 |
| Titel |
A data-based comparison of flood frequency analysis methods used in France |
| VerfasserIn |
K. Kochanek, B. Renard, P. Arnaud, Y. Aubert, M. Lang, T. Cipriani, E. Sauquet |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1561-8633
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences ; 14, no. 2 ; Nr. 14, no. 2 (2014-02-20), S.295-308 |
| Datensatznummer |
250118276
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/nhess-14-295-2014.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
Flood frequency analysis (FFA) aims at estimating quantiles with large return
periods for an extreme discharge variable. Many FFA implementations are used
in operational practice in France. These implementations range from the
estimation of a pre-specified distribution to continuous simulation
approaches using a rainfall simulator coupled with a rainfall–runoff model.
This diversity of approaches raises questions regarding the limits of each
implementation and calls for a nation-wide comparison of their predictive
performances.
This paper presents the results of a national comparison of the main FFA
implementations used in France. More accurately, eight implementations are
considered, corresponding to the local, regional and local-regional
estimation of Gumbel and Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distributions, as
well as the local and regional versions of a continuous simulation approach.
A data-based comparison framework is applied to these eight competitors to
evaluate their predictive performances in terms of reliability and
stability, using daily flow data from more than 1000 gauging
stations in France.
Results from this comparative exercise suggest that two implementations
dominate their competitors in terms of predictive performances, namely the
local version of the continuous simulation approach and the local-regional
estimation of a GEV distribution. More specific conclusions include the
following: (i) the Gumbel distribution is not suitable for Mediterranean
catchments, since this distribution demonstrably leads to an underestimation
of flood quantiles; (ii) the local estimation of a GEV distribution is not
recommended, because the difficulty in estimating the shape parameter
results in frequent predictive failures; (iii) all the purely regional
implementations evaluated in this study displayed a quite poor reliability,
suggesting that prediction in completely ungauged catchments remains a
challenge. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|