Improvement to the Huff Curve for Design Storms and Urban Flooding Simulations in Guangzhou, China

• Published in: Water (Basel) 2017-06, Vol.9 (6), p.411
• Main Authors: Pan, Cuilin, Wang, Xianwei, Liu, Lin, Huang, Huabing, Wang, Dashan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Catchments; China; Design; Design storms; Drainage management; Environmental risk; Flooding; Floods; Hyetographs; Metropolitan areas; Rain; Rain and rainfall; Rainfall; Risk management; Simulation; Simulation methods; Storms; Stormwater; Stormwater management; Urban planning; Water management
• ISSN: 2073-4441; 2073-4441
• DOI: 10.3390/w9060411

The storm hyetograph is critical in drainage design since it determines the peak flooding volume in a catchment and the corresponding drainage capacity demand for a return period. This study firstly compares the common design storms such as the Chicago, Huff, and Triangular curves employed to represent the storm hyetographs in the metropolitan area of Guangzhou using minute-interval rainfall data during 2008–2012. These common design storms cannot satisfactorily represent the storm hyetographs in sub-tropic areas of Guangzhou. The normalized time of peak rainfall is at 33 ± 5% for all storms in the Tianhe and Panyu districts, and most storms (84%) are in the 1st and 2nd quartiles. The Huff curves are further improved by separately describing the rising and falling limbs instead of classifying all storms into four quartiles. The optimal time intervals are 1–5 min for deriving a practical urban design storm, especially for short-duration and intense storms in Guangzhou. Compared to the 71 observed storm hyetographs, the Improved Huff curves have smaller RMSE and higher NSE values (6.43, 0.66) than those of the original Huff (6.62, 0.63), Triangular (7.38, 0.55), and Chicago (7.57, 0.54) curves. The mean relative difference of peak flooding volume simulated with SWMM using the Improved Huff curve as the input is only 2%, −6%, and 8% of those simulated by observed rainfall at the three catchments, respectively. In contrast, those simulated by the original Huff (−12%, −43%, −16%), Triangular (−22%, −62%, −38%), and Chicago curves (−17%, −19%, −21%) are much smaller and greatly underestimate the peak flooding volume. The Improved Huff curve has great potential in storm water management such as flooding risk mapping and drainage facility design, after further validation.