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

被引:9
|
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 47 条
  • [21] Reducing the uncertainty of time-varying hydrological model parameters using spatial coherence within a hierarchical Bayesian framework
    Pan, Zhengke
    Liu, Pan
    Gao, Shida
    Cheng, Lei
    Chen, Jie
    Zhang, Xiaojing
    JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2019, 577
  • [22] Uncertainty Segregation and Comparative Evaluation in Groundwater Remediation Designs: A Chance-Constrained Hierarchical Bayesian Model Averaging Approach
    Chitsazan, Nima
    Tsai, Frank T. -C.
    JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2015, 141 (03)
  • [23] Bayesian calibration and uncertainty quantification of a rate-dependent cohesive zone model for polymer interfaces
    Thiagarajan, Ponkrshnan
    Sain, Trisha
    Ghosh, Susanta
    ENGINEERING FRACTURE MECHANICS, 2024, 309
  • [24] Multi-model ensemble simulated non-point source pollution based on Bayesian model averaging method and model uncertainty analysis
    Wang, Huiliang
    Lu, Keyu
    Zhao, Yulong
    Zhang, Jinxia
    Hua, Jianli
    Lin, Xiaoying
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2020, 27 (35) : 44482 - 44493
  • [25] Particle image velocimetry analysis with simultaneous uncertainty quantification using Bayesian neural networks
    Morrell, Mia C.
    Hickmann, Kyle
    Wilson, Brandon M.
    MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2021, 32 (10)
  • [26] Uncertainty analysis using Bayesian Model Averaging: a case study of input variables to energy models and inference to associated uncertainties of energy scenarios
    Culka, Monika
    ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND SOCIETY, 2016, 6
  • [27] Uncertainty quantification for chromatography model parameters by Bayesian inference using sequential Monte Carlo method
    Yamamoto, Yota
    Yajima, Tomoyuki
    Kawajiri, Yoshiaki
    CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH & DESIGN, 2021, 175 : 223 - 237
  • [28] Quantification and Evaluation of Uncertainty in the Mathematical Modelling of a Suspension Strut Using Bayesian Model Validation Approach
    Mallapur, Shashidhar
    Platz, Roland
    MODEL VALIDATION AND UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION, VOL 3, 2017, : 113 - 124
  • [29] Assessing model mismatch and model selection in a Bayesian uncertainty quantification analysis of a fluid-dynamics model of pulmonary blood circulation
    Paun, L. Mihaela
    Colebank, Mitchel J.
    Olufsen, Mette S.
    Hill, Nicholas A.
    Husmeier, Dirk
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, 2020, 17 (173)
  • [30] Climatological analysis of tornado report counts using a hierarchical Bayesian spatiotemporal model
    Wikle, CK
    Anderson, CJ
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2003, 108 (D24)