Uncertainty Analysis and Quantification in Flood Insurance Rate Maps Using Bayesian Model Averaging and Hierarchical BMA

被引:6
|
作者
Huang, Tao [1 ]
Merwade, Venkatesh [2 ]
机构
[1] Purdue Univ, Lyles Sch Civil Engn, 550 Stadium Mall Dr, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
[2] Purdue Univ, Sch Civil Engn, 550Stadium Mall Dr, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
关键词
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); Uncertainty; Bayesian model averaging (BMA); Hierarchical Bayesian model averaging (HBMA); Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS); Probabilistic flood map; MULTIMODEL ENSEMBLE; SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; TIME-SERIES; INUNDATION; COMBINATION; RAINFALL; FORECASTS; CALIBRATION; PREDICTION; HYDROLOGY;
D O I
10.1061/JHYEFF.HEENG-5851
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) managed by FEMA have been providing ongoing flood information to most communities in the United States over the past half-century. However, the uncertainty associated with the modeling of FIRMs, some of which are created by using a single Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) one-dimensional (1D) steady-flow model, may have adverse effects on the reliability of flood stage and inundation extent predictions. Therefore, a systematic understanding of the uncertainty in the modeling process of FIRMs is necessary. Bayesian model averaging (BMA), which is a statistical approach that can combine estimations from multiple models and produce reliable probabilistic predictions, was applied to evaluating the uncertainty associated with FIRMs. In this study, both the BMA and hierarchical BMA (HBMA) approaches were used to quantify the uncertainty within the detailed FEMA models of the Deep River and the Saint Marys River in the state of Indiana based on water stage predictions from 150 HEC-RAS 1D unsteady-flow model configurations that incorporate four uncertainty sources including bridges, channel roughness, floodplain roughness, and upstream flow input. Given the ensemble predictions and the observed water stage data in the training period, the BMA weight and the variance for each model member were obtained, and then the BMA prediction ability was validated for the observed data from the later period. The results indicate that the BMA prediction is more robust than both the original FEMA model and the ensemble mean. Furthermore, the HBMA framework explicitly shows the propagation of various uncertainty sources, and both the channel roughness and the upstream flow input have a larger impact on prediction variance than bridges. Hence, it provides insights for modelers into the relative impact of individual uncertainty sources in the flood modeling process. The results show that the probabilistic flood maps developed based on the BMA analysis could provide more reliable predictions than the deterministic FIRMs.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Separation and prioritization of uncertainty sources in a raster based flood inundation model using hierarchical Bayesian model averaging
    Liu, Zhu
    Merwade, Venkatesh
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2019, 578
  • [2] Uncertainty quantification of mass models using ensemble Bayesian model averaging
    Saito, Yukiya
    Dillmann, I.
    Krucken, R.
    Mumpower, M. R.
    Surman, R.
    [J]. PHYSICAL REVIEW C, 2024, 109 (05)
  • [3] Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Subsurface Inversion Using a Multiscale Hierarchical Model
    Mondal, Anirban
    Mallick, Bani
    Efendiev, Yalchin
    Datta-Gupta, Akhil
    [J]. TECHNOMETRICS, 2014, 56 (03) : 381 - 392
  • [4] Improving Streamflow Prediction Using Uncertainty Analysis and Bayesian Model Averaging
    Meira Neto, Antonio A.
    Oliveira, Paulo Tarso S.
    Rodrigues, Dulce B. B.
    Wendland, Edson
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING, 2018, 23 (05)
  • [5] A Hierarchical Bayesian Model Averaging Framework for Groundwater Prediction under Uncertainty
    Chitsazan, Nima
    Tsai, Frank T. -C.
    [J]. GROUNDWATER, 2015, 53 (02) : 305 - 316
  • [6] Prediction and structural uncertainty analyses of artificial neural networks using hierarchical Bayesian model averaging
    Chitsazan, Nima
    Nadiri, Ata Allah
    Tsai, Frank T. -C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2015, 528 : 52 - 62
  • [7] HUP-BMA: An Integration of Hydrologic Uncertainty Processor and Bayesian Model Averaging for Streamflow Forecasting
    Darbandsari, Pedram
    Coulibaly, Paulin
    [J]. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2021, 57 (10)
  • [8] Accounting for model structure, parameter and input forcing uncertainty in flood inundation modeling using Bayesian model averaging
    Liu, Zhu
    Merwade, Venkatesh
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2018, 565 : 138 - 149
  • [9] Hierarchical Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for a Model of the Red Blood Cell
    Economides, Athena
    Arampatzis, Georgios
    Alexeev, Dmitry
    Litvinov, Sergey
    Amoudruz, Lucas
    Kulakova, Lina
    Papadimitriou, Costas
    Koumoutsakos, Petros
    [J]. PHYSICAL REVIEW APPLIED, 2021, 15 (03)
  • [10] Calibration and uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model using Genetic Algorithms and Bayesian Model Averaging
    Zhang, Xuesong
    Srinivasan, Raghavan
    Bosch, David
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2009, 374 (3-4) : 307 - 317