Priestly-Taylor Coefficient Evaluation for Konya Closed Basin
| dc.authorid | https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3632-2725 | en_US |
| dc.authorid | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5229-4018 | en_US |
| dc.authorscopusid | 36728602600 | en_US |
| dc.authorwosid | G-2829-2015 | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Cicibıyık, Alara | |
| dc.contributor.author | Şarlak, Nermin | |
| dc.contributor.author | Üstün, Deniz | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-31T10:39:40Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-07-31T10:39:40Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | en_US |
| dc.department | Fakülteler, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Bilgisayar Mühendisliği Bölümü | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Measurement of evaporation in the field is difficult and expensive; thus, the empirical evaporation estimation methods have been developed. However, these estimation methods have both advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that their coefficients were determined by the climatic conditions of the study areas. One of these methods is Penman. The Penman method, accepted as a reference, has reached the closest estimations to the measurement of evaporation in the field of the different parts of the world. However, it needs lots of measured climatic data. The Priestley-Taylor method was derived to reduce the measured data needs of the Penman method. Priestly and Taylor represented the variables such as saturated and actual vapor pressures and wind speed with coefficient of 1.26. The researchers have continued to study on the calibration of the coefficient for their studies’ area since this method has been known to underestimate evaporation value in areas where advection is effective. The present study consists of two stages. First, evaporation was tried to be estimated with these two methods by using the measured climatic data of five meteorological stations in the Konya Closed Basin. Estimated values were evaluated making comparison with the pan measurements. Although slightly higher values were estimated from the pan measurements with each method, the Penman method was found to be relatively more consistent on the basis of statistical indicators. Second, coefficient was obtained as 1.28 for the study area by using three artificial intelligence-based optimization algorithms. The Penman method was used for comparison in this stage. It was concluded that there was no need for any calibration of the coefficient and the original one was found to be valid for the study area as well. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Cicibıyık, A., Şarlak, N., ve Üstün, D. (2024). Priestly-Taylor Coefficient Evaluation for Konya Closed Basin. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 26-36. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.35193/bseufbd.1209924 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.endpage | 36 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issue | 1 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.startpage | 26 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2793773 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13099/302 | |
| dc.identifier.volume | 11 | en_US |
| dc.institutionauthor | Üstün, Deniz | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi | en_US |
| dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en_US |
| dc.subject | Penman | en_US |
| dc.subject | Priestly-Taylor | en_US |
| dc.subject | Evaporation | en_US |
| dc.title | Priestly-Taylor Coefficient Evaluation for Konya Closed Basin | en_US |
| dc.title.alternative | Konya Kapalı Havzası için Priestly-Taylor Katsayısı Değerlendirmesi | en_US |
| dc.type | article | en_US |
