2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.068
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Runoff models and flood frequency statistics for design flood estimation in Austria – Do they tell a consistent story?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
91
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(94 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
91
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the density of those stations can be very sparse in developing countries, which limits their capability to assess the accurate significance and impact of flood events [6]. Statistical and model prediction approaches were applied to estimate or predict the potentially inundated area and impacts of future flood disasters [14][15][16][17]. These approaches are, unfortunately, not able to handle irregular changes induced by real objective causes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the density of those stations can be very sparse in developing countries, which limits their capability to assess the accurate significance and impact of flood events [6]. Statistical and model prediction approaches were applied to estimate or predict the potentially inundated area and impacts of future flood disasters [14][15][16][17]. These approaches are, unfortunately, not able to handle irregular changes induced by real objective causes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simplest types of methods, which utilize rainfall depth data, are referred to as deterministic or design storm methods. They are based on the selection of a design storm, which is defined by a rainfall depth, duration, return period (all three from an intensity-duration-frequency curve) and shape, and which is transformed into a design flood hydrograph using an event-based rainfall-runoff model (Rogger et al, 2012). The simplicity of these types of methods and their computational efficiency means that they are widely used in many countries and still dominate the methods used in practice (ASCE, 1996;DVWK, 1999;FEH, 1999;Ball et al, 2016).…”
Section: Deterministic or Design Storm Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Saghafian et al (2014) note that even though some of the uncertainties associated with discharge measurements and their length are removed by these methods in favour of less uncertain rainfall depth measurements, rainfall loss and rainfall-runoff models constitute new sources of uncertainties. Moreover, design storm methods rely on the following critical assumptions and choices to be made: the design storm event generates a design flood of the same return period (Adams et al, 1986;Rogger et al, 2012;Viglione et al, 2009); the subjective choice of the design storm hyetograph (Asquith et al, 2003); the subjective estimation of initial catchment conditions prior to the design storm event (Camici et al, 2011); and the need to estimate the initial and continuous losses from the design storm (Gamage et al, 2015;Ball et al, 2016). …”
Section: Deterministic or Design Storm Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the stochastic PQRUT model gives higher values than the GEV distribution, which might be due to the uncertainty in estimating the parameters for the GEV distribution. For example, the study by Rogger et al (2012) shows that the flood frequency analysis based on fitting a Gumbel distribution to AMAX series underestimates high flows in catchments with a high storage capacity, where a step change in the flood frequency curve occurs. The results of the study by Rogger et al (2012) can be explained by the fact that the Gumbel distribution, which 20 has a shape parameter of 0 and so is not as flexible as the GEV distribution.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%