Premium
Karst Hydrological Processes and Grey System Model 1
Author(s) -
Hao Yonghong,
Zhao Jiaojuan,
Li Huamin,
Cao Bibo,
Li Zhongtang,
Yeh TianChyi J.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00640.x
Subject(s) - karst , hydrology (agriculture) , environmental science , water resource management , geology , geotechnical engineering , paleontology
Hao, Yonghong, Jiaojuan Zhao, Huamin Li, Bibo Cao, Zhongtang Li, and Tian‐Chyi J. Yeh, 2012. Karst Hydrological Processes and Grey System Model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(4): 656‐666. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2012.00640.x Abstract: The karst hydrological processes are the response of karst groundwater system to precipitation. This study provided a concept model of karst hydrological processes. The hydraulic response time of spring discharge to precipitation includes the time that precipitation penetrates through the vadose zone, and the subsequent groundwater pressure wave propagates to a spring outlet. Due to heterogeneities in karst aquifers, the hydraulic response time is different in different areas. By using grey system theory, we proposed a karst hydrological model that offers a calculation of hydraulic response time, and a response model of spring discharge to precipitation. Then, we applied the models to the Liulin Springs Basin, China. In the south part of the Liulin Springs Basin, where large fields of carbonate rocks outcrop with intensive karstification, the hydraulic response time is one year. In the north, where the Ordovician karst aquifer is covered by Quaternary loess sediments, the response time is seven years. The grey system GM(1,3) response model of spring discharge to precipitation was applied in consideration of the hydraulic response time. The model calibration showed that the average error was 6.55%, and validation showed that the average error was 12.19%.