Abstract

Abstract. In many real-world flood forecasting systems, the runoff thresholds for activating warnings or mitigation measures correspond to the flow peaks with a given return period (often 2 years, which may be associated with the bankfull discharge). At locations where the historical streamflow records are absent or very limited, the threshold can be estimated with regionally derived empirical relationships between catchment descriptors and the desired flood quantile. Whatever the function form, such models are generally parameterised by minimising the mean square error, which assigns equal importance to overprediction or underprediction errors. Considering that the consequences of an overestimated warning threshold (leading to the risk of missing alarms) generally have a much lower level of acceptance than those of an underestimated threshold (leading to the issuance of false alarms), the present work proposes to parameterise the regression model through an asymmetric error function, which penalises the overpredictions more. The estimates by models (feedforward neural networks) with increasing degree of asymmetry are compared with those of a traditional, symmetrically trained network, in a rigorous cross-validation experiment referred to a database of catchments covering the country of Italy. The analysis shows that the use of the asymmetric error function can substantially reduce the number and extent of overestimation errors, if compared to the use of the traditional square errors. Of course such reduction is at the expense of increasing underestimation errors, but the overall accurateness is still acceptable and the results illustrate the potential value of choosing an asymmetric error function when the consequences of missed alarms are more severe than those of false alarms.

Highlights

  • In the operation of flood forecasting systems, it is necessary to determine the values of threshold runoff that trigger the issuance of flood watches and warnings

  • The performances of the models are evaluated through a set of indexes that describe the prediction error (ε), which is the difference between predictions (Q2,p) issued by the models and the observed 2-year flood values on the third set, formed by N = 91 catchments distributed all over the country, whose data have not been used in any capacity in the models’ development

  • The values that may produce damaging conditions, when in absence of detailed local information on each cross section, are in many parts of the world estimated as the peak floods having a certain return period, often 2 years, which is generally associated with the bankfull discharge

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the operation of flood forecasting systems, it is necessary to determine the values of threshold runoff that trigger the issuance of flood watches and warnings. Such critical values might be used for threshold-based flood alert based on realtime data measurements along the rivers (WMO, 2011) or for identifying in advance, through a rainfall-runoff modelling chain, the rainfall quantities that will lead to surpass such streamflow levels, as in the Flash Flood Guidance Systems framework (Carpenter et al, 1999; Ntelekos et al, 2006; Reed et al, 2007; Norbiato et al, 2009). In the absence of more sophisticated physically based approaches, based on detailed information of each specific cross section that is rarely available due to limited field surveys, the literature suggests to estimate the bankfull flow as the flood having a 1.5- to 2-year return period (Carpenter et al, 1999; Reed et al, 2007; Harman et al, 2008; Wilkerson, 2008; Hapuarachchi et al, 2011; Cunha et al, 2011; Ward et al, 2013) and a flow that is slightly higher than bankfull may be identified with the 2-year return period flood (Carpenter et al, 1999; Reed et al, 2007).

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call