Propagation of Discharge Uncertainty in a Flood Damage Model For the Meuse River

  • Y.P. Xu
  • M.J. Booij
  • A.E. Mynett
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 25)


Uncertainty analysis plays an important role in the decision- making process. It can give decision makers better understanding in how different measures will affect the whole river system. Thus it helps decision makers to make a sound choice among measures in a more systematic manner. In case of flood damage reduction projects, uncertainty analysis helps to evaluate the main decision criterion – expected annual damage. The aim of this paper is to investigate the propagation of discharge uncertainty, which is one of the main uncertainty sources in a damage model, into expected annual damage. The discharge uncertainty considered includes model uncertainty (choice of different probability distributions) and sampling errors due to finite gauge record lengths. The calculated uncertainty in the discharge varies between 17 percent for a return period of 5 year and 30 percent for a return period of 1250 year. A first order method is used in this paper to explore the role of discharge uncertainty in the expected annual damage model. The results from the damage model indicate that both model uncertainty and sampling errors are important, with the latter being somewhat more important. The Log-Pearson Type 3 gives a much smaller uncertainty range of the expected annual damage than the other three distribution models used. The uncertainty is aggravated when propagated into the damage results. The uncertainty in the damage reduces a great amount when the sample size increases to n = 80. The results derived from the first order method in fact give two bounds of uncertainty, which is an overestimate in this case


flood frequency analysis discharge expected annual damage first order analysis uncertainty Dutch Meuse River 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Al-Futaisi A, Stedinger JR (1999) Hydrologic and economic uncertainties and flood-risk project design. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 125(6):314–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beard LR (1997) Estimating flood frequency and average annual damage. J Water Res Pl-ASCE 123(2):84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Zvi A, Azmon B (1997) Joint use of L-moment diagram and goodness-of-fit test: a case study of diverse series. J Hydrol 198:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger HEJ (1992) Flow forecasting for the river Meuse, PhD thesis, Delft University, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Bevington PR, Robinson DK (1992) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Booij MJ (2002) Appropriate modeling of climate change impacts on river flooding, PhD thesis, the University of Twente, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  7. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. De Blois CJ (2000) Uncertainty in large-scale models for decision support in water management, PhD thesis, Twente University, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  9. Eberle M, Buiteveld H, Beersma J, Krahe P, Wilke K (2002) Estimation of extreme floods in the river Rhine basin by combining precipitation-runoff modelling and a rainfall generator. In: Proceedings international conference on flood estimation, Berne, Switzerland, pp 459–467Google Scholar
  10. Flood Estimation Handbook (1999) Institute of hydrology. Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Hosking JRM (1990) L-moments: analysis and estimation of distributions using linear combinations of order statistics. J R Stat Soc B 52:105–124Google Scholar
  12. Kite GW (1977) Frequency and risk analysis in hydrology. Water resources publications, BookCrafters, Chelsea, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. National Research Council (2000) Risk analysis and uncertainty in flood damage reduction studies, Committee on risk-based analysis for flood damage reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Rijkswaterstaat (2000) Verkenning Verruinming Maas — Deel 1(in Dutch): Main Report, VVM-report no.5.Google Scholar
  15. Rijkswaterstaat (2002) Overstromingsrisico’s Buitendijkse Gebieden (in Dutch), Report, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water ManagementGoogle Scholar
  16. Sankarasubramanian A, Srinivasan K (1999) Investigation and comparison of sampling properties of L-moments and conventional moments J Hydrol 218:13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shahin M, Van Oorschot HJL, De Lange SJ (1993) Statistical analysis in water resources engineering. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield.Google Scholar
  18. Shaw EM (1994) Hydrology in practice. TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  19. Stedinger JR (1983) Design event with specified flood risk. Water Resour Res 19(2):511–522Google Scholar
  20. Stedinger JR (1997) Expected probability and annual damage estimators. J Water Res Pl-ASCE, 123(2):125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Suter GW, Barnthouse LW, O’Neill RV (1987) Treatment of risk in environment impact assessment. Environ. Manage. 11(3):295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Noortwijk JM, Kalk HJ, Chbab EH (2003) Bayesian computation of design discharges. In: Proceedings of the ESREL 2003 conference: Safety and Reliability, edited by Bedford and van Gelder, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 1179–1187Google Scholar
  23. Wood EF, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (1975) A Bayesian approach to analyze uncertainty among flood frequency models. Water. Resour. Res. 11(6):839–843Google Scholar
  24. Xu YP, Booij MJ (2004) Appropriate modeling in DSSs for river basin management. Complexity and Integrated Resources Management, In: Proceedings of the second biennial meeting of the international environmental modelling and software society, 14–17 June 2004, Osnabrück, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Xu Y, Wind HG, Kok JL de (2002) Appropriate modeling in DSS for flood damage assessment, In: Wu B et al (eds) Proceedings of the second international symposium on flood defence, 2, 1159–1165Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y.P. Xu
    • 1
  • M.J. Booij
    • 1
  • A.E. Mynett
    • 2
  1. 1.Water Engineering and ManagementFaculty of Engineering, University of Twente7500 AEThe Netherlands
  2. 2.WL \ Delft Hydraulics and UNESCO-IHE Delft2600 MH DelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations