Comparing the effects of different filtering formulas on base flow separation based on daily flow data (Case study: West Rivers of Urmia Lake)

Document Type : Research Article


1 Water Engineering Department , Urmia University

2 Ph.D. student of water resource engineering, Water Engineering Department, University of Urmia

3 M.Sc. graduate of water resource management, Civil Engineering Department


The purpose of this study was to compare the different baseflow extraction methods based on the five hydrometric stations data during 2001-2011 located in the west of Lake Urmia. For this purpose, Fixed Interval Method, Sliding Interval Method, Local Minimum, Lyne and Hollick algorithm with four numerical filters and Eckhardt algorithm with two numerical filters were used. Then, baseflow index values were analyzed by the absolute mean error, flow correlation and root mean squares. The results revealed that the average annual index for all stations in the whole period fluctuated between 74.5 and 89.8. So, this value is indicating the high contribution of subsurface flow in supplying of the river flow in the study region. As a result, the method of Lyne and Hollick algorithm with a numerical filter of 0.9 and, besides it, Eckhart with the filter of 0.9 is the most suitable methods and can be useful in the absence of tracing with chemicals to extract the base flow in the study area. After choosing the best method, the base flow at the Band, Babaroud and Tapik stations were calculated using longterm flow data and dam and agricultural consumptions impact on baseflow also discussed. The annual trend of Band station's baseflow was then evaluated using Mann-Kendall test. The results of the trend analysis indicate that the baseflow of this station has a severe downward trend.


Main Subjects

1- Fröhlich K, Fröhlich W, Wittenberg H. Determination of groundwater recharge by baseflow separation: regional analysis in northeast China. IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-Intern Assoc Hydrological Sciences. 1994. 221:69-76.
2- Bezak N, Horvat A, Šraj M. Analysis of flood events in Slovenian streams. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics. 2015 Jun 1;63(2):134-44.
3- Hall FR. Base‐flow recessions—A review. Water Resources Research. 1968 Oct 1;4(5):973-83.
4- Tallaksen LM. A review of baseflow recession analysis. Journal of hydrology. 1995 Feb 1;165(1-4):349-70.
5-  Bauer JP. December 2008, “Update to Regional Groundwater Flow Model simulation of Sonoma Valley Including a New Model for Recharge and Three Future Scenarios” (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).
6- Nathan RJ, McMahon TA. Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow and recession analyses. Water resources research. 1990 Jul;26(7):1465-73.
7- Su N. The unit hydrograph model for hydrograph separation. Environment International. 1995 Jan 1;21(5):509-15.
8- Boussinesq J. Essai sur la théorie des eaux courantes. Impr. nationale; 1877.
9- Halford KJ, Mayer GC. Problems associated with estimating ground water discharge and recharge from stream‐discharge records. Groundwater. 2000 May;38(3):331-42.
10- Rutledge AT. The appropriate use of the Rorabaugh model to estimate ground water recharge. Ground Water. 2005 May 1;43(3):292-4.
11- Te CV, Maidment DR, Mays LW. Applied hydrology. Water Resources Handbook. 1988.
12- Lvovich, M. I. World Water Resources and Their Future, 415 pp., AGU, Washington, D. C. 1979.
13- Chapman T. A comparison of algorithms for stream flow recession and baseflow separation. Hydrological Processes. 1999 Apr 15;13(5):701-14.
14- Chapman TG, Maxwell AI. Baseflow separation-comparison of numerical methods with tracer experiments. InHydrology and Water Resources Symposium 1996: Water and the Environment; Preprints of Papers 1996 (p. 539). Institution of Engineers, Australia.
15- Boughton WC. A hydrograph-based model for estimating the water yield of ungauged catchments. InHydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Newcastle, IEAust, 1993 1993.
16- Jakeman, A. J., & Hornberger, G. M. (1993). How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall‐runoff model?. Water resources research, 29(8), 2637-2649.
17- Novita E, Wahyuningsih S. Preliminary study on baseflow separation at watersheds in East Java regions. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia. 2016 Jan 1:538-50.
18- Stewart MK. Promising new baseflow separation and recession analysis methods applied to streamflow at Glendhu Catchment, New Zealand. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2015 Jun 2;19(6):2587-603.
19- Arnold JG, Allen PM. Automated methods for estimating baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 1999 Apr;35(2):411-24.
20- Zhang R, Li Q, Chow TL, Li S, Danielescu S. Baseflow separation in a small watershed in New Brunswick, Canada, using a recursive digital filter calibrated with the conductivity mass balance method. Hydrological processes. 2013 Aug 30;27(18):2659-65.
21- Rouhani H, Malekian A. Automated methods for estimating baseflow from streamflow records in a semi arid watershed. Desert. 2012 Dec 1;17(2):203-9.
22- Minea I. Streamflow-base flow ratio in a lowland area of North-Eastern Romania. Water Resources. 2017 Jul 1;44(4):579-85.
23- Arfania R, Samani N. Construction of stream flow hydrograph separation curve in zayandeh-roud karstics watershed. Science (Kharazmi University). 2006;5(34):585-600. [Persian]
24- Hessari B. 2012, "investigation of upstream/downstream hydrological effects of supplemental irrigation developing in rainfed areas in Karkheh basin". (Doctoral dissertation, Shahid Chamran University). [Persian]
25- Maali S, Mohammmadi Z. Evaluation of baseflow estimation methods in karstic springs, case study Pirghar and Deime springs. Advanced Applied Geology. 2015 Apr 21;4(14):22-37. [Persian]‎
26- Zarebidaki R, Mahdianfard M, Zeinivand H. Base flow estimation in Tireh Dorood river in order to environmental flow assessmen. EcoHydrology. 2015. Sep 23;2(3):275-87. [Persian]
27- Mehri S, Mostafazadeh Ouri A, Ghorbani A. Evaluating the methods of baseflow separation of daily flow hydrograph (case study several hydrometric stations in Ardebil province). Earth & Space Physics. 2016. 43(3): 623-34 [Persian]
28- Kazemi R, Eslami A. Investigation and estimation of flow duration curve indices, based on lithological and hydro climatological factors, case study: Khazar region. Iranian Water Research. 2016. 4(7):57-68. [Persian]
29- Kazemi R, Ghermez Cheshmeh B. Investigation of different base flow separation methods using flow duration indices (Case study: Khazar region). water and soil conservation. 2016. 23(2): 131-146. [Persian]
30- Sloto RA, Crouse MY. HYSEP, a computer program for streamflow hydrograph separation and analysis. 1996
31- Gregor M., User manual for BFI+ 3.0. Manuals 2010.
32- Lyne V, Hollick M. Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff modelling. InInstitute of Engineers Australia National Conference 1979 Sep (Vol. 1979, pp. 89-93). Barton, Australia: Institute of Engineers Australia.
33- Institute for Water Research (South Africa), Smakhtin VY, Watkins DA. Low Flow Estimation in South Africa: Final Report to the Water Research Commission on the Project:" Classification and Hydrological Modelling of Low Flows in Southern Africa". Water Research Commission; 1990.
34- Eckhardt K. How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow separation. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal. 2005 Feb 15;19(2):507-15.
35- Mann HB. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 1945 Jul 1:245-59.
36- Kendall, M. Rank Correlation Methods. Charles Griffin, London. 1975.
37- Sen PK. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau. Journal of the American statistical association. 1968 Dec 1;63(324):1379-89.
38- Theil H. A rank-invariant method of linear and polynomial regression analysis. InHenri Theil’s contributions to economics and econometrics 1992 (pp. 345-381). Springer, Dordrecht.
Stewart M, Cimino J, Ross M. Calibration of base flow separation methods with streamflow conductivity. Groundwater. 2007 Jan;45(1):17-27.
Volume 6, Issue 2
July 2019
Pages 305-321
  • Receive Date: 22 November 2018
  • Revise Date: 03 March 2019
  • Accept Date: 02 March 2020
  • First Publish Date: 02 March 2020