Assessing the reliability of regional depth‐duration‐frequency equations for gaged and ungaged sites

62 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Geostatistical prediction of flow–duration curves in an index-flow framework (2014, unknown): “…generally significantly smaller than the uncertainty associated with predictions of MAF for ungauged sites, in virtue of the large availability of raingauges and the accuracy of geostatistical procedure for interpolating point observations (see, e.g.Brath et al., 2003; Castellarin et al., 2004a).”
Marginal methods of intensity‐duration‐frequency estimation in scaling and nonscaling rainfall (2007, result): “The dependence of k on d displayed in Figure 4 is especially significant for long return periods, since the tail of the maximum distribution is highly sensitive to k. [39] Our conclusion that the separability condition in equation (1) does not hold is consistent with findings by other authors on the”
Probabilistic envelope curves for design flood estimation at ungauged sites (2007, background): “Figure 2 reports the three subregions (namely Regions W, western, C, central, and E, eastern), which mainly reflect climatic differences existing in the study area [see, e.g., Brath et al., 2003].”