International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 838

ISSN 2229-5518

Rainfall Intensity – Duration –

Frequency (IDF) models for Makurdi,
Nigeria
G.D.Akpen, M.I.Aho and O.G. Ojo
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Agriculture Makurdi, Nigeria.
aho_ped@yahoo.com

Abstract: Rainfall data analysis was carried out to develop rainfall Intensity – Duration – Frequency (IDF) models
for Makurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria. Rainfall data of the study area was sourced from Nigerian
Meteorological Services Department (NIMET) Oshodi, Lagos. Gumbel Extreme Value I distribution was
statistically applied and comparison was made with some existing plotting positions (Weibull and Gringorton).
Thirty two rainfall models were developed and were grouped into three sets: The first set contained nine rainfall
models which represents an inverse relationship between rainfall intensity and duration for specified return
periods of 2.2, 5.5 and 11 years for annual series and 2.1, 4.2, 5.3,7.0,10.5 and 21 years for the partial series.
High and positive values of goodness of fit between 0.8351 and 0.9884 were obtained; an indication of good
curve fitting. The second set of rainfall models related rainfall intensity to return period for specified durations of
12, 18, 24, 30, 36 and 60 minutes. Twelve models were generated in this set with high and positive values of
goodness of fit between 0.847 and 0.995. While the third set of models related rainfall intensities to amounts and
durations at specified frequencies. The predicted results compared favourably with the actual field data except
predictions from first partial series. The Chi-square test statistics performed on all the models showed that the
power models are more reliable than the quotient models. It was concluded that the power models obtained from
this research will be useful tools for prediction of rainfall events in the study area. It is recommended that self

IJSER
recording type of rain gauges should be installed in all the Meteorological stations nationwide to provide the input
data required for development of IDF models particularly in the face of climatic change. Also, modern
technologies should be utilised to obtain durations for the previous years of incomplete records.

Key words: Rainfall, Intensity, Duration, Frequency, power Models, prediction, rainfall events

——————————  ——————————

Introduction
A model is a system similar to the actual size or version (prototype) whose operation
can be used to predict the characteristics of the prototype (Leton, 2005). According to
Agunwamba (2007), two broad groups of models are discernable; physical and mathematical
models. A physical model is a representation of an object prior to its actual construction
which could be larger, smaller or identical in sizes. A mathematical model on the other hand
is a simplified representation of certain aspects of a real system. It is created using
mathematical concepts such as functions, graphs, diagrams and equations to solve problems
in the real world.
The act of constructing a model or representing a system or phenomenon with
mathematical objects is called modelling. It is an essential element for the prediction of
hydrological events needed for planning and design of hydraulic structures such as drainage
systems, culverts, dams, etc,

The intensity-duration-frequency curve (IDF) is a mathematical relationship between

the rainfall intensity (i), the duration (d) and the return period (T). DuPont et al. (2000)
defined rainfall IDF relationships as graphical representation of the amount that falls within a
given period of time. These graphs are used to determine when an area will be flooded and
when a certain rainfall rate or specific volume of flow will re-occur in the future. Intensity –
duration –frequency model, a mathematical relationship between the rainfall intensity,
duration and return period could be traced back to 1930’s (Bernard, 1932). Since then
different forms of relationships have been constructed for several regions of the world.

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 839
ISSN 2229-5518

In order to prevent flooding, thereby reducing the loss of life and property, insurance
of water damage, and evaluation of hazardous weather, studies of rainfall IDF relationships
have received much attention in the past few decades. Kim et al. (2008) improved the
accuracy of IDF Curves by using long and short duration separation technique and derived
intensity-duration-Frequency (IDF) curves, by using cumulative distribution function (CDF)
of the interesting site and multi- objective genetic algorithm (MOGA). Application results
showed that the developed IDF curve was more accurate than the previously suggested IDF
curves and the duration separation method and would be applied automatically without hand
calculations.
Selah (2010) developed an empirical formula to estimate design rainfall intensity
based on Intensity –Duration -Frequency (IDF) Curves for Riyadh region using the analysis
from three different frequency methods namely: Gumbel, Log Pearson III and log Normal. It
was concluded that there was no much difference between the result obtained by Gumbel and
log Pearson III, while log Normal showed less accuracy. Oyebande and Longe (1990)
obtained another empirical formula by using Gumbel Extreme value distribution for values of
the parameters for computing rainfall intensity for different regions.
Koutsoyianis et al. (1998) proposed new generalized approach to the formulation of
IDF curves using efficient parameterization. Nguyen et al. (1998) proposed a generalized
Extreme value (GEV) distribution design storm based on the scaling theory. This suggested

IJSER
methodology has been applied to extreme rainfall data from a network of 14 recording rain
gauges in Quebec (Canada). Result of the numerical application have indicated that for
partially gauged sites the proposed scaling method is able to provide design storm estimates
which are comparable with those based on rainfall data available at site.
Hershfield (1961) developed various rainfall contour maps to provide the design rain
depths for various return periods and durations. Bell (1969) proposed a generalized IDF
formula using one hour, 10 years rainfall depths; P 1 10 as an index. (Wherein, P means rain
depths, the subscript, 1 means one hour and 10 means ten years). Chen (1983) further
developed a generalized IDF formula for any location in the United States using base rainfall
depths P 1 10, P 24 10, P 1 100, which describes the geographical variation of rainfall.
Okonkwo and Mbajiorgu (2010) developed rainfall intensity-duration frequency
models for South Eastern Nigeria using both the graphical and statistical methods. It was
reported that the IDF curves obtained by the two methods were in agreement with the IDF
theory for lower return periods of 2 to 10 years, but differ for higher return periods of 50 to
100 years.
In Makurdi metropolis, IDF curves are not available; designs are therefore based on
approximations and inferences. This research has addressed this short coming by developing
IDF curves/models for Makurdi metropolis.

Materials and Methods

Study Area
Makurdi, the capital of Benue State, North-Central Nigeria lie on the banks of the
River Benue on latitude 7o 43’ 50’’N and longitude 8o 32’ 10’’E at an altitude of 104 m
above mean sea level. Makurdi has a tropical sub-humid climate with two distinct seasons:
the wet season and the dry season. The wet season usually last for seven months between

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 840
ISSN 2229-5518

April and October, while the dry season comes between November and March. Temperatures
are generally very high during the day particularly in March and April. However, the dry
season starts with harmattan; a dry chilly spell with a dusty atmosphere brought about by the
north east (NE) winds blown from the Arabian Peninsula across the desert. During the rainy
season a marked interruption in the rain occurs during August resulting in a short dry season
often referred to as the “August break”. Though for years now this has not been consistent in
August due to climate change.

Data Collection
Rainfall data of the study area from January, 1982 to December, 1991 was obtained from
Nigerian Meteorological (NIMET) office in Oshodi, Lagos State. The data was sorted and the
maximum rainfall amounts at specified durations were determined using both partial and
annual series. The durations considered were 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48 and 60 minutes. The
annual maximum rainfall values of each duration were arranged in descending order of
magnitude and assigned rank numbers 1-10 as shown in Table 1. Their intensities were
evaluated by dividing the amount by the corresponding durations (see column 4-10 in Tables
1 and 2). The return periods were calculated using Weibull’s plotting position (Equation 1)
of Gumbel Extreme Value I. The Gringorton plotting position (Equation 2) was also adopted
in the determination of the return period for purpose of comparism (See Tables 1 and 2). The
same procedures and computation was applied to the partial series data (selection of the

IJSER
annual maximum rainfall value as well as the value next to the maximum value)

Weibull’s formula
n+1
T= (1)
m
Gringorton formula
n+0.12
T= (2)
m−0.44

Where, T is the recurrence interval in years, n is the highest rank and m is the rank number of
each rainfall intensity.

Model Development
The models were developed by calibrating quotient and power models. The calibration
entailed determination of the numerical values of the regional constants. The quotient model
was used for the development of relationships between intensity of rainfall and its duration at
specified return periods. While the power model was employed in developing relationship
between rainfall intensity and return period at specified durations on one hand and rainfall
intensity, durations and amount at specified return periods on the other hand. The quotient
model is given by Equation 3 while the power models are given by Equations 4 and 5
respectively.

a
i= (3)
t+b

i = aT b (4)

𝑖 = 𝐶𝐴𝑎 𝑡 𝑏 (5)

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 841
ISSN 2229-5518

Where, i = rainfall intensity (mm/hr), T = return period (years), A = rainfall amount (mm), t =
rainfall duration (hr) and a, b, and C are regional constants.

Equation 3 was linearized as shown in Equation 6 by taking the inverse.

1 t b
= + (6)
i a a
1 1 𝑏
Plotting against t produced a straight line with slope, a1 = and intercept, 𝑎0 =
i a 𝑎
The rainfall intensities of Tables 1 and 2 were converted to their reciprocals and applied in
Equation 6 to develop the models using Microsoft Excel software. As an illustration,
considering the return period of 2.2 years for instance, the Microsoft Excel generated
equation was, y = 0.0004t +0.0036. From which, a= 2500 and b=9, thus giving the desired
model as (Equation 7):

2500
`i = (7)
t+9

Similar procedures were adopted to obtain models for frequencies of 5.5 and 11 years as
shown in Table 3 for annual series and Table 4 for partial series. The fractional frequencies

IJSER
were converted by interpolation to the more convenient whole number frequencies and the
results presented in Figs.1-3.
Similarly, linearizing Equation 4 yielded Equation 8;

log i = log a + b log T (8)

A linear plot of log i against log T produced a slope, b and intercept, log a on the y -axis.
Microsoft Excel software was used in a similar manner to develop the models by using the
values in Tables 1 and 2 for annual series and partial series respectively. The power models
were depicted in Figs.4 and 5 based on the annual series data.
The linearized form of Equation 5 is:

Log i = log C + a log A + b log t

(9)

Wherein, i is a function of both A and t. Thus, the IDF models were developed using multiple
regression analysis. The results are presented in Tables 5 and 6 for annual series and partial
series respectively.

Table 1: Probability and Return Periods of Rainfall Intensities of Various Durations (Annual
Series) for Makurdi Metropolis- Weibull Plotting Formula

Return Ran-
Probability Intensities at Various Durations (mm/hr)
Period king

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 842
ISSN 2229-5518

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

𝑚 𝑛+1 m 12mins 18mins. 24mins 30mins 36mins 48mins 60mins

P= 𝑛+1 T= 𝑚
0.091 11 1 160.00 136.67 67.50 85.60 51.67 82.88 68.00
0.182 5.5 2 126.00 83.33 58.50 76.00 48.33 54.38 65.60
0.273 3.7 3 107.00 76.67 50.00 73.40 46.67 52.38 61.00
0.364 2.8 4 100.00 76.67 41.00 69.60 41.33 49.25 46.40
0.455 2.2 5 88.50 72.00 40.00 56.00 32.00 47.50 46.00
0.545 1.8 6 59.50 67.00 39.75 50.20 31.83 35.75 36.00
0.636 1.6 7 52.00 65.67 31.75 48.40 25.67 26.00 35.10
0.727 1.4 8 10.00 61.67 30.00 46.20 23.67 23.13 33.00
0.818 1.2 9 10.00 47.00 20.00 43.00 17.50 22.50 30.60
0.909 1.1 10 9.00 31.33 5.50 20.00 12.33 14.00 28.70

Table 2: Probability and Return Periods of Rainfall Intensities of Various Durations (Annual
Series) for Makurdi Metropolis- Gringorton Plotting Formula.

IJSER
Return Ran-
Probability Intensities at various Durations (mm/hr)
Period king

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
P= T=
𝑚−0.44 𝑛+0.12 m 12mins 18mins. 24mins 30mins 36mins 48mins 60mins
𝑛+0.12 𝑚−0.44
0.055 1.059 1 9.00 31.33 5.50 20.00 12.33 14.00 28.70
0.154 1.182 2 10.00 61.67 30.00 46.20 23.67 23.13 33.00
0.262 1.354 3 10.00 47.00 20.00 43.00 17.50 22.50 30.60
0.352 1.543 4 52.00 65.67 31.75 48.40 25.67 26.00 35.10
0.451 1.820 5 59.50 67.00 39.75 50.20 31.83 35.75 36.00
0.549 2.219 6 88.50 72.00 40.00 56.00 32.00 47.50 46.00
0.648 2.843 7 100.00 76.67 41.00 69.60 41.33 49.25 46.40
0.747 3.953 8 107.00 76.67 50.00 73.40 46.67 52.38 61.00
0.846 6.487 9 126.00 83.33 58.50 76.00 48.33 54.38 65.60
0.945 18.071 10 160.00 136.67 67.50 85.60 51.67 82.88 68.00

Model Verification
To test the reliability of the developed models for prediction of rainfall events in the
study area, a chi-square (χ2) test was performed. The chi-square was computed according to
Equation 10 thus:

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 843
ISSN 2229-5518

N
2
(Oi − ei )2 (Observed − Expected)2
χ =� = �� � (10)
ei Expected
i=1

The degree of freedom (𝑣) as defined by Equation 11 below was used in selecting the critical
values of χ2 .99 and χ2 .95 , at 1 % and 5 % levels of significance respectively from statistical
tables.

𝑣=𝑁−𝐾 (11)

Where, N = independent observations in the sample and k =1 is the population parameter. N

= 5 and 10 for the annual series and partial series models respectively. The results of the chi-
square tests are presented in Tables 5-8.

3.0 Results and Discussions

The developed quotient models were presented in Tables 3 and 4, while Figs. 4 and 5 depict
the power models (Equation 4) with their corresponding goodness of fit. The power models
based on Equation 5 are presented in Tables 5 and 6 based on annual series and partial series
data respectively. Most of the models gave high values of goodness of fit (R2), an indication
that the observed data fit the assumed relationships. The results of the chi-square test were
presented in Tables 5-8. The calculated χ2 values in the case of the power models were lower

IJSER
than the tabulated χ2 values both at 1% and 5% percent levels of significance. With respect to
quotient models, calculated χ2 values were higher than tabulated χ2 values for all the models.
This implies that the power models were more reliable for prediction of rainfall events in the
study area.

Table 3 Chi- Square (χ2) Test: Quotient Models-Annual Series

Model Return
Period(y R2 χ2 χ2 .99 χ2 .95 Remarks
rs)
5000 χ2 calculated > critical
i=
(t + 8.5) 11 0.907 58.99 13.3 9.49 both at 1 % and 5 % levels
3333.33 of significance, hence,
i=
(t + 9.67) 5.5 0.697 24.04 13.3 9.49 model not very reliable
2500 for prediction
i=
(t + 9) 2.2 0.933 16.38 13.3 9.49

Table 4 Chi- Square (χ2) Test: Quotient Models-Partial Series

Model Return R2
χ2 χ2 .99 χ2 .95 Remarks
Period (yrs)

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 844
ISSN 2229-5518

5000 0.907 χ2 calculated

i= 21 58.99 13.3 9.49
(t + 8.5) > critical both
i 0.756 at 1 % and 5
3333.33 10.5 23.88 13.3 9.49 % levels of
= significance,
(t + 9.67)
3333.33 0.766 hence, models
i= 7 27.24 13.3 9.49 not reliable
(t + 11)
for prediction
3333.33 0.977
i= 5.3 35.11 13.3 9.49
(t + 10)
3333.33 0.971
i= 4.2 123.20 13.3 9.49
(t + 11)
2000 0.724
i= 2.1 20.21 13.3 9.49
(t + 11)

180
160

IJSER
Rainfall Intensity(mm/hr)

140
120
100 11
80 10
60 5
40 2
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Duration (minutes)

Fig.1 IDF Models based on Annual series data

Rainfall Intensity(mm/hr)

150

100
21
20
50
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Duration (minutes)

Fig.2 IDF curves based on Partial Series data (T=10, 20 and 21)

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 845
ISSN 2229-5518

Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) 120

100
80
7
60
5
40
4
20
0 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Duration (minutes)

Fig.3 IDF curves based on Partial Series data (T=2, 4, 5 and 7)

180 12mins
i = 67.43T0.362
160 R² = 0.995
Rainfall intensity,i (mm/hr)

18mins.
140
24mins
120

IJSER
i = 49.61T0.383
100 R² = 0.860
80
60 i = 30.45T0.347
40 R² = 0.949
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Return Period,T (Years)

Fig.4 IDF Models for Durations of 12 mins, 18 mins and 24 mins

100

y = 51.795x0.2224
Rainfall intensity (mm/hr)

90
R² = 0.813
y = 34.481x0.3358
80
R² = 0.8891
70
y = 38.646x0.2639
60 R² = 0.7752

50
30mins
40
48mins
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Return Period (Years) 60mins

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 846
ISSN 2229-5518

Fig.5 IDF Models for Durations of 30 mins, 48 mins and 60 mins

Table 5 Rainfall Intensity- Duration- Frequency Models (Based on Annual Series Data)

Return IDF Model

Period(years) χ2 χ2 .99 χ2 .95 Remarks
𝑖 = 𝐶𝐴𝑎 𝑡 𝑏

11 𝑖 = 0.941𝐴1.0125 𝑡 −1.0059 0.0282 16.8 12.6 χ2 calculated far less

than the critical
5.5 𝑖 = 𝐴1 𝑡 −1 0.000 16.8 12.6 values at both 1 %
and 5 % levels of
2.2 𝑖 = 1.00062𝐴1.001 𝑡 −0.9981 0.0018 16.8 12.6 significance. Hence
1.1 𝑖 = 𝐴1 𝑡 −1 0.000 16.8 12.6 models are reliable
for prediction.

IJSER
Table 6 Rainfall Intensity- Duration- Frequency Models (Based on Partial Series Data)

Return IDF Model

Period χ2 χ2 .99 χ2 .95 Remarks
(years) 𝑖 = 𝐶𝐴𝑎 𝑡 𝑏

21 𝑖 = 0.941𝐴1.0125 𝑡 −1.0059 0.0596 16.8 12.6 χ2 calculated

far less than the
10.5 𝑖 = 𝐴1 𝑡 −1 0.0000 16.8 12.6 critical values
at both 1 % and
7 𝑖 = 1.00062𝐴1.001 𝑡 −0.9981 0.0867 16.8 12.6 5 % levels of
5.3 𝑖 = 𝐴1 𝑡 −1 0.0000 16.8 12.6 significance.
Hence models
4.2 𝑖 = 𝐴1 𝑡 −1 0.0000 16.8 12.6 are reliable for

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 847
ISSN 2229-5518

2.2 𝑖 = 𝐴1 𝑡 −1 0.0000 16.8 12.6 prediction

1.1 𝑖 = 𝐴1 𝑡 −1 0.0000 16.8 12.6

Table 7 Chi- Square (χ2) Test: Power Models- Annual Series

Duration(mins) Model χ2 χ2 .99 χ2 .95 Remarks
i = 67.43T 0.362
χ2 calculated far less
12 R² = 0.995 0.088 13.3 9.49 than the critical
values at both
i = 49.61T0.383 1 % and 5 % levels
18 R² = 0.860 3.556 13.3 9.49 of significance.
Hence model is
i = 30.45T0.347 reliable for
24 R² = 0.949 0.543 13.3 9.49 prediction.

i = 51.79T0.222
30 R² = 0.813 1.166 13.3 9.49

IJSER
i = 34.48T0.335
36 R² = 0.889 1.599 13.3 9.49

i = 38.64T0.263
60 R² = 0.775 1.902 13.3 9.49

Table 8: Chi- Square (X2) Test: Power Models- Partial Series

Duration(mins) Model χ2 χ2 .99 χ2 .95 Remarks

i = 34.67T 0.543 χ2 calculated far less
12 R² = 0.942 8.681 21.7 16.9 than the critical
values at both 1 %
i = 33.17T 0.35 and 5 % levels of
18 R² = 0.905 6.464 21.7 16.9 significance. Hence
model is reliable for
i = 30.45T 0.347 prediction.
24 R² = 0.949 5.431 21.7 16.9

i = 51.79T 0.222
30 4.354 21.7 16.9

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
 International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 848
ISSN 2229-5518

R² = 0.813
i = 30.10T 0.253
36 2.171 21.7 16.9
R² = 0.718
i = 38.64T 0.263
60 2.497 21.7 16.9
R² = 0.775

Conclusion and Recommendations

The processes of data collection and analysis for the purpose of developing IDF models
for Makurdi metropolis have been presented. A chi-square test performed on the developed
IDF models revealed that the power models are more reliable for the prediction of rainfall
events in the study area compared to the quotient models. Based on results obtained from this
study, the following conclusions were made:
i. The quotient models gave very high and positive values of goodness of fit between
0.6973 and 0.9769.

ii. The power models gave high and positive values of goodness of fit between 0.880 and
0.997.

IJSER
iii. The power models are more reliable than the quotient models.

It is recommended that the power mo dels developed in t his research shou ld

be used for predict io n o f rainfa ll event s in t he st udy area. Also , t he self
recording type of rain gauges should be installed in all the Meteorological stations
nationwide to provide the input data required for development of IDF models particularly in
the face of climatic change. The number of gauging stations should also be increased to
cover more locations nationwide. It is further recommended that modern technologies
should be utilized to obtain durations for the previous years of incomplete rainfall records in
the study area.

REFERENCES:
Agunwamba, J.C. (2007): Engineering Mathematics Analysis. De –Adroit Innovation.
Enugu Nigeria pp.503-511

Bell, F.C. (1969): Generalized Rainfall-Duration –Frequency Relationship ASCE J. Hydraulic

Eng., vol.95 pp 311-327.

Bernard, M.M., (1932), “Formulas for rainfall intensities of long duration”. Transactions.
ASCE, vol.96 (paper no 1801), pp 592-624.

Brian, H., Zelinka, C. Castello, C., and Curtis, (2006), Special Analysis of storm using GIS,
Unpublished paper, one rain, inc.2967, Green D Black Lane. Orangevale, pp1.

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 5, May-2016 849
ISSN 2229-5518

Chen, C.L, (1983), “Rainfall Intensity-Duration Frequency”. ASCE J. Hydraulic Eng.vol.109 pp

1603-1621.

DuPont, B.S. Allen, D.L., and Clark, K.D., (2002). “Revision of the Rainfall –Intensity-Duration
Curves for Commonwealth of Kentucky’’. Kentucky Transportation Centre, college of
Engineering, University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky. pp1.

Hershfield, D.M, (1961), “Rainfall Frequency Atlas of United States for duration from 30
minutes to 24 hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 years ‘’, tech paper 40,U.S
Department of Comm. Weather Bureau Washington ,D.C.

Kim, T., Shin J., Kim K., and Hoe J, (2008), “Improving Accuracy of IDF curves using long and
short duration separation and multi-objective Genetic algorithm ‘’, World Environmental
and water resources Congress 2008 Ahupua’s, ASCE.

Koutsoyianis, D., Kozonis D., and Manetas, A. (1998): A mathematical framework for
studying rainfall intensity-duration-frequency relationship, J. of Hydrology.vol.206, pp 118-
135.

Leton, T. G. (2005). Element of Civil Engineering Hydraulic .Reynolds Grits publishing Co.
Lagos, Nigeria pp 255

IJSER
Nguyen, V.T.V., Nguyen T.D., and Wang H., (1998): Regional Estimation of short duration
rainfall Extreme .Water Sci. Technol. Vol.37 (ii) pp .15-19.

Okonkwo, G. I. and Mbajiorgu, C.C (2010):” Rainfall Intensity-Duration –Frequency Analysis

for south eastern Nigeria’’. Agriculture Engineering International, the CIGRE. Journal
Manuscript 1304.vol XII March 2010.

Oyebande, L., and Longe, D. (1990): Regionalized Rainfall Intensity –Duration Frequency
relationships for planning and Engineering Designs Pre 1st Biennial National Hydrology
Symposium, Nigeria National Committee for the International Hydrological Program (IHP)
Maiduguri , 26th – 28th Nov., pp 335.

Selah, A. A., (2010), Developing an Empirical Formulae to estimate rainfall intensity in

Riyadh region. Journal of king Saud University-Engineering Sciences
.www.sciencedirect.com’

IJSER © 2016
http://www.ijser.org