A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Analysis of the Uncertainty in Estimates of Manning’s Roughness Coefficient and Bed Slope Using GLUE and DREAM
River discharge data are critical to elaborating on engineering projects and water resources management. Discharge data must be precise and collected with good temporal resolution. To elaborate on a more accurate database, this paper aims to quantify the uncertainty generated while applying Bayesian inference through the GLUE and DREAM methods. Both methods were used to estimate hydraulic parameters and compare between them with Manning’s equation. Throughout the statistical analysis, the uncertainties in the application of the models are used to determine the parameters of Manning’s roughness coefficient and bed slope. The validation was made via a comparison of the calculated maximum and minimum discharges, and the observed flow available at HidroWeb. In conclusion, both methods estimated the hydraulic parameters well, but a higher relative deviation was seen in the intervals with smaller calculated discharges; DREAM appears to be more accurate than GLUE, once the relative deviation in GLUE became greater.
Analysis of the Uncertainty in Estimates of Manning’s Roughness Coefficient and Bed Slope Using GLUE and DREAM
River discharge data are critical to elaborating on engineering projects and water resources management. Discharge data must be precise and collected with good temporal resolution. To elaborate on a more accurate database, this paper aims to quantify the uncertainty generated while applying Bayesian inference through the GLUE and DREAM methods. Both methods were used to estimate hydraulic parameters and compare between them with Manning’s equation. Throughout the statistical analysis, the uncertainties in the application of the models are used to determine the parameters of Manning’s roughness coefficient and bed slope. The validation was made via a comparison of the calculated maximum and minimum discharges, and the observed flow available at HidroWeb. In conclusion, both methods estimated the hydraulic parameters well, but a higher relative deviation was seen in the intervals with smaller calculated discharges; DREAM appears to be more accurate than GLUE, once the relative deviation in GLUE became greater.
Analysis of the Uncertainty in Estimates of Manning’s Roughness Coefficient and Bed Slope Using GLUE and DREAM
Guilherme da Cruz dos Reis (author) / Tatiane Souza Rodrigues Pereira (author) / Geovanne Silva Faria (author) / Klebber Teodomiro Martins Formiga (author)
2020
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
The Changes of Manning's Roughness Coefficient with River Stages
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1995
Manning's roughness coefficient for ecological subsurface channel with modules
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2020
Estimates of the Manning's coefficient for ice-covered rivers
| Online Contents | 2012
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2012
MANNING'S ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT IN ALLUVIAL CHANNELS AFFECTED BY SEEPAGE
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2005