4.6 Article

Hydrological model sensitivity to parameter and radar rainfall estimation uncertainty

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Volume 18, Issue 17, Pages 3277-3291

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5659

Keywords

radar rainfall estimation; runoff simulation uncertainty; parameter uncertainty; sensitivity to errors; TOPMODEL; GLUE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radar estimates of rainfall are being increasingly applied to flood forecasting applications. Errors are inherent both in the process of estimating rainfall from radar and in the modelling of the rainfall-runoff transformation. The study aims at building a framework for the assessment of uncertainty that is consistent with the limitations of the model and data available and that allows a direct quantitative comparison between model predictions obtained by using radar and raingauge rainfall inputs. The study uses radar data from a mountainous region in northern Italy where complex topography amplifies radar errors due to radar beam occlusion and variability of precipitation with height. These errors, together with other error sources, are adjusted by applying a radar rainfall estimation algorithm. Radar rainfall estimates, adjusted and not, are used as an input to TOPMODEL for flood simulation over the Posina catchment (116 km(2)). Hydrological model parameter uncertainty is explicitly accounted for by use of the GLUE (Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation). Statistics are proposed to evaluate both the wideness of the uncertainty limits and the percentage of observations which fall within the uncertainty bounds. Results show the critical importance of proper adjustment of radar estimates and the use of radar estimates as close to ground as possible. Uncertainties affecting runoff predictions from adjusted radar data are close to those obtained by using a dense raingauge network, at least for the lowest radar observations available. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available