Complementary aspects of linear flood routing modelling and flood frequency analysis

Similarity and differences between linear flood routing modelling (LFRM) and flood frequency analysis (FFA) techniques are presented. The moment matching used in LFRM to approximate the impulse response function (IRF) was applied in FFA to derive the asymptotic bias caused by the false distribution assumption. Proceeding in this way, other estimation methods were used as approximation methods in FFA to derive the asymptotic bias. Using simulation experiments, the above investigation was extended to evaluate the sampling bias. As a feedback, the maximum likelihood method (MLM) can be used for approximating linear channel response (LCR) by the IRFs of conceptual models. Impulse responses of the convective diffusion and kinematic diffusion models were applied and developed as FFA models. Based on kinematic diffusion LFRM, the equivalence of estimation problems of discrete‐continuous distribution and single‐censored sample are shown both for the method of moments (MOM) and the MLM. Hence, the applicability of MOM is extended for the case of censored samples. Owing to the complexity and non‐linearity of hydrological systems and resulting processes, the use of simple models is often questionable. The rationale of simple models is discussed. The problems of model choice and overparameterization are common in mathematical modelling and FF modelling. Some results for the use of simple models in the stationary FFA are presented. The problems of model discrimination are then discussed. Finally, a conjunction of linear stochastic processes and LFRM is presented. The influence of river courses on stochastic properties of the runoff process is shown by combining Gaussian input with the LCR of the simplified Saint Venant model. It is shown that, from the classification of the ways of their development, both LFRM and FFA can benefit. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.