A new ‘critical’ storm profile for use in urban drainage modelling.

P.Davies* and L.Hancock*

*Arup, New Oxford House 30 Barkers Pool Sheffield S1, UK
(E-mail: paul-d.davies@arup.com)
(E-mail: llew.hancock@arup.com)

Abstract

Currently in the UK, urban drainage designs use standard rainfall design profiles to
predict peak flows, yet these do not represent volume well. Traditional practice is to run
a wide range of storm durations and intensities to identify the critical duration at each
point in the system. We have developed a hybrid rainfall profile that encompasses
critical conditions for all durations. It is only necessary to run one long duration storm
to represent the worst case duration for the whole catchment. The ‘Superstorm’
combines the properties of multiple storms into a single design storm that preserves the
peak intensity and total volume of each rainfall profile traditionally used into one
rainfall profile. This approach gives near-identical results as the critical storms but
saves running each individual storm profiles, reducing analysis time within large
drainage models by days or weeks. This method can be used for the analysis of
drainage networks at a city scale in Drainage Area Study models and Surface Water
Management Plans in the UK where single duration significantly underestimate the
overall risk of flooding as critical duration varies across the catchment. Other uses
include to optimisation of flood studies and spill frequency analysis in combined sewer
overflows. It is therefore of significant benefit to practitioners seeking to fulfil the
requirements of the EU Floods directive or the EU Water framework directive.
Keywords composite profile; CSO spill; design storm; flooding; model optimisation;
rainfall; Superstorm

Introduction

Recent integrated surface water modelling studies within the UK along with advancements in hydraulic
drainage modelling software and computing technology, have led to a step change in drainage model
size and complexity. This increasing focus on surface water management brought by changes in UK
and European flood risk legislation has directed studies to assess the interactions between the sewer
network and overland flows at a city scale. The need to predict overland flows for certain rainfall
frequencies with any number of possible storm durations requires that we reassess the concept of the
much misunderstood term critical duration.

Within complex 1D models or 2D direct rainfall models it has become common practice to simulate a
model with a single storm duration storm profile for a set rainfall frequency, or at best a handful of
durations thought to best represent likely catchment response time from statistical fluvial rainfall runoff
studies (EA, 2013). The widespread use of single duration storm profile models has arisen because of
the long simulation times associated with large network models, particularly integrated 2D or direct
rainfall models containing millions of hydraulic analysis cells. It is clear that using single duration
storm profile approaches can only produce results that are critical at certain points within the
catchment, where the chosen storm duration is critical. These critical locations can also change with
rainfall return period, therefore cannot be forecast based upon prior simulations of a different rainfall
frequency.

The Environment Agency national surface water flood maps for England and Wales (EA, 2012) were
produced from a single 66 minute duration event, which result in the flood maps underestimating water
depth and flood extent across most of the catchments. A method of producing results which show the
critical, or maximum, water depth considering every storm duration within each model element is
required to produce the worst case flood extent in any given rainfall series. This can be achieved by
simulating every duration of storm event and post processing results to identify critical storms in a 1D
network or produce composite maxima 2D flood maps; both requiring excessive simulation time.
Alternatively, the input rainfall series could be re-addressed to produce a composite storm profile that
represents a statistical summation of intensities and maximum volume of the entire rainfall series,
removing the need to simulate each storm duration.

This study aims to provide a solution for generating critical depth results from a single synthetic design
storm. This would not only save large amounts of simulation time, but would reduce the amount of
non-critical data generated by simulating multiple durations and provide an alternative to selecting
single duration events.

Background
Critical Duration

Increasing focus on surface water management and modelling requires a more holistic view of
catchment characteristics, but the need to predict exceedance and overland flow requires that we
reassess the concept of critical duration. To understand ‘critical duration’ we need to fully appreciate
the term ‘time of concentration’. Although a simple concept, a full
understanding of the implication of time of concentration in
integrated drainage modelling is difficult to grasp for many
people. The time of concentration (Tc) is equal to the time of
entry (Te) plus the time of flow (Tf). As the time of flow changes
dependent on where you are, so must the time of concentration.
There are a variety of formulae that can be used to calculate the
time of concentration, but the basic concept of Tc = Te + Tf holds
true whatever method is used. The primary function of this
concept is that the time of concentration is the time taken for all
the sub catchment to contribute to the flow. The term time of
concentration is almost interchangeable with the term critical
duration. Critical duration is the duration of storm that produces
the highest flow in the system. The critical storm duration is
therefore twice the time of concentration at the model element in
question.
Figure 1 Time of concentration

Overland flow in a 1D model is simply represented as a time of entry value pre-determined by the user,
using sub catchment characteristics. In a 2D direct rainfall model this is not pre-determined by the user,
but is the time taken for overland flow to route over the ground model and accumulate maximum water
depth in the analysis cell in question. The time will vary with storm intensity, but can also be affected
by topographical effects within the ground model, changing flow routes or transference from
underground system. In large city models it is impossible to define a critical duration storm for the
entire drainage system, as different parts of the network receive maximum flows at differing times
throughout the simulation due to routing effects.

Multiple storm duration analysis, or critical duration analysis, has been practiced for many years in
traditional 1D sewer network models in the last 25 years where historic rainfall data has been available
(Butler and Davies, 2011). Modern software tools are capable of simulating hundreds of storm
hyetographs and identifying the maximum instance of water depth or flow at each pipe in the drainage
network through a process of ranking to report critical results. During analysis of sewer systems it is
common to simulate a suite of around 10 storms at specified durations from 15 to 1440 minutes, to
check both peak flow conveyance and storage volume of the system. The critical storm is then
identified, by ranking hydraulic results in order of magnitude to find critical maximum water level or
critical peak flow on a pipe by pipe basis.

Whilst this can be performed on a small 1D network computational demand is much higher in models
consisting of thousands of nodes and many boundary conditions. When using 1D/2D integrated urban
drainage models simulating overland flows, no hydraulic modelling packages are capable of reporting
critical 2D surface water flood depths across multiple durations. To create a critical depth analysis,
queries on each individual 2D analysis cell maximum water depth would have to be performed within a
GIS, generating large amounts of unnecessary non-critical data. We must therefore look to reconsider
the input rainfall in an attempt to represent the variations in rainfall intensity across the series of storm
durations whilst maintaining maximum rainfall volume.

Composite storm profiles

For simulation of rainfall return periods in small catchments within the UK the use of synthetic design
curves produced in the Flood Studies Report (FSR) published in 1975 is still common practice (NERC
1975). The FSR synthetic rainfall profiles were symmetrical about the midpoint and split into summer
50%ile and winter 75%ile profiles with varying CV, the latter statistically adjusted to correlate rainfall
return periods with peak river flows in a 1:1 ratio. FSR is not without its problems, most notably
criticised by practitioners for not being able to represent ‘slow’ runoff and was primarily intended for
use within major river catchments (Butler & Davies, 2011). The Wallingford Procedure revisited FSR
datasets for urban drainage system design and showed the most appropriate profile for predicting peak
flow in sewers was in fact the 50%ile summer storm, however both profiles of each rainfall duration
are tested in drainage design today (Hydraulics Research Limited, 1981).

50 %tile Summer profile 75 %tile Winter profile

Intensity

Time

Figure 2 Standard summer and winter profiles

A notable use of a composite storm profile for critical analysis was by Rainey and Osborne (1991).
Their analysis of a recorded time series rainfall dataset tried to devise a single modified rainfall profile
intended to give both peak flow and peak volume in the same rainfall event, however the incomplete
work was based on a limited analysis of three sample time series datasets.

During the 1990s, work to improve the performance of CSO’s in the UK led to the creation of sewer
network models used to test proposals to replace these structures. On its own FSR synthetic rainfall
proved unreliable for predicting volumes in storage tanks and outfall structures (Davies 2009).
Millerick (2006) reviewed composite storm approaches used overseas together with the methods used
to create the original synthetic profiles in FSR. This resulted in Millerick developing a method that
analyzed each rainfall event within a time series dataset and identified the greatest intensity for two
minutes, four minutes, six minutes etc. and combined all these greatest instantaneous intensity values
into a composite profile within the Pluvius software package. He then varied this by selecting not just
the greatest values, but selecting the second greatest, the third greatest and so on, to create a set of
ranked storms. By running Millerick’s composite ‘Superstorms’ it was possible to get the same
volumetric answer in a fraction of the time needed to run the full time series rainfall dataset. Drainage
systems designed to retain the 6th ranked composite storm would only spill 5 times when the full series
was used.

By applying the same analysis as Millerick used to depth duration frequency rainfall such as the FSR
design storms, it is possible to build Superstorms of each return period, which produce similar results
for both depth and spill volume. Superstorm would effectively resolve modelling issues where a single
duration rainfall event cannot be assumed to be critical over large catchment areas. The use of a
composite storm profile allows the frequency of rainfall to match frequency of flooding, removing the
need for post processed adjustments of the results. Applying the Superstorm methodology would
generate results that are essentially critical at any point in the network. Osborne (2012) has
independently undertaken a similar exercise creating a Superstorm from a coarser distribution of ReFH
storms, reporting good comparison of the number of properties flooded within the catchment rather
than hydraulic values.

This paper aims to determine if single Superstorms constructed from synthetic design storms of the
same annual frequency can replicate critical results of traditional methods simulating every duration
within a 1D model. It will also identify if Superstorms can be used to also improve confidence in
catchment wide 2D rainfall depths in direct rainfall analysis to produce flood maps of critical depth.
This will provide a better alternative to the current modelling industry practice of selecting single storm
durations to simulate integrated 1D-2D models, frequently producing non-critical results. The study
will compare critical water level and flow results generated by a traditional analysis using single
minute storm durations for a given rainfall frequency, to results of a Superstorm generated from the
same suite of rainfall files. The following section describes the methodology used to construct a
Superstorm and analysis performed to identify and compare critical results. The findings are discussed
and summarised, the paper concluding discussion of implications and direction for further research.

Methodology

The following section describes the process of constructing a Superstorm from synthetic UK FSR
design storms and the testing against critical results of a traditional approach on a typical catchment.
Although this study describes the use of FSR rainfall, it is possible to use any suite of storms to
produce a Superstorm, such as FEH or recorded time-series rainfall.

To generate a truly critical event, individual storm profiles were generated at every minute of duration
from 15 to 1440 minutes creating 2852 synthetic hyetographs for both summer and winter profiles.
Generation of Superstorms for a 1 in 30 year return period was performed within an automated tool
within Microdrainage Windes 2013.1. Details of how the Superstorms in this study were generated are
given below, with permission from XP Solutions. Superstorms created in this assessment are 0 failure
superstorms that maintain the highest peak intensity of the 1st ranked storm, in the case of FSR design
storms this was the 15 minute storm.

For n files (x[1], x[2] … x[n]) each of duration (d[1], d[2] … d[n]) respectively

Define : I[x,2,k] = (i[x,k] + i[x,k+1])/60

where x = particular rainfall file
2 = 2 minute consecutive rainfall
k = starting time in minutes
i[x,k] = rainfall intensity at time k in file x (mm/hr)
∴ I[x,2,k] = total depth of rainfall falling in 2 minutes starting at time k from file x

In general : I[x,c,k] = (i[x,k] + i[x,k+1] + … + i[x,k+c-1])/60

where c = number of consecutive entries required

Define : Imax[x,c] = maximum(I[x,c,k]) for 1 <= c <= d[x]

∴ Imax[x,c] = highest total depth of rainfall falling in any c consecutive minutes in file x

Define & Calculate: EIMax[c] = maximum(IMax[x,c]) for 1 <= x <= n and even c 1 <= c <=
maximum(d[x])
∴ EIMax[c] = highest total depth of rainfall falling in any c consecutive minutes in any file.

We can now build the Superstorm of duration L minutes, where L = maximum(c). (Length of Super-
Storm is equivalent to longest rainfall file within sample set).
∴ build intermediate Profile T defined as
 T[1] = EIMax[2]/2
T[j] = EIMax[2j]/2 - T[j-1] for 2 <= j <= L/2

The final Super-Storm is symmetric about its mid-Point. T is the profile for the second half of the
storm.
∴ Super-Storm S is defined as
S[P] = T[P-L] for P>L/2
S[P] = T[L-P+1] for P<=L/2 for L <= P <= L

By reflecting T and placing the mirror image at the start of T gives the final profile S (Windes, 2013).

At present by adding bars one at a time means a total of 2 bars (c step size is 2) are added to the final
Superstorm (because of symmetry). If the c step size is 4 then each pair of 2 values in T will be
identical, if step size is 8 then data is added in blocks of 4 etc. This account assumes the storm has been
generated for 0 failures. To generate a Super-Storm for F failures replace the line;

EIMax[c] = maximum(IMax[x,c]) with EIMax[c] = F+1 highest(IMax[x,c])

It was not appropriate to combine summer and winter storm events within the same all-encompassing
Superstorm profile because of the varying CV values within each, giving different depths of rainfall for
summer and winter conditions. A Superstorm containing all summer 50%ile rainfall distributions and a
CV of 0.75 was created along with a Superstorm containing winter 75%ile distributions with a CV
value of 0.84; replicating the CV values used in the original synthetic rainfall hyetographs upon which
each Superstorm was based.

For Superstorm testing, a medium sized 1D drainage model containing 425 pipes in a steep catchment
in the north of England was selected. It was chosen as it was a real model with existing exceedance
problems for the 1 in 30 year return period event. This combined surface water network contained
storage tanks, online ancillary flow controls, high level overflows, base flows and a treatment works
typically found within most large catchments. The moderate number of model elements also reduced
the computation time in testing.

Simulated 1D results from all the individual storms were then ranked to identify results that were
critical by; maximum water level, exceedance spill volume, discharge and velocity across all durations.
The same analysis was performed on the two Superstorms, and ranked on a pipe by pipe basis to
identify which season was critical. Maxima of hydraulic results extracted from the traditional analysis
and the Superstorm analysis and compared for critical depth, exceedance spill volume, discharge and
velocity for each pipe.
Intensity

Time
Figure 3 A 24 hour Superstorm profile

The Superstorm profile produces a very peaky graph, merging the depth of the longest duration storm,
with the peak intensity of the shortest duration 15 minute storm. The smoothness of the graph
decreases as fewer storms are used to construct it. Because the input Superstorms were generated from
datasets ranging from 15 to 1440 minutes the Superstorm was analysed for a minimum of 2880
minutes of simulation time to allow for drain down of the system.

Osborne (2012) has independently undertaken a similar comparison using a coarser distribution of
ReFH storms, but only compared the number of properties flooded within the model rather than
hydraulic figures. The study showed good agreement with traditional methods, however it is hoped that
this improves with a Superstorm constructed from a larger dataset of storm durations.

Testing of 2D direct rainfall Superstorm results was conducted on a previous surface water study by
Arup for Bristol City Council, where Arup was tasked with creating an Integrated Urban Drainage
model of a 150km2 study area (Davies, 2011). This was a 1D-2D integrated hydraulic model
incorporating 33,000 sewers, used to simulate surface water flooding for a range of storm intensities
and durations to inform the drainage strategy for the Council, and advise the water company of
potential high risk areas with considerable overland flow.

With a model of this scale it was impossible to define a critical duration storm for the entire drainage
network at a city scale, as different parts of the network were receiving maximum flows at differing
times throughout the simulation due to routing effects of the surface. To solve this issue Arup revisited
the Superstorm methodology constructing a composite storm from synthetic design storms for use in
2D analysis. The project required the production of surface water depth and hazard maps for each
return period displaying worst case depth and velocity throughout the storm duration, created from the
2D model results grids, creating a composite map of critical depth and hazard for the storm duration.
Superstorm provided a means of creating 2D direct rainfall flood hazard maps that are critical
everywhere within the same frequency event. Checks on analysis cell maximum water depths were
performed by simulating a suite of 10 storm durations from 15 minutes to 1440 minutes within the
model, and Superstorm depths compared to depths across all storms within a GIS viewer. The results
of this exercise are discussed below.

Results

Results were computed using 64 bit simulation software using hyper-threading technology where runs
were distributed across 8 CPU cores. Simulation of 2852 storms within the 1D model took over 24
hours, whereas simulation of the summer and winter Superstorms on the same machine took only a few
minutes by reducing simulation time by 99.8%. As anticipated, results from the traditional analysis
showed sewers at the head of the network are at critical depth and flow during short duration storms
whereas those located further downstream or are part of an attenuation system display a critical depth
during much longer storms, overwhelmed by the volume of water in the system. The 1D results of the
critical duration analysis were compared to the values produced by the Superstorm analysis. The
average and maximum differences in measures are shown in the table below.
Table 1. Comparison of 1D results on a verified model
Flood Volume Water Level Discharge (l/s) Velocity
(m3) (m) (m/s)

Percentage of absolutely 74.5% 34.3% 36.8% 77.9%

identical results
Average difference -0.08 m3 0.02m 2.19 l/s -0.14 m/s
Maximum difference 10.772 m3 0.993m 172.1 l/s 1.1 m/s

Overall flood volumes and pipe velocities were replicated extremely well, with around 75% of the
pipes in the network giving identical results. Water level although having fewer identical results in
comparison was only fluctuating by a few millimetres, largely over predicting depth. Peak discharge
was less well replicated, showing the largest variation in results. Interrogation of output hydrographs
showed some instability at complex overflows and areas flooding in the system. These accounted for
the largest differences in hydraulic properties, particularly discharge, where a spike of instability
occurs. The instabilities, also found in Osborne (2012) could in some part have contributed to the
spread of comparison results.

A node flood volume chart comparing the difference between conventional critical results and
Superstorm exceedance results is given below. The results from the pipes with instabilities have been
excluded (17 pipes removed) to give a clearer picture of the comparability of the two methods. The 1D
results of exceedance volume agree with Osborne (2012) flooded property comparison giving a slightly
better degree of fit.

400
Superstorm m3

300
y = 1.0017x
200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Conventional m3

Figure 4 Linear comparison of spill volumes (m3) in conventional analysis against Superstorm results

Checks on the performance of Superstorm in a 2D direct rainfall environment have shown maximum
flood depths in analysis cells to correlate well with a small sample selection of FSR durations, with
some minor variation in maximum velocity. It would be a much longer task to simulate and check all
2852 storms within a 2D model to complete a full Superstorm audit, but additional work is clearly
required to validate the use of Superstorms in a 2D setting.

Discussion

Using Superstorms for 1D analysis of flood volumes, water levels and velocities typically used to
assess property vulnerability and operational performance can be recommended to give near identical
results as running the full suite of storms. Differences flood extent will be minimal once simulated 1D
flood volumes distribute across a flood surface within an integrated drainage model.

Like the Osborne (2012) study, many of the simulations undertaken had some instability within
elements of the system, both datasets having several erratic values; however it would be unusual to not
find some instability in any complex drainage model. It is also worth stating that if this method had
been tested on a simplified system without complex foul flow arrangements, ancillaries and capacity
issues in this verified model, the results would have been even closer to the conventional methods. Due
to the iterative nature of sewer modelling computation, the chances of achieving entirely identical flow
characteristics in consecutive runs in a relatively complex model would be slim, even using identical
input hyetographs.

The implications for sewer modelling and simulation are widespread. For flood modelling in drainage
studies a Superstorm profile provides a method of producing results that are critical at all durations in a
much shorter timescale than traditional approaches. This process removes the need for the user to
preselect a storm duration that they believe represents the critical duration at the location in
consideration, allowing interrogation of critical results at all model elements. It also removes large
amounts of non-critical computed data that quickly accumulates when attempting to find the critical
duration of an element such as a treatment works. A composite Superstorm profile of a return period
specified in design guidance could also be constructed to aid design of new systems. Using a
Superstorm as an input profile for the automated design tools found in drainage design software, it may
be possible to create a system that satisfies, or very closely contains, every rainfall profile for the
specified design standard at the first iteration of the design. The traditional analysis could then be
performed for final design checks and approval.

The current limitation of using a single composite storm profile such as Superstorm is that it does not
have the ability to identify the exact duration of the storm event that is critical on a pipe by pipe basis
as traditional analysis permits, as it does not retain all the non-critical information. It also requires
creation of summer and winter storm profiles as published CV values vary for summer and winter
conditions. In future it is recommended this analysis is performed on a system without capacity issues
to investigate if a full annual design profile is possible. Investigating variation in catchment slope
would also be practical as tests covered to date have only considered moderately steep catchments.

Conclusion

As the popularity of 1D/2D stormwater models increase, so will the production of pluvial surface water
hazard mapping. Using single duration storm events for a given rainfall return period to identify
maximum exceedance across large areas in any type of hydraulic model will significantly
underestimate the depths of flooding across the catchment, as critical duration varies throughout. As a
result most of the catchment will be covered by non-critical results. The composite profile solves the
common modelling issue of having differing ‘critical’ durations across the catchment requiring
multiple duration analysis to be carried out on drainage models. The Superstorm generates results that
are essentially critical at any point in the network whilst producing minor error margins. The composite
profile represents significant savings in the simulation time required for any size model but gives
greater savings pro-rata to the model complexity. Testing has shown confidence in catchment wide 1D
flood depths by using Superstorms that consider all sub-durations. Application of Superstorm in 2D
direct rainfall modelling would, remove the need to test duration and permits the production of surface
water flood maps of critical depth. Initial tests on the test catchment indicate good replication of
maximum 2D flood depths using a composite Superstorm in a direct rainfall model.

For flood mapping in a 2D environment, a composite Superstorm is currently the only method
available that will produce flood maps that show critical depth across the whole catchment at all storm
durations in a single simulation. The authors acknowledge that some of the principles applied have
been around for a while; however we believe that by ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ (Bernard 12th
century) we have been able to take these methods to the next level that potentially provides a new
storm profile that is ‘critical’, catchment wide for use in flood analysis and drainage design the UK.

References

Butler, D. and J. W. Davies (2011) Urban Drainage 3rd Edition. Abingdon UK Spon Press
Bernard of Chartes (12th Century) The Metalogicon of John Salisbury. University of California Press.
p. 167.
Davies, P. (2009) Information data and the lessons of modelling flood maps. CIWEM conference,
London, June 2009.
Davies, P. (2011) Surface water management modelling at the city scale, CCWI conference, Exeter,
September 2011
Environment Agency (2012) Guidance on Surface Water Flood Mapping for Lead Local Flood
Authorities. Report version 1.0 (June 2012)
Environment Agency (2013) National Scale Surface Water Flood Mapping Methodology Report
version 1.0 (May 2013)
Hydraulics Research Limited (1981) Design and analysis of urban storm drainage: The Wallingford
Proceedure, Vol 1
Millerick, A. (2006) Rainfall – Should we use continuous analysis? Published in Water Active 2006.
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) (1975) Flood Studies Report Vols 1 to 5, London
Osborne, M. (2012) Design Storms - Have We Been Getting It Wrong All This Time? WaPUG Spring
Conference, Birmingham, UK, May 2012
Rainey, C.M.L. and Osborne, M.P. (1991) Design for storage using synthetic rainfall. WaPUG
Autumn Meeting, UK, October 1991
Windes (2013) Windes Microdrainage User Guide. CD ROM.