Derivation of Design Rainfall and Disaggregation Process of Areas with Limited Data and Extreme Climatic Variability

  • Vassiliki Terezinha Galvao Boulomytis
  • Antonio Carlos Zuffo
  • Monzur Alam Imteaz
Research paper


In a sustainable urbanisation process, the infrastructure has to be designed taking into consideration the hydrological behaviour of the respective catchment. It is mandatory to predict the climatic events accurately to understand the hydrological impacts of urban developments. It is very challenging for hydrologists to model extreme events when there are limited data available. The current study proposed a methodology to calculate the design rainfalls in the coastal region of Sao Paulo, Brazil. The gamma-function distribution used the annual maximum daily rainfalls in a probabilistic approach. The achieved 24-h-design rainfalls were compared to the results from other intensity–duration–frequency equations in different time-series. The rainfall disaggregation used regional and national conversion ratios. The fluctuation of the annual maxima revealed that the study area was affected by the Noah and Joseph erratic processes. Subsequently, the detected extreme event time-series were also used for the derivation of the 24-h-design rainfalls. The outcomes of the study showed that the gamma-function distribution provides reliable results, enhanced by the use of representative disaggregation ratios and proper time-series.


Design rainfalls IDF equation Annual maxima Gamma distribution Rainfall disaggregation Noah and Joseph processes 



We gratefully acknowledge UNICAMP and the Brazilian National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES) for the study support, and the Australian Government for the Research Training Program (RTP) Fees Offset Scholarship at Swinburne University of Technology.


  1. Alfieri L et al (2012) Operational early warning systems for water-related hazards in Europe. Environ Sci Policy 21:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida EG (2013) Tromba d’água–Catástrofe de 1967 em Caraguatatuba. Photo Archive. At: Museu de Arte e Cultura de Caraguatatuba (MACC)/Fundação de Arte e Cultura de Caraguatatuba (FUNDACC)Google Scholar
  3. Arnbjerg-Nielsen K et al (2013) Impacts of climate change on rainfall extremes and urban drainage systems: a review. Water Sci Technol 68(1):16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbassa AP et al (2009) Sistema computacional para vetorização de pluviogramas. In: XVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos, 22–26 November 2009, Campo Grade, MS. Campo Grande: ABRHGoogle Scholar
  5. Campos JNB (2009) Lições em modelos e simulação hidrológica. ASTEF/Expressão Gráfica, FortalezaGoogle Scholar
  6. Caraguatatuba (2011) City master plan of Caraguatatuba Municipality, Law n. 42, 24 November 2011Google Scholar
  7. Chernoff H, Lehmann E (1954) The use of maximum likelihood estimates in Chi squared tests for goodness of fit. Ann Math Stat 25(3):579–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow VT (1953) Frequency analysis of hydrologic data with special application to rainfall intensities. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, College of Engineering. Engineering Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
  9. Chow VT (1958) Frequency analysis in small watershed hydrology. Agric Eng 39(4):222–231Google Scholar
  10. Company of technology in environmental sanitation of the State of Sao Paulo (CETESB) (1986) Drenagem urbana: manual de projeto. DAEE/CETESB, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Water and Electric Energy of the State of Sao Paulo (DAEE) (2016) Precipitações Intensas do Estado de São Paulo. DAEE-CTH, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher RA, Tippett LHC (1928) Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample. Proc Camb Philos Soc 24:180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frechet M (1927) Sur la loi de probabilite de l’ecart maximum. Annales de la Société Polonaise de Mathématique 6:93–116Google Scholar
  14. Gaume E et al (2009) A compilation of data on European flash floods. J Hydrol 367(1–2):70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gericke OJ, du Plessis JA (2011) Evaluation of critical storm duration rainfall estimates used in flood hydrology in South Africa. Water SA 37(4):453–469Google Scholar
  16. Gumbel EJ (1941) The return period of flood flows. Ann Math Stat 12:163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gyasi-Agyei Y (2005) Stochastic disaggregation of daily rainfall into one-hour time scale. J Hydrol 309(1–4):178–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Husak GJ, Michaelsen J, Funk C (2007) Use of the gamma distribution to represent monthly rainfall in Africa for drought monitoring applications. Int J Climatol 27(7):935–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenkinson AF (1955) The frequency distribution of the annual maximum (or minimum) values of meteorological elements. Q J R Meteorol Soc 81(348):158–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knoesen D, Smithers J (2009) The development and assessment of a daily rainfall disaggregation model for South Africa. Hydrol Sci J 54(2):217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koutsoyiannis D (2004) Statistics of extremes and estimation of extreme rainfall: I. Theoretical investigation. Hydrol Sci J 49(4):575–590Google Scholar
  22. Koutsoyiannis D, Onof C (2001) Rainfall disaggregation using adjusting procedures on a Poisson cluster model. J Hydrol 246(1–4):109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koutsoyiannis D, Kozonis D, Manetas A (1998) A mathematical framework for studying rainfall intensity-duration-frequency relationships. J Hydrol 206(1–2):118–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lian JJ et al (2013) Joint impact of rainfall and tidal level on flood risk in a coastal city with a complex river network: a case study of Fuzhou City, China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17(2):679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Machado RL et al (2010) Spatial variability of maximum annual daily rain under different return periods at the Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Bragantia 69:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mandelbrot BB, Wallis JR (1968) Noah, Joseph and operational hydrology. Water Resour Res 4(5):909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martins D et al (2013) Determinação da Equação de Chuvas Intensas para a Cidade de Caraguatatuba-SP. In: XX Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos, 17–22 November 2013, Bento Gonçalves, RS. Bento Gonçalves: ABRHGoogle Scholar
  28. Millington N, Das S and Simonovic SP (2011) The Comparison of GEV, Log‐Pearson Type 3 and Gumbel Distributions in the Upper Thames River Watershed under Global Climate Models. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Western Ontario—Canada, Report n 77, set 2011Google Scholar
  29. Naghettini M, Pinto EJDA (2007) Hidrologia estatística. CPRM–Serviço Geológico do Brasil, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  30. Paiva RCD et al (2011) Reduced precipitation over large water bodies in the Brazilian Amazon shown from TRMM data. Geophys Res Lett 38:L04406.
  31. Pfafstetter O (1982) Chuvas intensas no Brasil; relaçao entre precipitaçao, duraçao e freqüência de chuvas em 98 postos com pluviografos. Departamento Nacional de Obras e Saneamento, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  32. Plackett RL (1983) Pearson, Karl and the Chi squared test. Int Stati Rev 51(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pombo CC (2017) Há 50 anos: após três dias ininterruptos de chuvas, Caraguatatuba sofreu pior tragédia de sua história. Folha de São Paulo, 18 March 2017. Accessed 19 March 2017
  34. Righetto AM (1998) Hidrologia e recursos hídricos. EESC/USP, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryu J et al (2014) Statistical evaluation on storm sewer design criteria under climate change in Seoul, South Korea. Urban Water J 11(5):370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shrestha A et al (2017) Developing Intensity–Duration–Frequency (IDF) curves under climate change uncertainty: the case of Bangkok, Thailand. Water 9(2):145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SIGRH (2016) Information system for the water resources management of the state of Sao Paulo. Accessed 27 July 2016
  38. Skaugen T (2007) Modelling the spatial variability of snow water equivalent at the catchment scale. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11(5):1543–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slade JJ (1936) The reliability of statistical methods in the determination of flood frequencies. Geological Survey Water-Supply, Paper 771, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Smithers JC, Schulze RE (2004) The estimation of design rainfalls for South Africa using a regional scale invariant approach. Water SA 30(4):435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss LL (1964) Ratio of true to fixed-interval maximum rainfall. J Hydr Div 90(1):77–82Google Scholar
  42. Wilk J, Hughes DA (2002) Calibrating a rainfall-runoff model for a catchment with limited data. Hydrol Sci J 47(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Young CC, Liu WC (2015) Prediction and modelling of rainfall-runoff during typhoon events using a physically-based and artificial neural network hybrid model. Hydrol Sci J 60(12):2102–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Youssef AM, Maerz NH (2013) Overview of some geological hazards in the Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 70(7):3115–3130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zuffo AC (2004) Equações de chuvas são eternas. In: XXI Congresso Latinoamericano de Hidráulica, 18–22 October 2004, São Pedro, SP. São Pedro: IAHRGoogle Scholar
  46. Zuffo AC (2015) O Sol, o motor das variabilidades climáticas. Rev DAE 63:6–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zuffo AC, Zuffo MSR (2016) Gerenciamento de Recursos Hídricos: Conceituação e Contextualização, 1st edn. Elsevier, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© University of Tehran 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vassiliki Terezinha Galvao Boulomytis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antonio Carlos Zuffo
    • 2
  • Monzur Alam Imteaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Construction EngineeringSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia
  2. 2.School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban DesignState University of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations