On the determination of design discharges in ungaged basins

for highway and railway projects

E.I. Daniil, S.N. Michas and L.S. Lazaridis
HYDROEXIGIANTIKI, Evias 3, 15125 Maroussi, Greece
tel. +30-210 8064543, fax. +30-210 8055495
E-mail: edaniil@hydroex.gr, smichas@hydroex.gr, hydroex@tee.gr

ABSTRACT
The determination of design discharges in ungaged basins associated with highway or railway
projects that intersect many watercourses is a difficult problem. As in ephemeral streams discharge
measurements are in most cases lacking, the calibration of any model for the existing conditions is
not possible. The most critical parameter is the time of concentration. It is proposed that hydrologic
modeling with the use of digital elevation models is used and different scenarios of rainfall
distribution and rainfall duration are used to get a feeling of the possible variations of the T-year
return flood, in combination with simple methods as the rational method and the Fuller formula.
The methodology applied for a highway and a railway project in Greece is presented.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The determination of design discharges in ungaged basins is a major issue for the hydraulic
engineer. The problem is even more difficult when associated with highway or railway projects that
intersect many minor or major watercourses. While using frequency approaches is usually the most
appropriate means to determine a peak flow, at many stream crossings of interest to the highway
engineer, there may be insufficient stream gaging records, or often no records at all, available for
flood frequency analysis. In ephemeral streams discharge measurements are in most cases
completely lacking and even when they exist in many cases the flood peak is probably missed. As a
result the calibration of any model for the existing conditions is not possible.
The natural state of watercourses with open cross sections should be preserved. Materials friendly
to the environment, such as gabions, should be used in most cases. Existing structures and upstream
control should be integrated in the final layout. The design return period is often determined by the
environmental permit. Design for a given return period though is not uniquely defined and may vary
considerably depending on the selection of the parameters and methodologies involved. It is
considered necessary to assure that the final design can handle discharges higher than the design
discharge with reduced freeboard and that critical points are designed to handle higher return period
floods with safety.

In this paper the use of digital elevation models in order to extract hydrologic parameter values and
the selection of appropriate computation methods is discussed in connection with case studies in
Greece. Critical parameters for the determination of discharges are the time of concentration or lag
time, the CN parameter, often used to describe initial losses and the rainfall distribution. There is a
tendency to design for the worst case, however this is not feasible or economical for stormwater
projects. There are publications, based on data from the US and UK that show that center-loaded
storms are appropriate for design of stormwater systems. The Fuller equation is a usual choice for
the determination of design discharges in highway or railway projects. Comparisons with the
rational method, empirical equations, and with hydrologic modeling with the HEC-HMS system
using SCS hydrographs for case studies are presented.

2.

DESIGN RETURN PERIOD - RISK

The authors have expressed their views on the effect of rainfall distribution on dam and diversion
works sizing and on practical issues in hydrologic modeling for flood management of watercourses
running through urban environments in Greece [1, 2, 3]. In this paper related issues applying to the
determination of design discharges in ungaged basins for highway and railway projects are
presented.
The design period is often determined by the environmental permit. The current tendency is that to
adopt a 50-yr return period as the standard for design for important watercourses and technical
works upstream of the project. Sometimes T=100 years is required for major watercourses.
Downstream of the project usually a 10-yr return period is considered sufficient. It is considered
necessary to assure that the final design can handle discharges higher than the design discharge with
reduced freeboard and that critical points, such as important road and highway crossings especially
in urban areas, are designed to handle higher return period floods with safety.
It is generally assumed that a T-yr return period rainfall yields a T-yr return period flood. The
rainfall, however, is not only determined by its total height, but by its duration and time distribution
as well. Design hyetographs can be developed from intensity - duration - frequency curve. A
simple way, used also as default in some computer programs is the alternating block method,
referred to also as a center-loaded storm. There are publications, based on data from the US and UK
that show that center-loaded storms are appropriate for design of stormwater systems [4, 5].
The risk (R) of failure (or occurence) is given as a function of project life (n) and the return period
(T) (Fig. 1).
1

R = 1 1
T

(1)

The risk concept is not usually very well understood by the general public. Haestad Methods Inc.
[6] has alternatively proposed the Haestad Severity index as a function of duration and probability
(return period). In defining the severity levels it was assumed that the severity of a rainfall event is
directly proportional to the duration and the return period of the event.

n= 10
n= 50
n= 100

Risk of occurrence in n - years

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Return Period (yrs)

Fig.1. Risk of occurrence of the T-year return period

3.

DESIGN DISCHARGES

Although drainage area is the most important parameter in determining runoff peaks, the relation is
not linear and other parameters like slope of the watershed may also be important. Several methods
and empirical area- depending equations have been proposed [7]
The most critical parameter in determining the outflow from a drainage basin is time of
concentration. Formulas in the literature give greatly varying results. The choice of the appropriate
formula to be used should always be given serious consideration; especially in ungauged basins the
impact on design discharges can be very significant. In Greece the most popular formulas for the
determination of the time of concentration are the Kirpich formula and the Giandotti formula.
Kirpich gives very short times, while Giandotti gives very long times [8].
Kirpich formula was developed from SCS data for seven rural basins in Tennessee with welldefined channel and steep slopes (3% to 10%). For overland flow on concrete or asphalt surface
multiplying tc by 0.40 is suggested.
tK = 0.02 (L/S0.5)0.77

(2)

Hotchkiss and McCallum [9] investigated the performance of the nomograph used by the Nebraska
Dept. of Roads, which is essentially the Kirpich formula multiplied by 1.5 for agricultural
watersheds. They conclude that the SCS lag equation showed poor results on all sites regardless of
how the curve number was determined.
The Giandotti formula gives higher values for the time of concentration compared to the Kirpich
formula, but is used extensively in Greece.
tG =

4 A + 1.5 L
0.8 H

(3)

where A is the drainage area (Km2), L the length of the main watercourse in Km and H the
elevation difference of the average basin elevation from the outlet elevation in m.
Regarding the SCS lag equation the following remarks are stated [10]: Equation developed by SCS
from agricultural watershed data; it has been adapted to small urban basins under 2000 acres; found
generally good where area is completely paved; for mixed areas it tends to overestimate; adjustment
factors are applied to correct for channel improvement and impervious area; the equation assumes
that tc = 1.67 x basin lag.
In [11] six types of dimensionless hydrographs are presented based on 162 reconstructed flood
hydrographs. In order to apply these dimensionless hydrographs, lag time has to be determined,
based on the geometric characteristics of the basin and a parameter, Kn, which can be interpreted as
a Manning coefficient of the whole basin. This coefficient depends also on the return period, with
higher values associated with lower return periods. The hydrographs are parameterized with LD =
Lg + 1/2 D, where D is the unit rainfall duration. This parameterization, the determination of Lg
based on basin characteristics and basin classification is the most important issue presented in the
construction of these dimensionless hydrographs.
Bureau of Reclamation uses the following definition in conjunction with the dimensionless
hydrograph technique: Lag time is the time from the midpoint of the unit rainfall excess to the time
that 50% of the volume of unit runoff from the drainage basin has passed the concentration point.
LL
L g = C 0,ca
5
S

(4)

Lg is the unit hydrograph time in hours, C, N are constants N = 0.33, C = 26 Kn, L is the longest
watercourse from the point of concentration to the boundary of the drainage basin in miles, Lca is
the length along the longest watercourse from the point of concentration to a point opposite the
centroid of the drainage basin in miles, and S is the overall slope of the longest watercourse (along
L) in feet per mile. For the Sierra Nevada type hydrograph, that is considered by the writers
applicable to some watersheds in Greece, the time to peak is:
t p = D / 2 + tlag = 0.75(L g + 0.5 D ) = 0.75 L g + 0.375 D

(5)

In view of the variation that can be obtained for lag time, depending on the formula and the method
of computation of the average slope chosen, the writers believe that the effect of digital elevation
model grid size and source used for the determination of hydrologic parameters should be furhter
investigated and tested against measured data and protocols developed for wide use [12].

3.1 Rational method

The rational method is one of the simplest and best-known methods routinely applied. Due to
assumptions regarding the homogeneity of rainfall and equilibrium conditions at the time of peak
flow, the rational method should not be used on areas larger than about 2.5 Km2 without
subdividing the overall catchment. Peak flows are predicted by the simple product:
Q=C i A

(6)

where Q is the peak flow, C is the runoff coefficient, i the rainfall intensity and A the drainage area.

3.2 The Fuller formula

The Fuller formula is often used by highway engineers for a quick estimation of discharges at
watercourses crossings.

2.66

QT = Q 1 (1 + 0.8 log T )1 + 0.30

F

(7)

Q1 = 1.80 F 0.80

(8)

where QT (m3/s) T-yr return period discharge, Q1 (m3/s) the mean daily discharge of the 1-yr flood,
T the return period in years and F the drainage area in Km2. The guideline allows for Q1 to be
determined based on observations, but in lack of observations it can be computed from a
relationship in the form Q1= C Fa after determining the parameters C, a. Equation (8) is a first
estimate but it is used usually in highway projects without further investigation.

3.3 Hydrologic models

The advancements in computational technology and geographical information systems allow us to
easily obtain distributed data regarding land use, geologic characteristics etc influencing the
parameters involved in peak flow determination
Using this input and programs as the HEC-HMS hydrographs are easily developed with a single run
for all basins in the study area.

4.

CASE STUDIES

In this paper examples are presented from case studies in Greece: The Stylis area highway project
and the Kalabaka Ioannina railway project. In the first case of the whole area drainage area
involved was modeled in the HEC-HMS environment. In the second according to the project
specifications the rational method and the Fuller method were applied. Fitted equations relating the
drainage area to the peak flows show similar type of dependence with the constant of
proportionality depending on the geographic location (elevation and orographic effects) of the site.

4.1 Stylis area highway project

This project is part of the Patras - Athens - Thessaloniki - Eyzonoi (PATHE) national highway in
Stylis area. The study area involved 19 Km of the highway and it was associated with 180 Km2
drainage area. For this project a quite detailed hydrologic model was developed with the HEC-HMS
program including all basins intersected by the highway. SCS hydrographs were used with the lag
time computed based on the formula given by the design of small dams for the Sierra Nevada area.
Many rainfall distribution and duration scenarios were investigated. Finally 12 hr, center loaded
storms were used for the design.
In Fig. 2 a comparison of the results of the rational method and those of the hydrologic model is
presented. Equations relating the drainage area to the discharge peaks were also fitted. The
Drainage area exponent is close to 0.8. The constant of proportionality varies by approximately
25% with the rational method giving higher results.

1000
0.8201

y = 8.9213x
2
R = 0.9751
50-year discharge (m3/s)

100

10
0.7483

y = 6.9614x
2
R = 0.9773

Q50 rational method

Q50 hydrologic model
0.1

Power (Q50 hydrologic model)

Power (Q50 rational method)

0.01
0.01

0.1

10

100

Drainage area (Km2)

Figure 2. Comparison of results for Stylis area (PATHE highway)

4.2 The Kalabaka - Ioannina railway project

The proposed Kalabaka Ioannina railway project extends from East to West and goes over
Greeces mainland divide, and has a total length of 80 Km. The orographic effects of Pindos
mountains are pronounced on rainfall records: the west side receiving higher rainfall heights.
Analysis of rainfall intensity shows also higher intensities. As a result different intensity duration
frequency relationships had to be used. According to the given project guidelines the rational or
the Fuller method had to be used for the determination of the design discharges. The Kirpich
formula had to be used for basins up to 3 Km2 and the Giandotti formula for larger basins. A coarse
digital elevation model was used for the delineation of the drainage basins intersected by the
railway and the determination of the geometric characteristics and average runoff coefficients.
Further refinements were made based on the more detailed mapping in the railway area. A total of
157 basins was studied.
In Fig. 3 a comparison of the results with the Fuller and the rational method is presented. For
discharges lower than ~10m3/s the Fuller method gives higher values both for the east and the west
area. For higher discharges the rational method gives lower discharges for the east area basins and
higher discharges for the west area basins. The rational method discharges were used for the design.
In Fig. 4 a power regression between drainage area and the 50-yr discharge is presented. The
exponent is almost the same for the two areas and close to the 0.8 used also in the Fuller Q1
equation. The constant of proportionality is ~45% higher for the west side as compared to that of
the east. This type of empirical equations could be used for other technical works in the area.

1000
Q50 - EAST
Q50 - WEST

Q Fuller (m3/s)

100

10

0
0

10
Q rational (m3/s)

100

1000

Figure 3. Comparison of Fuller and rational method for east - west parts of the Kalabaka Ioannina
railway project
10000

0.7791

1000

y = 13.486x
2

Q rational method (m3/s)

R = 0.9852
100
0.7955

y = 9.1575x
2
R = 0.9809

10

Q50 - EAST
Q50 - WEST
Power (Q50 - EAST)

0.1

0.01
0.001

Power (Q50 - WEST)

0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

Drainage area A (Km2)

Figure 4.Correlation of the 50-yr discharge with drainage area.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Determining peak flows for ungaged areas is difficult and involves high uncertainty. The advanced
computer capabilities should be used for better determination of the parameters involved, both for
simple methods as the rational method and more detailed ones as the application of synthetic
hydrographs. It is proposed that hydrologic modeling is used including a considerable part of the
drainage system of a basin and different scenarios of rainfall distribution and rainfall duration are
used to get a feeling of the possible variations of the T-year return flood that the environmental
permit describes, before more detailed specifications are developed.

References
1.

E.I. Daniil and L.S. Lazarides (2003), Designers concerns on the effect of rainfall
distribution on dam and diversion works sizing, IAHR XXX Congress, Thessaloniki,
GREECE, 24-29 August 2003, Theme B: 95-102.

2.

E.I. Daniil and L.S. Lazaridis (2005) Practical Issues for Flood Management of Watercourses
Running though Urban Environments in Greece, 2005 Watershed Management Conference,
Managing Watersheds for Human and natural Impacts: Engineering, Ecological and
Economic Challenges, ASCE, July 19-22, 2005, Williamsburg, Virginia.

3.

E.I. Daniil and L.S. Lazaridis (2005), Hydrologic modeling considerations for flood
management in ungaged basins, 9th Int. Conf. on Environmental Science and
Technology, Rhodes island, Greece, 1-3 Sept. 2005, Th. Lekkas (ed)., Greece.

4.

Levy, B. & McCuen, R. (1999), Assessment of Storm Duration for Hydrologic Design, J.
Hydrologic Eng. 4(3): 209-213.

5.

Packman, J.C. & Kidd, C.H.R. (1980), A logical approach to the design storm concept,
Water Resour. Res. 16(6): 994-1000.

6.

Haestad Methods, Inc. (1998), Essential Hydraulics and Hydrology.

7.

U.S. Dept. of Tranportation, Federal Highway Administration (2002), Highway

Hydrology, Hydraulic Design Series No. 2, Second Edition.

8.

E.I. Daniil, S.N. Michas and L.S. Lazaridis (2005), Hydrologic Modeling for the
determination of design discharges in ungauged basins, Global NEST Journal, 7(3),
296-305.

9.

Hotchkiss, R.H. and B.E. McCallum (1995), Peak discharge for small agricultural
watersheds, J. of Hydraulic Engineering, 121(1), pp.36-48.

10.

Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment and L.M. Mays (1988), Applied Hydrology, Mc-Graw Hill,
New York, 572 pp.

11.

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (1987), Design of Small Dams, 3rd
edition, US Government Printing Office, Denver, CO, 1987.

12.

E.I. Daniil and S.N. Michas (2006), Discussion of Factors Affecting Estimates of Average
Watershed Slope by A. Jason Hill and Vincent S. Neary, March/April 2005, Vol. 10, No. 2,
pp. 133-140, J. of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE, July/Aug. 2006, p. 382-384.