See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316417342

Estimating time of concentration in large watersheds

Article  in  Paddy and Water Environment · June 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s10333-016-0534-2

CITATIONS READS

33 11,653

5 authors, including:

Edris Taghvaye Salimi Arash Malekian

University of Guilan University of Tehran
15 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS    113 PUBLICATIONS   1,516 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Majid Hosseini
Soil conservation and watershed management Research Institute
114 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HEC-HMS View project

Down scaling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Majid Hosseini on 12 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Estimating time of concentration in large
watersheds

E. Taghvaye Salimi, A. Nohegar,

A. Malekian, M. Hoseini & A. Holisaz

Paddy and Water Environment

ISSN 1611-2490
Volume 15
Number 1

Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123-132

DOI 10.1007/s10333-016-0534-2

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by The International
Society of Paddy and Water Environment
Engineering and Springer Japan. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132
DOI 10.1007/s10333-016-0534-2
ARTICLE
Estimating time of concentration in large watersheds
E. Taghvaye Salimi1,5 • A. Nohegar2 • A. Malekian3 • M. Hoseini4
A. Holisaz1
Received: 23 August 2015 / Revised: 14 January 2016 / Accepted: 11 June 2016 / Published online: 21 June 2016
Ó The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment Engineering and Springer Japan 2016
Abstract For hydrologists, time of concentration (TC) is
one of the most important parameters to be able to predict
the response of a watershed to a given rain event and plays
a key role in rainfall-runoff simulation. There are several
methods to calculate the TC. The time of concentration is
defined as the time from the hydraulically furthermost
point to watershed outlet. In this study, we integrated 22
formulas from various references for calculating time of
concentration and selected seven formulas by considering
the specific conditions and limitations that are suitable for
Shafaroud watershed with an area of 345.4 km2, located in
the western Guilan province of northern Iran. They inclu-
ded Ventura, Passini, Bransby-Williams, Carter, John-
stone-Cross, Izzard and Papadakis-Kazan. The TC values
obtained from the mentioned methods were applied in
HEC-HMS software for the four rainfall events of June 5,
2003; October 20, 2005; December 2, 2007; and June 19,
2008. The results indicated that peak flow values obtained
by the Bransby-Williams method are most consistent with
the observed peak data values and better presents the
hydrologic condition of the watershed.
& E. Taghvaye Salimi
edristaghvaei@guilan.ac.ir
1
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Natural Resources,
University of Hormozgan, Bandar Abbas, Iran
2
Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3
Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj,
Iran
4
Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research
Institute (SCWMRI), Tehran, Iran
5
Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan,
P.O.BOX 1144, Sowme Sara, Guilan, Iran
•
Keywords Time of concentration  HEC-HMS  Peak
flow  Shafaroud watershed
Introduction
Reliable estimates of runoff generated from watersheds are
required that help watershed managers and stakeholders
make informed decisions on water planning and manage-
ment. Rainfall-runoff models are widely used in water-
sheds to simulate runoff based on precipitation and play an
important role in the management of water resources (Vaze
et al. 2012). Several studies have been done on simulated
runoff using HEC-HMS model in different watersheds
(Anderson et al. 2002; Clay et al. 2005; Halwatura and
Najjim 2013). This model is capable to simulate both event
and continuous hydrological modeling (Chu and Steinman
2009). One of the main parameters in HEC-HMS model is
time of concentration (Abbasi et al. 2010; Kabiri 2014).
Time of concentration (TC) is defined as the time nee-
ded for water to flow from the most remote point in a
watershed to the watershed outlet; this is calculated as the
time for runoff to flow from the most hydraulically remote
point of the drainage area to the point under investigation.
There may be a number of possible paths to consider in
determining the longest travel time. The designer must
identify the flow path along which the longest travel time is
likely to occur (Mark and Marek 2011). The conceptual
definition for the time of concentration is the time it takes
for a water parcel to travel from the hydraulically most
distal part of the watershed to the outlet or reference point
downstream. This definition has been used for many
hydrologic studies and applications (Kirpich 1940; Guer-
mond 2008; Li and Chibber 2008; Mark and Marek
2011;Efstratiadis et al. 2013).
123
 Author's personal copy
124
The procedures used to estimate TC depend on several
factors including watershed characteristics (especially drainage
area), climatic conditions, available data, and available time.
For example, to design a small conservation structure such as a
grassed waterway, a shortcut procedure that assumes a certain
generalized relation between TC and some of watershed char-
acteristics but no relation between TC and rainfall intensity,
might be acceptable (Welle and Woodward 1986). Guermond
(2008) used six different TC formulae for the same calibrated
watershed. All six formulas gave very different results and the
value range was 12–140 min. Li and Chibber (2008) compared
the empirical models with plot test in the flat terrains and found
most empirical models under estimate overland flow time for
laboratory plots in the small trains. Efstratiadis et al. (2013)
used four formulas for estimating the time of concentration
including Kirpich, Giandotti, SCS, Passini which are widely
used by engineers in Cyprus and the estimated values of peak
flows evaluated against the observed. The results indicated
apart from the Giandotti formula, which showed a marginally
satisfactory efficiency of 48 %, the other three empirical
methods for TC are totally inappropriate for Cyprus.
The current study has focused on finding the best
method for estimating the time of concentration in large
watersheds. We presented and evaluated 22 methods to
identify the best-performing method for estimating time of
concentration in the Shafaroud watershed in northern Iran.
Methodology
Study area
Shafaroud watershed with an area of 345.4 km2 is located
in the western Guilan province of northern Iran (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 The typical landscape of the case study
123
Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132
This area is located between longitudes 48°410 1000 and
49°60 1200 west and geographical latitudes 37°240 5800 and
37°340 1800 north. The watershed borders Loumir watershed
to the north and Shafaroud watershed to the south. On the
east side, it ends by the Anzali-Talesh road and to the west;
it ends at Ardabil province borderline. The altitude of the
watershed ranges from 68 to 2895 m. The main river with a
total length of about 40.95 km drains the watershed. There
are four meteorology stations in the region and discharge
data were measured at one gage, located at the outlet. The
dominant land use is forest, agriculture, and range land.
Methods
In this study, the HEC-HMS software and SCS unit
hydrograph approach which is compatible with other
methods was applied. In the SCS method, curve number is
calculated using land use and soil hydrological group maps
in different antecedent moisture and hydrological condi-
tions. Runoff calculation is given below:
ðP  0:2SÞ2
Q¼ ;
P þ 0:8S
where Q is runoff (mm) and S is hydrologic losses (mm)
computed with following formula:
25; 400
S¼  254
CN
Maximum flood discharge was then calculated after
calculating runoff due to a specific rain event by the fol-
lowing formula:
2:083AQ
Qmax ¼ ;
tp
 Author's personal copy
Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132
where Qmax = maximum flood discharge (m3 =s), A = area
(km2 ), Q = runoff (mm), and tp = time to peak which is
calculated by time of concentration (tc).
Initially, the components needed for HEC-HMS model
were determined for the Shafaroud watershed. One of the
main parameters in HEC-HMS model is initial loss (infil-
tration, interception, and depression storage). We calibrated
the initial loss values in optimization stage with some
rainfall events for Shafaroud watershed and compared with
similar studies (Gholami et al. 2009). Some physical prop-
erties of Shafaroud watershed is given in Table 1. Time of
concentration (TC) is the time required for the entire
watershed to contribute to runoff at the point of interest for
hydraulic design, this is calculated as the time for runoff to
flow from the most hydraulically remote point of the drai-
nage area to the point under investigation (Mark and Marek
2011). Time of concentration is one of the main factors to
calculating peak discharge. The accuracy of estimation of
peak discharge is sensitive to the accuracy of the estimated
time of concentration. Therefore, the importance of an
accurate estimate of the time of concentration cannot be
overlooked (Li and Chibber 2008). There are many methods
for estimating the time of concentration. However, some of
these methods are designed for the watersheds with different
characteristics. Different methods of determining the time
of concentration is given in Table 2.
With regard to the limitation of each formula, it is not
possible to use all of them without considering the limi-
tation of each formula. For example for the Shafaroud
watershed with 345.4 km2 areas, just seven methods
including Ventura, Passini, Bransby-Williams, Carter,
Johnstone-Cross, Izzard, and Papadakis-Kazan were used
and the time of concentration calculated based on the
mentioned formula.
Totally, 25 flood events were selected for this study that
the discharge data at the output station of the Shafaroud
watershed have been recorded. Due to using SCS method
in this study, only records are not involved in snowmelt
events, were selected. In this regard, four events for dif-
ferent years have been represented including: June 5, 2003;
October 20, 2005; December 2, 2007; and June 19, 2008.
Table 1 Summary of the
Subwatershed Area (km2)
Shafaroud watershed
characteristics A1 14.8543
A2 60.9113
A3 74.1686
A4 68.287
A5 53.2352
A6 73.9111
125
The HEC-HMS model was setup for the Shafaroud
watershed for four events and the peak discharges were
calculated for different times of concentration compared.
Finally, the estimated values of peak flows were evaluated
from the observed ones.
Results
According to Table 2, most of the methods of computing
TC are suitable for the small catchments. Therefore in this
study, for the Shafaroud watershed with an area of
345.4 km2, we should use Ventura, Passini, Bransby-Wil-
liams, Carter, Johnstone-Cross, Izzard, and Papadakis-
Kazan methods. The values of TC calculated are illustrated
in Table 3. Rainfall amounts for the four flood events of
June 5, 2003; October 20, 2005; December 2, 2007; and
June 19, 2008 was applied in HEC-HMS software and
following that each of the concentration time values
obtained from the formulas in Table 3 was given to the
software. Then, rainfall-runoff model for the Shafaroud
watershed study has been run and peak flow values for each
of the four events are given in Table 4.
Peak flow values obtained show that the formulas pre-
sented in peak flow values achieved from Bransby-Wil-
liams method is most consistent with the observed data
values. In other words, this method has the best consistency
between the observed and simulated peak flow values (See
Fig. 2). In conclusion, considering concentration time
estimation, Bransby-Williams method can provide more
accurate results for large watershed areas. On the other
hand, using the coefficient of efficiency (CE) peak flow
estimated versus observed values were compared.
CE ¼ 1  d2e =d2o ;
where d2e ¼ variance of the residuals, d2o ¼ variance of the
observed.
The coefficient of efficiency for each event is given in
Table 5. According this table, Carter, Johnstone-Cross,
Izzard, and Papadakis-Kazan are inappropriate for TC and
Ventura, Passini, and Bransby-Williams are suitable for TC
Curve number Initial loss(mm) Impervious area (%)
54 43.3 2.57
51.8 47.3 2.40
53.5 44.2 2.42
56.5 39.1 2.19
61 32.5 1.70
59 35.3 1.64
123
 Author's personal copy
126 Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132

Table 2 A summary of time of concentration methods

Model Formula Remark Reference

Kirpich Tc = 0.0078L0.77S-0.385 Developed for small drainage Kirpich (1940)

L = length of channel/ditch from headwater to basins in Tennessee and Li and Chibber (2008)
outlet, ft Pennsylvania, with basin areas
from 1–112 acres (0.40– 45.3 ha)
S = average watershed slope, ft/ft
For Tennessee, K = 0.0078 and y = - 0.385
For Pennsylvania, K = 0.0013 and y = - 0.5
Williams Tc = 60LA0.4D-1S-0.2 The basin area should be smaller Williams (1922)
L = basin length, mi than 50 mi2 (129.5 km2) Li and Chibber (2008)
A = basin area, mi2
D = diameter (mi) of a circular basin of area
S = basin slope, %
Hathaway Tc = 0.8275(LN)0.467S-0.233 Drainage basins with areas of less Hathaway (1945)
Kerby L = overland flow length, ft than 10 acres (4.05 ha) and Kerby (1959)
slopes of less than 0.01
S = overland flow path slope, ft/ft Li and Chibber (2008)
N = flow retardance factor
Izzard Tc = 41.025(0.0007i ? c)L0.33S-0.333i-0.667 Hydraulically derived formula; Izzard (1946)
i = rainfall intensity, in./h values of c range from 0.007 for Li and Chibber (2008)
very smooth pavement to 0.012
c = retardance coefficient
for concrete pavement to 0.06 for
L = length of flow path, ft dense turf
S = slope of flow path, ft/ft
Johnstone- Tc = 300L0.5S-0.5 Developed for basins with areas Johnstone and Cross (1949)
Cross L = basin length, mi between 25 and 1624 mi2 (64.7 Li and Chibber (2008)
and 4206.1 km2)
S = basin slope, ft/mi
California Tc = 60(11.9L3/H)0.385 Essentially the Kirpich (7) California Culvert Practice (1955)
Culvert L = length of longest watercourse, mi formula; developed for small Li and Chibber (2008)
Practice mountainous basins in California
H = elevation difference between divide and outlet,
ft
Henderson- Tc = 0.94(Ln)0.6S-0.3i-0.4 Based on kinematic wave theory Henderson and Wooding (1964)
Wooding L = length of overland flow, ft for flow on an overland area Li and Chibber (2008)
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient
S = overland flow plane slope, ft/ft
i = rainfall intensity, in./h
Morgali- Tc = 0.94L0.6n0.6S-0.3i-0.4 For small catchment Morgali and Linsley (1965)
Linsley L = length of overland flow, ft Aron and Erborge (1973), Nicklow
n = Manning roughness coefficient et al. (2006), Li and Chibber (Li
and Chibber 2008)
S = average overland slope, ft/ft
i = rainfall intensity, in./h
FAA Tc = 1.8(1.1 – C)L0.5S-0.333 Developed from airfield drainage FAA (1970)
C = rational method runoff coefficient data assembled by U.S. Corps of Li and Chibber (2008)
Engineers
L = length of overland flow, ft
S = surface slope, ft/ft
P
U.S. Soil Tc = (1/60) (L/V) Developed as a sum of individual U.S. Soil Conservation
Conservation L = length of flow path, ft travel times. V can be calculated Service (1975, 1986)
Service using Manning’s equation
V = average velocity in ft/s for various surfaces Li and Chibber (2008)
(The exponent of S, if converted from Manning’s
equation, will be -0.5)

123
 Author's personal copy
Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132 127

Table 2 continued
Model Formula Remark Reference

Papadakis- Tc = 0.66L0.5n0.52S-0.31i-0.38 Developed from USDA Papadakis and Kazan (1986)

Kazan L = length of flow path, ft Agricultural Research Service Li and Chibber (2008)
data of 84 small rural watersheds
n = roughness coefficient
from 22 states
S = average slope of flow path, ft/ft
i = rainfall intensity, in./h
Chen-Wong Tc = 0.595(3.15)0.33kC0.33L0.33(2-k)S-0.33i-0.33(1?k) Overland flow on test plots of 1 m Chen and Wong (1993)
For water at 26 °C wide by 25 m long. Slopes of Wong (2005)
2 % and 5 %
C, k = constants (for smooth paved surfaces, Li and Chibber (2008)
C = 3,
k = 0.5. For grass, C = 1, k = 0)
L = length of overland plane, m
S = slope of overland plane, m/m
i = net rainfall intensity, mm/h
TxDOT Tc = 0.702 (1.1 – C)L0.5S-0.333 Modified from FAA (16) Li and Chibber (2008)
C = rational method runoff coefficient
L = length of overland flow, m
S = surface slope, m/m
NRCS Tc = 0.0526[(1000/CN)-9]L0.8S-0.5 For small rural watersheds NRCS (1997)
CN = curve number Li and Chibber (2008)
L = flow length, ft
S = average watershed slope, %
Yen-Chow Tc = Ky(NL/S0.5)0.6 Overland flow for small Yen and Chow (1983)
N = overland texture factor. watersheds Ky ranges from 1.5 Nicklow et al. (2006)
for light rain to 0.7 for heavy rain
L = length of overland flow, ft
S = average overland slope, ft/ft
Eagleson Tc = 0.0111(Ln)/R-0.666S-0.5 The basin area should be smaller Eagleson (1962)
L = flow length than 8 mi2 (21 km2) Nicklow et al. (2006)
n = roughness coefficient
S = average slope of flow path
R = Hydraulic radius for the main channel when
flowing full
Carter Tc = 100L0.6 -0.3
m Sm For natural channels Carter(1961)
Lm = length of flow, mi Nicklow et al. (2006)
Sm = surface slope, ft/mi
Giandotti Tc = 60(4A0.5 ? 1.5L)/0.8(Hm-H0)0.5 Developed for small agricultural Giandotti (1934)
A = drainage basin area, km2 watersheds Del Giudice et al. (2012)
L = length of the longest flow, km Sharifi and Hosseini (2011)
Hm = mean drainage basin elevation, m
Ho = drainage basin outlet elevation, m
Bransby- Tc = 58.5LA-0.1S-0.2 For big watershed Abustan et al. (2008)
Williams L = Mainstream length, km Department of Transport and Main
A = Catchment area, km2 Roads (2010)
S = Equal Area Slope, m/km
Passini Tc = 6.48(AL)0.333S-0.5 For big watershed
A = basin area, km2
L = length of main channel, km
S = average slope of the basin, m/m

123
 Author's personal copy
128 Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132

Table 2 continued
Model Formula Remark Reference

Ventura Tc = 7.62 (A/S)0.5 For natural channels Guermond (2008)

A = surface of the basin, km2 Quaro (2011)
S = average slope of the hydraulic way, m/m Zimmermann (2003)
0.8 0.7 0.5
Mockus Tc = 60[L (S ? 1) ]/1140Y Modified from SCS method. The NRCS(2010)
L = flow length, ft basin areas from 1.3 to 2000 Mockus (1961)
acres (0.53 to 809 ha)
Y = average watershed land slope, %
S = maximum potential retention = (1000/CN)-1
CN = the retardance factor

Table 3 Time of concentration values

Time of concentration (min.)
Subwatershed
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Ventura Tc = 7.62 (A/S)0.5 111.6 404.1 243.5 209.0 140.4 167.8

0.333 -0.5
Passini Tc = 6.48(AL) S 127.9 435.4 266.2 200.0 138.4 161.6
Bransby-Williams Tc = 58.5LA-0.1S-0.2 181.1 335.1 297.5 184.6 163.6 175.1
Carter Tc = 100L0.6
m Sm
-0.3
49.3 95.7 72.5 52.0 43.2 46.1
Johnstone-Cross Tc = 300L0.5S-0.5 38.1 88.4 51.8 37.2 27.8 29.6
Izzard Tc = 41.025(0.0007i ? c)L0.33S-0.333i-0.667 73.3 128.3 89.9 72.1 59.4 61.9
0.5 0.52 -0.31 -0.38
Papadakis-Kazan Tc = 0.66L n S i 37.1 69.1 51.0 38.2 31.6 33.5

Table 4 The peak flow values (m3/s)

Simulated Observed
Ventura Passini Bransby-Williams Carter Johnstone & Cross Izzard Papadakis & Kazan

05-Jun-2003 6.952 7.0503 7.6955 9.8015 10.161 9.1439 10.645 8.26

20-Oct-2005 35.593 35.263 34.417 39.265 39.817 38.613 40.175 32.71
02-Dec-2007 4.3072 4.3969 4.1133 5.3665 5.54 4.9957 5.6569 3.52
19-Jun-2008 4.4036 4.3712 4.6527 8.056 8.5524 7.0798 9.3398 4.71

that use and the most appropriate method is Bransby-
Williams. Note the last three methods (Ventura, Passini,
and Bransby-Williams) formed by the watershed area
variable in their formulas.
Discussion
In rainfall-runoff simulation, the importance of time of
concentration has been noted in previous studies. The TC is
generally defined as the time required for a drop of water to
travel from the most hydraulically remote point in the
watershed to the point of outlet. This definition has been
used for many hydrologic studies and applications (NRCS
1997; Kirpich 1940; Guermond 2008; Li and Chibber
2008; Mark and Marek 2011; Del Giudice et al. 2012;
Efstratiadis et al. 2013). Griffiths and Mckerchar (2008) in
small catchment in New Zealand used Rational Method
formula for calculating time of concentration. Sharifi and
Hosseini (2011) presented in 72 watersheds in Iran that the
California equation, the Kirpich equation, and the Arizona
DOT equation have the best performance in determining
time of concentration for the selected watersheds. Del
Giudice et al. (2012) used Giandotti formula for estimating
time of concentration in the catchments with area between
15 and 5493 km2 in southern Italy.
Li and Chibber (2008) compared fourteen time of con-
centration models developed from both overland flow data

123
 Author's personal copy
Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132 129

Fig. 2 The comparing peak flow values (m3/s)

123
 Author's personal copy
130 Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132

Table 5 The coefficient of efficiency This study focused on finding the best method for esti-
5-Jun-03 20-Oct-05 19-Jun-08 2-Dec-07
mating the time of concentration in big watersheds. In this
paper, we selected seven formulas from 22 formulas that
Papadakis-Kazan -0.84 0.56 -0.89 -0.94 were allowed to use to calculating time of concentration in
Johnstone-Cross -0.77 0.56 -0.85 -0.18 the watershed with 345.4 km2 area. These seven formulas
Carter -0.68 0.57 -0.56 -0.09 are Ventura, Passini, Bransby-Williams, Carter, Johnstone-
Izzard -0.47 0.58 -0.16 0.14 Cross, Izzard, and Papadakis-Kazan. The components of
Ventura 0.16 0.58 0.60 0.69 the formulas are illustrated in Table 7.
Passini 0.17 0.58 0.58 0.70 Running the HEC-HMS model and comparison of
Bransby-Williams 0.18 0.62 0.64 0.71 simulated and observed peak flows showed better fit than
other formula for Ventura, Passini and Bransby-Williams
while Bransby-Williams had the best fit to estimating peak
flow. With regard to Table 6, Ventura, Passini, and
and watershed data. They used five laboratory plots with Bransby-Williams used watershed area variable in their
very low slopes and the result showed that the most formulas. Note that Carter, Johnstone-Cross, Izzard, and
empirical models underestimate overland flow time. Papadakis-Kazan models don’t have a watershed area
TC is used in several rainfall-runoff empirical and variable and predicted the peak discharge with the majority
physically based methods to calculate the flow character- overestimated. Thus values of watershed area are very
istics. But given the importance of time of concentration in important in calculating TC in the large rural watersheds
the watersheds, one should be certain that the time of and should be considered. In other words, it could be said
concentration estimated is absolutely correct? Unfortu- that the formulas have been formed with two main com-
nately, many of the hydrology and water resource projects ponents (L & S) overestimated the peak discharge (see
are done without considering reliable calculated time of Table 4) and the formulas that in addition to the two pre-
concentration. There are many methods and formulas to vious variables used the watershed area variable are more
estimating time of concentration but the majority of them accurate in calculating the peak discharge of watersheds
are designed for the specific conditions and limitation. In with high surface areas. In this regard, the Bransby-Wil-
Table 6, we have shown the remarks of each model. liams method presents the best estimation.

Table 6 Limitation of TC
Model Remark
formulas
Kirpich For Small catchment
Giandotti Developed for small agricultural watersheds
NRCS For small rural watersheds
California Culvert Practice Developed for small mountainous basins in California
Williams The basin area should be smaller than 129.5 km2
Hathaway The basin area should be smaller than (4.05 ha)
Mockus The basin area should be smaller than (809 ha)
Eagleson The basin area should be smaller than 21 km2)
Henderson-Wooding Based on Overland flow equation
Morgali-Linsley Based on Overland flow equation
Chen-Wong Based on Overland flow equation
Yen-Chow Based on Overland flow equation
TxDOT Based on Overland flow equation
FAA Based on Overland flow equation
US Soil Conservation Service Developed as a sum of individual travel times
Izzard For natural channels
Ventura For natural channels
Papadakis-Kazan For natural channels
Carter For natural channels
Bransby-Williams For big watershed
Passini For big watershed
Johnstone-Cross Developed for basins with areas between 64.7 and 4206.1 km2)

123
 Author's personal copy
Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132 131

Table 7 The category of model components Obviously, a more accurate estimation of peak discharge in
Component Model
rainfall-runoff models makes the next step to be optimized
and validate the model more precisely together. The results
Lo, So, n Hathaway ? Yen-Chow of this research can improve the quality of estimating TC
Lo, So, C FAA ? TxDOT for future flood hazard and rainfall-runoff studies.
Lo, So,i Henderson-Wooding ? Chen-Wong
Lo, So,i, n Morgali-Linsley Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Mojtaba Soheili,
expert of Iran Water Resources Management Co. for his efforts in
Lch, Sch Kirpich ? Carter ? Johnstone-Cross
data collecting.
Lch, Sch, A Passini ? Bransby-Williams
Lch, Sch, A, D Williams
Lch, Sch, CN NRCS
Lch, Sch, i Izzard References
Lch, Sch, i, n Papadakis-Kazan
Abbasi M, Saravi MM, Kheirkhah MM, Sigaroudi SK, Rostamizad G,
Lch, Sch, R, n Eagleson
Hosseini M (2010) Assessment of watershed management
Lch, H California Culvert Practice activities on time of concentration and curve number using
Lch, Hm, A Giandotti HEC-HMS model (case study: kan watershed, Tehran). J Range
Lch, V U.S. Soil Conservation Service Watershed Manag 63(3):375–385
Abustan I, Sulaiman AH, Wahid NA, Baharudin F (2008) Determi-
Lch, Sr, Y Mockus
nation of rainfall-runoff characteristics in an urban area: Sungai
Sch, A Ventura Kerayong Catchment, Kuala Lumpur.In:11th International con-
ference on urban drainage, Scotland, UK
Lo length of overland flow, So average overland slope, Lch length of
Anderson ML, Chen ZQ, Kavvas L, Feldman A (2002) Coupling
main channel, Y &Sch slope of flow path or watershed, Sr maximum
HEC-HMS with atmospheric models for prediction of watershed
potential retention, A area, i rainfall intensity, n manning’s roughness
runoff. J Hydrol Eng 7:312–318
coefficient (retardance coefficient), C runoff coefficient, CN curve
Aron G, Erborge CE (1973) A practical feasibility study of flood peak
number, R hydraulic radius, H elevation difference between divide
abatement in urban areas. Report U S Army Corps of Engineers,
and outlet, Hm mean drainage basin elevation, V average velocity,
Sacramento
D diameter of a circular basin of area
California Culvert Practice (1955) Department of Public Works,
Division of Highways, 2th edition Sacramento
Carter RW (1961) Magnitude and frequency of floods in suburban
areas. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 424-B
Conclusion Chen CN, Wong TSW (1993) Critical rainfall duration for maximum
discharge from overland plane. J Hydraul Eng 119(9):1040–1045
Chu X, Steinman A (2009) Event and continuous hydrologic
Sustainable development of watersheds requires integration modeling with HEC-HMS. J Irrigation Drain Eng
and coordination, including regarding landuse issues, water 135(1):119–124
conservation, and renewable energy sourcing. Achieving Clay HE, Welty C, Traver RG (2005) Watershed-scale evaluation of a
sustainable development will require making accurate system of storm water detention basins. J Hydrol Eng
10:237–242
decisions on future programs for watershed managers De Paola F, Galdiero E, Giugni M, Pugliese F (2015) Sustainable
based on more precise information of watershed (De Paola development of storm-water systems in africancities considering
et al. 2015). climate change. Proced Eng 119:1181–1191
In this study, HEC-HMS hydrologic modeling software Del Giudice G, Padulano R, Rasulo G (2012) Factors affecting the
runoff coefficient. Hydro Earth Syst Sci Discuss 9:4919–4941
is applied to Shafaroud watershed and model parameters Department of Transport and Main Roads (2010) Hydrology.
are calibrated to obtain best results. This calibrated model Queensland (Chap.5)
parameters can be used as a decision support tool in the Eagleson PS (1962) Unit hydrograph characteristics for severed areas.
Shafaroud watershed management. The effects of seven Journal of Hydraulics Division, proceedings ASCE 88(HY2)
Efstratiadis A, Koussis AD, Koutsoyiannis D, Mamassis N (2013)
formulas with regard to remark of each formula in TC Flood design recipes vs. reality: can predictions for ungauged
calculating on runoff processes have also been assessed in basins be trusted? Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss
this study based on the Shafaroud watershed condition. 1:7387–7416
As a result, the best formula for estimating time of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (1970) Circular on airport
drainage. Report A/C 050-5320-5B, US. Department of Trans-
concentration in the large watersheds like this field study portation, Washington DC
with an area of 345.4 square kilometers is Bransby-Wil- Gholami V, Jokar E, Azodi M, Zabardast H, Bashirgonbad M (2009)
liams and the area variable is a key component in calcu- The influence of anthropogenic activities on intensifying runoff
lating the precise time of concentration. One reason for that generation and flood hazard in Kasilian watershed. J Appl Sci
9(20):3723–3730
is that TC has significant relationship with watershed area. Giandotti M (1934) Previsione delle piene e delle magre dei corsi
Consequently, a more accurate estimation of time of con- d’acqua Memorie e studi idrografici,Servizio Idrografico Ital-
centration will provide to more precise peak discharge. iano, Report No 2

123
 Author's personal copy
132
Griffiths GA, Mckerchar AI (2008) Dependence of flood peak
magnitude on catchment area. J Hydrol N Z 47(2):123–131
Guermond Y (2008) The modeling process in geography. Wiley, New
York
Halwatura D, Najjim MMM (2013) Application of the HEC-HMS
model for runoff simulation in a tropical catchment. Environ
Model Softw 46:155–162
Hathaway GA (1945) Design drain facil. Trans ASCE 110:697–730
Henderson FM, Wooding RA (1964) Overland flow and groundwater
flow from a steady rain of finite duration. J Geophys Res
69(8):1531–1540
Izzard CF (1946) Hydraulics of runoff from developed surfaces.In:
Proceedings 26th annual meeting highway research board
26:129–146
Johnstone D, Cross WP (1949) Elements of applied hydrology.
Ronald, New York
Kabiri R (2014) Simulation of runoff using modified SCS-CN method
using GIS system, case study: klang watershed in Malaysia. Res
J Environ Sci 8:178–192
Kerby WS (1959) Time of concentration for overland flow. J Civ Eng
26(3):60
Kirpich ZP (1940) Time of concentration of small agricultural
watersheds. J Civ Eng 10(6):362
Li MH, Chibber P (2008) Overland flow time of concentration on
very flat terrains. Trans Res Rec 2060:133–140
Mark A, Marek PE (2011) Hydraulic design manual. Tex Dep Trans,
Design div, Texas
Mockus V (1961) Watershed lag. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, ES–1015, Washington DC
Morgali J, Linsley R (1965) Computer analysis of overland flow.
J Hyd Div, Proc ASCE 91(HY3):81–100
Nicklow JW, Boulos PF, Muleta MK (2006) Surface runoff.
Comprehensive urban hydrologic modeling. MWH soft,
California
123
View publication stats
Paddy Water Environ (2017) 15:123–132
Papadakis CN, Kazan MN (1986) Time of concentration in small
rural watersheds. Technical Report 101/08/86/CEE. Civil Engi-
neering Department, University of Cincinnati, Ohio
Quaro G (2011) Hydrological report. Hydroeurope
Sharifi S, Hosseini SM (2011) Methodology for identifying the best
equations for estimating the time of concentration of watersheds
in a particular region. J Irrigation Drain Eng 137(11):712–719
United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1975) Urban hydrology
for small watersheds. Technical Release TR55, Washington, DC
United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1986) Urban
hydrology for small watersheds. Technical Release TR55,
Washington DC, USA
US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (1997) Ponds-
planning, design construction. In: Agriculture handbook. United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2010) Time of
concentration. In: National engineering handbook hydrology.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Vaze J, Jordan P, Beecham R, Frost A, Summerell G (2012)
Guidelines for rainfall-runoff modelling: towards best practice
model application. eWater Cooperative Research Centre
Welle PI, Woodward D (1986) Engineering hydrology-time of
concentration. Technical note 4, US Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, Pennsylvania
Williams GB (1922) Flood discharges and the dimensions of
spillways in India. Engl (London) 134:321
Wong TSW (2005) Assessment of time of concentration formulas for
overland flow. J Irrigation Drain Eng 131(4):383–387
Yen BC, Chow VT (1983) Local Design Storms. US Dept of
Transportation, Fed Highway Administration. Report No
FHWA-RD-82-063 to 065, Washington DC
Zimmermann ED (2003) A generalization of Clark’s IUH for flatland
areas with strong human interventions. J Environ Hydrol
11(2):1–14