بررسی مقایسه‌ای مدل متداول و واسنجی شده شماره منحنی در برآورد سیلاب و رواناب (حوضه‌های مورد مطالعه: گالیکش، تمر، وطنا، کچیک و نوده در استان گلستان)

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد ، گروه مهندسی آب دانشکده مهندسی آب و خاک، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

2 گروه مهندسی آب دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

3 عضو هیئت علمی و دانشیار گروه علوم و مهندسی آب دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

4 گروه مهندسی آب دانشکده آب و خاک دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان،ۀ گرگان، ایران

چکیده

مدل متداول شماره منحنی (SCS-CNT) که بر اساس کاربرد جدول پیشنهادی توسط سازمان حفاظت خاک آمریکا (SCS) است به طور گسترده­ای توسط محققین و مهندسین مورد استفاده قرار می­گیرد. لیکن ممکن است ویژگی­های حوضه آبریز مورد بررسی کاملا متفاوت با شرایط استخراج مدل SCS-CNT باشد. واسنجی مدل شماره منحنی (SCS-CNC) می­تواند یک راه حل در این زمینه باشد. در این مطالعه، 37 رویداد بارش - رواناب در پنج حوضه آبریز تمر، گالیکش، نوده، وطنا و کچیک (به­ترتیب با مساحت­های 1527، 45/401، 65/789 ، 77/10 و 36 کیلومترمربع) در استان گلستان مورد بررسی قرار گرفت و از 14 رویداد برای مقایسه مدل­های SCS-CNT و SCS-CNC استفاده گردید. مقایسه نتایج بر اساس معیارهای آماری ریشه میانگین مربعات خطا (RMSE)، ناش - ساتکلیف (NSE) و خطای برآورد دبی اوج (PEP)  صورت گرفت. معیارهای RMSE و NSEدر 79% موارد بهبود دقت برآورد هیدروگراف و معیار PEP در 86% موارد بهبود دقت برآورد دبی اوج در مدل SCS-CNC نسبت به مدل SCS-CNT را تایید کردند. مدل­های SCS-CNC و SCS-CNT به ترتیب در 8 و 7 رویداد منجر به کم­برآوردی و در 6 و 7 رویداد موجب بیش­برآوردی دبی اوج شده­اند. نتایج موید آن است که کاربرد مدل واسنجی شده شماره منحنی موجب بهبود نتایج شبیه­سازی در پنج حوضه مورد مطالعه شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative assessment of conventional and calibrated curve number models in flood and runoff estimation (Studied Catchments: Galikesh, Tamer, Nodeh, Kechik and Vatana in Golestan province)

نویسندگان [English]

  • sanaz Daei 1
  • Meysam Salarijazi 2
  • khalil ghorbani 3
  • Mehdi Meftah Halaghi 4
1 MSc. of Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Water and Soil Engineering, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources
2 Water Engineering Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources
3 Associate Professor, Department of Water Science and Engineering, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources
4 Soil & Water Dep. university of Grgan natural resources & Agricultural science, gorgan,Iran;
چکیده [English]

 The conventional curve number (SCS-CNT) model, which is based on the application of the proposed table by US Soil Conservation Service (SCS), is widely used by researchers and engineers. However, characteristics of the study catchment may be completely different from the conditions for the extraction of SCS-CNT model. Calibrated curve number model (SCS-CNC) can be a solution in this problem. In this study, 37 rainfall-runoff events were investigated in Tamer, Galikesh, Nodeh, Vatna and Kechik catchments (with area 1527, 401.45, 789.65, 10.77 and 36 square kilometers respectively) located in Golestan province, Iran, and 14 events were used for SCS-CNT and SCS-CNC models’ comparison. Results were compared based on root mean square error (RMSE), Nash-Sutcliffe (NSE) and peak discharge estimation error (PEP). The RMSE and NSE criteria in 79% and PEP criterion in 86% of the cases confirmed improvement of the hydrograph and peak discharge estimations in SCS-CNC compared to SCS-CNT model. The SCS-CNC and SCS-CNT models resulted in peak discharge underestimation in 8 and 7 events and overestimation in 6 and 7 events, respectively. Results indicated that application of the calibrated curve number model improves the simulation results in all five studied catchments.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • CN
  • Flood
  • Hydrograph
  • Peak discharge

مراجع

صادقی،ح.، مهدوی،م و رضوی،ل. 1387. واسنجی ضریب حداکثر ذخیره و شماره‌ی منحنی مدل SCS در حوزه‌های آبریز امامه، کسیلیان، درجزبن و خان­میرزا. مجله علوم و مهندسی آبخیزداری ایران. 4: 12-24.
نساجی زواره،م و مهدوی،م. 1384. برآورد دبی حداکثر سیل با استفاده از روش‌های مختلف شماره منحنی، مطالعه موردی در البرز مرکزی. مجله منابع طبیعی. 58: 315-324.
‏نشاط،ع و صدقی،ح. 1385. برآورد میزان رواناب با استفاده از روش سازمان حفاظت خاک (SCS) و مدل HEC-HMS در حوضه آبخیز باغ ملک-استان خوزستان.‎ مجله علوم کشاورزی. 12. 4 :787-798.
Adib,A., Salarijazi,M., Vaghefi,M., Shooshtari,M.M and Akhondali,A.M. 2010. Comparison between GcIUH-Clark, GIUH-Nash, Clark-IUH, and Nash-IUH models. Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences. 34.2: 91-104.
Adib,A., Salarijazi,M and Najafpour,K. 2010. Evaluation of synthetic outlet runoff assessment models. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management. 14.3: 13-18.
Adib,A., Salarijazi,M., Shooshtari,M.M and Akhondali,A.M. 2011. Comparison between characteristics of geomorphoclimatic instantaneous unit hydrograph be produced by GcIUH based Clark Model and Clark IUH model. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. 19.2: 201-209.
Ali,S and Sharda,V.N. 2008. A comparison of curve number based methods for runoff estimation from small watersheds in a semi-arid region of India. Hydrology Research. 39.3: 191-200.
Anasik,K., Krajewski,A., Sikorska,A and Hejduk,L. 2014. Curve number estimation for a small urban catchment from recorded rainfall-runoff events. Archives of Environmental Protection. 40.3: 75-86.
Bales,J and Betson,R.P. 1981. The curve number as a hydrologic index. PP. 371-386. In: Singh,V. P. (Ed.). Rainfall Runoff Relationship, Water Resource Publications.
Beckers,J., Smerdon,B and Wilson,M. 2009. Review of hydrologic models for forest management and climate change applications in British Columbia and Alberta. FORREX- Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada.
Chen,Z., Liu,X and Zhu,B. 2014. Runoff estimation in hillslope cropland of purple soil based on SCS-CN model. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 30.7: 72-81.
Chow,V.T., Maidment,D.R and Mays,L.W. 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. 572 p.
Deshmukh,D.S., Chaube,U.C., Hailu,A.E., Gudeta,A.A and Kassa,M.T. 2013. Estimation and comparison of curve numbers based on dynamic land use land cover change, observed rainfall-runoff data and land slope. Journal of Hydrology. 492: 89-101.
Ebrahimian,M. 2012. Application of NRCS-curve number method for runoff estimation in a mountainous watershed. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences. 10.1: 103.‏
Eidipour,A., Akhondali,A.M., Zarei,H.  and Salarijazi,M. 2016. Flood hydrograph estimation using GIUH model in ungauged karst basins (Case study: Abolabbas basin). TUEXENIA. 36.3: 26-33.
Gao,Y.G., Zhu,B. andMiao,C.Y. 2006. Application of SCS model to estimate the volume of rainfall runoff in sloping field of purple soil. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin. 22.11: 396-400.
Grunwald,S and Norton,L.D. 2000. Calibration and validation of a non-point source pollution model. Agricultural Water Management. 45.1: 17-39.
Hawkins,R.H. 1993. Asymptotic determination of runoff curve numbers from data. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,. 119.2: 334-345.
Hauser,V.L and Jones,O.R. 1991. Runoff curve numbers for the Southern High Plains. Transactions of the ASAE. 34.1: 142-148.
Lal,M., Mishra,S.K., Pandey,A., Pandey,R.P., Meena,P.K., Chaudhary,A., Jha,R.K., Shreevastava,A.K and Kumar,Y. 2017. Evaluation of the Soil Conservation Service curve number methodology using data from agricultural plots. Hydrogeology Journal. 25: 151-167.
Lal,M., Mishra,S.K., Pandey,A and Kumar,Y. 2017. Runoff curve number for 36 small agricultural plots at two different climatic conditions in India. PP. 255-269. In: Garg,V., Singh,V and Raj,V. (Eds.). Development of Water Resources in India, Water Science and Technology Library. Vol. 75. Springer Cham.
Malekian,A., MohseniSaravi,M and Mahdavi,M. 2005. Applicability of the USDA-NRCS curve number method for runoff estimation. Iranian Journal of Natural Resources. 47.4: 621-634.
Menberu,M.W., Haghighi,A.T., Ronkanen,A.K., Kværner,J and Klve,B. 2015. Runoff curve numbers for peat-dominated watersheds. Journal of  Hydraulic Engineering. 20.4:04014058.
Nash,J.E and Sutcliffe,J.V. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models.part I- A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology. 10.3: 282-290.
Oliveira,P.T.S., Nearing,M.A., Hawkins,R.H., Stone,J.J., Rodrigues,D.B.B., Panachuki,E and Wendland,E. 2016. Curve number estimation from Brazilian Cerrado rainfall and runoff data. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 71.5: 420-429.
Sadeghi,S.H.R., Singh,J.K and Das,G. 2000. Rainfall-runoffrelationship model for Amameh watershed in Iran. Proceedings International Conference on Integrated Water Resources Management, New Delhi,pp. 796-804.
Sahu,R.K., Mishra,S.K and Eldho,T.I. 2010. Comparative evaluation of SCS-CN-inspired models in applications to classified datasets. Agricultural Water Management. 97.5:749-756.
Taguas,E., Yuan,Y., Licciardello,F and Gómez,J. 2015. Curve numbers for olive orchard catchments: Case study in southern Spain. Journal of Irrigationand Drainage Engineering.141.11: 683–694
Wang,J., Ding,J., Zhang,C and Zhang,Z. 2016. Runoff simulation based on SCS mode in Bortala River Basin in Xinjiang.Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 32.7: 129-135.
‏Yuan,Y., Nie,W., McCutcheon,S.C and Taguas,E.V. 2014. Initial abstraction and curve numbers for semiaridwatersheds in southeastern Arizona. Hydrological Processes. 28.3:774-783.
Zhan,X and Huang,M.L. 2004. ArcCN-Runoff: An ArcGIS tool for generating curve number and runoff maps. Environmental Modelling and Software. 19.10: 875-879.
نشریه آبیاری و زهکشی ایران
دوره 12، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 67
فروردین و اردیبهشت 1397
صفحه 143-152

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار