4.7 Article

Real-time error correction method combined with combination flood forecasting technique for improving the accuracy of flood forecasting

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 521, Issue -, Pages 157-169

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.053

Keywords

Flood error correction; Multi-model composition technique; Combined method; Three Gorges Reservoir; Jinsha River

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51309104, 51239004]
  2. Wuha Planning Project of Science and Technology [2014060101010064]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flood forecasting has been recognized as one of the most important and reliable ways for flood management. It is therefore necessary to improve the reliability and accuracy of the flood forecasting model. Flood error correction (FEC) and multi-model composition (MC) methods are two effective ways to enhance the model performance. The current focus seems to be on either of these two methods. In this study, we combine these two methods and propose three combined methods, namely flood error correction together with multi-model composition method (FEC MC), multi-model composition method together with flood error correction (MC FEC), and global real-time combination method (GRCM). The Three Gorge Reservoir (TGR) and Jinsha River are selected as case studies. First, the flood error correction method and multi-model composition techniques are used separately. Then, the three combined methods are employed. The performances of the five models are compared using the root-mean-square error (RMSE), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency R-2, and qualified rate alpha. Results show that the combined methods perform better than the single FEC and MC methods. The proposed GRCM method is found to be the most effective method for improving the accuracy of discharge predicted by the flood forecasting model. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available