Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Frequency Analysis for Precipitation Events and Dry Durations of Virginia

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) are widely used to control and treat stormwater runoff pollution. The first step in SCM design is to evaluate the precipitation patterns at a site. SCMs are normally designed using a storm with a specific return period. A robust design process that uses frequency distribution of precipitation and monitoring of performance could improve our understanding of the behavior and limitations of a particular design. This is not the current norm in the design of SCMs. In this research, frequency analyses (FA) of precipitation events was conducted using hourly precipitation data from 1948 to 2010 for eight sites representing the four major physiographic regions of Virginia. The available data were treated using an inverse distance method to eliminate missing gaps before processing into events determined by minimum inter-event times. FA was at each site to develop frequency plots of precipitation and dry duration. FA of the eight locations indicates a range of rainfall depths from 22.9 mm in Bristol to 35.6 mm in Montebello, compared to the nominal “water quality storm” of 25.4 mm (i.e., 1 in.). Similarly, for dry duration, for a 10 % exceedance probability, the range is from 16.8 days in Richmond and Norfolk to 19.5 days in Montebello. Dry duration provides guidance for vegetation selection, which is important for some SCMs. The degree of variability in both parameters argues for consideration of site-specific information in design. FA was also used to provide guidance to improve monitoring programs. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that performance monitoring programs applied in different regions would likely encounter more than 30 % of precipitation events less than 6.35 mm, and 10 % over 25.4 mm under various sampling regimes. The percentages of precipitation events encountered in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions are not impacted by sampling regimes, however the Blue Ridge Mountains and Valley and Ridge regions are likely impacted. Anticipating event occurrences improves the chances of implementing a successful monitoring program. The use of these results could enhance the performance of SCMs with consideration of local conditions for both monitoring SCMs and their design basis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SCM:

Stormwater Control Measures

RWH:

Rainwater Harvesting

FA:

Frequency Analysis

SWMM:

Storm Water Management Model

HEC-HMS:

Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System

NCDC:

National Climate Data Center

MIT:

Minimum Inter-Event Time

FFMC:

Fundamental Formulation of Monte Carlo

PDF:

Probability Distribution Function

CDF:

Cumulative Distribution Function

References

  1. VADCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). (1999). Virginia stormwater management handbook. Virginia: Richmond.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Miller, G. W. (2006). Integrated concepts in water reuse: managing global water needs. Desalination, 187(1–3), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boers, T. M. (1994). Rainwater harvesting in arid and semi-arid zones, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement. The Netherlands: Wageningen.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Su, M.-D., Lin, C.-H., Chang, L.-F., Kang, J.-L., & Lin, M.-C. (2009). A probabilistic approach to rainwater harvesting systems design and evaluation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(7), 393–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Heneker, T. M., Lambert, M. F., & Kuczera, G. (2001). A point rainfall model for risk-based design. Journal of Hydrology, 247(1–2), 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., & Yousef, Y. A. (1988). Analysis of rainfall series in the design of urban drainage control systems. Water Research, 22(4), 491–496.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, K. S., Sadeghipour, J., & Dracup, J. A. (1986). An approach for frequency analysis of multiyear drought durations. Water Resources Research, 22(5), 655–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rossman, L. A. (2004). Storm water management model user's manual (version 5.0), US Environmental Protection Agency.

  9. Scharffenberg, W. A., & Fleming, M. J. (2010). Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS, user's manual (version 3.5), US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources.

  10. Montalto, F., & Lucas, B. (2011). How are low impact stormwater control measures simulated by different computational models? World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011: pp. 538–546. doi:10.1061/41173(414)57

  11. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (1982). Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency (Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wurbs, R. A. (2002). State-frequency analyses for urban flood control reservoirs. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 7(1), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hosking, J. R. M., & Wallis, J. R. (1997). Regional frequency analysis : an approach based on L-moments. Cambridge; United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Jou, P. H., Akhoond-Ali, A. M., Behnia, A., & Chinipardaz, R. (2008). Parametric and nonparametric frequency analysis of monthly precipitation in Iran. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(18), 3242–3248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sveinsson, O. G. B., Salas, J. D., & Boes, D. C. (2002). Regional frequency analysis of extreme precipitation in northeastern Colorado and Fort Collins flood of 1997. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 7(1), 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Norbiato, D., Borga, M., Sangati, M., & Zanon, F. (2007). Regional frequency analysis of extreme precipitation in the eastern Italian Alps and the August 29, 2003 flash flood. Journal of Hydrology, 345(3–4), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Naghavi, B., & Yu, F. X. (1995). Regional frequency analysis of extreme precipitation in Louisiana. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 121(11), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Englehart, P. J., & Douglas, A. V. (1985). A statistical analysis of precipitation frequency in the conterminous United States, including comparisons with precipitation totals. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 24(4), 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fowler, H. J., & Kilsby, C. G. (2003). A regional frequency analysis of United Kingdom extreme rainfall from 1961 to 2000. International Journal of Climatology, 23(11), 1313–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hershfield, D. (1971). The frequency of dry periods in Maryland. Chesapeake Science, 12(2), 72–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dickerson, W. H., & Dethier, B. E. (1970). Drought frequency in the northeastern United States. Morgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University, Agricultural Experiment Station.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wallis, J. R., Schaefer, M. G., Barker, B. L., & Taylor, G. H. (2007). Regional precipitation-frequency analysis and spatial mapping for 24-hour and 2-hour durations for Washington State. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11(1), 415–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Maidment, D. R. (1993). Handbook of hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lo Presti, R., Barca, E., & Passarella, G. (2010). A methodology for treating missing data applied to daily rainfall data in the Candelaro River Basin (Italy). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Adams, B. J., & Papa, F. (2000). Urban stormwater management planning with analytical probabilistic models. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dunkerley, D. (2008). Identifying individual rain events from pluviograph records: a review with analysis of data from an Australian dryland site. Hydrological Processes, 22(26), 5024–5036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Adams, B., Fraser, H., Howard, C., & Sami Hanafy, M. (1986). Meteorological data analysis for drainage system design. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 112(5), 827–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Davis, A. P., & McCuen, R. H. (2005). Stormwater management for smart growth. New York: Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Panu, U. S., & Sharma, T. C. (2002). Challenges in drought research: some perspectives and future directions. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 47(sup1), S19–S30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). (1986). Urban hydrology for small watersheds (TR-55). United States Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 34.Water Environment Federation, American Society of Civil Engineers. (1998). Urban runoff quality management. Reston, VA: WEF; ASCE.

    Google Scholar 

  32. US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1999). Storm water technology fact sheet, Washington D.C.

  33. VADCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). (2011). Stormwater design specification No. 9 bioretention (version 1.9), Richmond, Virginia.

  34. Sample, D. J., Grizzard, T. J., Sansalone, J., Davis, A. P., Roseen, R. M., & Walker, J. (2012). Assessing performance of manufactured treatment devices for the removal of phosphorus from urban stormwater. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 279–291.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Boesch, D. F. (2006). Scientific requirements for ecosystem-based management in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Louisiana. Ecological Engineering, 26(1), 6–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Quigley, M. et al., The integrated unit process design approach for urban water quality design, Impacts of Global Climate Change, pp. 1–12.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Dr. Glenn E. Moglen of the Charles Edward Via Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech for providing with instructive and inspiring suggestions on precipitation FA. This project was partially funded by Project No. 135885, Stormwater Management Research, Assessing Improvements in Design and Operation on Performance, 135885, US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project. Opinions contained herein are exclusively those of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, 23455, USA

    Jia Liu, David J. Sample & Haibo Zhang

Authors
  1. Jia Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Sample
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haibo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Sample.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, J., Sample, D.J. & Zhang, H. Frequency Analysis for Precipitation Events and Dry Durations of Virginia. Environ Model Assess 19, 167–178 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-013-9390-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-013-9390-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation