CHAPTER 3

Selection and Evaluation of Parent

Distributions: Probability Weighted
Moments and L-Moments

3.1 Moments of Distributions and Their Sample Estimates

Probability weighted moments (PWMs) are defined by Greenwood et

al. (1979) as

M p, r, s = E [ x F ( 1 – F ) ] = ∫ [ x(F )] F (1 – F )
p r s p r s
dF (3.1.1)
0

In particular, the following two moments M1,0,s and M1,r,0 are often
considered:

M 1, 0, s = α s = ∫ x(F )(1 – F )
s
dF (3.1.2)
0

M 1, r, 0 = β r = ∫ x ( F )F
r
dF (3.1.3)
0

where p, r, and s are real numbers. When r and s are equal to zero
and p is a non-negative number, Mp,o,o represents the conventional
moment of order p about the origin, µ′p . When p = 1 and either r or
s is equal to zero, then M1,r,0 = βr and M1,0,s = αs are linear in x and of
sufficient generality for parameter estimation (Hosking, 1986a). As x
takes only the power of one, simpler relationships are obtained
between the parameters of the distributions and probability weighted

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

moments than the corresponding relationships in conventional
moments. For an ordered sample x1 ≤ … ≤ xN, N > r, N > s unbiased
sample PWMs are given by Eqs. 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 (Hosking, 1986a).

N
a S = α̂ s = M̂ 1, 0, s = ---- ∑ 
1 N – i  N – 1
x/ (3.1.4)
N i = 1 s  i  s 

N
b r = β̂ r = M̂ 1, r, 0 = ---- ∑ 
1 i – 1  N – 1
x/ (3.1.5)
N i = 1 r  i  r 

Special cases of these estimators include the sample mean

x = N ∑ x i = a 0 = b 0 and the extreme data values x1 = N aN–1 and xN
–1

= N bN–1. Alternatively, consistent but biased estimators of PWMs may

be obtained by using the plotting position Fi = (i – 0.35)/N. There is
no theoretical reason to prefer plotting position estimators to the
unbiased estimators. However, practical experience shows that plot-
ting position estimators sometimes yield better estimates of parame-
ters and quantiles.
The plotting position estimates for PWMs are given by Eqs. 3.1.6
and 3.1.7.

N
1
a S = α̂ s = M̂ 1, 0, s = ---- ∑ ( 1– F i ) x i
s
(3.1.6)
Ni = 1

N
ˆ r = M̂ 1, r, 0 = ---1- ∑ F i r x i
br = β (3.1.7)
Ni = 1

The PWMs αs and βr are related as in Eq. 3.1.8.

s r

∑  i ( – 1 ) ∑  i
s r
αs = βi , βr = ( –1 ) αi
i i
(3.1.8)
i=0 i=0

In particular:
α0 = β0 , β0 = a0
α1 = β0 – β1 , β1 = α0 – α1
α2 = β0 – 2β1 + β2 , β2 = α0 – 2α1 + α2
α3 = β0 – 3β1 + 3β2 – β3 , β3 = α0 – 3α1 + 3α2 – α3

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

The same relationships hold for the sample PWM estimates as and br .
Hosking (1986 and 1990) introduced the L-moments, which are
linear functions of PWMs. The L-moments are more convenient than
PWMs because they can be directly interpreted as measures of scale
and shape of probability distributions. In this respect they are analo-
gous to conventional moments. L-moments are defined by Hosking in
terms of the PWMs α and β as

r r
λr + 1 = ( – 1 ) ∑ p r, k α k = ∑ p r, k β k
r * *
(3.1.9)
k=0 k=0

where

p r, k = ( – 1 )
* r–k  r  r + k . (3.1.10)
 k  k 

In particular,

λ1 = α0 = β0
λ2 = α0 – 2α1 = 2β1 – β0
λ3 = α0 – 6α1 + 6α2 = 6β2 – 6β1 + β0
λ4 = α0 – 12α1 + 30α2 – 20α3 = 20β3 – 30β2 + 12β1 – β0

Sample L-moments (lr) are calculated by replacing α and β in Eq. 3.1.9

by their sample estimates a and b in Eqs. 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 or from Eqs.
3.1.6 and 3.1.7. L-moment ratios, which are analogous to conventional
moment ratios are defined by Hosking (1990) as in Eqs. 3.1.11 and
3.1.12,

τ = λ2 / λ1 (3.1.11)

τr = λr / λ2 , r ≥ 3 (3.1.12)

where λ1 is a measure of location, τ is a measure of scale and dispersion

(LCv), τ3 is a measure of skewness (LCs), and τ4 is a measure of kurtosis
(LCk). Sample L-moment ratios (t and tr) are calculated by replacing
λr in Eqs. 3.1.11 and 3.1.12 by their sample estimates lr . It can be
shown (Hosking, 1990) that for r greater than or equal to 3, the
absolute value of τr is less than one. Furthermore, if x ≥ 0 almost surely,
then τ, the LCv of x satisfies 0 < τ < 1. This boundedness of L-moment

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

ratios is an advantage (Hosking, 1990) because it is easier to interpret
a measure such as τ3, which is constrained to lie within the interval
(–1,1), than conventional skewness coefficient which can take arbi-
trarily large values.
L-moment and nonparametric methods were coupled to underlying
distributions which are nonunimodal by Gingras and Adamowski
(1992). The advantages of L-moments compared to product moments
are brought out by Vogel and Fennessey (1993).

EXAMPLE 3.1.1

Calculate the L-moments and moment ratios for the 93 Wabash

River basin stations listed in Table 2.1.1.
For the 93 Wabash River basin stations in Table 2.1.1, the calculated
L-moments and moment ratios are as given in Table 3.1.1. The results
in Table 3.1.1 correspond both to the biased estimators computed by
using a plotting position of Fi = (i – 0.35)/N and the unbiased estimators.
A location map of these stations is shown in Figure 3.1.1.

3.2 L-Moment Ratio Diagrams

Analogous to the conventional MRDs, the L-moment ratio diagrams

are based on relationships between the L-moment ratios. A diagram
based on LCs (τ3) versus LCk (τ4), such as that in Figure 3.4.2, can be
used similar to the conventional MRDs to identify appropriate distri-
butions. For a given region, the sample L-moment ratios t3 and t4 for
each station as well as their regional average are plotted on the L-
moment ratio diagram. A suitable parent distribution is that which
averages the scattered data and around which the data spread consis-
tently. However, just as with conventional MRDs, a certain degree of
regional homogeneity (Section 3.4) must be satisfied in order to obtain
a suitable regional parent distribution. As mentioned before, L-
moment ratio diagrams are based on unbiased sample quantities in
contrast to Cs and Ck which have to be corrected for bias. It was shown
by Hosking (1990) that Cs and Ck values from several samples drawn
from three different distributions lie close to a single line on the graph
and overlap each other offering little hope of identifying the population
distribution. In contrast, the sample L-moment ratios plot as fairly
well separated groups and permit better discrimination between the

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Figure 3.1.1. Location maps of gauging stations in the Wabash River basin.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 3.1.1. L-Moments and Ratios for the Wabash River Basin Stations

Stat. Biased Unbiased

No. N l1 t t3 t4 t t3 t4
Upper Wabash

19 37 4137 0.22 0.05 0.19 0.21 0.03 0.18

20 28 5175 0.21 –0.03 0.20 0.20 –0.07 0.19
21 41 5969 0.24 0.27 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.19
22 48 3543 0.17 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.07 0.10
23 32 2439 0.16 –0.08 0.15 0.15 –0.12 0.13
24 34 7227 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.20 0.09 0.15
25 68 6703 0.26 0.20 0.15 0.26 0.19 0.14
26 68 18422 0.28 0.24 0.15 0.28 0.24 0.15
27 9 248 0.33 0.26 0.24 0.33 0.26 0.31
28 45 4311 0.30 0.28 0.23 0.30 0.28 0.23
29 18 846 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.21
30 68 11699 0.26 0.11 0.12 0.25 0.10 0.11
31 40 7535 0.39 0.32 0.28 0.39 0.32 0.29
32 49 21992 0.29 0.34 0.19 0.34 0.35 0.18
33 23 2581 0.23 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.14 0.17
34 68 4357 0.23 0.14 0.16 0.23 0.13 0.16
35 21 267 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.19 0.12
36 49 8278 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.20
37 68 33544 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.25 0.20 0.17
38 23 254 0.32 0.09 –0.02 0.32 0.06 –0.08
39 49 4910 0.34 0.36 0.25 0.34 0.36 0.25
40 42 406 0.21 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.24
41 22 193 0.34 0.36 0.17 0.34 0.37 0.15
42 45 4602 0.23 0.19 0.12 0.23 0.18 0.10
43 48 12665 0.21 0.03 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.11

Middle Wabash

44 30 2891 0.27 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.18 0.23

45 32 521 0.24 0.06 0.19 0.23 0.04 0.18
46 36 4257 0.27 0.06 0.10 0.27 0.04 0.09
47 49 5723 0.34 0.30 0.22 0.34 0.30 0.23
48 37 10814 0.29 0.17 0.17 0.28 0.16 0.16
49 85 52621 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.24
50 21 1823 0.35 0.28 0.21 0.35 0.27 0.22
51 32 5764 0.25 0.04 0.13 0.25 0.01 0.12

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 3.1.1. L-Moments and Ratios for the Wabash River Basin Stations (continued)

Stat. Biased Unbiased

No. N l1 t t3 t4 t t3 t4
52 65 52700 0.27 0.19 0.18 0.27 0.18 0.18
53 23 1627 0.19 0.06 0.21 0.19 0.03 0.20
54 53 10638 0.30 0.19 0.16 0.30 0.19 0.15
55 67 65078 0.26 0.10 0.18 0.25 0.09 0.17
56 34 5776 0.35 0.33 0.18 0.35 0.33 0.17
57 34 1775 0.26 0.32 0.28 0.26 0.33 0.28
58 31 9331 0.39 0.36 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.27

West Fork White River

67 66 5403 0.29 0.17 0.13 0.29 0.16 0.12

68 37 834 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.21
69 81 7726 0.33 0.23 0.14 0.33 0.23 0.14
70 24 476 0.33 0.36 0.20 0.33 0.37 0.19
71 23 2132 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.24 0.22
72 45 11258 0.28 0.26 0.20 0.28 0.26 0.19
73 24 964 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.16 0.22
74 62 14171 0.29 0.18 0.15 0.29 0.18 0.14
75 22 1435 0.36 0.41 0.25 0.37 0.43 0.25
76 21 507 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.32 0.16 0.18
77 50 3175 0.29 0.30 0.22 0.29 0.30 0.21
78 62 4479 0.31 0.21 0.19 0.31 0.21 0.19
79 80 20019 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.28 0.21 0.18
80 32 1038 0.27 0.20 0.16 0.27 0.19 0.15
81 21 392 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.19 0.11
82 34 4800 0.29 0.17 0.20 0.29 0.16 0.20
83 53 6472 0.33 0.25 0.21 0.33 0.25 0.21
84 32 1395 0.29 0.24 0.17 0.29 0.23 0.16
85 21 1156 0.29 0.18 0.09 0.29 0.16 0.06
86 35 1775 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.30 0.31 0.14
87 35 9010 0.25 0.17 0.11 0.25 0.16 0.08
88 45 25666 0.22 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.10 0.14
89 40 1798 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.35 0.34 0.31
90 22 388 0.28 0.27 0.21 0.27 0.27 0.20
91 42 9501 0.31 0.24 0.21 0.31 0.24 0.20
92 42 5672 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.25 0.21 0.16
93 52 3011 0.22 0.36 0.25 0.22 0.37 0.24

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 3.1.1. L-Moments and Ratios for the Wabash River Basin Stations (continued)

Stat. Biased Unbiased

No. N l1 t t3 t4 t t3 t4
94 61 13691 0.27 0.21 0.17 0.27 0.21 0.17
95 84 39404 0.27 0.22 0.17 0.27 0.22 0.17

East Fork White River

96 41 4254 0.27 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.22

97 48 7368 0.24 0.18 0.15 0.24 0.17 0.13
98 24 1435 0.16 –0.00 0.09 0.16 –0.04 0.03
99 24 2532 0.24 0.36 0.37 0.24 0.37 0.40
100 49 3860 0.34 0.23 013 0.34 0.23 0.12
101 49 9109 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.29 0.26 0.20
102 50 16581 0.29 0.25 0.17 0.29 0.24 0.16
103 61 7383 0.32 0.21 0.14 0.32 0.20 0.13
104 24 9495 0.24 0.25 0.17 0.24 0.25 0.14
105 45 24610 0.28 0.19 0.12 0.28 0.18 0.11
106 24 1931 0.13 –0.13 0.28 0.12 –0.19 0.27
107 44 4024 0.30 0.24 0.17 0.30 0.23 0.16
108 39 7869 0.27 0.18 0.15 0.27 0.18 0.14
109 68 32714 0.29 0.11 0.13 0.29 0.10 0.12
110 23 1066 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.14
111 44 16194 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.31
112 36 2049 0.25 0.44 0.40 0.25 0.46 0.41
113 50 7238 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.26
114 52 14863 0.32 0.31 0.25 0.32 0.31 0.25
115 52 38615 0.26 0.09 0.11 0.26 0.08 0.10
116 21 3128 0.39 0.57 0.46 0.40 0.61 0.52
117 21 1335 0.37 0.45 0.36 0.38 0.48 0.40
118 36 4690 0.46 0.62 0.36 0.46 0.64 0.38
119 87 40569 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.24

distributions. Thus, the identification of a parent distribution can be

achieved much more easily by using L-moment ratio diagrams than
conventional MRDs, especially for skewed distributions. Some useful
relationships for constructing the L-moment ratio diagram for some
common distribution are given by Hosking (1990 and 1991a,b):

1. Uniform: τ3 = 0 , τ4 = 0
2. Exponential: τ3 = 1/3 , τ4 = 1/6
3. Gumbel (EV1(2)): τ3 = 0.1699 , τ4 = 0.1504

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

4. Logistic: τ3 = 0 , τ4 = 1/6
5. Normal: τ3 = 0 , τ4 = 0.1226
6. Generalized Pareto:

τ4 = τ3 (1 + 5τ3)/(5 + τ3)

or τ4 = 0.20196 τ3 + 0.95924 τ 3 – 0.20096 τ 3 + 0.04061 τ 3

2 3 4

7. Generalized Logistic:

τ4 = (1 + 5 τ 3 )/6
2

or τ4 = 0.16667 + 0.83333 τ 3
2

8. Generalized Extreme Value:

τ4 = 0.10701 + 0.11090 τ3 + 0.84838 τ 3 – 0.06669 τ 3

2 3

+ 0.00567 τ 3 – 0.04208 τ 3 + 0.03763 τ 3

4 5 6

9. Gamma and Pearson III:

τ4 = 0.1224 + 0.30115 τ 3 + 0.95812 τ 3 – 0.57488 τ 3 + 0.19383 τ 3

2 4 6 8

10. Lognormal (two and three parameters):

t4 = 0.12282 + 0.77518 τ 3 + 0.12279 τ 3 – 0.13638 τ 3 + 0.11368 τ 3

2 4 6 8

11. Wakeby lower bound:

τ4 = –0.07347 + 0.14443 τ3 + 1.03879 τ 3 – 0.14602 τ 3 + 0.03357 τ 3

2 3 4

12. Overall lower bound: τ4 = –0.25 + 1.25 τ 3

2

3.3 Tests Based on L-Moments

3.3.1 Goodness-of-Fit Tests

Hosking and Wallis (1991) give a goodness-of-fit measure based on t 4 ,
the regional average of the sample L-kurtosis, mainly for three-param-

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

eter distributions. Since all three-parameter distributions fitted to the
data will have the same t3 on the LCs vs LCk diagram, the quality of
fit can be judged by the difference between regional average t 4 and
the value of τ4DIST for the fitted distribution. The statistic ZDIST given
below:

= ( t 4 – τ4 )/σ 4
DIST DIST
Z

is a goodness-of-fit measure, where σ4 is the standard deviation of t 4 .

The value of σ4 can be obtained by simulation after fitting a Kappa
distribution to the observations (Hosking, 1988). A fit is declared ade-
quate if ZDIST is sufficiently close to zero, a reasonable criterion being
|ZDIST| ≤ 1.64. For small samples (N ≤ 20) or large L-skewness (τ3 ≥
4) a correction of t 4 is required: instead of using t 4 , t 4 – β4 is used where
β4 is the bias in the regional average L-kurtosis for regions with the
same number of sites and the same record lengths as the observed
data. β4 can also be obtained by simulations required to obtain σ4. The
calculations for ZDIST can be made by the FORTRAN computer program
“Fortran Routines for Use with the Method of L-moments” developed
by Hosking (1991a).

3.3.2 Regional Homogeneity Tests

Hosking and Wallis (1991) give two statistics which are used to test
regional homogeneity. The first statistic is a discordancy measure,
intended to identify those sites that are grossly discordant with the
group as a whole. The discordancy measure D estimates how far a
(i) (i) (i) T
given site is from the center of the group. If u i = [ t , t 3 , t 4 ] is the
vector containing the t, t3 and t4 values for site (i), then the group
average for NS sites is given by Eq. 3.3.1.

NS
1
u = ------- ∑ u i (3.3.1)
NS i = 1

The sample covariance matrix is given by Eq. 3.3.2.

NS

∑ ( ui – u ) ( ui – u )
T
S = ( NS– 1 )
–1
(3.3.2)
i=1

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

The discordancy measure is defined by Eq. 3.3.3.

1 T –1
D i = --- ( u i – u ) S ( u i – u ) (3.3.3)
3

A site (i) is declared to be unusual if Di is large. A suitable criterion

to classify a station as discordant is that Di should be greater than or
equal to 3.
The second statistic is a heterogeneity measure, intended to esti-
mate the degree of heterogeneity in a group of sites and to assess
whether they might reasonably be treated as homogeneous. Specifi-
cally, the heterogeneity measure compares the between-site variations
in sample L-moments for the group of sites with that expected for a
homogeneous region. Three measures of variability V1, V2, and V3 are
available.
1. Based on LCv(t), the weighted standard deviation of (t) is
Eq. 3.3.4,

NS NS
(i)
∑ N i(t ∑ Ni
2
V1 = – t) / (3.3.4)
i=1 i=1

where, NS in Eq. 3.3.4 is the number of sites, Ni is the record length

at each site and t is the average value of t(i) given by Eq. 3.3.5.

NS NS
t =  ∑ N i t  /  ∑ N i
(i)
(3.3.5)
   
i=1 i=1

2. Based on LCv and LCs, the weighted average distance from the
site to the group weighted mean on a t vs. t3 graph is computed.

NS NS
(i) (i) 2 1⁄2
∑ N i {( t ∑ Ni
2
V2 = – t) +(t 3 – t 3 ) } / (3.3.6)
i=1 i=1

3. Based on L-skewness (t3) and L-kurtosis (t4), the weighted

average distance from the site to the group weighted mean on
a t3 vs. t4 graph is computed in Eq. 3.3.7.

NS NS
(i) (i) 1⁄2
∑ N i ( t 3 – t 3) +(t 4 -t 4 ) } ∑ Ni
2 2
V3 = / (3.3.7)
i=1 i=1

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

To evaluate the heterogeneity measures, a Kappa distribution (Hosk-
ing, 1988) is fitted to the group average L-moments 1, t, t 3 , b 4 . Simu-
lations of a large number of regions, Nsim, from this Kappa distribution
are performed. The regions are assumed to be homogeneous and the
data are assumed to have no cross-correlation or serial correlation.
The sites are assumed to have the same record lengths as their real-
world counterparts. For each simulated region, Vi (where Vi is any of
the three measures V1, V2, or V3 defined above) is calculated. From
the simulated data the mean µv and standard deviation σv of the Nsim
values of Vi are determined.
The heterogeneity measure is defined in Eq. 3.3.8.

H i = ( V i – µ v )/ σ v (3.3.8)

A region is declared to be heterogeneous if Hi is sufficiently large.

Hosking and Wallis (1991b) suggest that a region be regarded as
acceptably homogeneous if Hi is less than 1, possibly heterogeneous if
it is between 1 and 2, and definitely heterogeneous if Hi is greater than
2. Hosking and Wallis (1991) observed that statistics H2 and H3 based
on the measures V2 and V3 lack the power to discriminate between
homogeneous and heterogeneous regions and that H1 based on V1 had
much better discriminating power. Therefore the H1 statistic based on
V1 is recommended as a principal indicator of heterogeneity. If a Kappa
distribution cannot be fitted ( t 4 is too large relative to t 3 ) , the gener-
alized logistic distribution, a special case of the Kappa distribution, is
used for simulation. Also, H1 was found to be a better indicator of
heterogeneity in large regions, but has a tendency to give false indi-
cations of homogeneity for small regions.

3.4 A Case Study

In order to illustrate the use of concepts and tests discussed above the
Wabash river basin data are presented as a case study in regionaliza-
tion.

3.4.1 Data and Preliminary Analysis

Probability weighted moments as well as L-moments were calculated

for each of the stations by using the unbiased estimators in Eqs. 3.1.4

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

and 3.1.5. To obtain dimensionless moments, the L-moments are
divided at each site by the mean at that site (µi). The L-moment ratios
as well as their regional averages are calculated. The LCv – LCs
moment ratio diagram for different stations is shown in Figure 3.4.1.
The LCs – LCk moment ratio diagram for these stations as well as the
theoretical LCs – LCk relationships for several three-parameter distri-
butions are shown in Figure 3.4.2.

3.4.2 Regional Homogeneity

As one might expect for such a large region, the results in Figures
3.4.1 and 3.4.2 suggest that the region as a whole is heterogeneous.
Data points are widely scattered in Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. The points
on the LCs – LCk diagram (Figure 3.4.2) extend over the region covered
by several three-parameter distributions instead of clustering around
a particular distribution. This conclusion is also supported by the
results obtained from the regional homogeneity tests. The unbiased
estimators of PWMs in Eqs. 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 are used in these tests.
Values of the site discordancy measure Di, the heterogeneity measure
H, and the goodness-of-fit measure (ZDIST) were computed for the whole
region by using the FORTRAN computer program developed by Hosk-
ing (1991b). Of 93 sites, 12 were found to be discordant with the region
as a whole. The heterogeneity measures H1, H2 and H3 computed before
and after removing the discordant stations are given in the first row
of Table 3.4.1. These results indicate heterogeneity with respect to
both LCv values and the average distance within the LCv , LCs diagram
(Figure 3.4.1), and possible heterogeneity with respect to average dis-
tance within the LCs, LCk diagram (Figure 3.4.2). Hosking (1991b)
recommends the use of H1 to check homogeneity since both H2 and H3
can give false indication of homogeneity, especially in regions with a
small number of sites. A value of H1 = 5.99 in Table 3.4.1, which is
obtained before the discordant sites are removed, indicates a very high
degree of heterogeneity. In addition, the value of H2 is 2.69, supporting
this conclusion. The situation improves when discordant stations are
removed; but H1 is 3.15 even after removing the discordant stations,
suggesting that the region is heterogeneous. However, since the region
is homogeneous with respect to H3, the parameter estimates may be
obtained by using the regional average L-skewness along with the at-
site mean and LCv similar to the GEV(2) method of Lettenmaier et al.
(1987).

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Figure 3.4.1. The LCv – LCs moment ratio diagram for 93 stations in the Wabash
river basin.

Figure 3.4.2. The LCs – LCk moment ratio diagram for 93 stations in the Wabash
river basin.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 3.4.1. Homogeneity Measures for the Wabash River Basin

Discordant
All stations Stations Removed
Region NS H1 H2 H3 NS1 H1 H2 H3
ALL 93 5.99c 2.69c 1.25b 81 3.15c 0.10a –1.40a
UWAB 25 5.20c 4.03c 2.51c 24 4.97c 3.58c 2.06c
MWAB 15 1.85b 0.89a 0.10a 15 1.85b 0.89a 0.10a
WFWR 29 0.17a –1.56a –2.41a 28 –0.28a –2.05a –2.74a
EFWR 24 3.38c 1.79b 2.21c 22 1.24b 0.28a 1.10b
a = homogeneous, b = possibly heterogeneous, c = heterogeneous.

The main conclusion from the above analysis is that the Wabash
River basin is statistically heterogeneous. For the region as a whole,
the first row in Table 3.4.2 gives the goodness-of-fit measure for dif-
ferent distributions. The generalized extreme value distribution (GEV)
seems to be the best choice if the region is to be considered as a single
unit, although the ZDIST value is quite large for large portions of the
basin.
The stations were divided into four subregions according to their
geographical location: the upper Wabash basin (UWAB, 25 stations),
the middle Wabash basin (MWAB, 15 stations), the east fork White
River basin (EFWR, 24 stations), and the west fork White River basin
(WFWR, 29 stations). These subregions are shown in Figure 2.1.1. In
Table 3.4.1 the heterogeneity measures are given for the four sub-
basins before and after removing the discordant sites. The results in
Table 3.4.1 indicate that the upper Wabash basin is heterogeneous and
may have to be further subdivided in order to obtain reliable homoge-
neous regions. Both the middle Wabash and east fork White River
basin are possibly heterogeneous. The west fork White River basin, in
spite of being the largest (29 stations), is the most homogeneous, with
negative values of H indicating less spread than expected in a region
of such size. The goodness-of-fit measure ZDIST in Table 3.4.2 indicates
that the GEV distribution may be a good regional fit for the west fork
White river and upper Wabash regions. The LN(3) distribution is
suitable for the west fork White river, while the GLOG seems to be
suitable for the middle Wabash river and east fork White river regions.
However, the only reliable conclusion applies to the west fork White
river region (GEV and LN(3)) since non-homogeneous regions, by def-
inition, do not have a single parent distribution.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 3.4.2. Goodness-of-Fit Measures (ZDIST) for the Wabash River Basin

Region GLOG GEV LN(3) P(3)

ALL 2.93 –2.10 –3.33 –5.87
UWAB 1.75 –1.24* –1.72 –2.89
MWAB –0.18* –2.24 –2.57 –3.38
WFWR 2.04 –0.66* –1.52* –3.18
EFWR 0.34* –1.76 –2.51 –3.90
GEV: generalized extreme value; GLOG: generalized logistic; LN(3): three-parameter log normal, P(3): Pearson
type III distributions.

*The distribution may be accepted as a regional distribution (|ZDIST| < 1.64).

Other methods based on ordinary moments for assessing regional

homogeneity have been proposed. The results from the L-moment
method were compared to the method proposed by Wiltshire (1986a,
b). In Wiltshire’s method, the statistic S is calculated by using the
coefficient of variation (Cv) values from different stations within a
region (see Section 2.5). This is equivalent to H1 in our analysis. The
statistic S is expected to be distributed as χ ( n – 1 ) where n is the
2

number of sites in the region. The results from this method are given
in Table 3.4.3. Considering the fact that both methods may give mis-
leading results about homogeneity in small regions, it can be concluded
that the results from Wiltshire’s method are in agreement with those
from the L-moments analysis.

Table 3.4.3. Regional Homogeneity Analysis Using Wiltshire’s Method

χ 0.90 ( n – 1 ) χ 0.95 ( NS – 1 )
2 2
Region NS S Comments
ALL 93 155.97 109.76 115.39 heterogeneous
UWAB 25 85.27 33.20 36.42 heterogeneous
MWAB 15 17.57 21.06 23.68 homogeneous
WFWR 19 24.42 37.92 41.34 homogeneous
EFWR 24 39.88 32.01 35.17 heterogeneous

In a study to develop techniques for estimating magnitude and

frequency of floods in Indiana streams, the USGS (USGS, 1984)
divided the state into the seven regions shown in Figure 3.4.3. USGS
used a regression analysis technique to arrive at this classification.
Region 6 covers the middle Wabash River and part of upper Wabash
regions of the present study. Both the east fork and west fork White
River watershed are included in region 3 in Figure 3.4.3. As we have

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Figure 3.4.3. Homogeneous flood frequency regions in Indiana (USGS 1984).

seen in this study, these regions are not homogeneous. The fact that
regression equations developed to estimate flows are quite different
for each of these regions also reflects the lack of homogeneity in the
USGS classification of watersheds.

3.4.3 Regional Quantile Estimates

Regional estimates are obtained by using the estimation equations

given in Section 3.1. For regional estimates, the regional average

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

values l 1 , l 2 and t 3 are used to obtain dimensionless regional fre-
quency distributions. For a given return period T, the regional growth
factors, qT and qTi, respectively, are calculated and the regional quantile
estimates are computed by using Eq. 1.7.1.
To study the validity of regional analysis, the west fork White River
was selected as a representative homogeneous region, and the upper
Wabash region as a representative heterogeneous region. The LCv –
LCs and the LCs – LCk moment ratio diagrams for the west fork White
River region are shown in Figures 3.4.4 and 3.4.5, respectively. Similar
diagrams for the upper Wabash region are shown in Figures 3.4.6 and
3.4.7. Comparing Figures 3.4.4 and 3.4.6 it can be seen that the west
fork White River region is more homogeneous in terms of the LCv, LCs
diagram. The spread around the mean value in Figure 3.4.4 is much
smaller than in Figure 3.4.6. Similarly, the scatter of stations around
the mean in Figure 3.4.5 is less than in Figure 3.4.7. Thus, the assump-
tion that flows at different stations have the same parent distribution
is more acceptable for the WFWR region than for the UWAB region
due to the closeness of the distribution parameters for the WFWR
basin. The quantile estimates for station 95 in the WFWR basin for
different regional distributions are given in Table 3.4.4. The GEV and
LN3 distributions give the best regional estimates. Further details of
this study are found in Rao and Hamed (1997).

Table 3.4.4. Estimated Quantiles for Station 95 in the WFWR Region for Different
At-Site and Regional Distributions
Period (years)

Observed
(approx.)
Return

At-site Regional
GEV LN(3) P(3) GLOG GEV LN(3) P(3) GLOG
10 65,640 64,879 65,280– 65,789+ 63,278 66,368+ 66,848 67,443 64,676–
20 76,846 77,448+ 77,586 77,545 76,242– 79,912+ 80,109 80,082 78,598+
50 92,259 94,855 94,150+ 92,613+ 96,122 98,836 98,063+ 96,334+ 100,076
100 112,752 108,795– 107,068 103,804 113,853+ 114,123+ 112,138– 108,433 119,348
150 122,608 117,298– 114,816 110,297 125,517+ 123,504+ 120,606– 115,463 132,074
200 127,536 123,497– 120,407 114,887 134,441+ 130,368+ 126,729– 120,437 141,836

Underlined are closest to observed; + and – indicate over or under estimated, respectively.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Figure 3.4.4. The LCv – LCs moment ratio diagram for the WEST region.

Figure 3.4.5. The LCs – LCk moment ratio diagram for the WEST region.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Figure 3.4.6. The LCv – LCs moment ratio diagram for the UPPER region.

Figure 3.4.7. The LCs – LCk moment ratio diagram for the UPPER region.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC