept., Virginia Tech) , (Biological Sys. Engineering Dept., Virginia Tech) , 조재필 (Biological Sys. Engineering Dept., Virginia Tech)

초록
AI-Helper

U.S. EPA의 BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources)에 통합되어 있는 HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran)와 SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) 모형을 이용하여 Polecat Creek 유역의 유출과 유사량을 모의하였다. 모형의 보정을 위하여 1996년 9월부터 2000년 6월까지의 하천 유량 및 유사 농도 자료를 이용하였으며, 1994년 10월부터 1995년 12월까지의 관측자료를 이용하여 모형의 검정을 실시하였다. HSPF 모형에 의해 추정된 연 평균 유출량의 상대오차는 보정 및 검정기간에 각각 0.8%, 0.5%이었으며, S WAT 모형에 의해 추정된 연평균 유출량은 실측치와 각각 2.1%, 16.1%의 오차를 보였다. 연 평균 유사량을 비교하면, HSPF 모형이 보정 및 검정기 간에 각각 8.8%와 7.2%의 오차를 보인 반면에 SWAT 모형은 각각 40.0%, 188.4%의 차이를 보였다. HSPF 모형에 의해 추정된 월 평균 유출량 및 유사량의 상관계수는 보정기간에 대하여 0.94와 0.52이었으며, SWAT 모형에 의한 결과는 상관계수가 각각 0.84와 0.39이었다. 이상의 연구 결과에 의하면, HSPF 모형이 SWAT 모형보다 유출과 유사량을 관측치와 유사하게 모의함을 알 수 있었다. 하지만 입력 자료의 구축 및 모형의 적용에는 SWAT모형보다 많은 시간과 노력을 필요로 하였다.

주제어

AI 본문요약
AI-Helper

* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.

문제 정의

Therefore, the comparison of model performance of various watershed models regarding their capacity of simulating hydrology and water quality is needed for evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of these models. Perrin et al.

제안 방법

In this study, two different models within the BASINS, HSPF and SWAT, were tested to simulate streamflow and sediment yield from the Polecat Creek watershed in Virginia. Both models were evaluated for the period of 1994 to 2000, using rainfall data from nine rain gauges in the watershed, and streamflow and water quality data obtained at the watershed outlet in the Polecat Creek watershed.
of observed value. Correlation coefficients between observed and simulated monthly values by HSPF and SWAT were compared for evaluating the performance of HSPF and SWAT models. Table 2 shows the correlation coefficients between observed and simulated monthly runoff and sediment yield by HSPF and SWAT models.
Both HSPF and SWAT can be incorporated into USEPA's BASINS, which allows integration of watershed models and in-stream process models within a geographic information system (GIS) framework. In this study, two different models within the BASINS, HSPF and SWAT, were tested to simulate streamflow and sediment yield from the Polecat Creek watershed in Virginia. Both models were evaluated for the period of 1994 to 2000, using rainfall data from nine rain gauges in the watershed, and streamflow and water quality data obtained at the watershed outlet in the Polecat Creek watershed.
The Polecat Creek watershed was selected for simulating hydrology and water quality and further comparing the ability of HSPF and SWAT models. It is located in Caroline County in northeastern Virginia as referred to by Im et al.
It is also incorporated as a part of BASINS system used by USEPA for assessing the effects of point and non-point sources on in-stream water quality. The model uses information such as meteorological data, watershed characteristics, and various model parameters. The simulation result are the time series of the runoff, sediment yield, and nutrient and pesticide concentrations at any point in a watershed.
Outflow is calculated as a function of the current storage amount and the physical characteristics of the subsystem. Water movement in a pervious land (PERLND) modeled along three paths: overland flow, interflow, and groundwater flow. Each of these three paths experiences differences in time delay and differences in interaction between water and its various dissolved constituents.

대상 데이터

Although SWAT is designed for use in the ungaged watershed, the model in this study was also calibrated with available data. Data collected from September 1996 to June 2000 were used for the calibrations of HSPF and SWAT. Model validations for two models were done for the period of October 1994 to December 1995.

이론/모형

runoff from daily rainfall amount. A modified rational method and SCS TR-55 method are used to compute the peak runoff rate. Three available methods, Penman-Monteith, Hargreaves, and Priestley-Taylor methods are also used for estimating the evapotranspiration within SWAT.

성능/효과

period. After hydrologic calibration by HSPF and SWAT models, correlation coefficients between observed and simulated monthly runoff were 0.74 and 0.73, respectively, for the validation period. Simulated monthly runoff volumes by HSPF and SWAT were 이ose to the measured values during calibration, while HSPF presented a better average monthly flow for the validation period.
73, respectively, for the validation period. Simulated monthly runoff volumes by HSPF and SWAT were 이ose to the measured values during calibration, while HSPF presented a better average monthly flow for the validation period. A comparison of observed and simulated monthly runoff for the calibration and validation periods is presented in Figure 2.
The correlation coefficients between observed and simulated monthly sediment yields by HSPF and SWAT during the calibration period were 0.52 and 0.39, respectively, while correlation coefficients for the validation period were 0.81 and 0.71, respectively. For the validation period both models have the better prediction of sediment yield from the Polecat Creek watershed.
value for the simulation period. The differences between observed and simulated average annual runoff volximes by HSPF and SWAT were 0.8% and 2.1% for the calibration period, and the differences for the validation period were 0.5% and 16.1%, respectively. Average annxial runoff predicted by HSPF was closer to observed value than SWAT for the calibration and validation period.

참고문헌 (11)

Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, A.S. Donigian, and R.C. Johanson, 1996, Hydrologic simulation program-FORTRAN user's manual, v.11, Athens, GA., USEPA
Baird, C., M. Jennings, D. Ockerman, and T. Dybala, 1996, Characterization of nonpoint sources and loadings to Corpus Christi Bay national estuary program study area, Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program, CCBNEP-05
Haith, D.A. and L.L. Shoemaker, 1987, Generalized watershed loading functions for stream flow nutrients, Water Resources Bulletin 23(3) : 471-478

상세보기
Im, S., K.M. Brannan, and S. Mostaghimi, 2003, Calibration and validation of the HSPH model on an urbanizing watershed in Virginia, USA, Water Engineering Research, Journal of KWRA 4(3) : 141-154
Johnson, M.S., W.F. Coon, V.K. Mehta, T.S. Steenhuis, E.S. Brooks, and J. Boll, 2003, Application of two hydrologic models with different runoff mechanisms to a hillslope dominated watershed in the northeastern US: a comparison of HSPF and SMR. Journal of Hydrology 284 : 57-76
Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry, and J.R. Williams, 2001, Soil and Water Assessment Tool; the theoretical documentation (version 2000), U.S. Agricultural Research Service
Perrin, C., C. Michel, and V. Andreassian, 2001, Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchment, Journal of Hydrology 242 : 275-301
USEPA, 2001, Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) v. 3.0 User's Manual, EPA-823-B01-001, Washington, D.C., Office of Water, USEPA
USEPA, 1979, Methods of chemical analysis of water and wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Cincinati (EMSL-CI), USEPA
Williams, J.R. and H.D. Berndt, 1977, Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology, Transactions of the ASAE 20(6) : 1100-1104
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson, 1989, AGNPS: A nonpoint source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44(2) : 168-173

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증