Flood Quantile Estimates Related to Model and Optimization Criteria

  • Iwona Markiewicz
  • Witold G. Strupczewski
  • Krzysztof Kochanek
Chapter
Part of the GeoPlanet: Earth and Planetary Sciences book series (GEPS)

Abstract

Flood frequency analysis (FFA) provides information about the probable size of flood flows. Empirical methods are more commonly employed in engineering design and planning, and among empirical methods the at-site frequency analysis is by far the most commonly used method. When applying the methods of at-site flood frequency analysis, it is clear that the role of hydrology seems minor at best and the role of statistics seems to be the lead one, whereas it should be the other way round. FFA entails the estimation of the upper quantiles of an assumed form of a probability density function of the annual or partial duration maximum flows, as the true function is not known. In the paper, the five two-parameter models and their three-parameter counterparts have been assumed successively for describing the annual peak flows for Nowy Targ gauging station on the Dunajec River. The 1 % quantile has been estimated by four optimization criteria. To find the best fitting model, three discrimination procedures have been applied. The best fitting model and, thus, hydrological design value depends on the optimization criterion and the procedure of discrimination. It is characteristic for hydrological size of samples. At the same time, the designers of the hydraulic structures want to have a unique value, not accepting the uncertainty. It seems essential that we should go back and start examining the way in which we have been doing the hydrological frequency analysis.

Keywords

Optimization Criterion Generalize Extreme Value Generalize Extreme Value Distribution Flood Frequency Analysis Discrimination Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under the Grant IP 2010 024570 titled “Analysis of the efficiency of estimation methods in flood frequency modeling”.

References

  1. El Adlouni S, Bobee B, Ouarda TBMJ (2008) On the tails of extreme event distributions in hydrology, J. Hydrol. 355(1–4): 16–33. doi:  10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clifford MH, Chih-Ling T (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76(2):297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cunnane C (1989) Statistical distributions for flood frequency analysis. Operational hydrology Report No. 33, World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. FEH (1999) Flood estimation handbook. Institute of hydrology Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB, U.KGoogle Scholar
  5. Gioia A, Iacobellis V, Manfreda S, Fiorentino M (2012) Influence of Infiltration and soil storage capacity on the skewness of the annual maximum flood peaks in a theoretically derived distribution. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:937–951. doi: 10.5194/hess-16-937-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Griffis VW, Stedinger JR (2007) Evolution of flood frequency analysis with Bulletin 17. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 12(3):283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hosking JRM, Wallis JR (1997) Regional frequency analysis. An approach based on L-moment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CH2 1RPGoogle Scholar
  8. Iacobellis V, Claps P, Fiorentino M (2002) Climatic control on the variability of flood distribution. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6:229–238. doi: 10.5194/hess-6-229-2002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jenkinson AF (1969) Statistics of extremes. In: Estimation of maximum floods. WMO No 233, TP126, Tech. Note No. 98, 183-228, Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaczmarek, Z (1977) Statistical methods in hydrology and meteorology. Published for the Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the interior and the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., by the Foreign Scientific Publications Department of the National Centre for Scientific, Technical and Economic Information, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  11. Katz RW, Parlange MB, Naveau P (2002) Statistics of extremes in hydrology. Adv Water Resour 25:1287–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kendall MG, Stuart A (1969) The advanced theory of statistics. Distribution theory, vol 1. Charles Griffin & Company Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Kendall MG, Stuart A (1973) The advanced theory of statistics. Inference and relationship, vol 2. Charles Griffin & Company Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Kochanek K, Strupczewski WG, Węglarczyk S, Singh VP (2005) Are parsimonious FF models more reliable than the true ones? II. Comparative assessment of the performance of simple models versus the parent distribution. Acta Geoph Pol 53(4):437–457Google Scholar
  15. Kuczera G (1982) Robust flood frequency models. Water Resour Res 18(2):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landwehr JM, Matalas NC, Wallis JR (1980) Quantile estimation with more or less flood like distributions. Water Resour Res 16(3):547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malamud BD, Turcotte DL (2006) The applicability of power-law frequency statistics to flood. J Hydrol 322:168–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markiewicz I, Strupczewski WG, Kochanek K, Singh VP (2006) Relations between three dispersion measures used in flood frequency analysis. Stoch Env Res Risk A 20:391–405. doi: 10.1007/s00477-006-0033-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markiewicz I, Strupczewski WG (2009) Dispersion measures for flood frequency analysis. Phys Chem Earth 34:670–678. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2009.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Markiewicz I, Strupczewski WG, Kochanek K (2010) On accuracy of upper quantiles estimation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14:2167–2175. doi: 10.5194/hess-14-2167-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitosek HT, Strupczewski WG, Singh VP (2006) Three procedures for selection of annual flood peak distribution. J Hydrol 323:57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NERC (1975) Flood studies report volume 1: hydrological studies. Natural Environment Research Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Rao AR, Hamed KH (2000) Flood frequency analysis. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  24. Rowinski PM, Strupczewski WG, Singh VP (2002) A note on the applicability of log-Gumbel and log-logistic probability distributions in hydrological analyses: I. Known pdf. Hydrolog Sci J 47(1):107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh VP, Strupczewski WG (2002) On the status of flood frequency analysis. Hydrol Process 16:3737–3740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strupczewski WG, Mitosek HT, Kochanek K, Singh VP, Weglarczyk S (2004) Probability of correct selection from lognormal and convective diffusion models based on the likelihood ratio. Stoch Environ Res Risk Ass 18:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s00477-004-0210-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strupczewski WG, Kochanek K, Singh VP, Weglarczyk S (2005) Are parsimonious FF models more reliable than the true ones? I. Accuracy of quantiles and moments estimation (AQME)—method of assessment. Acta Geoph Pol 53(4):419–436Google Scholar
  28. Strupczewski WG, Kochanek K, Markiewicz I, Bogdanowicz E, Weglarczyk S, Singh VP (2011) On the tails of distributions of annual peak flow. Hydrol Res 42(2–3):171–192. doi: 10.2166/nh.2011.062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weglarczyk S, Strupczewski WG, Singh VP (2002) A note on the applicability of log-Gumbel and log-logistic probability distributions in hydrological analyses: II. Assumed pdf. Hydrol Sci J 47(1):123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iwona Markiewicz
    • 1
  • Witold G. Strupczewski
    • 1
  • Krzysztof Kochanek
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Geophysics Polish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations