Skip to Main Content
To analyze infiltration, the Green–Ampt equation from the MISDc hydrological model was used. The observed soil moisture data were used to calibrate the parameters of the Green–Ampt equation (Table 1). The parameter Wmax (the maximum water capacity of the soil layer) is the most sensitive parameter of the model and was fixed in accordance with the spatial distribution of the curve values computed from soil/land use characteristics (Chow et al. 1988; Brocca et al. 2011). The temporal evolution of rainfall in the study period is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 illustrates the temporal variation of the observed and simulated soil moisture without accounting for the diffuse and preferential flow, while Figure 4 compares the observed and simulated discharge (along with the starting time of the 11 selected flood events) at the outlet gauge station. The variation of soil moisture is consistent with the change of the rainfall. However, most of the soil moisture simulation from the model during the heavy rainfall periods is more than the observed data while the simulation results during the light rainfall periods seem to be smaller than the observed value.
Table 1

Parameter values of the SWB model based on different formulations for infiltration

The Green–Ampt equation model
The model combing the source-responsive model and the Green–Ampt model
ψfKs (mm h−1)λbψfKs (mm h−1)λbτ(m−1)
−0.800 12.505 0.640 0.761 −0.800 12.505 0.520 0.827 550 40,500 
The Green–Ampt equation model
The model combing the source-responsive model and the Green–Ampt model
ψfKs (mm h−1)λbψfKs (mm h−1)λbτ(m−1)
−0.800 12.505 0.640 0.761 −0.800 12.505 0.520 0.827 550 40,500 

is the average facial area density.

Figure 2

The temporal evolution of rainfall in Elder Creek River basin.

Figure 2

The temporal evolution of rainfall in Elder Creek River basin.

Figure 3

Comparison between observed and simulated soil moisture without accounting for diffuse and preferential flow.

Figure 3

Comparison between observed and simulated soil moisture without accounting for diffuse and preferential flow.

Figure 4

Comparison between observed and simulated runoff without accounting for diffuse and preferential flow, less base flow (6.27 m3/s).

Figure 4

Comparison between observed and simulated runoff without accounting for diffuse and preferential flow, less base flow (6.27 m3/s).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal