Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Analysis of Storm Rainfall in Peninsular Malaysia Using Neyman‐Scott Rectangular Pulse Modeling

Written By

Rado Yendra, Abdul Aziz Jemain and Ibrahim Sulaiman Hanaish

Submitted: 01 March 2017 Reviewed: 07 June 2017 Published: 18 April 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70043

From the Edited Volume

Engineering and Mathematical Topics in Rainfall

Edited by Theodore V Hromadka II and Prasada Rao

Chapter metrics overview

1,044 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

This paper aims to estimate Neyman‐Scott rectangular pulse (NSRP) modeling application in representing the storm rainfall that occurred in Peninsular Malaysia. This research utilized hourly rainfall data from 48 rain gauges in Peninsular Malaysia during the period from 1970 to 2008. The raingauge stations are given in four territories, namely northwest, west, southwest, and east. The goodness‐of‐fit test from NSRP model should be done before the other applications of the model. The conclusion of this research revealed that NSRP model is able to show the rainfall data in Peninsular Malaysia.

Keywords

  • storm rainfall
  • NSRP
  • Peninsular Malaysia
  • modelling of storm

1. Introduction

Nowadays, there are many problems regarding climate change and global warming investigated by researchers, especially for the storm rainfall to society. Furthermore, the observation of storm rainfall becomes necessary action in a few sectors, such as agriculture, hydrology, and water resource management. Because of the growth of irrigated agriculture, industrialization, and population, the analyst can be used in forecasting rainfall and making decision. These studies, an intensity extreme rainfall, total rainfall, and heavy rains, have invited much attention of scientists in the world to research, such as research carried out by Lana et al. [1] and Burgueno et al. [2].

There have been a few published works on the behavior of storm rainfall in Peninsular Malaysia. Among them are works on detecting trends in dry and wet spells over the Peninsula during monsoon seasons [3, 4], changes in extreme rainfall events [5], changes in daily rainfall during monsoon seasons [6], and analysis of rainfall variability [7]. In these studies, various objectives and approaches have been highlighted in describing the characteristics of rainfall in this area.

Advertisement

2. Methodology

In this matter, the data used are the hourly rainfall data from 48 rain‐gauge stations from 1970 to 2008. The data can be acquired from the meteorology, drainage, and irrigation department of Malaysia. All stations are divided into four classes, by [8, 9]. Dale [9] has defined five rainfall regions in Peninsular Malaysia, such as west, Port Dickson‐Muar coast, southwest, and east. Nevertheless, a few of stations located on the Port Dickson‐Muar coast were combined with people in the region of the southwest. The lists of stations are given in Table 1, and there are 48 stations that can be delineated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Map of Peninsular Malaysia showing geographical regions and the selected 48 stations.

Region Stations Code State Longitude Latitude
Southwest Kota Tinggi S1 Johor 103.72 1.76
Batu Pahat S2 Johor 102.93 1.84
Endau S3 Johor 103.62 2.65
Labis S4 Johor 103.02 2.38
East Batu Hampar S5 Terengganu 102.82 5.45
Bertam S6 Kelantan 102.05 5.15
Besut S7 Terengganu 102.62 5.64
Sg Chanis S8 Pahang 102.94 2.81
Dabong S9 Kelantan 102.02 5.38
Dungun S10 Terengganu 103.42 4.76
Gua Musang S11 Kelantan 101.97 4.88
Kemaman S12 Terengganu 103.42 4.23
Sg Kepasing S13 Pahang 102.83 3.02
Kg Aring S14 Kelantan 102.35 4.94
Kg Dura S15 Terengganu 102.94 5.07
Machang S16 Kelantan 102.22 5.79
Paya Kangsar S17 Pahang 102.43 3.90
Kg Sg Tong S18 Terengganu 102.89 5.36
Ulu Tekai S19 Pahang 102.73 4.23
Pekan S20 Pahang 103.36 3.56
West Ampang S21 Selangor 102.00 3.20
Bkt Bendera S22 Pulau Pinang 100.27 5.42
Chin Chin S24 Melaka 102.49 2.29
Genting Klang S25 W. Persekutuan 101.75 3.24
Jasin S26 Melaka 102.43 2.31
Kalong Tengah S28 Selangor 101.67 3.44
Kampar S29 Perak 101.00 5.71
Kg Saw Lebar S30 N. Sembilan 102.26 2.76
Ladang Bikam S31 Perak 101.30 4.05
Kg Kuala Sleh S32 W. Persekutuan 101.77 3.26
Petaling S33 N. Sembilan 102.07 2.94
Rompin S34 N. Sembilan 102.51 2.72
Seremban S35 N. Sembilan 101.96 2.74
Sg Batu S36 W. Persekutuan 101.70 3.33
Sg Bernam S37 Selangor 101.35 3.70
Sg Mangg S38 Selangor 101.54 2.83
Sg Pinang S39 Pulau Pinang 100.21 5.39
Merlimau S40 Melaka 102.43 2.15
Siti Awan S41 Perak 100.70 4.22
Sg Sp Ampat S42 Pulau Pinang 100.48 5.29
Teluk Intan S43 Perak 101.04 4.02
Tanjung Malim S44 Perak 101.52 3.68
Northwest Alor Setar S45 Kedah 100.39 6.11
Arau S46 Perlis 100.27 6.43
Baling S47 Kedah 100.74 5.58
Kuala Nerang S48 Kedah 100.61 6.25
Padang Katong S49 Perlis 100.19 6.45
Pdg Mat Sirat S50 Kedah 99.67 6.36

Table 1.

The list of 48 raingauge stations with their respective regions and geographical coordinates.

The Neyman‐Scott rectangular pulse (NSRP) modeling is used to model the rainfall number of each station in Peninsular Malaysia. The single‐site NSRP model is marked by the flexible structure where parameters of model relate to the basically physical features monitored in rainfall. Theoretically, the NSRP model assumes that the sources of storm follow a Poisson process with parameter λ . Additionally, a random figure of E ( C ) cell origins is displaced from storm provenance by exponentially distributed distance with parameter β. A rectangular pulse, with duration and intensity, showed by other two independent random variables, presumed to be exponentially distributed with parameter η and E ( X ) successively, is connected to every original cell. The total intensity on every point of time is given by the number of the active cell intensities in that certain point. Therefore, the NSRP model has a total of five parameters which can be estimated by minimizing an aim function, evaluated as the number of normalized residuals between the characteristic statistics and theoretical expressions that are observed [10, 11]. This model is able to produce statistics estimation values close to the observed values [11].

The main feature of the NSRP model can be summarized as follows:

  1. Every storm arrival, represented by li, i = 1, 2, 3, …, is exponentially distributed in Poisson process with parameter λ.

  2. Every rain cell, cij, i = storm index of i, j = rain cell index of storm i, has Poisson or geometry distribution with a mean of E(C).

  3. every waiting time for cells after the storm origin, bik, i = index storm of i, k = time of rain cell at storm i, will be exponentially distributed with mean β,

  4. Two parameters, intensity xjh, j = jth cell and h = intensity at jth cell which is exponentially distributed with mean E(X), and duration of rain tjs, j = jth cell and s = duration at jth cell which is Exponentially distributed with mean η, form cluster in every rain cell.

These four conditions can be depicted as in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

NSRP modeling, l i storm arrival time, c i j of rain cell, b i k waiting time of rain cell, t j s duration of rain cell, and x j h intensity of rain cell.

Each station’s hourly data are fitted with NSRP and the yielding NSRP parameters ( λ , E ( x ) , E , β , η ) are noted monthly. To control and make sure that the NSRP model obtained shows the actual rainfall data, the mean of the 1‐h rainfall and probabilities of 1‐ and 24‐h rainfall estimated from the model have been compared with this statistic values calculated from the data which are observed.

Advertisement

3. NSRP modeling

Rodriguez‐Iturbe et al. [11] applied the formula to produce the first and the second statistical moments, whereas the moment is obtained using rainfall data scaling.

There are three statistical moments such as mean, variance and autocorrelation, and the probability of succession rain as Eq. (1)(4) which are used to obtain the NSRP’s parameters.

E ( Y i ( τ ) ) = λ η E ( C ) E ( X ) τ E1
Var ( Y i ( τ ) ) = Ω 1 ( λ , E ( C ) , E ( X ) ) Ψ 1 ( η , τ ) + Ω 2 ( λ , E ( C ) , E ( X ) ) Ψ 2 ( β , η , τ ) E2
Cov ( Y i ( τ ) , Y i + k ( τ ) ) = Ω 1 ( λ , E ( C ) , E ( X ) ) Ψ 3 ( β , η , τ ) + Ω 2 ( λ , E ( C ) , E ( X ) ) Ψ 4 ( β , η , τ ) E3
1 Pr { Y i ( τ ) = 0 } E4

This research just have four equations where the others questions explain four equations before

Pr { Y i ( τ ) = 0 } = exp ( λ τ + λ β 1 ( E ( C ) 1 ) 1 { 1 exp [ 1 E ( C ) + ( E ( C ) 1 ) exp ( β τ ) ] } λ 0 [ 1 p ( t , τ ) ] d t ) E6
p ( t , τ ) = ( exp [ β ( t + τ ) ] + 1 [ η exp ( β t ) β exp ( η t ) ] / [ η β ] ) × exp ( ( E ( C ) 1 ) β [ exp ( β t ) exp ( η t ) ] / [ η β ] ( E ( C ) 1 ) exp ( β t ) + ( E ( C ) 1 ) exp [ β ( t + τ ) ] ) E106
Ω 1 ( λ , E ( C ) , E ( X ) ) = 2 λ E ( C ) E ( X 2 ) E107
Ω 2 ( λ , E ( C ) , E ( X ) ) = λ E ( C 2 C ) E 2 ( X ) E7
Ψ 1 ( η , τ ) = 1 η 3 ( η τ 1 + exp ( η τ ) ) E8
Ψ 2 ( β , η , τ ) = Ψ 1 ( η , τ ) β 2 β 2 η 2 β τ 1 + exp ( β τ ) β ( β 2 η 2 ) E9
Ψ 3 ( β , η , τ ) = 1 2 η 3 ( 1 exp ( η τ ) ) 2 exp ( η ( k 1 ) τ ) E10
Ψ 4 ( β , η , τ ) = Ψ 3 ( β , η , τ ) β 2 β 2 η 2 ( 1 exp ( β τ ) 2 exp ( β ( k 1 ) ) 2 β ( β 2 η 2 ) k = autocorrelation of lag 1, 2, 3 τ = rain aggregation E11
Advertisement

4. NSRP’s parameter estimation and good‐fit test

Rodriguez‐Iturbe et al. [11] and Cowpertwait [10] have used a moment method to estimate NSRP’s parameter. Other methods estimating the same parameters are also conducted by other researchers, who applied the method of log‐likelihood maximum probability. Some researchers, who have provided usual procedure, which is needed to convert hourly rainfall data into aggregate rainfall data, in estimating NSRP’s parameter, are [10, 12, 13]. The application of scaling to obtain the rainfall data of some scales. For example, the 1‐h rainfall scale, 6‐h rainfall scale, and 24‐h rainfall scale used Eqs. (1)(4) and then produced some nonlinear equations. So, the expected parameters of NSRP?s can be obtained numerically by optimizing Eq. (5).

Z ( X ) = k , τ [ 1 Θ k ( X , τ ) Θ k * ( τ ) ] 2 E5

Θ k ( τ ) is the second moment statistics and rainfall probability from scaled data or generally called as observation statistics, and Θ k ( x , τ ) is the second moment statistics and rainfall probability stated on Eqs. (1)(4) or generally called as theoretical statistics.

The equation solution numerically requires an accurate initial value. Researches on non‐linear numeric model often require it in order to enable them to estimate some required parameters. Some initial values, to estimate the parameters of NSRP, have been presented by Calenda and Napolatino accurately. In fact, it requires testing many of initial values to make z value on equation (5) to be optimum. This makes it difficult to perform the numerical solution. Favre et al. [14] has tried the best method on estimating NS parameter easier; The research is conducted by dividing parameters into two sets, which comprise { β , ( η ) } and { E ( C ) } , λ , ( E ( X ) ) providing an initial value for parameter { β , ( η ) } . it can make the estimated numerical solution simpler and easier to handle. The other method of numerical solution of estimating the parameter of NSRP conferred fluctuation scale values linking one parameter with the other four parameters; in addition, based on the four chosen parameters, the value will be optimum. This simplifying numerical solution is also contributed by Calenda and Napolatino [15]. In this paper, the proportion of rainfall cell of each storm will be contributed under Poisson condition; thus E ( C 2 C ) = E 2 ( C ) 1 , this result has been well investigated [12].

Good‐fit test, which is used to define the best‐fit distribution in rainfall cell intensity of four given distribution in this research, will be applied by sorting residual value gained from a value of the second moment statistics and observed rainfall probability and from a value of the second moment and theoretical rainfall probability. Velghe et al. [12] used residual value as equation

S = 1 n [ n | 1 X n X h i s , n | ] E12

Assume X n as the second moment and rainfall probability based on theory (NSRP model), X h i s , n as the second moment statistics and rainfall probability based on observation, and n as the number of statistics used in this model. whereas n is 8 representing the average of an hour rainfall; the variance used for the rainfall includes periods of 1, 6, and 24 h, autocorrelation lag 1 for 1‐h rainfall, autocorrelation lag 1 for a 24‐h rainfall scale, a probability of 1‐h rainfall, and a probability of 24‐h rainfall scale.

Advertisement

5. Applications

5.1. Study region

Peninsular Malaysia is located between 1 and 7 north of the equator which is the tropical area. Generally, these areas experience a wet and humid tropical climate throughout the year; this country has characteristic such as high annual rainfall, humidity, and temperature. Peninsular Malaysia has a stable temperature year-round from 25.5 to 32°C. Normally, the annual rainfall is between 2000 and 4000 mm, whereas the annual number of wet days ranges from 150 to 200.

The climate of Peninsular Malaysia describes two monsoons separated by two inter‐monsoons. In May through September, the southwest monsoon (SWM) occurs and the northeast monsoon (NEM) occurs from November to March. The two inter‐monsoons occur in April (FIM) and October (SIM). In Peninsular Malaysia, the main range mountains, widely known at the circumstances as Banjaran Titiwangsa, run southward from the Malaysia‐Thai border in the north, spanning a distance of 483 km and separating the eastern part of the peninsula which receives heavy rainfall. By contrast, regions sheltered by the main range, as shown in Figure 1, are more or less free from its influence.

5.2. Goodness of fit of NSRP

Table 2 provides information about the parameters of the NSRP model for rainfall occurring in November dan December for 48 terminals in Peninsular Malaysia. The NSRP model with parameters, which is identified for every terminal, and various statistic values are the initial foundation for contraction of the rainfall data. In particular, the mean and probability values of the 1‐ and 24‐h rainfall amount are then calculated. To describe the condition of a data set, these statistics are chosen.

Region Station November December
λ E (X) E (C) β η λ E (X) E (C) β η
Southwest S1 0.025 93.70 2.56 0.116 2.23 0.012 56.82 7.88 0.078 1.48
S2 0.028 221.46 1.46 0.020 2.08 0.021 70.67 4.58 0.109 2.56
S3 0.033 15.58 1.39 0.221 2.22 0.012 5.96 5.70 0.081 2.16
S4 0.003 74.40 16.28 0.001 1.48 0.015 85.30 5.41 0.112 1.96
East S5 0.012 12.69 4.34 0.068 3.03 0.021 11.94 3.22 0.197 3.08
S6 0.022 5.28 5.77 0.098 2.23 0.012 4.31 15.23 0.081 2.13
S7 0.012 8.65 13.68 0.034 1.50 0.009 4.93 22.14 0.026 1.03
S8 0.027 89.30 2.80 0.193 2.31 0.012 94.99 10.56 0.097 2.22
S9 0.017 6.24 7.69 0.062 1.64 0.011 5.39 16.08 0.061 1.60
S10 0.014 5.17 11.08 0.054 1.08 0.010 3.86 14.21 0.045 0.71
S11 0.026 7.87 3.81 0.088 2.12 0.010 4.75 10.91 0.055 1.56
S12 0.013 56.95 14.20 0.071 1.42 0.010 35.41 36.41 0.060 1.32
S13 0.029 95.27 2.67 0.132 2.31 0.012 69.41 7.45 0.054 1.67
S14 0.022 7.24 5.49 0.050 1.92 0.012 6.23 17.26 0.066 1.83
S15 0.021 8.16 8.95 0.047 1.91 0.013 4.99 20.43 0.040 1.24
S16 0.015 4.71 14.23 0.095 1.72 0.008 3.65 94.52 0.097 3.23
S17 0.020 7.41 3.75 0.066 1.98 0.014 5.27 6.69 0.053 1.68
S18 0.020 8.06 9.27 0.054 1.77 0.013 7.87 13.76 0.034 1.01
S19 0.023 13.26 5.63 0.126 3.31 0.012 6.26 44.97 0.111 4.95
S20 0.025 8.36 3.54 0.083 1.54 0.011 6.09 10.71 0.055 0.96
West S21 0.007 5.67 10.95 0.037 2.30 0.008 7.62 5.65 0.096 2.82
S22 0.027 8.64 2.83 0.074 1.74 0.012 8.83 2.90 0.067 1.97
S24 0.028 2.71 11.38 0.478 3.02 0.012 5.96 5.70 0.081 2.16
S25 0.037 82.69 2.57 0.121 2.08 0.009 85.79 6.55 0.042 2.03
S26 0.031 6.28 7.30 0.786 4.92 0.009 5.15 10.32 0.076 2.62
S28 0.051 6.69 2.44 0.177 1.95 0.016 5.90 5.05 0.059 1.86
S29 0.038 10.65 2.51 0.089 2.13 0.026 11.14 2.48 0.076 1.94
S30 0.015 79.97 4.67 0.044 2.15 0.014 44.10 5.34 0.066 1.80
S31 0.032 8.78 3.26 0.085 2.18 0.038 11.58 2.80 0.798 3.23
S32 0.048 110.72 1.95 0.263 2.52 0.015 107.19 3.47 0.051 2.63
S33 0.026 61.91 3.22 0.139 2.16 0.016 60.17 4.11 0.080 2.02
S34 0.023 60.32 4.92 0.080 2.17 0.014 44.12 6.91 0.061 1.69
S35 0.034 7.09 3.15 0.169 2.14 0.014 6.56 4.53 0.069 2.07
S36 0.038 129.97 2.35 0.051 2.48 0.033 97.96 2.42 0.170 2.46
S37 0.036 8.51 3.46 0.186 2.74 0.020 11.08 3.78 0.091 2.83
S38 0.037 63.64 4.47 0.658 3.49 0.024 97.53 3.78 0.198 3.71
S39 0.030 7.27 3.57 0.281 2.07 0.010 6.87 3.98 0.103 1.82
S40 0.024 8.45 4.98 0.141 4.31 0.011 4.97 6.61 0.102 2.36
S41 0.031 6.56 2.55 0.236 2.05 0.017 8.57 3.86 0.092 2.31
S42 0.028 6.78 3.20 0.100 1.65 0.016 6.77 3.19 0.122 1.79
S43 0.033 7.64 3.38 0.186 2.19 0.024 8.67 3.10 0.181 2.01
S44 0.037 7.94 3.31 0.110 2.22 0.022 8.86 3.12 0.086 2.43
Northwest S45 0.007 2.09 16.27 0.113 2.05 0.007 5.46 7.40 0.086 2.58
S46 0.010 5.70 16.49 0.054 2.61 0.005 8.23 24.89 0.067 3.98
S47 0.012 5.04 5.97 0.127 2.39 0.006 9.60 5.57 0.097 3.34
S48 0.022 4.11 5.16 0.147 1.89 0.008 3.62 6.92 0.080 1.51
S49 0.078 67.53 1.01 0.179 2.57 0.003 16.50 22.20 0.048 1.09
S50 0.011 6.89 8.10 0.061 2.43 0.008 7.68 4.09 0.098 2.86

Table 2.

List of NSRP parameter for the 48 raingauge stations.

To control how well the representation of the rainfall data is made by the NSRP model obtained, the mean of the 1‐h rainfall and the probabilities of the 1‐ and 24‐h rainfall estimated from the model are compared with these statistics values calculated from the observed data. Part of the results, focusing on the month of November and December only, is displayed in Table 3. It can be seen that there are no major differences between the estimated and the observed values of the statistics of interest.

Region Station November December
AO AE PO PE PO2 PE2 AO AE PO PE PO2 PE2
Southwest S1 2.74 2.72 0.08 0.08 0.57 0.57 3.31 3.54 0.11 0.12 0.51 0.47
S2 3.45 4.38 0.11 0.06 0.64 0.61 2.73 2.67 0.11 0.11 0.56 0.58
S3 0.29 0.32 0.10 0.06 0.58 0.58 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.44 0.45
S4 2.61 2.58 0.09 0.08 0.55 0.69 2.80 3.52 0.11 0.10 0.49 0.47
East S5 0.23 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.42 0.44 0.27 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.47 0.49
S6 0.29 0.30 0.14 0.14 0.66 0.63 0.32 0.36 0.16 0.17 0.60 0.52
S7 0.89 0.93 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.69 0.96 0.98 0.27 0.27 0.72 0.72
S8 2.91 2.96 0.09 0.09 0.58 0.57 4.23 5.62 0.13 0.13 0.58 0.48
S9 0.47 0.50 0.16 0.16 0.69 0.64 0.54 0.61 0.18 0.19 0.66 0.57
S10 0.70 0.76 0.21 0.21 0.73 0.65 0.71 0.76 0.21 0.22 0.64 0.58
S11 0.36 0.37 0.12 0.12 0.68 0.66 0.32 0.34 0.14 0.14 0.56 0.52
S12 6.68 7.66 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.59 8.31 9.42 0.26 0.27 0.68 0.58
S13 3.18 3.25 0.10 0.10 0.65 0.62 3.43 3.60 0.11 0.11 0.56 0.53
S14 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.15 0.73 0.73 0.58 0.69 0.19 0.20 0.69 0.57
S15 0.78 0.80 0.22 0.22 0.79 0.78 1.00 1.04 0.29 0.29 0.73 0.73
S16 0.53 0.58 0.19 0.20 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.88 0.22 0.23 0.57 0.46
S17 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.10 0.60 0.60 0.30 0.29 0.12 0.12 0.57 0.58
S18 0.80 0.83 0.21 0.21 0.75 0.74 0.97 1.45 0.25 0.26 0.75 0.74
S19 0.40 0.52 0.14 0.13 0.71 0.61 0.48 0.69 0.20 0.23 0.64 0.53
S20 0.47 0.48 0.12 0.12 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.76 0.17 0.17 0.61 0.55
West S21 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.46 0.45 0.12 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.33 0.32
S22 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.65 0.66 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.39 0.39
S24 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.15 0.58 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.44 0.45
S25 3.80 3.74 0.12 0.12 0.68 0.71 2.37 2.45 0.08 0.08 0.48 0.46
S26 0.28 0.29 0.12 0.11 0.56 0.57 0.17 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.41 0.40
S28 0.43 0.43 0.16 0.15 0.75 0.79 0.27 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.55 0.58
S29 0.49 0.48 0.13 0.12 0.70 0.74 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.09 0.60 0.61
S30 2.70 2.63 0.09 0.09 0.56 0.58 1.81 1.79 0.10 0.10 0.51 0.51
S31 0.44 0.43 0.13 0.13 0.68 0.73 0.36 0.38 0.12 0.09 0.63 0.63
S32 4.14 4.13 0.11 0.11 0.73 0.73 2.16 2.13 0.07 0.07 0.51 0.52
S33 2.42 2.40 0.10 0.10 0.59 0.59 1.97 1.94 0.08 0.08 0.49 0.50
S34 3.21 3.17 0.14 0.14 0.65 0.66 2.43 2.45 0.12 0.12 0.56 0.55
S35 0.36 0.35 0.13 0.13 0.64 0.67 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.08 0.48 0.50
S36 4.67 4.64 0.11 0.11 0.77 0.78 3.15 3.15 0.10 0.10 0.63 0.63
S37 0.40 0.39 0.14 0.13 0.67 0.69 0.30 0.29 0.09 0.09 0.54 0.56
S38 2.99 2.98 0.11 0.11 0.63 0.63 2.47 2.42 0.09 0.09 0.53 0.55
S39 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.11 0.60 0.59 0.15 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.35 0.34
S40 0.24 0.23 0.12 0.11 0.56 0.59 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.40 0.41
S41 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.10 0.59 0.60 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.08 0.50 0.49
S42 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.12 0.65 0.66 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.07 0.43 0.44
S43 0.40 0.39 0.13 0.13 0.63 0.65 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.09 0.53 0.53
S44 0.45 0.44 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.74 0.26 0.25 0.09 0.09 0.57 0.58
Northwest S45 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.29 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.29 0.30
S46 0.37 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.57 0.57 0.23 0.28 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.34
S47 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.25
S48 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.58 0.57 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.36 0.35
S49 2.45 2.08 0.10 0.10 0.51 0.85 0.96 0.90 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.22
S50 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.29 0.29

Table 3.

The representation of the statistics which are estimated from the NSRP model compared with the statistic obtained from the analyzed data for the 48 raingauge terminal.

AO = mean of 1-h rainfall (observed data), AE = mean of 1-h rainfall (NSRP model), PO = probability of 1-h rainfall (observed data), PE = probability of 1-h rainfall (NSRP model), and PO2 = probability of 24-h rainfall (observed data, PE2 = probability of 24-h rainfall (NSRP model).


Advertisement

6. Conclusions

The results of this study proved that the Neyman‐Scott rectangular pulse model is able to imitate the pattern of actual rainfall in Peninsular Malaysia by comparing the parameters as well as the spatial distribution of the means and probabilities of 1‐ and 24‐h rain. Thus, the results from the NSRP model fitting for each station are valid to be used for further analysis, that is, to evaluate the behavior of storm rainfall.

References

  1. 1. Lana X, Martinez MD, Serra C, Burgueno A. Spatial and temporal variability of the daily rainfall regime in Catalonia (Northeastern Spain), 1950–2000. International Journal of Climatology. 2004;24:613‐641. DOI: 10.1002/joc.1020
  2. 2. Burgueno A, Martinez MD, Serra C, Lana X. Statistical distributions of daily rainfall regime in Europe for the period1951–2000. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 2010;102:213‐226. DOI: 10.1007/s00704‐010‐0251‐5
  3. 3. Deni SM, Suhaila J, Wan Zin WZ, Jemain AA. Spatial trends of dry spells over Peninsular Malaysia during monsoon seasons. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 2010;99:357‐371. DOI: 10.1007/s00704‐009‐0147‐4
  4. 4. Deni SM, Jemain AA, Ibrahim K. The best probability models for dry and wet spells in Peninsular Malaysia during monsoon seasons. International Journal of Climatology. 2010;30:1194-1205. DOI: 10.1002/joc.1972
  5. 5. Wan Zin WZ, Suhaila J, Deni SM, Jemain AA. Recent changes in extreme rainfall events in Peninsular Malaysia: 1971–2005. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 2010;99:303‐314
  6. 6. Suhaila J, Sayang MD, Wan Zin WZ, Jemain AA. Spatial patterns and trends of daily rainfall regime in Peninsular Malaysia during the southwest and northeast monsoons: 1975–2004. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics. 2010;110:118. Doi: 10.1007/s00703‐010‐0108‐6
  7. 7. Wong CL, Venneker R, Uhlenbrook S, Jamil ABM, Zhou Y. Variability of rainfall in Peninsular Malaysia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussion. 2009;6:5471‐5503
  8. 8. Deni SM, Suhaila J, Wan Zin WZ, Jemain AA. Tracing trends in the sequence of dry and wet days over Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Science & Technology. 2008;1(3):97‐110. DOI: 10.3923/jest.2008.97.110.
  9. 9. Dale WL. The rainfall of Malaya, part I. The Journal of Tropical Geography. 1959;13:23‐27
  10. 10. Cowpertwait PSP. Further development of the Neyman‐Scott clustered point process for modeling rainfall. Water Resources Research. 1991;27:1431‐1438
  11. 11. Rodriguez‐Iturbe I, Cox DR, Isham V. Some models for rainfall based on stochastic point processes. Proceedings of Royal Society of London Series A. 1987;410:69‐288
  12. 12. Velghe T, Troch PA, De Troch FP, Van de Velde J. Evaluation of cluster‐based rectangular pulses point process model for rainfall. Water Resources Research. 1994;30(10):2847‐2857
  13. 13. Entekhabi D, Rodriguez‐Iturbe I, Eagleson PS. Probabilistic representation of the temporal rainfall process by a modified Neyman‐Scott rectangular pulses model: Parameter estimation and validation. Water Resources Research. 1989;25:295‐302
  14. 14. Favre A‐C, Musy A, Morgenthaler S. Unbiased parameter estimation of the Neyman‐Scott model for rainfall simulation with related confidence interval. Journal of Hydrology. 2004;286:168‐178
  15. 15. Calenda G, Napolatino F. Parameter estimation of Neyman‐Scott process for temporal point rainfall simulation. Journal of Hydrology. 1999;225:45‐66

Written By

Rado Yendra, Abdul Aziz Jemain and Ibrahim Sulaiman Hanaish

Submitted: 01 March 2017 Reviewed: 07 June 2017 Published: 18 April 2018