4.1 Article

Application of a Hydrological Model for Estimating Infiltration for Debris Flow Initiation: A Case Study from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING GEOSCIENCE
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 93-111

Publisher

GEOLOGICAL SOC AMER, INC

Keywords

Rainfall-Runoff Simulation; Infiltration; Rain Gauge; Weather Radar; Hydrological Modeling; Debris Flows

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares gauge and radar data to simulate infiltration and analyze debris flow occurrence in remote areas of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee. The results show that weather radar is a valuable tool for estimating rainfall intensity, duration, runoff, and infiltration.
Debris flows occur frequently in remote areas of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee. Rainfall gauges are not adequate for modeling infiltration required for triggering debris flows. Weather radar, providing frequently updated, continuous coverage, is a valuable tool for estimating rainfall intensity, duration, runoff, and infiltration. Daily rainfall from a sole gauge was compared with hourly rainfall from the Digital Precipitation Array weather radar product to model infiltration on August 5, 2012, the day before a debris flow was known to have occurred in the 91-km(2) West Prong Little Pigeon River watershed. Additionally, both gauge and radar data were used for rainfall-runoff-infiltration modeling for a 42-day period in July and August 2012. Runoff and infiltration were simulated using the conventional semi-distributed hydrological model HEC-HMS. A local bias correction of radar rainfall at the gauge location improved correlation between the radar rainfall and the gauge data. Peak daily rainfall for the August 5 storm was 93 mm (gauge) and 98 mm (radar), whereas average daily rainfall for the 42-day period was 10 mm and 7.75 mm, respectively. Over the study period, simulated daily infiltration declined from 28 mm to 0.5 mm

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available