TU Darmstadt / ULB / TUbiblio

Comparison of Baseflow Separation Methods in the German Low Mountain Range

Kissel, Michael and Schmalz, Britta (2021):
Comparison of Baseflow Separation Methods in the German Low Mountain Range. (Publisher's Version)
In: Water, 12 (6), pp. 1-22. MDPI, ISSN 2073-4441,
DOI: 10.26083/tuprints-00017529,
[Article]

Abstract

The last several years in southern Germany brought below average precipitation and high temperatures, leading to considerable challenges in water resource management. Deriving a plausible baseflow estimate is important as it affects aspects of integrated water resource management such as water usage and low flow predictions. The aim of this study is to estimate baseflow in a representative catchment in the German low mountain range and identify suitable baseflow estimation methods for this region. Several different baseflow separation methods, including digital filters, a mass balance filter (MBF) and non-continuous estimation methods were applied and compared to estimate baseflow. Using electric conductivity (EC) for the MBF, June to September and November to May were found to be suitable to estimate the EC of the baseflow and runoff component, respectively. Both weekly and continuous EC monitoring can derive similar EC value component estimates. However, EC estimation of the runoff component requires more careful consideration. The baseflow index (BFI) is estimated to be in the range of 0.4 to 0.5. The Chapman and Maxwell filter, Kille method and the Q90/Q50 ratio are recommended for baseflow estimation in the German low mountain range as they give similar results to the MBF. The Eckhardt filter requires further calibration before application.

Item Type: Article
Erschienen: 2021
Creators: Kissel, Michael and Schmalz, Britta
Origin: Secondary publication via sponsored Golden Open Access
Status: Publisher's Version
Title: Comparison of Baseflow Separation Methods in the German Low Mountain Range
Language: English
Abstract:

The last several years in southern Germany brought below average precipitation and high temperatures, leading to considerable challenges in water resource management. Deriving a plausible baseflow estimate is important as it affects aspects of integrated water resource management such as water usage and low flow predictions. The aim of this study is to estimate baseflow in a representative catchment in the German low mountain range and identify suitable baseflow estimation methods for this region. Several different baseflow separation methods, including digital filters, a mass balance filter (MBF) and non-continuous estimation methods were applied and compared to estimate baseflow. Using electric conductivity (EC) for the MBF, June to September and November to May were found to be suitable to estimate the EC of the baseflow and runoff component, respectively. Both weekly and continuous EC monitoring can derive similar EC value component estimates. However, EC estimation of the runoff component requires more careful consideration. The baseflow index (BFI) is estimated to be in the range of 0.4 to 0.5. The Chapman and Maxwell filter, Kille method and the Q90/Q50 ratio are recommended for baseflow estimation in the German low mountain range as they give similar results to the MBF. The Eckhardt filter requires further calibration before application.

Journal or Publication Title: Water
Journal volume: 12
Number: 6
Publisher: MDPI
Divisions: 13 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Sciences
13 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Sciences > Institute of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering
13 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Sciences > Institute of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering > Engineering Hydrology and Water Management
Date Deposited: 16 Feb 2021 13:14
DOI: 10.26083/tuprints-00017529
Official URL: https://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/17529
URN: urn:nbn:de:tuda-tuprints-175293
Corresponding Links:
Export:
Suche nach Titel in: TUfind oder in Google
Send an inquiry Send an inquiry

Options (only for editors)
Show editorial Details Show editorial Details