The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct
Rainfall
A Critical Discussion of
Method
Current Practice

Introduction
Working on urban modeling as a consultant in
~2002 /3 we faced the prospect of describing
hundreds of sub-catchments for an urban study
in Sydney one per pit

Stephen Gray WMAWater

Being lazy we thought, well, were using a 2D

model anyway (for 2d overland flow routing)
why not just dump the rainfall (sans losses)
straight on top and see what happens.

Co-authors
Mark Babister WMAwater
Assoc. Prof. James Ball - UTS

It worked like a dream! Calibration points were

well matched almost first go. Pavel said its
not nothing!

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

Typical Stormwater
Model

Typical DRM urban

application

System
Components
SYSTEM
in Typical
COMPONENTS
Stormwater
Model

RAINFALL

System
Components
in DRM
Approach

HYDROLOGY

PIPE
HYDRAULICS

MINOR
SYSTEM

MAJOR
SYSTEM

MINOR
SYSTEM

1D/2D
SURFACE
FLOW MODEL

OUTFLOW

Typical
Hydrology:
Lumped
sub-catchment
hydrology as per
ARR87

PIPE
HYDRAULICS

RAINFALL

DD hydrology as
per yield models
(more typically)

2D SURFACE FLOW MODEL

(INCLUDES DISTRIBUTED
HYDROLOGY)
OUTFLOW

MAJOR
SYSTEM

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

What is the DRM and

why use it?

A Brave New World

Applying rainfall directly to a 2D model as depth

and cutting out the hydrological middle man
(RAFTS/RORB/DRAINS/URBS/WBNM etc.)

Based on initial experiences, talk about eliminating

conceptualisation, figuring the data and computational
resources at the time were right, I* thought to myself

Benefits
-No discretisation of sub-catchments
-Use ALS properly in hydrology
-Implicitly mapped and accurately
-2D dont need to tell it where the waters
going
-reducing conceptualisation
-Efficient just add DEM and asset DB - $
saved
-Not relying on hydrological models established
using non-urban data
-Made urban modelling attractive rather than a
slog

we can do this without calibration. These models are so

physically realistic, the data so detailed and high res, no
need for calibration. Just build the model and the results
will be right!
An improvement in urban modelling!
Past
-Lack of data for cal/val
-Used models developed based on rural gauging
-Std paras as per ARR 87
-Hand on heart Best Practice but is it right.
Unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

Research Project

Research Project

Wanted to show that you could use the DRM in

conjunction with a detailed 1D/2D model and
emulate real life behaviour without recourse to
calibration.

Instead it was found that:

-Very little testing of DRM
in literature against gauged
-There are few gauged
urban catchments in Australia
-You need lots of gauged
data to build the model
- Grid edits are required
to avoid underestimating Q
-Collectively bathy edits add
up to conceptualisation
-No recommended values for
edits to grid, highly distributed,
difficult to summarily quantify

Project called Reducing

Uncertainty in Design Flood
Estimation
I wanted model results
that looked like this
but
I wanted them without
having to calibrate.

BIG UNKNOWN PARAMETER

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

Research (Taaffe,
2010)

Research (Taaffe,
2010)
Taaffe found that:
-Pit cells are talked
about a lot in the GIS
literature and
little/not at all in
hydrological lit
-That they impact on
outflows to varying
extent
-Extent depends on
grid size, slope, size
of event
-GIS literature
provides various
methods for dealing
with them

Taaffe examined:
- Literature on grid
issues
-pit cells impact on
runoff,
-how much flow gets
thru to the outlet
(conductivity),
-peak flow; and
-timing of peak flow.
Also looked
at ways of dealing with
pit cells.
Also compared pit
losses to ARR IL values

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

Research (Taaffe,
2010)

Research (Taaffe,
2010)
Taaffe found that:
-Pit cells are talked
about a lot in the GIS
literature
-That they impact on
outflows to varying
extent
-Extent depends on
grid size, slope, size
of event
-GIS literature
provides various
methods for dealing
with them

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

Research (Taaffe,
2010)

Whats the Problem?

In a nutshell results are not being appropriately checked
and no regulation of grid edits. Just because its
complicated/sophisticated doesnt mean results are any
good.
For Example
WMAwater reviewed study in SE Australia. 50 km2
catchment modelled using DRM. No cal/val or verification
and uninformed client.
1% AEP flow established by FFA, prior detailed modelling
(two studies) was ~ 100 m3/s .
Their final estimate in final report was 270 m3/s

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

What went wrong?

The DRM is a flake

The consultant had pre-wet the grid to fill in

pits and make sure attenuation didnt deliver a
non-conservative result. However they had
likely also filled in all the real attenuating
mechanisms.

The DRM can give you a wide range of

answers, much more so than RR models
because:

Created a slick basin that over-efficiently

delivered Q to the d/s.
Q estimate not checked.
In hindsight any check would have been better
than none as it may have rung alarm bells.

The Direct Rainfall Method: A critical discussion of current practice

Solution
New ARR will address the DRM and provide
recommendations from Industry Leaders.
But generally
Dont use it without calibration/validation or at the very
least verification.
Also beware of:
-Small grid sizes that challenge shallow water
assumptions
-Consultants who tell you shell be right Im using
state of the art techniques here
-Entirely non-edited grids (big danger of nonconservative results)

-Its not based on locally derived relationships

and so not setup to hit a range
-Bathymetry manipulation isnt regulated no
known values, no recommended values,
difficult to describe summarily, highly distributed