%0 Journal Article %1 Pui2012Comparison %A Pui, Alexander %A Sharma, Ashish %A Mehrotra, Rajeshwar %A Sivakumar, Bellie %A Jeremiah, Erwin %D 2012 %J Journal of Hydrology %K euporias %P 138--157 %R 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.041 %T A comparison of alternatives for daily to sub-daily rainfall disaggregation %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.041 %V 470-471 %X This paper evaluates three distinct approaches for disaggregating daily rainfall to sub-daily sequences: (1) random multiplicative cascades (microcanonical and canonical versions), (2) point process (randomized Bartlett–Lewis model – RBLM), and (3) resampling (method of fragments). These methods are used to perform disaggregation of daily rainfall to hourly rainfall at four point locations across Australia (Sydney, Perth, Cairns, and Hobart), which are associated with different climatic regimes. The methods are evaluated based on parameter estimation procedures applied (including introduction of the sequential Monte Carlo sampler in RBLM), the capability of the resulting sequences to reproduce standard validation statistics, and the representation of observed rainfall variability and intermittency, within-day wet spells, and extreme rainfall percentiles. The results generally indicate that the method of fragments outperforms the other models. While all the models are found to simulate reasonably well the commonly used statistical measures (e.g. mean and dry proportions) of rainfall at the hourly timestep, the microcanonical model is found to significantly overestimate the hourly rainfall variance. With respect to extreme value characteristics, the resampling approach is found to match well the observed intensity–frequency relationship at an hourly scale, with the cascade models underestimating (canonical) and overestimating (microcanonical) extreme rainfall. The point process model's performance is poor in Cairns but reasonably good at other locations. An analysis of the empirical within-day wet- and dry-spell distributions further reveals that the cascade-based models are not robust for observed wet and dry spells. ► Various rainfall disaggregation models are evaluated across Australia. ► Standard statistics, extreme value and empirical spell analysis conducted. ► Cascade type models performed particularly poorly. ► Fragments resampling performed best, but has its limitations.

@article{Pui2012Comparison, abstract = {This paper evaluates three distinct approaches for disaggregating daily rainfall to sub-daily sequences: (1) random multiplicative cascades (microcanonical and canonical versions), (2) point process (randomized {Bartlett–Lewis} model – {RBLM}), and (3) resampling (method of fragments). These methods are used to perform disaggregation of daily rainfall to hourly rainfall at four point locations across Australia (Sydney, Perth, Cairns, and Hobart), which are associated with different climatic regimes. The methods are evaluated based on parameter estimation procedures applied (including introduction of the sequential Monte Carlo sampler in {RBLM}), the capability of the resulting sequences to reproduce standard validation statistics, and the representation of observed rainfall variability and intermittency, within-day wet spells, and extreme rainfall percentiles. The results generally indicate that the method of fragments outperforms the other models. While all the models are found to simulate reasonably well the commonly used statistical measures (e.g. mean and dry proportions) of rainfall at the hourly timestep, the microcanonical model is found to significantly overestimate the hourly rainfall variance. With respect to extreme value characteristics, the resampling approach is found to match well the observed intensity–frequency relationship at an hourly scale, with the cascade models underestimating (canonical) and overestimating (microcanonical) extreme rainfall. The point process model's performance is poor in Cairns but reasonably good at other locations. An analysis of the empirical within-day wet- and dry-spell distributions further reveals that the cascade-based models are not robust for observed wet and dry spells. \^{a}–º Various rainfall disaggregation models are evaluated across Australia. \^{a}–º Standard statistics, extreme value and empirical spell analysis conducted. \^{a}–º Cascade type models performed particularly poorly. \^{a}–º Fragments resampling performed best, but has its limitations.}, added-at = {2019-08-14T18:35:35.000+0200}, author = {Pui, Alexander and Sharma, Ashish and Mehrotra, Rajeshwar and Sivakumar, Bellie and Jeremiah, Erwin}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21c44e4169241de737f251d1f166638d0/karinawilliams}, citeulike-article-id = {11157369}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.041}, comment = {(private-note)really nice description of a canonical cascade model}, doi = {10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.041}, interhash = {9dc7460b2c9b6b6cb2759ae412dbf933}, intrahash = {1c44e4169241de737f251d1f166638d0}, issn = {00221694}, journal = {Journal of Hydrology}, keywords = {euporias}, month = nov, pages = {138--157}, posted-at = {2014-01-30 15:45:56}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2019-08-14T18:35:35.000+0200}, title = {A comparison of alternatives for daily to sub-daily rainfall disaggregation}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.041}, volume = {470-471}, year = 2012 }