933

Expanded analytical probabilistic stormwater

models for use in watershed and master drainage
planning
Yiping Guo and Jianping Dai
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14

Abstract: In watershed and master drainage planning studies, information on flood frequency distributions must be avail-
able for locations throughout the study area and for conditions with and without planned stormwater control facilities. De-
sign storm modeling and continuous simulation approaches are used to obtain the required information. Analytical
probabilistic stormwater models are computationally more efficient alternatives but they were developed originally for ur-
ban stormwater management planning and design purposes. In this paper, methods and strategies are developed to expand
the capabilities of existing analytical probabilistic stormwater models so that they can also be used in watershed and mas-
ter drainage planning studies. The case study tests and validates the proposed methods and strategies and demonstrates the
versatilities of the new approach.
Key words: design storms, continuous simulation, flood frequency distribution, watershed planning, master drainage plan,
probabilistic models.
Résumé : Dans les études des bassins versants et de planification du drainage principal, de l’information sur les distribu-
tions de la fréquence des inondations doit être disponible pour les emplacements dans toute la zone à l’étude et pour les
conditions avec et sans installations planifiées de contrôle des eaux pluviales. La modélisation basée sur les averses typi-
ques et les approches de simulation continue sont utilisées pour obtenir l’information requise. Les modèles analytiques pro-
For personal use only.

babilistes des eaux pluviales sont des choix plus efficaces au point de vue calculs, mais ils ont été initialement développés
pour la planification et la conception de la gestion des eaux pluviales en milieu urbain. Cet article développe des méthodes
et des stratégies visant à étendre les capacités des modèles analytiques probabilistes des eaux pluviales existants afin qu’ils
puissent également être utilisés dans les études des bassins versants et de planification du drainage principal. L’étude de
cas vérifie et valide les méthodes et stratégies proposées et démontre la polyvalence de la nouvelle approche.
Mots-clés : averses typiques, simulation continue, distribution de la fréquence des inondations, planification des bassins
versants, plan de drainage principal, modèles probabilistes.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

1. Introduction tershed plans, master drainage plans are developed to ad-

Watershed or subwatershed planning is a process that uses
the watershed or subwatershed drainage area as the natural
boundary to establish plans and regulations for managing
human uses of the river and connected wetlands, woodlands,
valley lands, and floodplains. An ecosystem-based water-
shed planning process has been advocated in Ontario by the
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of
Natural Resources (MNR) for more than 15 years (MOE
and MNR 1993a). Often guided by watershed or subwa-
Received 13 March 2008. Revision accepted 23 February 2009.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
9 June 2009.
Y. Guo.1 Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster
University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8,
Canada.
J. Dai. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, 2216 County
Road 28, P.O. Box 328, Port Hope, ON L1A 3W4, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 October 2009.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: guoy@mcmaster.ca).
dress the current and future drainage needs of a specific
drainage area. Master drainage planning is the preferred
mechanism for the planning and design of urban drainage
systems to minimize the impacts of urban stormwater runoff
on receiving watercourses (MOE and MNR 1993b). One of
the main tasks of watershed and master drainage planning is
to sketch out and optimize the flood, erosion, and water
quality control systems throughout a study area. Flood fre-
quency distributions at locations throughout a watershed are
important information required for both watershed and mas-
ter drainage planning. Design storm-based single event rain-
fall–runoff modeling and continuous simulation modeling
are the two traditional methods of flood frequency estima-
tion for the purpose of watershed and master drainage plan-
ning.
The assumption invoked when using the design storm ap-
proach is that a design storm of a given return period will
produce a runoff peak of the same return period. Despite
the fact that this assumption is not proven to be always ac-
ceptable (Adams and Howard 1986), the consensus of the
engineering community seems to be that the design storm
approach can produce peak discharges of desired return peri-
ods with acceptable levels of accuracy, if it is used properly

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 36: 933–943 (2009) doi:10.1139/L09-037 Published by NRC Research Press
 934
(Packman and Kidd 1980; Marsalek and Watt 1984; Levy
and McCuen 1999). Continuous simulation models use
long-term precipitation records as inputs to generate contin-
uous series of flows. Frequency analyses on the generated
flow series are conducted to estimate flood peaks of differ-
ent return periods. Although continuous simulation can pro-
vide more accurate estimates of flood frequency
distributions, the data and computation requirements limit
its application in practice.
A new approach — the analytical probabilistic approach
for flood frequency estimation — was developed to over-
come the problems of both the design storm and the contin-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
uous simulation approaches (Guo and Adams 1998a,
1998b). Rather than employing design storms, the analytical
probabilistic approach estimates flood frequency distribu-
tions directly using closed-form analytical equations devel-
oped based on the derived probability distribution theory.
The probability density functions (PDFs) of rainfall event
characteristics (i.e., event volume, duration, and inter-event
time) were identified first. The functional relationships of
rainfall event and runoff event characteristics (i.e., peak
flow, runoff volume, runoff duration) were then established
to derive the PDFs of runoff event characteristics. The re-
sults are closed-form analytical equations that can be used
for flood frequency estimation.
To expand the utility of the analytical probabilistic ap-
For personal use only.
proach, Guo and Zhuge (2008) derived additional equations
for the probabilistic routing of floods through channel
reaches and detention ponds. For ease of reference, the ana-
lytical equations derived in Guo and Adams (1998a, 1998b,
1999a, 1999b) and Guo and Zhuge (2008) are referred to as
the analytical probabilistic stormwater models (APSWM).
The accuracy of APSWM has been verified by performing
comparisons with the continuous simulation approach for a
number of test catchments in Toronto, Ontario (Guo and
Adams 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b); comparisons between
the analytical probabilistic approach, the design storm ap-
proach, and the continuous simulation approach for an urban
test catchment in Chicago, Illinois, USA (Guo 2001); and
comparison between the analytical probabilistic approach
and the design storm approach for a design case in King-
ston, Ontario (Quader and Guo 2006). Rivera et al. (2005)
applied APSWM for two locations: Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA; and Santiago, Chile. The APSWM results were com-
pared with continuous simulation results. Their comparison
studies showed that the APSWM results are fairly close to
continuous simulation results for Fort Collins. However, for
Santiago, the comparisons are not as good as those for Fort
Collins. The authors pointed out that the dependence be-
tween rainfall event volume and duration caused the poor
performance of APSWM in Santiago and suggested methods
to overcome this problem.
The computation involved in APSWM is much less than
that involved in the design storm approach. Since accurate
tracing of the probability distribution transformation from
rainfall to runoff is achieved through the use of the derived
probability distribution theory, results of APSWM are com-
parable with those from continuous simulation followed by
frequency analyses. Thus, APSWM has a great potential in
becoming an efficient alternative to both design storm and
continuous simulation models for many regions where rain-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009
fall event characteristics follow exponential PDFs. The exact
performance of APSWM is location-dependent, detailed
rainfall analysis and experimental applications are necessary
to determine the suitability of APSWM for a specific region.
The APSWM was originally developed for use in urban
stormwater management analyses, it has not been tested spe-
cifically for rural areas and applied to large watersheds.
However, in watershed and master drainage planning stud-
ies, the subject watershed or drainage area may be medium
or large in size (i.e., much larger than the catchment area
draining to a typical urban stormwater detention pond) and
may include portions that are entirely rural. The main objec-
tive of this study is to expand the existing capabilities of
APSWM so that it can also be used in watershed and master
drainage planning.
2. Expansion of the capability of the
analytical probabilistic approach
2.1. Development of a probabilistic rainfall areal
reduction method
The analytical probabilistic approach uses probability
models of storm event characteristics to represent the rain-
fall conditions of a location. To generate the PDFs of storm
event characteristics, continuous rainfall series at a specific
location is separated into individual storms. A minimum
time period without rainfall, referred to as the inter-event
time definition (IETD), is used as the separation criterion.
To ensure the statistical independence between consecutive
storms, a 12 h IETD was found appropriate for most loca-
tions (Restrepo-Posada and Eagleson 1982). When the sepa-
rated storm (rainfall) event series are obtained, the
characteristics including total event volume v, duration t,
and inter-event time b for individual rainfall events can be
determined and statistically analyzed. For many locations, it
was found that exponential PDFs provide good fits to the
histograms obtained from the frequency analyses conducted
for each of the event characteristics (Adams and Papa 2000).
The exponential distributions for rainfall event character-
istics are expressed as
½1 fV ðvÞ ¼ xexv ; v0
½2 fT ðtÞ ¼ lelt ; t0
½3 fB ðbÞ ¼ jejb ; b0
The annual average number of events, denoted as q, can
also be determined from the previously described process of
analysis. For a specific geographic location, the four param-
eters x, l, j, and q need to be known to use the probability
models to describe local rainfall characteristics. The values
of the three distribution parameters (i.e., x, l, and j) may
be estimated as the inverse of, respectively, the average
rainfall event volume, the average rainfall event duration,
and the average of inter-event times. For locations through-
out Canada, these rainfall statistics may be obtained from
Adams and Papa (2000).
The previously outlined probabilistic description of local
rainfall characteristics has so far been used for point rainfall
Published by NRC Research Press
 Guo and Dai
Fig. 1. Rainfall event volume frequency distributions affected by
different areal reduction factors.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
only. To extend the application of APSWM to large water-
sheds, some form of rainfall areal reduction must be in-
cluded in the rainfall input. In using the design storm
approach, an areal reduction factor (ARF) is used to reduce
the point rainfall depth to its areal average. For a given
storm duration, ARF is calculated as the quotient of the
average of annual maxima of areal rainfall and the average
of the annual maxima of point rainfall (U.S. Weather Bu-
reau 1957). It is generally assumed that the ARFs so deter-
mined are independent of the return periods of storms and
For personal use only.
geographic locations.
Although recent studies (Allen and DeGaetano 2005;
Veneziano and Langousis 2005; Yoo et al. 2007) all suggest
that ARFs are dependent on the frequency of occurrence of
rainfall and geographic location, for engineering applica-
tions, the most common source of ARF is still technical pa-
per 29 (TP-29), Rainfall intensity-frequency regime – Part 1
(U.S. Weather Bureau 1957). For planning and design pur-
poses, a suitable design storm duration is selected first.
Based on this selected duration and catchment area, the re-
quired ARF is determined from the set of curves in TP-29.
The same ARF is applied to design storms of any return pe-
riod of interest. For APSWM applications, a method of areal
reduction that would result in similar degrees of reduction of
point rainfall is needed.
The currently accepted areal rainfall reduction procedure
implies that rainfall durations themselves are not affected in
the areal averaging process, or that the duration of an areally
averaged rainfall event is approximately the same as that of
the corresponding event observed at a point. This may be
supported by the following reasons. First, if a storm is lo-
cally generated and subsides locally (e.g., convective
storms), the areally averaged event duration is the same as
the point-observed event, averaging of event volume is re-
quired because of the uneven distribution of rainfall depths.
Second, if a storm moves across the catchment (e.g., frontal
storms), the start and end times of the event as observed at
different points in the catchment may be different, the dura-
tions of the same meteorological event observed at different
points should still be approximately the same. Averaging of
the rainfall event depths for the latter type of storms does
not affect the true duration of the same event observed at
different points, the areally averaged event should have the
same duration as its corresponding point-observed events.
Hence, the areally averaged rainfall event durations follow
935
the same probability distribution as that followed by point
rainfall events. Areally averaged inter-event times are simi-
lar to rainfall durations, therefore, eqs. [2] and [3] will still
be the same after areal reduction. The annual average num-
ber of rainfall events is also the same before and after areal
reduction.
In the study by Yoo et al. (2007), the same type of mixed
Gamma distributions was used for both point rainfall and
areal average rainfall. Sivapalan and Bloschl (1998) show
that the upper tails of the Gamma distributions (which are
followed by areal average rainfall) may be approximated by
exponential functions. Supported by these findings, it is as-
sumed here that the areally averaged rainfall event volumes
follow the same type of exponential distributions, as ex-
pressed in eq. [1]. Thus, to achieve proper areal reduction
of point rainfall, the same type of probability models used
to describe point rainfall events can still be used to describe
areally averaged rainfall events and x is the only parameter
that needs to be adjusted.
Let the PDF of the areal average rainfall event volume be
½4 fVa ðva Þ ¼ xa exa va ; va  0
where va is the areal average rainfall event volume and xa is
the distribution parameter. Since the areal average rainfall
event duration is the same as the corresponding point rain-
fall event duration and follows the same probability distri-
bution, t will still be used to denote areal average rainfall
event duration, and l the distribution parameter. The same
is true for b and q. Assume that rainfall event volume and
duration are statistically independent (Guo and Adams
1998a), the probability Pr per rainfall event with T £ t and
Va > va, where t and va are the specific values of, respec-
tively, random variables T (areal rainfall event duration)
and Va (areal rainfall event volume), can be calculated as
½5 PrfðT  tÞ \ ðVa > va Þg ¼ PrfT  tgPrfVa > va g
¼ ½1  expðltÞexpðxa va Þ
Since consecutive rainfall events are statistically inde-
pendent as ensured by the use of an appropriate IETD, the
annual probability of having a rainfall event with duration
less than or equal to t and volume greater than va is q times
the exceedance probability per rainfall event, as expressed in
eq. [5]. Converting the annual exceedance probability to re-
turn period Tr, we have
1
½6 Tr ¼
PrfðT  tÞ \ ðVa > va Þgq
1
¼
q½1  expðltÞexpðxa va Þ
To calculate the areal average rainfall depth va corre-
sponding to a specific return period Tr and duration t,
eq. [6] is rearranged as
1
½7 va ¼ fln½1  expðltÞ þ lnq þ lnTr g
xa
Equation [7] shows that va for a given return period Tr
and duration t is inversely proportional to the value of xa.
Published by NRC Research Press
 936
Table 1. Conversion between curve-number and infiltration capacities.
Ultimate infiltration ca-
Hydrologic soil group (HSG) pacity fc (mm/h)a
A (sandy, loamy sand or sandy loam) 25
B (silt loam or loam) 13
C (sandy clay loam) 5 71
D (clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy 3 78
clay, silt clay or clay)
a
Smith 2004.
b
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1972).
c
Curve number (CN) of 30 is considered the lowest possible. Users should be warned that the Natural Resource Conservation Services
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
(NRCS) CN method for runoff does not work well for CNs less than 30; another infiltration model may be more suitable. When CN =
100, i.e., for impervious areas; fc = fm = 0.
Therefore, to reduce va by a certain proportion, xa should be
increased by the same proportion.
It was found that for large rainfall events in the Toronto
region, the rainfall event volume and duration are indeed
statistically independent (Palynchuk and Guo 2008). In the
same study, it was also pointed out that although conven-
tional design storms are often quoted as fixed duration de-
sign storms, the complete interpretation of a design storm
should be the storm with a specific return period for event
depth, under the condition that its duration is less than or
equal to a given duration. The derivations in the previous
paragraph incorporated the complete interpretation of design
For personal use only.
storms. Since design storms are applied as if they are actual
individual storms, equivalence of storms defined in the left
side of eq. [5] to design storms is adequate for the purpose
of ensuring that the same degree of areal reduction is
achieved when the analytical probabilistic approach is used.
Based on all these empirical evidences and theoretical
reasoning, a simple method that makes use of the existing
empirically derived ARFs (e.g., TP-29) is proposed for use
with the analytical probabilistic approach. First, a reduction
factor value h is determined based on TP-29 curves for a
specific watershed area using the average rainfall event du-
ration of the geographic location as the storm duration. Sec-
ond, the parameter xa is obtained as x=h, where x is the
distribution parameter value for point rainfall event volume
of that location.
The effect of the proposed areal reduction method on the
entire spectrum of rainfall event volume distributions can be
found in Fig. 1, where examples of point and areal average
rainfall event volume distributions are plotted. It can be seen
from Fig. 1 that with higher degrees of areal reduction (i.e.,
lower ARF values), the frequencies of rainfall events with
large volumes decrease, while the frequencies of rainfall
events with smaller volumes increase. Areal averaging of
storms that partially cover a watershed or move across a
watershed makes large point rainfall events smaller. The
larger the watershed area, the more the rainfall events that
partially cover the watershed. That is why, as the watershed
area increases, the frequency of larger areal-average rainfall
events decreases and that of smaller areal-average events in-
creases. These changes in frequency of occurrence are well
represented in Fig. 1, indicating that the proposed method
captures the essence of rainfall areal averaging from a prob-
ability of occurrence point of view. Simply using xa in place
of x, the existing APSWM can be applied to large water-
sheds where rainfall areal reduction is necessary.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009
Curve number (CN) of Maximum infiltration
meadow coverb capacity fm (mm/h)c
30(3) 250
58 200
125
75
2.2. Conversion of runoff curve-number and Nash
instantaneous unit hydrograph parameters
For large rural catchments, the SCS (now NRCS, i.e.,
Natural Resource Conservation Services) curve-number
(CN) method is widely used for runoff estimation, whereas
APSWM rainfall-loss estimation is based on the Horton in-
filtration model (Guo and Adams 1998a). The total potential
losses throughout a rainfall event as estimated in APSWM
are comprised of three parts: (1) losses due to the intercep-
tion and depression storage on impervious areas (Sdi); (2) in-
itial losses on pervious areas (Sil), which is the sum of the
depression storage (Sdp) and the long-term average initial
soil-wetting infiltration depth (Siw); and (3) infiltration loss
on pervious areas at a constant rate of fc, which equals the
ultimate infiltration capacity as defined in the Horton model.
The three parts of losses in an APSWM model can be ob-
tained from the NRCS-CN loss method parameters as fol-
lows.
First, in using the NRCS-CN method, pervious and imper-
vious areas are lumped together and treated as if the catch-
ment surface is homogeneous. In APSWM, this is equivalent
to specifying the imperviousness ratio of the catchment as
zero and treating the entire catchment as pervious. Second,
both Siw and Sdp are considered as constants in APSWM
and subtracted from incoming rainfall volumes before runoff
occurs, this is similar to initial abstraction (Ia) in the NRCS-
CN method. Thus, Sil should be equal to Ia. Third, the ulti-
mate infiltration capacity fc and the maximum infiltration
capacity fm for dry soils are both functions of soil type. A
loose relationship between fc and hydrologic soil group
(HSG) was established in Maidment (1993, page 5.25). For
stormwater modeling purposes, Smith (2004) suggests more
exact relationships between HSG and fc as well as HSG and
fm; these relationships are listed in Table 1. The runoff CN
is determined by not only soil type but also land use. Table 1
lists the CN for combinations of HSG and meadow land
cover. Using Table 1 as a guideline, the corresponding fc
and fm values for all CN values can be obtained through in-
terpolation. For the purpose of conversion from runoff CN
parameter values to Horton infiltration model parameter val-
ues, there is no need to use fm to calculate the value of Siw,
since Siw is included in the conversion-determined Sil value
already.
In conventional hydrologic models, the Nash instantane-
ous unit hydrograph (IUH) method may be selected to trans-
form effective rainfall over a subcatchment to runoff
hydrograph. The Nash IUH method conceptualizes a sub-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Guo and Dai
catchment as a series of n identical linear reservoirs with the
outflow from one reservoir inflowing into the other. Two in-
put parameters, i.e., the number of reservoirs n and time to
peak tp, are required when Nash IUH is used. In APSWM,
however, the effective rainfall and runoff hydrograph trans-
formation is based on a triangular hydrograph approximation
(Guo and Adams 1998b), the only input parameter is the
time of concentration (tc) of the subcatchment. It was ini-
tially postulated in Guo and Adams (1999b) and later on va-
lidated in Guo and Zhuge (2008) that the equivalent time of
concentration of a single linear reservoir is approximately
2K, where K is the storage coefficient of the reservoir.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
When n reservoirs are connected in series, the total equiva-
lent time of concentration is 2Kn. By differentiating the
Nash IUH with respect to time and equating it to zero, the
time to peak tp of a Nash IUH in terms of n and K can be
expressed as
½8 tp ¼ ðn  1ÞK
Thus, K can be determined as tp/(n–1). The equivalent
time of concentration that should be used in APSWM can
therefore be obtained as
n
½9 tc ¼ 2Kn ¼ 2 tp
n1
For personal use only.
Establishment of the above parameter relationships be-
tween rainfall loss and surface runoff routing models en-
sures the hydrologically equivalent conversion of parameter
values when different methods are used. Using these rela-
tionships, APSWM can accept input parameters as if
NRCS-CN and Nash IUH methods are used. The robustness
of this expanded capability will be examined later in the
case study.
2.3. Incorporation of a catchment aggregation strategy
In conventional hydrologic modeling, the modeled water-
shed or catchment is usually divided into a number of sub-
catchments according to the drainage system and the
physical characteristics, such as soil type and land use. Sub-
catchments might be connected by pipes and channel
reaches or joined together at junction points. Starting the
calculation from the most upstream end and gradually mov-
ing downstream, the hydrograph and its peak at the point of
interest are obtained.
The APSWM can also allow catchment discretization ex-
actly the same way as in conventional hydrologic modeling.
However, in actual calculations to determine the flood fre-
quency distribution at a point of interest using the derived
analytical equations, the area upstream of that location of in-
terest is treated as one lumped catchment. The characteris-
tics of this lumped catchment except tc are obtained by
using an area-weighting technique, i.e.,
Xm
Ai Pi
½10 P ¼ X1 m
A were performed by GRCA using the ArcHydro GIS soft-
1 i
where P represents the value of a parameter for the lumped
catchment, Pi is the value of the same parameter of subcatch-
ment i, Ai is the area of subcatchment i, and m is the total
number of subcatchments comprising the lumped catchment.
937
The area-weighting technique cannot be used for the
lumping of tc. If the components (i.e., subcatchments,
reaches, or detention ponds) are in series, it is obvious that
the hydrologically equivalent tc of the lumped catchment
should be the sum of the equivalent tc of the individual com-
ponents. If the components are parallel to each other, it is
proposed here that the equivalent tc of the lumped catchment
be calculated as a flow-weighted average of tc of the indi-
vidual component. The weight for an individual component
is
EðVRi Þ
½11 wi ¼
t þ tci
where EðVRi Þ is the expected value of runoff per rainfall
event from component i, which is calculated by APSWM as
a by-product (Guo and Adams 1998a); tci is the equivalent
time of concentration of component i; t is the average dura-
tion of rainfall events at that location.
The weight wi in eq. [11] is approximately the average
flow rate from component i. Compared with other compo-
nents, a component may have a relatively long or short tc
but hardly produce any flow; tc of the lumped catchment
should not be too heavily dependent on the tc of those com-
ponents that generate little flows. Use of wi instead of Ai in
eq. [10] assists in compensating for the uneven contribution
of flows from parallel components. It is recognized that in-
corporation of the above-described catchment aggregation
strategy in APSWM will result in some loss of accuracy.
For small drainage areas typical of urban stormwater man-
agement studies, this loss of accuracy is usually insignifi-
cant. For larger watersheds, this may no longer be the case.
The following case study was conducted to assist in quanti-
fying loss of accuracy of APSWM resulted from large catch-
ment areas.
3. Case study and analysis of results
3.1. Description of study area, available data, and model
runs
The Ganaraska River watershed with a drainage area of
277 km2 in Ontario (Fig. 2) was used as an example. The
main stream of the Ganaraska River originates in the Oak
Ridges Moraine area and flows southeasterly for 42 km to
Lake Ontario. The watershed consists of a mixture of wood-
land and agricultural lands. The soils map provided by the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) indicates
that most of the watershed soils are gravel, sand, or sandy
loam (classified as HSG A, AB, and B), which is particu-
larly suitable for our purpose of investigating highly perme-
able rural catchments. One stream gauge station (Dale
Gauge) located on the main stem of the Ganaraska River
provides about 30 years of flow data, and one nearby Envi-
ronment Canada weather station (Peterborough station) pro-
vides more than 32 years of meteorological data.
The discretization and characterization of subcatchments
ware. The watershed was discretized into 47 subcatchments
based on stream orders, with some modifications to combine
small subcatchments. The areas of subcatchments range
from 121 to 2609 ha. Weighted CN value for each subcatch-
ment was determined by ArcHydro based on land use, drain-
Published by NRC Research Press
 938
Fig. 2. Study area map showing subcatchment discretization and junction point locations.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
For personal use only.
age area, and HSG. An OTTHYMO model (Greenland Inter-
national Consulting Inc. 2002) for the watershed was devel-
oped and calibrated by Schaeffer & Associates Ltd. (2005).
In the model, both the NRCS-CN and Nash IUH methods
were used. The Dale gauge streamflow data were used to
calibrate the OTTHYMO model.
An APSWM model for the Ganaraska River watershed
was developed based on exactly the same subcatchment and
channel reach discretizations used in the OTTHYMO model.
The parameter values for each subcatchment of the APSWM
model were determined based on the corresponding OT-
THYMO parameter values and the relationships for conver-
sion as described earlier. No calibration of the APSWM
parameter values using observed flow data was performed
since the purpose is to compare uncalibrated APSWM re-
sults directly with OTTHYMO results. As the OTTHYMO
model parameters had been calibrated already (Schaeffer &
Associates Ltd. 2005), OTTHYMO results were taken as ap-
proximately the same from frequency analysis using ob-
served flow series. The capability of the expanded APSWM
was illustrated by comparing the uncalibrated APSWM re-
sults with calibrated OTTHYMO results.
To generate the necessary results for comparison, the first
set of model runs was designed to investigate the perform-
ance of APSWM for individual subcatchments and to test
the robustness of the conversion methods for rainfall loss
and subcatchment routing calculations. The second set of
runs was designed to examine the catchment aggregation
strategy of APSWM and the proposed probabilistic rainfall
areal reduction method. These two sets of runs were con-
ducted using rainfall data from the Toronto Pearson Interna-
tional Airport station. To examine the capability of the
analytical probabilistic approach in representing accurately
the differences in rainfall characteristics between geographi-
cal locations and their effects on flood frequency, rainfall
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009
data from the Peterborough station were used in the third
set of runs. Two types of design storms, 24 h Chicago de-
sign storms (Water Environment Federation and American
Society of Civil Engineers 1992) and 12 h Canadian Atmos-
pheric Environment Service (AES) design storms (Hogg
1980) developed from rainfall intensity–duration–frequency
(IDF) curves, were used in all the OTTHYMO model runs.
The main characteristics for these design storms are listed in
Table 2. For Toronto, the average rainfall event volume, du-
ration, inter-event time, and annual number of events as in-
put to APSWM are 8.43 mm, 9.26 h, 93.9 h, and 64.7,
respectively; those for Peterborough are 8.14 mm, 9.24 h,
86.7 h, and 61.3, respectively (Adams and Papa 2000).
3.2. Comparison for individual subcatchments
Four representative subcatchments (subcatchment Nos. 3,
47, 40, and 22) were selected for comparison. The main
physical characteristics of the four subcatchments are sum-
marized in Table 3. It was found that the use of two types
of design storms does not result in significant differences in
flood peaks. This may be a result of the following two facts:
(1) for each return period, although the Chicago-storm peak
intensity is more than two times that of the AES storm, the
average intensity of the AES storm is almost two times that
of the Chicago storm (Table 2); and (2) all the four sub-
catchments have long time of concentration (from 9.0 to
15.0 h, converted from the tp and n values using eq. [9])
and long time of concentration reduces the impact of peak
rainfall intensity on resulting flood peaks. As examples, the
comparisons for No. 40 (higher infiltration rate) and No. 22
(lower infiltration rate) are plotted in Figs. 3 and 4, respec-
tively. Figures for the other two subcatchments repeat simi-
lar patterns. To facilitate the inter-comparison between
catchments of different drainage areas, both the horizontal
and the left vertical axes were plotted using the same scale
Published by NRC Research Press
 Guo and Dai 939

Max. intensity (mm/h)

in all figures. The vertical axes on the right represent flood
peaks in m3/s (cms).
Subcatchments No. 47 and No. 40 both have highly per-
meable soils, while subcatchment No. 3 is almost 100% im-
pervious (CN = 100) and subcatchment No. 22 has low
infiltration rates (CN = 90). An almost perfect match be-

12.1
14.0
16.5
18.3
20.0
tween APSWM and OTTHYMO results was obtained for

9.2
subcatchment No. 3 (figure not presented). For subcatch-
ment 22, APSWM estimation for lower return periods is
slightly higher than those of OTTHYMO (Fig. 4). For sub-
Peterborough

catchment No. 40, flood peaks from APSWM are slightly

Total rainfall
depth (mm)

lower than those from OTTHYMO for lower return periods,

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14

whereas more comparable results were obtained for longer

Note: Chicago design storms were developed with 0.48 as their ratio of time to peak to total storm duration; AES: Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service.
43.9
57.7
66.8
78.4
86.9
95.4
return periods. Results for subcatchment No. 47 are similar
to those from subcatchment No. 40. The agreement between
APSWM and OTTHYMO model results for a variety of in-
dividual subcatchments suggests that the relationships for
conversion of rainfall loss and runoff routing parameter val-
Max. intensity

ues are generally acceptable. Hence, the NRCS-CN and

Nash IUH methods can be used together with APSWM.
(mm/h)

12.4
14.8
17.8
20.0
22.2
12 h AES design storm

3.3. Comparison for aggregated large catchments

8.9

Modeling results from four downstream locations with

various drainage areas are compared. The four locations are
illustrated in Fig. 2 as J1, J2, J3, and J4. The drainage area
Total rainfall
depth (mm)

of 2128 ha at J1 is comprised of three subcatchments and

For personal use only.

Toronto

two reaches. The three subcatchments are similar in their

105.7

soil and land use characteristics and their CNs are around
42.3
59.2
70.5
84.7
95.2

80. The comparison for J1 is plotted in Fig. 5, which shows

that the results from APSWM are at the worst 20% to 25%
different from OTTHYMO results. Compared with Figs. 3
Max. intensity

and 4, Fig. 5 indicates that when a limited degree of aggre-

Table 2. Main characteristics of design storms for Toronto and Peterborough, Ontario.

gation is performed with a few relatively homogeneous sub-

(mm/h)

catchments, loss of accuracy of APSWM is unnoticeable.

22.9
31.4
37.1
44.4
49.5
54.5

Junction J2 is the point where the tributary of North Ganar-

aska confluences with the Ganaraska River. The drainage
area at J2 is 7048 ha and consists of nine subcatchments and
four reaches. The CNs of the nine subcatchments vary from
Peterborough
Total rainfall
depth (mm)

45 to 91. The level of aggregation performed in APSWM for

J2 represents cases involving intermediate to high degrees of
102.8

lumping of widely varying subcatchment characteristics.

48.1
62.7
72.4
84.7
93.7

Since the drainage area at J2 exceeds the threshold of 25 km2

(MNR 1986), rainfall areal reduction must be applied and re-
sults at J2 from modeling runs with areal reduction (Table 4
Max. intensity

lists the reduction factors applied) are plotted in Fig. 6. The

maximum difference between APSWM and OTTHYMO esti-
24 h Chicago design storm

(mm/h)

mated flood peaks is about 1 mm/h of water over the contri-

25.0
33.5
39.3
46.5
51.7
57.0

buting catchment area. On a millimeter per hour (mm/h)

basis, the difference between APSWM and OTTHYMO re-
sults at J2 does not seem to increase significantly as com-
pared with J1 and individual subcatchments. On a cubic
Total rainfall
depth (mm)

meter per second (m3/s) basis, however, the difference in-

Toronto

creases as the contributing catchment area increases. From

109.3
121.5

the figures, it can be seen that as the catchment areas in-

47.4
67.2
80.4
97.0

crease, the difference between 24 h and 12 h design storm re-

sults also increase on a cubic meter per second (m3/s) basis.
Return period

One mm/h difference translates to 0.28 m3/s per 100 ha. If

this level of uncertainty is acceptable, the loss of accuracy
due to the use of the proposed aggregation strategy in
(years)

APSWM may be considered insignificant even when inter-

100
10
25
50

mediate to high degrees of aggregation are involved.

2
5

Published by NRC Research Press

 940 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009

Table 3. Physical characteristics of the four representative subcatchments.

Location Subcatchment No. 3 Subcatchment No. 47 Subcatchment No. 40 Subcatchment No. 22

Area (ha) 198.89 605.5 993.7 771.7
Slope (%) 1.23 1.8 1.74 1.65
Flow length (m) 3511 6392 7331 8603
CN 100 48 64 90
Time to peak (h)a 1.28 1.74 2.14 2.12
(for Nash IUH)
Number of reservoirsa 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
(for Nash IUH)
a
Obtained from calibration.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14

Fig. 3. Analytical probabilistic stormwater model (APSWM) and Fig. 5. Analytical probabilistic stormwater model (APSWM) and
OTTHYMO modeling results for subcatchment No. 40 (catchment OTTHYMO modeling results for Junction 1 (catchment area =
area = 994 ha). 2128 ha).
7 7 40
OTTHYMO 24 h Chicago
6 OTTHYMO 24 h Chicago 6 35
15 OTTHYMO 12 h AES
Flood peak (mm/h)

5 OTTHYMO 12 h AES 30

Flood peak (m3/s)

Flood peak (m3/s)

5 APSWM

Flood peak (mm/h)

4 APSWM 25
10 4
20
3 3
15
2 5 2
10
1
1 5
0 0
For personal use only.

0 0
1 10 100
1 10 100
Return period (year)
Return period (year)

Fig. 4. Analytical probabilistic stormwater model (APSWM) and Table 4. Rainfall areal reduction factors for different points of in-
OTTHYMO modeling results for subcatchment No. 22 (catchment terest and storm durations.
area = 772 ha).
7 15 Point of Catchment Areal reduction
6
interest area (hectares) Storm duration factor
J2 7049 9.26 0.88
Flood peak (mm/h)

Flood peak (m3/s)

5
10 J2 7049 12 0.89
4 J2 7049 24 0.93
3 J3 23 872 9.26 0.85
5 J3 23 872 12 0.87
2 OTTHYMO 24 h Chicago
J3 23 872 24 0.91
OTTHYMO 12 h AES
1
APSWM Note: Areal reduction factors for J4 are the same as those for J3. From
0 0 U.S. Weather Bureau 1957, TP 29.
1 10 100
Return period (year)

3.4. Validation of the probabilistic rainfall areal OTTHYMO is close to that determined by APSWM. The
reduction method comparison figure for J4 (not shown) illustrated a very sim-
Reduction factors for different storm durations and points ilar pattern. These figures suggest that the proposed rainfall
of interest determined using the adjustment curves in TP-29 areal reduction method for use with the analytical probabil-
are listed in Table 4. Results for J3 with and without areal istic approach may provide similar effect as the conventional
reduction are plotted in Fig. 7. Since OTTHYMO results us- areal rainfall reduction method used with IDF curves and
ing the two types of design storms are quite close to each design storms. It is therefore worthwhile to conduct further
other on a millimeter per hour (mm/h) basis, to avoid over- research about the application of this new rainfall areal re-
crowding, results from only the 12 h AES storms are plotted duction approach.
in Fig. 7. The drainage area at J3 is 23 872 ha which is From Fig. 7, it can also be seen that OTTHYMO and
much larger than that of J2. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that, APSWM results are quite close to each other for return peri-
for the same return period, the decrease of flood peaks re- ods greater than 10 years. For return periods below 10 years,
sulting from rainfall areal reduction determined by flood peaks estimated by APSWM are lower than those esti-

Published by NRC Research Press

 Guo and Dai
Fig. 6. Analytical probabilistic stormwater model (APSWM) and
OTTHYMO modeling results for Junction 2 (catchment area =
7049 ha) with rainfall areal reduction.
7 7
OTTHYMO 24 h Chicago
6 120
Flood peak (mm/h)
Flood peak (m3/s)
5 OTTHYMO 12 h AES
80
4 APSWM
3
2 40
1 100
0 0
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
1 10 100
Return period (year)
Fig. 7. Analytical probabilistic stormwater model (APSWM) and
OTTHYMO modeling results for Junction 3 (catchment area =
23 872 ha) with and without rainfall areal reduction.
7 450
OTTHYMO without areal reduction
6 400
OTTHYMO with areal reduction
Flood peak (mm/h)
Flood peak (m3/s)
5 350
APSWM without areal reduction 300
4 APSWM with areal reduction 250
3 200
150
2
100
For personal use only.
1 50
0 0
1 10 100
Return period (year)
mated by OTTHYMO. This is the same as for single sub-
catchments with highly permeable soils (No. 40, Fig. 3). Up-
stream of J2 and J3, the majority of the catchment soils are
also highly permeable. The comparison figure for J2 showed
a similar pattern as that shown in Fig. 7 for J3. The under-
estimation of lower return period flood peaks of APSWM
for highly permeable areas is likely caused by the use of dif-
ferent rainfall loss calculation methods. After satisfying the
initial losses, the runoff CN method estimates rainfall losses
as a portion of the incoming rainfall, and there is always
some runoff regardless of how intense the rainfall event is.
While APSWM calculates the potential infiltration loss as
the product of infiltration rate and rainfall event duration, if
the incoming rainfall event volume is less than this potential
loss, all the incoming rainfall is lost and no runoff occurs.
For highly permeable soils, APSWM estimated potential
loss is high and the resulting runoff volume is lower than
that estimated by the runoff CN method. This is especially
true for lower return period storms. Therefore, APSWM pre-
dicted lower return-period flood peaks are slightly lower
than those predicted by OTTHYMO for catchments with
highly permeable soils. Under longer return-period storms,
rainfall losses are insignificant compared with storm vol-
umes, thus APSWM and OTTHYMO results are closer.
3.5. Representation of geographical locational differences
in rainfall conditions
In using the design storm approach, a set of design storms
of various durations and return periods is employed to repre-
sent the rainfall conditions of a geographical location. Using
941
Fig. 8. Analytical probabilistic stormwater model (APSWM) and
OTTHYMO modeling results for Junction 4 (catchment area =
27 691 ha) with the watershed located in Toronto and Peterborough.
Toronto ‐ OTTHYMO 500
Flood peak (mm/h)
Peterborough ‐ OTTHYMO
Flood peak (m3/s)
5 400
Peterborough ‐ APSWM
4
Toronto ‐ APSWM 300
3
200
2
1
0 0
1 10 100
Return period (year)
the analytical probabilistic approach, only four parameters
(i.e., x, l, j, and q) are employed to represent the rainfall
conditions of a geographic location. Although not yet specif-
ically demonstrated, it is implied that the differences in the
values of the four parameters are sufficient to reflect the dif-
ferences in rainfall conditions between geographic locations.
To evaluate the adequacy of the analytical probabilistic ap-
proach in reflecting locational differences, both APSWM
and OTTHYMO models of the entire watershed were run
again using rainfall data from the Peterborough station
which is approximately 150 km away from the Toronto
Pearson International Airport.
Junction J4 is the outlet of the entire Ganaraska River
watershed. The comparison for J4 is plotted in Fig. 8. Again
OTTHYMO results for the two types of design storms are
close to each other on a millimeter per hour (mm/h) basis,
and thus only results from the 24 h Chicago storms are pre-
sented in Fig. 8. The OTTHYMO results show that flood
peaks for the same return period are larger if the catchment
is located in Toronto; the higher the return period, the larger
the difference. The same pattern of locational difference in
flood peaks is reflected by APSWM results. This seems to
suggest that using only four parameters, the analytical prob-
abilistic approach is capable of representing the unique rain-
fall conditions of a location. To verify this, more locations
should be investigated in the future.
4. Summary and conclusions
Since 1998, APSWM has been developed, verified, and
continuously improved so that it can be used for urban
stormwater management planning and analysis. This study
was conducted to expand the capabilities of APSWM so
that it can also be used in watershed and master drainage
planning studies. The proposed rainfall areal reduction
method involves adjustment of only the value of the rainfall
event volume probability distribution parameter x. The de-
gree of adjustment can be determined following the same
procedure as in estimating the areal reduction factors for
use with design storms. Comparison in this study showed
that the proposed rainfall areal reduction method provides
very similar effects as those produced by the conventional
method used with the design storm approach.
The proposed area-weighted lumping for imperviousness
and soil infiltration parameters and the flow-weighted lump-
ing for time of concentration of parallel hydrologic elements
Published by NRC Research Press
 942
provide the essential catchment aggregation strategy re-
quired for the application of APSWM-analytical equations.
Application of this strategy in the case study demonstrated
that catchment aggregation does not noticeably increase the
difference between design storm modeling and APSWM re-
sults when compared on the basis of millimeters of water
per unit catchment area per hour (mm/h) of water per unit
catchment area. Comparisons for cases involving various de-
grees of aggregation seemed to illustrate that the proposed
strategy is appropriate.
It is shown in this paper that the input parameters of run-
off curve-number (CN) and Nash instantaneous unit hydro-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
graph methods may be converted to their equivalent
counterparts required for input to APSWM. Comparison in
the case study confirmed that these conversions do not result
in increased difference between design storm and APSWM
results for catchments with medium to high CNs. As the
catchment area increases, APSWM is still capable of provid-
ing accurate flood peaks as compared with design storm
modeling results. Only for return periods lower than 10 years
and catchments with very low CNs (i.e., dominated by
highly permeable soils), the difference between design storm
and APSWM results becomes consistently larger. Design
storm modeling results themselves may be highly imprecise
for cases with very low CNs because the results are ex-
tremely sensitive to antecedent soil moisture conditions that
For personal use only.
are difficult to estimate. Cases with low CNs should there-
fore be dealt with caution.
Comparison for the same catchments but with Peterbor-
ough and Toronto rainfall data inputs quantified that, in rep-
resenting local rainfall conditions and their impact on the
frequency distribution of surface runoff-generated floods,
the four parameters used in the analytical probabilistic ap-
proach (i.e., x, l, j, and q) provide comparable degrees of
effectiveness as design storms. The four rainfall parameters
are perhaps sufficient descriptors of local rainfall conditions
for stormwater management purposes.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the Centre for Earth and Environ-
mental Technologies of Ontario and the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is grate-
fully acknowledged. Assistance provided by the Ganaraska
Region Conservation Authority is also greatly appreciated.
References
Adams, B.J., and Howard, C.D.D. 1986. Design storm pathology.
Canadian Water Resources Journal, 11(3): 49–55.
Adams, B.J., and Papa, F. 2000. Urban stormwater management
planning with analytical probabilistic models. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Allen, R.J., and DeGaetano, A.T. 2005. Areal reduction factors for
two eastern United States regions with high rain-gauge density.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 10(4): 327–335. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2005)10:4(327).
Greenland International Consulting Inc. 2002. Visual OTTHY-
MOTM v2.0 Reference Manual. Ontario, Canada.
Guo, Y. 2001. Hydrologic design of urban flood control detention
pond. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 6(6): 472–479.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2001)6:6(472).
Guo, Y., and Adams, B.J. 1998a. Hydrologic analysis of urban
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 36, 2009
catchments with event-based probabilistic models, 1. Runoff vo-
lume. Water Resources Research, 34(12): 3421–3431. doi:10.
1029/98WR02449.
Guo, Y., and Adams, B.J. 1998b. Hydrologic analysis of urban
catchments with event-based probabilistic models, 2. Peak dis-
charge rate. Water Resources Research, 34(12): 3433–3443.
doi:10.1029/98WR02448.
Guo, Y., and Adams, B.J. 1999a. An analytical probabilistic ap-
proach to sizing flood control detention facilities. Water Re-
sources Research, 35(8): 2457–2468. doi:10.1029/
1999WR900125.
Guo, Y., and Adams, B.J. 1999b. Analysis of detention ponds for
storm water quality control. Water Resources Research, 35(8):
2447–2456. doi:10.1029/1999WR900124.
Guo, Y., and Zhuge, Z. 2008. Analytical probabilistic flood routing
for urban stormwater management purposes. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, 35: 487–499. doi:10.1139/L07-131.
Hogg, W.D. 1980. Time Distribution of short duration rainfall in
Canada. In Proceedings of the Canadian Hydrology Symposium,
Toronto, Ont., May 26–27, pp 53–63.
Levy, B., and McCuen, R. 1999. Assessment of storm duration for
hydrologic design. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 4(3):
209–213. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1999)4:3(209).
Maidment, D.R. (Editor). 1993. Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-
Hill, Inc. New York.
Marsalek, J., and Watt, W.E. 1984. Design storms for urban drai-
nage design. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 11: 574–
584.
MOE and MNR. 1993a. Watershed management on a watershed
basis: implementing an ecosystem approach. Ministry of Envir-
onment and Energy and Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen’s
Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ont.
MOE and MNR. 1993b. Subwatershed Planning. Ministry of Envir-
onment and Energy and Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s
Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ont.
MNR. 1986. Ontario Floodplain Management Technical Guide-
lines, Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Printer for On-
tario, Toronto, Ont.
Packman, J.C., and Kidd, C.H.R. 1980. A logical approach to the
design storm concept. Water Resources Research, 16(6): 994–
1000. doi:10.1029/WR016i006p00994.
Palynchuk, B., and Guo, Y. 2008. Threshold analysis of rainstorm
depth and duration statistics at Toronto, Canada. Journal of Hy-
drology (Amsterdam), 348: 535–545. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.
10.023.
Quader, A., and Guo, Y. 2006. Peak discharge estimation for urban
catchments using analytical probabilistic and design storm ap-
proaches. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 11(1): 46–54.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:1(46).
Restrepo-Posada, P.J., and Eagleson, P.S. 1982. Identification of in-
dependent rainstorms. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 55:
303–319. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(82)90136-6.
Rivera, P., Gironas, J., Montt, J.P., and Fernandez, B. 2005. An
analytical model for hydrologic analysis in urban watersheds. In
proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Urban Drai-
nage (on CD), Copenhagen, Denmark, 21–26 August.
Schaeffer & Associates Ltd. 2005. Ganaraska river watershed hy-
drology update. Report to Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority. Available from Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority, Port Hope, Ontario.
Sivapalan, M., and Bloschl, G. 1998. Transformation of point to
areal rainfall: Intensity-duration-frequency curves. Journal of
Hydrology (Amsterdam), 204: 150–167. doi:10.1016/S0022-
1694(97)00117-0.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Guo and Dai
Smith, A.A. 2004. MIDUSS1 Version 2, Reference manual.
Rev2.00, Produced by Alan A. Smith Inc., Dundas, Ontario.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1972. National engineering hand-
book. Hydrology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
U.S. Weather Bureau. 1957. Rainfall intensity-frequency regime –
Part 1. The Ohio Valley, TP-29, U. S. Department of Com-
merce, Washington, D.C., 44 pp.
Veneziano, D., and Langousis, A. 2005. The areal reduction factor:
A multifractal analysis. Water Resources Research, 41: W07008.
doi:10.1029/2004WR003765.
Water Environment Federation (WEF) and American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1992. Design and construction of urban
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of P.E.I. on 11/14/14
stormwater management systems. ASCE Manual and Reports of
Engineering Practice No. 77, WEF Manual of Practice FD-20.
Yoo, C., Kim, K., Kim, H.S., and Park, M.J. 2007. Estimation of
areal reduction factors using a mixed gamma distribution. Jour-
nal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 335: 271–284. doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2006.11.026.
List of symbols
Ai area of subcatchment i (ha);
b rainfall inter-event time (h);
E(VRi) expected value of runoff volume per rainfall event
of subcatchment i (mm);
fB(b) probability density function of inter-event time;
fc ultimate infiltration capacity of soil (mm/h);
For personal use only.
fm maximum infiltration capacity of dry soils (mm/h);
fT(t) probability density function of rainfall event dura-
tion;
fV(v) probability density function of rainfall event volume;
943
fVa ðva Þ probability density function of areal average rainfall
event volume;
K reservoir storage coefficient of a linear reservoir (h);
m total number of subcatchments in a lumped catch-
ment;
n number of reservoirs in Nash Instantaneous Unit
Hydrograph;
P the value of a parameter for a lumped catchment;
Pi the value of a parameter for subcatchment i;
Sdi depression storage of impervious areas (mm);
Sdp depression storage of pervious areas (mm);
Sil initial loss of pervious areas (mm);
Siw initial soil wetting infiltration volume (mm);
t rainfall event duration (h);
t average rainfall event duration (h);
tc time of concentration of a catchment (h);
tci time of concentration of subcatchment i (h);
tp time to peak of a unit hydrograph (h);
v rainfall event volume (mm);
va areally averaged rainfall event volume (mm);
wi weight for subcatchment i used in the lumping of
time of concentration;
x distribution parameter of point rainfall event vo-
lume (1/mm);
xa distribution parameter of areal average rainfall
event volume (1/mm);
q average number of rainfall events per year;
l distribution parameter of rainfall event duration (1/h);
j distribution parameter of inter-event time (1/h; and
h a specific rainfall areal reduction factor value (frac-
tion).
Published by NRC Research Press