Baseflow and Streamflow Simulation Applying Baseflow Recession Constants in Individual Sub-watersheds

소유역 별 기저유출 감수상수를 적용한 유량 및 기저유출 모의

  • Han, Jeong Ho (Department of Regional Infrastructures Engineering, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lim, Kyoung Jae (Department of Regional Infrastructures Engineering, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Jung, Younghun (Department of Construction & Disaster Prevention Engineering, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2017.09.27
  • Accepted : 2017.10.24
  • Published : 2017.11.30


This study attempted to improve the accuracy of streamflow and baseflow prediction of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) by applying baselfow recession constants for each sub-watershed. This study set two different scenarios (S1 and S2) to evaluate the impact of application of baseflow recession constants for each sub-watershed on streamflow prediction. In S1, Only the baseflow recession constant obtained from the streamflow station located in the final outlet of study area was applied for whole sub-watersheds. In S2, baseflow recession constants obtained from six different streamflow stations were applied for each sub-watershed. Then, baseflow was separated form the measured streamflow data and the predicted streamflow of S1 and S2 using Web-based Hydrograph Analysis Tool (WHAT). The results showed Nash-Sutcliff efficiency (NSE) and $R^2$ of S2 were a little higher than these of S1 in both streamflow and baseflow prediction results. However, it is important that S2 reflected physical meaning of baseflow recess. Also, recession part of hydrograph in S2 was calibrated better than that of S1 compared to the measured hydrograph.



Supported by : 국토교통과학기술진흥원


  1. Ahiablame, L.M., B.A. Engel, and I. Chaubey, 2013. Effectiveness of low impact development practices in two urbanized watersheds: Retrofitting with rain barrel/cistern and porous pavement, Journal of environmental management 119(15): 151-161.
  2. Arnold, J.G., R.S. Muttiah, R. Srinivasan, and P.M. Allen, 2000. Regional estimation of base flow and groundwater recharge in the Upper Mississippi river basin. Journal of Hydrology 227(1): 21-40.
  3. Boskidis, I., G.D. Gikas, G.K. Sylaios, and V.A. Tsihruntzis, 2012. Hydrologic and water quality modeling of lower nestos river basin. Water Resource Management 26: 3023-3051.
  4. Cho, S.H. 2006. Computation of baseflow contribution to streamflow using environmental tracers in three small catchments Yuseong, Daejeon. PhD Diss, Choongnam National University, Deajeon (in Korean).
  5. Hong, J. K.J. Lim, Y. Shin, and Y. Jung, 2015. Quantifying contribution of direct runoff and baseflow to rivers in Han river system, South Korea, Journal of Korea Water Resource Association 48(4): 309-319 (in Korean).
  6. Han, J.H., K.J. Lim, and Y. 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).
  7. Han, J.H., T.S. Ryu, K.J. Lim, and Y.H. Jung, 2016. A review of baseflow analysis techniques of watershed-scale runoff models. Journal of The Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers 58(4): 75-83 (in Korean).
  8. Kang, D.S., 2011. Study on the change of river discharge and baseflow considering urbanization and climate change. MS diss., Kookmin University, Seoul, Korea (in Korean).
  9. Lee, G., Y. Shin, and Y. Jung, 2011. Development of webbased RECESS model for estimating baseflow using SWAT. Sustainability 6(4): 2357-2378.
  10. Lee, S.C., H.Y. Kim, H.J. Kim, J.H. Han, S.J. Kim, J. Kim, and K.J. Lim, 2017. Analysis of baseflow contribution based on time-scales using various baseflow separation methods, Journal of the Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers 59(2): 1-11 (in Korean).
  11. Liddle, R.G. 1998. Recharge and discharge calculations to characterize the groundwater hydrologic balance. Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation 41-53.
  12. 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.
  13. Nash, J.E. and J.E. Sutcliffe, 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. part I-A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology 10(3): 282-290.
  14. 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.
  15. Parajuli, P.B., N.O. Nelson, L.D. Frees, and K.R. Mankin, 2009. Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT model simulation results in USDA‐CEAP agricultural watersheds in south-central Kansas. Hydrological Processes 23(5): 748-763.
  16. Santhi, C., J.G., Arnold, J.R., Williams, W.A., Dugas, R. Srinivasan, and L.M. Hauck, 2001. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37: 1169-1188 (in Korean).
  17. Yi, J., S. Kim, T. Lee, and J. Ji, 2012. Design flood estimation for pyeongchang river basin using fuzzy regression method. Journal of Korea Water Resources Association 45(10): 1023- 1034 (in Korean).
  18. 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.