Skip to main content
Log in

Derivation of Probabilistic Thresholds of Spatially Distributed Rainfall for Flood Forecasting

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

“Rainfall threshold” is considered as one of the evolving flood forecasting approaches. When the cumulative rainfall depth for a given initial soil moisture condition intersects the corresponding moisture curve, the peak discharge is expected to be equal or greater than the threshold discharge for flooding at the target site. Besides the total rainfall depth, spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall can influence the peak discharge and the time to peak. In the few past studies on the extraction of rainfall threshold curves for flood forecasting, the rainfall assumed to be uniform in space whereas the temporal distribution was subjected to certain assumptions. In the present study, the spatial distribution of rainfall was simulated with the Monte Carlo (MC) method and the mean Huff pattern for all rainfall durations was imposed for the temporal distribution. For each of the MC run, the random weight assigned to every sub-watershed follows the pdf of weights in historical rainfall events. The HEC–HMS model with two different infiltration methods namely SCS–CN and Green–Ampt and Muskingum river routing were adopted as the hydrologic model. After the calibration and validation of the model for Madarsoo watershed in Golestan province in Northeastern Iran, the MC simulations were performed for 1, 2, 6 and 12 h durations. The outputs from the SCS–CN method exhibit only a slight increase in threshold values with respect to duration and was not in the range of our expectations from watershed response, i.e. the rainfalls with greater durations should be greater in depth to produce a specific peak discharge. For the Green–Ampt infiltration method, the rainfall thresholds with 50% probability associated with the critical discharge under dry soil moisture condition were 44.5, 49.0, 64.2 and 94.6 mm for 1, 2, 6 and 12 h durations, respectively. Results for July 2001 flooding revealed that the cumulative rainfall intersected all 10%, 50% and 90% rainfall threshold curves but for July 2005 flooding the 10% curve was only intersected by the cumulative rainfall curve. The advantage of MC-derived rainfall threshold curves in real-time operations is that decision-makers have the flexibility to adopt a curve more consistent with flood observations in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amadio P, Mancini M, Menduni G, Rabuffetti D, Ravazzani G (2003) A real-time flood forecasting system based on rainfall thresholds working on the Arno Watershed: definition and reliability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th EGS Plinius Conference held at Ajaccio, Corsica, France

  • Bell VA, Moore RJ (2000) The sensitivity of catchment runoff models to rainfall data at different spatial scales. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 4(4):633–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobba AGh, Singh VP, Bengtsson L (1996) Application of first-order and Monte Carlo analysis in watershed water quality models. Water Resour Manage 10:219–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burges SJ, Lettenmaier DP (1975) Probability methods in stream quality management. Water Resour Bull 11(1):115–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Changnon SA (ed) (1996) Review of the great flood of 1993: causes, impacts, and responses. Westview, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark CO (1945) Storage and the unit hydrograph. Trans ASCE 110:1419–1446

    Google Scholar 

  • Day GN (1985) Extended streamflow forecasting using NWSRFS. J Water Resour Plan Manage 111(2):157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Roo A, Gouweleeuw B, Thielen J, Bates P et al. (2003) Development of a European flood forecasting system. Int J River Basin Manage 1(1):49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Baldassarre G, Laio F, Montanari A (2009) Design flood estimation using model selection criteria. Phys Chem Earth 34(10–12):606–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Downton MW, Pielke RA Jr. (2001) Discretion without accountability: politics, flood damage, and climate. Nat Hazards Rev 2(4):157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgakakos KP (2006) Analytical results for operational flash flood guidance. J Hydrol 317:81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goubanova K, Li L (2007) Extremes in temperature and precipitation around the Mediterranean basin in an ensemble of future climate scenarios simulations. Gobal Planet Change 57:27–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green WH, Ampt GA (1911) Studies on soil physics. J Agric Sci 4(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haan ChT (2002) Statistical methods in hydrology Ch. 16: probabilistic methods for uncertainty, risk and reliability. Iowa State Press, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins A, Archer A, Archer S (2008) A stochastic non-linear programming model for a multi-period water resource allocation with multiple objectives. Water Resour Manage 22:1445–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff FA (1990) Time distribution of heavy rainstorm in Illinois. Department of Energy and Natural Resources

  • Krause FA (1999) Modeling the flood hydrology of wetlands using HEC–HMS. M.S thesis, University of California, 144 pp

  • Laio F, Cramer-von Mises (2004) Anderson–Darling goodness of fit tests for extreme value distributions with unknown parameters. Water Resour Res 40:W09308. doi:10.1029/2004WR003204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laio F, Di Baldassarre G, Montanari A (2009) Model selection techniques for the frequency analysis of hydrological extremes. Water Resour Res 45:7. doi:10.1029/2007WR006666

    Google Scholar 

  • Maidment DR (1993) Handbook of hydrology: chapter 5: infiltration and soil water movement. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Martina MLV, Todini E, Libralon A (2006) A Bayesian decision approach to rainfall thresholds based flood warning. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:413–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milly PCD, Wetherald RT, Dunne KA, Delworth TL (2002) Increasing risk of great floods in a changing clime. Nature 415:514–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montesarchio V, Lombardo F, Napolitano F (2009) Rainfall thresholds and flood warning: an operative case study. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norbiato D, Borga M, Esposti SD, Gaume E, Anquetin S (2008) Flash flood warning based on rainfall thresholds and soil moisture conditions: an assessment for gauged and ungauged basins. J Hydrology 362:274–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntelekos AA, Goergakakos KP, Krajewski WF (2006) On the uncertainties of flash flood guidance: towards probabilistic forecasting of flash floods. J Hydrometeorol 7(5):896–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogden FL, Julien PY (1993) Runoff sensitivity to temporal and spatial rainfall variability at runoff plane and small basin scales. Water Resour Res 29(8):2589–2597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell P (2005) Interactive comment on (A Bayesian decision approach to rainfall thresholds based flood warning) by M. L. V. Martina et al., Hyrol. Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:S1368–S1371

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr, Downton W, Miller JZ Barnard (2002) Flood damage in the Unites States, 1926–200: a reanalysis of National Weather Service estimates. UCAR, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilon PJ (2004) Guidelines for reducing flood losses. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), Palais des Nations, Ch 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

  • Ponce VM, Hawkins RH (1996) Runoff curve number: has it reached maturity? J Hydrol Eng ASCE 1(1):11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saghafian B, Julién PY, Ogden FL (1995) Similarity in catchment response 1. Stationary rainstorms. Water Resour Res 31:1533–1541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCS (1956, 1971) Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook, Supplement A, Section 4, Chapter 10, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.

  • Thielen J, Bartholmes J, Ramos M-H, de Roo A (2009) The European Flood Alert System—part 1: concepts and development. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2002) Early warning, forecasting and operational flood risk monitoring in Asia (Bangladesh, China and India). A Technical Report of Project (GT/1010-00-04): Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

  • USACE (2000) HEC–HMS hydrologic modeling system user’s manual, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis

  • USACE (2006) HEC_RAS river analysis system user’s manual, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis

  • Werner M, Reggiani P, DE Roo AD, Bates P, Sprokkereef E (2005) Flood forecasting and warning at the river basin and at the European scale. Nat Hazards 36:25–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu S, Li J, Huang GH (2008) Characterization and evaluation of elevation data uncertainty in water resources modeling with GIS. Water Resour Manage 22:959–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Maknoon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Golian, S., Saghafian, B. & Maknoon, R. Derivation of Probabilistic Thresholds of Spatially Distributed Rainfall for Flood Forecasting. Water Resour Manage 24, 3547–3559 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9619-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9619-7

Keywords

Navigation