Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMason-Deese, Williamen_US
dc.contributor.authorDowd, John F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCary, Richard H.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-22T23:31:10Z
dc.date.available2013-07-22T23:31:10Z
dc.date.issued2013-04
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1853/48518
dc.descriptionProceedings of the 2013 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 10-11, 2013, Athens, Georgia.en_US
dc.description.abstractAquatic Stormflow is defined as flow resulting directly from a storm event, while baseflow is thought to be groundwater flow that continuously occurs, most predominantly during non-storm periods. While conceptually these concepts are convenient, it is difficult to ascertain the actual flow paths of each component. In this paper we will compare common digital filters used to estimate baseflow with a geochemically derived baseflow separation. A Dynamic End Member Mixing Analysis (DEMMA) on Panola Mountain, Georgia was used by Cary (2011) to separate four stream flow components using naturally occurring chemical tracers for 22 storm events. DEMMA relies on intensive runoff and chemical sampling, and uses the flow and chemistry hysteresis to separate the hydrograph. Several digital filters were compared to the DEMMA hydrographs. While parameterized differently, each was a recursive procedure that acts as a low pass filter. In general the digital filters over estimate true baseflow for Panola (that is, true groundwater flow), and more closely resemble contributions from subsurface flow (that is soil) pathways. The one parameter filters are insensitive to calibration, although simple to use because the parameter is usually not modified. The two parameter filter (Eckhardt, 2005) was more robust in its range, but sensitive to calibration. This research provides some insight into the flow paths the digital filters may be approximating.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSponsored by: Georgia Environmental Protection Division; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Water Resources Institute; The University of Georgia, Water Resources Faculty.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityThis book was published by Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2152. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Research Institutes Authorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-307) or the other conference sponsors.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherGeorgia Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesGWRI2013. Climate, Floods, & Droughtsen_US
dc.subjectWater resources managementen_US
dc.subjectAquatic stormflowen_US
dc.subjectBaseflow estimationsen_US
dc.subjectGeochemical separationen_US
dc.subjectDigital filter hydrograph separationen_US
dc.titleComparison of Digital Filter Hydrograph Separation with Geochemical Separationen_US
dc.typeProceedingsen_US
dc.contributor.corporatenameUniversity of Georgia. Dept. of Geologyen_US
dc.embargo.termsnullen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record