Solution Code: 1AJAD
This assignment is related to ”Environment” and experts atMy Assignment Services AUsuccessfully delivered HD quality work within the given deadline.
This assessment is designed to test your achievement of selected learning objectives of Modules 2 to 5. In particular, the assignment involves flood frequency analyses and working with historical streamflow and rainfall data.
The assignment is intended to reinforce and extend your knowledge on hydrological methods and the (substantial) uncertainty associated with design flood estimation.
The purpose of the assignment is to estimate design flood discharges for the Emu Creek at Emu Vale streamgauge site (Queensland gauge 422313B) for a range of average recurrence intervals (2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 year ARIs). The flood frequency analysis (FFA) will be based on consideration of the outputs of three techniques: Annual Series, Partial Series and the new Regional Flood Frequency Estimation (RFFE) developed as part of the AR&R update (Rahman et al, 2015).
The assignment is based on the following main tasks:
2.1. Streamflow Data
BASIC STREAMGAUGE DATA
Streamflows and relevant gauging information for station 422313B can be downloaded from the Queensland DNRM Water Monitoring Portal
Access the Portal and find the streamgauge data. Tabulate the following basic gauge information: location (latitude and longitude), the catchment area, when streamgauging started, when rainfall measurements started, the maximum observed instantaneous discharge and when this occurred, and the maximum observed daily total rainfall and when this occurred.
The hydraulic control and associated rating curve are also of interest. Include in your report a photograph of the control weir and an image of the creek cross section at the streamgauge. Provide an image of the rating curve and the flood gaugings that have been undertaken at the site.
How many gaugings have been done to the end of 2013? What is the highest gauging (level and discharge) and how does this compare with the highest recorded flood? Make a comment of the adequacy of the rating curve based on this information, especially the reliability of the discharges associated with the largest floods.
MISSING DATA Download the monthly discharge data from the start of record to the end of the 2014/2015 water year (October-September). Generate a timeseries plot of monthly peak discharges. What percentage of the data is missing (code 255)?
The Annual Series FFA is to be first undertaken on the following basis:
Once you complete the above analysis, you will find that the Annual Series has a negative high skew. This is due to the presence of a few very small discharges. Including these floods may result in a poor LP3 fit to the much higher major floods, and thus influence the design discharge estimates in this range (> 10 year ARI). AR&R 1987 provides recommendations on removing low outliers or the possible deletion of the lower portion of the Annual Series to improve the LP3 fit. The following approach is suggested:
The Partial Series FFA is to be undertaken on the following basis:
The Regional Flood Frequency Estimation (RFFE) approach to estimate design peak discharges up to 1% AEP for Australian small to medium sized rural catchments has been developed as part of the AR&R update. The RFFE method supersedes the probabilistic Rational Method recommended in AR&R 1987. A draft online tool has been developed to generate RFFE estimates that depend on catchment location and this website can be found
Details of the RFFE can be found in Rahman et al (2015). Generate a set of design discharge estimates for the Emu Creek catchment using the RFFE method. Also provide a map showing the catchment boundary and the location of the catchment centroid. A base map, obtained from the QTopo online mapping system, can be downloaded from StudyDesk (File QTopo_A3)
The largest recorded floods have an impact on the fitting of a LP3 probability distribution to the Annual Series, more so than the frequent minor floods. It is thus worthwhile investigating the top ranked floods in some detail.
BOM have prepared detailed reports on notable floods in Australia and Queensland reports are available from There are no flood reports for the relatively small Emu Creek. However, the February 2009 flood of the Burdekin River provides a typical example of the contents of a flood event report (this report is referred to in the Study Book Module 2).
Download the Burdekin River February 2009 flood report and familiarise yourself with how the hydrological data is analysed and presented. In this part of the assignment, you will be undertaking a frequency analysis of the observed rainfall intensities (but not to the level of detail covered in this example report).
Available pluviograph data is limited for the Emu Creek catchment. Rainfall measurements are recorded at the streamgauge and the more recent January 2011 flood was selected for analysis. This is the second ranked flood on record. The objective of the analysis is to determine the frequency of the observed rainfall that fell during the January 2011 flood event.
The rainfall analysis involves the following tasks:
The probabilistic Rational Method assumes that a flood discharge of a certain frequency is caused by design rainfall of the same frequency (corresponding to the catchment time of concentration). The above analysis demonstrates how this may not be the case for ‘real’ floods.
These assignments are solved by our professional environment assignment Expertsat My Assignment Services AU and the solution are high quality of work as well as 100% plagiarism free. The assignment solution was delivered within 2-3 Days.
Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.
Table 2.1: Pluviograph data analysis to prepare a rainfall intensity hydrograph | |||||
[1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [6] |
Tip count | Time of tip | Time after previous tip (minutes) | Elapsed time since start (minutes) | Cum. rainfall depth since start (mm) | Rainfall intensity between tips (mm/hr) |
0 | Start 09:45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
1 | 9:52 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 8.6 |
2 | 9.59 | 7 | 14 | 2 | 8.6 |
3 | 10.15 | 16 | 30 | 3 | 3.8 |
4 | 10.2 | 5 | 35 | 4 | 12.0 |
5 | 10.23 | 3 | 38 | 5 | 20.0 |
6 | 10.25 | 2 | 40 | 6 | 30.0 |
7 | 10.33 | 8 | 48 | 7 | 7.5 |
8 | 10.42 | 9 | 57 | 8 | 6.7 |
9 | 10.49 | 7 | 64 | 9 | 8.6 |
10 | End 11.00 | 11 | 75 | 10 | 5.5 |
Table 2.2: 5-minute agregated rainfalls | |||
[1] | [2] | [3] | [4] |
Elapsed time since start (minutes) | Interpolated cum. rainfall depth (mm) | 5-min rainfall depth (P5min, mm) | 5-min rainfall intensity (I5min, mm/hr) |
0 | 0.00 | ||
5 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 8.57 |
10 | 1.43 | 0.71 | 8.57 |
15 | 2.06 | 0.63 | 7.61 |
20 | 2.38 | 0.31 | 3.75 |
25 | 2.69 | 0.31 | 3.75 |
30 | 3.00 | 0.31 | 3.75 |
35 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 12.00 |
40 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 24.00 |
45 | 6.63 | 0.63 | 7.50 |
50 | 7.22 | 0.60 | 7.17 |
55 | 7.78 | 0.56 | 6.67 |
60 | 8.43 | 0.65 | 7.81 |
65 | 9.09 | 0.66 | 7.95 |
70 | 9.55 | 0.45 | 5.45 |
75 | 10.00 | 0.45 | 5.45 |
Location | Latitude 28°13'33.3"S
Longitude 152°14'57.8"E |
Catchment Area | 140 sq. km |
When streamgauging started | 09/10/1947 |
When rainfall measurements started | 09/10/1947 |
The maximum observed instantaneous discharge and when this occurred | 596.649mm 12/01/1968 (cumecs)
51550.480 12/01/1968 (ML/day) |
Maximum observed daily total rainfall and when this occurred. | Maximum gauged level 1.830
Maximum gauge date 27/06/1967 |
Based on the information gathered above, a rating curse is needed to compute the stream discharge. Thus, rating curves are important when doing hydrological calculations.
Provide a monthly discharge timeseries plot and state the % of missing data
Provide a table of the water years in chronological order with the peak discharge for each year and the number of months of missing data for each year. Highlight the water years when the amount of missing data is unacceptable.
Stream Discharge [140.00]
Time | 422313B | ||
And | 140.00 | ||
Date | Discharge (Cumecs) | ||
Max | Qual | ||
00:00:00 01/01/1973 | 255 | Sites: | |
00:00:00 01/01/1974 | 255 | 422313B - Emu Creek at Emu Vale Lat:-28.228888 Long:152.227221 Elev:493 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1975 | 133.596 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1976 | 341.575 | 9 | Variables: |
00:00:00 01/01/1977 | 5.146 | 9 | 100 - Stream Water Level (Metres) |
00:00:00 01/01/1978 | 20.191 | 59 | 140 - Stream Discharge (Cumecs) |
00:00:00 01/01/1979 | 36.861 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1980 | 21.277 | 9 | Qualities: |
00:00:00 01/01/1981 | 106.150 | 59 | 9 - CITEC - Normal Reading |
00:00:00 01/01/1982 | 25.017 | 9 | 20 - Fair |
00:00:00 01/01/1983 | 206.306 | 9 | 30 - Poor |
00:00:00 01/01/1984 | 195.979 | 9 | 59 - CITEC - Derived Height |
00:00:00 01/01/1985 | 180 | 60 - Estimate | |
00:00:00 01/01/1986 | 1.806 | 9 | 160 - Suspect |
00:00:00 01/01/1987 | 21.061 | 9 | 180 - old - Gauge Height < Instrument Threshold |
00:00:00 01/01/1988 | 198.316 | 9 | 255 - No data exists |
00:00:00 01/01/1989 | 116.378 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1990 | 50.390 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1991 | 67.069 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1992 | 2.722 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1993 | 0.866 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1994 | 3.517 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1995 | 15.203 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1996 | 528.285 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1997 | 34.650 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1998 | 13.332 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1999 | 94.511 | 59 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2000 | 6.300 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2001 | 168.348 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2002 | 1.505 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2003 | 1.478 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2004 | 49.894 | 30 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2005 | 12.450 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2006 | 4.591 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2007 | 9.789 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2008 | 367.881 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2009 | 38.859 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2010 | 497.630 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2011 | 601.595 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2012 | 39.499 | 30 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2013 | 689.052 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2014 | 130.291 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2015 | 58.743 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2016 | 160 |
Table the Annual Series discharges, ranked in order. State the number of water years (N) included in the Annual Series, allowing for missing data.
Stream Discharge Volume [151.00]
Time | 422313B | ||
And | 151.00 | ||
Date | Volume ML | ||
Total | Qual | ||
00:00:00 01/01/1973 | 255 | Sites: | |
00:00:00 01/01/1974 | 255 | 422313B - Emu Creek at Emu Vale Lat:-28.228888 Long:152.227221 Elev:493 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1975 | 26207.25 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1976 | 71209.13 | 9 | Variables: |
00:00:00 01/01/1977 | 6095.19 | 9 | 100 - Stream Water Level (Metres) |
00:00:00 01/01/1978 | 8116.97 | 59 | 151 - Stream Discharge Volume (Megalitres) |
00:00:00 01/01/1979 | 6066.25 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1980 | 2982.64 | 9 | Qualities: |
00:00:00 01/01/1981 | 19035.43 | 59 | 9 - CITEC - Normal Reading |
00:00:00 01/01/1982 | 11912.49 | 9 | 20 – Fair |
00:00:00 01/01/1983 | 42320.34 | 9 | 30 – Poor |
00:00:00 01/01/1984 | 35987.85 | 9 | 59 - CITEC - Derived Height |
00:00:00 01/01/1985 | 180 | 60 – Estimate | |
00:00:00 01/01/1986 | 878.87 | 9 | 160 – Suspect |
00:00:00 01/01/1987 | 5969.40 | 9 | 180 - old - Gauge Height < Instrument Threshold |
00:00:00 01/01/1988 | 34971.33 | 9 | 255 - No data exists |
00:00:00 01/01/1989 | 24545.57 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1990 | 20033.25 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1991 | 6710.26 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1992 | 2818.78 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1993 | 474.20 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1994 | 2310.06 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1995 | 3363.15 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1996 | 43845.81 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1997 | 2496.25 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1998 | 4167.04 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/1999 | 25262.65 | 59 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2000 | 4161.70 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2001 | 18543.29 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2002 | 512.21 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2003 | 897.75 | 9 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2004 | 8382.29 | 30 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2005 | 1992.37 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2006 | 955.56 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2007 | 1543.16 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2008 | 17503.83 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2009 | 7432.14 | 20 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2010 | 54329.81 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2011 | 44909.40 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2012 | 16379.81 | 30 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2013 | 69505.30 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2014 | 6303.59 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2015 | 9371.32 | 60 | |
00:00:00 01/01/2016 | 160 |
Tabulate the Annual Series statistics (mean and standard deviation of log (discharges) and skew) for both cases of with and without the lowest 9 floods.Provide graphs of the Annual Series, fitted LP3 distribution and 5% & 95% confidence limits for both cases of with and without the lowest 9 floods. of with and without the lowest 9 floods
PARTIAL SERIES ANALYSIS
Find Solution for environment assignment by dropping us a mail at help@myassignmentservices.com.au along with the question’s URL. Get in Contact with our experts at My Assignment Services AU and get the solution as per your specification & University requirement.
Trending now
The Student Corner
Subscribe to get updates, offers and assignment tips right in your inbox.
Popular Solutions
Popular Solutions
Request Callback
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....