000203977 001__ 203977
000203977 005__ 20181203023716.0
000203977 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.advwatres.2014.09.005
000203977 022__ $$a0309-1708
000203977 02470 $$2ISI$$a000345525000022
000203977 037__ $$aARTICLE
000203977 245__ $$aSpatial characterization of catchment dispersion mechanisms in an urban context
000203977 260__ $$bElsevier$$c2014$$aOxford
000203977 269__ $$a2014
000203977 300__ $$a12
000203977 336__ $$aJournal Articles
000203977 520__ $$aPrevious studies have examined in-depth the dispersion mechanisms in natural catchments. In contrast, these dispersion mechanisms have been studied little in urban catchments, where artificial transport elements and morphological arrangements are expected to modify travel times and mobilize excess rainfall from spatially distributed impervious sites. This has the ability to modify the variance of the catchment's travel times and hence the total dispersion. This work quantifies the dispersion mechanisms in an urban catchment using the theory of transport by travel times as represented by the Urban Morpho-climatic Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (U-McIUH) model. The U-McIUH computes travel times based on kinematic wave theory and accounts explicitly for the path heterogeneities and altered connectivity patterns characteristic of an urban drainage network. The analysis is illustrated using the Aubiniere urban catchment in France as a case study. We found that kinematic dispersion is dominant for small rainfall intensities, whereas geomorphologic dispersion becomes more dominant for larger intensities. The total dispersion scales with the drainage area in a power law fashion. The kinematic dispersion is dominant across spatial scales up to a threshold of approximately 2-3 km(2), after which the geomorphologic dispersion becomes more dominant. Overall, overland flow is responsible for most of the dispersion in the catchment, while conduits tend to counteract the increase of the geomorphologic dispersion with a negative kinematic dispersion. Further study with other catchments is needed to asses if the latter is a general feature of urban drainage networks. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
000203977 6531_ $$aDispersion
000203977 6531_ $$aTravel times
000203977 6531_ $$aUrban catchment
000203977 6531_ $$aNonlinear response
000203977 6531_ $$aKinematic wave
000203977 700__ $$uPontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Dept Ingn Hidraul & Ambiental, Santiago, Chile$$aRossel, Florian
000203977 700__ $$uPontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Dept Ingn Hidraul & Ambiental, Santiago, Chile$$aGironas, Jorge
000203977 700__ $$uPenn State Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, University Pk, PA 16802 USA$$aMejia, Alfonso
000203977 700__ $$0240022$$g182281$$uEcole Polytech Fed Lausanne, Sch Architecture Civil & Environm Engn, Lab Ecohydrol, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland$$aRinaldo, Andrea
000203977 700__ $$aRodriguez, Fabrice$$uLUNAM Univ, IFSTTAR, GERS, F-44344 Bouguenais, France
000203977 773__ $$j74$$tAdvances In Water Resources$$q290-301
000203977 909C0 $$xU10273$$0252014$$pECHO
000203977 909CO $$particle$$pENAC$$ooai:infoscience.tind.io:203977
000203977 917Z8 $$x182281
000203977 937__ $$aEPFL-ARTICLE-203977
000203977 973__ $$rREVIEWED$$sPUBLISHED$$aEPFL
000203977 980__ $$aARTICLE