Advertisement

The Benefit of Continuous Modelling for Design Hydrograph Estimation in Small and Ungauged Basins

  • S. GrimaldiEmail author
  • A. Petroselli
  • R. Piscopia
  • F. Tauro
Conference paper
  • 27 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 67)

Abstract

Estimating the design hydrograph (DH) is a crucial problem in practical hydrology and hydraulics. The development of reliable DHs is particularly challenging in small and ungauged basins due to the lack of observed discharge data that are needed for calibrating advanced models. For such basins, the modeler is often forced to adopt simple and conceptual modelling like the so called event-based approach. It consists in selecting a design rainfall event, which is related to an assigned return period, estimating the rainfall excess and then transforming it into the DH. In recent years, the continuous modelling approach was introduced. This relies on generating a long synthetic rainfall time series at sub-daily resolution that feeds a continuous rainfall–runoff model. Then, a discharge time series is produced that allows for estimating the DH. In this work, we would like to emphasize the added value of the continuous modelling approach in providing a more reliable estimation of the DH.

Keywords

Continuous modelling COSMO4SUB Design hydrograph EBA4SUB Event-based approach Rainfall-runoff modelling 

References

  1. Alfieri, L., Laio, F., & Claps, P. (2008). A simulation experiment for optimal design hyetograph selection. Hydrological Processes, 22, 813–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Grimaldi, S., Petroselli, A., & Serinaldi, F. (2012a). A continuous simulation model for design hydrograph estimation in ungauged watersheds. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57(6), 1035–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grimaldi, S., Petroselli, A., & Serinaldi, F. (2012b). Design hydrograph estimation in small and ungauged watersheds: Continuous simulation method versus event-based approach. Hydrological Processes, 26(20), 3124–3134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grimaldi, S., Petroselli, A., & Romano, N. (2013a). Green-Ampt Curve Number mixed procedure as an empirical tool for rainfall-runoff modelling in small and ungauged basins. Hydrological Processes, 27(8), 1253–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grimaldi, S., Petroselli, A., & Romano, N. (2013b). Curve-Number/Green-Ampt mixed procedure for streamflow predictions in ungauged basins: Parameter sensitivity analysis. Hydrological Processes, 27(8), 1265–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grimaldi, S., & Petroselli, A. (2015). Do we still need the rational formula? An alternative empirical procedure for peak discharge estimation in small and ungauged basins. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60, 66–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grimaldi, S., Petroselli, A., Salvadori, G., & De Michele, C. (2016). Catchment compatibility via copulas: a non-parametric study of the dependence structures of hydrological responses. Advances in Water Resources, 90, 116–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moretti, G., & Montanari, M. (2008). Inferring the flood frequency distribution for an ungauged basin using a spatially distributed rainfall-runoff model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 1141–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nishat, S., Guo, Y., & Baetz, B. W. (2010). Antecedent soil moisture conditions of different soil types in South-western Ontario, Canada. Hydrological Processes, 24, 2417–2424.Google Scholar
  10. Nnadi, F. N., Kline, F. X., Wary, H. L., & Wanielista, M. P. (1999). Comparison of design storm concepts using continuous simulation with short duration storms. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 31(1), 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). (2008). National engineering handbook—part 630, Hydrology. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Petroselli, A., & Grimaldi, S. (2018). Design hydrograph estimation in small and fully ungauged basin: A preliminary assessment of the EBA4SUB framework. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Piscopia, R., Petroselli, A., & Grimaldi, S. (2015). A software package for the prediction of design flood hydrograph in small and ungauged basins. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 2015 XLVI, 432, 74–84.Google Scholar
  14. Verhoest, N. E. C., Vandenberghe, S., Cabus, P., Onof, C., Meca-Figueras, T., & Jameleddine, S. (2010). Are stochastic point rainfall models able to preserve extreme flood statistics? Hydrological Processes, 24, 3439–3445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Viglione, A., & Bloschl, G. (2009). On the role of storm duration in the mapping of rainfall to flood return periods. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 13, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Grimaldi
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Petroselli
    • 2
  • R. Piscopia
    • 3
  • F. Tauro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Innovation in BiologicalAgro-Food and Forest Systems (DIBAF), University of Tuscia, via San Camillo de Lellis sncViterboItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Enterprise (DEIM)University of TusciaViterboItaly
  3. 3.FreelanceRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations