Assessment of Time of Concentration Formulas

for Overland Flow

Tommy S. W. Wong, F.ASCE1

Abstract: Despite the importance of overland time of concentration on the design discharge, engineers are often bewildered by the array
of formulas available in the literature without knowing the accuracy of each formula. This assessment covers nine formulas published
between 1946 and 1993, which are intended for overland flow only that is subjected to uniform rain. The assessment compares the
estimates from the formulas with experimental values that are derived under the same conditions for two surfaces: concrete and grass. The
assessment shows that formulas that do not account for the rainfall intensity are only valid for a limited range of rainfall intensities. The
formulas that account for the rainfall intensity generally show better agreement with the experimental data. Finally, the assessment gives
two rankings of the formulas for the two surfaces in accordance to their accuracy as compared to the experimental data. The formula that
has the best accuracy for both surfaces is the Chen and Wong formula.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9437共2005兲131:4共383兲
CE Database subject headings: Design; Overland flow; Resistance coefficient; Storm drainage; Surface runoff; Time factors.

Introduction outdoor experimental plot, a rainfall simulator, and instrumenta-

The overland time of concentration is an important parameter in
many drainage design methods. Combined with the time of travel
in channel, it becomes the time of concentration of entire basin.
The latter is commonly used as a basis for the determination of
the design discharge via rainfall intensity–duration–frequency
curves 共Wong 1996b兲. As such, the overland time of concentra-
tion has a major influence on the accuracy of the design dis-
charge. Despite its importance, engineers are often bewildered by
the array of formulas that are available in the literature without
knowing the accuracy of each formula. Earlier attempts 共Kibler
and Aron 1983; McCuen et al. 1984; McCuen and Spiess 1995;
Cristina and Sansalone 2003兲 were made to assess the accuracy of
some of these formulas. However, they compared estimates from
the formulas with either: 共1兲 the hydraulic flow times on overland
surfaces on which there was no rain or 共2兲 the times of concen-
tration for entire basins that were subjected to nonuniform rain.
This assessment covers nine formulas published between 1946
and 1993, which are intended for overland flow only that is sub-
jected to uniform rain. The assessment compares the estimates
from the formulas with experimental values that are derived under
the same conditions for two surfaces: concrete and grass.
Experimental Work
In this study, a rainfall-runoff-infiltration facility has been set up
at the Nanyang Technological University 共NTU兲 comprising an
1
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Nanyang Ave., Singapore 639798.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2006. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review
and possible publication on April 30, 2003; approved on December 1,
2004. This technical note is part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drain-
age Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 4, August 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9437/2005/4-383–387/$25.00.
tion for monitoring runoff. The information on the rainfall simu-
lator and the instrumentation can be found in Wong 共2002兲. The
experimental plot consists of four testing bays and one collection
chamber. The dimensions of each testing bay are 25 m long by 1
m wide. Two of the testing bays have been prepared for tests on
the concrete surface. The average slopes of the concrete bays are
2 and 5%. The other two bays have been prepared for tests on the
grass surface. One bay was used to simulate the Hortonian over-
land flow, and the other for the saturation overland flow. For both
bays, the average height of the grass was around 120 mm, and the
average slope of the soil surface was 2%. For the present study, a
total of 16 runoff hydrographs from the 2% concrete bay, and
eight hydrographs with the Hortonian overland flow were selected
for further analysis.
Evaluation of Darcy–Weisbach Resistance
Coefficient
While the Manning resistance coefficient for overland flow over
various surfaces are readily available in the literature 共Yen 1978兲,
the Darcy–Weisbach resistance coefficient is not. Since Eq. 共12兲
uses the Darcy–Weisbach resistance coefficient, it is necessary to
evaluate its values for concrete and grass surfaces before the as-
sessment on the time of concentration formulas can be made. By
means of the rising limbs of the observed hydrographs, the
Darcy–Weisbach resistance coefficient is evaluated as follows.
By relating the Darcy–Weisbach resistance coefficient f to the
Reynolds number R as follows:
f = C/Rk 共1兲
where C and k⫽constants, the evaluation is then to determine the
values of C and k for concrete and grass surfaces. The Reynolds

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 / 383

number R is related to the instantaneous outflow q at the end of
the plane, i.e.,
R = q/␯ 共2兲
where ␯⫽kinematic viscosity of water.
A computer program, known as the “NTU-Kinematic Wave”
or the “NK” program, was used to evaluate the resistance coeffi-
cient. The NK program generates a runoff hydrograph from an
overland plane by solving the kinematic wave equations. By ap-
plying the program to a given plane and a given rainfall intensity,
the optimum values of C and k could be evaluated such that the
simulated hydrographs give the best match to the observed hydro-
graphs. However, this was not done as this would give an undue
advantage to Eq. 共12兲 in the subsequent assessment. Instead, the
values of C and k, not their optimum values, were chosen such Fig. 1. Typical overland hydrographs from concrete bay
that the simulated hydrographs are just close to those that use the
Manning resistance coefficient.
For the concrete surface, the simulated hydrographs with
values. A perfect agreement between the estimated and the ob-
C = 3 and k = 0.5 were found to be close to those that use the
served gives a value of unity for R2. A poor agreement gives a
recommended Manning resistance coefficient for concrete surface
negative value for R2. The negative sign signifies the variance
关i.e., no = 0.014 共Yen 1978兲兴. For the grass surface, as there was
between the observed and the estimated is even greater than the
infiltration into the soil, Horton’s equation was used to account
variance among the observed values.
for the infiltration loss. The simulated hydrographs with C = 1 and
k = 0 were found to be close to those that use the recommended
Manning resistance coefficient for grass surface 关i.e., no = 0.04 Izzard’s „1946… Formula
共Yen 1978兲兴. Figs. 1 and 2 show the typical simulated and ob-
served hydrographs for the concrete and grass surfaces. It is ap-
parent that the simulated hydrographs are close to each other, and
they are not the best match to the observed hydrograph. This
to = 526 冉 in0.333
35,715 in
Ni
+ 0.667 冊冉 冊
Lo
So
0.333
共4兲

confirms that the evaluated C and k are not the optimum values.
Assessment of Time of Concentration Formulas
For the purpose of comparing the accuracy of the estimates from
the time of concentration formulas, the observed time of concen-
tration was used as the common basis. Since the observed hydro-
graphs approach the equilibrium condition asymptotically, the ob-
served time of concentration is defined as the period between the
beginning of runoff and when the flow reaches 95% of the equi-
librium flow. For the Hortonian overland hydrographs, as the net
rainfall was not uniform at the beginning of the event, it was
necessary to adjust the observed data through computer simula-
tion. Using the NK program to simulate events with uniform and
nonuniform net rainfalls, the simulation shows that the times of
concentration for events with uniform net rainfall is about 20%
shorter than those with the nonuniform net rainfall. This is due to
the higher rainfall intensity at the beginning of the event for the
runs with uniform net rainfall. In view of this, the observed data
from the grass surface were multiplied by a factor 0.8.
The following shows a comparison of the observed times of
concentration with the estimates from nine formulas published
between 1946 and 1993. The goodness of fit between the esti-
mated and the observed times of concentration is measured by a
R2 objective function 共Nash and Sutcliffe 1970兲, defined as
where to⫽time of concentration; in⫽net rainfall intensity;
Ni⫽retardance coefficient; Lo⫽length of overland flow; and
So⫽overland slope. The units for to共min兲, for in共mm h−1兲, for
Lo共m兲, and for So 共m m−1兲, and these units apply to all the sub-
sequent time of concentration formulas 关Eqs. 共5兲–共12兲兴.
Fig. 3 shows Eq. 共4兲 with Ni⫽0.007 and 0.06, which are for
very smooth pavement, and dense bluegrass turf, respectively. A
comparison of Eq. 共4兲 with Ni⫽0.007 with the experimental data
from the concrete bay gives R2⫽0.00. It is significant to note that
the discrepancies between the estimated and observed values are
smaller for the intensities less than 96 mm h−1, which is the maxi-
mum intensity used in the derivation of Eq. 共4兲. A comparison of
Eq. 共4兲 with Ni = 0.06 with the experimental data from the grass
bay gives R2 = −409.35. The sizable difference between the esti-
mated and the observed values is attributed to the stiffness and
denseness of bluegrass as compared to that of Cow grass.

R2 = 1 −
兺 共too − toe兲2 共3兲
兺 共too − tom兲2
where too⫽observed overland time of concentration;
toe⫽estimated overland time of concentration; and tom⫽mean of
all the observed overland times of concentration. The summations
are taken over all the observed and their corresponding estimated Fig. 2. Typical overland hydrographs from grass bay

384 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005

Fig. 3. Comparison of time of concentration formulas that account Fig. 5. Comparison of time of concentration formulas that do not
for rainfall intensity with experimental data account for rainfall intensity with experimental data

United States Army Corps of Engineers’ „1954… Nk = 0.02 and 0.4, which are for a smooth impervious surface, and
Formula average grass surface, respectively. A comparison with the experi-

冉 冊冉 冊 0.55−共0.001/So兲 mental data from the concrete bay shows that Eq. 共6兲 with
0.12 Lo
to = 10.57 + in−0.43 共5兲 Nk = 0.02 corresponds to a net intensity around 70 mm h−1, and
So 30.48 gives a R2 value of −0.80. Compared with the experimental data
A comparison of Eq. 共5兲 with the experimental data from the from the grass bay, Eq. 共6兲 with Nk = 0.4 corresponds to a net
concrete bay 共Fig. 4兲 gives R2 = 0.94. The agreement is even better intensity around 10 mm h−1, and gives a R2 value of −72.11.
for rainfall intensities less than the maximum intensity of
254 mm h−1 that was used in the derivation of Eq. 共5兲. Morgali and Linsley’s „1965… Formula
to = 7no0.605Lo0.593/So0.38in0.388 共7兲
Kerby’s „1959… Formula
By substituting no = 0.014 into Eq. 共7兲, the comparison with ex-
to = 1.45共NkLo/So0.5兲0.467 共6兲 perimental data from the concrete bay 共Fig. 3兲 gives R2 = 0.29.
where Nk⫽retardance coefficient. Fig. 5 shows Eq. 共6兲 with Similarly, by substituting no = 0.04 into Eq. 共7兲, the comparison
with the data from the grass bay gives R2 = −1.41.

Woolhiser and Liggett’s „1967… Formula

to = 7 冉冑 冊
n oL o
So
0.6
in−0.4 共8兲

By substituting no = 0.014 into Eq. 共8兲, the comparison with ex-

perimental data from the concrete bay 共Fig. 3兲 gives R2 = 0.89.
Similarly, by substituting no = 0.04 into Eq. 共8兲, a comparison with
the data from the grass bay gives R2 = 0.44.

Federal Aviation Administration’s „1970… Formula

Fig. 4. Comparison of time of concentration formulas for paved
surfaces only with experimental data
to = 0.70共1.1 − Cr兲Lo0.5/So0.333 共9兲
where Cr⫽runoff coefficient. Fig. 5 shows Eq. 共9兲 with Cr = 0.3
and 0.9, which are for slightly pervious soils with turf, and con-
crete runway pavement, respectively. A comparison with the ex-
perimental data from the concrete bay shows that Eq. 共9兲 with
Cr = 0.9 corresponds to net intensities around 70 mm h−1, and the
R2 value is −0.71. A comparison with the data from the grass bay
shows that Eq. 共9兲 with Cr = 0.3 corresponds to a net intensity
around 10 mm h−1, and the R2 value is −65.86.

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 / 385

Table 1. Rankings of Time of Concentration Formulas in Terms of R2
Value for Concrete Bay
Rank Time of concentration formula R2
a a
1 Eq. 共5兲 共USACE 1954兲 0.94
2 Eq. 共12兲a with C = 3, k = 0.5 共Chen and Wong 1993兲 0.92
3 Eq. 共8兲a with no = 0.014 共Woolhiser and Liggett 1967兲 0.89
4 Eq. 共7兲a with no = 0.014 共Morgali and Linsley 1965兲 0.29
5 Eq. 共4兲a with Ni = 0.007 共Izzard 1946兲 0.00
6 Eq. 共10兲 with no = 0.014 共Yen and Chow 1983兲 −0.02
7 Eq. 共9兲 with Cr = 0.9 共FAA 1970兲 −0.71
8 Eq. 共6兲 with Nk = 0.02 共Kerby 1959兲 −0.80
9 Eq. 共11兲 with Na = 0.015 共NAASRA 1986兲 −8.23
Note: USACE⫽United States Army Corps of Engineers; FAA⫽Federal
Aviation Administration; and NAASRA⫽National Association of
Australia State Road Authorities.
a
Formula accounts for rainfall intensity.
Yen and Chow’s „1983… Simplified Formula
to = 1.2共noLo/So0.5兲0.6 共10兲
A comparison of Eqs. 共8兲 and 共10兲 shows that they are identical if
in = 80 mm h−1 is substituted into Eq. 共8兲. Further, by substituting
no = 0.014 and 0.04 into Eq. 共10兲, the comparison with the experi-
mental data from the concrete and the grass bays, respectively
共Fig. 5兲, shows that Eq. 共10兲 is indeed applicable to the net
intensity of 80 mm h−1 only. The R2 values for Eq. 共10兲 with
no = 0.014 and 0.04 are −0.02 and 0.36, respectively.
National Association of Australian State Road
Authorities’ „1986… Formula
to = 42.6NaLo0.333/So0.2 共11兲
where Na⫽retardance coefficient, and has a recommended value
of 0.015 for paved surface. There is no recommended value for
other surface. The comparison with the experimental data from
concrete bay 共Fig. 4兲 shows that Eq. 共11兲 with Na = 0.015 corre-
sponds to a net rainfall intensity of around 20 mm h−1, and has a
R2 value of −8.23.
Chen and Wong’s „1993… Formula
冋 册
0.21共3.6 ⫻ 106␯兲kCLo2−k 1/3
to = 共12兲
S oi n 1+k
By substituting C = 3 and k = 0.5, and ␯ = 0.874⫻ 10−6 m2 s−1 for
water at 26°C into Eq. 共12兲, the comparison with experimental
data from the concrete bay 共Fig. 3兲 gives R2 = 0.92. Similarly, by
substituting C = 1 and k = 0 into Eq. 共12兲, the comparison with the
data from the grass bay gives R2 = 0.75. It is apparent that Eq.
共12兲, which is based on the kinematic Darcy–Weishach formula-
tion, gives better agreement with the experimental data than Eq.
共8兲, which is based on the kinematic Manning formulation. This is
because the value of k that corresponds to the kinematic Manning
formulation is fixed at 0.2 共Wong 1996a兲. For the kinematic
386 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005
Table 2. Rankings of Time of Concentration Formulas in Terms of R2
Value for Grass Bay
Rank Time of concentration formula R2
1 Eq. 共12兲 with C = 1, k = 0 共Chen and Wong 1993兲 0.75
2 Eq. 共8兲a with no = 0.04 共Woolhiser and Liggett 1967兲 0.44
3 Eq. 共10兲 with no = 0.04 共Yen and Chow 1983兲 0.36
4 Eq. 共7兲a with no = 0.04 共Morgali and Linsley 1965兲 −1.41
5 Eq. 共9兲 with Cr = 0.3 共FAA 1970兲 −65.86
6 Eq. 共6兲 with Nk = 0.4 共Kerby 1959兲 −72.11
7 Eq. 共4兲 with Ni = 0.06 共Izzard 1946兲 −409.35
Note: FAA⫽Federal Aviation Administration.
a
Formula accounts for rainfall intensity.
Darcy–Weisbach formulation, the value of k can be adjusted ac-
cording to the flow regime 共Wong and Chen 1997兲.
Overall Assessment and Conclusions
The comparison of estimates from nine time of concentration for-
mulas with experimental data from the concrete and grass bays
shows that for the formulas that do not account for the rainfall
intensity 关Eqs. 共6兲 and 共9兲–共11兲兴, they are only valid for a limited
range of rainfall intensities. The formulas that account for the
rainfall intensity 关Eqs. 共4兲, 共5兲, 共7兲, 共8兲, and 共12兲兴, similar to the
experimental data, all show a decreasing time of concentration
with increasing rainfall intensity. Tables 1 and 2 show two rank-
ings of the formulas in terms of the R2 values. It is apparent that
from both rankings, formulas that account for rainfall intensity
generally give better agreement with the experimental data. Fi-
nally, the comparison shows that the time of concentration for-
mula that gives the best agreement with the experimental data for
both the concrete and grass bays is Chen and Wong’s formula
关Eq. 共12兲兴.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this technical note:
C ⫽ constant in f – R relationship;
Cr ⫽ runoff coefficient;
f ⫽ Darcy–Weisbach resistance coefficient for overland
surface;
in ⫽ net rainfall intensity;
k ⫽ constant in f – R relationship;
Lo ⫽ length of overland plane;
Na ⫽ retardance coefficient in National Association of
Australian State Road Authorities’ formula;
Ni ⫽ retardance coefficient in Izzard’s formula;
Nk ⫽ retardance coefficient in Kerby’s formula;
no ⫽ Manning resistance coefficient for overland surface;
q ⫽ outflow at end of overland plane;
R ⫽ Reynolds number;
R2 ⫽ objective function;
So ⫽ overland slope;
to ⫽ time of concentration of overland flow;
toe ⫽ estimated time of concentration of overland flow;
tom ⫽ mean of all observed times of concentration of
overland flow;
too ⫽ observed time of concentration of overland flow; and
␯ ⫽ kinematic viscosity of water.
References
Chen, C. N., and Wong, T. S. W. 共1993兲. “Critical rainfall duration for
maximum discharge from overland plane.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 119共9兲,
1040–1045.
Cristina, C. M., and Sansalone, J. J. 共2003兲. “Kinematic wave model of
urban pavement rainfall-runoff subject to traffic loadings.” J. Environ.
Eng., 129共7兲, 629–636.
Federal Aviation Administration 共FAA兲. 共1970兲. “Airport drainage.” Ad-
visory Circular No. 150/5320-5B, Dept. of Transportation, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Izzard, C. F. 共1946兲. “Hydraulics of runoff from developed surfaces.”
Proc., 26th Annual Meeting Highway Research Board, National Re-
search Council, Washington, D.C., 129–150.
Kerby, W. S. 共1959兲. “Time of concentration for overland flow.” Civ.
Eng., 29共3兲, 60.
Kibler, D. F., and Aron, G. 共1983兲. “Evaluation of Tc methods for urban
watersheds.” Proc., Cambridge Conf., Frontiers in Hydraulic Engi-
neering, H. T. Shen, ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, 553–558.
McCuen, R. H., and Spiess, J. M. 共1995兲. “Assessment of kinematic wave
time of concentration.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 121共3兲, 256–266.
McCuen, R. H., Wong, S. L., and Rawls, W. J. 共1984兲. “Estimating urban
time of concentration.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 110共7兲, 887–904.
Morgali, J. R., and Linsley, R. K. 共1965兲. “Computer analysis of overland
flow.” J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 91共3兲, 81–100.
Nash, J. E., and Sutcliffe, J. V. 共1970兲. “River flow forecasting through
conceptual models, Part I: A discussion of principles.” J. Hydrol., 10,
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 / 387
282–290.
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities 共NAASRA兲.
共1986兲. Guide of the design of road surface drainage, Milsons Point,
NSW, Australia.
United States Army Corps of Engineers 共USACE兲. 共1954兲. “Data report,
airfield drainage investigation.” Rep. Prepared for Los Angeles Dis-
trict for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Wong, T. S. W. 共1996a兲. “Influence of upstream inflow on wave celerity
and time to equilibrium on an overland plane.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 41共2兲,
195–205.
Wong, T. S. W. 共1996b兲. “Time of concentration and peak discharge
formulas for planes in series.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 122共4兲, 256–258.
Wong, T. S. W. 共2002兲 “Use of resistance coefficient derived from single
planes to estimate time of concentration of two-plane systems.” J.
Hydraul. Res., 40共1兲, 99–104.
Wong, T. S. W., and Chen, C. N. 共1997兲. “Time of concentration formula
for sheet flow of varying flow regime.” J. Hydrologic Eng., 2共3兲,
136–139.
Woolhiser, D. A., and Liggett, J. A. 共1967兲. “Unsteady one-dimensional
flow over a plane—The rising hydrograph.” Water Resour. Res., 3共3兲,
753–771.
Yen, B. C. 共1978兲. “Workshop notes on storm sewer system design.”
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Water Resources Center and Office of
Continuing Education and Public Service, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign, Urbana, Ill., 5.1–5.7.
Yen, B. C., and Chow, V. T. 共1983兲. “Local design storms, Vol III.” Rep.
H 38 No. FHWA-RD-82/065, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.