Author
Abstract
The selection of optimum probabilistic model of extreme floods as a crucial step for flood frequency analysis has remained a formidable challenge for the scientific and engineering communities to address. Presently, there is no scientific consensus about the choice of probability distribution model that would accurately simulate flood discharges at a particular location or region. In practice, several probability distributions are evaluated, and the optimum distribution is then used to establish the design quantile - probability relationship. This paper presents the evaluation of five probability distributions models; Gumbel (EV1), 2-parameter lognormal (LN2), log Pearson type III (LP3), Pearson type III(PR3), and Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) using the method of moments (MoM) for parameter estimation and annual maximum series of four hydrological stations in Benue River Basin in Nigeria. Additionally, Q-Q plots were used to compliment the selection process. The choice of optimum probability distribution model was based on five statistical goodness – of – fit measures; modified index of agreement (Dmod), relative root mean square error (RRMSE), Nash – Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Percent bias (PBIAS), ratio of RMSE and standard deviation of the measurement (RSR). Goodness – of – fit assessment reveals that GEV is the best – fit distribution, seconded by PR3 and thirdly, LP3. In comparison with WMO (1989) survey of countries on distribution types currently in use for frequency analysis of extremes of floods shows that GEV is standard in one country, while PR3 is a standard in 7 countries, and LP3 is standard in 7 countries. It is recommended that GEV, PR3 and LP3 should be considered in the final selection of optimum probability distribution model in Nigeria.
Suggested Citation
Itolima Ologhadien, 2021.
"Selection of Probabilistic Model of Extreme Floods in Benue River Basin, Nigeria,"
European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, European Open Science, vol. 6(1), pages 7-18, January.
Handle:
RePEc:epw:ejeng0:v:6:y:2021:i:1:id:62300
DOI: 10.24018/ejeng.2021.6.1.2300
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:ejeng0:v:6:y:2021:i:1:id:62300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejeng .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.