Advertisement

Evaluation of TanDEMx and SRTM DEM on watershed simulated runoff estimation

  • Chokkavarapu Nagaveni
  • K Pavan Kumar
  • Mandla Venkata RavibabuEmail author
Article
  • 188 Downloads

Abstract

In hydrological models, digital elevation models (DEMs) are being used to extract stream network and delineation of the watershed. DEMs represent elevation surfaces of earth landscape. Spatial resolution refers to the dimension of the cell size representing the area covered on the ground. Spatial resolution is the main parameter of a DEM. The grid cell size of raster DEM has significant effects on derived terrain variables such as slope, aspect, curvature, the wetness index, etc. Selection of appropriate spatial resolution DEM depends on other input data being used in the model, type of application and analysis that needs to be performed, the size of the database and response time. Each DEM contains inherent errors due to the method of acquisition and processing. The accuracy of each DEM varies with spatial resolution. The present paper deals with Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), TerraSAR-X add-on for Digital Elevation Measurements (TanDEM DEMs) and compares their watershed delineation, slope, stream network and height with ground control points. It was found that the coarse resolution DEM-derived attributes and terrain morphological characteristics were strongly influenced by DEM accuracy. The objective of the present study is to investigate the impact of DEM resolution on topographic parameters and runoff estimation using TanDEM-12, TanDEM-30 and SRTM-90 m with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. The analysis of the results using different DEM resolutions gave a varied number of sub-basins, Hydrological Response Units (HRUs) and watershed areas. The results were optimum at a specific threshold value as extraction of drainage network has a significant influence on simulated results. The accuracy of DEM is important, as the source of construction of DEM is the main factor causing uncertainty in the output. The results showed variable amounts of runoff at the watershed level, which may be attributed to varied stream lengths, minimum and maximum elevations and sub-basin areas.

Keywords

Watershed hydrology DEM SWAT runoff TanDEMx SRTM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank DLR Germany for providing TanDEMx for research work (Project no. DEM_HYDR1630). Also, thanks to the CWC for providing the weather data from meteorological stations, runoff; the NRSC for providing stream network of 1:50,000 scale (WRIS); and the DES for providing ground control point location heights. Thanks to Dr Xuan Zhu (Monash University, Australia) and Dr Sainu Franco (Arba Minch University, Ethiopia) for language and technical correction of this paper. Thanks to anonymous reviewers for their critical reviews and constructive comments.

References

  1. Arnold J G, Srinivasan R, Muttiah R S and Williams J R 1998 Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34(1) 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azizian A and Shokoohi A 2014 DEM resolution and stream delineation threshold effects on the results of geomorphologic-based rainfall runoff models; Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 38(1) 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolch T and Kamp U 2006 Glacier mapping in high mountains using DEMs, Landsat and ASTER data; Grazer Sch. Geogr. Raumfo. 41 37–48.Google Scholar
  4. Chaplot V 2005 Impact of DEM mesh size and soil map scale on SWAT runoff, sediment, and NO\(_3\)–N loads predictions; J. Hydrol. 312(1) 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaubey I, Cotter A S, Costello T A and Soerens T S 2005 Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty; Hydrol. Process. 19(3) 621–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chong L and Dawen Y 2004 Deriving drainage networks and catchment boundaries from Grid Digital Elevation Model; J. China Ins. Water Resour. Hydro. Res. 2(3) 208–214.Google Scholar
  7. Cotter A S, Chaubey I, Costello T A, Soerens T S and Nelson M A 2003 Water quality model output uncertainty as affected by spatial resolution of input data; J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 39(4) 977–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gassman P W, Reyes M R, Green C H and Arnold J G 2007 The soil and water assessment tool: Historical development, applications, and future research directions; Trans. ASABE 50(4) 1211–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghaffari G 2011 The impact of DEM resolution on runoff and sediment modelling results; Res. J. Env. Sci. 5(8) 691–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gitau M W and Chaubey I 2010 Regionalization of SWAT model parameters for use in ungauged watersheds; Water 2(4) 849–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jain K, Ravibabu M V, Shafi J A and Singh S P 2009 Using rational polynomial coefficients (RPC) to generate digital elevation models – A comparative study; Appl. GIS 5(2) 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Mamillapalli S, Srinivasan R, Arnold J G and Engel B A 1996 Effect of spatial variability on basin scale modelling; In: Proceedings, third international conference/workshop on integrating GIS and environmental modelling, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  13. Moriasi D N, Arnold J G, Van Liew M W, Bingner R L, Harmel R D and Veith T L 2007 Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations; Am. Soc. Agr. Bio. Eng. 50(3) 885–900.Google Scholar
  14. Moriasi D N, Wilson B N, Douglas-Mankin K R, Arnold J G and Gowda P H 2012 Hydrologic and water quality models: Use, calibration, and validation; Am. Soc. Agr. Bio. Eng. 55(4) 1241–1247.Google Scholar
  15. Neitsch S L, Arnold J G, Kiniry J R, Williams J R and King K W 2005 Soil and water assessment tool (version 2000)–theoretical documentation, Temple, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Neitsch S L, Arnold J G, Kiniry J R and Williams J R 2011 Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009, Texas Water Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  17. O’Callaghan J F and Mark D M 1984 The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data; Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Proc. 28(3) 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Paul D, Nagaveni C H, Vani V, Mandla V R and Singh T 2015 Study of error analysis and the effects of resampling on different DEMs; Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 11(4) 72–84.Google Scholar
  19. Paul D, Mandla V R and Singh T 2017 Quantifying and modelling of stream network using digital elevation models; Ain Shams Eng. J. 8(3) 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ravibabu M V and Jain K 2008 Digital elevation model accuracy aspects; J. Appl. Sci. 8(1) 134–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ravibabu M V, Jain K, Singh S P and Meeniga N J 2010 Accuracy improvement of ASTER stereo satellite generated DEM using texture filter; Geo. Spat. Infor. Sci. 13(4) 257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rawat K S, Mishra A K, Sehgal V K, Ahmed N and Tripathi V K 2013 Comparative evaluation of horizontal accuracy of elevations of selected ground control points from ASTER and SRTM DEM with respect to CARTOSAT-1 DEM: A case study of Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India; Geocarto Int. 28(5) 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reddy A S and Reddy M J 2015 Evaluating the influence of spatial resolutions of DEM on watershed runoff and sediment yield using SWAT; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 124(7) 1517–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sánchez E P and Villarán R F 2012 SRTM 3” comparison with local information: Two examples at national level in Peru; J. Appl. Geodyn. 6(2) 75–81.Google Scholar
  25. Saxton K E and Rawls W J 2006 Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions; Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70(5) 1569–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SCS 1972 Hydrology; National engineering handbook; USDA – Soil Conservation Services, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Tan M L, Ficklin D L, Dixon B, Yusop Z and Chaplot V 2015 Impacts of DEM resolution, source, and resampling technique on SWAT-simulated stream flow; Appl. Geogr. 63 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolock D M and Price C V 1994 Effects of digital elevation model map scale and data resolution on a topography-based watershed model; Water Resour. Res. 30(11) 3041–3052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wu M, Shi P, Chen A, Shen C and Wang P 2017 Impacts of DEM resolution and area threshold value uncertainty on the drainage network derived using SWAT; Water 43(3) 450–462.Google Scholar
  30. Zhang J and Chu X 2015 Impact of DEM resolution on puddle characterization: Comparison of different surfaces and methods; Water 7(5) 2293–2313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang W and Montgomery D R 1994 Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations; Water Resour. Res. 30(4) 1019–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chokkavarapu Nagaveni
    • 1
  • K Pavan Kumar
    • 2
  • Mandla Venkata Ravibabu
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management (CDMM)VIT UniversityVelloreIndia
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringVIT UniversityVelloreIndia
  3. 3.CGARD, School of Science, Technology and Knowledge SystemsNational Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRD&PR), Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of IndiaHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations