Advertisement

Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 175, Issue 10, pp 3605–3617 | Cite as

Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Generalized Normal Distribution for Use in Hydrological Frequency Analysis

  • Samiran Das
Article

Abstract

The use of three-parameter generalized normal (GNO) as a hydrological frequency distribution is well recognized, but its application is limited due to unavailability of popular goodness-of-fit (GOF) test statistics. This study develops popular empirical distribution function (EDF)-based test statistics to investigate the goodness-of-fit of the GNO distribution. The focus is on the case most relevant to the hydrologist, namely, that in which the parameter values are unidentified and estimated from a sample using the method of L-moments. The widely used EDF tests such as Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Cramer von Mises, and Anderson–Darling (AD) are considered in this study. A modified version of AD, namely, the Modified Anderson–Darling (MAD) test, is also considered and its performance is assessed against other EDF tests using a power study that incorporates six specific Wakeby distributions (WA-1, WA-2, WA-3, WA-4, WA-5, and WA-6) as the alternative distributions. The critical values of the proposed test statistics are approximated using Monte Carlo techniques and are summarized in chart and regression equation form to show the dependence of shape parameter and sample size. The performance results obtained from the power study suggest that the AD and a variant of the MAD (MAD-L) are the most powerful tests. Finally, the study performs case studies involving annual maximum flow data of selected gauged sites from Irish and US catchments to show the application of the derived critical values and recommends further assessments to be carried out on flow data sets of rivers with various hydrological regimes.

Keywords

Flood frequency analysis goodness-of-fit tests generalized normal distribution hydrology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the financial support in the form of faculty start-up fund made available by the Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (NUIST), Nanjing, China. Selected Irish flood data sets were obtained during the author’s stay at NUI Galway, Ireland. The data series of selected stations are also available freely at the Irish Office of Public Works, Ireland: http://www.opw.ie/hydro-data. The selected US data sets were freely obtained from the USGS website: https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Ahmad, M. I., Sinclair, C. D., & Spurr, B. D. (1988). Assessment of flood frequency models using empirical distribution function statistics. Water Resources Research, 24, 1323.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i008p01323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. (1952). Asymptotic theory of certain “goodness of fit” criteria based on stochastic processes. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 193–212.  https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177733256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, B., & Srinivas, V. V. (2013). Formulation of a mathematical approach to regional frequency analysis. Water Resources Research, 49, 6810–6833.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chowdhury, J. U., Stedinger, J. R., & Lu, L. (1991). Goodness of fit tests for regional generalized extreme value flood distributions. Water Resources Research, 27, 1765–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunnane, C. (1989). Statistical distributions for flood frequency analysis. Operational Hydrology Report (WMO), Geneva.Google Scholar
  6. D’Agostino, R. B. (1986). Goodness-of-fit-techniques. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Das, S. (2010). Examination of flood estimation techniques in the Irish context, Ph.D. thesis. Department of Engineering Hydrology, National University of Ireland Galway. Retrieved October 30, 2015 from http://hdl.handle.net/10379/1688.
  8. Das, S. (2016). An assessment of using subsampling method in selection of a flood frequency distribution. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 31, 2033–2045.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1318-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Das, S. (2017). Performance of region-of-influence approach of frequency analysis of extreme rainfall in monsoon climate conditions. International Journal of Climatology, 37, 612–623.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das, S., & Cunnane, C. (2011). Examination of homogeneity of selected Irish pooling groups. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 819–830.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-819-2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das, S., & Cunnane, C. (2012). Performance of flood frequency pooling analysis in a low CV context. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57, 433–444.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.666635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das, S., Millington, N., & Simonovic, S. P. (2013). Distribution choice for the assessment of design rainfall for the city of London (Ontario, Canada) under climate change. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 40, 121–129.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2011-0548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Baldassarre, G., Laio, F., & Montanari, A. (2009). Design flood estimation using model selection criteria. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, A/B/C, 34, 606–611.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.10.066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenwood, J. A., Landwehr, J. M., Matalas, N. C., & Wallis, J. R. (1979). Probability weighted moments: Definition and relation to parameters of several distributions expressable in inverse form. Water Resources Research, 15, 1049–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heo, J. H., Shin, H., Nam, W., et al. (2013). Approximation of modified Anderson-Darling test statistics for extreme value distributions with unknown shape parameter. Journal of Hydrology, 499, 41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hosking, J. R. M. (1990). L-moments: Analysis and estimation of distributions using linear combinations of order statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society C, 52, 105–124.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2345653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hosking, J. R. M., & Wallis, J. R. (1997). Regional frequency analysis: An approach based on L-moments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosking, J. R. M., Wallis, J. R., & Wood, E. F. (1985). Estimation of the generalized extreme-value distribution by the method of probability-weighted moments. Technometrics, 27, 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Institute of Hydrology. (1999). Flood estimation handbook (Vol. 1–5). Wallingford: Institute of Hydrology.Google Scholar
  20. Laio, F. (2004). Cramer-von Mises and Anderson–Darling goodness of fit tests for extreme value distributions with unknown parameters. Water Resources Research, 40, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landwehr, J. M., Matalas, N. C., & Wallis, J. R. (1980). Quantile estimation with more or less floodlike distributions. Water Resources Research, 16, 547–555.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR016i003p00547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mateu-Figueras, G., Puig, P., & Pewsey, A. (2007). Goodness-of-fit tests for the skew-normal distribution when the parameters are estimated from the data. Communications in Statistics, 36, 1735–1755.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920601126217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  24. Rahman, A. S., Rahman, A., Zaman, M. A., et al. (2013). A study on selection of probability distributions for at-site flood frequency analysis in Australia. Natural Hazards, 69, 1803–1813.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0775-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rutkowska, A., Żelazny, M., Kohnová, S., et al. (2017). Regional L-moment-based flood frequency analysis in the Upper Vistula River basin, Poland. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 174, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sankarasubramanian, A., & Srinivasan, K. (1999). Investigation and comparison of sampling properties of L-moments and conventional moments. Journal of Hydrology, 218, 13–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00018-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shin, H., Jung, Y., Jeong, C., & Heo, J. H. (2012). Assessment of modified Anderson–Darling test statistics for the generalized extreme value and generalized logistic distributions. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 26, 105–114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-011-0463-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stephens, M. (1986). Tests based on EDF statistics. In R. B. D’Agostino & M. A. Stephens (Eds.), Goodness-of-fit techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Tolikas, K., & Heravi, S. (2008). The Anderson–Darling goodness-of-fit test statistic for the three-parameter lognormal distribution. Communications in Statistics.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920802101571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vaill, J. E. (2000). Analysis of the magnitude and frequency of floods in Colorado. Denver: U.S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  31. Wang, D., & Hutson, A. D. (2013). Joint confidence region estimation of L-moment ratios with an extension to right censored data. Journal of Applied Statistics, 40, 368–379.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2012.744386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang, Y., McBean, E. A., & Jarrett, P. (2015). Identification of changes in heavy rainfall events in Ontario, Canada. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1085-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Hydrology and Water ResourcesNanjing University of Information Science & Technology (NUIST)NanjingChina

Personalised recommendations