Evaluation of the Catchment Parameter (CAPA) and Midgley and Pitman (MIPI) empirical design flood estimation methods

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The devastating effects floods have on both social and economic level make effective flood risk management an essential part of rural and urban development. A major part of effective flood risk management is the application of reliable design flood estimation methods. Research over the years has illustrated that current design flood estimation methods as a norm show large discrepancies which can mainly be attributed to the fact that these methods are outdated (Smithers, 2007).The research presented focused on the evaluation and updating of the Midgley and Pitman (MIPI) and the Catchment Parameter (CAPA or McPherson) empirical design flood estimation methods. The evaluation was done by means of comparing design floods estimated by each method with more reliable probabilistic design floods derived from historical flow records.Flow gauging stations were selected as drainage data points based on the availability of flow data and available catchment characteristics. A selection criterion was developed resulting in 53 gauging stations. The Log Normal (LN) and Log Pearson Type III (LP III) distributions were used to derive the probabilistic floods for each gauging station.The flow gauging stations were used to delineate catchments and to quantify catchment characteristics using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software and their associated applications.The two methods were approximated by means derived formulas instead of evaluating and updating the two methods from first principles. This was done as a result of the constraints brought about by both time and the attainment of the relevant literature. The formulae were derived by means of plotting method inputs and resulted in graphs, fitting a trendline through the points and deriving a formula best describing the trendline.The derived formulae and the catchment characteristics were used to estimate the design floods for each method. A comparison was then done between the design flood results of the two methods and the probabilistic design floods. The results of these comparisons were used to derive correction factors which could potentially increase the reliability of the two methods used to estimate design floods.The effectiveness of any updating would be the degree (or level) in which the reliability of a method could be increased. It was proven that the correction factors did decrease the difference between the „assumed and more reliable probabilistic design floods‟ and the methods‟ estimates.However, the increase in reliability of the methods through the use of the recommended correction factors is questionable due to factors such as the reliability of the flow data as well as the methods which had to be used to derive the correction factors.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University