Case Study

Frequency Analysis of Flash Floods for Establishing

New Danger Levels for the Rivers in the
Northeast Haor Region of Bangladesh
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Binata Roy 1; A. K. M. Saiful Islam, Ph.D. 2; G. M. Tarekul Islam, Ph.D. 3; Md. Jamal Uddin Khan 4;
Biswa Bhattacharya, Ph.D. 5; Md. Hazrat Ali, Ph.D. 6; Abu Saleh Khan 7; Md. Saiful Hossain 8;
Gopal Chandra Sarker 9; and Nahruma Mehzabeen Pieu 10

Abstract: A danger level at a river location is the level above which a flood may cause loss and damage to nearby lives, crops, and
homesteads. Currently, in Bangladesh, the danger level is designed and updated considering the riverine flood during the monsoon season
(June–September). However, during the premonsoon season (March–May), flash floods, almost every year, damage crops in some parts of the
northeast Haor (saucer- or bowl-shaped large tectonic depression) region. Damage to Boro rice, the only crop that is grown in this region, is
catastrophic to the local population and threatens the food security of the country. At present, there is no warning or danger level to inform the
community to save the Boro crops from flash floods in that region. Hence, this study attempts to establish a flash flood danger level at 40
locations in the northeast region of Bangladesh based on flood frequency analysis and elevations of the river floodplains. The homogeneity
and adequacy of the data series was tested by performing the run test, lag 1 auto correlation, Mann-Kendall test, and Mann-Whitney test. After
passing the data quality tests, flood frequency analysis was conducted using six widely used distributions: lognormal, lognormal Type III,
Pearson Type III, log-Pearson Type III, and Gumbel and generalized extreme value (GEV) distributions. Best regional distribution was
selected from the probability plot correlations coefficient (PPCC), normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), and mean absolute error
(MAE) results. Among the candidate distributions, GEV distribution was found to provide the best results. Then, the danger level was fixed
on the basis of the flooding inundation scenarios of different return periods at which the stage is at or near the floodplain level. The results
showed that for most of the stations, the 2.33-year flood level coincides with the existing floodplain level. For the rest of the stations, flash
flood danger levels were fixed at the 5-year return period’s flood level. The recommended flash flood danger levels were found much lower
than the existing monsoon flood danger levels. For example, at Sunamganj station, the existing flood danger level is 8.25 mPWD (Public
Works Datum) whereas the recommended flash flood danger level is only 6.41 mPWD. At some stations, the difference is too prominent, even
more than 5 m, which can cause severe destruction for the Boro rice cultivation during a flash flood. It is expected that flash flood danger
levels estimated in this study may assist in flash flood forecasting in the northeast Haor region and provide an effective warning at the time of
necessity, thus minimizing the loss and damage by the flash flood to some extent. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001760. © 2019
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bangladesh; Danger level; Flash flood; Flood frequency analysis; Haor region.

Introduction in upstream hilly areas in a short period of time with little or no

chance of advance weather forecast or warning (Sweeney 1992).
A flash flood is a sudden and destructive rush of water down a Flash floods generally occur in the northeastern and southeastern
narrow channel or over a sloping surface caused by heavy rainfall (Chittagong) regions of Bangladesh. However, the northeastern

1 5
Lecturer, Institute of Water and Flood Management, Bangladesh
Univ. of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. Email:
binata_roy@iwfm.buet.ac.bd
2
Professor, Institute of Water and Flood Management, Bangladesh
Univ. of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh (corre-
sponding author). Email: akmsaifulislam@iwfm.buet.ac.bd; saiful3@
gmail.com
3
Professor, Institute of Water and Flood Management, Bangladesh
Univ. of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh. Email:
tarek@iwfm.buet.ac.bd
4
Research Assistant, Institute of Water and Flood Management,
Bangladesh Univ. of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh.
Email: jamal919@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 16, 2018; approved on
October 1, 2018; published online on January 31, 2019. Discussion period
open until June 30, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699.
Associate Professor, Hydroinformatics Chair Group of the Integrated
Water Systems and Governance, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education,
P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, Netherlands. Email: b.bhattacharya@
unesco-ihe.org
6
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Chittagong Univ. of Engineering
and Technology, Chittagong 4349, Bangladesh. Email: pdrmhali@gmail.com
7
Deputy Executive Director, Operation, Institute of Water Modelling,
House #496, Rd. #32, New DOHS, Mohakhali, Dhaka 1206, Bangladesh.
Email: ask@iwmbd.org
8
Superintending Engineer, Processing and Flood Forecasting Circle,
Bangladesh Water Development Board, 72 Green Rd., Dhaka 1215,
Bangladesh. Email: se.pffc@bwdb.gov.bd
9
Project Director, Local Government Engineering Dept., Haor
Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project, Agargoan, Dhaka
1207, Bangladesh. Email: gopalpdhilip@gmail.com
10
Research Assistant, Institute of Water and Flood Management,
Bangladesh Univ. of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh.
Email: nahruma@gmail.com

© ASCE 05019004-1 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004

 region of Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to flash floods due to
the surrounding hilly areas and the presence of numerous Haors
(CARE 2010). A Haor is a saucer- or bowl-shaped large tectonic
depression that remains under water in the monsoon but dries up
in the postmonsoon period. It is predominantly a feature of the
northeastern region of Bangladesh (Sumon and Islam 2013). When
heavy rainfall occurs in the hilly Assam and Meghalaya regions
of India, flood water quickly moves toward the Haor areas of
Bangladesh through the transboundary rivers and eventually enters
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
into the Haors within 3–6 h (Nowreen et al. 2013; NWS 2018). In
most of the cases, farmers do not get enough time to harvest their
standing Boro crop which is the only crop of this region. Boro is
cultivated over almost 80% of the Haor areas while only 10% of the
area is used to cultivate another rice variety known as Aman rice
(Huda 2004). A study by Khan et al. (2012) showed that about 70%
of the crop in this area is damaged by flash floods, which impacts
the national economy. The flash flood of 2010 damaged crops over
152,000 ha (1,520 km2 ) causing loss of 775,000 t of crops worth
BDT 13.18 billion (Daily Star 2010) while the flash flood of 2016
damaged about 50,000 ha (500 km2 ) of paddy in more than 100
villages of Sunamganj and Sylhet (Deshwara 2016).
Conventional structural flood control measures like submersible
embankments levees, rubber dams etc. have already been built, and
more are being built by the Bangladesh Water Development Board
(BWDB) and Local Government Engineering Department (LGED)
to protect the Boro crops from the flash floods (Hossain and Nishat
1996). A submersible embankment is a low-height embankment
specially designed for the protection of Boro crops from the flash
flood in the premonsoon season, which remains submerged during
monsoon and cooperates in the lateral migration of fish between
river and floodplain (Mondal et al. 2004). About 47 submersible
embankments covering 5,000–6,000 ha (50–60 km2 ) each have
been constructed between 1975 and 1990s by BWDB to save the
Boro crop (Rahman and Salehin 2013). However, due to the de-
fective construction of the submersible embankments, erosion and
breaching of the embankments during flood flow, and manmade
breaches for navigation/boat crossing, the submersible embank-
ments are not serving the design purpose to their full capability
(Alam 2016). Besides, the submersible embankments also have neg-
ative impacts on the Haor environment and ecology (Khan 2010) as
well as cause drainage congestion after a flash flood. Considering
the disadvantages of structural measures in this area, the nonstruc-
tural measures of flood risks management are widely preferred for
more sustainable and long-term solutions to water-related problems
with minimum costs for operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and
replacement (Faisal et al. 1999; Kundzewicz and Menzel 2003;
Kryžanowski et al. 2014). Flood forecasting and warning is the most
widely used tool for nonstructural mitigation of flood damage
(Montz and Gruntfest 2002; UNECE 2000). In Bangladesh, the
flood forecasts are made by the Flood Forecasting and Warning
Center (FFWC) of BWDB which is the nationally mandated organi-
zation for all kinds of flood forecasting. These flood forecasts are
made with respect to danger levels defined by the FFWC. Unfortu-
nately, these danger levels have been defined focusing only on ex-
treme events during the monsoon floods considering the period from
June to September (FFWC 2018). No danger level for the flash
flood is fixed by the FFWC for forecasting flash floods yet. The
danger level for flash floods is usually much lower than the danger
level of monsoon floods. Due to the lack of proper flash flood fore-
casting using danger level of monsoon floods, the farmers of the
Haor region cannot take proper initiatives to save the Boro crop in
their fields. Therefore, fixation of a reliable danger level for flash
flood–prone areas of the northeast region is essential which will
© ASCE 05019004-2
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004
further help in flash flood forecasting and early warning to protect
the Boro crops in this region.
In the past, many studies have been conducted for the hydrolog-
ical analysis of the northeast Haor regions of Bangladesh (Nowreen
et al. 2015; Sultana 2015). However, none of these studies focused
on providing a new danger level for flash floods, which was felt
essential to save the Boro crops. A few studies were conducted
on danger levels of monsoon floods in Bangladesh and Nepal
(IFCDR 1995; Adhikari et al. 2014). But studies focusing on
the importance of providing a danger level for flash floods, separate
from monsoon flood, for saving the Boro crop–based agriculture of
the northeast region has not been done yet, let alone its implica-
tions. Hence, this study is designed to recommend flash flood
danger levels for the northeast Haor region with the following ob-
jectives: (1) to select a representative regional probability distribu-
tion function for the gauge stations of the northeast region, and
(2) to fix up a new flash flood danger level by flood frequency
analysis. In this study, the flood frequency analysis has been
conducted with the maximum annual water level which is the first
step to determine the recurrence interval of an event. Once the
recurrence interval is known, the flash flood danger level is recom-
mended by evaluating the flooding scenarios of different return
periods (2.33–100 year) at which the water levels reach or are
nearer to the floodplain at the full stage.
Study Area
Flash floods usually occur in the northeastern and southeastern
(Chittagong) regions of Bangladesh. However, the northeast is
highly susceptible to flash floods due to its surrounding hilly areas
and saucer- or bowl-shaped large tectonic depressions. Besides,
Jhuming, or shifting cultivation (popularly known as Sweden cul-
tivation or cultivation of slash and burn), is a more prevalent and
suitable form of cultivation in the southeastern hill tracks rather
than Boro cultivation (Baten et al. 2010). So premonsoon flash
floods are not a threating factor for agriculture in the southeastern
regions of Bangladesh. The core northeast Haor region extends over
seven districts—Sunamganj, Habiganj, Netrokona, Kishoreganj,
Sylhet, Moulavibazar, and Brahmanbaria—covering an area of
about 1.99 million hectares and accommodating about 19.37 million
people (CEGIS 2012). About 373 Haors are located in these dis-
tricts comprising about 85,900 ha (859 km2 ) of the area, which is
around 43% of the total Haor region of Bangladesh (CEGIS 2012).
The Hakaloki Haor, Sumir Haor, Dakhar Haor, Tanguyar Haor,
Gungiajuri Haor, Mukhar Haor, Kaowadighir Haor etc. are the ma-
jor Haors within this area (Alam et al. 2010). In this study, 40 water
level stations located within this area were selected. These sta-
tions spread over the major rivers of this region—Bhogai-Kangsa,
Dhalai, Dhanu-Baulai-Ghorautra, Jadukata, Khowai, Kushiyara,
Monu, Someswari, Surma-Meghna, Sutang, Piyan, Sari-Gowain,
and Mogra. The northeast Haor area is well known for its unique
hydroecological characteristics. It is a mosaic of wetland habitats
including rivers, streams, and irrigation canals, large areas of sea-
sonally flooded cultivated plains, and hundreds of Haors and Beels
(permanent water bodies) (Hussain and Salam 2007; Sumon and
Islam 2013). The climate of this area is subtropical monsoonal with
an average annual rainfall of approximately 4,000 mm (NERP FAP -
6 1995). Geographically, this area is surrounded by the hilly regions
of India—Meghalaya on the north, Tripura and Mizoram on the
south, and Assam and Manipur on the east. Hydrologically, it lies
in the Meghna basin of the Bengal delta. Fig. 1 shows the selected
water level stations of the northeast region. The Haor system of the
northeast region and the selected stations as well as the respective
J. Hydrol. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Water level stations of the Bangladesh Water Development Board in the northeast region of Bangladesh used for this study. (Inset map data
from ESRI, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStretMap contributors, and the GIS user community.)

Upazilas, districts, and rivers are given in Fig. S1 and Table S1,
respectively.
Data and Methods
Data
Based on the data availability, the 3-h water level data from 1996 to
2014 for the 40 stations mentioned in Fig. 1 were collected from
BWDB. The cross sections of rivers near these stations were col-
lected from both BWDB and the Institute of Water Modeling
(IWM). Considering the short time of the concentration of flash
floods (NWS 2018), we used 3-h water level data for the period
1996–2014. All the water level or cross section data collected in
this study were in terms of Public Works Datum (PWD) which is
approximately 0.46 m (1.5 ft) below the mean sea level (FFWC
2018).
Conventionally, flood frequency analysis is conducted using the
discharge data (Stedinger et al. 1993; McMahon and Srikanthan
1981; Rossi et al. 1984; Ahmad et al. 1988). But in this study, flood
frequency analysis was conducted using water level data primarily
for the following reasons: (1) the inadequacy of the discharge sta-
tions compared with the water level stations in the northeast Haor
region—there are only 33 discharge gauge stations whereas the
number of water level stations is 61; (2) 3-h water level data were
collected in these water level stations whereas the discharge data
were collected twice or thrice in a month and required the prepa-
ration of a rating curve to convert them into continuous discharge
data; (3) the flash flood warning was provided using the water level
of the rivers; (4) there was not much variation in the rising and fall-
ing limb of the discharge and water level rating curves of the river
system of the northeast region; and (5) the planform of the rivers of
this region is comparatively stable. Considering all the aforemen-
tioned, the flood frequency analysis was done using water level data
rather than conventional discharge data.
Methodology
Flood frequency analysis is an important phase for fixing up the
danger level of an area (IFCDR 1995). Selecting the best frequency
distribution available to fit the hydrologic data series for the north-
east region is the first step. Three goodness-of-fit statistics were
considered, namely, normalized root mean square error (NRMSE),
probability plot correlations coefficient (PPCC), and mean absolute
error (MAE). The flash flood danger levels for the 40 stations of the
northeast region were fixed considering the flooding scenarios of
different return periods (from 2.33 to 100 years) at which the water
level reaches or is nearer to the floodplain at full stage. The step-by-
step methodology of the frequency analysis followed by this study
is shown in Fig. S2.
Data Analysis
Annual Maximum Series Preparation
There are two different models for analyzing extreme hydrologic
events: partial duration series (PDS) and annual maximum series
(AMS). In this study, the flood frequency analysis was conducted
with annual maximum water level time series. For the return peri-
ods less than 10 years, annual maximum series was lower than

© ASCE 05019004-3 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004

 partial duration series (Armstrong et al. 2012). Hence, for flood
warning or danger level fixation, AMS provides greater security
than PDS. Because this study was conducted for providing a dan-
ger level to save Boro crops of the study area, we selected annual
maximum water level time series considering the period between
March 1 and May 15 of each year. From the meteorological point of
view, the risk of flash flood continues until the end of May. How-
ever, the main focus of this study is to recommend a danger level to
reduce the damage to the Boro crop of the northeast Haor region by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
is considered stationary if it is free from trends, shifts, or is periodic.
Generally, the stationarity of the annual data series is checked
by statistical tests for trend and homogeneity of the mean values.
Linear regression, Mann-Kendall, and Spearman’s rank correlation
test are commonly used trend tests in hydrology. Linear regression
is a parametric trend test while Mann-Kendall and Spearman’s rank
correlation are nonparametric trend tests. In Mann-Kendall test,
the result is not impacted by the magnitude of extreme values as
with regression/correlation test. Besides, the Mann-Kendall test is

the flash floods, which matures and is ready for harvesting by the
middle of May (BWDB 2006). Hence, the duration of this analysis
was set by considering the end of the harvesting period of Boro
crops in that region.
Homogeneity Assessment of the Data Series
A primary condition for frequency analysis is that the time series
data should be homogeneous over time, implying that the time
series must be random, independent, and stationary. In this study,
being used by many hydrologists for a very long time (Mann 1945;
Kendall 1975; Hamed 2008; Mondal et al. 2012; Ahmad et al.
2015). Hence, in this study, the nonparametric Mann-Kendall test
was used to statistically detect the presence of monotonic upward
or downward trend of the variable over time. If x1 ; x2 : : : xn is the
time series of length n, then the Mann-Kendall test statistic S is
given by Eqs. (3) and (4)
X
n−1 X
n

the homogeneity of the water level data series of all gauge stations S¼ sgnðxj − xi Þ ð3Þ
i−1 j−iþ1
was checked by quantitative statistical tests for randomness, inde-
pendence, and stationarity at 5% significance level.
Randomness Test. For a probabilistic frequency analysis, it is 1 for x > 0
required that samples be pure random. A sample for which the sam- Where; sgnðxÞ ¼ 0 for x ¼ 0 ð4Þ
pling procedure is entirely by chance is called an unbiased, or ran- −1 for x < 0
dom, sample. Randomness in a hydrological time series means that
the data arise from natural causes. Randomness happens when the If the null hypothesis H0 (there is no trend in the time series) is
rivers or streams are regulated by upstream dams, regulators, or true, then S is normally distributed with
any flood control structures. Here, the northeast river system is not EðSÞ ¼ 0 ð5Þ
regulated by any large dam or flood control structure. However,
statistical test is necessary to justify this fact. Randomness can be
nðn − 1Þð2n þ SÞ
tested by both parametric and nonparametric tests. Generally, in VðSÞ ¼ ð6Þ
nonparametric tests, no underlying distribution is assumed. Another 18
feasible alternative is the turning point test which is a nonparametric where EðSÞ is the mean and VðSÞ is the variance of S. Then the
method for determining if a time series is random. This holds for Mann-Kendall Z is given by Eq. (7)
the run test as well. For the current study, the nonparametric two-
tailed run test was carried out at 5% significance level to test the S−1
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi for S > 0
randomness of the data set (Bradley 1968; McGhee 1985; Adeloye VðSÞ
and Montaseri 2002). Z¼ 0 for S ¼ 0 ð7Þ
Independence Test. The independence test refers to the mutual Sþ1
independence of the random variables. If the data is independent, pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi for S < 0
it means there is no persistency. Otherwise, the series is persistent. VðSÞ
The persistence is normally quantified in terms of a serial correla-
tion coefficient. Therefore, a two-tailed lag 1 auto correlation test is A positive value of S indicates an increasing trend and vice versa
performed to check the independency of the data at 5% significance while test statistic Z gives the significance level of rejecting the null
level (Ngongondo et al. 2011). The lag 1 auto correlation is com- hypothesis.
puted using Eq. (1) while the limits of the auto correlation of an Once the trend is detected, the magnitude of trend is determined
independent series at 5% significance level are computed using using standard least-squares slope test, Theil–Sen approach (TSA),
the Eq. (2) or trimmed and Winsorized slope test. However, the standard meth-
ods for estimating and testing slopes are problematic when data are
Pn−k not normally distributed and residual variances are heterogeneous.
ðx − x̄Þðxiþk − x̄Þ
rk ¼ i¼1Pni 2
ð1Þ Different studies show that Theil–Sen slopes are more powerful
i¼1 ðxi − x̄Þ slope estimators than trimmed and Winsorized slopes (Moses and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Klockars 2008). Hence, in this study, TSA slope was used at 5%
−1  1.96 N − k − 1 significance level (Thiel 1950; Sen 1968). The TSA slope β is
rk ¼ ð2Þ
N−k−1 given by Eq. (8)
 
where N = sample size; and k is the lag. Haan (1986) discussed xj − xi
β ¼ median ð8Þ
another test of significance for the serial correlation coefficient de- j−i
veloped by Anderson (1942) for a circular, normal, stationary time
series. However, the assumption of a circular test series is unreal- Homogeneity of the mean test checks the consistency of the
istic (Haan 1986). Hence, this alternative was not attempted in this mean of the data series over time. The two-sample t-test is one
study. of the most used statistical procedures to test it. However, this test
Assessment of Stationary. Stationarity tests check the consistency assumes that the variable in question is normally distributed in
of the statistical parameters (mean, variance, standard deviation the two groups. When this assumption is in doubt, the nonparamet-
etc.) over time (Challis and Kitney 1990). A hydrologic time series ric Mann-Whitney test is suggested as an alternative to the t-test.

© ASCE 05019004-4 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004


Hence, in this study, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test at 5%
significance level was conducted to check the consistency of the
mean of the data set (Mann and Whitney 1947; Machiwal and
Jha 2008).
Selection of Probability Distribution Function
Flood frequency analysis is an important phase for fixing the
danger level of an area (IFCDR 1995). It is a statistical approach
that assesses the historical data to predict the future possibility or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
likelihood of occurrence of flood events at a particular location.
However, it is important to select a representative probability dis-
tribution function for fitting the extreme event at a particular loca-
tion. There is no universally accepted frequency distribution model
for frequency analysis of an extreme event. Many distribution
functions are being used depending on the characteristics of the
particular event (rainfall, runoff, flood flow, low flow, water level,
pollutant loadings, groundwater, etc.) and site. Widely used prob-
ability distribution functions in hydrology are normal distribution,
lognormal (LN) distribution, exponential distribution, gamma dis-
tribution, Pearson Type III (P3), log-Pearson Type III (LP3), ex-
treme value distribution I (Gumbel), extreme value distribution II
(Frechet), extreme value distribution III (Weibull), generalized Pa-
reto distribution, and so forth (Stedinger et al. 1993). In this study,
six distributions—lognormal, lognormal Type III (LN3), Pearson
Type III, log-Pearson Type III, extreme value distribution I/Gumbel
distribution, and generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution—
were used. These distributions have been widely used in hydrology
for a very long time (Benson 1968; Chang and Moore 1983;
Hosking et al. 1985; FEMA 2004; Mukherjee 2013; Izinyon and
Ajumuka 2013). These six distributions are highly also used for the
frequency analysis of discharge or water level data in Bangladesh
(Karim and Chowdhury 1995; IFCDR 1995). The Gumbel distri-
bution is used by the BWDB, which is a mandated organization
for designing and implementing of all flood control projects and
hydraulic structures in Bangladesh. The log-Pearson Type III dis-
tribution has been used in the National Water Plan while the gen-
eralized extreme value distribution has been used in the Flood
Action Plan of Bangladesh. The probability distribution functions
of the six distributions are presented in Table S2.
Goodness-of-Fit Analysis
The best frequency distribution function is fixed considering
goodness-of-fit statistics. PPCC, NRMSE, MAE, chi-square, and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov, etc., are popular goodness-of-fit methods
for fitting representative distribution by comparing the deviations
between observed and computed variables. In this study, dimen-
sionless PPCC and NRMSE were used to rank the selected distri-
butions, as used by Karim and Chowdhury (1995), to rank various
distributions for the monsoon floods of Bangladesh. However,
dimensionless parameters should not be used exclusively as a
goodness-of-fit test (Willmott 1981). Hence, in addition to NRMSE
and PPCC, the one-dimensional goodness-of-fit test—MAE—
was also applied. Widely used good-of-fit tests—chi-square and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov—were not considered in this study due to
their lesser importance in the case of selection of a regional distri-
bution, as referred by Cunnane (1989).
Probability Plot Correlations Coefficient. Probability plot corre-
lations coefficient is the correlation between the ordered observa-
tions and the corresponding fitted quartiles determined by plotting
position (Filliben 1975; Vogel 1986; Vogel and Kroll 1989). A
value of the PPCC near 1.0 suggests good fitness of the distribu-
tion. PPCC of the fitted distribution at a site is given by the follow-
ing equation [Eq. (9)]:
© ASCE 05019004-5
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004
Pn
i¼1 ðyi − ȳÞðwi − w̄Þ
ρ ¼ Pn P  ð9Þ
i¼1 ðyi − ȳÞ2 ni¼1 ðwi − w̄Þ2
where yi = observed ith largest water level; wi = computed water
level using a distribution at the ith plotting position; ȳ = average
value of the observed water level; w̄ = average value of the com-
puted water level; and n = number of data points used in the com-
putation. A plotting position formula is essential to obtain values of
wi from a fitted distribution. The plotting position formula can be
expressed in a general form as described by Cunnane (1978) using
the following equation [Eq. (10)]:
ði − aÞ
Fi ¼ ð10Þ
ðn þ 1 − 2aÞ
where Fi is the plotting probability; and i is the rank in ordered
observations in which i ¼ 1 presents the smallest observation in
the sample. In this study, the Blom formula with a ¼ 0.375 was
used for the LN, LN3, P3, and LP3 distributions (Vogel and Kroll
1989); the Gringorten formula with a ¼ 0.44 was used for the
Gumbel distribution (Vogel 1986); and the Cunnane formula with
a ¼ 0.4 was used for the GEV distribution (Chowdhury et al.
1991).
Normalized Root Mean Square Error. NRMSE is a frequently
used goodness-of-fit method used by the Natural Environment Re-
search Council (NERC 1975), Karim and Chowdhury (1995), and
Hosking and Wallis (1993) along with other methods for ranking
the candidate distributions. While root mean square error (RMSE)
represents the dimensional standard deviation of the differences
between computed and observed value, NRMSE is a dimension-
less statistic to show this difference with respect to a certain value.
Different types of data are normalized differently in different liter-
ature. Although there is no consistent means of normalization in the
literature, common choices are the mean or the range (the differ-
ence between the maximum and minimum value) of the observed
data (CIRP 2016). In this study, RMSE was normalized with re-
spect to the corresponding observed value. A value of the NRMSE
near 0 suggests good fitness of the distribution. The NRMSE of a
distribution fitted to the observed water level data at a station is
computed using the following equation [Eq. (11)]:
 X 
1 n yi − wi 2 1=2
NRMSE ¼ ð11Þ
n i¼1 yi
Mean Absolute Error. In addition to PPCC and NRMSE, it is also
necessary to quantify the error in terms of the units of the variable.
MAE measures the average magnitude of the errors (absolute dif-
ferences between computed and observed value) in a set of predic-
tions without considering their direction, as shown in Eq. (12). This
dimensional MAE was used by Legates and McCabe (1999) for
hydrologic model validation
Pn
jy − wi j
MAE ¼ i¼1 i ð12Þ
n
If the absolute value is not taken (the signs of the errors are not
removed), the average error becomes the mean bias error (MBE)
and is usually intended to measure average model bias. MBE can
convey useful information, but should be interpreted cautiously be-
cause positive and negative errors will cancel out. Therefore, in this
study, MAE was used instead of MBE.
Fixation of Danger Level
A danger level at a river location is the level above which the flood
may cause loss and damage to nearby lives, crops, and homesteads
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 (FFWC 2018). Usually, the mean annual flood peak has a magni-
tude equivalent to the flood of 2.33-year recurrence interval for
many distributions like Gumbel, extreme theory, and log distribu-
tion (Gumbel 1945; Dalrymple 1960; Black 1996). Hence, theoreti-
cally, the flash flood level of a 2.33-year return period is fixed as the
danger level of any given station. This concept of fixing the flood
danger level using annual mean flood level is also practically used
and referred by the FFWC of BWDB, especially for the rivers with
no embankment (FFWC 2018). Therefore, the frequency analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of 2.33-year return period is good enough to fix the danger level.
But the elevation of the floodplain is also an important criterion, as
mentioned by Adhikari et al. (2014). They fixed the danger level of
the monsoon flood for the two major rivers of Nepal by comparing
the elevations of the floodplain with the levels from frequency
analysis. A similar approach was adopted in this study. Flood fre-
quency, along with the elevations of the river floodplains were con-
sidered and, finally, the danger levels were fixed considering the
return periods at which the water level reached the floodplain or
were nearer to the floodplain at full stage.
Results and Discussions
Data Homogeneity Analysis
In this study, the homogeneity and adequacy of the water level data
series of all gauge stations were checked by quantitative statistical
tests for randomness, independence, and stationarity at 5% signifi-
cance level. For satisfying these criteria, nonparametric run test,
lag 1 auto correlation test, Mann-Kendall test, and Mann-Whitney
test were performed. The results of these four nonparametric homo-
geneity test results are given in Table 1.
The homogeneity test results showed that 37 stations out of the
selected 40 stations show randomness in run test results (z value is
greater than 1.96). The independence test showed that four stations
failed in independency test, whose value was greater than the prob-
able limits of correlation at 5% significance level.
In case of stationarity test, both Mann-Kendall and Mann-
Whitney tests were computed. Nonparametric Mann-Kendall test
showed that only 1 of the 40 stations showed significant trend while
the rest of the stations showed almost no upward or downward
trend. Thus, it can be concluded that the selected stations were free
of any significant trend. On the other hand, the Mann-Whitney
test result showed that six stations were not stationary. Altogether,
10 out of 40 stations failed in at least one test, while SW 131.5 failed
in all the tests of homogeneity. These stations could be thrown out
for further analysis. But considering their importance, these stations
were not excluded from the analysis. So, the regional flood fre-
quency analysis was conducted on all these 40 stations.
Regional Flash Flood Frequency Analysis
As stated previously, a total of six widely used frequency distribu-
tion functions—lognormal, lognormal Type III, Pearson Type III,
log-Pearson Type III, extreme value distribution I/Gumbel distribu-
tion, and generalized extreme value distribution—were fitted. The
best-fit regional distribution was selected applying three goodness-
of-fit criteria: PPCC, NRMSE, and MAE. A ranking scale was used
for comparing the result of the goodness-of-fit outcomes. Consid-
ering the goodness-of-fit results at a site, each distribution was
given a rank between 1 and 6. Rank 1 is for the best fitting distri-
bution and Rank 6 is for the worst fitting one. Table 2 shows the
rank of distributions of the 40 selected gauge stations based on the
goodness-of-fit analysis.
© ASCE 05019004-6
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004
Table 2 shows that among the six candidate distributions,
generalized extreme value distribution was the most suitable distri-
bution for fitting the extreme flash flood events of the northeast
Haor region of Bangladesh. Hence, GEV distribution was used for
predicting the flash flood levels of 2.33-, 5-, 10-, 20-, 50-, and
100-year return period for each of the selected water level stations,
as shown in Table S3.
Danger Level Determination
Generally, the danger level of a location is set in a manner to min-
imize flood damage and risk to life safety. This requires estimation
of the elevations for protected areas, then computing the return
period in which those elevations would be exceeded. Therefore, in
this study, GEV distribution was first selected for conducting fre-
quency analysis in order to set flash flood danger levels. Then, the
elevations of the bank lines of each of the 40 forecasting stations
were compared with the levels from the frequency analysis. Finally,
the danger levels were fixed considering the return periods at which
the water level was reached or was nearer to floodplain at the full
stage.
For example, the flooding scenarios of 2.33- to 100-years return
period was examined for Khaliajuri station (SW 72) on the Dhanu-
Baulai-Ghorautra river, as shown in Fig. 2(a). From the analysis, it
was found that at station SW 72 on the 2.33-year return period the
surface water level would be just at the floodplain stage. Therefore,
for this station, water level at the 2.33-year return period was
selected as the danger level.
Fig. 2(b) shows the water level scenarios of 2.33- to 100-year at
Sutang Railway Bridge (SW 280) station on Sutang river. From the
figure, it is observed that at this station, the water surface would be
just at the floodplain stage for a flood of 5-year return period.
Hence, for this station, the danger level was defined at 5-year return
period.
A similar assessment was done for the rest of the selected sta-
tions, and a flash flood danger level was assigned to each of these
stations assessing different flooding scenarios of 2.33- to 100-year
return period. Table 3 shows the proposed flash flood danger level
at 40 stations along with the existing monsoon flood danger level at
20 stations updated in FFWC website.
From Table 3, it is clearly observed that at most of the stations
on 2.33-year flood level, the water surface is at the floodplain level
or nearer to floodplain level. Hence, for these stations, the proposed
flash flood danger levels were marked at the 2.33-year flood level.
For the rest of the stations, flash flood danger levels were fixed at
5-year return period. Fig. 3 shows the locations of these 40 stations
and surrounding river systems along with the danger level recom-
mended for each of the stations.
The difference between the proposed flash flood danger level
and the existing danger level is shown in Fig. 4, which shows that
the flash flood danger level recommended in this study is much
lower than the existing monsoon flood danger level. At some sta-
tions the differences are more prominent, ranging from 0.15 to
5.21 mPWD with an average difference of nearly 1.50 mPWD.
Though this difference is not much significant for monsoon flood,
it can cause severe destruction to the Boro rice cultivation during a
flash flood. Hence, the flash flood danger level should be fixed sep-
arately from the existing monsoon danger level considering the
flash flood period only and should be updated in the FFWC website
as soon as possible. Furthermore, it is also recommended that for
the purpose of safety, a warning level can be designed (0.3–0.5 m)
below the proposed danger level on the basis of topography, actual
field condition, and importance of the respective sites for Boro rice
cultivation. Concurrently, FFWC officials should use these warning
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Homogeneity (randomness, independence, and stationarity) test results of data series
Ramdomness test Independence test Stationarity test

© ASCE
Run test Lag 1 auto correlation Mann kendall Mann whitney
Mann-Kendall trend Sen’s slope
Auto Lower Upper
Station ID Station Name n Z Value 5% Significance Lag correlation r limit r1 limit r2 5% Significance Z Value 5% Significance Q Z value 5% Significance
SW 3 Brahmanbaria Rly Bridge 19 −1.0975 S 1 −0.0095 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.9452 S −0.0200 1.38804 S
SW 34 Nakuagaon 19 −0.4291 S 1 −0.0772 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.8407 S −0.0327 0.73485 S
SW 36 Jaria-Jhanjail 19 −0.2243 S 1 0.1511 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.6297 S 0.0283 0.44907 S
SW 36.1 Mohanganj 19 0.7227 S 1 0.1359 −0.5525 0.4275 S −1.2610 S −0.0545 1.55134 S
SW 67 Kamalganj 19 −1.1713 S 1 0.4214 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.7697 S −0.0342 2.00042 I
SW 72 Khaliajuri 18 −0.2243 S 1 0.2493 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.2273 S −0.0113 1.34722 S
SW 73 Itna 19 1.0994 S 1 −0.0705 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.2799 S 0.0117 0.53072 S
SW 74 Dilalpur 19 −0.2243 S 1 −0.0465 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.3151 S −0.0053 0.9798 S
SW 131.5 Laurergarh Saktiarkhola 19 −2.1184 I 1 0.4546 −0.5525 0.4275 I −2.7656 I −0.1122 3.26599 I
SW 135A Juri_Cont_silghat 13 −0.0946 S 1 −0.0094 −0.7198 0.5198 S 1.2812 S 0.0984 −1.21429 S
SW 138 Sofiabad 18 −1.3105 S 1 0.6012 −0.5727 0.4394 I −0.4545 S −0.0610 1.94265 S
SW 157 Ballah 18 −1.8234 S 1 0.4402 −0.5727 0.4394 I −0.2273 S −0.0180 1.23623 S
SW 158 Shaistaganj 19 −0.6978 S 1 0.1654 −0.5525 0.4275 S −1.6093 S −0.0967 1.91877 S
SW 158.1 Chunarghat 19 −2.0674 I 1 0.2301 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.6997 S −0.0562 1.67382 S
SW 159 Habiganj 19 −2.9765 I 1 0.4157 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.8065 S −0.0367 2.00042 I
SW 172.5 Amalshid 19 0.2492 S 1 −0.1902 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.2799 S −0.0386 0.85732 S
SW 173 Sheola 19 0.2492 S 1 −0.1911 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.0000 S −0.0041 0.53072 S
SW 174 Fenchuganj 19 0.2492 S 1 −0.1374 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.6297 S 0.0600 0.04082 S
SW 175.5 Sherpur 19 0.3573 S 1 −0.1214 −0.5525 0.4275 S 1.0152 S 0.0600 −0.04082 S
SW 192 Motiganj 11 −0.9331 S 1 0.1938 −0.8180 0.5680 S 0.0000 S −0.0060 0.63901 S
SW 201 Monu Rly. Bridge 19 0.3430 S 1 0.4275 S S 2.49031 I

05019004-7
−0.0612 −0.5525 −1.3994 −0.0727
SW 202 Moulvi Bazar 19 −0.6978 S 1 0.2544 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.8397 S −0.0582 2.08207 I
SW 233A Jaflong_Spill 12 0.4472 S 1 −0.0092 −0.7644 0.5422 S −1.5772 S −0.0998 1.52122 S
SW 251 Sarighat 19 −0.6978 S 1 0.0821 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.2099 S 0.0333 −0.04082 S
SW 252.1 Salutikar 17 −0.9740 S 1 0.0138 −0.5953 0.4524 S 0.9895 S 0.0642 0.04811 S

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004

SW 263 Durgapur 19 0.3573 S 1 −0.1480 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.2802 S 0.0071 −0.12247 S
SW 263.1 Kalmakanda 15 1.0080 S 1 −0.1227 −0.6491 0.4825 S 1.0887 S 0.1150 −0.52077 S
SW 266 Kanairghat 19 −0.6978 S 1 −0.2453 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.4898 S 0.0618 0.04082 S
SW 267 Sylhet 19 −0.6125 S 1 −0.0178 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.2799 S 0.0400 0.77182 S
SW 269 Sunamganj 19 −1.5824 S 1 0.0656 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.3499 S 0.0500 0.44907 S
SW 270 Markuli 15 0.2872 S 1 −0.0365 −0.6491 0.4825 S 1.4846 S 0.1000 −0.6365 S
SW 272 Madna 15 0.2872 S 1 −0.2630 −0.6491 0.4825 S −0.3959 S -0.0225 0.86502 S
SW 273 Bhairab Bazar 19 0.7227 S 1 −0.1603 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.1051 S -0.0033 0.9798 S
SW 280 Sutang Rly.Brid 19 −1.1713 S 1 0.4357 −0.5525 0.4275 I −0.4551 S -0.0275 1.87794 S
SW 295 Ajabpur 19 −0.1276 S 1 −0.0488 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.1750 S 0.0033 0.71138 S
SW 296 Akhaura 19 1.8121 S 1 −0.5384 −0.5525 0.4275 S 0.0000 S 0.0000 0.93624 S
SW 310 Netrokona 19 −0.6978 S 1 0.0372 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.5598 S −0.0267 1.42887 S
SW 311 Atpara 19 0.5880 S 1 −0.1320 −0.5525 0.4275 S −0.3499 S −0.0478 2.08207 I
SW 326 Lubachara 12 0.0000 S 1 −0.1524 −0.7644 0.5422 S 1.4400 S 0.2192 −1.36109 S
SW 337 Urargaon 12 −0.5205 S 1 0.1513 −0.7644 0.5422 S 0.2057 S 0.0162 −1.20096 S
Note: S = significant at 5% significance level; and I = not significant at 5% significance level.

J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Table 2. Rank of distributions for the 40 gauge stations based on goodness of fit analysis
Number of sites receiving ranks
Goodness of fit Distribution 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total of ranks
PPCC Lognormal 0 2 3 14 18 3 177
Lognormal Type III 2 7 3 9 14 5 161
Pearson Type III 8 18 9 4 1 0 92
Log-Pearson Type III 2 9 20 7 1 1 119
Gumbel distribution 2 0 2 2 5 29 215
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Generalized extreme value 26 3 4 4 1 2 77

NRMSE Lognormal 2 5 2 17 13 1 157
Lognormal Type III 2 3 5 8 3 19 184
Pearson Type III 7 11 8 7 5 2 118
Log-Pearson Type III 4 14 17 3 2 0 105
Gumbel distribution 0 2 2 3 14 19 206
Generalized extreme value 24 6 6 2 2 0 72
MAE (mPWD) Lognormal 4 5 3 13 11 4 154
Lognormal Type III 4 2 7 5 3 19 178
Pearson Type III 2 13 9 9 4 3 129
Log-Pearson Type III 1 9 19 9 1 1 123
Gumbel distribution 1 3 1 3 16 16 198
Generalized extreme value 27 8 1 2 2 0 64

Fig. 2. Water level at (a) Khaliajuri (SW 72); and (b) Sutang Railway Bridge (SW 280) station at different return periods.

© ASCE 05019004-8 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Recommended flash flood danger level for the northeast Haor regions
Proposed FFWC

© ASCE
flash flood Return Monsoon flood
Station danger level period danger level Nearby Haor
number River name Station name Station ID District (mPWD) (year) (mPWD) (submersible embankment crest level, mPWD)
1 Anderson khal Brahmanbaria Railway SW 3 Brahmanbaria 2.97 2.33 5.5 Dattakhola Haor
Bridge
2 Bhogai-Kangsa Nakuagaon SW 34 Sherpur 20.98 2.33 22.4 —
3 Bhogai-Kangsa Jaria-Jhanjail SW 36 Netrokona 8.08 5 9.75 —
4 Bhogai-Kangsa Mohanganj SW 36.1 Netrokona 5.81 2.33 — Medar Beel-2 Haor, Jaldhara/Keuti Haor, Dingi pota Haor,
Kankhola bil Haor (Sunair Haor system)
5 Dhalai Kamalganj SW 67a Moulvibazar 19.58 2.33 19.82 Kauadighi Haor (9.1–12.4).
6 Dhanu-Baulai-Ghorautra Khaliajuri SW 72 Netrokona 5.31 2.33 — Chakua Haor, Jagannathpur Haor, Kirtonkholar Haor,
Pangachia Haor
7 Dhanu-Baulai-Ghorautra Itna SW 73 Kishoreganj 4.46 2.33 — Uttarer Band Haor, Dakhshiner Band Haor
8 Dhanu-Baulai-Ghorautra Dilalpur SW 74 Kishoreganj 3.29 2.33 — Dulalpur Haor, Humairpur (4.83)
9 Jadukata Laurergarh Saktiarkhola SW Sunamganj 7.8 5 8.53 Angurali Haor (7.10), Lubar Haor, Matian Haor (7.3),
131.5a, b, c, d Balda Gulaghat Haor
10 Juri Juri_Cont_silghat SW 135A Moulavibazar 10.45 2.33 — Hakaluki Haor
11 Korangi Sofiabad SW 138c Habiganj 9.53 2.33 — Gungiajuri Haor
12 Khowai Ballah SW 157c Habiganj 21.93 2.33 21.64 —
13 Khowai Chunarghat SW 158 Habiganj 14.92 2.33 — Gungiajuri Haor
14 Khowai Shaistaganj SW 158.1b Habiganj 12.39 2.33 — Gungiajuri Haor
15 Khowai Habiganj SW 159a, b Habiganj 9.35 2.33 9.5 Ikram-Sangar Haor, Gazaria Beel Haor, Gungiajuri Haor
16 Kushiyara Amalshid SW 172.5 Sylhet 13.34 2.33 15.85 Balait Haor
17 Kushiyara Sheola SW 173 Sylhet 12.86 5 13.5 Nateshwar Haor, Adinabad Haor, Muria Haor
18 Kushiyara Fenchuganj SW 174 Sylhet 9.71 5 — Hakaluki Haor, Dhamrir Haor,

05019004-9
19 Kushiyara Sherpur SW 175.5 Sylhet 8.44 5 9 Banaiya Haor, Muktarpur Haor
20 Lungla Motiganj SW 192 Moulvibazar 8.7 2.33 — Hail Haor (9.76–10.36)
21 Monu Monu Railway Bridge SW 201a Moulvibazar 17.15 2.33 18 Kauadighi Haor (9.1–12.4)
22 Monu Moulvibazar SW 202a Moulvibazar 10.57 2.33 11.75 Kauadighi Haor (9.1–12.4)

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004

23 Piyan Jaflong Spill SW 233A Sylhet 10.65 2.33 — Asam Para Haor, Baurbhag Haor, Bhitrikhel Haor
24 Sari-Gowain Sarighat SW 251 Sylhet 10.8 2.33 12.8 Bedu Haor, Lakshmi Prasad Haor, Baurbhag Haor,
Boro Haor, Khas Haor
25 Sari-Gowain Salutikar SW 252.1 Sylhet 8.26 2.33 — Silchand Haor, Nandirgaon Haor, Purna Chhagram Haor,
Patharchuli Haor (10.6–9.03)
26 Someswari Durgapur SW 263 Netrokona 11.5 2.33 13 —
27 Someswari Kalmakanda SW 263.1 Netrokona 6.86 5 — Talenga Beel, Medi Beel Haor
28 Surma-Meghna Kanairghat SW 266 Sylhet 12.86 5 13.2 Boro Haor, Chatol Haor
29 Surma-Meghna Sylhet SW 267 Sylhet 9.85 5 11.25 Patharchuli Haor (10.6–9.03), Zilkar Haor (11.7–12.2),
Kamalpur Uttar Haor, Gakter Haor, Lular Haor,
Sarbananda Haor
30 Surma-Meghna Sunamganj SW 269 Sunamganj 6.41 2.33 8.25 Dekar Haor, Kalnar Haor (7.6–7.9), Karchar Haor
(7.56–10.05)
31 Surma-Meghna Markuli SW 270 Habiganj 6.71 2.33 8.5 Tangua Haor (7.4), Suraya Bibiyana Haor,
Makalkandi Haor (7.8–6.5)
32 Surma-Meghna Madna SW 272 Habiganj 3.71 2.33 — Gazaria Beel Haor, Kalma Haor, Sapanta Haor,
Baharchar-Rabiarghona Haor
33 Surma-Meghna Bhairab Bazar SW 273 Kishoreganj 3.04 2.33 6.25 —
34 Sutang Sutang Railway Bridge SW 280c Habiganj 5.97 5 — Kawardighi Haor (10–13)
35 Titas Ajabpur SW 295 Brahmanbaria 3.12 2.33 — Katiajuri Haor, Dewghar (4.83), Humaipur Haor (4.83)

J. Hydrol. Eng.
 and danger levels during the flash flood forecasting and warning.
This will help the farmers to estimate the upcoming risk of flash

(submersible embankment crest level, mPWD)

flood and take proper initiative to save their Boro crops. Simulta-
neously, it will save the agriculture of this area as well as improve
the agricultural production of the whole country.
However, an important criterion for the danger level fixation is
consideration of the submersible embankment elevations of the
Nearby Haor

nearby Haors which are constructed by BWDB for the purpose

Boro Haor (Sylhet), Keoti Haor

of saving the Boro crop from flash floods. The existing and pro-
—
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

posed design crest level information for submergible embankments

Kalnar Haor (7.6–7.9) of Haors of Sylhet, Moulvibazar, and Mymensingh operational and
maintenance circle of BWDB are given in Table S4. The elevation
of the crests of these submersible embankments need to be consid-
Sarisha Bil Haor
Dattakhola Haor

ered for saving crops of that area. Unfortunately, the crest levels of
the submersible embankments in the northeast region are not prop-
erly documented. Moreover, breaching of the embankments after
the flash flood is a common phenomenon. The fixation of the danger
level considering these incorrect elevations may provide ineffective
or misleading outcomes. In this context, we have not considered the
Monsoon flood

crest level of the submersible embankment for setting the danger

danger level
(mPWD)

level. However, the elevations of some of the existing nearby sub-

FFWC

—
—
—
—
—

mersible embankments measured by BWDB (2006) are also given

in Table 3. It is observed from Table 3 that at most of the stations
embanked with submersible embankments, the flash flood dan-
ger levels are slightly below the existing submersible embankment
Return
period
(year)

heights. For example, at Laurergarh Saktiarkhola (SW 131.5), the

2.33
2.33

2.33

proposed flash flood danger level is 7.8 mPWD whereas the sub-
5
5

mersible embankment height is 7.10 mPWD. At Sylhet station (SW

267), the proposed danger level is 9.85 mPWD whereas the sub-
danger level
flash flood
Proposed

(mPWD)

mersible embankments’ heights are between 9.03 and 12.2 mPWD.

9.94
2.87
5.63
6.42
11.55

The height of the submersible embankment near Sunamganj station

(SW 269) varies from 7.5 to 10 mPWD while the proposed danger
level is 6.41 mPWD. Similar results were found at Dilalpur (SW74),
Motiganj (SW192), Salutikar (SW252.1), Markulil (SW 270),
Brahmanbaria

Sunamganj
Netrokona
Netrokona

Sutang Railway Bridge (SW 280), and Ajabpur (SW295) stations.

District

Sylhet

Hence, the proposed flash flood danger level will also serve the pur-
pose of the embanked stations.
Furthermore, the present study was completely done on observed
data and we used 3-h water level data. However, an extremely
Station ID

speedy flash flood can occur whose peak gets diminished by 2 h.

SW 311a

SW 337
SW 310

SW 326
SW 296

In those cases, one of the alternatives could be the use of a hydro-

logical model to get the continuous discharge data, from which
flood peak can be captured better (Adhikari et al. 2014). Besides,
there are a number of studies that deal with determining runoff from
rainfall to capture the flood peak using optimum algorithm (Chau
2007), genetic algorithm (Wu and Chau 2006), fuzzy sets (Wang
Station name

et al. 2014), computation intelligence (Fotovatikhah et al. 2018),

data-driven modeling (Taormina and Chau 2015), and artificial
Netrokona

Lubachara

neural-network modeling (Chen et al. 2015). So, the use of these

Urargaon
Akhaura

contemporary real-life case studies of modeling techniques could

Atpara

enrich the accuracy and quality of this study.

Conclusions
River name

Lubachara
Noyagang

Lag 1 auto correlation test.

Flash flood is the major natural disaster in the northeast Haor region
Mogra
Mogra
Titas

of Bangladesh, which damages the single-crop (Boro rice) agricul-

Table 3. (Continued.)

ture of the region and thereby jeopardizes the lives and livelihood of
Mann-Whitney test.

Mann-Kendall test.

the people living there. Though structural measures like submers-

ible embankments, rubber dams, levees, etc. have already been in-
troduced by Bangladesh Water Development Board and the Local
Run test.

Government Engineering Department in these Haor areas to protect

number
Station

crops from the flash floods, they are not fully capable of serving the
36
37
38
39
40

purpose. Hence, nonstructural measures like flood forecasting and

b

d
a

© ASCE 05019004-10 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Proposed flash flood danger level (mPWD) for the selected water level station based on the return period of the 2.33- or 5-year flood.

Fig. 4. Existing monsoon flood danger level and proposed flash flood danger level.

warnings are considered as one of the important means for risk re- recommended on the basis of flood frequency analysis and eleva-
duction. But, prior to that, establishing a reliable flash flood danger tion of the nearby river floodplain. The result shows that the rec-
level for the northeast region is essential. Hence, in this study, a ommended flash flood danger level is much lower than the existing
reliable danger level at 40 water level stations in the region has been monsoon flood danger level. At some stations, the difference is

© ASCE 05019004-11 J. Hydrol. Eng.

J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004

 very prominent, up to 5 m, with an average value of 1.5 m. Though
this difference is not significant for monsoon flood, it can cause
severe destruction for the Boro rice cultivation during a flash flood.
Hence, it is high time that the flash flood danger level be fixed sep-
arately from the existing monsoon danger level considering the
flash flood period and be used for flash flood forecasting and warn-
ing. Besides, depending on the consistent lower values in all of the
stations, we can also draw a conclusion that subtraction up to 63%
of current monsoon flood danger level can be established as a flash
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
flood danger level. Furthermore, it is also recommended that for the
purpose of safety, a warning level can be designed (0.3–0.5 m) be-
low the proposed danger level on the basis of topography, actual
field condition, and importance of the respective sites for Boro rice
cultivation. However, one of the limitations of this study is that the
danger level is solely determined on the basis of flood frequency
analysis and the elevations of the river floodplains. For fixing up the
danger level, the crest levels of the submersible embankments of the
nearby Haors should also be considered. However, the crest levels of
most of the submersible embankments are not correctly measured
and change with time due to subsidence or improper maintenance.
In the current study, some of the submersible embankments’ eleva-
tions were collected from BWDB, and, at some stations, the eleva-
tions of the proposed danger levels were cross checked with those of
the submersible embankments. However, these are not adequate to
provide a complete idea of that region. Hence, it is felt that surveys
on a regular basis are required to collect the crest levels of the sub-
mersible embankments. The crest levels of submersible embank-
ments at a given location also need continuous verification. Besides,
contemporary real-life case studies of modeling techniques could
enrich the quality of this study by capturing a better flood peak.
It is expected that incorporation of recent land topography and de-
tailed and updated elevations of the submersible embankments
along with incorporation of modeling techniques may give more
accurate danger level and thereby help the flood forecasting author-
ity in precise flash flood forecasting and early warning and protect
the Boro crop of the northeast region from the flash flood.
Acknowledgments
The work has been supported by a research project on ‘Developing
Flash Flood Early Warning System, Capacity Building and Knowl-
edge Management for Haor Region of Bangladesh’ currently being
carried out in Institute of Water and Flood Management (IWFM) of
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology funded by a
Haor Area Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement (HILIP)
Project of Local Govt. Engineering Department (LGED) sponsored
by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
The authors would like to acknowledge the use of hydrological data
from Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB).
Supplemental Data
Figs. S1 and S2 and Tables S1–S4 are available online in the ASCE
Library (www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Adeloye, A. J., and M. Montaseri. 2002. “Preliminary stream flow data
analyses prior to water resources planning study.” Hydrol. Sci. J.
47 (5): 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660209492973.
Adhikari, T., B. Rakhal, L. D. Maharjan, and P. S. Kushi. 2014. Determi-
nation of flood warning and danger of Mohana and Macheli river.
© ASCE 05019004-12
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004
Final Rep. No. 0218-Report1/Ver.1.0. Kathmandu, Nepal: GENESIS
Consultancy.
Ahmad, I., D. Tang, T. Wang, M. Wang, and B. Wagan. 2015. “Precipita-
tion trends over time using Mann-Kendall and Spearman’s rho tests in
Swat river basin, Pakistan.” Adv. Meteorol. 2015: 1–15. https://doi.org
/10.1155/2015/431860.
Ahmad, M. I., C. D. Sinclair, and A. Werritty. 1988. “Log-logistic flood
frequency analysis.” J. Hydrol. 98 (3–4): 205–224. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0022-1694(88)90015-7.
Alam, M. K. 2016. “Causes of failure of submersible embankment and its
impact on the Haor area: A case study of Karchar Haor project.” M.Sc.
thesis, Institute of Water and Flood Management, Bangladesh Univ. of
Engineering and Technology.
Alam, M. S., M. A. Quayum, and M. A. Islam. 2010. “Crop production in
the Haor areas of Bangladesh: Insights from farm level survey.”
Agriculturists 8 (2): 88–97. https://doi.org/10.3329/agric.v8i2.7582.
Anderson, R. L. 1942. “Distribution of serial correlation coefficient.” Ann.
Math. Stat. 13 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177731638.
Armstrong, W. H., M. J. Collins, and N. P. Snyder. 2012. “Increased
frequency of low-magnitude floods in New England.” J. Am. Water Re-
sour. Assoc. 48 (2): 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011
.00613.x.
Baten, M. A., N. A. Khan, R. Ahammad, and K. Misbahuzzaman. 2010.
Village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh: Balance
between conservation and exploitation. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Unnayan
Onneshan-The Innovators.
Benson, M. A. 1968. “Uniform flood-frequency estimating methods for
federal agencies.” Water Resour. Res. 4 (5): 891–908. https://doi.org/10
.1029/WR004i005p00891.
Black, P. E. 1996. Watershed hydrology. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor and
Francis.
Bradley, J. V. 1968. Distribution-free statistical tests. No. 04; QA278.
8, B7. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
BWDB (Bangladesh Water Development Board). 2006. Mathematical
modelling with hydrological studies and terrestrial survey under the
Haor rehabilitation scheme. Dhaka, Bangladesh: BWDB.
CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief). 2010. “Project completion
flood risk reduction activities in Sunamganj (FRRAS) phase-II.” Ac-
cessed January 19, 2019. http://www.carebangladesh.org/publication
/Publication_4718927.pdf.
CEGIS (Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Serv-
ices). 2012. Master plan of Haor Area. Volume 1, summary report.
Dhaka, Bangladesh: Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh,
Ministry of Water Resources, Bangladesh Haor and Wetland Develop-
ment Board.
Challis, R. E., and R. I. Kitney. 1990. “Biomedical signal processing (in
four parts).” Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 28 (6): 509–524. https://doi.org
/10.1007/BF02442601.
Chang, S. K., and S. M. Moore. 1983. “Flood frequency analysis for small
watersheds in southern Illinois.” Water Resour. Res. 19 (2): 277–282.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1983.tb05326.x.
Chau, K. W. 2007. “A split-step particle swarm optimization algorithm in
river stage forecasting.” J. Hydrol. 346 (3–4): 131–135. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.09.004.
Chen, X. Y., K. W. Chau, and A. O. Busari. 2015. “A comparative study of
population-based optimization algorithms for downstream river flow
forecasting by a hybrid neural network model.” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
46: 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2015.09.010.
Chowdhury, J. U., J. R. Stedinger, and L. H. Lu. 1991. “Goodness-of-fit
tests for regional generalized extreme value flood distribution.” Water
Resour. Res. 27 (7): 1765–1776. https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR00077.
CIRP (Coastal Inlets Research Program). 2016. Coastal Inlets Research
Program (CIRP) Wiki—Statistics. Washington, DC: US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Cunnane, C. 1978. “Unbiased plotting positions—A review.” J. Hydrol.
37 (3–4): 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(78)90017-3.
Cunnane, C. 1989. Statistical distributions for flood frequency analysis.
WMO No. 718; Operational Hydrology Rep. (OHR) No. 33. Geneva:
World Meteorological Organization.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Daily Star. 2010. “Flood damages boro in huge areas of greater Sylhet.”
Accessed December 19, 2016. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail
-136901.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood-frequency analyses, manual of hydrology:
Part 3 flood flow techniques. Washington, DC: USGPO.
Deshwara, M. 2016. “FLASH FLOODS: Farmers in northeastern
Bangladesh in trouble.” The Daily Star. Accessed November 19, 2016.
https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/farmers-trouble-1218799.
Faisal, I. M., M. R. Kabir, and A. Nishat. 1999. “Non-structural flood mit-
igation measures for Dhaka City.” Urban Water 1 (2): 145–153. https://
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(00)00004-2.
FEMA. 2004. Federal Emergency Management Agency of the United
States. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FFWC (Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre). 2018. “Bangladesh water
development board.” Accessed January 19, 2019. http://www.ffwc
.gov.bd/.
Filliben, J. J. 1975. “The probability plot correlation test for normality.”
Technometrics 17 (1): 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706
.1975.10489279.
Fotovatikhah, F., M. Herrera, S. Shamshirband, K. W. Chau, S.
Faizollahzadeh Ardabili, and M. J. Piran. 2018. “Survey of computa-
tional intelligence as basis to big flood management: Challenges, re-
search directions and future work.” Eng. Appl. Comp. Fluid Mech.
12 (1): 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2018.1448896.
Gumbel, E. J. 1945. “Flood estimated by probability methods.” Eng.
News-Rec. 134 (24): 97–101.
Haan, C. T. 1986. Statistical methods in hydrology. Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press.
Hamed, K. H. 2008. “Trend detection in hydrologic data: The Mann-
Kendall trend test under the scaling hypothesis.” J. Hydrol. 349 (3–4):
350–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.11.009.
Hosking, J. R. M., and J. R. Wallis. 1993. “Some statistics useful in regional
frequency analysis.” Water Resour. Res. 29 (2): 271–281. https://doi
.org/10.1029/92WR01980.
Hosking, J. R. M., J. R. Wallis, and E. F. Wood. 1985. “An appraisal
of the regional flood frequency procedure in the UK Flood Studies
Report.” Hydrol. Sci. J. 30 (1): 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1080
/02626668509490973.
Hossain, G. M., and A. Nishat. 1996. “Environmental considerations for
water resources development in Haor areas of northeastern Bangladesh.”
In Proc., North American Water and Environment Congress and
Destructive Water, 1063–1068. New York: ASCE.
Huda, M. K. 2004. “Experience with modern and hybrid rice varieties in
Haor ecosystem: Emerging technologies for sustainable rice produc-
tion.” In Proc., Twentieth National Workshop on Rice Research and
Extension in Bangladesh, 19–21. Gazipur, Bangladesh: Bangladesh
Rice Research Institute.
Hussain, M., and A. Salam. 2007. Basic service delivery advocacy: Review
report. Dhaka, Bangladesh: DEW.
IFCDR (Institute of Flood Control and Drainage Research). 1995. “Flood
frequency analysis.” Vol. 1 of Component of the study on revision
of flood danger levels in Bangladesh, edited by J. U. Chowdhury,
M. Y. Rana, and M. Salehin. Dhaka, Bangladesh: BWDB.
Izinyon, O. C., and H. N. Ajumuka. 2013. “Probability distribution models
for flood prediction in Upper Benue river basin.” Civ. Environ. Res.
3 (2): 63–74.
Karim, M. A., and J. U. Chowdhury. 1995. “A comparison of four distri-
butions used in flood frequency analysis in Bangladesh.” Hydrol. Sci. J.
40 (1): 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669509491390.
Kendall, M. G. 1975. Rank correlation methods. 4th ed. London: Charles
Griffin.
Khan, A. A. 2010. “Impact of a submersible embankment project on Haor
based livelihood.” M.Sc. thesis, Institute of Water and Flood Manage-
ment, Bangladesh Univ. of Engineering and Technology.
Khan, M. N. H., M. Y. Mia, and M. R. Hossain. 2012. “Impacts of flood
on crop production in Haor areas of two Upazillas in Kishoregonj.”
J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 5 (1): 193–198. https://doi.org/10.3329
/jesnr.v5i1.11581.
Kryžanowski, A., M. Brilly, S. Rusjan, and S. Schnabl. 2014. “Structural
flood-protection measures referring to several European case studies.”
© ASCE 05019004-13
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14 (1): 135–142. https://doi.org/10.5194
/nhess-14-135-2014.
Kundzewicz, Z. W., and L. Menzel. 2003. “Flood risk and vulnerability in
the changing world.” In Proc., Int. Conf. towards Natural Flood Reduc-
tion Strategies. Luxembourg: European Union.
Legates, D. R., and G. J. McCabe. 1999. “Evaluating the use of”
goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model
validation.” Water Resour. Res. 35 (1): 233–241. https://doi.org/10
.1029/1998WR900018.
Machiwal, D., and M. K. Jha. 2008. “Comparative evaluation of statistical
tests for time series analysis: Application to hydrological time series.”
Hydrol. Sci. J. 53 (2): 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.2.353.
Mann, H. B. 1945. “Non-parametric tests against trend.” Econmetrica
13 (3): 245–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907187.
Mann, H. B., and D. R. Whitney. 1947. “On a test of whether one of two
random variables is stochastically larger than the other.” Ann. Math.
Stat. 18 (1): 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491.
McGhee, J. W. 1985. Introductory statistics. New York: West Publishing.
McMahon, T. A., and R. Srikanthan. 1981. “Log Pearson III distribution—
Is it applicable to flood frequency analysis of Australian streams?”
J. Hydrol. 52 (1–2): 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(81)
90100-1.
Mondal, A., S. Kundu, and A. Mukhopadhyay. 2012. “Rainfall trend
analysis by Mann-Kendall test: A case study of north-eastern part
of Cuttack district, Orissa.” Int. J. Geol. Earth Environ. Sci. 2 (1):
70–78.
Mondal. M. K., A. F. M. Saleh, M. N. Hossan, and S. I. Bhuiyan. 2004.
“Strategies for increasing the productivity of rice areas affected by flash
flood.” In Rice research and development in the flood-prone ecosystem,
edited by S. I. Bhuiyan. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice
Research Institute.
Montz, B. E., and E. Gruntfest. 2002. “Flash flood mitigation: Recommen-
dations for research and applications.” Global Environ. Change Part B:
Environ. Hazard. 4 (1): 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2867(02)
00011-6.
Moses, T., and A. Klockars. 2008. “An evaluation of standard, alternative,
and robust slope test strategies.” J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 7 (1):
77–93. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1209614760.
Mukherjee, M. K. 2013. “Flood frequency analysis of River Subernarekha,
India, using Gumbel’s extreme value distribution.” Int. J. Comput. Eng.
Res. 3 (7): 12–19.
NERC (Natural Environment Research Council). 1975. Flood studies
report. Vol. 1. London: Natural Environment Research Council.
NERP FAP - 6 (Northeast Regional Water Management Plan, Bangladesh
Flood Action Plan 6). 1995. Final Rep. Dhaka, Bangladesh: NERP
FAP - 6.
Ngongondo, C. S., C. Y. Xu, L. M. Tallaksen, B. Alemaw, and T. Chirwa.
2011. “Regional frequency analysis of rainfall extremes in Southern
Malawi using the index rainfall and L-moments approaches.” Stochastic
Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 25 (7): 939–955. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s00477-011-0480-x.
Nowreen, S., S. B. Murshed, A. K. M. S. Islam, and B. Bhaskaran. 2013.
“Change of future climate extremes for the Haor Basin area of
Bangladesh.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Water and
Flood Management (ICWFM 2013), 545–556. Dhaka, Bangladesh:
Bangladesh Univ. of Engineering and Technology.
Nowreen, S., S. B. Murshed, A. S. Islam, B. Bhaskaran, and M. A. Hasan.
2015. “Changes of rainfall extremes around the Haor Basin areas of
Bangladesh using multi-member ensemble RCM.” Theor. Appl. Clima-
tol. 119 (1–2): 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-014-1101-7.
NWS (National Weather Service). 2018. National weather service. Silver
Spring, MD: NOAA.
Rahman, R., and M. Salehin. 2013. “Flood risks and reduction ap-
proaches in Bangladesh.” In Disaster risk reduction approaches in
Bangladesh, edited by R. Shaw, F. Mallick, and A. Islam. Tokyo:
Springer.
Rossi, F., M. Fiorentino, and P. Versace. 1984. “Two-component extreme
value distribution for flood frequency analysis.” Water Resour. Res.
20 (7): 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR020i007p00847.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
 Sen, P. K. 1968. “Estimates of the regression coefficients based on
Kendall’s tau.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 63 (324): 1379–1389. https://doi
.org/10.1080/01621459.1968.10480934.
Stedinger, J., R. M. Vogel, and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. 1993. “Frequency
analysis of extreme events.” In Handbook of hydrology, edited by D. R.
Maidment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sultana, T. 2015. “Flash flood forecasting using estimated precipitation
by global satellite mapping in the north-east region of Bangladesh.”
M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Water Resources Engineering, Bangladesh Univ.
of Engineering and Technology.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology on 02/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Sumon, A., and A. Islam. 2013. “Agriculture adaptation in Haor Basin.” In
Climate change adaptation actions in Bangladesh, edited by R. Shaw,
F. Mallick, and A. Islam. Tokyo: Springer.
Sweeney, T. L. 1992. Modernized areal flash flood guidance. Silver Spring,
MD: US Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology.
Taormina, R., and K. W. Chau. 2015. “Data-driven input variable selection
for rainfall-runoff modeling using binary-coded particle swarm optimi-
zation and extreme learning machines.” J. Hydrol. 529: 1617–1632.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.08.022.
Thiel, H. 1950. “A rank-invariant method of linear and polynomial analysis,
Part 3.” In Vol. 53 of Proc., Koninalijke Nederlandse Akademie van
© ASCE 05019004-14
J. Hydrol. Eng., 2019, 24(4): 05019004
Wettenschappen A, 1397–1412. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-
Holland Publishing Company.
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2000. Guide-
lines on Sustainable flood prevention. New York: United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe.
Vogel, R. M. 1986. “The probability plot correlation coefficient test for the
normal, lognormal, and Gumbel distributional hypotheses.” Water Re-
sour. Res. 22 (4): 587–590. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR022i004p00587.
Vogel, R. M., and C. N. Kroll. 1989. “Low-flow frequency analysis
using probability-plot correlation coefficients.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage. 115 (3): 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496
(1989)115:3(338).
Wang, W. C., D. M. Xu, K. W. Chau, and G. J. Lei. 2014. “Assessment of
river water quality based on theory of variable fuzzy sets and fuzzy
binary comparison method.” Water Resour. Manage. 28 (12):
4183–4200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0738-4.
Willmott, C. J. 1981. “On the validation of models.” Phys. Geogr. 2 (2):
184–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213.
Wu, C. L., and K. W. Chau. 2006. “A flood forecasting neural network
model with genetic algorithm.” Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 28 (3–4):
261–273. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2006.011211.
J. Hydrol. Eng.