Accounting for heteroscedasticity in rating curve estimates

Petersen‐Øverleir, Asgeir

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.024

Cited by 93 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For each flow class, the 95 % uncertainty boundaries of the two distributions do not differ strongly, but they are relatively small compared with the uncertainty boundaries applied in Sects. 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 and with literature data (e.g., Pelletier, 1988;McMillan et al, 2012). A tentative explanation for these low uncertainty values could be the relatively tranquil flow situations in the investigated measurement stations due to low slopes.…”

Section: Belgian Measurement Stationssupporting

confidence: 70%

“…A good literature overview with a summary of the major findings is given in Pelletier (1988) and in McMillan et al (2012) for both stage and discharge measurements. In these studies, errors on stage measurements are generally indicated as relatively small.…”

Section: Step 3: Assessment Of Acceptable Model Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In nearly all studies, it is assumed to have a negligible bias. Pelletier (1988) reports 95 % uncertainty boundaries between ±4 and ±17 % for 5-35 verticals with the velocity-area method. McMillan et al (2012) report the same order of magnitude for the velocity-area method with various techniques.…”

Section: Step 3: Assessment Of Acceptable Model Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consistency assessment of rating curve data in various locations using Bidirectional Reach (BReach)

Eerdenbrugh

Hoey

Coxon

et al. 2017

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. When estimating discharges through rating curves, temporal data consistency is a critical issue. In this research, consistency in stage-discharge data is investigated using a methodology called Bidirectional Reach (BReach), which departs from a (in operational hydrology) commonly used definition of consistency. A period is considered to be consistent if no consecutive and systematic deviations from a current situation occur that exceed observational uncertainty. Therefore, the capability of a rating curve model to describe a subset of the (chronologically sorted) data is assessed in each observation by indicating the outermost data points for which the rating curve model behaves satisfactorily. These points are called the maximum left or right reach, depending on the direction of the investigation. This temporal reach should not be confused with a spatial reach (indicating a part of a river). Changes in these reaches throughout the data series indicate possible changes in data consistency and if not resolved could introduce additional errors and biases. In this research, various measurement stations in the UK, New Zealand and Belgium are selected based on their significant historical ratings information and their specific characteristics related to data consistency. For each country, regional information is maximally used to estimate observational uncertainty. Based on this uncertainty, a BReach analysis is performed and, subsequently, results are validated against available knowledge about the history and behavior of the site. For all investigated cases, the methodology provides results that appear to be consistent with this knowledge of historical changes and thus facilitates a reliable assessment of (in)consistent periods in stage-discharge measurements. This assessment is not only useful for the analysis and determination of discharge time series, but also to enhance applications based on these data (e.g., by informing hydrological and hydraulic model evaluation design about consistent time periods to analyze).

show abstract

Section: Belgian Measurement Stationssupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Step 3: Assessment Of Acceptable Model Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consistency assessment of rating curve data in various locations using Bidirectional Reach (BReach)

Eerdenbrugh

Hoey

Coxon

et al. 2017

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ackers et al, 1978;Petersen-Øverleir, 2004;Franchini and Ravagnini, 2007), we preferred to refer to power-law (1), in light of its simplicity and wide utilization (e.g. Petersen-Øverleir, 2004;Schmidt and Yen, 2009). The power law expresses streamflow Qas follows: …”

Section: Objectives and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing rating-curve uncertainty and its effects on hydraulic model calibration

Domeneghetti

Castellarin

Brath

2012

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study considers the overall uncertainty affecting river flow measurements and proposes a framework for analysing the uncertainty of rating-curves and its effects on the calibration of numerical hydraulic models. The uncertainty associated with rating-curves is often considered negligible relative to other approximations affecting hydraulic studies, even though recent studies point out that ratingcurves uncertainty may be significant. This study refers to a ∼240 km reach of River Po and simulates ten different historical flood events by means of a quasi-twodimensional (quasi-2-D) hydraulic model in order to generate 50 synthetic measurement campaigns (5 campaigns per event) at the gauged cross-section of interest (i.e. Cremona streamgauge). For each synthetic campaign, two different procedures for rating-curve estimation are applied after corrupting simulated discharges according to the indications reported in the literature on accuracy of discharge measurements, and the uncertainty associated with each procedure is then quantified. To investigate the propagation of rating-curve uncertainty on the calibration of Manning's roughness coefficients further model simulations are run downstream Cremona's cross-section. Results highlight the significant role of extrapolation errors and how rating-curve uncertainty may be responsible for estimating unrealistic roughness coefficients. Finally, the uncertainty of these coefficients is analysed and discussed relative to the variability of Manning's coefficient reported in the literature for large natural streams.

show abstract

“…In fact, a number of studies have shown that this type Flood-plain mapping: a critical discussion of deterministic and probabilistic approachesof uncertainty may be very high for data that refer to high-flow conditions when stage-discharge rating curves are extrapolated beyond the measurement range (e.g. Clarke, 1999;Petersen-Øverleir, 2004;Di Baldassarre & Montanari, 2009). For instance, pointed out that the uncertainty affecting recorded river discharge data might be 20%, even before the observed values are used to extrapolate to low frequency events.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flood-plain mapping: a critical discussion of deterministic and probabilistic approaches

Baldassarre

Schumann

Bates

et al. 2010

Hydrological Sciences Journal

235

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. (2010) Flood-plain mapping: a critical discussion of deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(3), 364-376.Abstract Different methodologies for flood-plain mapping are analysed and discussed by comparing deterministic and probabilistic approaches using hydrodynamic numerical solutions. In order to facilitate the critical discussion, state-of-art techniques in the field of flood inundation modelling are applied to a specific test site (River Dee, UK). Specifically, different flood-plain maps are derived for this test site. A first map is built by applying an advanced deterministic approach: use of a fully two-dimensional finite element model (TELEMAC-2D), calibrated against a historical flood extent, to derive a 1-in-100 year flood inundation map. A second map is derived by using a probabilistic approach: use of a simple raster-based inundation model (LISFLOOD-FP) to derive an uncertain flood extent map predicting the 1-in-100 year event conditioned on the extent of the 2006 flood. The flood-plain maps are then compared and the advantages and disadvantages of the two different approaches are critically discussed.

show abstract

Accounting for heteroscedasticity in rating curve estimates

Cited by 93 publications

References 12 publications

Consistency assessment of rating curve data in various locations using Bidirectional Reach (BReach)

Consistency assessment of rating curve data in various locations using Bidirectional Reach (BReach)

Assessing rating-curve uncertainty and its effects on hydraulic model calibration

Flood-plain mapping: a critical discussion of deterministic and probabilistic approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About