A Review of Baseflow Analysis Techniques of Watershed-Scale Runoff Models

유역단위 유출 모형 별 기저유출 분석 기법 검토

Han, Jeong Ho;Ryu, Tae Sang;Lim, Kyoung Jae;Jung, Young Hun

  • Received : 2016.07.14
  • Accepted : 2016.07.28
  • Published : 2016.07.31


Streamflow is composed of baseflow and direct runoff. However, most of streamflow during dry seasons depends on baseflow. Thus, baseflow analysis is very important to simulate streamflow of dry seasons. Generally, baseflow analysis is conducted using watershed-scale runoff models due to diffilculty of measuring baseflow. However, it is needed to understand and review how the model simulates baseflow because each model uses inherent baseflow analysis techniques. In this study, SWAT, HSPF, PRMS-IV were reviewed focusing on baseflow and soil water. HSPF and PRMS-IV calculate baseflow using the variables which depends on user, so the baseflow analysis results of HSPF and PRMS-IV are not consistent. Moreover, soil structures which were assumed from HSPF and PRMS-IV, since these two models assume soil structure as two soil zones and three conceptual reservoirs, were not enough to describe real soil structure. On the other hand, baseflow in SWAT is calculated using baseflow recession constant which can consider the characteristics of aquifer and also, soil structure in SWAT is similar to real soil structures. Thus, baseflow analysis result from SWAT was concluded as the most suitable and reliable model because SWAT can reflect the characteristics and soil structure which is close to reality.


Runoff model;Baseflow saparation;SWAT;HSPF;PRMS-IV


  1. Albek, M., U.B. Ogutveren, and E. Albek, 2004. Hydrological modeling of Seydi Suyu watershed (Turkey) with HSPF. Journal of Hydrology 285(1): 260-271.
  2. Arnold, J.G., and P.M. Allen, 1999. Automated methods for estimating baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records1, Wiley Online Library.
  3. Atkins, J.T., J.B. Wiley, and K.S. Paybins, 2005. Calibration parameters used to simulate streamflow from application of the Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN model (HSPF) to mountainous basins containing coal mines in West Virginia, US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.
  4. Bae, D., and S. Ha, 2011. Assessing impact of reduction of non-point source pollution by BASINS/HSPF. Evironment Impact Assessment 20(1): 71-78 (In Korean).
  5. Brodie, R.S., and S. Hostetler, 2005. A review of techniques for analysing baseflow from stream hydrographs. Proceedings of the NZHS-IAH-NZSSS 2005 conference 28.
  6. Brun, S.E., and E. Lawrence. Band, 2000. Simulating runoff behavior in an urbanizing watershed. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24(1): 5-22.
  7. Caldwell, P.V., J.G. Kennen, G. Sun, J.E. Kiang, J.B. Butcher, M.C. Eddy, L.E. Hay, J.H. LaFontaine, E.F. Hain, and S.A. Nelson, 2015. A comparison of hydrologic models for ecological flows and water availability. Ecohydrology 8(8): 1525-1546.
  8. Chalise, D.R., 2013. Evaluating temporal and spatial scale issues with hydrologic models in the Black hills, South Dakota, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.
  9. Cherkauer, D.S., 2004. Quantifying ground water recharge at multiple scales using PRMS and GIS. Ground Water 42(1): 97-110.
  10. Cho, J., V.A, Barone, and S. Mostaghimi, 2005. Simulation of land use impacts on groundwater levels and streamflow in a Virginia watershed. Agricultural water management 96(10): 1-11.
  11. Cho, S.H., 2006. Computation of baseflow contribution to streamflow using environmental tracers in three small catchments Yuseong, Daejeon. Ph.D. Diss., Choongnam National University.
  12. Dams, J., J. Nossent, T. Senbeta, P. Willems, and O. Batelaan, 2015. Multi-model approach to assess the impact of climate change on runoff. Journal of Hydrology 529: 1601-1616.
  13. Golmohammadi, G., S. Prasher, A. Madani, and R. Rudra, 2014. Evaluating three hydrological distributed watershed models: MIKE-SHE, APEX, SWAT. Hydrology 1(1): 20-39.
  14. Gupta, V.K. and Sorooshian, S, 1983. Uniqueness and observability of conceptual rainfall-runoff model parameters: The percolation process examined. Water Resources Research 19(1): 269-276.
  15. Han, J. H., K. J. Lim, and Y. H. Jung, 2016. A study on relationship between streamflow variability and baseflow contribution in Nakdong river basin. Journal of the Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers 58(1): 27-38 (In Korean).
  16. Kihubyeonhwa daeeung mirae sujawonjeonryak, 2010, Ministry of Construction Transportation.
  17. Leavesley, G., L. Stannard, and V. Singh, 1995. The precipitationrunoff modeling system-PRMS. Computer models of watershed hydrology: 281-310.
  18. Lee, G., Y. Shin, and Y. Jung, 2014. Development of Web-based RECESS model for estimating baseflow using SWAT. Sustainability 6(4): 2357-2378.
  19. Lim, K. J., B. A. Engel, Z. Tang, J. Choi, K. S. Kim, S. Muthukrishnan, and D. Tripathy, 2005. Automated web gis based hydrograph analysis tool, WHAT1, Wiley Online Library.
  20. Lee, K. Karl, and C. John, Risley, 2002. Estimates of ground-water recharge, base flow, and stream reach gains and losses in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.
  21. Luo, Y., J. Arnold, P. Allen, and X. Chen, 2012. Baseflow simulation using SWAT model in an inland river basin in Tianshan Mountains, Northwest China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16(4): 1259-1267.
  22. Markstrom, S. L., R. S. Regan, L. E. Hay, R. J. Viger, R. M. Webb, R. A. Payn, and J. H. LaFontaine, 2015. PRMS-IV, the precipitation-runoff modeling system, version 4. US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, 6-B7.
  23. Neitsch, S., J. Arnold, J. Kiniry, R. Srinivasan, and J. Williams, 2010. Soil and Water Assessment Tool. User's Manual, Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, Technical Report.
  24. Peterson, J., and J. Hamlett, 1998. Hydrologic calibration of the SWAT model in a watershed containing fragipan soils1, Wiley Online Library.
  25. Rutledge, A., 1998. Computer programs for describing the recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating mean ground-water recharge and discharge from streamflow records: Update, US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.
  26. Ryu, J., 2016. Development and Evaluation of ArcGIS-based watershed-scale Long-term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) ACN-WQ system. Ph.D. Diss., Kangwon National University.
  27. Ryu, J., J. W. Choi, H. Kang, D. Gum, D. S. Shin, K. H. Lee, G. Jeong, and K. J. Lim, 2012a. Evaluation of groundwater recharge rate for land uses at Mandae stream watershed using SWAT HRU Mapping module. Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment 28(5): 743-753 (In Korean).
  28. Ryu, J., H. Kang, J. W. Choi, D. S. Kong, D. Gum, C. H. Jnag, and K. J. Lim, 2012b. Application of SWAT-CUP for streamflow auto-calibration at Soyang-gang dam watershed. Journal of Korean Society on Water Environment 28(3): 347-358 (In Korean).
  29. Said, A., M. Ross, and K. Trout, 2007. Calibration of HSPF using active ground water storage. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: 342-342.
  30. Said, A., D. K. Stevens, and G. Sehlke, 2005. Estimating water budget in a regional aquifer using HSPF-MODFLOW intergrated MODEL1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41(1): 55-66.
  31. Saleh, A., and B. Du, 2004. Evaluation of SWAT and HSPF within BASINS program for the upper North Bosque River watershed in central Texas. Transactions of the ASAE 47(4): 1039.
  32. Singh, J., H. V. Knapp, J. Arnold, and M. Demissie, 2005. Hydrological modeling of the iroquois river watershed using HSPF and SWAT1, Wiley Online Library.
  33. Sloto, R. A. and M. Y. Crouse, 1996. HYSEP, a computer program for streamflow hydrograph separation and analysis, US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.
  34. Sobel, R., H. Rifai, and T. Petersen, 2015. Refinement and application of a coupled tidal prism model with HSPF for managing bacterial water quality impairment in a coastal watershed. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 197: 201-209.
  35. Spruill, C., S. Workman, and J. Taraba, 2000. Simulation of daily and monthly stream discharge from small watersheds using the SWAT model. Transactions of the ASAE 43(6): 1431.
  36. Sujawonjabgkijonghapkyehoek, 2006, Ministry of Construction Transportation.
  37. Sujawonjabgkijonghapkyehoek, 2011, Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.
  38. Srinivasan, Raghavan, Xuesong Zhang, and Jeffrey Arnold, 2010. SWAT ungauged: hydrological budget and crop yield predictions in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Transactions of the ASABE 53(5): 1533-1546.
  39. Verma, A. K., M. K. Jha, and R. K. Mahana, 2010. Evaluation of HEC-HMS and WEPP for simulating watershed runoff using remote sensing and geographical information system. Paddy and Water Environment 8(2): 131-144.
  40. Zhang, X., R. Srinivasan, J. Arnold, R. C. Izaurralde, and D. Bosch, 2011. Simultaneous calibration of surface flow and baseflow simulations: a revisit of the SWAT model calibration framework. Hydrological Processes 25(14): 2313-2320.


Supported by : 국토교통부