% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Maxwell:153955,
author = {Maxwell, Reed M. and Putti, Mario and Meyerhoff, Steven and
Delfs, Jens-Olaf and Ferguson, Ian M. and Ivanov, Valeriy
and Kim, Jongho and Kolditz, Olaf and Kollet, Stefan and
Kumar, Mukesh and Lopez, Sonya and Niu, Jie and Paniconi,
Claudio and Park, Young-Jin and Phanikumar, Mantha S. and
Shen, Chaopeng and Sudicky, Edward A. and Sulis, Mauro},
title = {{S}urface-subsurface model intercomparison: {A} first set
of benchmark results to diagnose integrated hydrology and
feedbacks},
journal = {Water resources research},
volume = {50},
number = {2},
issn = {0043-1397},
address = {Washington, DC},
publisher = {AGU},
reportid = {FZJ-2014-03395},
pages = {1531 - 1549},
year = {2014},
abstract = {There are a growing number of large-scale, complex
hydrologic models that are capable of simulating integrated
surface and subsurface flow. Many are coupled to
land-surface energy balance models, biogeochemical and
ecological process models, and atmospheric models. Although
they are being increasingly applied for hydrologic
prediction and environmental understanding, very little
formal verification and/or benchmarking of these models has
been performed. Here we present the results of an
intercomparison study of seven coupled surface-subsurface
models based on a series of benchmark problems. All the
models simultaneously solve adapted forms of the Richards
and shallow water equations, based on fully 3-D or mixed
(1-D vadose zone and 2-D groundwater) formulations for
subsurface flow and 1-D (rill flow) or 2-D (sheet flow)
conceptualizations for surface routing. A range of
approaches is used for the solution of the coupled
equations, including global implicit, sequential iterative,
and asynchronous linking, and various strategies are used to
enforce flux and pressure continuity at the
surface-subsurface interface. The simulation results show
good agreement for the simpler test cases, while the more
complicated test cases bring out some of the differences in
physical process representations and numerical solution
approaches between the models. Benchmarks with more
traditional runoff generating mechanisms, such as excess
infiltration and saturation, demonstrate more agreement
between models, while benchmarks with heterogeneity and
complex water table dynamics highlight differences in model
formulation. In general, all the models demonstrate the same
qualitative behavior, thus building confidence in their use
for hydrologic applications.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {246 - Modelling and Monitoring Terrestrial Systems: Methods
and Technologies (POF2-246) / 255 - Terrestrial Systems:
From Observation to Prediction (POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF2-246 / G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000333563900044},
doi = {10.1002/2013WR013725},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/153955},
}