105

ARTICLE
Critical review of the evolution of the design storm event concept
Ed Watt and Jiri Marsalek

Abstract: A critical review of the literature and practice indicates that design storm events, which have been used in specic
elds of Canadian and US engineering practice for more than 100 years, can be ascribed to six basic attributes: (a) design return
period, (b) storm duration, (c) intensitydurationfrequency (idf) relations (representing a summary of historical rainfall data,
with some extrapolation for longer return periods), (d) temporal distribution (design hyetograph), (e) areal reduction factor, and
(f) antecedent moisture conditions. Concerns about climate change (or variability) and the need to adapt to the associated
climatic conditions prompted many agencies, and particularly municipalities, to revisit the design storm event issue, particu-
larly in connection with drainage design. It would appear that this analysis has mostly focused on a single property of design
storms idf relations and projected increases in rainfall intensities. The review concludes that the design practice would be well
served by adopting a comprehensive approach considering all design storm event characteristics and their sensitivity to climate
change and inherent uncertainties in the existing idf relations as well as hydraulic design of sewer networks.

Key words: stormwater infrastructure, design rainfall (idf curves), design return period, antecedent conditions, areal reduction
factor.

Rsum : Une analyse critique de la littrature et des pratiques indique que les pluies de projet, qui ont t utilises dans des
domaines spciques de l'ingnierie au Canada et aux tats-Unis depuis plus de 100 ans, sont entirement dnies par six
attributs de base: (a) priode de retour de conception, (b) la dure de l'pisode pluvieux, (c) relations idf (reprsentant un rsum
des donnes historiques de prcipitation, avec extrapolation pour les priodes de retour plus longues), (d) la distribution
temporelle (hytogrammes de projet), (e) facteur de rduction de supercie et (f) les conditions antcdentes d'humidit. Les
proccupations concernant le changement (ou la variabilit) climatique et la ncessit de s'adaptor aux conditions climatiques
associes ont incit de nombreux organismes, et en particulier les municipalits, a rexaminer la question des pluies de projet,
en particulier dans le cadre de la conception des systmes de drainage. Il semblerait que cette analyse ait principalement port
sur une seule des proprits des pluies de projet les relations idf et les augmentations prvues de l'intensit des pluies. L'tude
conclut que la conception des pluies de projet pourrait bncier de l'adoption d'une approche globale tenant compte de
l'ensemble de leurs caractristiques et de leur sensibilit au changement climatique, des incertitudes inhrentes aux relations
idf existantes ainsi que de la conception hydraulique des rseaux d'gouts. [Traduit par la Rdaction]

Mots-cls : infrastructure des eaux pluviales, pluviomtrique (relations idf), priode de retour de conception, conditions antc-
dentes, facteur de rduction de supercie.

Introduction are attributed certain catchment conditions, or (ii) actual histori-

The use of design storms, or more precisely, design storm
events (DSEs), has been common practice in the United States and
Canada for well over 100 years, if one includes the block rainfall in
the rational method. Applications that include a design rainfall
hyetograph date back to the late 1930s for larger watersheds and
the 1940s for smaller urban watersheds. Research and develop-
ment reached its zenith in the 1970s and 1980s with the wide-
spread access to computers. However, following that period,
research and development fell off for about 20 years and only
relatively recently has interest picked up, possibly spurred on by
concerns over potential climate change.
As research scientists, developers of design storms, engineers
familiar with current practice, and interested observers of the
current focus in some jurisdictions on solving the problem by
changing only one parameter in design storm events, we think
that a useful rst step might be to provide a critical review of
urban and small basin DSEs. The review is limited to planning and
design applications on small and intermediate watersheds. Fur-
thermore, design storm events can be either (i) events that have
never occurred but are derived by synthesis of rainfall data and
cal rainfall events that were well documented with respect to
their characteristics and resulting ood damage. Only the rst,
more common and general type of design storms is addressed
here, even though the value of historical design storms, particu-
larly in major drainage design and oodplain delineation, is rec-
ognized and acknowledged.
This paper has two objectives: (i) to provide a critical review of
work to date and (ii) to identify emerging issues, challenges, and
possible directions for future research. The rst part of the paper
includes (i) a brief summary of the historical need for small wa-
tershed design storm events and (ii) a critical review of design
storm event attributes and components proposed and employed
over the past 35 years. The second part examines the scope of
considerations to be made in design storm event applications in a
changing climate.
Historical need for design storm events
Storm sewers and drainage design
The earliest application of design storm events in North Amer-
ica was in the design of sewers in Rochester, New York following

Received 22 December 2011. Accepted 26 November 2012.

E. Watt. Civil Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L3N6, Canada.
J. Marsalek. National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON L7R4A6, Canada.
Corresponding author: Ed Watt (e-mail: edw@xcg.com).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 40: 105113 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2011-0594 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 5 February 2013.
106
the pioneering work of Kuichling (1889). Using the rational
method, peak discharge (in cfs) was computed as the product of
the runoff coefcient, the average rainfall intensity (in inches/
hour) over a duration equal to the time of concentration for a
specied return period, and the drainage area (in acres). The de-
sign rainfall hyetograph was then a block of rainfall, the anteced-
ent conditions (if considered at all) were represented by the runoff
coefcient and the design return period was given by the rainfall
return period.
For storm sewer design, the rational method remains to this day
the method of choice in many jurisdictions, sometimes with out-
of-date intensitydurationfrequency (idf) relations and values of
design return period assigned 50 years ago. One reason for the
rational method's widespread use (in addition to its simplicity) is,
as noted by Chow (1964), that the underlying assumptions might
nearly hold for paved areas with gutters and sewers of xed di-
mensions and hydraulic characteristics. The method is also ap-
plied in many rural applications. However, the underlying
assumptions are less likely to hold as the drainage area increases
because of higher likelihood of surface storage and variation in
inltration potential, which is particularly signicant in the cur-
rently promoted low impact development (LID) approach to drain-
age design.
In the mid-20th century, the development of so-called
hydrograph methods in selected urban centres in the United States
(e.g., Los Angeles and Chicago) marked a major breakthrough in
the inclusion of hydrologic science in drainage design. These
methods, which predated the development of urban runoff meth-
ods by several decades, were based on the rainfallrunoff process.
The City of Los Angeles method dates back to 1939 (Hicks 1944)
and the Chicago Hydrograph Method to the late 1940s (Keifer and
Chu 1957; Tholin and Keifer 1960). Both methods are quite com-
prehensive in terms of realistic design hyetographs based on local
data, type of land use, consideration of ow paths, depression
storage, inltration based on local data, overland ow, gutter
ow, conduit storage and, in the Chicago case, areal variation of
rainfall.
Design ood estimates for watersheds of small and
intermediate size
Where records of streamow data are either short or non-
existent, design ood estimates are typically determined by
simulating a design event with a prescribed rainfall input. Ap-
plications include (i) culverts, bridges, and small dams; (ii) mi-
nor and major urban drainage systems; (iii) master drainage
planning; (iv) oodplain delineation; and (v) protection of crit-
ical infrastructure.
The widespread availability of digital computers in the 1960s
and 1970s led to the development of event-based models for rural
and urban watersheds. As with their predecessors, hydrograph
methods, these models incorporated hydrologic science and were
based on the rainfallrunoff process. For urban applications, the
Storm Water Management Model, SWMM (Metcalfe et al. 1971) has
become the model of choice in the United States and Canada. For
rural and pre-post applications, the Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-HMS (USACE 2000) is a common model. With the advent of
tested and supported public-domain event models, there is no
longer any problem in representing the drainage basin and mod-
eling the rainfallrunoff process. However, there can be problems
in generating realistic results that are appropriate for planning
and design. These problems can arise for a number of reasons,
including selection of an inappropriate design storm. Accord-
ingly, key contributions to our knowledge base of design storm
events are reviewed in the following section, building on two
previous publications (Watt and Marsalek 1977; Marsalek and
Watt 1984).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
Knowledge base of design storm events
Design rainfall temporal distributions derived from
measured point rainfall distributions
Following the work on urban design storms in Los Angeles and
Chicago, several temporal distributions were developed using ob-
served storm rainfall data for areas in a number of countries.
These design hyetographs were intended for applications on both
urban and (generally larger) rural watersheds. A number of these
hyetographs, which were well publicized in the international lit-
erature, are briey discussed below.
United States
Huff (1967) developed temporal distributions for the US Mid-
west; he sorted observed storms into four groups with peak inten-
sity occurring in rst, second, third or fourth quartile, and within
individual quartiles, he presented distributions as probability
groups, with the 10th percentile storm approximating an expo-
nential distribution and the 90th percentile almost uniform. The
median curve (50%) of the rst quartile storms was recommended
for most applications (Terstriep and Stall 1974). Yen and Chow
(1980) used the method of moments to develop a triangular di-
mensionless hyetograph, based on over 9000 storms at four loca-
tions. In a subsequent paper (Yen and Chow 1983), they presented
a map of the United States showing the ratio of time to peak
intensity to storm duration. The ratio ranged somewhat system-
atically from 0.250.30 in the east to 0.45 in the west.
Australia
Pilgrim et al. (1969), Pilgrim and Cordery (1975), and Pilgrim
(1987) used local data to develop design rainfall patterns for Syd-
ney, Australia. This work was extended to six climatological zones
of Australia (Institution of Engineers, Australia 1977); temporal
patterns for durations from 12 min to 24 h were provided.
United Kingdom
Packman and Kidd (1980) presented, an alternative to continu-
ous simulation, a design storm event that included the following
hydrological inputs: (i) a design rainfall depth, (ii) rainfall dura-
tion, (iii) design hyetograph, and (iv) catchment antecedent wet-
ness based on 15 d antecedent precipitation index and soil
moisture decit (estimated nationally by using a running water
balance).
Canada
Hogg (1980) used a method similar to that of Huff to analyze
storms of 1 and 12 h duration for 35 stations across Canada. He
developed regional time probability distributions for the various
regions of Canada. In a subsequent article, Hogg (1982) developed
AES Distributions for each station by matching the three most
important parameters characterizing the time distribution of
storm rainfall in a municipality: the magnitude of the peak with
respect to the total accumulation, the timing of the peak, and the
rainfall prior to the peak. He presented 1 and 12 h distributions (in
cumulative hyetograph form) for eight regions of Canada. Watt
et al. (1986), using the same storm data set as Hogg, developed the
HYDROTEK two-component, dimensionless 1 h design hyetograph
(linear rise and exponential decay) for 45 stations across Canada.
This model preserves both the average peakedness and the time to
peak intensity of the observed rainfall and was intended for ap-
plications on urban watersheds. In comparison to Yen and Chow's
work, the ratio of time to peak to storm duration ranged from 0.25
in the BC interior and Alberta to 0.45 in Northern Ontario, Nova
Scotia, and Newfoundland. Westhoff et al. (1993) extended the
HYDROTEK distribution to longer duration storms in Calgary and
found that a third parameter improved the t for atter, longer
duration storms. Most recently, Peyron et al. (2002) used 52 year
rainfall series (Dorval Airport, Quebec) to develop an optimal de-
sign storm pattern for urban runoff estimation in Southern
Published by NRC Research Press
Watt and Marsalek
Quebec as a hyetograph with a total volume of 1.3 1 h volume
from the idf curves (for a selected return period), a symmetrical
peak intensity burst consisting of three 5 min intervals with in-
tensities of 0.8 i15, 1.4 i15, and 0.8 i15, respectively, and occurring
between the 20th and 35th minute from the event start, and the
remaining storm volume distributed in four 5 min intervals be-
fore and ve 5 min intervals after the peak burst.
Design rainfall temporal distributions based on
generalized or derived idf relations
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (USDA 1968) developed four
dimensionless 24 h storm distributions (presented in cumulative
form) for four storm types applicable to various regions of the
United States. Type II was intended to represent the bulk of
the country, excluding the Pacic maritime climate region and
the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastal areas. The distributions
are based on generalized depthdurationfrequency relations.
The location of the peak depends on the storm type: at 8 h for
types I and IA and at 12 h for types II and III. These design storms
were intended to be applied on watersheds normally studied by
USDA engineers.
Three common methods, based only on the derived idf relation
and not on individual storm events, termed blocked IDF distri-
butions by Viessman and Lewis (1996), are the alternating block
method, the Chicago method, and the balanced method. The de-
sign storms developed by these methods generally have a maxi-
mum intensity in the centre of the hyetograph, and a total rain
depth for any duration matching the depth given by the idf rela-
tion. Such design hyetographs are easy to construct, but have
been criticized in that they do not resemble observed storm
events; this is particularly true for the Chicago storm, in which
the assumption that the design storm should contain all rainfall
maxima contradicts ndings for actual storms (ASCE 1992), in-
cluding those presented in the original paper (Keifer and Chu
1957). Hogg (1980) pointed out that the Chicago-type distribution
is totally inappropriate for some Canadian climates and, for most
of Canada, it is not among the most probable distributions. In a
recent simulation experiment with ve design hyetographs, in-
cluding the Chicago method, Aleri et al. (2008) noted that all
design hyetographs produced ood peak estimates that were con-
sistently biased in most of the conditions studied, and the Chicago
method tended to overestimate ows. In some cases, such an
overestimation was corrected by a scaling factor resulting in ro-
bust and nearly unbiased estimates of design ows.
Areal reduction factor
In the early studies, a point, as in point rainfall, is assumed to be
10 square miles or about 25 square kilometres (for non-
mountainous areas), but in urban studies, much smaller point
areas have been considered (Bengtsson and Niemczynowicz
1986). For larger catchments, the leading design manual (ASCE
1992) recommends reducing the point value by an areal reduction
factor (ARF) to account for the decrease in average rainfall depth
away from the storm centre, however, without any further guid-
ance with respect to the catchment size. The rst comprehensive
analysis on this subject was conducted by the U.S. Weather Bureau
(USWB 1963). The results are presented as curves of ARF vs. Area
for areas up to 400 square miles for durations of 30 min, 1, 3, 6,
and 24 h. Similar ARF curves, adopted by the U.S. Soil Conserva-
tion Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee
Valley Authority were presented by Viessman and Lewis (1996).
Areal reduction factors have also been developed for specic re-
gions, for example, Los Angeles and Chicago in the studies cited
above, Southern Arizona (Woolhiser and Schwalen 1960), and
more recently, for New Jersey and North Carolina (Allen and
DeGaetano 2005) and Edmonton (Jolly et al. 2008). Bengtsson
and Niemczynowicz (1986) calculated ARFs for a number of Swedish
cities from rain system movement and found a good agreement be-
107
tween such ARFs and those calculated from a dense network of rain
gauges. Sivapalan and Bloschl (1998) developed catchment ARF fac-
tors using the spatial correlation structure of rainfall rather than
observations from a rain gauge network. In Ontario, information
from two historical storms, Hurricane Hazel in southern Ontario,
and the Timmins rain in northern Ontario, is used to dene ARFs
prescribed for oodplain delineation (MNR 2002). Svensson and
Jones (2010) reviewed the methods used to produce ARFs and noted
that no method was unambiguously correct, though the traditional
data-intensive, empirical, xed-area methods offered a number of
advantages, including producing probabilistically correct ARFs ap-
plicable over a comprehensive range of spatial and temporal scales.
Specication of antecedent conditions or catchment
wetness
Specication of antecedent conditions or catchment wetness
has received much less attention than the form of the design
hyetograph, in spite of the fact that it has much more inuence on
the magnitude of the peak ow for all watersheds except those
that are highly impervious. The form of the specication varies
with the computational method and the abstractions model. Kidd
and Packman (1980) developed an index of antecedent catchment
wetness formed from a combination of soil moisture decit and a
5 day antecedent precipitation index. A value of this index was
selected such that the exceedance probability of the peak ows
generated by the urban runoff model matched synthetic fre-
quency distributions. In the SCS curve number (CN) method
(USDA 1986), antecedent moisture conditions (AMC) can be speci-
ed in three categories (AMC I-III), depending on soil conditions
and the hydrologic soil group. For low moisture dry soils with
high inltration rates (Group A), CN is reduced; for average mois-
ture soils with moderate inltration rates (common for design),
CN is not modied; and, for high moisture resulting from heavy
rain in last few (antecedent) days, high moisture and soils with
slow or low inltration rates, the CN is increased. Nishat et al.
(2010) used a deterministic continuous simulation model to sim-
ulate antecedent moisture conditions for the Pearson Airport
(Malton, Ontario) rainfall record and a wide range of different soil
types. Statistical analysis of simulation results produced empiri-
cal equations for the estimation of average antecedent soil mois-
ture conditions on the basis of known soil characteristics (such as,
porosity and the saturated hydraulic conductivity) and the equa-
tions were veried by comparisons with eld data.
In most cases, there is no direct relation between the value
specied for the abstractions model parameter and soil water
content or average conditions are assumed (USDA 1986; Nishat
et al. 2010). Occasionally, some form of antecedent precipitation is
taken as a surrogate for soil water content. In the Chicago Hydro-
graph method, no antecedent rain was assumed prior to the be-
ginning of the 3 h storm because of the duration of the storm.
Taxonomy of design storm events for various
applications
Overview
Design storm events are a key element in the determination
of design ows and water levels for a number of applications.
The rainfall characteristics of a design storm depend on the
task at hand and the design variable, as summarized in Table 1
and discussed in the following sections. In the interests of clar-
ity and simplicity, antecedent moisture conditions, areal reduc-
tion factor, and the possibility of a different specication of the
design event are omitted from the table, but are included in the
discussion.
The issue of climate change: its impacts on the variables listed
in Table 1 and the likelihood of any sudden change in engineering
practice, as well as current inadequacies in current practice that
Published by NRC Research Press
108 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013

Table 1. Taxonomy of design storms for various tasks.

Design return Duration
Sizing task Design variable(s) period (years) Rainfall properties (hours)
Sewers Peak discharge 210 idf relationa 0.251.0
Culverts, bridges & small dams Peak discharge 10100 idf relationa 112
Minor system Peak discharge 510 idf relationb hyetograph 0.251.0
Major system Peak discharge and peak volume 50100 idf relationc hyetograph 624
Master drainage planning Pre- and post-peak discharge, 2100 idf relationc hyetograph 312
peak volume
Floodplain delineation Peak water level 100300 idf relationc hyetograph 312
Critical infrastructure protection Peak water level 10000 or a different idf relationd hyetograph 0.2512
design approache
aFor rational method applications, the short-duration portion of the idf relation typically 10 minutes to 1 h, is usually of interest; the t line to the idf relation is

programmed into the design software.

bFor urban runoff model applications, only the mid-duration portion of the idf relation (e.g., 1 h and 3 h) is used.

cFor major system, master drainage planning and oodplain delineation applications, only the long-duration portion of the idf relation (12 h or 24 h) is used; in

earlier drainage practice, this portion was also used to design stormwater storage.
dFor protection of critical infrastructure, only the long-duration portion of the idf relation (12 h or 24 h) is likely to be used.

eCritical infrastructure is sometimes designed for the probable maximum ood (PMF), which is calculated for the probable maximum precipitation.

Table 2. Climate change (CC) and other tasks.

Item Sensitivity to CC Likelihood of change Other issues
Design return perioda (DRP) None None, except for ooding Major system design; need DRP for critical infrastructure
problems
Storm durationb None-to-low Low Need clarication for storage structures
idf relations Signicantc Modest Reliability of idf relations
Design hyetograph Unknown Modest Need design hyetographs based on Canadian rainfall data
Areal reduction factor Unknown Modest Availability of rainfall radar-dened ARF relations
Antecedent conditions Unknown Low Need will arise from water balance concerns
aIn some parts of sewer systems, DRP may be reduced when delaying adaptation measures for economic reasons or scheduled sewer rehabilitation; however, this

may create liabilities for the sewer system operator.

bSome authors (Cobbina 2007) predict changes in event durations (from statistical analysis of the existing rainfall data), but it is not known whether this applies to

design-type events.
cClimate change projections of short duration extreme events and for high spatial resolution involve high uncertainties.

should be addressed are summarized in Table 2. Detailed discus-
sion for each variable follows the table.
Design return period
The design return period (DRP) has evolved to reect the conse-
quences of failure of the hydraulic element being sized (sewer,
culvert, spillway, etc.). Although the DRP typically is not deter-
mined by a detailed economic analysis, the value selected has
stood the test of time, in most cases. Differences between values
prescribed for storm sewer design by adjacent municipalities are
largely a consequence of historical accident, and may appear il-
logical. However, current values of DRP are unlikely to be changed
unless there are serious ooding problems. This issue should be
revisited in areas where redevelopment led to potentially much
higher ood damages, due to, for example, increased below-grade
investments.
Because there is often no historical ow record (e.g., for a sewer
system that has not been built) on which to conduct a frequency
analysis to determine the T-year ow, practice is to specify the
T-year rainfall as input and assume that the return period of the
resulting calculated peak ow is approximately T. This is only
approximately true if all other variables (antecedent moisture,
temporal distribution, contributing area, etc.) are set at average
conditions. For events used to size the minor system in highly
impervious watersheds, the assumption holds true. For all other
cases, it is approximately true only if all other variables are set at
average conditions. This subtlety was once common knowledge,
but over time has been somewhat forgotten.
Typically, not enough attention has been paid to major system
design. In some cases, drainage systems built before recognition
of the major system (UDFCD 1969) have not been designed for
major drainage and ood damages may occur (e.g., in bowls
with insufcient outow capacity). As a result of poor design, or in
some cases, too low a DRP, extra inows to the sanitary system
occur, and result in backups during major ood events. Typically,
below-grade investment has increased dramatically since current
values of DRP were established. These increases and the resulting
increases in damage costs have not been reected in increases in
DRP.
It has been suggested that DRP values be increased as a hedge
against climate change, but this should not be done without ad-
ditional considerations. Before any adjustment to current DRP is
made as an adjustment to account for increases in rainfall regimes
due to climate change, causes of urban ooding should be as-
sessed and classied as due to (1) too low a value of DRP, or (2) poor
design (e.g., inadequate or non-existent major system), or (3) poor
maintenance (e.g., blocked inlets or partially blocked sewers). If
there is a systematic tendency toward category 1 in certain areas,
the DRP should be increased in those areas.
Use of the probable maximum ood in critical
infrastructure design
Engineering design calls for high levels of public safety in de-
signing such critical infrastructures as dams or nuclear plants. In
many cases, the design criteria require that these structures with-
stand the probable maximum ood (PMF), which is dened as the
ood that may be expected from the most severe combination of
critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reason-
ably possible in the drainage basin under study.(US FERC 2002).
The PMF is typically estimated by modeling runoff produced by
the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) at a particular site
and a time of year. Thus, the theoretical probability of exceeding
PMF is zero; however, since PMF estimates are based on historical
data, there is a need to revisit PMF estimates as more data become

Published by NRC Research Press

Watt and Marsalek
available, particularly in a changing climate. The PMF estimates
are generally produced by specialized consultants and fall beyond
the scope of this review. Experience with such estimates in the US
and Alberta suggests the following: (a) PMP research is advancing
rapidly and this new knowledge, including probabilistic alter-
natives needs to be incorporated into operational procedures
(England et al. 2011), (b) the existing procedures involve great
uncertainties, with the extent of conservatism largely unknown
(Alberta Transportation 2004), and (c) potential impacts of a
changing climate need to be addressed (Environment Canada
2004).
Storm duration
For transmission elements such as sewers, the storm duration is
usually selected to match the response time of the watershed to
the location of the element being sized. At the low end, the sum
of inlet time and sewer travel time yields storm durations of
2030 min for storm sewer applications. At the high end, dura-
tions are about 24 h, except for spillways on large dams where a
48 h design storm is applied. Even longer durations are used for
rain-on-snow events. For storage elements, the storm duration is
selected so as to yield maximum storage, and is often taken as
24 h, though rain-on-snow combined with snowmelt may call for
longer durations.
There is some uncertainty in the selection of storm duration for
storage structures as to whether the critical duration is (1) the one
that maximizes the storage volume for a given rainfall input, or
(2) the one that yields the T-year storage from the T-year rainfall,
or the T-year melt plus rain event. Category 2 has been preferred
historically, in that all the risk is contained in the DRP and that it
is more consistent. In some jurisdictions, confusion may arise
because of unclear design guidelines. In other cases, where cate-
gory 1 is selected, overdesign is recognized, but accepted as a
hedge against potential climate change effects. This is not consis-
tent with the common assumption of a single DRP, though sug-
gestions have been made in the past (Yen 1975) to increase DRP in
parts of the catchment with higher potential ood damages aris-
ing from property damages or disruptions of business. However,
this opens the issue of liabilities, where the property owners in
areas with lower DRP may consider themselves under-serviced
compared to those with higher DRP.
Intensity durationfrequency (idf) relations
In Canada, idf relations have been developed by Environment
Canada. Storm rainfall depths for durations from 5 min to 24 h are
assumed to follow the Extreme Value Type 1 or Gumbel distribu-
tion and sample values are tted by the method of moments. The
resulting information (annual maximum series, moments, and
depth and intensity quantiles) are published in the form of a
report for each station (http://climate.weatherofce.gc.ca/prods_
servs/index_e.html). There are three issues concerning the infor-
mation contained in these reports:
(1) The sample sizes used are often much too small for reliable
frequency analysis, a fact not realized by some users. In many
cases, a more accurate estimate would result from a regional
idf relation.
(2) Implicit in the method of analysis is the assumption that each
annual maximum rainfall event is generated by the same
underlying physical process. While this assumption may hold
for short durations where the generating process is convec-
tive rainfall, it is less likely to hold for longer durations such
as 12 and 24 h, which may be generated by late season hurri-
cane remnants. The frequency curve for Kingston storm rain-
fall (61 data points) shown in Fig. 1 provides some anecdotal
support for this assertion. The highest depth observed of
about 126 mm (by 2004), is about one third greater than that
obtained from the tted frequency curve (about 94 mm). Such
109
a difference is signicant for the design of major drainage and
also for master drainage planning and the design of storage
facilities. Perhaps adoption of an approach similar to that
used in the frequency analysis of oods, assuming observed
data representing two populations and tting a combined
distribution, would resolve this issue. This concern is further
supported by Hailegeorgis and Burn (2009) who noted for a
London (Ontario) rain gauge that different best t distribu-
tions applied to 1560 min storms and 624 h storms.
(3) Finally, as noted by Metcalfe et al. (1997) when discussing the
importance of the catch factor (CF) in the Environment Can-
ada tipping bucket rain gauge (TBRG) network, Presently, no
CF can be calculated for TBRGs on Canadian autostations,
therefore errors are no longer being corrected as before. This
suggests problems in data from the autostation network
while creating an inhomogeneous time series. Note also that
the CF is not the only source of uncertainties in the measured
rainfall data; for example, Hoppe (2008) listed a number of
others, including wind caused losses, wetting losses, splash
losses, and evaporation from heated gauges. The authors be-
lieve that good rain gauge locations (i.e., with good exposure,
without shading by tall buildings or trees) are almost impos-
sible to nd in urban areas. Poor locations, combined with
gauge relocations, may lead to statistically signicant jumps
in data series.
In summary, the discussion in this section indicates high uncer-
tainties in the existing idf relations. Yet such uncertainties are
rarely addressed, or even acknowledged. Some appreciation of idf
uncertainties can be gained from recent work by Hailegeorgis and
Burns (2009) who reported for a rain gauge station in London,
Ontario uncertainties in idf intensities ascribed to data tting as
follows: (a) 95% lower condence limits for 1 h storm and return
periods from 2 to 100 years ranged from 0.81 (T = 100 years) to 0.86
(T = 2 years), and (b) 95% upper condence limits ranged from 1.11
(T = 2 years) to 1.23 (T = 100 years). In practical terms, these limits
may represent up to 2 nominal pipe sizes in actual design. Thus,
the current idf relations contain substantial uncertainties and
even larger uncertainties can be expected in climate change pro-
jections, recognizing that the current estimates of climate in-
duced changes in rainfall intensity, duration, frequency and
spatial extent in urban areas are highly uncertain (Ashley et al.
2008). Furthermore, approaches to addressing this issue are not
standardized and widely varying results were reported in the lit-
erature addressing urban drainage in a changing climate in Can-
ada. Large increases in idf intensities were suggested, e.g., by He
et al. (2006) (+50%, for i5 min, 5 years), but much smaller increases
were suggested by Mailhot and Duchesne (2010), the design return
period would increase from 100 to 133 years, for an infrastructure
with expected lifetime 100 years; and, Waters et al. (2003) inter-
preted projections by global circulation models as suggesting in-
creases in rainfall depth quantiles for short durations of the order
of 15%.
Temporal distribution (design hyetograph)
The sensitivity of design hyetographs to climate change is gen-
erally unknown. However, because in present practice, there is so
little consistency regarding design hyetographs, climate change is
not a primary concern. For rational method applications, a rain-
fall pattern is not required; however, in the remaining application
types listed in Table 1, a rainfall pattern must be assigned or
selected. Differences in peak discharge or maximum storage re-
sulting from different design hyetographs may be much larger
than differences due to climate change.
Although 1 and 12 h temporal distributions have been devel-
oped for all regions of Canada, there is a tendency for analysts not
to use these distributions, but instead to use some form of the
Chicago distribution and the SCS distribution, possibly because of
Published by NRC Research Press
110
Fig. 1. Frequency curve for Kingston 12 h storm rainfall.
Fig. 2. Twelve hour design rainfall distributions.
their simplicity, but in many cases as the result of historical acci-
dent. The fact that under the present climate, design storms have
not been developed or developed design storms are neither se-
lected nor assigned is a serious situation that should be resolved.
One problem arising is what might be termed worst case syn-
drome wherein a designer will select more than one design
storm, for example, the AES 12 h 30% and the so-called SCS Type II
12 h (see, for example Haan et al. 1994) as shown in Fig. 2 and select
the one that gives the largest discharge. (It is interesting to note
that the SCS did not publish a 12 h distribution.) The problem
with this approach is that the AES 12 h 30% storm was intended to
be representative of storms that might generate the 100 year ow,
whereas the SCS 12 h storm represents an extremely intense
storm. With the same depth of rainfall and typical basin topogra-
phy, the SCS storm will always generate a higher peak ow, which
would yield a higher DRP. Furthermore, note that the delayed
occurrence of the peak intensity burst in the SCS storm, after
typical hydrological abstractions have been satised, may contrib-
ute to higher simulated runoff peaks.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
Areal reduction factor
Areal reduction factors are required on larger catchments, but
are rarely prescribed or used in urban drainage design (i.e., the
ARF is assumed to be 1.0). Canadian exceptions to this generality
include oodplain delineation in Ontario and large sewer design
in Edmonton and York Region. This assumption of an ARF of 1.0 is
not a problem provided that either of the following two condi-
tions applies: (1) the USWB curves apply or (2) the basin is not
large. However, there is some indication that the USWB curves
might not apply. The derived ARFs for Hurricane Hazel and
Timmins, both large storms with rainfall total depths exceeding
100-year values, are less than the USWB values. In addition, the
denition of small with respect to drainage basins should be re-
considered. For an area of 25 km2, the derived ARF of about 0.7 for
Edmonton is less than the USWB value (see Fig. 3) and is fairly
close to the values reported from Sweden for short duration
storms (20 min) (Bengtsson and Niemczynowicz 1986).
The consequence of using an ARF of 1.0, rather than a value
based on Canadian rainfall data, is overdesign, which is a higher
Published by NRC Research Press
Watt and Marsalek
Fig. 3. Areal reduction factors.
DRP. This may appear as a useful safety factor, but again it repre-
sents an inconsistency in sewer design and this issue should be
revisited and available Canadian storm data used to develop ARFs
that would be applicable for major system design.
Antecedent conditions
In general, current practice regarding antecedent conditions is
to either include a specication embedded in the abstractions
model (e.g., Antecedent Moisture Condition II in the SCS Curve
number method) or ignore them. Such practice is not consistent
with the current state-of-knowledge of ood generating mecha-
nisms and available abstraction algorithms (Nishat et al. 2010).
The importance of antecedent conditions varies from not very
important for minor system design on largely impervious areas
(respectively, the short return period events may be dominated by
contributions from impervious areas) to extremely important for
major system design and the protection of critical infrastructure.
One more storm characteristic generally neglected in design,
but affecting simulated runoff peaks, is storm movement. Storms
moving with runoff/ow wave in the sewer system produce
higher peaks than those moving in the opposite direction
(Bengtsson and Niemczynowicz 1986). However, in US design prac-
tice, it was suggested that including storm dynamics in urban
drainage design appeared to be an unnecessary renement in
view of other uncertainties (ASCE 1992).
Specication of design event and selection of drainage
design rainfall data
New concerns may require changes in criteria for the design
event from a storm rainfall event. There might be two design
events for drainage design, a storm rainfall event for pipe sizing
and a snowmelt plus rain event for storage sizing. Compared to
traditional snowmelt hydrology, the situation in urban areas is
radically different. In particular, heat uxes in urban areas are
largely modied by heat losses or refection of solar radiation from
buildings, and nally, applications of deicers result in chemical
melts (Oberts 2003).
Another concern is the need to preserve the water balance. In
this case, continuous simulation might be used as a screening
tool, but a storm rainfall event and (or) a melt plus rain event
might be used for design. Here, the requirement to preserve the
water balance would require much better abstractions model and
resulting specication of antecedent conditions as further dis-
cussed in the next section. While low impact development (LID)
applications have been successfully tested at small scales (site,
neighbourhood), large scale applications (watershed) in Delaware
indicate that mimicking predevelopment hydrology using LID is
111
in most cases impossible (Greer 2008). Other potential issues in-
clude LID performance under extreme rainfall events (producing
extreme ows) and maintaining LID performance on private prop-
erties (Guillon et al. 2008).
General aspects of drainage design
The current urban drainage design methodology encompasses
an unprecedented multitude and variety of concepts and options
requiring revisiting the issue of design rainfall data. Furthermore,
the authors believe that the priorities of such considerations vary,
depending on the design issue and concept addressed, and a ho-
listic approach addressing all these issues rather than just one
(e.g., climate change) is needed.
Of paramount importance is major drainage. Dysfunctional ma-
jor drainage results in repeated ood damages and criticism of
both designers and political decisions makers. With well function-
ing major drainage, the importance of minor drainage design for
climate change is of secondary importance, because overows
from minor drainage are conveyed by major drainage. For major
drainage, extreme rainfall of long duration and low frequency of
occurrence is important. Under such circumstances, runoff gen-
eration on pervious areas becomes important and that is of par-
ticular interest for the currently promoted low impact
development (LID), comprising many measures reducing runoff
generation by enhancing hydrologic abstractions in the area
drained and delaying runoff. So far, the performance of LID in
such conditions has not been documented and it remains to be
seen how such systems will perform when exposed to long-
duration extreme rainfall, particularly when recognizing that
some inltrating rainwater may reappear as subsurface runoff.
Other considerations mentioned earlier with direct applicability
to major drainage are antecedent moisture conditions and the
areal reduction factor. Recognizing high uncertainties in these
considerations, they should be probably best accounted for by a
safety factor that would also consider climate change.
Even though the main topic of this paper is design storm events,
hydraulics, and, in particular sewer hydraulics, must be addressed
as well, because it may adversely impact DRP, which so far has
been considered as dependent on the choice of rainfall data only
(actually not just here, but also in drainage practice; see for exam-
ple the ASCE drainage manual, ASCE 1992). Contrary to many
other elds of civil engineering practice (e.g., structural design),
the hydraulic design of sewers does not allow for any safety fac-
tors. Yet, the hydraulics of sewer systems indicates ample oppor-
tunities for deviations from ideal steady-state conditions, for
which sewers are designed. Firstly, pipes are designed for open
Published by NRC Research Press
112
channel ow, with peak capacity occurring for the relative depth
of about 0.95. Under unsteady ow and with presence of surface
waves, transition to pressure ow may occur unexpectedly, and
this leads to further increases of local minor losses at sewer junc-
tions in manholes. Experimental studies indicate that local losses
somewhat throttle the system capacity and for a low degree of
pressurization (pressure heads from 1.0 to 1.3 times the pipe di-
ameter, measured from the pipe invert), system capacity increases
only little. This throttling effect may be further magnied by
junction designs (without benching) contributing to formation of
a vortex ow pattern in the junction manhole, resembling the
vortex brake used to control ow (Marsalek 1984). Other reduc-
tions in ow capacity arise from blockage of inlets (by debris or
snow and ice in winter), or blockage of pipes by sediment or large
debris, or cross-sections of sewers for a variety of reasons. It is only
most recently that calls have been made to apply safety factors in
hydraulics design of sewers to account not only for climate
change, but also for addressing the water ponding and ooding
issues caused by blockage of sewer inlets or pipes. The latter prob-
lems are of the operational nature and can be mitigated by im-
proved reporting of maintenance problems, quick response of
municipal maintenance crews to blockages at critical points of
the sewer network, and implementation of more anticipatory
maintenance programs in general (Schimek et al. 2008). Thus, the
authors believe that some recognition of uncertainty in hydraulic
design should be made, thereby increasing the robustness of
drainage design.
Summary
The use of design storm events has been common practice in
Canada and the United States for over 100 years, beginning with
the sizing of sewers and evolving over time to include sizing of
bridge and culvert openings, minor and major stormwater infra-
structure, and regulatory oodplains as well as master drainage
planning. Over the last 4050 years, the knowledge base with
respect to design storm events has expanded signicantly, in par-
ticular, in the development of idf relations, design rainfall tem-
poral distributions, and areal reduction factors. In other areas, for
example, specication of antecedent wetness, advances have been
more modest.
As a reaction to the potential impact of climate change on the
performance of hydraulic structures and stormwater infrastruc-
ture, some investigators have focused on storm rainfall, idf rela-
tions, to the exclusion of other parameters in the design process.
To put the impacts of climate change in perspective and to iden-
tify inadequacies of current practice for the existing climate, the
taxonomy of design storm events for various applications has
been developed. For each task, an estimate of the sensitivity to
climate change is made, the likelihood of changes in practice is
evaluated, and other needs are identied to improve the results
for the existing climate. As a result, the following specic conclu-
sions can be made.
Conclusions and recommendations
(1) Design return period (understood here as an administrative
risk-management measure) does not appear to be sensitive to
climate change and, with two exceptions, is unlikely to
change. The two exceptions are (a) explicit specication of the
DRP for the protection of critical infrastructure and (b) possi-
ble increase in the DRP for urban infrastructure where there
are cases of ooding not caused by deciencies in design (e.g.,
no major system). The DRP should not be changed as a hedge
against climate change.
(2) Critical storm duration: It is somewhat sensitive to climate
change (certainly on a natural watershed), but research and
guidance is required for storage structures.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 40, 2013
(3) Depth of rainfall: Intensitydurationfrequency relations are
likely to be affected by climate change. There are some prob-
lems with existing published idf relations, the impacts of
which could be of the same order as those predicted due to
climate change (i.e., looking at the next 2540 years). These
include (a) unreliable relations due to small samples, (b) un-
derestimation of storm rainfall depths of longer durations at
some locations where the data series may include events from
two populations, and (c) the fact that a correction factor is no
longer applied to the tipping bucket data.
(4) Temporal distribution (design storm): Differences in peak dis-
charge or maximum storage resulting from different design
hyetographs are likely to be larger than differences due to
climate change (i.e., looking at the next 2540 years). There is
a need for consistency in specifying design storms.
(5) Antecedent conditions: Current practice regarding anteced-
ent conditions is not consistent with the current state-of-
knowledge of ood generating mechanisms and available
abstractions algorithms. Correct specication of antecedent
conditions is extremely important for major system design
and the protection of critical infrastructure.
(6) Areal reduction factor: Updated ARFs should be specied for
major system design, particularly in large urban areas, by
revisiting the existing ARFs and updating them by analyzing
available Canadian storm data.
(7) New concerns: These may require changes in criteria for the
design event from just a storm rainfall event to two design
events, a storm rainfall event and a snowmelt plus rain event.
(8) Uncertainty in the hydraulic modeling of storm sewers: Un-
certainty should be allowed for to increase the robustness of
drainage design.
Postscript major systems
If the list of recommendations appears to be formidable, and it
is, the authors believe that the maximum benet for effort ex-
pended, either in the current climate or the future climate, would
result from a guideline for the design of major systems. Such a
guideline would include (i) a locally-specic DRP, (ii) the design
depth of rainfall, (iii) the rainfall temporal distribution, (iv) the
parameters of the abstractions model, and (v) the areal reduction
factor.
References
Alberta Transportation. 2004. Guidelines on extreme ood analysis. Civil Proj-
ects Branch, Edmonton, Alta. (available on line: http://www.
infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType125/Production/
gdlextrmd.pdf; visited Sep. 20, 2012).
Aleri, L., Laio, F., and Claps, P. 2008. A simulation experiment for optimal
design hyetograph selection. Hydrological Processes, 22: 813820. doi:
10.1002/hyp.6646.
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): 327335. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2005)10:4(327).
ASCE. 1992. Design and construction of urban stormwater management sys-
tems. ASCE Manual and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 77. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Ashley, R., Blanksby, J., and Cashman, A. 2008. Adaptable urban drainage
addressing change in intensity, occurrence and uncertainty of stormwater
(AUDACIOUS). London, UK. UK Climate Impacts Programme, Department of
Energy and Climate Change.
Bengtsson, L., and Niemczynowicz, J. 1986. Areal reduction factors from rain
movement. Nordic Hydrology, 17: 6582.
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Cobbina, A.S. 2007. The impact of climate change on Toronto precipitation
patterns and stormwater infrastructure. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
England, J.F., Sankovich, V.L., and Caldwell, R.J. 2011. Review of Probable Maxi-
mum Precipitation procedures and databases used to develop hy-
drometeorological reports. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, Colo. (ftp://ftp.usbr.gov/jengland/NRC/./Review_PMP_
Procedures_SE_US.pdf; visited Sep. 20, 2012).
Environment Canada. 2004. Threats to water availability in Canada. Nat. Wat.
Published by NRC Research Press
Watt and Marsalek
Res. Institute (NWRI), Burlington, Ontario. NWRI Scientic Assessment Re-
port Series No. 3.
Greer, R.K. 2008. Mimicking predevelopment hydrology using LID: time for a
reality check? Edited by N. She and M. Clar. In CD-ROM Proceedings of the 2008
International Low Impact Development Conference. Seattle, Wash., Novem-
ber 1619, 2008. Available from ASCE, Reston, Va., 5p.
Guillon, A., Kovacs, Y., Lowera, L., and Senechal, C. 2008. Investigation on how
Control of source-control facilities is organized in France. In Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, U.K., Aug.
31 Sep. 5, 10 p.
Haan, C.T., Bareld, B.J., and Hayes, J.C. 1994. Design hydrology and sedimentol-
ogy for small catchments. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, Calif.
Hailegeorgis, T.T., and Burn, D.H. 2009. Quantifying the uncertainty in modelled
estimates of future extreme precipitation events. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ont.
He, J., Valeo, C., and Bouchart, F.J.-C. 2006. Enhancing urban infrastructure
investment planning practices for a changing climate. Water Science & Tech-
nology, 53(10): 1320. doi:10.2166/wst.2006.292.
Hicks, W.I. 1944. A method of computing urban runoff. Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 109: 12171253.
Hogg, W.D. 1980. Time distribution of short duration rainfall in Canada. In
Proceedings Canadian Hydrology Symposium: 80, Ottawa, Ont. pp. 5363.
Hogg, W.D. 1982. Distribution of design rainfall with time: design consider-
ations. Paper presented at the American Geophysical Union Chapman on
Rainfall Rates, Urbana, Ill., April 2729.
Hoppe, H. 2008. Impact of input data uncertainties on urban drainage models:
climate changea crucial issue? In Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, U.K., Aug. 31 Sep. 5, 10 p.
Huff, F.A. 1967. Time distribution of rainfall in heavy storms. Water Resources
Research, 3(4): 10071019. doi:10.1029/WR003i004p01007.
Institution of Civil Engineers, Australia. 1977. Australian rainfall and runoff:
ood design and analysis. The Institution of Civil Engineers, Australia.
Jolly, J.P., Jobin, D.I., and Lodewyk, S. 2008. Weather radar derived rainfall areal
reduction factors. Presented at Weather Radar and Hydrology 2008 Interna-
tional Symposium, Grenoble, France.
Keifer, C.J., and Chu, H.H. 1957. Synthetic storm pattern for drainage design.
ASCE Journal of Hydraulics, Division, 83(HY4): 1332:11332:25.
Kidd, C.H.R., and Packman, J.C. 1980. Selection of design storm and antecedent
condition for urban drainage design. Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford,
UK. (IH Report No.61) (unpublished). 54 p.
Kuichling, E. 1889. The relation between rainfall and the discharge in sewers in
populous districts. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), 20: 3740.
Mailhot, A., and Duchesne, S. 2010. Design criteria of urban drainage infrastruc-
tures under climate change. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Man-
agement (ASCE), 136(2): 201208. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000023.
Marsalek, J. 1984. Head losses at sewer junction manholes. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering (ASCE), 110: 17731776.
Marsalek, J., and Watt, W.E. 1984. Design storms for urban drainage design.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(3): 574584. doi:10.1139/l84-075.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., University of Florida, and Water Resources Engineers,
Inc. 1971. Storm water management model, Vol. I: Final Report, Water Pollu-
tion Control Research series 11024 DOC 07/71. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Metcalfe, J.R., Routledge, B., and Devine, K. 1997. Rainfall measurement in
Canada: changing observational methods and archive adjustment proce-
dures. Journal of Climate, 10: 92101. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010<0092:
RMICCO>2.0.CO;2.
MNR. 2002. Technical guide, river & stream systems: ooding hazard limit.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ont.
Nishat, S., Guo, Y., and Baetz, B.W. 2010. Antecedent soil moistures conditions of
different soil types in South-western Ontario, Canada. Hydrological Pro-
cesses, 24: 24172424.
Oberts, G.L. 2003. Cold climate BMPS: Solving the management puzzle. Water
Science and Technology, 48(9): 2132.
113
Packman, J.C., and Kidd, C.H.R. 1980. A logical approach to the design storm
concept. Water Resources Research, 16(6): 9941000. doi:10.1029/
WR016i006p00994.
Peyron, N., Nguyen, V-T-V., and Rivard, G. 2002. An optimal design storm pattern
for urban runoff estimations in Southern Quebec. In Proceedings, Annual
Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Quebec,
June 58, pp. 110.
Pilgrim, D.H. (Editor). 1987. Australian rainfall and runoff, a guide to ood esti-
mation. The Institution of Engineers, ACT, Australia.
Pilgrim, D.H., and Cordery, I. 1975. Rainfall temporal patterns for design oods.
Journal of Hydraulics Engineering (ASCE), 101(HY1): 8195.
Pilgrim, D.H., Cordery, I., and French, R. 1969. Temporal patterns of design
rainfall for Sydney. Institution of Engineers, Australia, Civil Engineering
Transactions, CE11: 914.
Schimek, G., Fleming, P., and Hartley, D. 2008. Preparing for an uncertain fu-
ture: Seattle Public Utility's climate change and urban drainage adaptation
strategy. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Urban Drain-
age, Edinburgh, U.K., Aug. 31 Sep. 5, 10 p.
Sivapalan, S., and Bloschl, G. 1998. Transformation of point rainfall to areal
rainfall: intensity-duration-frequency curves. Journal of Hydrology, 204(14):
150167. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00117-0.
Svensson, C., and Jones, D.A. 2010. Review of methods for deriving areal reduc-
tion factors. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3(3): 232245. doi:10.1111/j.
1753-318X.2010.01075.x.
Terstriep, M.L., and Stall, J.B. 1974. The Illinois urban drainage area simulator,
ILLUDAS. Bull. No. 58. Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, Ill.
Tholin, A.L., and Keifer, C.J. 1960. The hydrology of urban runoff. Transactions,
ASCE, 125: 13081379.
UDFCD. 1969. Urban storm drainage manual. Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, Denver, Colo.
USACE. 2000. Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS. Technical reference man-
ual. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, Calif.
USDA. 1968. Hydrology. Suppl. A to Sec. 4, Engineering Handbook. Soil Conser-
vation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Tech. Release No. 55. Soil
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
USWB. 1963. Rainfall frequency atlas for the United States for durations from 30
minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years. Paper 40. U.S.
Weather Bureau Tech.
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2002. Engineering guidelines for
evaluation of hydropower projects. Washington, D.C.
Viessman, W., and Lewis, G.L. 1996. Introduction to hydrology. HarperCollins
College Publishers, New York, N.Y.
Waters, D., Watt, W.E., Marsalek, J., and Anderson, B.C. 2003. Adaptation of a
storm drainage system to accommodate increased rainfall resulting from
climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(5):
755770. doi:10.1080/0964056032000138472.
Watt, W.E., and Marsalek, J. 1977. What the practicing urban hydrologist needs
from the hydrometeorologist. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Hy-
drometeorology, Toronto, Ont., Oct. 2527, 1977, pp. 1523.
Watt, W.E., Chow, K.C.A., Hogg, W.D., and Lathem, K.W. 1986. A 1-h urban design
storm for Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 13(3): 293300.
doi:10.1139/l86-041.
Westhoff, D.R., Watt, W.E., and Deong, Y. 1993. Development of urban design
storms from historic data: an application to Calgary, Alberta, Canada. In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage,
Niagara Falls, Ont. pp. 294299.
Woolhiser, D.A., and Schwalen, H.C. 1960. Area-depth-frequency relations for
thunderstorm rainfall in southern Arizona. Technical paper 527. Arizona
Agricultural Experiment Station, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
Yen, B.C. 1975. Risk based design of storm sewers. Rept. IN141. Hydraulics Re-
search Station, Wallingford, U.K.
Yen, B.C., and Chow, V.T. 1980. Design hyetographs for small drainage struc-
tures. Journal of the Hydraulics Division (ASCE), 106(HY6): 10551076.
Yen, B.C., and Chow, V.T. 1983. Local design storm. Vol. II. Report No. FHWA/RD-
82-064. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Published by NRC Research Press
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.