Sensitivity of beta and Weibull synthetic unit hydrographs to input parameter changes

• Autorzy: Walega A. , Rutkowska A. , Policht-Latawiec A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Our article investigates the response of the synthetic unit hydrographs (SUH) to parameter changes using sensitivity analysis. The beta and Weibull probability density functions and the objective function that includes both the peak discharge and time to peak were chosen to construct the SUHs for a small mountain catchment. The absolute and relative dependences between the distribution parameter changes and changes in the peak discharge and time to peak are measured using the sensitivity analysis methods which include both differential calculus and numerical computations. The Weibull SUH turned out to be more sensitive than the beta SUH when modeling the maximum discharge. The impacts of both parameters of the beta SUH and one parameter of the Weibull SUH on the time to peak are comparable, while the influence of the second parameter of the Weibull SUH is weaker. The results of validation showed good efficiency of the models and compatibility with Snyder’s model. They serve as an effective tool in assessing flood risk.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

sensitivity analysis; Weibull distribution; synthetic unit hydrograph; parameter change; peak discharge; flood risk; European Union Floods Directive; flood hazard

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 23
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.221-229,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Walega A.

• Department of Sanitary Engineering and Water Management, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Mickiewicza 24-28, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

autor

Rutkowska A.

• Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Balicka 253C, 30-198 Krakow, Poland

autor

Policht-Latawiec A.

• Department of Land Reclamation and Environmental Development, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Mickiewicza 24-28, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. VAN ALPHEN J., MARTIINI F., LOAT R., SLOMP R. PASSCHIER R. Flood risk mapping in Europe, experiences and best practices. J. of Flood Risk Management 2, 285, 2009.
• 2. GUIDELINES FOR ELABORATE OF FLOOD HAZARD MAP. National Water Management Authority, Warsaw, Poland. 2009.
• 3. GUIDELINES FOR ELABORATE OF FLOOD RISK MAP. National Water Management Authority, Warsaw, Poland. 2009.
• 4. EBRAHIMIAN M., NURUDDIN A.A.B., SOOM M.A.B.M., SOOD A.M., NENG L.J. Runoff estimation in steep slope watershed with standard and slope-adjustment Curve Number Method. Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 21, (5), 1191, 2012.
• 5. KANOWNIK W., KOWALIK T., BOGDAŁ A., OSTROWSKI K. Quality Categories of Stream Water Included in a Small Retention Program. Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 22, (1), 159, 2013.
• 6. BOGDAŁ A., OSTROWSKI K. Water outflows from small agricultural catchment in Wilamowickie Foorhills. Acta Sci. Pol., Formatio Circumiectus, 7, (3), 13, 2008.
• 7. PEARSON F.H. Unit hydrograph by diffusion analogy. J. Hydrol. 9, (2), 299, 1970.
• 8. PONCE V.M. Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1989.
• 9. PONCE V.M., CHAGANTI P.V. Variable-parameter Muskingum-Cunge method revisited. J. Hydrol. 162, 433, 1994.
• 10. BHUNYA P.K., BERNDTSSON R., OJHA C.S., MISHRA S.K. Suitability of gamma, Chi-square, Weibull and beta distributions as synthetic unit hydrographs. J. Hydrol. 334, 28, 2007.
• 11. BEVEN K.J. Rainfall-Runoff modelling. The Primer, Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England, 2001.
• 12. SALAMI A.W., BILEWU S.O., AYANSHOLA A.M., DORITOLA S.F. Evaluation of synthetic unit hydrograph methods for the development of design storm hydrographs for Rivers in South-West, Nigeria. J. of American Science 5, (4), 23, 2009.
• 13. BELETE M.A. Synthetic Unit Hydrographs in the Upper Awash and Tekeze Basins. Methods, Procedures and models. VDM Verlag Dr Muller, 2009.
• 14. RAMIREZ J.A. Prediction and Modeling of Flood Hydrology and Hydraulics, in: Wohl, E., (Eds.), Chapter 11 of Inland Flood Hazards: Human, Riparian and Aquatic Communities. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• 15. MAIDMENT D.R. Handbook of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill. 1993.
• 16. VEN TE CHOW, MAIDMENT D.K., MAYS L.W. Applied Hydrology. McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, New York. 1988.
• 17. NOORBAKHSH M.E., RAHNAMA M.B., OGUNLELA S.M. Estimation of Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph with Clark's Method Using GIS Techniques. J. of Applied Science 5, (3), 455, 2005.
• 18. OGUNLELA A.O., KASALI M.Y. Evaluation of four methods of storm hydrograph development for an ungaged watershed. Nigerian Journal of Technological Development. Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria 2, 25, 2002.
• 19. BHUNYA P.K., MISHRA S.K., ANDBERNDTSSON R. Simplified two-parameter Gamma distribution for derivation od Synthetic Unit Hydrograph. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 7-8, 226, 2003.
• 20. WAŁĘGA A. Impact of flood wave characteristics and catchments on the parameters of the synthetic unit hydrographs – beta and Weibull distribution. Infrastructure and Ecology of Rural Areas 7, 29, 2011. 21. LEE M.T., BLANK D., DELLEUR J.W. A program for estimating runoff from Indiana watershed, Part II. Assembly of hydrologic and geomorphologic data for small watersheds in Indiana, Tech. Rep. No.23. Purdue University Water Resources Research Center, Lafayette, 1972.
• 22. AL-WAGDANY A.S., RAO A.R. Estimation of the velocity parameter of the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph. Water Resour. Manag. 11, (1), 1, 1997.
• 23. AHMAD M.M., GHUMMAN A.R., AHMAD S. Estimation of Clark’s Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph Parameters and Development of Direct Surface Runoff Hydrograph. Water Resour. Manag. 23, 2417, 2009.
• 24. MCCUEN R.H. Modeling Hydrologic Change, Statistical Methods, Lewis Publishers, a CRC Press Company, 2003.
• 25. MAIDMEND D.R., HOOGERWERF T.N. Parameter Sensitivity in Hydrologic Modeling. Technical Report. The University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
• 26. NASH J.E., SUTCLIFFE J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part-I: a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, (3), 282, 1970.
• 27. WĘGLARCZYK S. The interdependence and applicability of some statistical quality measures for hydrological models. J. Hydrol. 206, 98, 1998.
• 28. MORIASI D.N., ARNOLD J.G., VAN LIEW M.W., BINGNER R.L., HARMEL R.D., VEITH T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. ISSN 0001-2351, 50, (3), 885, 2007.
• 29. HYDROLOGIC MODELLING SYSTEM HEC-HMS. User’s Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2009.
• 30. BANASIK K., NGOC PHAM. Modelling of the effects of land use changes on flood hydrograph in a small catchment of the Płaskowicka, southern part of Warsaw, Poland. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Land Reclamation, 42, (2), 229, 2010.