Investigation on flood event variations at space and time scales in the Huaihe River Basin of China using flood behavior classification

doi:10.1007/s11442-020-1827-3

Abstract

Abstract:

Flood is one of the severest natural disasters in the world and has caused enormous causalities and property losses. Previous studies usually focus on flood magnitude and occurrence time at event scale, which are insufficient to contain entire behavior characteristics of flood events. In our study, nine behavior metrics in five categories (e.g., magnitude, duration, timing, rates of changes and variability) are adopted to fully describe a flood event. Regional and interannual variations of representative flood classes are investigated based on behavior similarity classification of numerous events. Contributions of geography, land use, hydrometeorology and human regulation on these variations are explored by rank analysis method. Results show that: five representative classes are identified, namely, conventional events (Class 1, 61.7% of the total), low discharge events with multiple peaks (Class 2, 5.3%), low discharge events with low rates of changes (Class 3, 18.1%), low discharge events with high rates of changes (Class 4, 10.8%) and high discharge events with long durations (Class 5, 4.1%). Classes 1 and 3 are the major flood events and distributed across the whole region. Class 4 is mainly distributed in river sources, while Classes 2 and 5 are in the middle and down streams. Moreover, the flood class is most diverse in normal precipitation years (2006, 2008-2010 and 2015), followed by wet years (2007, 2013-2014), and dry years (2011 and 2012). All the impact factor categories explain 34.0%-84.1% of individual flood class variations. The hydrometeorological category (7.2%-56.9%) is the most important, followed by geographical (1.0%-6.3%), regulation (1.7%-5.1%) and land use (0.9%-2.2%) categories. This study could provide new insights into flood event variations in a comprehensive manner, and provide decision-making basis for flood control and resource utilization at basin scale.

Key words: flood events, behavior metrics, classification, regional and interannual variations, potential impacts

ZHANG Yongyong, CHEN Qiutan, XIA Jun. Investigation on flood event variations at space and time scales in the Huaihe River Basin of China using flood behavior classification[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(12): 2053-2075.

Figures/Tables 12

Figure 1

Table 1

The general characteristics of controlled catchments, and the selected flood events"

ID	Rivers	Stations	Dam regulation	Catchment area (km²)	Slope length (km)	Slope (%)	Elevation (m)	River density (km/km²)	Major land use (%)	Flood events	Precipitation (mm)	Potential evapotranspiration (mm)
1	Shaying River	ZiLS	/	1800	89.4	22.15	818.3	0.027	Forest (67.6)	12	80.0±76.3	36.9±18.0
2		ZhongT	/	485	41.4	29.07	680.2	0.019	Forest (77.5)	13	71.0±55.2	26.7±13.8
3		XiaGS	Yes	354	36.9	19.67	471.0	0.083	Forest (45.0)	10	54.4±36.9	32.2±21.5
4		RuZ	Yes	3005	73.4	16.54	662.2	0.016	Forest (45.8)	11	54.0±27.1	42.8±19.3
5		GaoC	Yes	627	49.1	13.98	493.8	0.055	Dryland (58.4)	5	57.2±68.1	42.5±32.3
6		ZhongM	/	2106	132.3	1.28	144.3	0.027	Dryland (53.4)	5	65.9±51.8	34.7±8.3
7		JiZ	/	46	10.5	16.16	394.0	0.023	Forest (73.9)	5	54.4±87.7	18.7±9.8
8		XinZ	Yes	1079	75.5	5.37	268.4	0.027	Dryland (63.6)	10	134.1±80.6	65.7±68.1
9		HeK	Yes	2124	116.4	3.32	153.1	0.004	Dryland (72.4)	9	57.2±35.4	38.0±14.8
10		LuoH	Yes	12,150	170.0	7.75	316.5	0.002	Dryland (59.7)	6	45.3±34.3	44.9±12.0
11		ZhouK	Yes	25,800	202.1	4.47	214.9	0.001	Dryland (67.5)	3	54.1±52.6	44.6±41.8
12	Hongru River	XuT	/	70	13.9	22.67	554.1	0.430	Dryland (61.4)	3	64.1±57.6	26.9±18.7
13		SuiP	Yes	1760	96.4	5.08	164.9	0.030	Dryland (59.4)	9	67.5±37.1	23.0±28.4
14		YangZ	Yes	1037	61.5	4.23	141.9	0.122	Dryland (65.4)	5	12.8±14.0	26.0±14.8
15		WuGy	Yes	1564	107.8	2.37	105.9	0.054	Dryland (73.2)	8	38.3±46.2	36.7±17.0
16		LiX	/	78	18.0	6.50	175.5	0.095	Dryland (38.0)	10	39.8±32.9	24.6±26.3
17		ZhuMD	/	104	17.8	2.74	105.3	0.113	Dryland (75.0)	3	37.5±31.1	10.2±4.1
18		MiaoW	Yes	2660	95.2	1.39	81.4	0.026	Dryland (77.8)	12	43.4±52.4	47.6±16.8
19		LuZ	/	396	38.4	9.50	214.7	0.031	Forest (56.5)	14	24.7±29.3	18.4±9.9
ID	Rivers	Stations	Dam regulation	Catchment area (km²)	Slope length (km)	Slope (%)	Elevation (m)	River density (km/km²)	Major land use (%)	Flood events	Precipitation (mm)	Potential evapotranspiration (mm)
20		XinC	Yes	4110	178.5	0.86	66.2	0.043	Dryland (79.8)	2	71.1±10.6	60.7±1.6
21		BanT	Yes	11,280	197.6	1.69	88.5	0.008	Dryland (74.2)	4	18.6±26.1	34.9±28.8
22		GuiL	Yes	1050	57.6	3.76	133.3	0.108	Dryland (67.0)	6	31.1±38.1	31.5±10.4
23	Southern mountainous rivers	TanJH	/	152	24.3	20.33	279.9	0.040	Forest (88.2)	12	81.2±54.9	25.7±12.7
24		ZhuGP	Yes	1639	94.2	7.11	159.8	0.036	Forest (43.6)	14	75.6±66.0	51.4±19.9
25		XinX	Yes	274	31.5	19.40	286.1	0.071	Dryland (57.7)	16	79.2±54.1	42.8±32.2
26		HuangNZ	/	805	48.9	24.03	487.4	0.006	Forest (46.5)	10	25.1±34.5	24.5±9.6
27		QiL	/	185	31.4	26.65	531.5	0.006	Forest (58.3)	14	29.6±31.2	15.6±6.6
28		HuangC	Yes	2050	117.9	6.76	156.7	0.036	Dryland (47.7)	6	52.2±30.1	84.6±38.7
29		BeiMJ	/	1710	111.6	2.88	101.9	0.037	Paddy (47.7)	16	73.4±37.7	56.1±17.2
30		JiangJJ	Yes	5930	161.2	11.99	246.6	0.008	Forest (36.5)	8	54.5±34.3	61.8±30.6
31		PeiH	Yes	18	8.6	30.98	390.3	0.167	Forest (100.0)	9	87.9±54.2	22.6±12.4
32	Huaihe mainstream	DaPL	Yes	1640	70.0	6.68	218.2	0.111	Forest (45.9)	13	58.1±36.6	44.9±21.5
33		ChangTG	Yes	3090	78.0	5.51	185.5	0.031	Dryland (41.1)	14	79.6±45.9	53.4±22.9
34		XiX	Yes	10,190	124.7	4.86	148.2	0.008	Dryland (36.2)	10	84.5±46.0	75.8±24.5
35		HuaiB	Yes	16,005	138.7	3.93	125.0	0.005	Dryland (43.2)	10	60.2±43.1	96.1±46.4
36		LuTZ	Yes	88,630	232.3	4.14	147.7	0.001	Dryland (54.3)	5	73.6±70.8	73.7±46.4
37		BengB	Yes	121,330	279.3	3.23	123.6	0.001	Dryland (57.2)	4	46.53±39.7	47.7±31.4
38		WangWQ	Yes	200	33.2	0.91	63.3	0.131	Dryland (91.4)	12	28.8±27.5	24.3±11.9
39		WangJB	Yes	30,630	159.8	2.77	104.5	0.003	Dryland (56.6)	4	107.1±59.1	113.6±22.4

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

References 53

[1]	Ali G, Tetzlaff D, Soulsby C et al., 2012. A comparison of similarity indices for catchment classification using across-regional dataset. Advance in Water Resources, 40:11-22.
[2]	Anctil F, 2010. Wavelet analysis of the interannual variability in Southern Quebec Streamflow. Journal of Climate, 17(1):163-173.
[3]	Boughton W C, 1993. A hydrograph-based model for estimating the water yield of ungauged catchments, paper presented at Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium. Inst. of Eng. Aust., Newcastle, N.S.W.
[4]	Brunner M I, Viviroli D, Furrer R, Seibert J et al., 2018. Identification of flood reactivity regions via the functional clustering of hydrographs. Water Resources Research, 54(3):1852-1867.
[5]	Burn D H, Boorman D B, 1992. Catchment classification applied to the estimation of hydrological parameters at ungauged catchments (technical report 118). Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: Institute of Hydrology.
[6]	Chapman T A, 1999. Comparison of algorithms for stream flow recession and baseflow separation. Hydrological Processes, 13(5):701-714.
[7]	Han D, Cluckie I D, Karbassioun D et al., 2002. River flow modelling using fuzzy decision trees. Water Resources Management, 16(6):431-445.
[8]	Hargreaves G H, Samani Z A, 1982. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. Journal of the Irrigation & Drainage Division, 108(3):225-230.
[9]	Hirabayashi Y, Mahendran R, Koirala S et al., 2013. Global flood risk under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3:816-821.
[10]	Kennard M J, Pusey B J, Olden J D et al., 2010. Classification of natural flow regimes in Australia to support environmental flow management. Freshwater Biology, 55:171-193.
[11]	Kumar A R S, Goyal M K, Ojha C S P et al., 2013. Application of ANN, fuzzy logic and decision tree algorithms for the development of reservoir operating rules. Water Resources Management, 27:911-925.
[12]	Li Z L, Xu Z X, Li J Y et al., 2008. Shift trend and step changes for runoff time series in the Shiyang River basin, Northwest China. Hydrological Processes, 22:4639-4646.
[13]	Liao S H, Wen C H, 2007. Artificial neural networks classification and clustering of methodologies and applications: Literature analysis from 1995 to 2005. Expert Systems with Application, 32(1):1-11.
[14]	Lyne V, Hollick M, 1979. Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff modelling, I. E. Aust. Natl. Conf. Publ. 79/10, pp. 89-93, Inst. of Eng. Aust., Canberra, ACT.
[15]	Ma F, Ye A, Gong W et al., 2014. An estimate of human and natural contributions to flood changes of the Huai River. Global & Planetary Change, 119:39-50.
[16]	Ma G B, Jiang W G, Li J et al., 2012. Assessment and validation of short-term flood hazards in China. Geographical Research, 31(1):34-44. (in Chinese)
[17]	McDonnell J J, Woods R, 2004. On the need for catchment classification. Journal of Hydrology, 299(1/2):2-3.
[18]	Mcmanamay R A, Oigbokie C O, Kao S C et al., 2016. Classification of US hydropower dams by their modes of operation. River Research and Applications, 32(7):1450-1468.
[19]	Merz B, Dung N V, Apel H et al., 2018. Spatial coherence of flood-rich and flood-poor periods across Germany. Journal of Hydrology, 559:813-826.
[20]	Merz R, Blöschl G, 2003. A process typology of regional floods. Water Resources Research, 39(12):1340. doi: 10.1029/2002WR001952, 2003.
[21]	Milly P C D, Wetherald R T, Dunne K A et al., 2002. Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate. Nature, 415:514-517. pmid: 11823857
[22]	Nied M, Schröter K, Lüdtke S et al., 2017. What are the hydro-meteorological controls on flood characteristics? Journal of Hydrology, 545:310-326.
[23]	Ning Y, Qian M, Wang Y, 2003. Huaihe River Basin Hydrology Handbook. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)
[24]	Parajka J K, Ohnova S, Balint G et al., 2010. Seasonal characteristics of flood regimes across the Alpine-Carpathian range. Journal of Hydrology, 394(1/2):78-89.
[25]	Poff N L, Allan J D, Bain M B et al., 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience, 47(11):769-784.
[26]	Requena A I, Chebana F, Ouarda T B, 2017. Heterogeneity measures in hydrological frequency analysis: Review and new developments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(3):1651-1668.
[27]	Richter B D, Baumgartner J V, Powell J et al., 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 10(4):1163-1174.
[28]	Robinson J S, Sivapalan M, 1997. Temporal scales and hydrological regimes: Implications for flood frequency scaling. Water Resources Research, 33(12):2981-2999.
[29]	Rogger M, Kohl B, Pirkl H et al., 2012. Runoff models and flood frequency statistics for design flood estimation in Austria - Do they tell a consistent story? Journal of Hydrology, 456/457:30-43.
[30]	Rosgen D L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena, 22(3):169-199.
[31]	Sauquet E, Catalogne C, 2011. Comparison of catchment grouping methods for flow duration curve estimation at ungauged sites in France. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15:2421-2435.
[32]	Shao Q, Campbell N, 2002. Applications: Modelling trends in groundwater levels by segmented regression with constraints. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 44(2):129-141.
[33]	She D X, Xia J, Shao Q X et al., 2017. Advanced investigation on the change in the streamflow into the water source of the middle route of China’s water diversion project. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(13):6950-6951.
[34]	Shi P, Ma X X, Hou Y B et al., 2013. Effects of land-use and climate change on hydrological processes in the upstream of Huai River, China. Water Resources Management, 27(5):1263-1278.
[35]	Sikorska A E, Viviroli D, Seibert J, 2015. Flood-type classification in mountainous catchments using crisp and fuzzy decision trees. Water Resources Research, 51(10):7959-7976.
[36]	Singh V P, 2015. Entropy, Theory in Hydrologic Science and Engineering. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education.
[37]	Snelder T H, Biggs B J, Woods R A, 2005. Improved ecohydrological classification of rivers. River Research and Applications, 21(6):609-628.
[38]	Sun P, Wen Q Z, Zhang Q et al., 2018. Nonstationarity evaluation of flood frequency and flood risk in the Huai River basin, China. Journal of Hydrology, 567:393-404.
[39]	Wang W, Wei J, Shao Q et al., 2015. Spatial and temporal variations in hydro-climatic variables and runoff in response to climate change in the Luanhe River basin, China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 29(4):1117-1133.
[40]	Xia J, Du H, Zeng S et al., 2012a. Temporal and spatial variations and statistical models of extreme runoff in Huaihe River Basin during 1956-2010. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 22(6):1045-1060.
[41]	Xia J, She D X, Zhang Y Y et al., 2012b. Spatial-temporal trend and statistical distribution of extreme precipitation events in Huaihe River Basin during 1960-2009. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 22(2):195-208.
[42]	Yang P, Xia J, Zhan C S et al., 2018. Discrete wavelet transform-based investigation into the variability of standardized precipitation index in Northwest China during 1960-2014. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 132(1/2):167-180.
[43]	Yang W Z, Zhang B W, Fu R M, 2017. A summary of flood disaster in 2016. China Flood & Drought Management, 27(1):26-29. (in Chinese)
[44]	Zbigniew W K, Shinjiro K, Sonia I S et al., 2013. Flood risk and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 59(1):1-28.
[45]	Zhang Q, Chen Y Q, Chen X H et al., 2011a. Copula-based analysis of hydrological extremes and implications of hydrological behaviors in the Pearl River basin, China. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 16(7):598-607.
[46]	Zhang S J, Jiang Y H, Yang H J et al., 2015. An hydrology-process based method for antecedent effect rainfall determination in debris flow forecasting. Advances in Water Science, 26(1):34-43.
[47]	Zhang Y Y, Chen Q T, 2020. Characteristics of main flood event types and their temporal-spatial variations in the upper and middle reaches of the Huai River Basin. Progress in Geography, 39(4):627-635. (in Chinese)
[48]	Zhang Y Y, Shao Q X, Xia J et al., 2011b. Changes of flow regimes and precipitation in Huai River Basin in the last half century. Hydrological Processes, 25:246-257.
[49]	Zhang Y Y, Shao Q X, Zhao T T G, 2017. Comprehensive assessment of dam impacts on flow regimes with consideration of interannual variations. Journal of Hydrology, 552:447-459.
[50]	Zhang Y Y, Xia J, Bunn S E et al., 2012. Classification of flow regimes for environmental flow assessment in regulated rivers: The Huai River Basin, China. River Research and Applications, 28(7):989-1005.
[51]	Zhang Y Y, Zhai X Y, Shao Q X et al., 2015. Assessing temporal and spatial flow regime alterations in the regulated Huai River Basin, China. Journal of Hydrology, 529:384-397. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.08.001
[52]	Zhang Y Y, Zhou Y J, Shao Q X et al., 2016. Diffuse nutrient losses and the impact factors determining their regional differences in four catchments from North to South China. Journal of Hydrology, 543:577-594. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.031
[53]	Zheng H X, Zhang L, Liu C M et al., 2007. Changes in stream flow regime in headwater catchments of the Yellow River basin since the 1950s. Hydrological Processes, 21:886-893.

Categories	Behavior metrics	Abbreviation	Unit	Calculation equation
Magnitude	Total amount of flood	R_sum	mm	${{{R}_{sum}}=86.4\cdot {{10}^{-3}}\cdot {{Q}_{sum}}}/{A}\;={86.4\cdot {{10}^{-3}}\cdot \sum\limits_{t=tbegin}^{tend}{{{Q}_{t}}}}/{A}\;$
Magnitude	Maximum peak flood	Q_pk	none	${{{Q}_{pk}}={{{Q}_{t,\max }}}/{{{Q}_{sum}}}\;=\max ({{Q}_{t}})}/{{{Q}_{sum}}}\;$
Duration	Flood event duration	T_duration	d	${{T}_{duration}}={{F}_{end}}-{{F}_{begin}}+1$
Timing	Timing of flood event	F_begin	d	${{{T}_{pk}}=({{F}_{pk,\max }}-{{F}_{begin}}+1)}/{{{T}_{duration}}}\;$
Timing	Timing of maximum peak flood	T_pk	none
Rate of changes	Mean rate of positive changes	RQ_rise	1/hr	$R{{Q}_{rise}}=\frac{({{Q}_{t,\max }}-{{Q}_{Fbegin}})}{[{{Q}_{sum}}\cdot ({{t}_{pk,\max }}-{{F}_{begin}})\cdot 24]}$
Rate of changes	Mean rate of negative changes	RQ_down	1/hr	$R{{Q}_{down}}=\frac{({{Q}_{t,\max }}-{{Q}_{Fend}})}{[{{Q}_{sum}}\cdot ({{F}_{end}}-{{t}_{pk,\max }}+1)\cdot 24]}$
Flood forms	Number of peak flood	N_pk	none	$CV={\sigma }/{{{Q}_{av}}}\;$
Flood forms	Coefficient of variation	CV	none	$CV={\sigma }/{{{Q}_{av}}}\;$

Factor categories	Factors		Flood event implications
Geography	Location	Longitude and latitude (Long and Latt)	All the behavior categories
	Catchment	Area (Cat_A, km²), average elevation (Cat_ae, m), slope (Cat_slp, %) and length (Cat_len, km)	Magnitude, rate of changes and forms
	River	Slope (Rch_slp, %) and length (Rch_len, km), with-depth ratio (Rch_wdr, m/m), river density (Rch_den, km/km²)	Magnitude, rate of changes and forms
Land use	Land use area	Paddy (Lu_pad, km²), dryland (Lu_dry, km²), forest (Lu_fst, km²), grass (Lu_grs, km²), water (Lu_wat, km²), urban (Lu_urb, km²) and unused land (Lu_uns, km²)	Magnitude, rate of changes and forms
Hydrometeoro- logy	Precipitation	Cumulative amount in the antecedent three, five and seven days (Pcp_3d, Pcp_5d, Pcp_7d, mm) and during the flood event (Pcp_tot, mm), annual amount (Pcp_ann, mm) and ratio of flood season (R_fldpcp)	All the behavior categories
	Potential evapotranspiration	Cumulative amount in the antecedent three, five and seven days (Pet_3d, Pet_5d and Pet_7d, mm) and during the flood event (Pet_tot, mm), annual amount (Pet_ann, mm) and ratio of flood season (R_fldpet)	Magnitude
	Baseflow	Baseflow index (BFI)	Magnitude, duration and forms
Human regulation	Water storage project	Number (Num_rsv), total and beneficial capacities (Tot_rsv and Use_rsv, 10⁸ m³), and their ratios of annual average runoff magnitude (R_totrsv and R_usersv)	All the behavior categories
	Water diversion project	Number (Num_wdp) and total capacities (Tot_wdp, 10⁸ m³)	Magnitude
	Water pumping project	Number (Num_wpp) and total capacities (Tot_wpp, 10⁸ m³		Magnitude
	Water transferring project	Total capacity (Tot_wtp, 10⁸ m³)	Magnitude