THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, SRI LANKA iesl/journal/format

Development of Rainfall Intensity-Duration-

Frequency (IDF) Curves for Sri Lanka to be used in
Water Resources Development
Abstract: IDF curves represent the frequency of a given rainfall intensity over a specified
duration of storm at a certain location or a climate zone. These curves are developed using available
rainfall records over a reasonable number of years. The usage of IDF curves is mainly for the
development of water resources such as reservoir planning, urban drainage design and also in
forecasting floods.
History of IDF curves goes as far back as 1932. Since then many countries have developed IDF curves
considering available rainfall records using various statistical methods. Initiation of IDF curves for Sri
Lanka can be considered as the attempt made by Baghirathan and Shaw [2] in 1979. In this attempt 19
stations with data ranging from 8-24 years were considered. Eng.D.G.L.Ranatunga has continued
Baghirathan’s work in Irrigation Department and the outcome was included in the publication “Design
of Irrigation Headworks for Small Catchment” in 1984 by Eng.A.J.P.Ponrajah [1] of Irrigation
Department. Later a few more researchers have updated IDF curves in certain locations of the country
from time to time. Almost all the researchers confirmed that the Gumbel Distribution fits well with
annual maximum series.

The publication of IDF curves by the Irrigation Department mentioned above [1] has considered six
different climatic zones covering the entire Island. Since then it was widely used in planning and design
of water resource development in Sri Lanka.

The recent update discussed here is based on 19 different locations considering about 65 years of rainfall
data covering main cities of the Island. This paper discusses the updated IDF curves for 19 different
locations covering entire country and findings are compared with the previous research work discussed
above.

Keywords: IDF Curves, Gumbel Distribution, Water Resource Development

1. Introduction Later Dharmasena and Premasiri [3] have

extended the above study by considering data
When reviewing literature, it is found that the
from 1957-1987 over 10 stations and published in
history of IDF curves goes as far back as 1932.
IESL Journal in 1990. The next update of IDF
Since then many countries have established IDF
curves is by Ranatunga [7] considering 26
curves. IDF curves in Australia for any region can
stations depending on the availability of data
be freely accessed through the web site
and published in the IESL Transactions in 2001.
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfall
The above research work and almost all research
s/ifd/. However, many developing countries
work over the world confirmed that Gumbel
were unable to develop IDF curves yet due to un-
Distribution fits well with annual maximum
availability of long-term rainfall data.
series.

Attempt made by Baghirathan and Shaw [2] for

preparing IDF curves for Sri Lanka considering
19 stations using 8-24 years of data in 1979 can be
considered as the initiative. Ponrajah [1] has
continued Baghirathan’s [2] work as mentioned
above.

1 ENGINEER
This paper presents IDF curves developed for 19
stations following “Gumbel Distribution” using
rainfall data from 1950. Longer the data period,
higher the accuracy of IDF curves for higher
return periods. The detail summary of data used
for the analysis for each station is given in Table
1. The number of years shown within the
brackets are exclusive of years of missing data.
2. Methodology
In some years pluviographs were not available
and only hourly rainfall data were available.
According to the data availability, annual
maximum rainfall for the durations of 15 min to
21 hrs were calculated using pluviographs (for
rainfall above 10 mm) or 1 hr data.
Daily rainfall records were used to find annual
maximum rainfalls of 1day, 2days and 3 days
duration. Outlier test was performed for each
annual maximum series and the outliers were
replaced by statistically acceptable values.
Next step was to carryout statistical analysis
(Gumbel EV) on each series of data separately to
find rainfall for above mentioned storm
durations for return periods (years) of 2, 5, 10,
25, 50,100 and 200.

Table 1 -Data period used in the analysis

No Station Annual hourly rainfall Daily rainfall data

Average data availability availability
Rainfall (no. of years) (no. of years)
(mm)
01 Anuradhapura 1314 1951 -2011 (57) 1951 -2014 (64)
02 Badulla 1750 1954 – 2016 (44) 1950 – 2016 (67)
03 Bandarawela 1550 1990 – 2016 (28) 1990 – 2016 (28)
04 Batticaloa 1684 1954 – 2015 (52) 1950 – 2015 (66)
05 Colombo 2300 1950 – 2015 (66) 1950 – 2015 (66)
06 Galle 2308 1955 – 2016 (52) 1950 – 2016 (67)
07 Hambantota 1012 1953 – 2016 (51) 1951 – 2016 (66)
08 Jaffna 1297 2001 – 2016 (11) 2001 – 2016 (11)
09 Katugasthota 1855 1951 – 2016 (52) 1951 – 2016 (66)
10 Katunayaka 2068 1952 – 2015 (51) 1952 – 2015 (60)
11 Kurunegala 2039 1952 – 2016 (62) 1950 – 2016 (67)
12 Mannar 996 1957 – 2016 (41) 1950 – 2016 (64)
13 Monaragala 1669 2009 – 2016 (08) 2009 – 2016 (08)
14 Nuwara Eliya 1873 1950 – 2015 (58) 1950 – 2015 (66)
15 Polonnaruwa 2097 2009 – 2016 (08) 2009 – 2016 (08)
16 Puttalam 1186 1953 – 2016 (55) 1953 – 2016 (64)
17 Rathnapura 3706 1954 – 2009 (55) 1950 – 2014 (65)
18 Trincomalee 1586 1950 – 2016 (54) 1950 – 2016 (67)
19 Vavuniya 1407 1957 – 2016 (46) 1957 – 2016 (59)

ENGINEER 2
3. Specimen Calculation

3.1 Frequency Analysis for 1 hr duration

Table 2 – Specimen Calculation for 1 hr duration rainfall at Mannar

q=1-p
Rainfall in Return Y (Reduced
1 hr Probability of
Rank m Year descending p=m/(n+1) Period variate)
Rainfall non
order (T=1/p) =-Ln(-Ln(q))
exceedence
1 1957 32.5 72.5 0.024 42.00 0.976 3.73
2 1959 28.0 72.0 0.048 21.00 0.952 3.02
3 1960 34.0 69.0 0.071 14.00 0.929 2.60
4 1961 20.0 69.0 0.095 10.50 0.905 2.30
5 1962 72.5 67.0 0.119 8.40 0.881 2.07
6 1963 49.0 60.0 0.143 7.00 0.857 1.87
7 1964 55.5 60.0 0.167 6.00 0.833 1.70
8 1965 56.0 57.0 0.190 5.25 0.810 1.55
9 1966 30.0 56.0 0.214 4.67 0.786 1.42
10 1967 56.0 56.0 0.238 4.20 0.762 1.30
11 1968 19.0 56.0 0.262 3.82 0.738 1.19
12 1969 37.0 55.5 0.286 3.50 0.714 1.09
13 1970 67.0 55.0 0.310 3.23 0.690 0.99
14 1971 33.0 51.7 0.333 3.00 0.667 0.90
15 1972 19.0 49.0 0.357 2.80 0.643 0.82
16 1973 55.0 48.0 0.381 2.63 0.619 0.73
17 1974 22.0 46.0 0.405 2.47 0.595 0.66
18 1975 27.5 42.5 0.429 2.33 0.571 0.58
19 1976 38.0 40.0 0.452 2.21 0.548 0.51
20 1977 32.0 40.0 0.476 2.10 0.524 0.44
21 1978 60.0 40.0 0.500 2.00 0.500 0.37
22 1979 39.0 39.0 0.524 1.91 0.476 0.30
23 1980 38.0 38.0 0.548 1.83 0.452 0.23
24 1981 72.0 38.0 0.571 1.75 0.429 0.17
25 1982 15.0 38.0 0.595 1.68 0.405 0.10
26 1983 38.0 37.0 0.619 1.62 0.381 0.04
27 1984 42.5 35.5 0.643 1.56 0.357 -0.03
28 2003 60.0 34.0 0.667 1.50 0.333 -0.09
29 2004 35.5 33.5 0.690 1.45 0.310 -0.16
30 2005 40.0 33.0 0.714 1.40 0.286 -0.23
31 2006 69.0 32.5 0.738 1.35 0.262 -0.29
32 2007 51.7 32.0 0.762 1.31 0.238 -0.36
33 2008 40.0 32.0 0.786 1.27 0.214 -0.43
34 2009 40.0 30.0 0.810 1.24 0.190 -0.51
35 2010 46.0 28.0 0.833 1.20 0.167 -0.58
36 2011 56.0 27.5 0.857 1.17 0.143 -0.67
37 2012 32.0 22.0 0.881 1.14 0.119 -0.76
38 2013 69.0 20.0 0.905 1.11 0.095 -0.86
39 2014 57.0 19.0 0.929 1.08 0.071 -0.97
40 2015 33.5 19.0 0.952 1.05 0.048 -1.11
41 2016 48.0 15.0 0.976 1.02 0.024 -1.32

3 ENGINEER
 3.2 Gumbel Plot for 1-hour duration

1 hr Rainfall - Mannar
90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 y = 13.191x + 35.875

Rainfall in mm

R² = 0.9579
50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Reduced Variate
Rainfall depth relevant to 1 hour duration for
different return periods were calculated and are
Figure 1 – Gumble Plot for 1hr duration of rainfall for Mannar
illustrated in Table 3.
Similarly for other durations, the trend lines
Calculation of Rainfall Depth for 1 hour were obtained and rainfall depths for different
Storm Duration for Different Return Periods return periods are calculated. The results are
for Mannar given in Table 3.

Equation of trend line for 1 hour duration: Rainfall Intensities can be calculated from the
Y= 13.191 X+35.875 Where Y= Rainfall in mm rainfall depth for different storm periods over
different return periods and are plotted in
X=-Ln(-Ln(q)), reduced variate
Figure 3 (in normal scale) and in Figure 4 (in log
=-Ln(-Ln(1-P)), scale).
=-Ln(-Ln(1-I/T)),
Table 3 - Rainfall Depths (in mm) for I hr Storm Durations for different return periods for
Mannar

T(Return x=-Ln(-Ln(q)), Rainfall Depth

p
period in q=1-p for 1 hour
(Probability) reduced variate
years) Duration (mm)

2 0.5 0.5 0.37 40.7

5 0.2 0.8 1.5 55.7
10 0.1 0.9 2.25 65.6
25 0.04 0.96 3.2 78.1
50 0.02 0.98 3.9 87.3
100 0.01 0.99 4.6 96.6
200 0.005 0.995 5.3 105.7

ENGINEER 4
Table 4 – Rainfall Depths (mm) for Different Storm Durations and Return Periods

1 hr 3 hr 6 hr 12 hr 18 hr 1 day 2 day 3 day

y = 13.191x + 35.875

y = 16.321x + 52.428

y = 20.078x + 60.974

y = 25.043x + 69.262

y = 33.089x + 72.071

y = 39.932x + 85.388

y = 56.192x + 110.24

y = 65.062x + 127.39
T, Return
period in
years

2 40.7 19.5 11.4 6.5 4.7 4.2 2.7 2.1

5 55.7 25.6 15.2 8.9 6.8 6.1 4.1 3.1
10 65.6 29.7 17.7 10.5 8.1 7.3 4.9 3.8
25 78.1 34.9 20.9 12.4 9.9 8.9 6.0 4.7
50 87.3 38.7 23.2 13.9 11.2 10.1 6.9 5.3
100 96.6 42.5 25.6 15.4 12.5 11.2 7.7 5.9
200 105.7 46.3 27.9 16.8 13.7 12.4 8.5 6.6

Rainfall Depth Curve - Mannar

500
450
400
350
300 2 yr
Rainfall (mm)

5yr
250
10 yr
200
25 yr
150
50 yr
100
100 yr
50 200 yr
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Rainfall duration (hr)

Fig 2 - Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency Relationship

5 ENGINEER
 IDF Curve - Mannar 2 yr
120

5yr
100

10 yr
80

60
Figure 4 - Rainfall Intensities against Storm 25 yr
Duration for different Return Periods on Log
scale for Mannar
40 50 yr

20 100 yr

0
200 yr
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rainfall duration (hr)

Figure 3 - Rainfall Intensities against Storm Duration for different Return Periods for Mannar

T (yrs) IDF Curve R2

2 y = 40.01x-0.705 0.9964
5 y = 52.415x -0.676 0.9953
10 y = 60.683x -0.665 0.9943
25 y = 71.158x -0.655 0.9932
50 y = 78.942x-0.65 0.9925
100 y = 86.675x-0.646 0.9919
200 y = 94.385x-0.642 0.9913
x=rainfall duration in hours
y=rainfall intensity in mm/hr

Figure 4 - Rainfall Intensities against Storm Duration for different Return Periods for Mannar
in Log scale

ENGINEER 6
4. Results
Table 5 – Intensity Duration Frequency Equations

Equation for IDF Curves

Return Period
(yrs)
Anuradhapura Badulla Bandarawela Batticaloa Colombo
-0.767 -0.727 -0.742 -0.644
2 Y = 48.056X Y = 38.365x Y = 36.612X Y = 41.835X Y = 59.526X-0.727
-0.764 -0.695 -0.732 -0.627
5 Y = 61.443X Y = 45.870x Y = 47.900X Y = 53.651X Y = 78.086X-0.706
10 Y = 70.304X-0.762 Y = 50.908x-0.681 Y = 55.346X-0.727 Y = 61.454X-0.620 Y = 90.356X-0.698
25 Y = 81.500X-0.76 Y = 57.315x-0.668 Y = 64.734X-0.723 Y = 71.299X-0.613 Y = 105.85X-0.690
-0.759 -0.661 -0.72
50 Y = 89.805X Y = 62.088x Y = 71.691X Y = 78.597X-0.609 Y = 117.34X-0.686
100 Y = 98.048X-0.759 Y = 66.838x-0.655 Y = 78.59X-0.718 Y = 85.838X-0.605 Y = 128.74X-0.682
200 Y = 106.26X-0.758 Y = 71.578x-0.649 Y = 85.461X-0.716 Y = 93.049X-0.603 Y = 140.09X-0.679

Return Period Equation for IDF Curves

(yrs) Galle Hambanthota Jaffna Katugasthota Katunayake
-0.733 -0.769 -0.590 -0.734
2 Y = 56.142X Y = 43.870X Y = 31.828X Y = 41.983X Y = 52.483X-0.701
5 Y = 74.318X-0.724 Y = 59.774X-0.767 Y = 44.503X-0.577 Y = 56.200X-0.728 Y = 70.297X-0.693
10 Y = 86.327X-0.721 Y = 70.297X-0.765 Y = 52.889X-0.573 Y = 65.603X-0.726 Y = 82.083X-0.69
25 Y = 101.49X-0.717 Y = 83.590X-0.764 Y = 63.481X-0.569 Y = 77.478X-0.724 Y = 96.967X-0.687
-0.715 -0.764 -0..567
50 Y = 112.73X Y = 93.449X Y = 71.336X Y = 86.285X-0.723 Y = 108.01X-0.685
100 Y = 123.88X-0.714 Y = 103.240X-0.763 Y = 79.133X-0.565 Y = 95.026X-0.722 Y = 118.96X-0.683
200 Y = 134.99X-0.712 Y = 112.98X-0.763 Y = 86.901X-0.564 Y = 103.73X-0.721 Y = 129.88X-0.682

Return Period Equation for IDF Curves

(yrs) Kurunegala Mannar Monaragala Nuwara Eliya Polonnaruwa
2 Y = 64.454X-0.784 Y = 40.010x-0.705 Y = 56.468X-0.759 Y = 25.272X-0.595 Y = 43.657X-0.643
5 Y = 82.332X-0.772 Y = 52.415x-0.676 Y = 67.215X-0.730 Y = 34.975X-0.593 Y = 63.186X-0.625
10 Y = 94.173X-0.767 Y = 60.683x-0.665 Y = 74.145X-0.716 Y = 41.394X-0.592 Y = 76.042X-0.618
-0.762 -0.655 -0.702
25 Y = 109.14X Y = 71.158x Y = 82.759X Y = 49.501X-0.591 Y = 92.249X-0.612
50 Y = 120.24X-0.759 Y = 78.942x-0.65 Y = 89.072X-0.693 Y = 55.514X-0.591 Y = 104.26X-0.609
100 Y = 131.26X-0.757 Y = 86.675x-0.646 Y = 95.287X-0.685 Y = 61.482X-0.590 Y = 116.17X-0.606
200 Y = 142.24X-0.755 Y = 94.385x-0.642 Y = 101.44X-0.679 Y = 67.428X-0.590 Y = 128.03X-0.604

Return Period Equation for IDF Curves

(yrs) Puttalam Rathnapura Trincomalee Vavuniya
2 Y = 47.93X -0.784
Y=55.587X-0.684
Y = 41.620x-0.654 y = 48.396x-0.716
-0.654
5 Y = 64.91X-0.764 Y=78.873X-0.687 Y = 57.457x y = 63.834x-0.69
-0.756 -0.688 -0.655
10 Y = 76.184X Y=94.255X Y = 67.909x y = 74.025x-0.679
25 Y = 90.445X-0.75 Y=113.67X-0.689 Y = 81.095x-0.655 y = 86.884x-0.669
50 Y = 101.03X-0.746 Y=128.06X-0.69 Y = 90.868x-0.655 y = 96.415x-0.664
-0.743 -0.69 -0.655
100 Y = 111.54X Y=142.35X Y = 100.56x y = 105.87x-0.659
200 Y = 122.02X-0.741 Y=156.57X-0.691 Y = 110.22x-0.655 y = 115.29x-0.656

X - Storm Duration in hrs

Y – Rainfall Intensity in mm/hr

7 ENGINEER
5. Comparison with previous studies 5.1 Comparison of Annual Average Rainfalls

Out of previous studies the very first analysis
carried out in 1977 by Baghirathan was selected
for comparison. In Baghirathan’s analysis data
up to 1970 was used where as in the current
analysis the rainfall up to 2016 was used which
will enable to examine the trend of rainfall after
50 years.
When comparing annual average rainfalls, it is
understood that the difference is less than 10%
except Nuwara Eliya (See Table 6).
Since there are 13 common stations between
Baghirathan and current analyses, the results of
those stations are considered for the
comparison.

Table 6 – Comparison of Annual Average Rainfalls

Baghirathan Current

Annual Annual
Station
Average Average
Data Period Data Period
Rainfall Rainfall
(mm) (mm)
Anuradhapura 1951-1970(20)
1448 1951 -2014 (64) 1314
Badulla 1954-1970(17)
1778 1950 – 2016 (67) 1750
Batticaloa 1955-1970(16)
1702 1950 – 2015 (66) 1684
Colombo 1950-1970(21)
2388 1950 – 2015 (66) 2300
Galle 1955-1970(16)
2515 1950 – 2016 (67) 2308
Hambantota 1954-1970(17)
1067 1951 – 2016 (66) 1012
Kurunegala 1955-1970(16)
2083 1950 – 2016 (67) 2039
Mannar 1956-1970(15)
967 1950 – 2016 (64) 996
Nuwara Eliya 1946-1969(24)
2159 1950 – 2015 (66) 1873
Puttalam 1953-1970(18)
1118 1953 – 2016 (64) 1186
Rathnapura 1955-1970(16)
3886 1950 – 2014 (65) 3706
Trincomalee 1951-1969(19)
1727 1950 – 2016 (67) 1586
Vavuniya 1957-1970(14)
1499 1957 – 2016 (59) 1407

ENGINEER 8
 5.2 Comparison of IDF Results

IDF results presented by Baghirathan is Comparison for Kurunegala is given in Table 7

available for storm durations up to 24 hrs and and Figures 5-8. The summary of the
therefore the comparison was done up to 24hr comparison for all 13 stations are given in Table
duration. 8.

Table 7 – Comparison of Rainfall Intensities(mm/hr) for different storm duration for each
return period

Storm Duration Return Period (yrs)

Analysis
(hr) 2 5 10 25 50 100 200
3 Current 27.2 35.3 40.5 47.3 52.2 57.1 62.1
Baghirathan 25.0 31.3 35.5 40.8 44.8 48.7 52.5
6 Current 15.8 20.6 23.8 27.9 30.9 33.8 36.8
Baghirathan 14.4 18.2 20.7 23.9 26.3 28.6 30.9
12 Current 9.2 12.1 14.0 16.4 18.2 20.0 21.8
Baghirathan 7.2 9.1 10.4 12.0 13.2 14.3 15.5
24 Current 5.3 7.1 8.2 9.7 10.8 11.8 12.9
Baghirathan 4.0 5.1 5.9 6.8 7.5 8.2 8.9

3 hr 6 hr
70.0 40.0
60.0 35.0
30.0
RF Intensities in mm/h
RF Intensities in mm/h

50.0
25.0
40.0 Baghirathan
Baghirathan 20.0
30.0
current 2019 15.0
20.0
10.0 current 2019
10.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Return Period (yrs) Return Period (yrs)

Figure 5 – Rainfall Intensity for 3 hr storm for Figure 6 – Rainfall Intensity for 6 hr storm for
different return periods for Kurunegala different return periods for Kurunegala

12 hr 24 hr
25.0 14.0
12.0
20.0
RF Intensities in mm/h
RF Intensities in mm/h

10.0
15.0 8.0
10.0 Baghirathan 6.0 Baghirathan
4.0 current 2019
5.0 current 2019
2.0
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Return Period (yrs) Return Period (yrs)

Figure 7 – Rainfall Intensity for 12 hr storm for Figure 8 – Rainfall Intensity for 24 hr storm for
different return periods for Kurunegala different return periods for Kurunegala

9 ENGINEER
 Table 8 – Summary of Comparison of Current IDF results (rainfall intensities) with
Baghirathan for different storm durations

Storm Duration
3 hr 6 hr 12 hr 24 hr
Station
Anuradhapura decreased decreased increased increased
Badulla decreased increased increased increased
Batticaloa decreased decreased increased decreased
Colombo increased increased increased increased
Galle decreased increased increased increased
Hambantota decreased decreased same increased
Kurunegala increased increased increased increased
Mannar increased increased increased increased
Nuwara Eliya increased increased increased increased
Puttalam increased increased increased increased
Rathnapura increased increased increased increased
Trincomalee decreased decreased decreased increased
Vavuniya decreased same decreased decreased

According to the comparison of present analysis
with Baghirathan’s analysis, 6 stations
(Colombo, Kurunegala, Mannar, Nuwara Eliya,
Puttalam and Rathnapura) out of 13 stations
show an increment of rainfall. All these 6
stations are getting dominant rainfall from
South West Monsoon. Trincomalee and
Vavuniya show a decreasing pattern of rainfall.
Anuradhapura and Hambanthota shows
decreasing pattern for short storm duration
whereas it shows increasing pattern for long
storm durations.
6. Discussion
According to the comparison it clearly shows
that there is no significant difference in annual
average rainfalls in the above selected stations
whereas it shows a significant difference in
rainfall intensities for different storm durations.
Therefore, these new curves may be used for
design and planning work of Water Resource
Projects near the above-mentioned stations.
However due to minimal data for the stations
such as Jaffna, Monaragala and Polonnaruwa
the IDF curves for higher return periods
(greater than 50 years) should be used with
caution.
Since 19 number of stations considered here do
not cover the whole island, more stations
should be analyzed in order to perform regional
analysis which is described in Baghirathan’s
reserch paper) so that the IDF curves could be
generalised for each region and the designers
would be able to use the curves reasonably.
References
1. Ponrajah, A. J.P.,”Design of Irrigation
Headworks for Small Catchments “,
Irrigation Department, pp 27-35.
2. Baghirathan, V. R. & Shaw, E. M. “Rainfall
Depth-Duration-Frequency Studies for Sri
Lanka”, Journal of Hydrology, Vol.37, Issue
34, 1978, pp.223-239.
3. Dharmasena, G. T. & Premasiri, S. M.
“Rainfall Intensity Studies for Sri Lanka”,
Hydrological Annual,1988/89, pp.73-91.
4. Gunawardana, A.D.S., “ Development of
Rainfall Intensity – Duration – Frequency
(IDF) Curves for Colombo, Sri Lanka”,
Hydrological Annual 2015/2016, Volume 57,
Irrigation Department, Sri Lanka, pp 84 - 98.
5. Hettiarachchi,P. “Development of rainfall
Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF)
relations for the Kalu Ganga catchment,
Hydrological Annual,2010/2011, pp.65-75.
6. Hettiarachchi,P. “Analysis of Annual
Maximum Rainfalls from Principal
Stations”, Hydrological Annual, 2011/2012,
pp.72-83.
7. Ranatunga, D. G. L., “Towards More
Efficient Hydraulic and Hydrological
Design of Cross Drainage Structures using
New Developed Intensity Duration
Frequency Equations”, Transactions 2001,
Volume I – Part B, The Institution of
Engineers, Sri Lanka 2001, pp.01-12.
8. Nandalal, K.D.W. & Ghnanapala, P.,
Development of IDF Curves for Colombo.
Engineer: Journal of the Institution of
Engineers, Sri Lanka. 50(1),2017, pp.33–39.

ENGINEER 10