See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334204224

Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Analysis for the City of Gaziantep

Conference Paper · April 2019

CITATION READS

1 4,102

2 authors:

Mehmet Ishak Yuce İbrahim Halil Deger

Gaziantep University Hasan Kalyoncu University
92 PUBLICATIONS   873 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analysis of low flow and drought in hydrological watersheds View project

Investigation of Hydrokinetic Turbines as an Alternative Energy Production Method (in Turkish) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehmet Ishak Yuce on 03 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RAINFALL INTENSITY DURATION-
1 2

1
Civil Engineering Department, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey
2
, Civil Engineering Department, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

Abstract

Intensity-Duration Frequency (IDF) curves represent a relationship between duration, intensity and frequency
(return period) of rainfall, which are obtained from a series of analysis of observed rainfall data. IDF curves are
generally used in the design of hydrologic, hydraulic and water resource projects, particularly storm water
collection systems. The annual maximum rainfall depths over the specific durations were acquired from the
recorded rainfall measurements of 59 year ranging from 1957 to 2015, which are obtained from the General
Directorate of Meteorology of Turkey.

Changes in the local or global climate, as a result of upsurge in greenhouse gases, leads to variations in intensity,
duration and frequency of precipitation events. Quantifying the potential effects of climate change and adapting
to them is one way to reduce urban vulnerability, particularly avoiding city floods. Since, the rainfall intensity-
duration frequency curves are regularly utilised to design water resources projects, in order to have safe and
economic hydraulic structures studying and updating rainfall characteristics and consistent hydrologic analysis
of rainfall intensity for future climate scenarios is vital. Precipitation analyses should be performed for different
rainfall durations, and diverse return periods. The development of IDF curves necessitates that a frequency
analysis to be conducted for each set of annual maxima, each associated with one rainfall duration. The
fundamental objective of every frequency analysis is to determine the exceedance probability distribution
function of rainfall intensity for every single rainfall duration.

The aim of this study is to obtain IDF curves for the city of Gaziantep for rainfall durations of 5-min, 10-min,
15-min, 30-min, 1-hr, 2-hr, 3-hr, 4-hr, 5-hr, 6-hr, 8-hr, 12-hr and 18-hr. The analyses were conducted for return
periods of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 1000 years by utilizing Gumbel and Log-Pearson Type III distributions, which
are commonly used frequency analysis methods. The results of this investigation are expected to be useful to the
local authorities of the city of Gaziantep.

Keywords: IDF curves; Gumbel distributions; Log-Pearson Type III distributions; Climate change

1.

Intensity-Duration Frequency (IDF) curves represent a relationship between duration, intensity and frequency
(return period) of rainfall, which are obtained from a series of analysis of observed rainfall data. Intensity
duration frequency (IDF) relationship of observed rainfall is one of the most common mathematical relations
used in water resources engineering for planning, design and operation of water related designs. One of the first
steps in many hydrologic design projects, such as drainage design, is the determination of the rainfall event or
events to be used and this process is generally done with intensity-duration-frequency curves (IDF) which shows
intensity and duration of a design storm at the same time (Chow et al. 1988). Being able to successfully fulfil the
purpose of a hydraulic structure to be designed is related analysing maximum rainfall events properly (Huang et
al. 2016).

It was predicted that by the end of 21st century a significant reduction in the return period of an annual
maximum precipitation amount with frequent occurrence of extreme rainfall events will take place (IPCC, 2012;
Fadhel et al., 2017). The sensitivity of urban storm water collection systems can be negatively affected by such
changes (Willems 2013; Fadhel et al. 2017). Therefore, in order to prevent damages due to storm water
collection systems, intensity-duration-frequency analysis must be done cautiously. Usually, intensity-duration-
frequency (IDF) curves are obtained in order to estimate return periods by using a series of observed rainfall data
with suitable distribution type according to desired rainfall duration (Overeem et al. 2008; Cheng and
Aghakouchak, 2014; Tfwala et al. 2017).
There are methods which are mainly used theoretical distributions that have been applied in different regions all
around the world like Gumbel, Pearson Type 3 distributions (Dupont & Allen 2000; Nhat et al.2006; Acar and
Senocak 2008).

For the present or future climatic conditions in order to analyse and model hydrological events of urban
watersheds reliably, it is needed to utilise hourly or even sub-hourly precipitation data (Watt et al. 2003; Segond
et al. 2006; Fadhel et. al. 2017). For this reason data has been obtained in minutes and hours. The aim of this
study is to obtain IDF curves for the city of Gaziantep for rainfall durations of 5-min, 10-min, 15-min, 30-min, 1-
hr, 2-hr, 6-hr, 12-hr and 18-hr. The analyses were conducted for return periods of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 1000
years by utilizing Gumbel and Log-Pearson Type III distributions, which are commonly used frequency analysis
methods. The results of this investigation are expected to be useful to the local authorities of the city of
Gaziantep.

2. Theory

As it is mentioned earlier, two different distributions, namely, Gumbel and Log-Pearson Type III distributions
have been used in order to analyse the intensity-duration-frequency curves. Since intensity-duration-frequency
curves are obtained with process in which intensities are on vertical axis in terms of mm/hr and durations are on
horizontal axis, all observed rainfall data must be converted into mm/hr unit. Therefore in order to obtain
intensities in terms of mm/hr following formula is used. (Chow et al. 1988)

P
i (1)
T D

where P is rainfall depth in mm and Td is the rainfall duration in hours.

2.1. Gumbel Distribution

Gumbel (1958) presented the theory of extremes by considering the distribution of the largest or the smallest
values observed in repeated samples. The Gumbel theory is the most widely used distribution for IDF analysis
due to its suitableness for modelling of maximum data. It is relatively easy and it can be used only for extreme
events (maximum data or peak rainfalls) (Elsebaie 2011; Usul 2001). The design rainfall depth for a given period
can be calculated by the following equation (Chow et al. 1988)

X T XT K sT T
(2)
D
D

where and s shows the mean and the standard deviation of different specified rainfall durations of TD
respectively and also KT is the frequency factor which can be calculated from following formula. (Chow et al.
1988)

6 T
K T
0, 5772 ln ln (3)
T 1

where T is return period.

2.2. Log Pearson Type III Distribution

Log Pearson Type III distribution model is used in order to determine the rainfall intensity at different rainfall
durations and return periods for generating the historical IDF curves. Log Pearson Type III distribution is
frequently used for flood analysis (Usul 2001). In this distribution following parameters of distribution must be
calculated.

log x
log x (4)
n
 2

(log log x)
S log x
(5)
n 1
3
n (log x log x)
G 3
(6)
(n 1)(n 2)(s log x )

where n is the number of data and G is coefficient of skewness. Equation 4 gives the mean of data, while
Equation 5 presents standard deviation of data. Magnitudes corresponding to a return period can be calculated by
following formula. (Usul 2001)

log x log x K s T log x

(7)

3. Results

The calculated KT values which are utilised in analyses, the rainfall amounts with respect to specific durations
and the return periods for Gumbel distribution are given in Table 1. The intensity-duration-frequency curves
obtained from Gumbel distribution are presented in Figures 1 and 2. In the Log Pearson Type III analysis, KT
values (frequency factors) have been calculated from K values of Log Pearson Type III distribution table
(Hoggan 1989) by performing an interpolation procedure between the reference values. Calculated KT values are
given in Table 2. By combining Equations 4, 5, 6, 7 and Table 2, magnitudes of each return period with respect
to specific rainfall durations have been calculated. The results are given in Table 3. The intensity-duration-
frequency curves acquired from Log Pearson Type III analyses are demonstrated in Figure 3.

Logarithmic value of every single data is obtained for the analysis. In order to perceive the extreme rainfall value
of each return period the antilog of Equation 7 was acquired, the results are presented in Table 4. Also intensity-
duration-frequency curves which were achieved are illustrated in Figure 4.

Table 1: Calculated KT and rainfall values and with respect to rainfall duration and return period.

Return Periods
2 5 10 25 50 100 1000
Frequency factors, KT
Rainfall -0.16427 0.719547 1.3045632 2.0438459 2.592288 3.1366806 4.9355236
Duration
0.0833333 56.23233 91.16304 114.2902 143.5114 165.1894 186.7073 257.8093
0.16666 41.56731 66.2161 82.53574 103.1556 118.4527 133.6367 183.8097
0.25 34.33895 54.61777 68.04412 85.00835 97.59338 110.0855 151.3633
0.5 23.07742 36.64806 45.633 56.98549 65.40742 73.76717 101.3904
1 13.89276 21.57268 26.65746 33.08209 37.84825 42.57922 58.21181
2 8.694464 12.96872 15.79864 19.37426 22.02686 24.65987 33.36017
3 6.434126 9.356769 11.29181 13.73675 15.55054 17.35094 23.30002
4 5.19661 7.717763 9.386987 11.49605 13.06068 14.61376 19.7456
5 4.367307 6.423336 7.784607 9.504576 10.78055 12.0471 16.23217
6 3.765112 5.47248 6.602907 8.031204 9.090796 10.14256 13.61794
8 2.999953 4.288138 5.141028 6.218658 7.018105 8 10.43377
12 2.138555 3.006317 3.580852 4.306778 4.845311 5.379868 7.146211
18 1.570534 2.213829 2.639745 3.177893 3.577121 3.973401 5.282835

In Gumbel Distribution analysis the frequency factor KT increases with rise of the return period for any rainfall
duration (Table 1). However, in Log Pearson Type 3 analysis since frequency factor K T is related to coefficient
of skewness, each rainfall duration has a different value with respect to the return period. Nevertheless, it can be
said that KT increases in any specific rainfall duration with increase in return period (Table 2). Considering the
data in Tables 1 and 4, it can be seen that in both distributions rainfall estimates in terms of mm/hr increase with
the increase of return period for any specified rainfall duration. While rainfall estimates decrease with increasing
of rainfall duration in any specified return period.
It is observed that until 10 year return period, the rainfall estimates are higher in Gumbel distribution, while from
25 year to 1000 year rainfall estimates were found to be higher in Log Pearson Type 3 distribution (Tables 1 and
Table 4). The results (Tables 1 and 4) show that, in both distributions up to 25 year return period, the difference
between the estimated rainfall values are smaller compared to the difference of 50, 100 and 1000 year return
periods. This means that the difference between analyses in terms of rainfall intensities starts becoming larger
after 25 year return period. According to the results of Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 in both distributions trend of rainfall
estimates are the same for each return period.

Figure 1: Intensity-duration- s from Gumbel Distribution.

Figure 2: Intensity-duration-frequency (idf) curves from Gumbel Distribution, log-log scale.

Table 2: Calculated KT values.

Return Periods
Rainfall Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 1000
0.08333 -0.03218 0.829615 1.300529 1.816338 2.156395 2.468378 3.36988
0.1666 -0.05846 0.819198 1.313345 1.865838 2.237701 2.582335 3.599985
0.25 -0.05431 0.820957 1.311334 1.858045 2.224881 2.564363 3.563664
0.5 -0.05979 0.818634 1.31399 1.868337 2.241812 2.588099 3.611633
1 -0.09484 0.802016 1.326614 1.931568 2.346655 2.737364 3.919469
2 -0.08321 0.807656 1.322736 1.910768 2.312106 2.688009 3.817232
3 -0.05588 0.820293 1.312903 1.860987 2.22972 2.571147 3.577374
4 -0.0575 0.819606 1.312879 1.864031 2.234729 2.578169 3.591565
5 -0.05639 0.820077 1.31234 1.861943 2.231294 2.573353 3.581832
6 -0.0566 0.819987 1.312444 1.862346 2.231956 2.574281 3.583707
8 -0.04256 0.825946 1.305633 1.835953 2.188535 2.513407 3.460683
12 0.005496 0.843332 1.278003 1.739175 2.035846 2.301351 3.043033
18 0.021014 0.847094 1.266717 1.705787 1.984589 2.231754 2.910422

Table 3: Calculated rainfall values with respect to duration and return period in terms of 10 based logarithms.

Return Periods
Rainfall Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 1000
0.08333 1.718247 1.931656 2.04827 2.176002 2.260211 2.337468 2.56071
0.1666 1.588464 1.788776 1.901558 2.027656 2.112528 2.191185 2.423448
0.25 1.507731 1.705358 1.81608 1.939522 2.02235 2.099002 2.324634
0.5 1.331374 1.533478 1.647448 1.77499 1.860918 1.940591 2.176082
1 1.110065 1.300389 1.411715 1.540094 1.628181 1.711094 1.961952
2 0.914763 1.089089 1.189881 1.304948 1.383482 1.45704 1.678008
3 0.791712 0.95609 1.048509 1.151334 1.220512 1.284567 1.473345
4 0.697359 0.867428 0.963072 1.069938 1.141816 1.208408 1.404902
5 0.623345 0.789448 0.88274 0.986898 1.056895 1.121721 1.312843
6 0.560208 0.721923 0.812772 0.914219 0.982405 1.045558 1.231779
8 0.464962 0.621374 0.707762 0.803269 0.866766 0.925273 1.095871
12 0.326015 0.477434 0.55599 0.639336 0.692952 0.740936 0.874977
18 0.192637 0.34852 0.427738 0.510628 0.563262 0.609923 0.738045

Figure 3: Intensity-duration-frequency (idf) curves from Log-Pearson Type III Distribution of Table 3 values.
Table 4: Calculated rainfall values with respect to duration and return period in terms of real values.

Return Periods
Rainfall Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 1000
0.08333 52.26935 85.43904 111.7558 149.969 182.0585 217.5045 363.672
0.1666 38.7672 61.48601 79.71826 106.5751 129.577 155.3049 265.1235
0.25 32.19076 50.74087 65.47572 87.00061 105.2811 125.6036 211.1711
0.5 21.44735 34.1569 44.40667 59.56491 72.59694 87.21494 149.9968
1 12.88442 19.9705 25.80568 34.68121 42.47965 51.41553 91.61191
2 8.217948 12.27692 15.48392 20.18124 24.18145 28.64439 47.64393
3 6.190307 9.038378 11.18172 14.16885 16.61546 19.25605 29.74026
4 4.981492 7.369323 9.184843 11.74731 13.86167 16.15875 25.404
5 4.200924 6.158125 7.633782 9.702815 11.39975 13.2349 20.55146
6 3.632524 6.157883 7.634128 9.704522 11.40304 13.24026 20.56828
8 2.917174 4.181902 5.102253 6.357241 7.358107 8.419245 12.47012
12 2.118434 3.00216 3.597412 4.358489 4.931195 5.507263 7.498547
18 1.558001 2.231102 2.677553 3.240619 3.658152 4.073079 5.47073

Figure 4: Intensity-duration-frequency (idf) curves from Log-Pearson Type III Distribution of Table 4 values.

4. Conclusion

In this study IDF curves for the city of Gaziantep for rainfall durations of 5-min, 10-min, 15-min, 30-min, 1-hr,
2-hr, 6-hr, 12-hr and 18-hr have been obtained. The analyses were conducted for return periods of 2, 5, 10, 25,
50, 100, 1000 years by utilizing Gumbel and Log-Pearson Type III distributions, which are commonly used
frequency analysis methods. According to analysis for 2, 5, 10 return periods, rainfall values are expected to be
higher in Gumbel Distribution, while for 25, 50, 100, 1000 return periods, rainfall values were noted to be higher
in Log-Pearson type III distribution. The results of this investigation are expected to be useful to the local
authorities of the city of Gaziantep.

5. Acknowledgements
The data of the annual maximum rainfall depths over the specific durations were acquired from the recorded
rainfall measurements of 59 year ranging from 1957 to 2015, which are obtained from the General Directorate of
Meteorology of Turkey. For their important support we want to thank General Directorate of Meteorology of
Turkey.
View publication stats

References

Acar,R. & ,S.(2008). Modelling of Short Duration Rainfall Intensity Equations for Ankara
Turkey,BALWOIS 2008-OHRID, Republic of Macedonia,27.
Chow, V.T., Maidment, D. R. & Mays L. W. (1988). Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Dupont,B.S. & Allen, D.L. (2000). Revision of the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the Commonwealth of
Kentucky. Kentucky Transportation Center, College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, Research
Report: KTC-00-18.
Elsebaie, I. H.(2012). Developing Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency Relationship for Two Regions in
Saudi Arabia, Journal of King Saud University Engineering Sciences, 24: (131-140).
Fadhel,S., Rico-Ramirez,M.A. & Dawei,H.(2017). Uncertainty of Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Curves
due to Varied Climate Baseline Periods, Journal of Hydrology, 547: (600-612).
Gumbel, E.J. (1958). Statics of Extremes, Colombia University.
Hoggan, D.H. (1989). Computer-Assisted Floodplain Hydrology & Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill.
Huang Y. F., Mirzaei, M. & Mat Amin, M. Z. (2016). Uncertainty Quantification in Rainfall Intensity Duration
Frequency Curves based on Historical Extreme Precipitation Quantiles, Journal of Procedia Engineering,
154: (426-432).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Summary for Policy Makers. Cambridge University
Press.
Nhat, L.M., Tachikawa, Y. & Takara, K. (2006). Establishment of intensity-duration-frequency Curves for
Precipitation in the Monsoon Area of Wietnam, Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto University,
No:49 B.
Segond, M.-L., Onof, C. & Wheater, H.S. (2006). Spatial temporal Disaggregation of Daily Rainfall from a
Generalized Linear Model, Journal of Hydrology, 331, (674 689).
Tfwala, C.M., van Rensburg, L.D., Schall R., Mosia, S.M. & Dlamini, P. (2017). Precipitation Intensity-
Duration- Frequency Curves and their Uncertainties for Ghaap Plateau. Journal of Climate Risk
Management,
16: (1-9).
Watt, W.E., Waters, D. & McLean, R., (2003). Climate variability and Urban Stormwater Infrastructure in
Canada: Context and Case studies. Report and Working Paper Series, (Toronto-Niagara Region Study on
Atmospheric Change), Report 2003 1.
Willems, P. (2013). Revision of Urban Drainage Design Rules after Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on
p-Precipitation Extremes at Uccle, Belgium. Journal of Hydrology, 496, (166-177).
Usul, N. (2001). Engineering Hydrology, Metu Press.