FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W87903128> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W87903128 abstract "Flooding is among the costliest natural disasters in terms of loss of life and property in Arizona, which is why the accurate estimation of flood frequency and magnitude is crucial for proper structural design and accurate floodplain mapping. Current guidelines for flood frequency analysis in the United States are described in Bulletin 17B (B17B), yet since B17B’s publication in 1982 (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982), several improvements have been proposed as updates for future guidelines. Two proposed updates are the Expected Moments Algorithm (EMA) to accommodate historical and censored data, and a generalized multiple Grubbs-Beck (MGB) low-outlier test. The current guidelines use a standard Grubbs-Beck (GB) method to identify low outliers, changing the determination of the moment estimators because B17B uses a conditional probability adjustment to handle low outliers while EMA censors the low outliers. B17B and EMA estimates are identical if no historical information or censored or low outliers are present in the peak-flow data. EMA with MGB (EMA-MGB) test was compared to the standard B17B (B17B-GB) method for flood frequency analysis at 328 streamgaging stations in Arizona. The methods were compared using the relative percent difference (RPD) between annual exceedance probabilities (AEPs), goodness-of-fit assessments, random resampling procedures, and Monte Carlo simulations. The AEPs were calculated and compared using both station skew and weighted skew. Streamgaging stations were classified by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) qualification codes, used to denote historical and censored peak-flow data, to better understand the effect that nonstandard flood information has on the flood frequency analysis for each method. Streamgaging stations were also grouped according to geographic flood regions and analyzed separately to better understand regional differences caused by physiography and climate. The B17B-GB and EMA-MGB RPD-boxplot results showed that the median RPDs across all streamgaging stations for the 10-, 1-, and 0.2-percent AEPs, computed using station skew, were approximately zero. As the AEP flow estimates decreased (that is, from 10 to 0.2 percent AEP) the variability in the RPDs increased, indicating that the AEP flow estimate was greater for EMA-MGB when compared to B17B-GB. There was only one RPD greater than 100 percent for the 10- and 1-percent AEP estimates, whereas 19 RPDs exceeded 100 percent for the 0.2-percent AEP. At streamgaging stations with low-outlier data, historical peak-flow data, or both, RPDs ranged from −84 to 262 percent for the 0.2-percent AEP flow estimate. When streamgaging stations were separated by the presence of historical peak-flow data (that is, no low outliers or censored peaks) or by low outlier peak-flow data (no historical data), the results showed that RPD variability was greatest for the 0.2-AEP flow estimates, indicating that the treatment of historical and (or) low-outlier data was different between methods and that method differences were most influential when estimating the less probable AEP flows (1, 0.5, and 0.2 percent). When regional skew information was weighted with the station skew, B17B-GB estimates were generally higher than the EMA-MGB estimates for any given AEP. This was related to the different regional skews and mean square error used in the weighting procedure for each flood frequency analysis. The B17B-GB weighted skew analysis used a more positive regional skew determined in USGS Water Supply Paper 2433 (Thomas and others, 1997), while the EMA-MGB analysis used a more negative regional skew with a lower mean square error determined from a Bayesian generalized least squares analysis. Regional groupings of streamgaging stations reflected differences in physiographic and climatic characteristics. Potentially influential low flows (PILFs) were more prevalent in arid regions of the State, and generally AEP flows were larger with EMA-MGB than with B17B-GB for gaging stations with PILFs. In most cases EMA-MGB curves would fit the largest floods more accurately than B17B-GB. In areas of the State with more baseflow, such as along the Mogollon Rim and the White Mountains, streamgaging stations generally had fewer PILFs and more positive skews, causing estimated AEP flows to be larger with B17B-GB than with EMA-MGB. The effect of including regional skew was similar for all regions, and the observed pattern was increasingly greater B17B-GB flows (more negative RPDs) with each decreasing AEP quantile. A variation on a goodness-of-fit test statistic was used to describe each method’s ability to fit the largest floods. The mean absolute percent difference between the measured peak flows and the log-Pearson Type 3 (LP3)-estimated flows, for each method, was averaged over the 90th, 75th, and 50th percentiles of peak-flow data at each site. In most percentile subsets, EMA-MGB on average had smaller differences (1 to 3 percent) between the observed and fitted value, suggesting that the EMA-MGB-LP3 distribution is fitting the observed peak-flow data more precisely than B17B-GB. The smallest EMA-MGB percent differences occurred for the greatest 10 percent (90th percentile) of the peak-flow data. When stations were analyzed by USGS NWIS peak flow qualification code groups, the stations with historical peak flows and no low outliers had average percent differences as high as 11 percent greater for B17B-GB, indicating that EMA-MGB utilized the historical information to fit the largest observed floods more accurately. A resampling procedure was used in which 1,000 random subsamples were drawn, each comprising one-half of the observed data. An LP3 distribution was fit to each subsample using B17B-GB and EMA-MGB methods, and the predicted 1-percent AEP flows were compared to those generated from distributions fit to the entire dataset. With station skew, the two methods were similar in the median percent difference, but with weighted skew EMA-MGB estimates were generally better. At two gages where B17B-GB appeared to perform better, a large number of peak flows were deemed to be PILFs by the MGB test, although they did not appear to depart significantly from the trend of the data (step or dogleg appearance). At two gages where EMA-MGB performed better, the MGB identified several PILFs that were affecting the fitted distribution of the B17B-GB method. Monte Carlo simulations were run for the LP3 distribution using different skews and with different assumptions about the expected number of historical peaks. The primary benefit of running Monte Carlo simulations is that the underlying distribution statistics are known, meaning that the true 1-percent AEP is known. The results showed that EMA-MGB performed as well or better in situations where the LP3 distribution had a zero or positive skew and historical information. When the skew for the LP3 distribution was negative, EMA-MGB performed significantly better than B17B-GB and EMA-MGB estimates were less biased by more closely estimating the true 1-percent AEP for 1, 2, and 10 historical flood scenarios." @default.
• W87903128 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W87903128 creator A5041525324 @default.
• W87903128 creator A5066044956 @default.
• W87903128 creator A5070317473 @default.
• W87903128 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W87903128 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W87903128 title "Evaluation of the expected moments algorithm and a multiple low-outlier test for flood frequency analysis at streamgaging stations in Arizona" @default.
• W87903128 cites W1481794564 @default.
• W87903128 cites W1505850045 @default.
• W87903128 cites W1536874369 @default.
• W87903128 cites W1539214763 @default.
• W87903128 cites W1557277208 @default.
• W87903128 cites W1664324986 @default.
• W87903128 cites W1868445823 @default.
• W87903128 cites W1982450398 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2000174481 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2013759403 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2026912756 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2038111684 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2040160896 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2041891015 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2119112679 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2130099792 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2163558741 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2316891214 @default.
• W87903128 cites W2328535367 @default.
• W87903128 doi "https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20145026" @default.
• W87903128 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W87903128 type Work @default.
• W87903128 sameAs 87903128 @default.
• W87903128 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W87903128 countsByYear W879031282019 @default.
• W87903128 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W87903128 hasAuthorship W87903128A5041525324 @default.
• W87903128 hasAuthorship W87903128A5066044956 @default.
• W87903128 hasAuthorship W87903128A5070317473 @default.
• W87903128 hasBestOaLocation W879031281 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C104892082 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C74256435 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C76155785 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C79337645 @default.
• W87903128 hasConcept C97118885 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C104892082 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C105795698 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C11413529 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C127313418 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C151730666 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C166957645 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C205649164 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C2777267654 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C33923547 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C39432304 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C41008148 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C74256435 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C76155785 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C79337645 @default.
• W87903128 hasConceptScore W87903128C97118885 @default.
• W87903128 hasLocation W879031281 @default.
• W87903128 hasOpenAccess W87903128 @default.
• W87903128 hasPrimaryLocation W879031281 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W2119158312 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W2216963642 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W2230908439 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W2386767533 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W2552050053 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W3076678067 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W4313433212 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W4313436621 @default.
• W87903128 hasRelatedWork W3106224695 @default.
• W87903128 isParatext "false" @default.
• W87903128 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W87903128 magId "87903128" @default.
• W87903128 workType "article" @default.