Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WASHINGTON, D.C.
May 1961
For eale by the Superintendent of Doeumenta. U.S. Government Printing Office, Waabington 25, D.C. Price .1.25
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WEATHER BUREAU
WASHINGTON, D.C.
May 1961
•No. 1. Ten-year normals of pressure tendencies and hourly station pressures for the United No. 20.
Tornado occurrences in the United States. Washington, D.C. 1952. .35
States. Washington, D.C. 1943. *No. 21.Normal weather charts for the Northern Hemisphere. Washington, D.C. 1952.
•stJpplement: Normal 3-hourly pressure 9hanges for the United States at the !nter- *No. 22.Wind patterns over lower Lake Mead. Washington, D.C. 1953.
mediate synoptic hours. Washington, D.C. 1945. ' No. 23.Floods of April1952-Upper Mississippi, Missouri, Red River of the North. Wash-
•No. 2. Maximum recorded United States point rainfall for 6 minutes to 24 hours at 207 ington, D.C. 1954. $1.00
first order stations. Washington, D.C. 1947. No. 24. Rainfall intensities for local drainage design in the United States. For durations of
*No. 3. Extreme temperatures in the upper air. Washington, D.C. 1947. 5 to 240 minutes and 2-, 5-, and 10-year return periods. Part I: West of 115th
•No .. 4. Topographically adjusted normal isohyetal maps for western Colorado. Washington, meridian. Washington, D.C. 1953, .20; Part II: Between 105° W. and 116° W.
t
D.C. 1947. Washington, D.C. 1954. , .16
•No. 6. Highest persisting dewpoints in western United States. Washington, D.C. 1948. No. 26. Rainfall intensity-duration-frequency curves. For selected stations in the United
•No. 6. Upper air average values of temperature, pressure, and relathre humidity over the States, Alaska, Hawaiian Islands, and Puerto Rico. Washington, D.C. 1955. .40
• United States and Alaska. Washington, D.C. 1945 .
*No. 7. A report on thunderstorm conditions affecting flight operations. Washington, D.C.
No. 26. Hurricane rains and floods of August 1955, Carolinas to New England. Washington,
D.C. 1956. ' $1.00
1948. *No. 27. The climate of the Matanuska Valley. Washington, D.C. 1956.
*No. 8. The climatic handbook for Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. 1949. *No. 28. Rainfall intensities for local drainage design in western United States. For durations
•No. 9. Temperature at selected stations in the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto '' of 20 minutes to 24 hours and 1- to 100-year return periods. Washington, D.C. 1956.
Rico. Washington, D.C. 1949. No. 29. Rainfall intensity-frequency regime. Part 1-The Ohio Valley, 1957, .30; Part 2- ,
No. 10. Mean precipitable water in the United States. Washington, D. C. 1949. .30 Southeastern United States, 1958, $1.25; Part 3-The Middle Atlantic Region,
No. 11. Weekly mean values of daily totalsolar and sky radiation. , Washington, D.C. 1949. 1958, .30; Part 4-Northeastern United States, 1959, $1.25; Part 6-Great Lakes
.15. Supplement No. 1, 1955. .05. ' Region, 1960. · $1.50
•No. 12. Sunshine and cloudiness at selected stations in the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, No. 30. Tornado deaths in the United States. Washington, D.C. 1957. .50
and Puerto Rico. Washington, D.C. 1951. No. 31. Monthly normal temperatures, precipitation, and degree days. Washington, D.C.
No. 13. Mean monthly and annual evaporation data from free water surface for the United 1956. .25
States Alaska Hawaii and the West Indies. Washington, D.C.' 1950. .15 No. 32. Upper-air climatology of the United States. Part 1-Averages for isobaric surfaces,
•No. 14. Tabl~ of pre~ipitable' water and other factors for a saturated pseudo-adiabatic height, temperature, humidity, and density. 1957, $1.25; Part 2-Extremes and
atmosphere. Washington, D.C. 1951. standard deviations of average heights and temperatures. 1958, .65; Part 3-Vector
No. 15. Maximum station precipitation for 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours: Part I: Utah, Part II: winds and shear. 1959. .50
Idaho, 1951, each .25; Part III: Florida, 1952, .45; Part IV: Maryland, Delaware, No. 33. Rainfall and floods of April, May, and June 1957 in the South-Central States. Wash-
and District of Columbia; Part V: New Jersey, 1953, each .25; Part VI: New ington, D.C. 1958. $1.75
England, 1953, .60; Part VII: South Carolina, 1953, .25; Part VIII: Virginia, 1954, No. 34. Upper wind distribution statistical parameter estimates. Washington, D.C. 1958.
.50; Part IX: Georgia, 1954, .40; Part X: New York, 1954, .60; Part XI: North .40
Carolina; Part XII: Oregon, 1955, each .55; Part XIII: Kentucky, 1955, .45; Part No. 35. Climatology and weather services of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes.
XIV: Louisiana; Part XV: Alabama, 1955, each .35; Part XVI: Pennsylvania, 1956, Washington, D.C. 1959. .45
.65; Part XVII: Mississippi, 1956, .40; Port XVIII: West Virginia, 1956, .35; Part No. 36. North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Washington, D.C. 1959. $1.00
XIX: Tennessee, 1956, .45; Part XX: Indiana, 1956, .55; Part XXI: Illinois, 1958, No. 37. Evaporation maps for the United States. Washington, D.C. 1959. .65
.50; Part XXII: Ohio, 1958, .65; Part XXIII: California, 1959, $1.50; Part XXIV: No. 38. Generalized estimates of probable maximum precipitation for the United States west
Texas, 1959, $1.00; Part XXV: Arkansas, 1960, .50. of the 105th meridian for areas to 400 square miles and durations to 24 hours. Wash-
*No. 16. Maximum 24-hour precipitation in the United States. Washington, D.C. 1952. ington, D.C. 1960. $1. 00
No. 17. Kansas-Missouri floods of June-July 1951. Kansas City, Mo. 1952. .60 No. 39. Verification of the Weather Bureau's 30-day outlooks. Washington, D.C. 1961.
*No. 18. Measurements of diffuse solar radiation at Blue Hill Observatory. Washington, D.C. . ~
1952.
No. 19. Mean number of thunderstorm days in the United States. Washington, D.C. 1952. •out of print•
. 15
Weather Bureau Technical Papers for sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C.
PREFACE
This publication is intended as a convenient summary of empirical relationships, working guides, and maps, useful This study was prepared in the Cooperative Studies Section (Joseph L. H. Paulhus, Chief) of Hydrologic Services
in practical problems requiring rainfall frequency data. It is an outgrowth of several previous Weather Bureau Division (William E. Hiatt, C¥ef). Coordination with the Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, was
publications on this subject prepared under the direction of the author and contains an expansion and generalization maintained through Harold 0. Ogrosky, Chief, Hydrology Branch, Engineering Division. Assistance in the study was
of the ideas and results in earlier papers. This work has been supported and financed by the Soil Conservation Service, received from several .people. In particular, the author wishes to acknowledge the help of William E. Miller who
Department of Agriculture, to provide material for use in developing planning and design criteria for the Watershed programmed the frequency and duration functions and supervised the processing of all the data; Normalee S. Foat
Protection and Flood Prevention program (P.L. 566, 83d Congress and as amended).
who supervised the collection of the basic data.; Howard Thompson who prepared the maps for analysis; Walter T.
The paper is divided into two parts. The first part presents the rainfall analyses. Included are measures of the
quality of the various relationships, comparisons with previous works of a similar nature, numerical examples, discus- Wilson, a former colleague, who was associated with the development of a large portion of the material presented here;
sions of the limitations of the results, transformation from point to areal frequency, and seasonal variation. The second Max A. Kohler, A. L. Shands, and Leonard L. Weiss, of the Weather Bureau, and V. Mockus and R. G. Andrews, of
part presents 49 rainfall frequency maps based on a comprehensive and integrated collection of up-to-date statistics, the Soil Conservation Service, who reviewed the manuscript and made many helpful suggestions. Caroll W. Gardner
several related maps, and seasonal variation diagrams. The rainfall frequency (isopluvial) maps are for selected performed the drafting.
durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years.
CONTENTS
Paae Page
PREFACE ____ ----------- ___ --------------------------------- __ ---------------------------------------------------- ii PARTS II: CHARTS-Continued
INTRODUCTION-------- _________ --- _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 9.-2-year 1-hour rainfalL _______ ----------- _______________________ : ________________ --------- __________________ _ 16
10.-5-year 1-hour rainfalL _____________________________________________________________________________________ _ 17
Historical review------- ________ --- _____ - _____________ ---- _______________________ - ____ ---------------------- ____ _ 11.-10-year 1-hour rainfalL ______ - _____________________________________________________________________________ _
General approach.----- ______ ----- __ ---- ___ --- ___ -------- ____________ -- __ -- ____ ---_---------- _________ ---- __ -- __ 18
12.-25-year !-hour rainfalL _____ -- _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 19
PART I: AN ALYSES.--- _________________________________________________________________ ---- ________ ---- __ ------_ 13.-50-year 1-hour rainfalL _____ -- _____________________________________________________________________________ _
Basic data. _____ ---- ____________ - _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 20
1 14.-100-year 1-hour rainfalL ____________________________._______________________________________________________ _ 21
Duration analysis.--- __________ -_- ___________________ ---- ____________ - ___ -- ____ --- ___ ------- ___________ --- _____ _ 2 15.-1-year 2-hour rainfalL ____________________________________ ------- _______________ ------------------- ________ _ 22
Frequency analysis.-- __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 2 16.-2-year 2-hour rainfalL ____ ---- _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 23
Isopluvial maps ___ ----- __________ - _____ - _____________ ---- ____________ - ___ -- ____ --- ___ -------- ____________ - ___ --_ 4 17 .-5-year 2-hour rainfall. _______ - _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 24
Guides for estimating durations and/or return periods not presented on the maps---------------------------------------- 5 18.-10-year 2-hour rainfalL _____ --- ____________________________________________________________________________ _ 25
Comparisons with previous rainfall frequency studies._------- __________ ---_-----------------------_----------------- 6 19.-25-year 2-hour rainfalL. ___ --- _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 26
Probability considerations _________ - ___________ -- ____ ------ ___________ -- ___ -- __ -----_--------- ______ ------------ __ 6 20.-50-year 2-hour rainfalL ____ --- ____________________ : _____________________________________.___________________ _ 27
Probable maximum precipitation (PMP) ____ ----- _---------- ________ --- -- -·---- ------------------------------------- 6 21.-100-year 2-hour rainfalL __ ----_- _______ - ___ -- __ -_- __ ----- _____ ----_- ___________ - ___________ - _______________ _ 28
Area-depth relationships. _____________________ - _____ ------ __________ -------- ___ ----_--------- _________ --------- __ 7 22.-1-year 3-hour rainfalL _____ --- _________________________ -- ____ ---_- _________________________________________ _ 29
Seasonal variation ______________ --- __ --- __ ----- ___ ---------- ______ ----------------------------- ___ ------------- __ 7 23.-2-year 3-hour rainfalL ____ ----_- _______ ---_-- ____ - ___ ---- __ ------- _________________________________________ _ 30
References ________ -- ____________ - _____________________ - _______________________________________________________ _ 7 24.-5-year 3-hour rainfalL ____ ------- _______ ------_-----------.------. _________ ---_---- _______ .-· __________ . ___ _ 31
List of tables 25.-10-year 3-hour rainfalL ___ ---- _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 32
1. Sources of point rainfall data _________ ---- ___ ----------- ___ ------------------------------------------------- 1 26.-25-year 3-hour rainfalL ___ ------- __ -----------_------~--------------- ______ -_-_-- ________ ---- ______________ . ;j;j
2. Empirical factors for converting partial-duration series to annual series.. ---------------------------------------- 3 27.-50-year 3-hour rainfalL ___ ---- _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 34
3. Average relationship between 30-minute rainfall and shorter duration rainfall for the same return period ____________ _ 5 28.-100-year 3-hour rainfalL __ ------- ____ --------- __ ------------------ __ - ____ -_-_-_-- ______ -_- __________ --- ____ _ 35
List of illustrations 29.-1-year 6-hour rainfall _____ ---- _____________ - _________ -_-- ____ ---_- _________________________________________ _ 36
Figure I.-Relation between 2-year 60-minute rainfall and 2-year clock-hour rainfall; relation between 2-year 1440- 30.-2-year 6-hour rainfall ____ -----_- _______ -_-_-- __ -_---_---- _____ ---- ______________ . ____________________ . ____ ._ 37
minute rainfall and 2-year observational-day rainfalL ••. - ___ --------------------- __ ----------------- 1 31.-5-year 6-hour rainfalL ____ ---- _____________________ -_-_- ___ .. ---_- ______________________________ . __________ _ 38
Figure 2.-Rainfall depth-duration diagram. __ --------- ____ --------------------------------------------------- 2 32.-10-year 6-hour rainfalL ___ -- .. ---_._ .. ------------------------------- ______ ---_-- __________ ---_. __ . ________ _ :\9
Figure 3.-Relation between observed 2-year 2-hour rainfall and 2-year 2-hour rainfall computed from duration diagram. 2 :l3.-25-year 6-hour rainfalL ___ ----- ____________ - _______ -_-_- _________ - ____ . ___ . ____ . __ . ________________________ _ 40
Figure 4.-Relation between observed 2-year 6-hour rainfall and 2-year 6-hour rainfall computed from duration diagrO.m. 2 34.-50-year 6-hour rainfalL ___ ----_-. ________ -_-- ____ ------------------ ______ . _________________________________ _ 41
Figure 5.-Relation between 2-year 30-minute rainfall and 2-year 60-minute rainfalL.------------------------------ 2 35.-100-year 6-hour rainfalL __ ---- _____________ - _____ - _____ -- ____ ---_- _________________________________________ _ 42
Figure 6.-Relation between partial-duration and annual series. __ ---- __ ---------------------------------------'- 2 36.-1-year 12-hour rainfalL ___ ----- __________ -_-. ______ -_---- ______ - ___________________________________________ _ 43
Figure 7.-Rainfall depth versus return period___ --------_-.- ____ ---- __ --------------------- _____ -_-----------_- 3 37.-2-year 12-hour rainfalL ___ ---- __________ .---- ______ -_---- ____ ---_- ______ . ______ . ___________________________ _ 44
Figure B.-Distribution of 1-hour stations •. ------------ ____ --------------------------------------------------- 3 38.-5-year 12-hour rainfalL ____ --- __________________________ ----- ______________________________________________ _ 45
Figure 9.-Distribution of 24-hour stations ___ ---------- ______ -------------------------------_----------------- 4 39.-10-year 12-hour rainfalL .. ---- __ . __________ -- __ -_-------- _____ ---- _________________________________________ _ 46
Figure 10.-Grid density used to construct additional maps----------------------------------------------------- 5 40.-25-year 12-hour rainfall. __ ----_. ___________ --- ___ -_------ ________ - _________________________________________ _ 47
Figure 11.-Relation between means from 50-year and 10-year records (24-hour durationl---------------------------- 6 41.-50-year 12-hour rainfalL------_- _____ ---------_-------------------- ________________________________________ _ 48
Figure 12.-Example of internal consistency check_------ _________ --- ___ --- ___ ----_----------- _______ ---- __ ---_- 6 42.-100-year 12-hour rainfalL_---- ___________ -----_-_-----.---_------ __________________________________________ _ 49
Figure 13.-Example of extrapolating to long return periods.. ---------------------------------------------------- 6 43.-1-year 24-hour rainfalL ___ ----- ____________ -- ______ -_-------_----- ______________________________·___________ _ 50
Figure 14.-Relationship between design return period, T years, design period; T •• and probability of not being exceeded 44.-2-year 24-hour rainfalL ____ --- ______________ - ________ ---- ______ - ___________________________________________ _ 51
in T • years. _______ -----------------------------------------.--------------------------------- 6 45.-5-year 24-hour rainfalL ___ ---- _____________ -- ______ -------- __ ----- _________________________________________ _ 52
Figure 15.-Area-depth curves ___________ -- ____ -------- _____ ------------------------------- __ ----------------- 6 46.-10-year 24-hour rainfalL ____ -- _____________________________________________________________________________ _ 53
PART II: CHARTS 47.-25-year 24-hour rainfalL ___ --- _____________________ ----.- ______ -.-- _________________ . ______________________ _ 54
l.-1-year 30-minute rainfalL_--- __ -_--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 48.-50-year 24-hour rainfalL-------- ___________ -- ____ ----------------- ___________ . ________________________ . ____ _ 55
2.-2-year 30-minute rainfalL ___ -- ___ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 49.-100-year 24-hour rainfalL------ ____________ ----- ___ -_---- ____ ------ ________________________________________ _ 56
3.-5-year 30-minute rainfalL ____ - _____ -------------------_----------------------------------------------------- 10 50.-Probable maximum 6-hour precipitation for 10 square miles _____________________________________________________ _
11 57
4.-10-year 30-minute rainfalL _______ ---------- ___ ------- ______ -------------_------------'---------------------- 51.-Ratio of probable maximum 6-hour precipitation for 10 square 'miles to 100-year 6-hour rainfalL_----------------- __ _
12 58
5.-25-year 30-minute rainfalL_--- ___ ---------------------_----------------------------------------------------- 52.-Seasonal probability of intense rainfall, 1-hour duration. _______________________________________________________ _
13 59
6.-50-year 30-minute rainfalL ___ - _____ -_-,--------------- ___ --------------------------------------------------- 53.-Seasonal probability of intense rainfall, 6-hour duration ___ --- _______ --- ________________________________________ _
7.-1 00-year 30-minute rainfalL-- - _----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 60
15 54.-Seasonal probability of intense rainfall, 24-hour duration.--_- ___ ------- ________________________________________ _ 61
8.-1-year 1-hour rainfalL _____ -_- ___ --- ___ ---------------_-----------------------------------------------------
ii
RAINFALL FREQUENCY ATLAS OF THE UNITED STATES
for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods
from I to 100 Years
DAVID M. HERSHFIELD
Cooperative Studies Section, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C.
INTRODUCTION this study, four key maps provided the basic data for these two Clock-hour vs. 60-minute and observational-day vs. 1440-minute cause of the arbitrary beginning and ending on the hour, a series
relationships which were programmed to permit digital computer rainfall.-In order to exploit the clock-hour and observational-day of these data provides statistics which are slightly smaller in mag-
Historical review
computations for a 3500-point grid on each of 45 additional maps. data, it was necessary to determine their relationship to the 60- nitude than those from the 1440-minute series The average bias
Unttl about 1g53, economic and engineering design requiring rain- minute and 1440-minute periods containing the maximum rainfall. was found to be approximately one percent. All such data in this
fall frequency data was based largely on Yarnell's paper [1] which PART I: ANALYSES It was found that 1.13 times a rainfall value for a particular return paper have been adjusted by this factor.
contains a series of generalized maps for several combinations of period based on a series of annual maximum clock-hour rainfalls Station ezposure.-In refined analysis of mean annual and mean
duratwns and return periods. Yarnell's maps are based on data Basic data was equivalent to the amount for the same return period obtained seasonal rainfall data it is necessary to evaluate station exposures
from about 200 first-order Weather Bureau stations which main- Types of data.-The data used in this study are divided into three from a series of 60-minute rainfalls. By coincidence, it was found by methods such as double-mass curve analysis [14]. Such methods
tained complete recording-gage records. In 1g40, about 5 years categories. First, there are the recording-gage data from the long- that the same factor can be used to transform observational-day do not appear to apply to extreme values. Except for some sub-
after Yarnell's paper was published, a hydrologic network of record- record first-order Weather Bureau stations. There are 200 such amounts to corresponding 1440-minute return-period amounts. The jective selections (particularly for long records) of stations that have
ing gages was installed to supplement both the Weather Bureau stations with records long enough to provide adequate results within equation, n-year 1440-minute rainfall (or 60-minute) equals 1.13 had consistent exposures, no attempt has been made to adjust rain-
recording gages and the relatively larger number of nonrecording the range of return periods of this paper. These data are for the times n-year observational-day (or clock-hour) rainfall, is not built fall values to a standard exposure. The effects of varying exposure
gages. The additional recording gages have subsequently increased n-minute period containing the maximum rainfall. Second, there on a causal relationship. This is an average index relationship are implicitly included in the areal sampling error and are probably
the amount of short-duration data by a factor of 20. are the recording-gage data of the hydrologic network which are because the distributions of 60-minute and 1440-minute rainfall are averaged out in the process of smoothing the isopluviallines.
WPather Bureau Technical Paper No. 24, Parts I and II [2], pre- published for clock-hour intervals. These data were processed for very irregular or unpredictable during their respective time inter- Rain or snow.-The term rainfall has been used in reference to
pared for the Corps of Engineers in connection with their military the 24 consecutive clock-hour intervals containing the maximum vals. In addition, the annual maxima from the two series for the all durations even though some snow as well as rain is included in
construction program, contained the first studies covering an ex- rainfall-not calendar-day. Finally, there is the very large amount same year from corresponding durations do not necessarily come some of the smaller 24-hour amounts for the high-elevation stations.
tendPd area which exploited the hydrologic network data. The of nonrecording-gage data with observations made once daily. Use from the same storm. Graphical comparisons of these data are pre- Comparison of arrays of all ranking snow events with those known
results of this work showed the importance of the additional data in was made of these data to help define both the 24-hour rainfall sented in figure 1, which shows very good agreement. to have only rain has shown trivial differences in the frequency
defining the short-duration rainfall frequency regime in the moun- regime and also the shorter duration regimes through applications of 24 consecutive clock-hour rainfall vs. 1440-minute rai1ifall.-The relations for several high-elevation stations tested. The heavier
tainous regions of the West. In many instances, the differences empirical relationships. recording-gage data were collected from published sources for the (rarer frequency) 24-hour events and all short-duration events con-
between Technical Paper No. 24 and Yarnell reach a factor of three, Station data.-The sources of data are indicated in table 1. The 24 consecutive clock-hours containing the maximum rainfall. Be- sist entirely of rain.
with t.he former generally being larger. Relationships developed and data from the 200 long-record Weather Bureau stations were used to
knowledge gained from these studies in the United States were then develop most of the relationships which will be described later. Long
used to prepare similar reports for the coastal regions of North records from more than 1600 stations were analyzed to define the
30
Arrica [3] and several Arctic regions [4] where recording-gage data relationships for the rarer frequencies (return periods), and statistics
were lacking. from short portions of the record from about 5000 stations were used
Cooperation between the Weather Bureau and the Soil Conserva- as an aid in defining the regional pattern for the 2-year return period.
tion Service began in 1g55 for the purpose of defining the depth- Several thousand additional stations were considered but not plotted u;
UJ
urea-duration-frequency regime in the United States. Technical where the station density was adjudged to be adequate. :J:
0
Paper No. 25 [5], which was partly a by-product of previous work Period and length of record.-The nonrecording short-record data ~
performed for the Corps of Engineers, was the first paper published J :l
were compiled for the period 1g38-1g57 and long-record data from :. 2 0 ~5
under the sponsorship of the Soil Conservation Service. This paper z
the earliest year available through 1g57, The recording-gage data z ~
contains a series of rainfall intensity-duration-frequency curves for ~ 0:
cover the period 1g40-1g58. Data from the long-record Weather 0:
200 first-order Weather Bureau stations. This was followed by Bureau stations were processed through 1g58. No record of less ,_
UJ "'
!;4
;;;;
Technical Paper No. 28 [6], which is an expansion of Technical Paper than five years was used to estimate the 2-year values.
:::>
z
No. 24 to longer return periods and durations. Next to be published i "'
were the five parts of the Technical Paper No. 29 series [7], which cover ..'
0
0:
0
~3
;.
thP rPgion east of go• W. Included in this series are seasonal var.ia-
,.""'
0:
9
-
9 ..
<
=···
:.:
u
iii
I-
iii ;: 2.0 =
UJ
:r 8
- -
8 UJ
:r ...
::;: ....
..
() ()
z z <
7 7:::;; ::>
=
:r
f-
a.
UJ 6
I- -
6
:r
f-
a.
UJ
~ 1.5
.I ..
<1.0
0
- 0
--'
--' "'"" 5 --'
--' 5
<l <l
lL
z
I- - lL
z
4: 4 4 <l .,
ll
a: a: 1::.,
3
I- -
3 ..
.,
0 .5
-
2 "'"" 2
- -
I- -
0 0
FIGURE a.-Relation between observed 2-year 2-hour rainfall and 2-year 2-hour
I 2 3 6 12 24
rainfall computed from duration diagram. 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.. 1.8 2.2
DURATION (HOURS)
2-TIAR 110-NINUT& RAINFALL (INCHES)
FIGURE 2.-Rainfall depth-duration diagram. FIGURE 6.-Relation between 2-year 30-minute rainfall and 2-year 60-minute rainfall.
Duration analysis
7.0
I I I I I I
v I
-
/
iii f-
Duration interpolation diagram.-A generalized duration relation- w
:J:
ship was developed with which the rainfall depth for e. selected ~3
return period can be computed for any duration between 1 and 24
hours, when the 1- and 24-hour values for that particular return
period are given (see fig. 2). This generalization was obtained
empiiice.lly from date. for the 200 Wee.ther Bureau first-order sta-
.J
.J
~
z
«
a:
...
iii
6.0
f-
y v
SLOP£•1.11
-
.v
tions. To use this diagram, a. straightedge is laid across the values a: :J:
:0
given for 1 and 24 hours and the values for other durations are read !Ez ~ 5.0
at the proper intersections. The quality of this relationship for the '
2- and 6-hour durations is illustrated in figures 3 and 4 for stations "'
0:
.J
.J
-
<( ~ f.-
with a. wide range in rainfall magnitude. w z
Relationship between SO-minute and 60-minute rainjaU.-If e. 30-
>-
N '
<i
0: /I
7
minute ordinate is positioned to the left of the 60-minute ordinate 0 ::l 4.0
w 0:
on the duration interpolation diagram of figure 2, acceptable esti- > w
(51 en
mates can be made of the 30-minute rainfall. This relationship en z f.- -
was used in several previous studies. However, tests showed that
better results can be obtained by simply multiplying the 60-minute
m
0
a:
0
~ j_Y.
.
B 3.o
rainfall by the average 30- to 60-minute ratio. The empirical re-
lationship used for estimating the 30-minute rainfall is 0.79 times
the 60-minute rainfall. The quality of this relationship is illustrated
;:
a:
~
.J
<(
-
,i/•
/" -
in figure 5. ...Oz.o
74
I 2 3 4
COMPUTED 2-YEAR 6-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
z<(
Frequency anBlysis w ..<
Two types of series.-This discussion requires consideration of two
FIGURE 4.-Relation between observed 2-year 6-hour rainfall and 2-year 6-hour
rainfall computed from duration diagram.
::!;
-
.;?·
I -
methods of selecting and analyzing intense rainfall date.. One ·oil' DIIRATION
method, using the partial-duration series, includes all the high values. -
v
LO
The other uses the annual series which consists only of the highest / CLOCK-HOIIR
01/ARTER-DAY
value for each year. The highest value of record, of course, is the frequencies. In order to avoid laborious processing of partial- . CALENDAR-DAY
-
top value of each series, but at lower frequency levels (shorter return duration date., the annual series were collected, analyzed, and the
periods) the two series diverge. The partial-duration series, having
the highest values regardless of the year in which they occur, recog-
resulting statistics transformed to partial-duration statistics.
Conversionjactorsjor two series.-Te.ble 2, based on e. sample of a. 0
0 w
I
2.0
I
~
I
~
I I
~
I
6.0
I I
7.0
nizes that the second highest of some year occasionally exceeds the number of widely scattered W ee.ther Bureau first-order stations, MEAN OF ANNUAL SERIES RAINFALL (INCHES)
highest of some other year. The purposes to be served by the atlas gives the empirical factors for converting the partial-duration series
require that the resnlts be expressed in terms of partial-duration to the annual series. FIGURE 6.-Relation between partial-duration and annual series.
2
15 15
-
14
1--
1- - 14
r-----
1-- - msTRIBUTioN OF
1-- -
13 13 'tl
1- -
1-- -
12 12
1-- -
1- -
II II
1-- -
10
1- - 10
1- -
iii - iii
w 1-- w
59 1- -
9 J:
0
~ ~
- -
J: 8 8 J:
1-
Q.
- - 1-
Q.
w
w
0 - - 0
..J 7 7
..J - - ..J
..J
co: co:
LL f- - LL
~ 6 z
a:
6
- - <t
a:
5
- -
5
- -
- - 4
4
- -
- -
3
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
2
\
--- -~--- --------1
0
- -
0
\ :
I 2
FIGURE
5 10 25 50
RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS, PARTIAL-DURATION SERIES
~-~iJ
On the windward sides of high mountains in western United States,
the 1- to 24-hour ratio is as low as 10 percent. In southern Arizona G 11 £ r
and some parts of midwestern United States, it is greater than 60
percent. In general, except for Arizona, the ratio is less than 40
percent west of the Continental Divide and greater than 40 percent
to the east. There is a fair relationship between this ratio and the
climatic factor, mean annual number of thunderstorm days. The
two parameters, 2-year daily rainfall and the mean annual number
---
of thunderstorm days, have been used jointly to provide an estimate FxouaE 10.-Grid density UBed to construct additional maps.
of short-duration rainfalls [18]. A 1- to 24-hour ratio of 40 percent
is approximately the average for the United States.
Ezamination of physiographic parameters.-Work with mean
annual and mean seasonal rainfall has resulted in the derivation of
empirically defined parameters relating rainfall data to the physiog- hour value for the same return period or that a 50-year value ex- Guides for estimating durations and/or return periods not at 35° N ., 90° W. The 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year values are
raphy of a region. Elevation, slope, orientation, distance from ceeds the 100-year value for the same duration. These errors, presented on the maps estimated from the maps to be 1.7, 2.2, 2.5, 2.9, 3.1, and 3.5 inches.
moisture source, and other parameters have been useful in drawing however, are well within the acknowledged margin of error. If After multiplying the 2-year value by 0.88, the 5-year value by 0.96,
Intermediate durat'ons and return perwds.-ln some instances, it and the 10-year value by 0.99, the six values are plotted on extreme-
maps of mean rainfall. These and other parameters were examined the reader is interested in more than one duration or return period value probability paper, a line iB fitted to the data and extrapolated
in an effort to refine the maps present.ed here. However, tests this potential source of inconsistency can be eliminated by con- might be required to obtain values within the range of return periods linearly. The 200-year value iB thuo estimated to be about 3.8 inches
showed that the use of these parameters would result in no improve- structing a series of depth-duration-frequency curves by fitting and durations presented in this paper but for which no maps have (see fig. 13).
ment in the rainfall-frequency pattern because of the sampling and smoothed curves on logarithmic paper to the values interpolated been prepared. A diagram similar to that illustrated in figure 12
Durations shorter than SO minutes.-If durations shorter than 30
other error inherent in values obtained for each station. from all49 maps. Figure 12 illustrates a set of curves for the point can serve as a nomogram for estimating these required values.
minutes are required, the average relationships between 30-minute
Evaluation.-In general, the standard error of estimate ranges at 35° N., 90° W. The interpolated values for a particular duration Return periods longer than 100 years.-Values for return periods
rainfall on the one hand and the 5-, 10-, and 15-minute rainfall on
from a minimum of about 10 percent, where a point value can be should very nearly approximate a straight line on the return-period longer than 100 years can be obtained by plotting several values
the other can be obtained from table 3. These relationships were
used directly as taken from a flat region of one of the 2-year maps to diagram of figure 7. from 2 to 100 years from the same point on all the maps on either
developed from the data of the 200 Westher Bureau first-order
50 percent where a 100-year value of short-duration rainfall must be Obsolescence.-Additional stations rather than longer records will log-normal or extreme-value probability paper. A straight line
stations.
estimated for an appreciable area in a more rugged region. speed obsolescence and lessen the current accuracy of the maps. fitted to the data and extrapolated will provide an acceptable esti-
mate of, say, the 200-year value. It should be remembered that TABLE 3.-Aoerage relat•omhif between SO-m•nute rainfaU and ahorler durol•on
Internal inconsistency.-{)n some maps the isoline interval does The comparison with Yarnell's paper [1] is a case in point. Where ra•nfa for lhe same return penod
not reveal the fact that the magnitude does not vary linearly by data for new stations are available, particularly in the mountainous the values on the maps are for the partial-duration series, therefore,
interpolation. Therefore, interpolation of several combinations of regions, the isopluvial patterns of the two papers show pronounced the 2-, 5-, and 10-year values should first be reduced by the factors Duration (min.) __ ----------------------_ 10 15
Ratio _________________________________
durations and return periods for the point of interest might result differences. At stations which were used for both papers, even with of table 2. 0. 57 0. 72
Average error (percent)------------------ 7 5
in such inconsistencies as a 12-hour value being larger than a 24- 25 years of additional data, the differences are negligible. EXAMPLE. The 200-year 1-hour value iB reqwred for the point
6
1000
BOO
600
000
•I-HOUR RAINFALL VALUES FROM
400
ISOPLUVIAL MAPS AT ~6° N
AND 90° W. 500
NOT£: VALUES HAVE BEEN CONVERTED
FROM PARTIAL -DURATION SERIES
200
TO ANNUAL SERIES (TABLE 2 )
." 100
~
0
10
..
'/'
........
..
.' . . .
. - THEORETICAL PROBABILITY (SJ
OF NOT BEING EXCEEDED IN Td YEAR$
... : . . . ~
DESIGN PERIOD, Td YEARS
~
.....
•.
:.. .
':,
/' e POINTS FROM I-HOUR
ISOPLUVIAL MAPS AT
FIGURE 14.-Relationship between design return period, T years, deilign period,
T ., and probability of not being exceeded in T • years.
.. . S~"N AND 90°W
··~ ..:·.·
NOT£: VALUES HAVE BEEN
/
CONVERTED FROM PARTIAL -
. DURATION SERIES TO ANNUAL
.. ~,
' ..
~
a:
10 0
I~
~
FtGUBE 11.-Relation between means from 60-year and 10-year records (24-hour duration). z
~+.
['-....
,
---- 1-HOVR
I
a profound effect on l·he isopluvial pattern. In general, the results General.--The analysis presented thus far has been mainly con-
from this paper are larger in the West with the differences occasion- cemed with attaching a probability to a particular magnitude of rain- ILl
u
ally reaching a factor of three. fall at a particular location. Once this probability has been deter- a:
ILl 5
ll. 100 150 200 200 >oo >!SO 400
Technical Paper No. 25.-Technical Paper No. 25 [5] contains a mined, consideration must also be given to the corollary question:
AREA (SQUARE MILES)
series of rainfall intensity-duration-frequency curves for the 200 What is the probability that the n-year event will occur at least once
Weather Bureau stations. The curves were developed from each in the next n years? FIGURE 16.-Area-depth curves.
station's data with no consideration given to anomalous events or From elementary probability theory it is known that there is a
to areal generalization. The average difference between the two good chance that the n-year event will occur at least once before
papers is approximately 10 percent with no bias. After accounting n years have elapsed. For example, if an event has the probability
for the fact that this atlas is for the partial-duration series and 1/n of occurring in a particular year (assume the annual ssries is
Technical Paper No. 25 is for the annual series, the differences can being used), where n is 10 or greater, the probability, P, of the e:vent
be ascribed to the considerable areal generalization used in this paper. occurring at least once among n observations (or years) is Probable maximum precipitation (PMP)
1~--~~--L---------L---~~~~~~--~--~~~--~~~ Technical Paper No. 24-, Parts I and II; Technical Paper No. 28.-- The 6-hour PMP and its relationship to the 100-year 6-hour rain-
30 40 50 60 18 24
The differences in refinement between Technical Paper No. 24- [2] P=1-(l-1/n)"""' 1-e-1 =0.63 fall.--Opposed to the probability method of rainfall estimation
MINUTES HOURS
DURATION
and Technical Paper No. 28 (6] on the one hand and this paper on the presented in this paper is the probable maximum precipitation
other do not, however, seem to influence the end results to an Thus, for example, the probability that the 10-year event will occur (PMP) method which uses a combination of physical model and
FIGURE 12.-Example of internal consistency check. at least once in the next 10 years is 0.63, or about 2 chances out of 3.
important degree. Inspection of the values in several rugged areas, several estimated meteorological parameters. The main purpose
as well as in flat areas, reveals disparities which averaf!:e about 20 Relationship between design return period, T years, design period, of the PMP method is to provide complete-safety design criteria in
percent. This is attributable to the much larger amount of data T., and probability of not being exceeded in T. years.--Figure 14, cases where structure failure would be disastrous. The 6-hour
Comparisons with previous rainfall frequency studies prepared from theoretical computations, shows the relationship
(both longer records and more stations) and the greater areal gen- PMP map of Chart 50 is based on the 10-square-mile values of
YameU.--A comparison of the results of this paper with those eralization used in this paper. between the design return period, T years, design period, T., and Hydrometeorological Report No. 33 [20] for the region east of 105° W.
obtained by Yarnell's paper [1] brings out several interesting points. Technical Paper No. 29, Parts 1 through 5.--The salient feature of probability of not being exceeded in T. years [19]. and on Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 38 [21) for the West.
First, both papers show approximately the same values for the the comparison of Technical Paper No. 29 [7] with this paper is the EXAMPLE. What design return period should the engineer use Chart 51 presents the ratios of the PMP vaiues to the 100-year
Weather Bureau first-order stations even though 25 years of addi- very small disparities between the four key maps and the slightly to be approximately 90 percent certain that it will not be exceeded point rainfalls of this paper. Examination of this map shows that
in the next 10years? Entering the design period coordinate at IOyears
tional data are now available. Second, even though thousands larger disparities between the intermediate maps. The average until the 90 percent line is intersected, the design return period is the ratios vary from less than 2 to about 9. These results must be
of additional stations were used in this study, the differences between differences are of the order of magnitude of 10 ltnd 20 percent, estimated to be 100 years. In terms of rainfall magnitude, the 100- considered merely indicative of the order of magnitude of extremely
the two papers in the eastern haU of the country are quite smo.ll respectively. The larger difference between the intermediate maps year value is approximately 60 percent larger than the 10-year value. rare rainfalls.
6
Area-depth relationships Appbcat~cm to areal ramfall.-The analysis of a limited amount of PART II
areal rainfall data in the same manner as the point data gave seasonal
General.-For drainage areas larger than a few square miles con-
variations which exh1bited no substantial difference from those of Charts 1--4 9: Isopluvial maps.
sideration must be given not only to point rainfall, but to the average
the point data. This lends some confidence in using these diagrams Charts 50-51: The 6-hour probable maximum precipitation and its
depth over the entire drainage area. The average area-depth as a guide for small areas. relationship to the 100-year 6-hour rainfall.
relationship, as a percent of the point values, has been determined
EXAMPLE. Determme the probab11ity of occurrence of a 10-year Charts 52-54: Diagrams of seasonal probability of intense rainfall,
for 20 dense networks up to 400 square miles from various regions
1-hour ramfall for the months May through August for the pomt at for 1-, 6-, and 24-hour durations.
in the United States [7]. 45° N ., 85° W. From Chart 52, the probab1hties for each month are
The area-depth curves of figure 15 must be VIewed operationally interpolated to be 1, 2, 4, and 2 percent, respectively. In other words,
The operation is related to the purpose and application. In applica- the probab1hty of occurrence of a 10-year 1-hour rainfall m May of
tion the process is to select a point value from an isopluvial map. any partiCular year IS 1 percent; for June, 2 percent; and so forth.
This point value is the average depth for the location concerned, for (Add1t10nal examples are g1ven m all five parts of Techntcal Paper
No. S9.)
a given frequency and duration It is a composite. The area-depth References
curve relates this average point value, for a given duratiOn and fre- 1. D. L. Yarnell, "Rainfall Intens1ty-Frequency Data," Miscellaneous Publi-
quency and within a g1ven area, to the average depth over that area ca!ton No. S04, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1935,
for the corresponding duration and frequency. 68pp.
The data used to develop the area-depth curves of figure 15 ex- 2. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Rainfall Intensities for Local Drainage Design m
hibited no systematic regional pattern [7]. Duration turned out to the United States for DuratiOns of 5 to 240 Minutes and 2-, 5-, and 10-Year
Return Periods," Techmcal Paper No. S4, "Part I: West of the 115th
be the major parameter. None of the dense networks had sufficient Meridian," Washington, D.C., August 1953, 19 pp. Revised February 1955.
length of record to evaluate the effect of magnitude (or return perwd) "Part II: Between 105° W. and 115° W.," Washington, D.C., August 1954,
on the area-depth relationship. For areas up to 400 square miles, 9 pp.
it is tentatively accepted that storm magnitude (or return per1od) 3. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Ramfall Intens1ties for Local Dramage Des1gn m
is not a parameter in the area-depth relationship. The reliability Coastal Reg10ns of North Afr1ca, Long1tude 11° W. to 14° E. for DuratiOns
of 5 to 240 Minutes and 2-, 5-, and 10-Year Return Periods," Washington,
of this relationship appears to be best for the longer durations. D.C., September 1954, 13 pp.
EXAMPLE What IS the average depth of 2-year 3-hour ramfall 4. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Ramfall Intens1t1es for Local Drainage Design m
for a 200-square-mile drainage area m the vicmity of 37° N , 86° W.? Arct1c and Subarctic Rcg10ns of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Iceland
From the 2-year 3-hour map, 2.0 inches 1s estimated as the average for DuratiOns of 5 to 240 Mmutes and 2-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 50-Year Return
depth for points in the area. However, the average 3-hour depth over Periods," Washmgton, DC., September 1955, 13 pp.
the drainage area would be less than 2 0 inches for the 2-year return 5. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Ramfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for
period Referring to figure 15, it is seen that the 3-hour curve mter- Selected Stations in the Umted States, Alaska, Hawaiian Islands, and
sects the area scale at 200 square m1les at rat1o 0.8. Accordingly, the Puerto Rico," Techmcal Paper No. S5, Washington, D.C., December 1955,
2-year 3-hour average depth over 200 square nules is 0.8 times 2 0, or 53 pp.
1.6 inches. 6. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Ramfall Intensities for Local Drainage Design in
Western United States," Techntcal Paper No. S8, Washington, D.C.,
Seasonal variation November 1956, 46 pp.
7. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Rainfall Intensity-Frequency Regime," Techmcal
Introductwn.-To this point, the frequency analysis has followed Paper No. S9, "Part I: The Ohio Valley," June 1957, 44 pp.; "Part 2:
the conventional procedures of using only the annual maxima or the Southeastern United States," March 1958, 51 pp.; "Part 3: The Middle
n-maximum events for n years of record Obviously, some months Atlantic Region," July 1958, 37 pp.; "Part 4: Northeastern United States,"
contribute more events to these series than others and, in fact, some May 1959, 35 pp., "Part 5: Great Lakes Reg10n," February 1960, 31 pp.
Washington, D.C
months might not contribute at all to these two series. Seasonal 8. U.S Weather Bureau, Form 1017, 189G-1958.
variation serves the purpose of showing how often these rainfall 9. U.S. Weather Bureau, C!ima!ologtcal Record Book, 189Q-1958.
events occur during a specific month. For example, a practical 10. U.S. Weather Bureau, C!tma!olog>cal Dala, Nat.ona! Summary, monthly,
problem concerned with seasonal variation may be illustrated by the 1950-1958.
fact that the 100-year 1-hour rain may come from a summer thunder- 11. U.S Weather Bureau, Hydrologtc Bulk!m, 194G-1948
12. US. Weather Bureau, Hourly Prectpilahon Data, 1951-1958.
storm, with considerable infiltration, whereas the 100-year flood may 13. U.S. Weather Bureau, Cltma!ologtcal Dala, by Sections 1897-1958.
come from a lesser storm occurring on frozen or snow-covered ground 14 M. A. Kohler, "Double-Mass Analysis for Testing the Consistency of
in the late winter or early spring. Records and for Making Reqmred Adjustments," Bu!lebn of the American
Meteorologtcal Socte!y, vol. 30, No.5, May 1949, pp. 188-189.
Seascmal probability diagrams.-A total of 24 seasonal variatwn dia- 15. E. J. Gumbel, Slabsbcs of Extrem .., Columbia Univursity Press, 1958,
grams is presented in Charts 52, 53, and 54 for the 1-, 6-, and 24-hour 375 pp.
durations for 8 subregions of the United States east of 105° W. 16. D. M. Hershfield and W T. Wlison, "A Comparison of Extreme Rainfall
The 15 diagrams covering the region east of 90° W. are identical to Depths from Tropical and Nontropical Storms," Journal of Geophysical
those presented previously in Techmcal Paper No. 29 [7]. The Research, vol. 65, No 3, March 1960, pp. 959-982.
17. D. M. Hersh field and M. A. Kohler, "An Empirical Appraisal of the Gumbel
smoothed isopleths of a diagram for a particular duration are based Extreme-Value Procedure," Journal of GeophyBtcal Research, vol. 65, No.6,
on the average relationslnp from approximately 15 statwns in each June 1960, pp. 1737-1746.
subregion. Some variation exists from station to station, suggesting 18. D. M. Hershfield, L. L. We1ss, and W T. Wilson, "Synthesis of Rainfall
a slight subregional pattern, but no attempt was made to define it Intensity-Frequency Regime," Proceedtngs, Amerocan Soctely of Ctvil
because there is no conclusive method of determining whether this Engmeers, vol. 81, Sep No. 744, July 1955, pp. 1-6.
19. Arnold Court, "Some New Statistical Techmques m Geophysics," Advances
pattern is a climatic fact or an accident of sampling. The slight tn Geophystcs, vol. I, Academic Press, New York, 1952, pp. 45-85.
regional discontinuities between curves of adjacent subregions can 20. U.S. Weather Bureau, "Seasonal Variat1on of the Probable Maximum Pre-
be smoothed locally for all practical purposes. No seasonal variation cipitation East of the 105th Merid1an for Areas from 10 to 1000 Square
relationships are presented for the mountamous region west of 105° Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 Hours," Hydromeleorologtcal Report
W. because of the influence of local climatic and topographic condi- No. 88, Aprd 1956, 58 pp.
21 U.S. Weather Bureau, "Generahzed Est1mates of Probable Mal<imum
tions. Th1s would call for seasonal distribution curves constructed Precipitation for the United States West of the 105th Mendmn for Areas
from each station's data instead of average and more reliable curves to 400 Square M1Ies and Durations to 24 Hours," Techmcal Paper No. 88,
based on groups of stations. 1960, 66 pp.
7
tOS" tOO' ... ...
I-YEAR 30-MINUTE RAINFALL (INCHES),_
M E X l c
G U L F 0 F
\
tOS" tOO' ... ITAND.t.BD P.t.a.t.Lt.J:La u• AND u•
8
Chart 2
.... ,... ...
I
2-YEAR 30-MINUTE RAINFALL(INCHES)
t.y
I
I
I
I
X I c ~ I
-----I
0 F M E
G U L F
\ I
\,.. I
9
\.;bart 3
G U L F 0 F
\
,... ... ...
l't.&IC.D&RD P.AaALLELI U" &HD U"
tOO'
10
Chan 4
I c
G U L F 0 F
I
.IL.Ial lf\IOAL .&.IU:A PROIIC'I'ION
11
\..nan. a
X I c
0
M E
G U L F
... ...
~i-------r--
60 -YEAR 30-MINUTE RAINFALL (INCHES)
M E X I c
G U L F 0 F
\
&LII:RI EqUAL .t.RBA. pi\O.IBCTIOH
· - - - - - - - - 11'.t.NDARD P.t.IU.LLELI 11" AHD u•
95' 911'
13
.... 100' ... ... ...
I ~--
Ioo-YEAR 30-MINUTE RAINFALL (INCHES)
G U L F
14
X I C
0 F M E
G U L F
\
ALaEI\1 lqU.A.L .A.RII:.l Plt.OII:CT101f
... ...
11'.&JID&RD PAK&LLII:LI 11• &HD u•
...
15
IDS" 100' ... ...
2-YEAR I-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
X I C 0
0
M E
G U L F
100 ~
... ...
--
Jt.I.MDA&D P4JU..LLELI 11" AND u•
IDS" 100'
16
. Chart 10
-~~w ·~ -------Tw-----------------T~~---------------;~--------------~T-----------------~
G U L F 0
17
Chart 11
-----------~·~~~-------------·~ w
...
I I
10-YEAR I-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
X I c 0
M E
G U L F 0
·~ ·~
18
,... 1<10'
.!If E X
c
G U L F 0
100'
trAlf.D4RD
.,.
PA.II.l1.\.Zl.l U" iND 4.1•
19
.... '"" ...
E X I c
0 M
G U L F
.... ...
IT&ND.A.RD PAIU.L1.EL8 II" AND oil"
100" 90'
20
110" .... ,,.. ... ...
c 0
G U L F 0
... ...
ALIE.al Eq,U.t..L AJlU, PROIECTION
21
~i ·~------~i-------Tw-------r-------r-------r~~---+--~~~~~
c 0
G U L F 0 F
\
.f.LBIII.I lqD&L .t.RI.&. PROJECTION
.... ·~
... - IT4NDARD UIU.L'LELI u• AHD •••
911'
22
lOS" 100' ... ... ...
2-YEAR 2-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
\
E X I c
G U L F 0
...
ALIEII.I &qUAL AR&.t. PII.OIIl:CTION
23
Chart 17
M
G U L F
24
Chart 18
M E X I c
G U L F 0 F
\
ALBI:II.I EqUAL AIU:A PRO.III:C'I'IOH
25
,... ... ...
'""
M E X I c
G U L F 0
...
.&LIII:RI EqUAL .UI.IU. PROJJI!CTIOH
26
U L F 0 F
G
.loLISERB
I
EQUAL AREA PRO.Jr.CTION
. IT.t.ND.t.RD PARALLELS u• AND tl"
27
1115" 100' ...
100-YEAR 2-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
X I c
0
M E
G U L F
28
\..Dan~~
G U L F 0
29
110" .... .... ... ...
2-YEAR 3-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
G U L F 0 F
I
.... .... ... ALBEII.I EQUAL AREA
...
PROJECTION
IT.&.NOARD P.UU.L'LEL8 n• AND U"
30
105" 100' ... ...
q-YEAR 3-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
M E X
c
G U L F 0 F
I
ALBZIU J:qVAL AII~A PllOIZCTfOH
31
lOS' 100' ...
10-YEAR 3-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
M E X I c
G U L F 0
100
G U L F 0 F
\
ALaJ:&I &QUAL .1.811:4 PI\OIJ:CTIOK
33
,.,.. I DO' ...
SO-YEAR 3-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
G U L F 0 F
\
.
ALIJ:BI J:qOAL A&8.a PI\OUC'fiO,
""'
34
.... '"'" ... ...
100 -YEAR 3-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
E X I c 0 ~
0 F M
G U L F
.
I ... ...
....
ALIKa• IIQO'.lL ARE.._ I'JIOUCTIOM
".AND
.... ... u•
--
atAH.DA-J) f,i.JI.• L\.KLI
100'
35
.... 100' ...
X I C
0 F M E
G U L F
\
ALBERS J:qVAL AREA PRO.IECTION
36
Chart 30
G U L F 0 F
\
.ALai:IU &IQ17AL Alt&A PROUCTIOK
37
,... .... ... ...
S-YEAR 6-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
E X I c
0 M
G U L F
38
Chart 32
...
M E X I c
U L F 0 F
G
\
.t.LJI:RI EQUAL .A.RI:A PROIECTION
39
,... ... ...
'""
X I C 0
0 F M E
G U L F
\
ALBII:It.l aqU.a.L .llli:.A PI\O.IIJ:CTIOif
X I c
M E
G U L F 0
41
100" 100' ... ...
100-YEAR 6-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
...
M E X
c
G U L F 0
42
,,.. .... ... ...
G U L F 0 F
\
. ... ...
II .. .... I DO'
ltAH.D.&.IlD
...
r.&KALLJ:LI u• AHD u•
43
Chart 37
I
G U L F
~
105" 100" ... -
.......................
11'ANDARD ..":. :' ._"__'"
=
PAR&;E=LS-'1::_1"
•\
------L------------'-80"
,..
44
Chart 38
G U L F 0 F
ALBJ:R.I
I
J:QDAL ARII:& PRO.U::CTIOM
45
~-~~---;--~:::::::::=--------7'~-~-__:r r---·- i ~
-r--
10-YEAR 12-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
2.5 '\
---
c 0
0 F
M E X
G U L F
\
ALBERS EQUAL AIU:o\ PRO,U:CTION
100'
46
Chart 40
M
G U L F
47
Chart 41
M E X
c
G U L F 0 F
48
.... .... ... ...
100-YEAR 12-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
E X I c
G U L F 0
"'
...
49
Chart 43
M
G U L F
50
Chart 44
E X I c
0 M
G U L F
51
105" 100' ... ...
S-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
G U L F 0 F
\
ALBII:RI EQUAL <l.& PROU::CTIOH
52
Chart 46
X I c
M E
G U L F 0
G U L F
54
Chart 48
.... '"" ... 00'
G U L F
55
.... '"" ...
G U L F 0 F
\
.... '"" ... 6LBKRI SqU,U, .l.lt.l.t. Plt.OIICCTION
lt.AN.DAAD PAit.Al,.L.ILI u• AND u•
.,.
56
110' 1... 100" ... ... ...
- - I
PROBABLE MAXIMUM 6-HOUR PRECIPITATION FOR 10 SQUARE
---~----------+---------~----------+---------
G U L F
57
120" ,,,. 110" 105" 100" --- ------.!,'..~-----~""~-----~85";:___ _ _ _ __.,.,.r------------T--::::::=------T ---,.,---;-------'i--r-----,
1
;~-7~~ ~--··RATIO-OFPROBA-BLE-M AXIMUM -S---HOUR PRECIPITATION FOR 10 SQUARE MILES
1
I I I
TO 100-YEAR 6-HOUR RAINFALL
I
M
G U L F
-·-· ----------
At.II::RI J:QUAL AREA. PltOUCTION
ITAND.t.Rb PARALLELI u• AND u•
... -
58
Chart 52
50 50 50 50
/'r-1
V)
co::
<(
40
30
j_
r-, 40
30
40
30
v 40
30 I\\
~ I \ I I 25 I
[_ ...... ,
25 25 25
z 20 L 2
_\ 20 20
I / \ 20
I f\
If 1\ II I ~ \
1"I
0 [\ /2\
0 15 15 15 15
co::
w
a.. /I \I\ I1/ I \2
1\\ !I \
\ 10
\ '\
\1
10 10 10
zco::
::> 7
Ill 1/ \ 1\ II /5
\
7
/"
It I
I vI 1\ 1\ 'I I '\ \ \
1-
w
co:: II ( 5\ I '\ I \
II ~ 1/ II 5
\ 1\ II I \ I \ \
4
3
I tO
s 4
I
v
I I ~ _l
4
3
I ,f
1/ v'o 1\ _\ _\
4
3
1/ I
10\
\ \
..... I II I '\1\ \ \
I
I
" \
I \ I / \ Jif v 15 1\ \ 1\ ll1// 1\\\\,\ \ /51
v I I L v
2 2
( I II/ \I\ 1\ \ /0
I, L 20 1\\ 1\ \ '/ 20
\ \ \
50
/'\ 50 50
40
I 40 t--t----t-i-t--+-t"-T-t----t-t-t--t-+--1 40 40
30
I
30 t-+---t--1--+---l-l-l~>r+---+
\--1----l---1---1
\. ,, 30
/I 30
25 25 1--t----+--i-+---t-t+-1-+--1--t--t-+--1 25 I 25 \
V)
co:: 20 I I 2\
20 t-+---t-1-+--+-H-+---+\--+--1---l---l---1 20
I 20
I \
<(
w
>- 15
I I \\ 15
I /2
'\ 15
1/ 1\ PROBABILITY IN PERCENT OF OBTAINING
z
0
/, ,\ lit \ \ ,( \ 1\ r...
A RAINFAll IN ANY MONTH OF A PAR-
I I 1\
10 10 10
1'- v TICULAR YEAR EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING
0
co::
w 7
I \' 5
7r+-\-I-+-~~+H~--l---l---l I I \
\ 7
1\ THE RETURN PERIOD VALUES TAKEN
a..
JI L ~\\ ~rl\ 1\ 1J \
II \ -
II 5' - \
zco:: FROM THE ISOPLUVIAL MAPS.
\
5 5r+-\-l-+-~-+-~,+\~~
::>
1- \ 4r+-\-l-+-~-+-~~--l---l---l I I
5,
\ 1\
I v 1\
4 4 4
\I\ I
w
co::
3
I 10
\
I JO 1\ \
3 t--t--t-1--H~+--+--'H-+-++++----t-----+---i I I \ \\ \
II I I 2r+-t-~~~/~/+~B~~\~--l---1---1 III ( \
\
\
o,
\ \ v.20 \ .\ \ I 1 II /5 r--.... \ 1\ L
I
1/ '0....
J F M A M J
~5
J A 5 0
\
N D J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D J F M A M J
L'
J
20- ~ 1\\ \ 1\
A 5 0 N D J
1/ !J I \
F M A M J
'
J A
~ 1\
5 0 N 0
59
Chart 53
~I
50 50 50 f--+---+--+-+--l--+--+-t--+-----1f--t--+---l 50
40 .40 40 1---+--+-+--+--+-+--+-1---t---l-r~ 40
V)
ex:
.,....,1'\ (,
-< 30 30 30 1-----+-l---t-1--+-+-+t/----t-\-\~f---t---t--l 30
z 20
I 20 20 1--+--1--+--t--+--H-+--rt..---\1----l--t--+---l 20
0 15
/; '\ 15 15 1---+--+-+--+--+--t+-+---1--\:-ft-----l-r--t----i
1\ 15 I I 2\ \
f/ \.r-.,
0
1/ I
ex:
w
1:1.. 10 10
v' !"-. I
!""'
1\ 10 1--+--1--+--t--+--+H-t-+--,\-H--+--+---l
\\ 10 I 1\
I ~v l--+--l--+--t--+-IH+~5-+-H-Ijl--+--+---1 II \
I
"'
zex:
::::> 7
!'-.. /2 i\ 7
1-
w
ex: t\ A { \
"i
\
I / \\ IIv \ \ I II
/5\ \~\
4 I \ ./ .I I
'\ 1\
5
4
I I'--- ~ v 4 4
/j v \ 1\ ,,
I \ I 11 /
5-..
\ \ '! I \ \
v
3 - \
I \ I I ( '\ \
\\ [\. I \\ l/If 1/ v'o :'\ \ '\
2
v ....._
·- -
1/ " I '/ '\ \ \ "\\ / I/r--... 1\ / 1/ I I v \ ,\ \
v V, V;
.15
50 1--t--t--t-1--+--t--t-+----t-t----+--t------i 50 50 50
40 1--t--t--t-1--+--t--t--; /'+-\-t-t----+--t------i 40 40 40
30 f--+---+--+-+--1--+---++--++,-+-t---+---1---l 30 30 30
25 1--t--t--t-1--+---1---1--Hr-+--t----+--t------i 25
/I \ 25 25
~ 20f--+---+--+-+--l-~1-r\~t--+---l---l
I
20
I 20
~ ,,I/"' 20
~ 151--t--t--t-1--+-~1~~~\t----+--t------i 15 15
I 1\ 15
1\ PROBABiliTY IN PERCENT OF OBTAINING
~
v2
r 2 ); [\ \ \( ~ /\ A RAINFAll IN ANY MONTH OF A PAR-
~w
10 t----+--+-+--+-h/'-t-.H-//--t----\t-t-
7f--+---+--+-+-~~-r~t--+-~
Il
\ \ -t--t--t------i
\
10
"\ 10
/I \
[\
\
10
7
1/
~ \) 1\
TICUlAR YEAR EQUAl TO OR EXCEEDING
THE RETURN PERIOD VAlUES TAKEN
~
~
5f--+-~~~,~/~;~,\~~~
I /5 t"\. I \
1\ 1\ II! \ /~ 2
\ FROM THE ISOPlUVIAl MAPS.
~
4 4 4
\ \ \ II I l's\ \
/;'"fir -,
3 3
//V'o\ 1\\1\ 1/ ;
l',o
\
\
I; J t"\. \ I\\ /.
I I
\
1\. I
l--'5...,
1\ \
;IJ 1/I \ \
2
~I 11/""'15
I'-- 1\ \1\
2
l II ; I \ 10
\ \ \I\ v lj I / /0 1-- v
\
v20
"
JFMAMJJASOND
/ I I 1\ 1\ 1\ 1\\ JFMAMJJASOND
I ~' ['._, i''<
60
Chart 54
SEASONAL PROBABILITY OF INTENSE 24-HOUR RAINFAll
100 100 100 100
PART 1 PART 21 PART 3 PART 4
50 50 50 50
40 40 40 40
1/)
0:::
<(
~0 30 30
_L \ 30 lL' ~ I
w 25 25 25 I I \r
>- 25
z 20
__ll'l
I f I', 20 I ["'\ 20 1/ I 2
20 L \
Cl
0
15
I
l
1/ 11
/~'--, 15
f \
15 I I \ \
15 I 121\' 1\
0:::
w I I\ ~ I I
I
1/
\\
v J
a..
I\,
10 10 10 10
1//v
11
z0::: 1/ ~
:::> I I 1\ 1\ r 1/ J 5 1\ '
\ v ( 1'-l/ ~ \
7
'.-,?
}_II I 1\ I\ I 1/
I
I 1/
t-
w
0::: j I/ _L \ 1\ \ ll
\ I'\.. V 1\ 1\ v I _l I
I I
:~ -- ---- \
J7
) I
-
4 Ll / 5 ........
\
1 \ \
4
v V' ..........
4
v 4
v
1\ / ( ~ \ ' I
\ j
v \
1 ~ ~ - "\.
.../
\ \ 1/ \I I J I I \ \ ~\ 10....
/rl\~/2
v i~IZ "~ -i\
-
2 -- I
\
\
"'
L -....... ........ / / l /j_ I
I-
J F
I
1/1'\
M A M
v \
I I~
J
L
J
10
[\.
A S
'I'--
0
r----. --
N 0
:;5
/ /
I
_L_O .......
\
\ / I
I-
v /
v
2
I /; ""\ \ \ v'5
~
I
'/ -~ v
1/_~c__
v- ""'\1\ \-
JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASONO JFMAMJJASONO
50
40 40 40 40
30 IL'i\\ ~ ~
_j_l
~
25 25 25 25
j_ ( \
~
<(
20
I
w
I
tl'\
\
w
2
t""\ ' w
I
''\
II' 1\
v
.2. ll
w
>-
15
v \
15
It I
15 15 PROBABiliTY IN PERCENT OF OBTAINING
z
Cl
j_ \ \ 1/ I 1\ \ I \ A RAINFALL IN ANY MONTH OF A PAR-
I III v
10 10 10 10
0
7
IL \ \
1\ L 5 .J(
~~ I 12 r......
['... v 2\ \ TICULAR YEAR EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING
,;
0:::
w THE RETURN PERIOD VALUES TAKEN
a..
z0::: 5
j_ j_ 5 I 1/ 5 \ t 1/ \\ 1/
I \ i/ \ \
FROM THE ISOPLUVIAL MAPS.
:::> 4 I I / \ \ 11 ~ I I \ s 5
vI I I'-v l '--
I I 1/ --- ~ 1\\ v~
4 4 4
t-
w
0::: j_ _1 \ 1/ \_..-
b \ I \
I
1/ II \\ v1/ /\1'-. v1/ v5
~ 1\ 1\ I \ -......
I I 1\ 1\ t! I ,f I 1\
v v
2
lL v v / 10\
\ 1\ I I 1/, \ "" 1\ \
I 1\
1/
\ / I 1'- \
r\
_Lj_ I~ (,.........,
\~'I 1/ I / \ v
,..,- I-- 1---"
v I/ /
JFMAMJJASONO
~ :-----v '\ \ 1\\ II~ Vj [/; 20\ f'.... 1\\ \ 1\\
JFMAMJJASONO
1/
I
JFMAMJJASONO
\
~ 1\ I
J F
I M
v '\1\
A M J J A
I
S
10,
0
1"'-
N 0
61
6' U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1963 0-171'12.4