2000 D Archer The synthesis of design flood hydrographs Proceedings of a CIWEM/ICE conference on

D Faulkner Flooding – Risks and Reactions, Oct 2000

J.A. Mawdsley
M. Foster

THE SYNTHESIS OF DESIGN FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS

David Archer, BA, MSc, Dip Hydrol, MCIWEM, Principal Hydrologist

Miranda Foster, BSc, PhD, Hydrologist
Duncan Faulkner, MA, MSc, DIC, Hydrologist
John Mawdsley BSc, PhD, MICE, MCIWEM, Principal Hydrologist,
all Jeremy Benn Associates, Gillow House, Broughton Hall, Skipton, N.
Yorks, BD23 3AN

ABSTRACT

In many instances of flood design especially for flood storage assessment and
hydrodynamic modelling, there is a need for a characteristic hydrograph shape as well as
a design peak flow. The most common practice is for the use of a unit hydrograph/losses
model applied to a design rainfall. In the UK the Flood Studies (FSR) rainfall runoff
method is recommended and the method has not been superseded in the Flood Estimation
Handbook (FEH). In US and elsewhere the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method
based on similar principles is widely used

Both FSR and SCS methods are primarily applicable to small to medium catchments
where flow originates as direct runoff from precipitation in the form of rain, uniformly
distributed over the catchment. The methods may not be reliable in catchments where
floods typically include snowmelt or where runoff is attenuated by surface storages such
as lakes and swamps or subsurface storages in karstic limestones or chalk. An upper limit
of 1000 km2 is now recommended for the FSR rainfall runoff method.

An alternative method (specifically excluding Probable Maximum Flood estimation),

applicable in the vicinity of gauged sites is proposed, based on the generalisation of the
shape of observed flood hydrographs. Examples are provided for catchments with lake
storages and in an Oolitic limestone catchment with a large groundwater component.

Key Words

Flood alleviation, flood profile, design hydrograph

INTRODUCTION

Many flood studies, especially for the assessment of flood storage and for hydrodynamic
modelling, require a characteristic hydrograph shape as well as a design peak flow. The
shape and the associated volume can have a significant impact on the cost of alleviation
works; any improvement in the reliability of the hydrograph can thus enable a better
balance between the risk of failure of a scheme and the cost of protection. However, flood
hydrograph shape is almost infinitely varied. It depends on four groups of factors:

1. Precipitation amount and distribution in space and time (including snow and
snowmelt);
2. Dynamic properties of the catchment such as soil wetness and land use;
3. Static properties of the catchment such as area and slope;
4. Channel and floodplain morphology, static in the medium time scale.

The static characteristics restrict the range of variation for a particular point on a
catchment but the possible combinations of the dynamic properties ensure a wide range
of behaviour within that range. How then is one to choose a characteristic shape from
within this range?

EXISTING METHODS

Methods in current use throughout the world are usually based on combining the
statistical (or observed) properties of extreme event rainfall for the catchment area with a
black-box or deterministic model of catchment behaviour, in which the dynamic
properties of the catchment are specified in some standard way. The rainfall and loss
function applied determines the flood volume, and the design rainfall and static
catchment characteristics determine the hydrograph shape and associated peak. The result
is a flood hydrograph peak of specified return period and an associated characteristic
hydrograph.

In the US and elsewhere, adaptations of the Soil Conservation Service method using such
principles are in common use(1). In the United Kingdom, the Flood Studies rainfall runoff
method(2) provides the primary basis for defining a design flood hydrograph. The basic
structure of the model has not been superseded with the provision of new statistical
methods in the Flood Estimation Handbook(3), although possible alternatives are
suggested. The FSR design hydrograph is based on:

 a design rainfall amount, duration and profile;

 a percentage runoff based on static and dynamic characteristics of the
catchment;
 a unit hydrograph whose main parameter, time to peak, is derived from
observed flood hydrographs or static catchment and channel characteristics,
and
 a baseflow to be added to the flood response hydrograph.

Sutcliffe(4) in introducing the Flood Studies methods gave guidelines for the choice of
flood estimation method and recommended that where a hydrograph shape is required,
the rainfall runoff approach should be applied whether or not flow records exist at the site

The parameters of the catchment model can be obtained from observed rainfall and flow
data using methods defined in IH(5) (1983) and now consolidated in Volume 4 of the
Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH). However several assumptions are independent of
local data or only loosely dependent on them. For example, the rainfall depth or profile
may not be adjusted using local data, apart from on large reservoired catchments.

The original FSR calibration procedure for the method was designed to make a
recommendation of design choices of rainfall return period, storm duration, profile and
antecedent conditions to provide the best match between observed and estimated flood
frequency on average throughout the country. However, a large standard error of estimate
was recognised. In a test of the prediction equations, with respect to the ungauged
situation, 30% of peak flow estimates were outside ± 50%, and 50% of estimates were
outside ± 25%. Subsequent analysis has shown systematic spatial variations in residuals
in comparison to gauged data(6). and a systematic bias in flood growth rates (7). The use of
local data makes some improvement in error bands but the application of the new rainfall
statistics in the Volume 2 of the FEH actually results in some areas in computed flood
growth rates which further diverge from observed growth rates.

With respect to the assessment of peak flow of specified return period, the rainfall runoff
method has been placed at a disadvantage compared to the alternative statistical
procedure (FEH Volume 3), since it has not been updated with the much longer data sets
of river flow now available. The FEH statistical method incorporates these data, and also
takes account of advances in regional frequency estimation techniques, particularly in the
way that data from similar catchments are pooled.

The FEH statistical method is therefore considered to give more reliable estimates of
peak discharge of design return period but does not in itself provide a flood hydrograph.
Where a flood hydrograph is required an alternative or additional approach is needed.
FEH provides three alternatives to reverting directly to the rainfall runoff method.

1. Adjusting the rainfall runoff model parameters, time to peak of the unit hydrograph
(Tp) and standard percentage runoff (SPR) by successive approximation until the
flood frequency curve synthesised by the rainfall runoff method agrees with the curve
synthesised by the statistical method. The design hydrograph is then provided by the
(adjusted) rainfall runoff method. However, in spite of FEH revision of rainfall
estimates, a match cannot be obtained irrespective of the adjustment applied in most
upland areas of UK and elsewhere(7).
2. Calculation of the FSR rainfall runoff flood hydrograph but then rescaling the
ordinates of the hydrograph by the proportion of the statistical method peak to the
rainfall runoff peak, treating baseflow separately.
3. Applying a simplified model of hydrograph shape by computing the hydrograph
width (duration) at 50% of the peak flow either from observed large flood hydrograph
events and taking the median or by means of an equation:

W50% peak = 2.99 Tp(0)0.77 (1)

where Tp(0) is the time to peak of the instantaneous unit hydrograph derived either
from the analysis of flood events or from catchment properties.
An equation is provided for constructing the upper hydrograph from above 50% Q p and
the lower hydrograph is sketched in by hand if required. The resulting flood hydrograph
is symmetrical.

In many instances the flood hydrograph derived by modifications of the rainfall runoff
method may be adequate for design purposes. However, difficulties have been noted or
are foreseen in several categories of catchment.

 Very permeable limestone catchments or those with a mixed response(2),(8),(9).

 Catchments with very large lakes or sequences of lakes (e.g. Lake District)
 Catchments where snowmelt contributes to a significant proportion of extreme flood
events. The rainfall runoff method makes no allowance for snowmelt or rain on snow
events which are generally of longer duration than rainfall-only events.
 Sites below a significant tributary inflow with much shorter lag than the main channel
resulting in a double peaked or prolonged hydrograph (e.g. River Spey below Avon
confluence, Lake District Derwent below Cocker confluence)

In spite of the third alternative above suggested by the FEH, it is contended that
inadequate direct use is made of the growing body of gauged hydrograph data in UK
catchments for synthesis of a design hydrograph. Fifteen-minute values of stage and
discharge are available in computer archives for flood events including annual maxima
for 20 or more years for many stations in the UK. Typical flood hydrographs which have
occurred are a better guide to the behaviour of a catchment than those derived by
theoretical or empirical considerations of storm rainfall, amount, duration, seasonality
and profile, unit hydrograph response and baseflow contribution.

The following method is proposed as a means of combining the information from the
flood hydrographs of annual maximum (or peaks over a threshold) floods to derive a
typical observed flood hydrograph shape which can then be scaled with respect to
discharge by reference to peak estimates derived by flood frequency analysis or FEH
methods from catchment properties.

METHOD

1. From each annual maximum flood hydrograph, derive the duration of exceedence
of selected percentiles of peak flow, for example 98%, 95%, 90%, 85%, etc. (Fig. 1).

2. The duration before and after the peak may be assessed to ensure that in synthesis
a more realistic asymmetrical rather than symmetrical profile is derived.

3. For each exceedence percentile, median (or other percentile) durations are derived
and a hydrograph shape which is non-dimensional with respect to discharge is
determined. Mean rather than median duration was also considered but was found that in
the examples considered, individual events of very large duration unduly influenced the
mean value.
4. The median (or other) hydrograph shape can then be applied to the synthesised
peak flow of specified return period derived by flood frequency analysis - if necessary
incorporating both gauged data and pre-gauged historical data.
5. To test the sensitivity of the hydrograph shape to flood magnitude or seasonality,
analysis may be done separately for:

Summer and winter events

Flood events subdivided by rank.

Fig 1 Definition diagram for derivation of duration of exceedence of percentiles of peak

flow.

APPLICATION 1 – RIVER FROME AT EBLEY MILL

The method was applied to the River Frome at Ebley Mill in the Cotswold Hills for
which annual maximum flood hydrographs were available from 1979 to 1996 (19 years).
The catchment of 198.0 km2 is predominantly underlain by highly permeable Oolitic
limestone rocks with very slow runoff response. The lowest 15 to 20% of the catchment
is underlain by much more responsive sandstones (Cotteswold Sandstone and Lias clays).
It is in this portion of the catchment where urbanisation has mainly occurred, Stroud
being the main urban settlement.

Inspection of annual and flood hydrographs indicates that runoff response is dominated
by groundwater, and flood runoff (defined by hydrograph separation of base flow) as a
percentage of storm rainfall averaged 2.4% and did not exceed 8% (10). Some annual
maxima appear to arise solely from a groundwater contribution.

For each annual maximum flood event a tabulation of 15 minute flows was used to
determine the duration before and after each flood peak, above each of the following
percentiles of peak flow - 98, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10%. These are
shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Median durations were then derived for the full set and for subsets based on rank and
seasonality. Floods were divided into three groups according to magnitude (Ranks 1 to 6,
7 to 12, 13 to 19) and medians of these groups derived separately. Only three summer
floods (April to September) occurred in the set. Resulting durations are displayed in Fig.
2. A standard profile based on the Flood Studies rainfall runoff method (without local
adjustment) is also shown for comparison.

120

100

Full Set
80 Rank 1-6
% of peak flow

Rank 7-12
60 Rank 13-19
Summer

40 Winter
FSR

20

0
-24 -18 -12 -6 0 6 12 18 24
Ho urs befo re and after peak

Fig. 2 River Frome at Ebley Mill: standardised flood profile, categorised by flood
magnitude and by season. FSR profile is shown for comparison.

The following observations are made on the derived hydrograph shapes:

1. With reference to the median profile for the full set, the importance of
groundwater is shown by the peak being little more than double the initial flow and in
recession by the discharge persisting at over 60% of the peak for nearly 5 days.

2. The profile for the full set and for the Rank 1 to 6 subset differ little. Intermediate
ranked floods are slightly more peaked, though the recession coincides after 12 hours
with the full set. Low annual floods are characterised by a very flat profile and initial
flows over 60% of the peak and levels persisting at nearly 80% of the peak for several
following days.

3. Seasonally subdivided events show significant differences. Summer events (3

only) show much greater peakedness, reflecting both the typically lower starting values of
groundwater discharge and the greater intensity of summer rainfall. Winter events have
higher starting and finishing levels than the full dataset.

4. Although the Flood Studies rainfall runoff method provides a profile which differs
little from the full set profile above 80% of the peak flow, it is otherwise much more
peaked and of shorter duration and volume than the observed median profile. On the
other hand it is less peaked than the median summer profile, although it declines at a
more rapid recession rate to a lower base flow.

5. The similarity of the profile for the full data set of 19 events and for the largest 6
events suggests that the profile from the full set may reasonably be used in design

APPLICATION 2 – RIVER DERWENT AT CAMERTON (LAKE DISTRICT)

The lower River Derwent in the Lake District presents a particular challenge for the
assessment of a design flood hydrograph. The catchment area to the gauging station at
Camerton is 663 km2 of which over 60% is discharged through lakes. This includes
natural lakes with uncontrolled outflow, Bassenthwaite and Derwentwater on the
Derwent, partly controlled flow through Buttermere and Crummock Water on the River
Cocker tributary, and the more significantly controlled flow from Thirlmere Reservoir on
St Johns Beck. The upper part of the catchment consists of grass and heather moorland
draining impermeable lower Palaeozoic rocks and includes the highest rainfall location in
England.

Flood flows undergo considerable attenuation in the lakes, resulting in prolonged outflow
hydrographs. Flood attenuation also results in suppressed flood growth and this is
displayed particularly at the gauging stations at Ouse Bridge (363 km 2) below
Bassenthwaite and at Camerton. However the unreservoired lower 40% of the catchment
can occasionally generate significant floods including annual maxima, although rainfall
totals are typically much lower in this reach. Flood hydrographs are often multi-peaked,
resulting either from consecutive bursts of rainfall or consecutive contributions from
different tributaries and reaches. All observed annual maxima are winter events (Oct to
Mar) with 62% occurring from October to December.
To apply the rainfall runoff method requires an estimate of the time to peak of the unit
hydrograph (Tp). The recommended procedure to derive Tp from event unit hydrographs
is very time consuming in the assembly of rainfall and flow data, the selection and
rejection of events, and analysis. In the case of the Derwent, typically non-uniform
distribution of rainfall may result in either rejection of events for analysis or widely
varying Tp between events. Estimation of Tp from catchment descriptors (FEH Vol. 4
Table B1) does not include a lake parameter and is thus unreliable for this catchment.

The alternative FEH method of construction of a design hydrograph based on a

generalised model of hydrograph shape (FEH Vol. 3, Sec. 10) depends also on an
estimate of Tp which is required for Equation 1 to determine the width of the hydrograph
at half the peak flow. It thus also suffers from the extended computation and uncertainty
of the standard FSR rainfall runoff method.

To apply the procedure described above, annual maximum flood hydrographs from 1976
to 1999 for the River Derwent at Camerton were extracted from the EA archive of 15-
minute flows and median and quartile profiles were constructed (Fig. 3) This illustrates
the typically very wide time base but also a significant variation between upper and lower
quartile profiles. The FSR profile based on the assessment of mean lag and time to peak
between rainfall and runoff for observed events on the catchment is shown for
comparison; it has a much narrower time base than the profiles derived from observed
hydrographs.

100%

90%

80%

70%
% of peak flow

60%
M ed ian
2 5 %ile
50% 7 5 %ile
FSR
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
-72 -48 -24 0 24 48 72 96 120 144
Hours before and after peak

Fig. 3 River Derwent at Camerton: Median, upper and lower quartile profiles. FSR
profile is included for comparison.
Variation was investigated further by classifying events within four quartiles of flood
magnitude, in comparison to the median profile (Fig. 4). In common with the Frome at
Ebley Mill, there is a close correspondence between the overall median profile and the
median profile of the upper flow quartile. In contrast the profile for lower quartile flows
is most peaked whilst those in the 25 to 50% flow quartile are most prolonged.

The method again provides a realistic basis, in association with the peak discharge
estimate of the statistical method, of constructing a design flood hydrograph in terms of
discharge and of testing the sensitivity to a range of possible profiles.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
% of peak flow

Median

0.6 >75%ile
<25%ile
0.5
50-75%ile
0.4
25-50%ile
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-48 -24 0 24 48 72 96 120
Hours before and after peak

Fig. 4 River Derwent at Camerton: Median profiles for different ranges of peak
discharge.

DISCUSSION

A characteristic feature of a hydrograph constructed by standardising on peak flow is the

assumption of proportionality irrespective of peak magnitude. In the case of the Frome at
Ebley Mill, this results in increasing initial discharge with increase in design peak flow
and higher maintained flow after the peak. This concurs with observations of individual
events on this groundwater-dominated catchment, which shows a strong association
between observed annual maxima and initial level.

Over drier catchments in the south and east of England there is typically a stronger
correspondence of annual maximum flood seasonality with periods of low soil moisture
deficit (SMD) than with the season of highest storm rainfall (11). In turn, the association of
high baseflow with low SMD supports the contention that on such catchments also, a
baseflow which varies with peak discharge is more appropriate than the invariant base
flow for design events of the FSR rainfall runoff method.

In contrast, it is noted that in the high rainfall regime of the River Derwent at Camerton,
there is no distinct association of initial flow and peak flow. In normalising the
hydrograph on peak flow, this results in the highest peak discharges having the lowest
starting and finishing percentile (Fig. 4, >75%ile) and vice versa for the lowest peak
discharge (<25%ile). This condition does not persist for parts of the hydrograph greater
than 50% of the peak. In this case use of the median flow profile for all design return
periods could result in overestimation of initial discharges for high return periods. It is
suggested that, if it is critical for design, an alternative profile (Fig. 4) could be selected
for initial flow up to 50% of the peak discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Deriving design flow hydrographs from observed floods avoids many of the
complexities and uncertainties associated with rainfall-runoff modelling. The
procedure makes direct use of the available fifteen minute flow data and enables
all flood estimates to benefit from new statistical methods. Analysis is simpler and
quicker than the derivation of Tp from observed events required for the FSR
rainfall runoff method and can be readily carried out on spreadsheet software.

2. Profiles derived from observed flood hydrographs provide a more realistic basis
for generating a design flood hydrograph than standard FSR methods on highly
permeable catchments and those containing significant lake storage. There is no
reason to believe the method would be inferior to FSR methods on catchments
with a more typical response.

3. The method does not require the separate assessment of base flow and storm
runoff but considers the hydrograph in its totality.

4. Flood volumes associated with a flood peak discharge of specified return period
are often much greater than those based on a Flood Studies rainfall runoff profile.
This may have serious implications for the design of flood alleviating storage or
for the return of stored water into the river channel.

REFERENCES

(1) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE.

National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Washington DC., 1975

(2) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL Flood Studies Report (5

vols.) NERC, London, 1975
(3) INSTITUTE OF HYDROLOGY. Flood Estimation Handbook (5 vols.) IH,
Wallingford, 1999.

(4) SUTCLIFFE J. V. Choice of estimation techniques. In, Flood Studies conference,

Institution of Civil Engineers, 1975, 67.

(5) INSTITUTE OF HYDROLOGY. Some suggestions for the use of local data in flood
estimation. Flood Studies Supplementary Report, No. 13, 1983.

(6) ARCHER D. R. AND KELWAY, P. S. A computer system for flood estimation and
its use in evaluating the Flood Studies rainfall runoff method. Proc. Instn. Civil Engrs.,
1987, 2 (83), 601.

(7) ARCHER D. R. The Flood Studies Rainfall Runoff method - a fundamental

flaw? Circulation, 1997, 56, 12.

(8) REED, D. W. Engaged on the ungauged: applications of the FSR rainfall-runoff

method. British Hydrological Society, 1st National Symposium, Hull, 1987, 2.1.

(9) GURNELL, A. AND MIDGELEY, P. (1987) Refining the estimation of percentage

runoff in catchments with extreme hydrogeological conditions. British Hydrological
Society, 1st National Symposium, Hull, 1987, 3.1

(10)WALLINGFORD WATER Floodplain mapping - model study of the River Frome

(Gloucestershire), Hydrological Study. Report EX 3171 (For the Environment Agency),
1995.

(11) ARCHER, D. R. (1981) The seasonality of flooding and the assessment of

seasonal flood risk. Proc. Instn. Civil Engrs., 1981, 2 (70), 1023.
Table 1. R. Frome at Ebley Mill. Duration of exceedence of given discharges before the peak for percentiles of peak discharge
(hours).

Year 1979 1993 1995 1983 1992 1990 1984 1986 1994 1988 1981 1987 1982 1989 1985 1980 1997 1991 1996
Flood 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Rank
Q Peak 19.4 14.9 13.6 13.5 13.5 12.9 12.2 11.9 11.8 11.4 10.9 10.8 10.8 8.1 7.2 6.7 5.6 5.5 4.9

98 % ile 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.25 2.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.5 1.25 1.0 2.25 4.75 1.5 M 0.5 0.25
95 0.5 2.0 1.0 1.25 2.0 2.25 0.25 0.75 1.75 1.25 1.25 1.75 1.75 2.5 M 2.0 0.25 1.0 3.75
90 1.0 2.5 1.75 2.0 3.25 3.25 0.25 1.25 2.75 1.75 3.75 2.0 2.75 2.75 M 2.75 2.25 4.25 13.7
85 1.25 2.75 2.75 2.5 4.0 4.5 0.25 1.5 3.5 2.0 4.5 2.5 3.5 3.25 M 4.75 6.25 5.5 26.7
80 1.75 3.0 4.25 3.0 4.5 5.25 0.25 2.0 4.25 2.5 4.75 3.0 4.0 4.0 M 6.75 6.5 5.5 39.7
75 2.25 3.25 4.75 3.25 5.25 6.5 0.25 2.25 5.0 2.75 5.0 3.25 4.75 5.0 M 9.5 15.5 5.75 51.7
70 3.0 3.5 5.5 4.0 6.0 43.2 0.25 2.5 6.0 3.25 5.5 3.75 5.25 5.75 M 11.5 15.7 6.5 119.
60 3.75 5.0 47.7 7.75 8.0 44.2 0.5 3.5 48.5 4.5 7.25 4.75 10.0 119. M 134. 40.2 7.5 >200
50 4.0 6.0 91.2 8.0 11.0 88.7 0.5 4.25 85.7 7.0 12.2 6.25 >200 153. M >195 64.5 13.2
40 4.5 26.5 191. 8.5 55.5 125. 1.0 185. 133. >180 38.5 7.75 >190 M >200 21.0
30 6.0 84.0 >200 20.0 119. >190 1.0 >200 >200 48.7 17.7 74.0
20 14.5 94.0 >200 >170 1.25 >200 >200 >200
10 >200 >200 24.0
Table 2. River Frome at Ebley Mill. Duration of exceedence of given discharges after the peak for percentiles of peak discharge
(hours).

Year 1979 1993 1995 1983 1992 1990 1984 1986 1994 1988 1981 1987 1982 1989 1985 1980 1997 1991 1996
Flood 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Rank
Q Peak 19.4 14.9 13.6 13.5 13.5 12.9 12.2 11.9 11.8 11.4 10.9 10.8 10.8 8.1 7.2 6.7 5.6 5.5 4.9

98 % ile 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 1.25 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.75 1.25 2.5 7.75 4.25 M 0.0 0.25
95 0.75 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.75 2.25 0.25 1.0 1.25 1.75 0.75 1.25 2.0 3.5 36.5 5.25 0.25 0.0 1.75
90 1.5 1.5 3.5 2.25 2.5 4.0 0.25 1.75 3.25 2.75 1.25 2.0 2.75 5.25 61.5 6.25 3.75 1.0 2.75
85 2.0 2.0 4.5 3.25 3.75 7.0 0.5 2.75 4.25 3.75 1.75 2.5 4.0 7.5 301. 9.75 5.75 2.25 3.0
80 2.5 2.5 6.5 4.25 5.25 17.5 0.5 3.75 5.25 4.5 2.5 3.25 5.25 11.2 >400 79.0 7.5 3.25 187.
75 3.0 3.0 10.0 7.5 7.0 41.5 0.5 5.25 47.5 5.25 3.75 4.0 6.75 16.5 103. >250 4.0 222.
70 3.5 3.5 44.0 10.0 9.25 69.2 0.75 7.25 72.0 7.0 6.5 5.25 11.2 55.2 127. 5.0 296.
60 4.75 6.0 120. 61.0 69.7 311. 1.0 16.2 325. 204. 168. 6.75 24.5 140. 234. 6.5 >400
50 6.75 86.0 176. 92.0 128. >400 1.75 294. >400 371. 301. 12.7 192. 252. >400 13.0
40 11.2 374 >400 188. 200. 2.5 >400 >400 >400 143. 336. >400 298.
30 120. >400 >200 >400 4.25 336. >400 >400
20 >300 6.75 >400
10 40.0