Advertisement

Environmental Geology

, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp 1545–1553 | Cite as

Modeling hydrological responses of karst spring to storm events: example of the Shuifang spring (Jinfo Mt., Chongqing, China)

  • Yuexia Wu
  • Yongjun Jiang
  • Daoxian Yuan
  • Linli Li
Original Article

Abstract

Reproduction of hydrographs at karst springs has been an approach of understanding the karst aquifer, which normally acts as drains for the groundwater flow. However, its numerical modeling is difficult since factors for the internal geometry and connectedness are unknown and hard to quantify. Hydrographs of the karst aquifer with well-developed conduits in Shuifang spring catchment were obtained from the automatic gauging station at the spring orifice. Data as to the conduit system were also obtained based on results and analyses of tracer tests. With these data, the hydrological responses of Shuifang spring to storm events were simulated by storm water management model (SWMM) developed by USA EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Nash–Sutcliffe efficiencies are used to compare the computed flow to the observed, which are 0.95 and 0.92 for calibration and validation. SWMM was verified and applicable in karst conduit drainage system. The model illustrated correctly quick recharge through conduits and slow and low inflow from the fissured aquifer matrix. The SCS-CN (soil conservation service-curve number) infiltration method was used for computation of losses and runoff. Field tests indicated that permeability was extremely high but different in karst area, which was less sensitive to the computed runoff when exceeded the common value provided by SWMM. Therefore, an improved quantitative infiltration model for karst area will make SWMM possible to be a useful tool for assessing and reproducing spring hydrographs.

Keywords

Karst spring Modeling SWMM Conduit flow Tracer tests 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by the National Eleventh Five-Year Supporting Program (No. 2006BAC01A16), the National Natural Science Foundation (No. 40672165), Academician foundation of Science and Technology Committee of Chongqing (Award No. 2007BC7001 to Prof. Yuan D), and the USAID-SWU China Environmental Project. Thanks are extended to Dr. Lian Y for the opportunity to use SWMM, and also to Dr. Zhang C, Dr. Goldscheider N, Lettingue M, Yang P, Wang J and Kuang Y for their help of field work, and Prof. Liu Z for his helpful comments.

References

  1. Campbell CW, Sullivan SM (2002) Simulating time-varing cave flow and water levels using the storm water management model. Eng Geol 65:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Currens JC, Graham CDR (1993) Flooding of Sinking Creek, Garretts Spring Karst drainage basin, Jessamine and Woodford countries, Kentucky, USA. Environ Geol 22:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eisenlohr L, Király L, Bouzelboudjen M, Rossier Y (1997) Numerical simulation as a tool for checking the interpretation of karst spring hydrographs. J Hydrol 193:306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Halihan T, Wicks CM (1998) Modeling of storm responses in conduit flow aquifers with reservoirs. J Hydrol 208:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaufmann G (2003a) Modeling unsaturated flow in an evolving karst aquifer. J Hydrol 276:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaufmann G (2003b) A model comparison of karst aquifer evolution for different matrix-flow formulations. J Hydrol 283:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Martin JB, Dean RW (2001) Exchange of water between conduit and matrix in the Floridan aquifer. Chem Geol 179:145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Massei N, Wang HQ, Field MS, Dupont JP, Bakalowicz M, Rodet J (2006) Interpreting tracer breakthrough tailing in a conduit-dominated karstic aquifer. Hydrogeol J 14(6):849–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part I-a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peterson EW, Wicks CM (2000) Modeling groundwater through branch work conduit systems using the storm water management model (SWMM). Eos, Transactions, AGU, vol 81, p 529Google Scholar
  11. Peterson EW, Wicks CM (2002) Sensitivity in spring discharge to changes in physical and hydrologic properties of a conduit dominated karst aquifer system. Geological Society of America Abstract with Programs, vol 34, p 227Google Scholar
  12. Peterson EW, Wicks CM (2005) Fluid and solute transport from a conduit to the matrix in a carbonate aquifer system. Math Geol 37(8):851–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peterson EW, Wicks CM (2006) Assessing the importance of conduit geometry and physical parameters in karst systems using the storm water management model (SWMM). J Hydrol 329:294–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rossman LA (2004) Stormwater management model: user’s manual, version 5.0. EPA, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  15. Singh VP, Frevert DK (2005) Watershed models. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  16. Springer GS (2004) A pipe-based, first approach to modeling closed conduit flow in caves. J Hydrol 289:178–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. USDA-SCS (1972) National engineering handbook. Soil Conservation Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Yuan D, Dai A, Cai W, Liu Z, He S, Mo X, Zhou W, Lao W (1996) Karst water system of a peak cluster catchement in south China’s bare karst region and its mathematic model. Guangxi Normal University Press, Guilin, pp 88–118 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. Zaghloul NA, Abu Kiefa MA (2001) Neutral network solution of inverse parameters used in the sensitivity-calibration analyses of the SWMM model simulations. Adv Eng Softw 32:587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang C, Jiang Y, Lian Y, Yuan D, Pei J, Jiang G, Wang J (2007) Rainfall-runoff simulation of a typical karst fengcong depression system using SWMM model—a case study of Yaji Experiment Site in Guilin. Hydrogeol Eng Geol 3 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuexia Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yongjun Jiang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daoxian Yuan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Linli Li
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Geographical SciencesSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Karst Environment and Rock Desert ControlSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  3. 3.Institue of Karst Geology, CAGSKarst Dynamics LaboratoryGuilinChina

Personalised recommendations