Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Frankenberger - Tile Drainage in SWAT

    Uploaded by

    Ajay Sah
    Tile drainage accounts for over 50% of streamflow in many Midwest watersheds. SWAT models tile drainage using routines that simulate tile flow using the Houghoudt and Kirkham drainage equations and a drainage coefficient. This allows partitioning of flow pathways into lateral flow, surface runoff, groundwater, and tile flow. Remaining needs in SWAT tile drainage modeling include separately simulating the impermeable layer depth and permeability, and phosphorus transport through macropores. Modeling conservation practice effects on tile drainage and at the watershed scale also requires further development.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Frankenberger - Tile Drainage in SWAT

    Uploaded by

    Ajay Sah
    24 views30 pages
    Tile drainage accounts for over 50% of streamflow in many Midwest watersheds. SWAT models tile drainage using routines that simulate tile flow using the Houghoudt and Kirkham drainage equations and a drainage coefficient. This allows partitioning of flow pathways into lateral flow, surface runoff, groundwater, and tile flow. Remaining needs in SWAT tile drainage modeling include separately simulating the impermeable layer depth and permeability, and phosphorus transport through macropores. Modeling conservation practice effects on tile drainage and at the watershed scale also requires further development.

    Original Description:

    Ganesh

    Original Title

    Frankenberger_Tile-drainage-in-SWAT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tile drainage accounts for over 50% of streamflow in many Midwest watersheds. SWAT models tile drainage using routines that simulate tile flow using the Houghoudt and Kirkham drainage equations and a drainage coefficient. This allows partitioning of flow pathways into lateral flow, surface runoff, groundwater, and tile flow. Remaining needs in SWAT tile drainage modeling include separately simulating the impermeable layer depth and permeability, and phosphorus transport through macropores. Modeling conservation practice effects on tile drainage and at the watershed scale also requires further development.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    24 views30 pages

    Frankenberger - Tile Drainage in SWAT

    Uploaded by

    Ajay Sah
    Tile drainage accounts for over 50% of streamflow in many Midwest watersheds. SWAT models tile drainage using routines that simulate tile flow using the Houghoudt and Kirkham drainage equations and a drainage coefficient. This allows partitioning of flow pathways into lateral flow, surface runoff, groundwater, and tile flow. Remaining needs in SWAT tile drainage modeling include separately simulating the impermeable layer depth and permeability, and phosphorus transport through macropores. Modeling conservation practice effects on tile drainage and at the watershed scale also requires further development.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 30

    Tile drainage in SWAT

    (Plus a little about our Lake Erie Basin projects)

    Jane Frankenberger
    Dept. of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Purdue University
    With contributions from Chelsie Boles and Daniel Moriasi
    Outline
    Hydrologic effects of tile drainage in
    Midwest landscapes
    Factors controlling tile flow
    SWAT drainage routines
    Remaining needs

    Our SWAT project in the Upper Maumee


    River Watershed

    Photo from Gary Sands


    Hydrologic effects of tile
    drainage in Midwest landscapes
     Tile drainage is more than 50% of flow in many
    watersheds
     Boles reviewed field-scale studies and found
    average tile flow to be 23% of precipitation
    – Total streamflow 33% of precipitation (in Ind.)
     Only a portion of a watershed is drained
    – If 50% tile-drained, avg 12%
     Highly variable, depending on drain spacing,
    depth, soils, etc.
    Tile drain flow is stormflow

    X
    Surface
    Runoff?
    Surface runoff lasts a few hours; Tile flow lasts
    a few days. Both are hydrograph peaks
    2.0
    1.8
    Surface runoff Tile Flow
    1.6
    1.4
    Flow, cms

    1.2
    1.0
    0.8
    0.6
    0.4
    0.2
    0.0
    Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06
    Tile flow is water that has infiltrated;
    Curve number needs to reflect that.
    SCS Curve number was developed to
    reproduce the hydrograph
    It is empirical with no physical basis
    Logically, if it is used to separate surface
    runoff and infiltration, it needs to be greatly
    reduced in tile-drained landscapes, often
    by 30% or more
    4. 1.
    FactorsSaturated
    Impermeable
    2. Surface
    hydraulic
    controlling
    layer
    roughnesstile
    – drain
    depth
    3. Drainage coefficient
    conductivity (size
    of the soilof tiles)
    but flow
    especially permeability
    SWAT tile drainage routines
    Older version (since at least SWAT2005)
    based on drawdown time
    – Defined TDRAIN as the time to drain soils to
    field capacity, set by the user as a static
    parameter.
    – GDRAIN, a lag coefficient
    – Large storm or small, the time of drainage is
    the same.
    SWAT tile drainage routines
    Moriasi et al. (2007a) developed a new
    drainage simulation method using the
    Houghoudt and Kirkham drainage
    equations and a drainage coefficient
    – Some call this the “DRAINMOD routines”
    – I think H-K-DC would be a good term
    Hooghoudt - when water table
    below the surface (no surface flow)
    Kirkham – when water table
    above the surface

    Surface flow towards the


    drains an important Surface roughness was
    pathway. Controlled by originally simulated
    surface roughness. dynamically using a VERY
    complex method. After 537
    a static, user-defined
    version available (and
    highly recommended).
    Drainage coefficient – recognizes that
    pipes can convey a limited amount of water

    Photo: Dan jaynes


    Drainage parameters in the .sdr file
    15.00 | re: effective radius of drains (mm)
    20000.00 | sdrain: distance between two drain tiles (mm)
    10.00 | drain_co: drainage coefficient (mm/day)
    0.00 | pc: pump capacity (mm/hr)
    1.00 | latksatf: multi factor for later conductivity
    12.50 | sstmaxd: Static maximum depressional storage
    (mm)
    Resulting partition of flow pathways
    2.0 Lateral Groundwater
    1.8 Surface runoff Tile Flow
    1.6
    1.4
    Flow, cms

    1.2
    1.0
    0.8
    0.6
    0.4
    0.2
    0.0
    Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06
    Remaining Needs
    The impermeable layer – Depth
    and permeability need to be separated
     “DEP_IMP” described as a depth, but actually
    controls permeability (seepage through the layer)
    Seepage factor
    should generally
    be < 0.01.
    Drainage is highly
    sensitive to this
    factor
    Simulating phosphorus in tile
    drains
    Need to simulate
    through macropores

    Photo: SWLab at Cornell


    Drainage water management

     Control structures placed


    in main drain lines
     Gives the potential to
    control the height of the
    drain outlet.
    Drainage water management

    Drainage needed is not the same throughout the year.


    In winter, drainage is not needed.
    In spring, maximum drainage is needed to
    get into the field
    Holding back water in the summer can help
    the crop
    Cumulative Impacts of
    BMP Implementation
    in the Upper Maumee Watershed

    Dr. Indrajeet Chaubey Dr. Young Gu Her


    Project Director Post-Doctoral Researcher

    Agricultural and Biological Engineering


    Purdue University
    Overall Project Goal
    Watershed modeling to inform watershed management
    1. Estimate potential water quality
    improvements due to the installation of
    conservation practices.
    2. Work with watershed groups to use and
    benefit from modeling results in their
    watershed management plans
    Working with partners
    in three 8-digit HUCs
     St. Joseph River Watershed
    Initiative
     St. Marys River Watershed
    Project
     Upper Maumee Watershed
    Project
     Allen County Soil and Water
    Conservation District
     Maumee River Basin Commission
     USDA – NRCS
     Input data:
    Point Sources
    (Wastewater
    Treatment
    Plants)
    EPA-ECHO point source
    – Discharge by month
    70
    2008 2009 2010 2011 ave
    60

    50
    Discharge (MGD)

    40

    30

    20

    10

    0
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    Month
    EPA-ECHO point source –
    Phosphorus by month
    0.9
    2008 2009 2010 2011 ave
    0.8

    0.7

    0.6
    TP (mg/L)

    0.5

    0.4

    0.3

    0.2

    0.1

    0.0
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    Month
    Effect of conservation practices if
    implemented on all appropriate land

    Load Reduction (%)


    BMPs Dissolved
    Sediment Total P Nitrate N Total N
    P
    Cover
    26 - 68 5 - 17 14 - 49 16 - 31 31 - 43
    crops
    Filter
    36 - 40 30 - 32 32 - 36 5-6 19 - 22
    strips
    No-till 13 - 19 -14 - 19 1-8 -7 - 1 0-7
    WASCOBs 13 - 43 4 - 10 7 - 47 -3 - -1 3 - 16
    Practices actually implemented in
    the St. Joseph Watershed
     Through an MOU with
    NRCS we were able to
    receive practice
    information (with D. Smith,
    ARS)
     Information on 10,028
    conservation practices
     Identified those likely to
    have a water quality effect
    that can be simulated.
    Number of
    Practice Area (ac)
    Fields
    Conservation Crop Rotation (328*) 1,418 40,538
    No Till (329 + 329A+SOE01) 1,408 40,409
    Nutrient Management (590+ENM) 1,105 35,487
    Conservation Cover (327) 541 7,348
    Cover Crop (340+WQL10+SQL02) 232 6,717
    Filter Strip (393) 309 4,760
    Biomass Planting (512) 133 1,750
    Field Border (386) 88 1,730
    Split N application (WQL07) 49 1,362
    Mulch Till (329B+345) 50 1,148
    WASCOB (638) 10 756
    Total 5,583 148,104
    Nutrient and sediment reductions are different
    between field and watershed scales.
    Field Scale (Load
    Acres Watershed
    Water reduction in areas
    Conservation Treated in Scale (as % of
    Quality applied)
    Practices Watershed total watershed
    Parameter
    (acre) loading) (%)
    (%)
    Conservation TN 81.9% 0.2%
    Cover (327)
    2,372 TP 99.4% 0.3%
    (High effectiveness
    but little
    Sediment 99.1% 0.3%
    implementation)
    No Till
    TN 5.2% 0.5%
    (329+329A)
    (Low effectiveness
    19,781 TP 10.5% 1.2%
    for nutrients, but
    much
    Sediment 17.4% 1.4%
    implementation)
    Conclusion: The tile drain routines in SWAT
    allow us to more accurately simulate processes
    and practice effects; Remaining needs include:
    1. Separating impermeable layer depth and
    permeability
    2. Phosphorus flow through macropores (and
    outputs of tile drain phosphorus)
    Looking forward to the discussions!

    You might also like