2018
DOI: 10.3133/tm4b5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency — Bulletin 17C

Abstract: For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS.For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/.Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the mos… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
197
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 246 publications
(233 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
197
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although it has long been known that frequency analysis, particularly of extreme floods, has higher accuracy if the flood distribution is split by flood type (Elliott et al, ; Hirschboeck, ; Potter, ; Waylen & Woo, ), such distinction is still not standard procedure. For example, the Bulletin 17‐C for the United States does recommend separation of the flood frequency curve into different processes; however, it does not supply guidance on how to do this (England et al, ; Villarini & Slater, ), although there are recent approaches to rectify this (Barth, Villarini, & White, ). Especially in areas where the extreme flood process might deviate from the regular annual maxima, any flood estimation procedure might likely underestimate that extreme (Rogger et al, ; Smith et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although it has long been known that frequency analysis, particularly of extreme floods, has higher accuracy if the flood distribution is split by flood type (Elliott et al, ; Hirschboeck, ; Potter, ; Waylen & Woo, ), such distinction is still not standard procedure. For example, the Bulletin 17‐C for the United States does recommend separation of the flood frequency curve into different processes; however, it does not supply guidance on how to do this (England et al, ; Villarini & Slater, ), although there are recent approaches to rectify this (Barth, Villarini, & White, ). Especially in areas where the extreme flood process might deviate from the regular annual maxima, any flood estimation procedure might likely underestimate that extreme (Rogger et al, ; Smith et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It can be used to explain detected trends in flood magnitude or timing (Gudmundsson et al, ; Mallakpour & Villarini, ; Petrow & Merz, ; Villarini & Slater, ) or to improve flood frequency analysis. In fact, the commonly used approach to flood frequency analysis assumes the flood sample to stem from a uniform distribution of flood events (England et al, ). However, it has been shown early on in several local studies that different flood processes generate different distributions and that using mixed distributions can improve flood frequency estimates (Elliott, Jarrett, & Ebling, ; Hirschboeck, ; Merz & Blöschl, ; Potter, ; Tarasova et al, ; Waylen & Woo, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…techniques (England et al, 2015) or to employ the concept of design life level developed by Rootzén and Katz (2013) and demonstrated by Condon et al (2015).…”
Section: Water Resources Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the flood frequency analysis, we used relationships identified by Fuller (1914) to transform SWAT daily mean discharge into instantaneous peak flows, and then Bulletin 17B methods to estimate annual exceedance flow probabilities. While the log-Pearson Type III probability distribution and the methods in Bulletin 17B are widely applied, limitations exist (England et al 2019), in particular the assumption of stationarity (see Judi et al 2018 on this issue), and high uncertainties in estimated quantiles. But due to short periods of record and nonstationarity in observed data, high uncertainty in estimated flow quantiles is common to all hydraulic design and floodplain mapping analyses.…”
Section: Modeling Uncertaintymentioning
confidence: 99%