bs_bs_banner

Regional intensity-duration-frequency curves for Jeddah region,

Saudi Arabia, using ordinary and L-moments approaches
A.G. Awadallah
Civil Engineering Department, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt

Correspondence
Ayman G. Awadallah, Civil Engineering
Department, Fayoum University, Fayoum
16385, Egypt
Tel: +20 122 5584866
Fax: +20 84 6334033
Email: aawadallah@darcairo.com
DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12085
Key words
intensity-duration-frequency curves;
Jeddah; L-moments; rainfall; regional
frequency analysis; Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
The frequency analysis of rainfall in the Jeddah region, Saudi Arabia, has been
disputed both on grounds of the methodology, statistical model and the result-
ing rainfall estimates. Frequency analysis of available rainfall records for Jeddah
region, Saudi Arabia, is performed to develop regional intensity-duration-
frequency (IDF) curves. The data cover nearly 40 years of records for 10 stations.
Only three stations comprise short duration records of 10 min accuracy. The
homogeneity of the region is first assessed using tests relying on the coefficients
of variation of ordinary moments and also the discordancy and the heteroge-
neity measures based on L-moments. The best fitting distribution to all region
stations is selected comparing several approaches: namely the ordinary and
L-moment ratio diagrams, the goodness-of-fit measures based on L-moments,
the log-log and the mean excess function plots, and finally the Akaike and
Bayesian Information Criteria. The gamma distribution can be used for fitting
the whole region. Jeddah region is thus divided into two homogeneous rainfall
regions and two sets of rainfall IDF curves are developed for 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-,
50- and 100-year return periods. The approach proposed by this study helps
develop IDF curves derived using a regional approach in which several methods
are investigated yielding converging results.

Introduction
The challenges in the derivation of intensity-duration-
frequency (IDF) on a regional scale arise from the fact that
many of the rainfall gauges have short record lengths with
a high degree of spatial variability, and the subdaily rain
gauges often have poor spatial density. The most common
approach to deal with insufficient data is the application of
regionalisation. The ‘index flood method’ is a widely adopted
regional approach based on a regional growth factor and
prediction equations for moments of various orders (such
as coefficient of variation and skewness), along with an
index ‘flood’ or ‘rainfall’ (Darlymple, 1960). The study area is
Jeddah region, Saudi Arabia, which has recently experienced
severe frequent floods (one in 2009 and another 2011) (GES,
2009; Al Saud, 2010).
Although the problem of design rainfall estimation dates
back to the early works of Hershfield (1961) in the United
States and the Natural Environmental Research Council
(NERC, 1975) in the United Kingdom, the problem is still
widely researched in recent years (e.g. Unal et al., 2004; Jakob
et al., 2007; Xu and Tung, 2009; Lee et al., 2010; Sarker et al.,
2010). The western region of Saudi Arabia and the Jeddah
study area were also widely researched in the last decades
(Al-Jerash, 1985; Nouh, 1987; Abouammoh, 1991; Wheater
et al., 1991a, b; Mashat, 1992; Alyamani and Şen, 1993;
Ahmed, 1997; Abdullah and Al-Mazroui, 1998; Subyani,
1999, 2004; Almazroui, 2011; Elsebaie, 2012). Regional rain-
fall frequency analysis based on L-moments is also widely
researched (Fowler and Kilsby, 2003; Bonnin et al., 2006;
Caporali et al., 2008; Haddad et al., 2011; Ngongondo et al.,
2011; Xu et al., 2012), just to list a few recent publications
covering all continents.
In general, published literature dealing with frequency
analysis either focuses on one special technique, distribution
or estimation method, or presents a new methodology com-
paring its success using randomly generated data. This
resulted in a huge gap between scientific advances in the field
of statistical analysis in hydrology and the guidelines or
norms of practice that remain outdated. Bulletin 17 B of
the US Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data
(1981), dealing with ‘guidelines for determining flood flow
frequency’, which was not revised since 1981, is a clear
example of this gap. In their review of rainfall frequency

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
196
estimation methods in nine different countries: Canada,
Sweden, France, Germany, the United States, South Africa,
New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, Svensson
and Jones (2010) point out that there is ‘considerable diffi-
culty in estimating long return period rainfalls from short
data records and there is no obviously “best” way of doing it.
Each country’s method is different . . . and several of the
methods are variations of a regionalization method’. They
note also that ‘different statistical distributions and fitting
methods are used’. In the current research, from the meth-
odological perspective, we propose to use an approach that
relies on regional analysis, and at the same time we extend
the use of other techniques, developed for selecting the best
distribution using at-site data, to be used in regionalisation
approaches in order to confirm the regional choices. As for
parameter estimation methods, we undertake a conjunctive
use of both L-moments and ordinary moments. Although
the techniques are not novel, the joint use of all of them
to endorse the research findings encourages the agencies
responsible for codes of practices to incorporate such a
robust approach. This approach is easily transferable to areas
of the world where no specific distribution is fixed by the
code of practice. It is of special interest where the statistical
results are variable depending on the adopted approach
because of high data variability. This is typical of arid
regional rainfall, and this paper presents the divergence of
approaches applied in the Jeddah region, Saudi Arabia.
Actually, many published articles and consultancy works
have tackled the frequency analysis of Jeddah rainfall sta-
tions. The approaches as well as the end results are very
different and therefore uncertain for design purposes.
Subyani (2011) presented a review of rainfall data and rain-
fall frequency analysis at eight gauges in southwest Saudi
Arabia (similar to the ones used in this study except for Al
Taef station). The analyses include data obtained until 2007,
so that the 2009 and 2011 extreme events are not included.
The study used an at-site approach, fitting Gumbel and
log-Pearson type III (LPIII) and choosing Gumbel based on
visual inspection. Ewea (2010) reported the results of the
frequency analysis of the North Jeddah Station (presumably
the 41024 station) as 117.4 mm and 102.6 mm for the 100-
year and 50-year events, respectively, without specifying the
distribution used or the adopted methodology.
In the aftermath of the 2009 and 2011 flood events, several
studies have been conducted to evaluate the flooding
response to the extreme rainfall events. In a study for flood
protection assessment for Sharm Obhor district, just north
of the Jeddah Airport, the Saudi Geological Survey (SGS,
2010a) analysed the 41024 Airport station record till 2009
(keeping the 2009 rainfall value unchanged) using a peak
over-threshold approach. The independence of storm events
included in the frequency analysis was not observed. As a
matter of fact, all high daily records belonging to the 12-day
© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Awadallah
storm of 1996 event were all included in the analysis regard-
less of being dependent records. Furthermore, no sensitivity
analysis was reported for the choice of threshold over which
peaks were included in the analysis. The 100-year daily event,
using the LPIII distribution, is 132 mm.
Local consultants, in conjunction with the SGS, con-
ducted studies for other wadis to the east of Jeddah: Wadi
Qaws (SGS, 2010b) and Wadi Methweb (SGS, 2010c). The
rainfall frequency analyses conducted for the reports refer-
enced above also include frequency analyses of the record
at the Jeddah Airport (41024) gauge and the Jeddah (J134)
gauge through the 2009 storm event. Each of the reports
included additional analysis for the Jeddah Airport (41024)
gauge. This analysis was based on an estimated rainfall
depth (between 150 and 160 mm for the 2009 event) over the
studied wadis based on results of hydrologic modelling com-
bined with observed storage volumes at reservoirs. This esti-
mated rainfall depth was then substituted into the Jeddah
Airport (41024) record in place of the observed 2009 rainfall
depth of 70 mm. Additional frequency analysis was then
conducted using this adjusted record. Without questioning
the estimated rainfall depth by back analysis, this rainfall
depth rather estimates the average rainfall depth over the
headwater basins of the studied wadis, which is in the eastern
foothill region. Because of the effects of elevation, the rain-
fall depth in this area would probably have been greater than
observed at the Airport (41024) gauge. Using the raw data of
41024 station, the above mentioned reports adopt the LPIII
(without giving the reasons for the choice) and found a
100-year daily rainfall value of 132 mm to 136.9 mm. Using
the estimated 150 mm for the 2009 event, the same LPIII
gives a 100-year daily value of 160.4–163.7 mm.
Atkins (2012), in the design of stormwater networks in
Jeddah Airport, analysed the 41024 record till 2011 (keeping
the 2009 event as recorded), and used the Gumbel distribu-
tion to fit the data and estimated the 100-year daily event as
109.5 mm.
AECOM (2011) consulting firm undertook frequency
analysis on an aggregated annual maximum series con-
structed by selecting the annual maximum rainfall value
from the combined rainfall record of the Airport (41024
station) and Jeddah (J134) by selecting the annual maxi-
mum rainfall value at the respective gauge. ‘It is theorized
that the combination of spatial variability and small size of
the typical connective storm cells in the Jeddah area makes it
just as likely for a particular rainfall event to have occurred at
one rain gauge location or at the other’ (AECOM, 2011). In
fact, the correlation of daily rainfall data between the two
gauges is only 0.2. Rodda (1970) found low correlation of
rainfall from gauges in convective events compared with
that in frontal events. Generalised extreme value (GEV),
Gumbel, Weibull, Pearson type III (PIII), LPIII and log-
normal distributions were tested on the aggregated Jeddah
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207
Regional I-D-F for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
series (AECOM, 2011). The fit for each of the selected
distributions was initially evaluated by comparing computed
goodness of-fit measures, including the chi-squared and
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistics, as well as standardised
least squares criterion; probability plot correlation coeffi-
cient (PPCC I) based on correlation between the order
observations and the corresponding order statistics; and
the PPCC II based on the correlation between the ordered
reduced variate and the corresponding order statistic
(AECOM, 2011). The computed goodness-of-fit statistics
were used to perform an initial screening to select the two
distributions with the best fit to the data. Final evaluation
and selection of the best distribution were made based
on visual comparison of the fitted distributions with the
observed data. According to AECOM (2011), the Gumbel
probability distribution provided the best fit to the observed
data for the Airport rain gauge annual maximum rainfall
series as well as the aggregated annual maximum rainfall
series. The results of the frequency analysis give the 100-year
daily event for the aggregated series as 132 mm and for the
Jeddah Airport series as 108 mm.
SC Sembenelli Consulting and Talal Adham & Partners
(2012) carried out a study for the flood risk assessment of
Wadi Al Asla to the east of Jeddah as well. In this study, the
sole record of 41024 station was used. Frequency analysis
using log-manual, Gumbel, gamma, LPIII were undertaken;
chi-square, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and the deviation from
the empirical distribution (determined by the Weibull plot-
ting position formula) were used to choose fit. Based on the
empirical distribution criterion, the LPIII was selected and
the 100-year daily event was estimated as 131.3 m.
From the above mentioned literature review and in view
of the wide variation in the estimates of the ‘100-year’ that
ranges from 108 to 163.7 mm using in principle the same
rainfall gauge, a new rainfall frequency analysis is needed.
Klemeš (2000a, b) stresses the diversity of probability plots of
potential data and emphasises the fact that there is a tendency
to make the distribution fit the data even though the short
time period data may not represent the longer span popula-
tion. That is why attention should be given to the choice of the
fitting distribution. Furthermore, various methods, which are
based on different underlying assumptions, should be used
conjointly to confirm the adopted choice. For this reason, the
main contribution of the current study is the joint application
of several methodologies based on both at-site and regional
estimates and on both L-moments and ordinary moments, as
well as the joint use of several approaches to compare the
fitting of statistical distributions. The analysis is based on
annual maxima and the rainfall data are collected and their
quality checked by the Presidency of Meteorology and Envi-
ronment, in Saudi Arabia. No missing years are noted in the
data, and the maximum number of zero rainfall years did
not exceed 2 years per station. In fact, if we remove all small
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
197
annual maxima (rainfall values below 5 mm/day), the esti-
mates of the at-site 100-year rainfall are modified on the
average by 1.6% (of the estimate before removing small
values), with a maximum modification of 4.8% only. The
methodology undertaken in the current study is summarised
in the following steps:
1. Assessing the homogeneity of the region – based on daily
rainfall data – using both Wiltshire (1986a and 1986b)
test based on ordinary moments and on the approach of
Hosking and Wallis (1995, 1997) based on L-moments.
2. Selecting the best distribution using (a) the ordinary and
L-moments diagrams, (b) the goodness of fit measures
based on L-moments, (c) the log-log plots and the
mean excess function (MEF) proposed by El Adlouni
et al. (2008) and (d) Akaike and Bayesian Information
Criteria (AIC and BIC).
3. Calculating at site and regional estimates based on the
best distribution.
4. Calculating short duration ratios based on available short
duration rainfall records.
5. Deriving IDF curves.
Study area and available data
The study area is located from 38.9° to 40.5° east and from
21° to 22.25° north, and is bound to the west by the Red Sea
and to the east by the Assir escarpment, which runs parallel
to the sea coast (Figure 1). The region is subject to two major
influences with respect to the supply of moisture for precipi-
tation. In winter, weather systems from the north and west
predominate, generally of Mediterranean origin. However,
in autumn, moist air from the tropical maritime air masses
system penetrates the region. Local climate is modified by
the influence of the Red Sea, the hot interior of Saudi Arabia
and the orographic effect of the Assir Mountains. Annual
rainfall is strongly related to elevation, with annual totals in
the order of 46–70 mm in the Red Sea coastal plain and up to
286 mm at higher elevations.
Data from 10 rainfall stations across Jeddah region are
used in this study, namely seven stations with only daily data
and only three with subdaily data. The analysis focusses on
these 10 stations because the study aims to assess the design
rainfall relative to the catchments discharging towards
the city of Jeddah. The station characteristics are listed in
Table 1. The length of record exceeds 40 years for all stations.
This length is relatively short for estimation of rainfall
with very high return periods (> 500 years). However, it is
common practice to estimate the 100-year return period
from 40 or 50 years sample with an acceptable accuracy. The
geographical distribution is shown in Figure 1 on the back-
ground of a digital elevation model. It is noted that the
approximate distance between nearest neighbour stations is
about 50 km.
198 Awadallah

Figure 1 Rainfall stations location on a digital elevation model background (with 350 m contour elevation marked in red).

Table 1 Characteristics of available rainfall stations in Jeddah region

Station Total annual Available Mean of max.
identifier Station name rainfall (mm) record daily (mm) L-Cv L-Skew L-Kurt Di
4 1024 Jeddah Airport 63 1970–2011 35.8 12.7661 0.1730 0.0143 1.31
J102 Bahrah 59 1966–2011 28.9 10.5543 0.1603 0.1455 0.49
J134 Jeddah (El Moderia) 55 1970–2011 30.1 12.837 0.2546 0.1594 0.17
J214 Madrakah 102 1966–2006 32.3 13.1233 0.2544 0.1524 0.22
J221 Usfan 46 1971–2004 27.5 12.7351 0.3202 0.1617 0.54
J239 Al Barza 63 1976–2011 23.9 9.7629 0.1318 0.0379 1.16
J205 Mid Scarp 178 1966–2005 42.8 14.6181 0.1760 0.1327 1.84
TA109 Shafa 286 1964–2011 42.7 9.8790 0.0200 0.1100 1.78
41036 Al Taif 159 1970–2011 39.4 12.3361 0.4371 0.3403 1.67
41030 Makkah 113 1985–2011 39.0 10.2288 0.0516 0.0068 0.82

Methodology, results and discussion
Assessing the homogeneity of the Jeddah region
Regional frequency analysis methods are based on the
assumption that the standardised variable q = QTR/μi at each
station i has the same distribution at every site in the region
under consideration, where QTR is the magnitude of rainfall
given its return period TR, and μi is the mean of rainfall at
site i. In particular, the coefficient of variation (Cv) and the
coefficient of skewness (Cs) of q are considered constant
across the region (Cunnane, 1988).
Several methods exist for assessing the homogeneity of a
region. The first used method (Wiltshire, 1986a, b) assumes
that the homogeneity is expressed in terms of similarity of
Cv. The result of the Wiltshire chi-square statistic was found
to be 15.72 (with a P-value of 0.073). Although the probabil-
ity value is acceptable, it is relatively low. TA109 station has a
relatively smaller Cv of 0.4 compared with an average of 0.71
for the whole region. Removing this station improves the
statistic of Wiltshire. Without station TA109, the Wiltshire
statistic was found to be 7.51, which indicates – with a
P-value of 0.483 – that the region is homogeneous.
The second method, which was used to assess the homo-
geneity of the region, is based on L-moments. It includes two
steps (Hosking and Wallis, 1997): (1) screening the data
using the discordancy measure, Di; and (2) homogeneity
testing using the heterogeneity measures, H1, H2 and H3. The
discordancy measure (shown in Table 1) is calculated for
each site, based on the linear coefficient of variation (L-Cv),
the linear coefficient of skewness (L-Skew) and the linear
coefficient of kurtosis (L-Kurt). A large value of Di indicates
the discordancy of site i with other sites. Hosking and Wallis
(1997) found that there is no fixed ‘large’ number for Di and

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207
Regional I-D-F for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
suggested critical values for the discordancy test, which are
dependent on the number of sites in the study region. The
critical value of 2.491, corresponding to 10 stations, is not
exceeded in the study region. However, station TA109 has
a high Di along with a relatively different L-Cv than the rest
of the stations. The results of the Wiltshire test led to the
removal of the station.
The second statistics, used in assessing the homogeneity
of a region based on L-moments, are measures of hetero-
geneity (H1, H2 and H3), which compare the variations
of L-moments of sites for a group of these sites with the
expected values of variations for a homogeneous region. If
Hi ≤ 1, a region is reasonably homogeneous; if 1 ≤ Hi < 2, a
region is fairly homogeneous; and if Hi ≥ 2, the region is
absolutely heterogeneous (Hosking and Wallis 1997). H1 and
H2 gave values of –0.14; however, H3, which has a value of
4.25, suggests that further improvement to the region could
be achieved by removing TA109 with a high discordancy
measure. Removing this station, H1 and H2 reach –0.15 and
0.16 while H3 drops to 1.78, which is in the category of fairly
homogeneous. Based on the previous analysis using ordinary
and L-moments approaches, it was decided to remove station
TA109 and form a region using the remaining nine stations.
Distribution selection
Distributions that are usually used in frequency analysis
can be grouped into three categories that contain the most
common distributions widely used in hydrology to represent
daily maximum annual series (INRS, 2008):
• Class C (regularly varying distributions): Fréchet (EV2),
Halphen IB (HIB), LPIII, inverse gamma (IG);
• Class D (subexponential distributions): Halphen type A
(HA), Halphen type B (HB), Gumbel (EV1), PIII, gamma
(G);
• Class E (exponential distribution).
Other distributions not mentioned in the above classifi-
cation include the three-parameter lognormal (LN3) and the
generalised Pareto (GPA) distributions. Since some of the
previously mentioned distributions are not common, some
distributions were discarded. The complete list of tested dis-
tributions is: Gumbel, PIII, Gamma, LN3, GPA, LPIII and
IG.
To choose between distributions, several methods are
available. One can use the moment ratio diagrams based on
ordinary and/or on L-moments. As proved by Vogel and
Fennessey (1993), the L-moment ratios diagram is a very
effective tool for distribution selection. Another methodol-
ogy is the one proposed by El Adlouni et al. (2008). A third
approach is the use of AIC and BIC. All three approaches are
applied hereafter.
Figures 2a and b illustrate the ordinary and L-moment
ratios diagrams, respectively. Based on the ordinary moment
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
199
ratios diagram, the GPA, the PIII and the LN3 distributions
are three candidate distributions for fitting the Jeddah region
stations. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the
L-moments diagram except that the generalised extreme
value distribution is also a plausible distribution.
It should be noted that the PIII distribution and the gamma
distribution have identical curves on the moment ratio dia-
grams because they have the same relation between the third
and fourth moments (Stedinger et al., 1993).
On the other hand, in the context of L-moments method-
ology, the selection is to be carried out by calculating a
goodness-of-fit measure ( Z DIST ) . For each candidate distri-
bution, the goodness-of-fit measure is calculated based on
the L-kurtosis. The fit is considered to be adequate if Z DIST
is sufficiently close to zero, a reasonable criterion being
Z DIST ≤ 1.64 . The values of Z DIST statistic for the study
area for the three-parameter distributions are 2.12 (GEV),
0.66 (PIII), 1.62 (LN3) and 1.75 (GPA). From the Z DIST
statistic results, the PIII distribution is the most appropriate
regionally. It should be noted that for the two stations in
Jeddah city (41024 and J134), the GPA is considered most
suitable, so it will be kept for further analysis.
Another approach for selecting the best fitting distribu-
tion is the one proposed by El Adlouni et al. (2008). It allows
the identification of the most adequate class of distribution
(among the previously presented three classes) to fit a given
sample. This approach uses successively two plots:
• The log-log plot: to discriminate between the class C and
on the classes E and D;
• The MEF: to discriminate between class D and class E.
Applying the two discriminant plots on the nine stations
of Jeddah region, it was found that all stations belong to class
D. As previously mentioned, it should be noted that the LN3
and the GPA distributions should also be tested as they do
not belong to any of the classes.
To choose between distributions of class D, AIC (Akaike,
1973, 1974) and BIC (Schwarz, 1978) can also used. Both
criteria are based on the deviation between the fitted distri-
bution and the empirical probability, as well as a penalisation
that is the function of the number of parameters of the
distribution and the sample size. The distribution having the
smallest BIC and AIC is the one that best fits the data. Table 2
shows the ranking of fitting distributions for rainfall sta-
tions; rank ‘1’ being the best distribution having the smallest
AIC and BIC. The gamma distribution is the best distribu-
tion regionally as it gives the smallest sum of ranks.
Frequency analysis using the
selected distribution
Figures 3 (from a to i) show the fitting of the gamma
distribution both using at-site information and regional
information. The 95% confidence intervals based on at-site
200 Awadallah

(a)
16

14
41036

12
PIII
Kurtosis Coefficient

10 J221

8 J102
SITES
J134
6 MEAN
J214 GEV
4 GLOG
TA109 J205 GPA LN3
GNO
LOGN
P-III
2 41024 GPAR
41030 J239
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Skewness Coefficient
(b)
0.4

0.35
41036

0.3

0.25
J221
L-kurtosis, tau4

J134
0.2 J214
J102 J205
Exponential
Gumbel Average
0.15
Normal

0.1
TA109

0.05 41024
J239
Unif orm
41030
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
L-skeweness, tau3
PIII
Uniform Exponential Gumbel Normal GPA GLO GEV LN3 PEIII Average

Figure 2 Moment ratios diagrams based on (a) ordinary moments and (b) L-moments.

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207
Regional I-D-F for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Table 2 Ranking of candidate distributions based on AIC and BIC
Distributions 41024 J134 41036
Generalised Pareto (GPA) 1 2
Gamma 2 1
Gumbel 3 4
Pearson type III (PIII) 4 3
Three-parameter lognormal (LN3) 5 5
AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.
estimates are also shown. The measured data are also plotted
i − 0.4
using Cunnane (1978) plotting formula ( , where i is
n + 0.2
the rank of the observation and n the total number of obser-
vations). Such plotting positions would be almost quantile-
unbiased (Stedinger et al., 1993). It is clear that the at-site
and the regional fits are similar except for J221 and 41030
stations. We notice that the ratios of 10-year to 2-year rainfall
(R10/R2) in the derived growth curve are nearly 2.0 and 1.8,
for the coastal and mountainous Jeddah regions, respec-
tively; indicating high convective activity and also time
periods where rainfall is relatively low. This is also indicative
of presence of small areas that could have relatively higher
rainfall. With relatively few gauges and with an average
spacing of 40 km from each other, it is most likely that the
rainfall at the centre of convective storm was not measured.
This helps explain the tendency of the frequency plots in
Figure 3 and confirms the findings of Klemeš (2000a, b).
A value of 110 mm for the 100-year daily rainfall (average
of 41024 and J134 stations) is appropriate for the coastal
zone in Jeddah city, while as for the mountainous region, a
value of 135 mm for the 100-year daily rainfall is chosen
(average of J205 and 41036 stations). These values should
be compared with the ones reported in the introduction
section. To get the 24-h estimate at different return periods,
the daily estimate must be multiplied by 1.13 (Hershfield,
1961), yielding, for example, a value of 124 mm for the 100-
year rainfall in Jeddah city and a value of 153 mm for the
mountainous region. It is clear that the analysis resolves the
issues of aggregating the rainfall values in one series attrib-
uting it to the coastal zone of Jeddah.
Furthermore, in order to reduce the uncertainty associ-
ated with the above 100-year rainfall estimates, the 1-day
values are checked against very rare events such as the 1-day
probable maximum precipitation (PMP). It should be
noted that these daily values are prior to multiplication
by 1.13 to transform the daily values to 24-h values as
previously mentioned. Estimates of PMP, undertaken so
far in Saudi Arabia, are based on Hershfield frequency
factor approach and as such rely on the average and stand-
ard deviation estimates of the maximum daily rainfall.
However, an estimate of PMP, undertaken for Adesseya
Dam, Jordan (Jordan Valley Authority, 1978), was found to
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
201
J239 J221 J214 J205 J102 41030 Sum of ranks
5 1 5 2 5 5 5 31
2 2 1 1 4 2 1 16
3 3 3 4 1 1 2 24
4 4 4 3 2 4 3 31
1 5 2 5 3 3 4 33
be 295 mm, say 300 mm, based on moisture availability and
a maximisation approach. The climate in Jordan is arid, but
is wetter than the Jeddah region in terms of annual precipi-
tation, but fairly similar in terms of daily maximum rainfall
(annual precipitation is about 500 mm, the 100-year daily
rainfall estimates range from 87 mm to 115 mm). If we
assume that the same PMP value is applicable in the Jeddah
region, the 100-year return period can be recalculated as
follows (Clark, 2010, 2012):
y = ( − LN ( − LN (1 − 1 T )) − 3.3842) × 1.09348
(1)
× T −0.046518 + 3.3842
where y is the modified Gumbel (also called log Gumbel)
variate, and T is the return period in years.
In order to obtain a rainfall frequency curve extending
from the 2-year (average) estimate to the PMP estimate, the
following equation can be used (Rakhecha and Clark, 1999):
LogR = b × y + a (2)
where R is the rainfall estimate for the return period corre-
sponding to y, b is the slope of the rainfall frequency line
and a is the intercept of the line. Using the 2-year estimate of
31.0 and 41.6 mm, for the Jeddah coastal and mountainous
zones, respectively, and the 300 mm estimate for the 1-day
PMP in the coastal region (and 330 mm for the mountain-
ous region, i.e. a 10% higher estimate), we can calculate a
and b parameters if the return period of the PMP is known.
Estimates of the return period of PMP vary from one study
to another and from one weather system to another. Collier
et al. (2011) suggest return periods ranging from around 1 in
10 000 years for point locations to 1 in 500 000 years for large
catchments. Other estimates include from about 1 in 60 000
years (Koutsoyiannis, 2004), to 1 in 250 000 years (Austin
et al., 1995), 1 in 800 000 years (Morris, 2008) and even 1 in
106 years (Rakhecha and Clark, 1999). Using, once at a time,
the lower and the higher estimates of 1 in 104 years and 1 in
106 years, respectively, along with the previously mentioned
2-year estimates, we get 100-year estimates between 88.9 and
115.9 mm for the coastal Jeddah region, and between 109
and 139 mm for the mountainous Jeddah region. The lower
estimates for each region are those associated with the higher
(1 in 106 years) assumption for the PMP return period. These
202 Awadallah

Station 41024 Station J239

160 120
Observed Observed
Theoret. Theoret.
140
Regional 100 Regional
95% CI 95% CI
120
80
100

Quantile
Quantile

80 60

60
40

40
20
20

0 0
90 95 98 99 99.5 P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5
P (%) 10 50 80
10 20 50 100 200 T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
T (yr) 1.11 2 5
Station
StationJ102
J102 Station
StationJ134
J134
150 180
Observed Observed
Theoret. 160 Theoret.
Regional Regional
95% CI 140 95% CI

100 120

100

Quantile
Quantile

80

50 60

40

20

0 0
P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5
T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

Station J205
Station J205 Station
StationJ214
J214
250 180
Observed Observed
Theoret. 160 Theoret.
Regional Regional
200 95% CI 140 95% CI

120
150
100
Quantile
Quantile

80
100
60

40
50

20

0 0
P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5
T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

Station
StationJ211
J221 Station
Station 41030
41030
200 200
Observed Observed
180 Theoret. 180 Theoret.
Regional Regional
160 95% CI 160 95% CI

140 140

120 120
Quantile

Quantile

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5
T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

Station
Station 41036
41036
200
Observed
180 Theoret.
Regional
160 95% CI

140

120
Quantile

100

80

60

40

20

0
P (%) 10 50 80 90 95 98 99 99.5
T (yr) 1.11 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

Figure 3 Gamma frequency fittings for Jeddah region rainfall stations.

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207
Regional I-D-F for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 203

100-year ranges derived from the PMP estimate are in agree-
ment with the daily rainfall 100-year return period estimates
of 110 mm for the coastal zone and 135 mm for the moun-
tainous zone.
In the light of the SGS (2010a, b, c) studies previously
mentioned and World Meteorological Organisation (2009,
p. 3), which states that storm rainfall can be estimated by
analysing a historical flood using hydrological models, the
2009 rainfall event is estimated as 150 mm based on run-off
storage in Al-Asla reservoir draining an upper mountainous
Jeddah catchment. Compared with the 100-year estimate of
the mountainous Jeddah region, the 2009 event is thus in the
order of a 100-year event. Other rainfall gauges in the coastal
Jeddah region have recorded this event as 70 and 111 mm, in
Jeddah airport 41024 rain gauge and another new rain gauge
(not used in this study as it contains only 3 years of record).
This later estimate of 111 mm is also a near 100-year event
when compared with the coastal Jeddah zone estimates.
Analysis of short duration rainfall
Short duration (subdaily) rainfall data are only available for
J205, J221 and J239 rain gauges. It is assumed that the best
distribution selected for the daily data is suitable for the
short duration rainfall. It was found that the gamma distri-
bution is adequate to fit annual maxima rainfall data for
all short durations using the chi-square test. The results
of the gamma frequency analyses are shown in Table 3.
The ratios of the x-minutes rainfall depths to the 24-h depth
are derived, and the average ratios for all return periods
are calculated. The short duration ratios are also listed in
Table 3. From Table 3, we notice for example that the average
of the ratios of the 6-h to 24-h (H6/H24) subdaily rainfall
are 0.96 and 0.79 for the coastal and mountainous zones,
respectively. On the contrary of the depicted spatial variation
in the subdaily ratios, no defined pattern can be observed
regarding the evolution of ratio of subdaily (10, 20, 30 min

Table 3 Frequency analysis results for short duration rainfall

Return period M10 M20 M30 H 01 H 02 H03 H06 H12 H24
J221 Frequency analysis 100 24.7 48.4 64.5 81.9 83.7 84.2 84.4 84.7 84.7
50 21.7 41.7 55.1 70.3 72.3 72.8 73.3 73.5 73.5
25 18.6 35 45.6 58.7 60.8 61.4 61.9 62.1 62.1
10 14.4 26 33.1 43.1 45.3 45.9 46.6 46.8 46.8
5 11.1 19 23.5 31.1 33.3 33.8 34.7 34.8 34.8
Subdaily ratios 100 0.292 0.571 0.762 0.967 0.988 0.994 0.996 1.000 1.000
50 0.295 0.567 0.750 0.956 0.984 0.990 0.997 1.000 1.000
25 0.300 0.564 0.734 0.945 0.979 0.989 0.997 1.000 1.000
10 0.308 0.556 0.707 0.921 0.968 0.981 0.996 1.000 1.000
5 0.319 0.546 0.675 0.894 0.957 0.971 0.997 1.000 1.000
Average 0.303 0.561 0.726 0.937 0.975 0.985 0.997 1.000 1.000
J205 Frequency analysis 100 29.2 44.1 54.2 76.7 91.6 98.9 98.5 120 127
50 26.3 39.8 48.8 68.3 81.2 87.6 87.6 106 112
25 23.3 35.3 43.3 59.6 70.6 75.9 76.4 90.6 97.2
10 19 29 35.5 47.7 55.9 59.9 61 70.2 76.4
5 15.5 23.8 29.1 37.9 44 47 48.4 53.9 59.7
Subdaily ratios 100 0.230 0.347 0.427 0.604 0.721 0.779 0.776 0.945 1.000
50 0.235 0.355 0.436 0.610 0.725 0.782 0.782 0.946 1.000
25 0.240 0.363 0.445 0.613 0.726 0.781 0.786 0.932 1.000
10 0.249 0.380 0.465 0.624 0.732 0.784 0.798 0.919 1.000
5 0.260 0.399 0.487 0.635 0.737 0.787 0.811 0.903 1.000
Average 0.243 0.369 0.452 0.617 0.728 0.783 0.791 0.929 1.000
J239 Frequency analysis 100 27.5 40 48.4 66 66.9 67.8 67.8 67.8 73.1
50 24 35.2 42.5 57.3 58.55 59.8 59.8 59.8 64.5
25 20.4 30.2 36.5 48.6 50.05 51.5 51.6 51.6 55.7
10 15.6 23.4 28.3 36.7 38.5 40.3 40.3 40.3 43.6
5 11.8 18 21.8 27.5 29.35 31.2 31.3 31.5 33.9
Subdaily ratios 100 0.376 0.547 0.662 0.903 0.915 0.927 0.927 0.927 1.000
50 0.372 0.546 0.659 0.888 0.908 0.927 0.927 0.927 1.000
25 0.366 0.542 0.655 0.873 0.899 0.925 0.926 0.926 1.000
10 0.358 0.537 0.649 0.842 0.883 0.924 0.924 0.924 1.000
5 0.348 0.531 0.643 0.811 0.866 0.920 0.923 0.929 1.000
Average 0.364 0.541 0.654 0.863 0.894 0.925 0.926 0.927 1.000

H, hours; M, minutes.

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
204 Awadallah

etc) to 24 h across return periods. Ratios are generally
decreasing, with increasing return periods for J221 and J239
(despite different patterns for 10 min and 6 h durations of
J221). However, an opposite conclusion is drawn for J205.
Consequently, it is hard to confirm one trend or the other,
especially when the number of rain gauges is very limited. It
was thus decided to adopt an average ratio to 24 h duration
across all return periods. It can also be seen that gauges J221
and J239 have similar short duration ratios but are different
from the ratios of J205 gauge. The J205 gauge has relatively
higher elevation.
Development of IDF curves
The IDF curves are derived by multiplying the rainfall depths
of Figure 3 by the regional short duration rainfall ratios of
Table 3. Two regional IDF curves are developed one for the
coastal zone and one for the mountainous zone in Jeddah.
The coastal zone has elevations lower than 350 m. As previ-
ously mentioned, the ratios of 10-year to 2-year rainfall
(R10/R2) are 1.95 and 1.84, and the ratios of the 6-h to 24-h
(H6/H24) subdaily rainfall are 0.96 and 0.79 for the coastal
and mountainous zones, respectively. This suggests that
there is greater convective activity towards the west coast
of Jeddah. Thus, the increase in the 24-h depth depicted in
the mountainous region (refer to Figure 3) is compensated
by the higher subdaily ratios found in the coastal region
(refer to Table 3). Consequently, the coastal zone IDF is
higher than the mountainous zone IDF in short durations
up to 1 h, almost identical to the mountainous zone IDF for
durations between 2 and 3 h, and lower than the mountain-
ous zone IDF from 3–24 h. Furthermore, to develop IDF
relationships at any other locations in the region, an index
factor equal to the mean of the annual maxima at the site in
question is used along with the regional curve derived for the
gamma distribution and the short duration ratios appropri-
ate for the site location and elevation. The developed IDFs
are shown in Figure 4.

(a)
300

10 years 20 years 50 years 100 years 200 years

250

200
Intenisity (mm/h)

150

100

50

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Duration (min)

(b)
300

10 years 20 years 50 years 100 years 200 years

250

200
Intenisity (mm/h)

150

100

50

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Duration (min)

Figure 4 Regional intensity-duration-frequency curves for (a) coastal Jeddah region and (b) mountainous Jeddah region.

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207
Regional I-D-F for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Conclusions
Ten rainfall gauges are available in Jeddah region, Saudi
Arabia. Frequency analysis of all available rainfall records is
performed to develop regional IDF curves. The homogeneity
of the region is assessed using the Wiltshire test calculated
based on ordinary coefficient of variation, as well as the
discordancy and the heterogeneity measures calculated based
on L-moments. It was found that if one gauge is removed
from the region, the overall homogeneity measures are sig-
nificantly improved.
The best fitting distribution to all region gauges is selected
comparing several approaches. The ordinary and L-moment
ratio diagrams suggest the use of the GPA, the PIII, the
gamma and the LN3 distributions. The goodness-of-fit
measures based on L-moments suggest that the best fit is
achieved regionally using PIII and consequently also the
gamma distribution is also a good candidate. The log-log
plot, the MEF, and finally the AIC and BIC suggest that the
gamma distribution is the best regionally while the GPA is
best for the two rainfall gauges in Jeddah city. The gamma
distribution could thus be used for fitting the whole region.
Jeddah region can be divided into two homogeneous rainfall
regions, and a set of rainfall IDF curves are developed for
each region. An independent assessment using 2-year and
PMP values and the equation of Clark (2012) gave results in
agreement with those of the present study, assuming a rarity
for PMP greater than 1 in 10 000 years and lower than 1 in
1 000 000 years.
References
Abdullah M.A. & Al-Mazroui M.A. Climatological study of the
southwestern region of Saudi Arabia. I. Rainfall analysis.
Climate Res 1998, 9, 213–223.
Abouammoh A.M. The distribution of monthly rainfall inten-
sity at some sites in Saudi Arabia. Environ Monit Assess 1991,
17, 89–100.
AECOM (2011) Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling: large scale
hydrology report – Phases 1 and 2. Part of Jeddah
stormwater drainage program.
Ahmed B.Y.M. Climatic classification of Saudi Arabia: an
application of factor -cluster analysis. GeoJournal 1997, 41,
69–84.
Akaike H. Information theory and extension of the maximum
Likelihood principle. In: B.N. Petrov & F. Csaki, eds. 2nd
international symposium on information theory. Budapest,
Hongry: Akadémiai Kiado, 1973, 267–281.
Akaike H. Markovian representation of stochastic processes
and its application to the analysis of autoregressive moving
average processes. Ann I Stat Math 1974, 26, 363–387.
Al Saud M. Assessment of flood hazard of Jeddah Area
2009, Saudi Arabia. J Water Resource Protect 2010, 2,
839–847.
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
205
Al-Jerash M.A. Climatic subdivisions in Saudi Arabia: an appli-
cation of principal component analysis. J Climatol 1985, 5,
307–323.
Almazroui M. Calibration of TRMM rainfall climatology over
Saudi Arabia during 1998–2009. Atmos Res 2011, 99, 400–414.
Alyamani M.S. & Şen Z. Regional variations of monthly rainfall
amounts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, J. King Abdul Aziz
Univ. Earth Sci 1993, 6, 113–133.
Atkins (2012) Overall stormwater drainage system – basis of
design report. Design of King Abdulaziz International
Airport, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Austin B.N., Cluckie I.D., Collier C.G. & Hardaker P.J. (1995)
Radar-based estimation of probable maximum precipitation
and flood, report for DOE, 123 pp.
Bonnin G.M., Martin D., Lin B., Tye P., Yekta M. & Riley D.
(2006) NOAA Atlas 14, precipitation-frequency atlas of the
United States Volume 1 Version 4.0: Semiarid Southwest
(Arizona, Southeast California, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah).
Caporali E., Cavigli E. & Petrucci A. The index rainfall in the
regional frequency analysis of extreme events in Tuscany
(Italy). Environmetrics 2008, 19, 714–724.
Clark C. Rain floods and dam safety. Internat Water Power and
Dam Constr 2010, 62, (6), 48–53.
Clark C. Spillway design flood and flood volume estimated
using the new guide to flood estimation. In: T.S.W. Wong, ed.
Flood risk and flood management. New York: Nova Science,
2012, 219–255.
Collier C.G., Morris D.G. & Jones D.A. Assessment of the return
period of near-PMP point and catchment rainfall for
England and Wales, Meteorl. Appl 2011, 18, 155–162.
Cunnane C. Unbiased plotting positions-a review. J. Hydrol.
1978, 37, 205–222.
Cunnane C. Methods and merits of regional flood frequency
analysis. J. Hydrol. 1988, 100, 269–290.
Darlymple T. (1960) Flood frequency analysis, manual of
hydrology, part 3, flood-flow techniques: U.S. geological
survey water-supply paper 1543-A.
El Adlouni S., Bobée B. & Ouarda T.B.M.J. On the tails of
extreme event distributions in Hydrology. J. Hydrol. 2008,
355, 16–33.
Elsebaie I.H. Developing rainfall intensity–duration–frequency
relationship for two regions in Saudi Arabia. J. King Abdul
Aziz Univ Eng Sci 2012, 24, (2), 131–140.
Ewea H.A.S.A. Hydrological analysis of flooding wastewater lake
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J King Abdul Univ Met Env Arid
Land Agric Sci 2010, 21, 125–144.
Fowler H.J. & Kilsby C.G. A regional frequency analysis of
United Kingdom extreme rainfall from 1961 to 2000. Int
J Climatol 2003, 23, 1313–1334.
GES (2009) GES DISC and Goddard scientists assist
accuweather investigation of flooding in Saudi Arabia.
Available at: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gesNews/jiddah
_november_rainfall_floods [accessed on 30 December 2011].
206
Haddad K., Rahman A., Green J. & Kuczera G. Design rainfall
estimation for short storm durations using L-moments and
generalised least squares regression-application to Australian
data. Int J Water Res Arid Environ 2011, 1, 210–218.
Hershfield D.M. Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States for
durations from 30 minutes to 24 h and return periods from 1
to 100 years. Weather Bureau Technical Paper no. 40. Wash-
ington, DC: US Weather Bureau, 1961. 115 pp.
Hosking J.R.M. & Wallis J.R. Some statistics useful in regional
frequency analysis, Water Resour Res 1995, 29, 271–281. 1993,
Correction: Water Resour Res, 31, 251.
Hosking J.R.M. & Wallis J.R. Regional frequency analysis: an
approach based on L-moments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data (1981) Guide-
lines for determining flood flow frequency, Bulletin 17B of
the Hydrology Subcommittee, 194 pp.
INRS. Guide for the use of the Decision Support System (DSS) for
HYFRAN Plus software. Québec, Canada: Institut National
de Recherche Scientifique, Eau, Terre et Environnement,
2008.
Jakob D., Xuereb K. & Taylor B. Revision of design rainfalls
over Australia: a pilot study. Aust J Water Resour 2007, 11,
153–159.
Jordan Valley Authority (1978) Jordan valley irrigation project,
stage II, Vol. II, appendix A: hydrology, prepared by Harza
overseas engineering company, Amman, Jordan.
Klemeš V. Tall tales about tails of hydrological distributions I.
J Hydrol Eng 2000a, 5, 227–231.
Klemeš V. Tall tales about tails of hydrological distributions II.
J Hydrol Eng 2000b, 5, 232–239.
Koutsoyiannis D. Statistics of extremes and estimation of
extreme rainfall: II. Empirical investigations of long rainfall
records. Hydrol Sci J 2004, 49, 591–610.
Lee C.H., Kim T., Chung G., Choi M. & Yoo C. Application of
bivariate frequency analysis to the derivation of rainfall –
frequency curves. Stoch. Env. Res Risk A 2010, 24,
389–397.
Mashat A.W.S. (1992) Use of special sensor microwave/imager
(SSM/I) for estimation of precipitation features in a semi-
arid, mountain region: a case study of Southwest Saudi
Arabia. MSc thesis, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia.
Morris D. (2008) Comments on chris Collier’s paper: on the
relationship between PMP and frequency estimation. Annex
B to: Dent, J., uncertainties associated with the estimation of
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). Defra Reservoir
safety – Long period return rainfall. 23 pp, available from the
UKMO library, Exeter.
NERC (1975) Flood studies report. Natural Environmental
Research Council, London, UK, 1189 pp. (available from the
Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford).
Ngongondo C.S., Xu C.Y., Tallaksen L.M., Alemaw B. & Chirwa
T. Regional frequency analysis of rainfall extremes in South-
© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Awadallah
ern Malawi using the index rainfall and L-moments
approaches. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 2011, 25,
939–955.
Nouh M.A. Analysis of rainfall in the south-west region of
Saudi Arabia. P I Civil Eng 1987, 83, (Part 2), 339–349.
Rakhecha P.R. & Clark C. Revised estimates of one-day prob-
able maximum precipitation (PMP) for India. Meteorl Appl
1999, 6, 343–350.
Rodda J.C. Rainfall excesses in the United Kingdom. Trans Inst
Brit Geog 1970, 49, 49–60.
Sarker S., Goel N.K. & Mathur B.S. Development of isopluvial
map using L-moment approach for Tehri-Garhwal Himalaya.
Stoch Env Res Risk A 2010, 24, 411–423.
Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat
1978, 6, 461–464.
SC Sembenelli Consulting and Talal Adham & Partners (2012)
Wadi Al Asla masterplan and infrastructure design – Flood
risk Assessment, Rev.04 May 2012.
SGS (Saudi Geological Survey) (2010a) Hydrologic report for
the location of ‘Kingdom’ project – North of Sharm Obhor,
Jeddah. (In Arabic).
SGS (Saudi Geological Survey) (2010b) Study of flood risk
mitigation in Wadi Qaws (Eastern Jeddah). (In Arabic).
SGS (Saudi Geological Survey) (2010c) Study of flood risk miti-
gation in Wadi Mathwab (Eastern Jeddah). (In Arabic).
Stedinger J.R., Vogel R.M. & Foufoula-Georgiou E. Frequency
analysis of extreme events, Chapter 18. In: D. Maidment,
ed. Handbook of hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
1993.
Subyani A.M. Topographic and seasonal influences on precipi-
tation variability in Southwest Saudi Arabia. J King Abdul
Aziz Univ Earth Science 1999, 11, 89–102.
Subyani A.M. Geostatistical study of annual and seasonal mean
rainfall patterns in southwest Saudi Arabia. Hydrol Sci J 2004,
49, 803–817.
Subyani A.M. Hydrologic behavior and flood probability for
selected arid basins in Makkah area, western Saudi Arabia.
Arab J Geosci 2011, 4, 817–824.
Svensson C. & Jones D.A. Review of rainfall frequency estima-
tion methods. J Flood Risk Manag 2010, 3, 296–313.
Unal N.E., Aksoy H. & Akar T. Annual and monthly rainfall
data generation schemes. Stoch Env Res Risk A 2004, 18, 245–
257.
Vogel R.M. & Fennessey N.M. L moment diagrams should
replace product moment diagrams. Water Resour Res 1993,
29, 1745–1752.
Wheater H.S., Butler A.P., Stewart E.J. & Hamilton G.S. A mul-
tivariate spatial-temporal model of rainfall in southwest
Saudi Arabia. I. Spatial rainfall characteristics and model for-
mulation. J Hydrol 1991a, 125, 175–199.
Wheater H.S., Onof C., Butler A.P. & Hamilton G.S. A multi-
variate spatial-temporal model of rainfall in southwest Saudi
Arabia. II. Regional analysis and long-term performance.
J. Hydrol. 1991b, 125, 201–220.
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207
Regional I-D-F for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 207

Wiltshire S.E. Regional flood frequency analysis I: homogeneity
statistics. Hydrolog Sci J 1986a, 31, 321–333.
Wiltshire S.E. Identification of homogeneous regions for flood
frequency analysis. J Hydrol 1986b, 84, 287–307.
World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) (2009) Manual on
estimation of probable maximum precipitation (PMP),
WMO no. 1045, 259 pp. WMO, Geneva.
Xu Y.P. & Tung Y.K. Constrained scaling approach for
design rainfall estimation. Stoch Env Res Risk A 2009, 23,
697–705.
Xu Y.P., Yu C., Zhang X., Zhang Q. & Xu X. Design rainfall
depth estimation through two regional frequency analysis
methods in Hanjiang River Basin, China. Theor Appl Climatol
2012, 107, 563–578.

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 195–207 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd