Examination of homogeneity of selected Irish pooling groups

23Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Flood frequency analysis is a necessary and important part of flood risk assessment and management studies. Regional flood frequency methods, in which flood data from groups of catchments are pooled together in order to enhance the precision of flood estimates at project locations, is an accepted part of such studies. This enhancement of precision is based on the assumption that catchments so pooled together are homogeneous in their flood producing properties. If homogeneity is assured then a homogeneous pooling group of sites lead to a reduction in the error of quantile estimates, relative to estimators based on single at-site data series alone. Homogeneous pooling groups are selected by using a previously nominated rule and this paper examines how effective one such rule is in selecting homogeneous groups. In this paper a study, based on annual maximum series obtained from 85 Irish gauging stations, examines how successful a common method of identifying pooling group membership is in selecting groups that actually are homogeneous. Each station has its own unique pooling group selected by use of a Euclidean distance measure in catchment descriptor space, commonly denoted dij and with a minimum of 500 station years of data in the pooling group. It was found that d ij could be effectively defined in terms of catchment area, mean rainfall and baseflow index. The study then investigated how effective this selected method is in selecting groups of catchments that are actually homogenous as indicated by their L-Cv values. The sampling distribution of L-CV (t2) in each pooling group and the 95% confidence limits about the pooled estimate of t2 are obtained by simulation. The t2 values of the selected group members are compared with these confidence limits both graphically and numerically. Of the 85 stations, only 1 station's pooling group members have all their t2 values within the confidence limits, while 7, 33 and 44 of them have 1, 2 or 3 or more, t2 values outside the confidence limits. The outcomes are also compared with the heterogeneity measures H1 and H2. The H1 values show an upward trend with the ranges of t 2 values in the pooling group whereas the H2 values do not show any such dependency. A selection of 27 pooling groups, found to be heterogeneous, were further examined with the help of box-plots of catchment descriptor values and one particular case is considered in detail. Overall the results show that even with a carefully considered selection procedure, it is not certain that perfectly homogeneous pooling groups are identified. © Author(s) 2011.

References Powered by Scopus

Probability weighted moments: Definition and relation to parameters of several distributions expressable in inverse form

1034Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Some statistics useful in regional frequency analysis

727Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Evaluation of regional flood frequency analysis with a region of influence approach

407Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Assessment of characteristic changes of regional estimation of extreme rainfall under climate change: A case study in a tropical monsoon region with the climate projections from CMIP6 model

33Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Extreme rainfall estimation at ungauged sites: Comparison between region-of-influence approach of regional analysis and spatial interpolation technique

33Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Distribution choice for the assessment of design rainfall for the city of London (Ontario, Canada) under climate change

25Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Das, S., & Cunnane, C. (2011). Examination of homogeneity of selected Irish pooling groups. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(3), 819–830. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-819-2011

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 11

69%

Researcher 3

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 8

50%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 4

25%

Environmental Science 3

19%

Computer Science 1

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free