Design rainfall estimation: comparison between GEV and LP3 distributions and at-site and regional estimates

Evan Hajani and Ataur Rahman ()
Additional contact information
Evan Hajani: Western Sydney University
Ataur Rahman: Western Sydney University

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2018, vol. 93, issue 1, No 3, 67-88

Abstract: Abstract Design rainfall, often known as intensity–frequency–duration (IFD) data, is an important input in rainfall runoff modelling exercise. IFD data are derived by fitting a probability distribution to observed rainfall data. Although there are many researches on IFD curves in the literature, there is a lack of systematic comparison among the IFD curves obtained by different distributions and methods. This study compares the latest IFD curves in Australia, published in 2013, as a part of the new Australian rainfall and runoff (ARR) with the at-site IFD curves to examine the expected degree of variation between the at-site and regional IFD data. Ten pluviography stations from eastern New South Wales (NSW) are selected for this study. The IFD curves generated by the two most commonly adopted probability distributions, generalised extreme value (GEV) and log Pearson type 3 (LP3) distributions are also compared. Empirical and polynomial regression methods in smoothing the IFD curves are compared. Based on the three goodness-of-fit tests, it has been found that both GEV and LP3 distributions fit the annual maximum rainfall data (at 1% significance level) for the ten selected stations. The developed IFD curves based on the second-degree polynomial present better fitting than the empirical method. It has been found that the ARR87 and ARR13 IFD curves are generally higher than the at-site IFD curves derived here. The median difference between the at-site and regional ARR-recommended IFD curves is in the range of 13–19%. It is expected that the outcomes of this research will provide better guidance in selecting the correct IFD data for a given application in NSW. The methodology developed here can be adapted to other parts of Australia and other countries.

Keywords: Rainfall; Intensity; Duration; Frequency; Generalised extreme value distribution; Log Pearson type 3; Goodness-of-fit test (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-018-3289-9 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:93:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-018-3289-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-018-3289-9

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().