2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2006.12.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Problems in the extreme value analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
30
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(132 reference statements)
1
30
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…, N thr ) by simply ordering the data from the smallest (x 1 ) to the largest (x N thr ), and calculating an empirical value of F(x k ) from the ranked position of x k (Palutikof et al 1999). These estimates are known as the plotting positions, which can be calculated (Gumbel 1958;Makkonen 2007) via…”
Section: Return Valuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, N thr ) by simply ordering the data from the smallest (x 1 ) to the largest (x N thr ), and calculating an empirical value of F(x k ) from the ranked position of x k (Palutikof et al 1999). These estimates are known as the plotting positions, which can be calculated (Gumbel 1958;Makkonen 2007) via…”
Section: Return Valuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was because the hydrological models did not adequately highlight the most extreme events that were experienced. This might be a consequence of the use of too narrow selection of global or regional climate models, as Veijalainen et al [27] present or the use of insufficient methods to estimate the probability of extreme weather events [39]. Nevertheless, it seems that the main risks can be best recognized by analysing the extreme weather events of past decades and years, together with studying the possible climate change impacts on seasonal variations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second assessment was performed to find out if any of the climate induced risks analyzed in 2008 had already emerged or showed any signs of change. The motivation to update the risk assessment arose from a research point of view when it was noticed that, since the first risk assessment (only 7 years ago), the yearly mean temperature has risen compared to the last three decades [39]. Another driver was that the persons who participated in the first risk assessment were about to retire, and there was a desire to utilize their vast and long-term experience of river behavior and risk management.…”
Section: Description Of the Risk Analysis Methods Utilizedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As confirmed by the renewed interest appeared in the recent literature (Rigdon and Basu 1989;Makkonen 2006Makkonen , 2008ade Haan 2007;Cook 2011Cook , 2012Kim et al 2012;Erto and Lepore 2013;Fuglem et al 2013;LozanoAguilera et al 2014) practitioners are used to exploiting modern software that adopts graphical estimation methods via probability papers, even if there is a variety of effective analytical methods available, such as Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian techniques. In fact, especially in critical applications, the graphical estimation gives the unique opportunity to share statistical information with non-statisticians (e.g., by allowing a visual check of the fit of the chosen model and by giving helpful understanding of the consequent conclusions).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%