Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 77:643 | Cite as

Bivariate frequency analysis of low flow using copula functions (case study: Dez River Basin, Iran)

  • Farshad Ahmadi
  • Feridon Radmaneh
  • Mohammad Reza Sharifi
  • Rasoul Mirabbasi
Original Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Accurate estimation of low flow as a criterion for different objectives in water resource management, including drought is of crucial importance. Despite the complex nature of water deficits, univariate methods have often been used to analyze the frequency of low flows. In this study, low flows of Dez River basin were examined during period of 1956–2012 using copula functions at the upstream of headbranches’ junction. For this purpose, at first 7-day series of low flow was extracted at the studied stations, then their homogeneity was examined by Mann–Kendall test. The results indicated that 7-day low flow series of Dez basin were homogenous. In the next stage, 12 different distribution functions were fitted onto the low flow data. Finally, for Sepid Dasht Sezar (SDS), Sepid Dasht Zaz (SDZ), and Tang Panj Bakhtiyari (TPB) stations, logistic distribution had the best fit, while for Tang Panj Sezar (TPS) station, GEV distribution enjoyed the best fit. After specifying the best fitted marginal distributions, seven different copula functions including Ali–Mikhail–Haq (AMH), Frank, Clayton, Galambos, Farlie–Gumbel–Morgenstern (FGM), Gumbel–Hougaard (GH), and Plackett were used for bivariate frequency analysis of the 7-day low flow series. The results revealed that the GH copula had the best fitness on paired data of SDS and SDZ stations. For TPS and TPB stations, Frank copula has had the best correspondence with empirical copula values. Next, joint and conditional return periods were calculated for the low flow series at the upstream of branches’ junction. The results of this study indicated that the risk of incidence of severe drought is higher in upstream stations (SDZ and SDS) when compared with downstream stations (TPB and TPS) in Dez basin. Generally, application of multivariate analysis allows researchers to investigate hydrological events with a more comprehensive view by considering the simultaneous effect of the influencing factors on the phenomenon of interest. It also enables them to evaluate different combinations of required scenarios for integrated management of basin and planning to cope with the damages caused by natural phenomena.

Keywords

Low flow Copula Bivariate analysis Joint distribution Head branches junction Dez Basin 

References

  1. Abdi A, Hassanzadeh Y, Talatahari S, Fakheri-Fard A. Mirabbasi R (2017a) Parameter estimation of copula functions using an optimization-based method. Theor Appl Climatol 129(1–2):21–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1757-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdi A, Hassanzadeh Y, Talatahari S, Fakheri-Fard A. Mirabbasi R (2017b) Regional bivariate modeling of droughts using L-comoments and copulas. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 31(5):1199–1210.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1222-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AghaKouchak A, Cheng L, Mazdiyasni O, Farahmand A (2014) Global warming and changes in risk of concurrent climate extremes: insights from the 2014 California drought. Geophys Res Lett 41(24):8847–8852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmadi F, Nazeri Tahroudi M, Mirabbasi R, Khalili K, Jhajharia D (2017a) Spatiotemporal trend and abrupt change analysis of temperature in Iran. Meteorol Appl 25(2):314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahmadi F, Radmaneh F, Parham GA, Mirabbasi R (2017b) Comparison of the performance of power law and probability distributions in the frequency analysis of flood in Dez Basin, Iran. Nat Hazards 87(3):1313–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bender J, Wahl T, Müller A, Jensen J (2016) A multivariate design framework for river confluences. Hydrol Sci J 61(3):471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coles S, Heffernan J, Tawn J (1999) Dependence measures for extreme value analyses. Extremes 2(4):339–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Michele C, Salvadori G (2003) A generalized pareto intensity-duration model of storm rainfall exploiting 2-copulas. J Geophys Res 108(D2):4067.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Michele C, Salvadori G, Passoni G, Vezzoli R (2007) A multivariate model of sea storms using copulas. Coast Eng 54(10):734–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Desa M, Rakhecha PR (2007) Probable maximum precipitation for 24-h duration over an equatorial region. Atmos Res 84(2):84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dinpashoh Y, Mirabbasi R, Jhajharia D, Zare Abianeh H, Mostafaeipour A (2014) Effect of short term and long-term persistence on identification of temporal trends. J Hydrol Eng 19(3):617–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Escalante-Sandoval CA (2009) Mixed distribution in low flow frequency analysis. Ingeniería investigación y tecnología 10(3):247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ganguli P, Reddy MJ (2013) Probabilistic assessment of flood risks using trivariate copulas. Theor Appl Climatol 111(1–2):341–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hao Z, AghaKouchak A (2013) Multivariate standardized drought index: a parametric multi-index model. Adv Water Resour 57:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heim RR (2002) A review of twentieth-century drought indices used in the United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 83(8):1149–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hosking JRM, Wallis JR (1998) The effect of intersite dependence on regional flood frequency analysis. Water Resour Res 24(4):59–71Google Scholar
  17. Joe H (1997) Multivariate models and dependence concepts. Chapman & Hall, London, 399 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kao SC, Govindaraju RS (2010) A copula-based joint deficit index for droughts. J Hydrol 380(1–2):121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khalili K, Tahoudi MN, Mirabbasi R, Ahmadi F (2016) Investigation of spatial and temporal variability of precipitation in Iran over the last half century. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 30(4):1205–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu GH, Yan GX, Wu ZY, Kang YX (2010) Regional drought analysis approach based on copula function. Adv Water Sci 2:007Google Scholar
  21. Madadgar S, Moradkhani H (2014) Improved Bayesian multimodeling: Integration of copulas and Bayesian model averaging. Water Resour Res 50(12):9586–9603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mirabbasi R, Eslamian S (2010) Delineation of groundwater quality concerning applicability of pressure irrigation system in Sirjan watershed, Iran. International Conference on Management of Soil and Groundwater Salinization in Arid Regions, 11–14 January 2010, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, OmanGoogle Scholar
  23. Mirabbasi R, Fakheri-Fard A, Dinpashoh Y (2012) Bivariate drought frequency analysis using the copula method. Theor Appl Climatol 108(1–2):191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mirabbasi R, Anagnostou EN, Fakheri-Fard A, Dinpashoh Y, Eslamian S (2013) Analysis of meteorological drought in northwest Iran using the Joint Deficit Index. J Hydrol 492:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mishra AK, Singh VP (2010) A review of drought concepts. J Hydrol 391:202–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Modarres R (2008) Regional frequency distribution type of low flow in north of Iran by L-moments. Water Resour Manag 22:823–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nalbantis I, Tsakiris G (2009) Assessment of hydrological drought revisited. Water Resour Manag 23(5):881–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelsen RB (2006) An introduction to copulas. Springer, New York, 269pGoogle Scholar
  29. Ouarda TBMJ, Shu C (2009) Regional low-flow frequency analysis using single and ensemble artificial neural networks. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saad C, El Adlouni S, St-Hilaire A, Gachon P (2015) A nested multivariate copula approach to hydrometeorological simulations of spring floods: the case of the Richelieu River (Quebec, Canada) record flood. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 29(1):275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Salvadori G, De Michele C (2006) Statistical characterization of temporal structure of storms. Adv Water Resour 29(6):827–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salvadori G, De Michele C (2007) On the use of copulas in hydrology: theory and practice. J Hydrol Eng 12(4):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salvadori G, De Michele C, Kottegoda NT, Rosso R (2007) Extremes in nature: an approach using Copulas. Springer, Netherlands, p 292Google Scholar
  34. Seo BC, Krajewski WF, Mishra KV (2015) Using the new dual-polarimetric capability of WSR-88D to eliminate anomalous propagation and wind turbine effects in radar-rainfall. Atmos Res 153(0):296–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shafaie M, Fakheri-Fard A, Dinpashoh Y, Mirabbasi R, De Michele C (2017) Modeling flood event characteristics using D-vine structures. Theor Appl Climatol 130(3–4):713–724.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1911-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shi P, Chen X, Qu SM, Zhang ZC, Ma JL (2010) Regional frequency analysis of low flow based on L moments: case study in Karst area, Southwest China. J Hydrol Eng 15(5):370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sklar A (1959) Fonctions de Repartition and Dimensions et LeursMarges. Publications de L’Institute de Statistique, Universite’ de Paris, Paris, vol 8, pp 229–231Google Scholar
  38. Smakhtin VU (2001) Low flow hydrology: a review. J Hydrol 240(3–4):147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith RE, Bosch JM (1989) A description of the Westfalia catchment experiment to determine the effect on water yield of clearing the riparian zone and converting an indigenous forest to a eucalyptus plantation. S Afr For J 151(1):26–31Google Scholar
  40. Vivekanandan N (2014) Comparison of probability distributions for frequency analysis of annual maximum rainfall. Int J Res Innov Technol 1(3):50–55Google Scholar
  41. Wang C (2016) A joint probability approach for coincidental flood frequency analysis at ungauged basin confluences. Nat Hazards J Int Soc Prevention Mitig Nat Hazards 82(3):1727–1741Google Scholar
  42. Yu KX, Xiong L, Gottschalk L (2014) Derivation of low flow distribution functions using copulas. J Hydrol 508:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yue S, Rasmussen P (2002) Bivariate frequency analysis: discussion of some useful concepts in hydrological application. Hydrol Process 16(14):2881–2898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yue S, Ouarda TBMJ, Bobee B (2001) A review of bivariate gamma distributions for hydrological application. J Hydrol 246:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zamani R, Mirabbasi R, Abdollahi S, Jhajharia D (2017) Streamflow trend analysis by considering autocorrelation structure, long-term persistence and Hurst coefficient in a semi-arid region of Iran. Theor Appl Climatol 129(1–2):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang L, Singh VP (2006) Bivariate flood frequency analysis using the copula method. J Hydrol Eng 11(2):150–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang L, Singh VP (2007) Gumbel–Hougaard copula for trivariate rainfall frequency analysis. J Hydrol Eng 12(4):409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang Q, Chen YD, Chen X, Li J (2011) Copula-based analysis of hydrological extremes and implications of hydrological behaviors in the Pearl River basin, China. J Hydrol Eng 16(7):598–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farshad Ahmadi
    • 1
  • Feridon Radmaneh
    • 1
  • Mohammad Reza Sharifi
    • 1
  • Rasoul Mirabbasi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Water Sciences EngineeringShahid Chamran UniversityAhvazIran
  2. 2.Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of AgricultureShahrekord UniversityShahrekordIran

Personalised recommendations