Authors

Minh Dang Tran Duc 1 , Huy Dao Ba 1 , Quynh Hoang Diem 1 , Tinh Nguyen Thi 2 , Hanh Nguyen Duc 1 , Vinh Tran Ngoc 3 , Giang Nguyen Tien 1*

Affiliations

1 Faculty of Hydrology, Meteorology and Oceanography, University of Science, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Add: 334 Nguyen Trai Street, Thanh Xuan District, Hanoi, Viet Nam; dangtranducminh_t65@hus.edu.vn; daobahuy_t66@hus.edu.vn; diemquynhoang918@gmail.com; nguyenduchanh@hus.edu.vn; nguyentiengiang@hus.edu.vn

2 Center for hydro–meteorological observation, Viet Nam Meteorological and Hydrological Administration. Add: 8 Phao Dai Lang, Lang Thuong, Dong Da, Ha Noi, Viet Nam; tinh.nt.198@gmail.com

3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; vinhtn@umich.edu

*Corresponding author: nguyentiengiang@hus.edu.vn; Tel: +84–912800896

Abstracts

Constructing rating curves at hydrological stations is of tremendous significance for water resources management, yet in Vietnam, it has not been given the adequate attention it deserves. In this study, eight traditional regression equations representing the linear and non–linear correlation between gauging discharge and water level (stage) at PoLech station in Da river, were evaluated with the aim of determining the most suitable equations for discharge interpolation and high flow extrapolation. A straightforward segmentation technique was proposed to simplify the automatic piecewise regression. The results revealed that: i) Second–order polynomial regression equations (in which stage is independent variable and either Q or Q1/2 is dependent variable) proved to be the most efficient for discharge interpolation, when automatic piecewise regression was applied; ii) The linear regression equation illustrating relationship between square root of discharge and stage performed the best for high flow extrapolation; iii) The amalgamated rating curve, which was formed by utilizing all–years rating data, could be used for each year interpolation with care and additional research is required in relation to its accuracy. The potential of being able to generate continual discharge estimations at a low cost and with relatively uncomplicated calibration methods is expansive. This approach has the potential to encourage researchers, aquatic ecosystem stewards, water quality monitors, or appraisers of upstream withdrawals to start gauging river discharge on a more regular basis from an operational standpoint.

Keywords

Regression; Rating curve; Da river; Interpolation; Extrapolation of discharge

Cite this paper

Minh, D.T.D.; Huy, D.B.; Quynh, H.D.; Tinh, N.T. Hanh, N.D.; Vinh, T.N.; Giang, N.T. A comparative analysis of regression equations for rating curve development at a gauging station in Da river, Northern Vietnam. VN J. Hydrometeorol. 2023, 14, 53-69. 

References

1. ISO 7066-2:1988. Assessment of uncertainty in the calibration and use of flow measurement devices – Part 2: Non–linear calibration relationships. In: International Standard 7066–2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1988.

2. Karimi, P.; Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. Spatial evapotranspiration, rainfall and land use data in water accounting–Part 1: Review of the accuracy of the remote sensing data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19(1), 507–532.

3. Stewart, B. Measuring what we manage–the importance of hydrological data to water resources management. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences 2015, 366, 80–85.

4. Xu, C.y. Issues influencing accuracy of hydrological modeling in a changing environment. Water Sci. Eng. 2021, 14(2), 167–170.

5. Zakwan, M.; Muzzammil, M.; Alam, J. Application of data driven techniques in discharge rating curve–an overview. Aquademia 2017, 1(1), 02.

6. Leopold, L.B. River channel change with time: an example: address as retiring president of the Geological Society of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 1972. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1973, 84(6), 1845–1860.

7. Booth DB. Stream‐channel incision following drainage‐basin urbanization 1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.            1990, 26(3), 407–417.

8. Jennings, D.B.; Taylor Jarnagin, S. Changes in anthropogenic impervious surfaces, precipitation and daily streamflow discharge: a historical perspective in a mid–Atlantic subwatershed. Landsc Ecol. 2002, 17, 471–489.

9. Ajami, N.K.; Hornberger, G.M.; Sunding, D.L. Sustainable water resource management under hydrological uncertainty. Water Resour Res. 2008, 44(11), W11406.

10. Leopold, L.B. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning: A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. US Geolgoical Survey, 1968, 554, pp. 18.

11. Wharton, G.; Tomlinson, J.J. Flood discharge estimation from river channel dimensions: results of applications in Java, Burundi, Ghana and Tanzania. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1999, 44(1), 97–111.

12. Wara, C.; Thomas, M.; Mwakurya, S.; Katuva, J. Development of River Rating Curves for Simple to Complex Hydraulic Structure Based on Calibrated HEC–RAS Hydraulic Model, in Kwale, Coastal Kenya. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2019, 11(04), 468.

13. Sivapragasam, C.; Muttil, N. Discharge rating curve extension–a new approach. Water Resour. Manage. 2005, 19, 505–520.

14. Fenton, J.D.; Keller, R.J. The calculation of streamflow from measurements of stage. Technical Report 01/6, 2001, pp. 77.

15. Venetis, C. A note on the estimation of the parameters in logarithmic stage–discharge relationships with estimates of their error. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1970, 15(2), 105–111.

16. McMillan, H.; Krueger, T.; Freer, J. Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26(26), 4078–4111.

17. Petersen–Øverleir, A. Modelling stage—discharge relationships affected by hysteresis using the Jones formula and nonlinear regression. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2006, 51(3), 365–388.

18. Ramsbottom, D.M.; Whitlow, C.D. Extension of Rating Curves at Gauging Stations Best Practice Guidance Manual. Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD, 2003, pp. 247.

19. Holmes Jr, R.R. River rating complexity. Constantinescu, editor, River Flow. Proceeding of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulic (River Flow 2016), St. Louis, Missouri, July 11-14, 2016: CRC Press, 2016, 679–686.

20. Léonard, J.; Mietton, M.; Najib, H.; Gourbesville, P. Rating curve modelling with Manning’s equation to manage instability and improve extrapolation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2000, 45(5), 739–750.

21. Domeneghetti, A.; Castellarin, A.; Brath, A. Assessing rating–curve uncertainty and its effects on hydraulic model calibration. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16(4), 1191–1202.

22. Herschy, R.W. Streamflow Measurement. CRC Press. 1995, pp. 536. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482265880.

23. Petersen–Øverleir, A.; Reitan, T. Objective segmentation in compound rating curves. J. Hydrol. (Amst). 2005, 311(1–4), 188–201.

24. Zarzer, E.A. Some considerations concerning the optimal calculation of stage–discharge functions. Zeitschrift für Oper. Res. 1987, 31(6), B193–B212.

25. Petersen–Øverleir, A. Accounting for heteroscedasticity in rating curve estimates. J Hydrol. (Amst). 2004, 292(1–4), 173–181.

26. Moyeed, R.A.; Clarke, R.T. The use of Bayesian methods for fitting rating curves, with case studies. Adv. Water Resour. 2005, 28(8), 807–818.

27. Aggarwal, S.K.; Goel, A.; Singh, V.P. Stage and discharge forecasting by SVM and ANN techniques. Water Resour. Manage. 2012, 26, 3705–3724.

28. Londhe, S.; Panse–Aglave, G. Modelling stage–discharge relationship using data–driven techniques. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 2015, 21(2), 207–215.

29. Fenton, J.D. On the generation of stream rating curves. J. Hydrol. (Amst). 2018, 564, 748–757.

30. Herschy, R.W. Streamflow Measurement. CRC Press 2008, pp. 536.

31. Morgenschweis, G. Hydrometrie: Theorie Und Praxis Der Durchflussmessung in Offenen Gerinnen. Springer Vieweg Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010, XVI, pp. 637.

32. Mirza, M.M.Q. The choice of stage–discharge relationship for the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers in Bangladesh. Hydrol. Res. 2003, 34(4), 321–342.

33. McMahon, T.A.; Peel, M.C. Uncertainty in stage–discharge rating curves: application to Australian Hydrologic Reference Stations data. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 64(3), 255–275.

34. Khai, N.H.; Cau, L.V. Results of research on the stable rating curve in the tidal unaffected area using the function Spline 3. VN J. Hydrometeorol. Published online 1996.

35. Dao, N.V.; Hai, Hai, L.Q.; Ky, N.D.; Phong, P.H.; Dat, D.V.; Phung, N.V.; Chien, L.Q. Study on building correlation of water level and discharge at Ha Bang hydrological station in the period 2013–2020. VN J. Hydrometeorol. 2021, 723, 38–47.

36. Vietnamese national standard TCVN 12636–15:2021. Hydro–Meteorological Observations – Part 15: Editing of water flow documents discharge in river on non – tidal affected zones. 2021.

37. Anh, T.V.; Hien, N.T.; Khanh, D.Q. Estimating the foreign flow from China to Vietnam supporting water resources planning and management in Da river basin. VN J. Hydrometeorol. 2017, 678, 54–62.

38. Linh, B.H.; Phuong, T.A. Assessment of the impact of reservoirs on flow variations on the Da River. VN J. Hydrometeorol. 2021, 731, 97–107.

39. Ministry of natural resources and environment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. National Water Resources Report Period 2016–2021, 2022.

40. Barbato, G.; Barini, E.M.; Genta, G.; Levi, R. Features and performance of some outlier detection methods. J. Appl. Stat. 2011, 38(10), 2133–2149. doi:10.1080/02664763.2010.545119.

41. Gupta, H.V.; Kling, H.; Yilmaz, K.K.; Martinez, G.F. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J. Hydrol. (Amst). 2009, 377(1–2), 80–91.

42. Moriasi, D.N.; Gitau, M.W.; Pai, N.; Daggupati, P. Hydrologic and water quality models: Performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans ASABE. 2015, 58(6), 1763–1785.