Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1583-4
(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Derivation of rainfall IDF relations by third-order polynomial normal

transform
Lingwan You1 • Yeou-Koung Tung1

Published online: 10 July 2018

Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Establishing the rainfall intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) relations by the conventional method, the use of parametric
distribution models has the advantage of automatic compliance of monotonicity condition of rainfall intensity and fre-
quency. However, fitting rainfall data to a distribution separately by individual duration may possibly produce undulation
and crossover of IDF curves which does not comply physical reality. This frequently occurs when rainfall record length is
relatively short which often is the case. To tackle this problem this study presents a methodological framework that
integrates the third-order polynomial normal transform (TPNT) with the least squares (LS) method to establish rainfall IDF
relations by simultaneously considering multi-duration rainfall data. The constraints to preserve the monotonicity and non-
crossover in the IDF relations can be incorporated easily in the LS-based TPNT framework. Hourly rainfall data at Zhongli
rain gauge station in Taiwan with 27-year record are used to establish rainfall IDF relations and to illustrate the proposed
methodology. Numerical investigation indicates that the undulation and crossover behavior of IDF curves can be effec-
tively circumvented by the proposed approach to establish reasonable IDF relations.

Keywords Rainfall intensity–duration–frequency relations  Rainfall frequency analysis  Third-order polynomial normal
transform  Least-square method

1 Introduction The basic procedure of developing rainfall IDF relations

Rainfall intensity (depth)–duration–frequency (IDF, DDF)
relations are widely used in hydrosystems planning, design,
and management. Such relations define important refer-
ences about the design rainfall intensity of the particular
frequency (or return period). The magnitude of design
rainstorm provides the basis of design criteria for various
hydrosystem infrastructures, such as urban stormwater
management facilities including storm sewer networks and
detention basins (Akan and Houghtalen 2003; Sun et al.
2010). Rainfall IDF relations are also used for the evalu-
ation the effect of rainfall interception by different plant
covers (López-Lambraño et al. 2013), for the development
of flood inundation maps (Sahoo and Sreeja 2015; Doong
et al. 2016), and many others.
& Yeou-Koung Tung
yk2013tung@gmail.com
1
Disaster Prevention and Water Environmental Research
Center, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
at a given location involves at-site frequency analysis of
annual maximum rainfall intensity (or depth) of several
selected durations. Then, based on the developed rainfall
intensity–frequency relations for the selected durations, a
proper empirical IDF equation is adopted to fit the inten-
sity–duration relations with each frequency individually or
with all frequencies combined. By the conventional
method, rainfall frequency analysis is conducted by
choosing a proper parametric probability distribution
model to separately fit the observed annual maximum
rainfall data of different durations. The choice of a distri-
bution model for the rainfall intensity–frequency relations
is largely statistical without much physical justification
(Singh and Strupczewski 2002). The use of parametric
distribution models has the advantage of automatic com-
pliance of monotonicity condition requiring that the mag-
nitude of rainfall intensity (or depth) of a given duration
will increase with the cumulative probability. However, it
does not guarantee that the resulting rainfall intensity–
frequency curves of different durations would not intersect

123
2310 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
within the probability range of practical application. The
crossovers of rainfall intensity–frequency curves of dif-
ferent durations, which would not happen physically in
reality, occur often in the process of establishing rainfall
IDF relations (Porras and Porras 2001; Xu and Tung 2009;
Asikoglu and Benzeden 2014; Cleveland et al. 2015).
Porras and Porras (2001) stated that short record length and
data of questionable quality contribute to occurrence of
intersection of derived IDF curves. This is because the use
of short rainfall record induces significant sampling errors
in estimated rainfall quantiles by frequency analysis. One
other plausible reason for the occurrence of crossover IDF
curves is because frequency analysis of rainfall intensity/
depth is performed separately or independently by dura-
tion. In doing so, the correlations intrinsically reside among
rainfall data of different durations are not considered.
Haktanir (2003) pointed out that frequency analysis of
rainfall intensity/depth of different durations should not be
performed independently of each other.
In general, subjective modification is practiced to
remove crossovers of IDF curves. By analyzing rainfall
data at more than 500 recording gauges throughout Vene-
zuela, Porras and Porras (2001) found that at-site sample
mean and standard deviation of rainfall data can fit with
duration nicely by a simple power function D = atb with
D being the rainfall depth, t being the duration, and a,
b being coefficients. They also found that the values of
coefficient of variation for rainfall data are relatively
stable across different durations for those stations where
crossover did not occur. By analyzing the behavior of
Gumbel-based rainfall IDF with and without intersection
they empirically suggested two conditions under which
Gumbel-based IDF curves would be less likely to intersect:
(1) record length of 30 years or longer; and (2) values of
exponential coefficient ‘‘b’’ lie in the range of 0.4–0.6.
Later, several methods for deriving no-crossover IDF
relations were developed according to scaling theory which
assumes a simple functional relationship between statistical
moments of rainfalls with their durations. Haktanir (2003)
proposed the inclusion of divergence criteria as a constraint
in deriving rainfall IDF relations to ensure that no cross-
over would occur. Along the similar idea of Porras and
Porras (2001), Asikoglu and Benzeden (2014) proposed the
simple generalization procedure by fitting a smooth func-
tion between rainfall statistics and storm duration to cir-
cumvent undulation and intersection behavior of IDF
curves under the lognormal and Gumbel distributions. Xu
and Tung (2009) addressed the crossover issue by utilizing
the rainfall scale-invariant model, in conjunction with
constrained least-square method, to estimate generalized
logistic distribution parameters in defining IDF relations in
Hong Kong. The constraints are explicitly set in the opti-
mization model stipulating that rainfall depth of longer
123
duration is larger than that of shorter duration for a given
frequency.
The methods mentioned above to treat undulation and
crossover of rainfall IDF curves utilize parametric distri-
butions along with an externally postulated functional
relation defining the statistical moments and durations of
rainfall data. In this paper the third-order polynomial nor-
mal transformation (TPNT) is applied to establish rainfall
IDF relations. Through the TPNT framework, one does not
have to choose a particular parametric distribution. It can
handle multiple-duration rainfall data simultaneously
while, at the same time, straightforwardly incorporate
constraints to preserve the monotonicity condition and non-
intersection nature of rainfall IDF curves. The TPNT has
been widely applied to different fields. Examples include,
but not limited to, wind power modeling (Yang and Zou
2012), load computation in power network planning (Cai
et al. 2013), structural reliability analysis (Hong 1998;
Zhao and Lu 2007), dynamic stability assessment of a
power system (Ciapessoni et al. 2017), and simulation of
massive public health data (Demirtas et al. 2012).
One attractive feature of the TPNT in practical statistical
data analysis is that one does not have to know or make
strong assumption about the distribution model for the
random variable under consideration. A multivariate dis-
tribution function can be easily established according to the
univariate normal transformation of non-normal random
variables and their known correlation structure. Therefore,
the TPNT is amenable to establishing rainfall IDF relations
by considering multi-duration rainfall data simultaneously.
The basic idea of the TPNT is to represent any random
variable by the third-order polynomial function of the
standard normal variable. It was first presented by Fleish-
man (1978) for efficient generation of non-normal random
variables with known parameters.
An essential step in applying TPNT is to estimate
polynomial coefficients that can capture or preserve the
known statistical features of the random variable under
consideration. Chen and Tung (2003) described four
polynomial coefficient estimation methods based on pro-
duct–moments (PM), L-moments (LM), Fisher–Cornish
asymptotic expansion (FC), and the least-square (LS) cri-
terion and examined their performances in the univariate
setting. The three moment-matching methods (i.e., PM,
LM and FC methods) attempt to identify polynomial
coefficients that preserve the first four moments of the
concerned random variable. The advantage of the moment-
matching methods is that the first four moments possess
physical importance of the variables in engineering appli-
cation and they can be calculated from sample data (Zhao
and Lu 2007).
To establish a valid probabilistic relation between the
original variable and the standard normal variable, the
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
TPNT coefficients are required to satisfy the monotonicity
condition. However, the moment-matching methods have
no control in producing such coefficients that comply with
the monotonicity condition. This could largely be attrib-
uted to sampling error associated with the sample moments
from using finite number of data. Chen and Tung (2003)
derived the valid domains of the third and fourth moments
for PM and LM within which monotonic relation between
the original variable and normal variable is held. Headrick
(2010) uses the term ‘‘power method transform’’ and
extends the TPNT to a fifth-order and further derives
functional relations between the polynomial coefficients
with parameters of various specific distributions.
The exercise of establishing rainfall IDF relations
involves statistical analysis of finite annual maximum
rainfall data of various durations. More often than not,
rainfall record length is not sufficiently long and the esti-
mated sample moments, especially higher-order ones
(skew coefficient and kurtosis), are subject to significant
sampling errors. Under this situation, the rainfall IDF
relations obtained from moment-matched TPNT are often
improper due to the violation of monotonicity condition or
crossover of some IDF curves. In this study, the LS-based
TPNT is employed to determine the polynomial coeffi-
cients for establish at-site rainfall IDF relations for two
main reasons: (1) treating multiple-duration rainfall data
simultaneously; and (2) allowing the incorporation of
constraints to preserve the monotonicity condition and non-
intersection nature of rainfall IDF curves. The resulting
rainfall IDF relations would be physically realistic because
there is no crossover between IDF curves. For illustration,
the proposed approach is applied to analyze hourly annual
maximum rainfall data at Zhongli rain gauge in Taiwan
with record length of 27-year.
2 Methods for establishing rainfall IDF
relations
For many hydrosystem engineering planning, analysis and
design, reliable information on rainfall IDF relation is
essential. Accurate IDF relations allow for cost-effective
structural designs and for developing reliable flood man-
agement systems.
2.1 Conventional approach for establishing
rainfall IDF relations
The conventional approach for establishing rainfall IDF
relations are conducted in two stages. Stage-1 is to perform
frequency analysis on annual maximum rainfall intensity
(or depth) series of selected durations separately to derive
their respective rainfall intensity–frequency relations.
2311
Stage-2 is to fit the derived rainfall intensity–frequency of
various durations obtained in Stage-1 by a simple empirical
IDF model for practical applications.
2.1.1 Frequency analysis of extreme rainfall intensity data
Extreme rainfall data series of several durations are
extracted from a rain gauge. Most commonly used data
series are annual maximum series. Sometimes, partial
duration series or annual exceedance series are used. In an
at-site frequency analysis, the best-fit (or most plausible)
parametric distribution model is identified individually for
each rainfall data series of a particular duration and the
corresponding model parameters are estimated. In the
conventional frequency analysis approach, rainfall data of
varying durations are separately analyzed. Therefore, no
consideration is given to preserve the cross-correlations
that intrinsically exist among extreme rainfall data of dif-
ferent durations. From the adopted parametric distribution
model for the selected duration, rainfall quantile corre-
sponding to a stipulated return period (or frequency) can be
obtained as:
 
1
it;T ¼ Fi1 1  ð1aÞ
t
T
or
it;T ¼ lt þ KT  rt ð1bÞ
in which it;T denotes t-hr (or t-min), T-yr rainfall intensity;
Fit ðÞ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of t-hr
rainfall intensity; T denotes the return period (in year) of t-
hr rainfall intensity with an annual exceedance probability
of 1/T; lt ; rt are the mean and standard deviation,
respectively, of t-hr rainfall intensity; and KT is the fre-
quency factor (a standardized quantile) corresponding to
annual exceedance probability of 1/T for the probability
distribution considered. Equation (1a) can be used to
determine t-hr rainfall intensity quantile when the CDF of
adopted distribution model has an analytical expression
(e.g., exponential, generalized extreme value, generalized
logistic). On the other hand, Eq. (1b) using frequency
factor KT can be used for those distributions whose ana-
lytical CDF are not available (e.g., log-normal, Pearson III,
log-Pearson III). The value of frequency factor KT is a
function of return period T, skewness coefficient, and dis-
tribution model (Chow et al. 1988). References for
hydrologic frequency analysis can be found elsewhere
(Kite 1988; Stedinger et al. 1993; Rao and Hamed 2000;
Stedinger 2017).
123
2312 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
2.1.2 Fitting empirical IDF equations
Empirical equations of simple form are often used to
establish the IDF relations for practical engineering appli-
cations. The rainfall intensity–duration relation for a par-
ticular return period can be fitted by a proper empirical IDF
equation. Koutsoyiannis et al. (1998) presents a general-
ized form of the empirical equation of rainfall intensity as:
aT
it;T ¼ v ð2Þ
ð t þ bT Þ c T
T
where it;T denotes the average rainfall intensity of duration
t-hr and return period T-yr; aT , bT , cT and vT are the
parameters in the empirical IDF equation which depend on
return period and their values are generally determined by
some curve-fitting optimization scheme.
Some widely used empirical IDF equations in literature
and engineering design manuals are: Talbot, Bernard,
Kimijima and Sherman equations (Nhat et al. 2006). By
letting vT = 1 and cT = 1 one has Talbot equation; bT = 0
and cT = 1, Bernard equation (Bernard 1932); and cT = 1,
Kimijima equation. In this study, the Sherman equation
(Sherman 1931) is utilized to demonstrate the proposed
method for establishing the rainfall intensity–frequency
relations:
aT
it;T ¼ ð3Þ
ð t þ bT Þ c T
2.2 TPNT-based approach for establishing
rainfall IDF relations
The TPNT technique can be used to establish the multi-
variate distribution function based on the univariate normal
transformation of non-normal random variable. An attrac-
tive feature of the TPNT technique is that it does not
require the specification of complete marginal distribution
information to perform normal transformation.
2.2.1 Basic TPNT technique
The TPNT was proposed by Fleishman (1978) by which a
non-normal random variable is related to the standard
normal variable through the following transformation
relation:
X ¼ a0 þ a1 Z þ a2 Z 2 þ a3 Z 3 ð4Þ
where X is the original non-normal random variable; Z is
the standard normal random variable; and a0, a1, a2 and a3
denote the polynomial coefficients. To satisfy one-to-one
monotonically increasing relations between X and Z, the
TPNT coefficients must comply with the following
conditions:
123
a3 [ 0 and a22  3a1 a3 \0 ð5Þ
The TPNT technique only requires the knowledge of the
polynomial coefficients and it is therefore a viable tool
considering its computation efficiency. Chen and Tung
(2003) examined the performance of several methods to
determine the TPNT coefficients and they are: product–
moment (PM) method, L-moments (LM) method, least-
square (LS) method and Fisher–Cornish asymptotic
expansion (FC) method. With the exception of LS method,
all other three methods are moment-based.
In the context of establishing IDF relations, this study
adopts LS method for TPNT coefficients determination.
This is mainly because using LS method has the capability
to establish rainfall IDF relations by simultaneously con-
sidering annual maximum rainfalls with multiple durations.
It also permits the incorporation of suitable constraints to
achieve the prescribed objectives in the determination of
TPNT coefficients. On the other hand, moment-based
methods (e.g., PM and LM methods) can only be used to
determine TPNT coefficients for establishing rainfall IDF
relations for each duration separately. Furthermore,
moment-based methods have no control over the solution
to comply monotonicity condition that is essential for
establishing valid rainfall IDF relations.
To use TPNT technique to conduct at-site frequency
analysis, the connection between TPNT technique and
annual maximum rainfall intensity can be expressed as:
iobs 2 3
t;T ¼ a0;t þ a1;t zT þ a2;t zT þ a3;t zT ð6Þ
where iobs
t;T is the observed rainfall intensity with t-hr
duration and T-yr return period; a0,t, a1,t, a2,t and a3,t denote
the TPNT coefficients corresponding to rainfall of duration
t-hr; and zT is the standard normal random variate corre-
sponding to return period T-yr having the exceedance
probability of 1=T.
2.2.2 Determining TPNT coefficients by unconstrained LS
(uLS) method
Consider t-hr annual maximum series (AMS) containing
random rainfall intensity data of record length Ny years
 
it;1 ; it;2 ; . . .; it;Ny . The TPNT representation of t-hr rainfall
data series can be expressed as:
iobs 2 3
t;py ¼ a0;t þ a1;t zpy þ a2;t zpy þ a3;t zpy ; for
ð7Þ
y ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .; Ny
where zp ¼ U1 ð pÞ with U1 ð pÞ being the inverse CDF of
standard normal with non-exceedance probability of p. For
 
each observation it;y y¼1;2;...;Ny , the non-exceedance
probability py can be estimated by a proper plotting posi-
tion formula (PPF). In frequency analysis of hydrologic
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324 2313

extremes, a number of PPFs have been used (Cunnane ensure no crossover of resulting IDF curves within the
1978). Herein, the well-known probability-unbiased Wei- frequency range practical to a particular application. In the
bull formula is used to estimate the non-exceedance following section, an optimization model with constrained
probability py for the rainfall observation in the y-th year LS method is presented that incorporates monotonicity and
iobs
t;y as: no-crossover conditions in the determination of TPNT
h i coefficients.
Rank iobs
t;y
py ¼ ð8Þ 2.2.3 Determining TPNT coefficients by constrained LS
Ny þ 1
(cLS) method
By LS criterion, the unconstrained LS (uLS) solution for
the vector of t-hr polynomial coefficients To comply the monotonicity and no-crossover conditions
 0 0
at ¼ a0;t ; a1;t ; a2;t ; a3;t , with ‘‘ ’’ standing for the trans- of IDF curves, the multi-duration TPNT coefficients can be
pose of a vector or matrix, in Eq. (7) can be determined by determined by solving the constrained optimization model
(Montgomery et al. 2012): stated below:
 0
1 Ny
Nt X
X
at ¼ Zp Z p Zp iobs
t ð9Þ Minimize : SSEcLS ¼ e2k;y ð12Þ
 k¼1 y¼1
in which Zp ¼ 1; zp ; z2p ; z3p is a n 9 4 matrix containing
 0 Subject to:
column vector zrp ¼ zrp1 ; zrp2 ; . . .; zrpNy for r = 1, 2, 3.
(a) Fitting observed rainfall intensity data:
To extend the above univariate single-duration AMS of 
rainfall intensity data to rainfall data with Nt durations acLS cLS cLS 2 cLS 3 obs
0;k þ a1;k zpy þ a2;k zpy þ a3;k zpy þ ek;y ¼ ik;y
simultaneously, the uLS solution for polynomial coeffi- for k ¼ 1  Nt ; y ¼ 1  Ny
cients of all considered durations can be obtained by
ð13Þ
solving the following optimization problem:
Ny
Nt X
X (b) Satisfying monotonicity condition for rainfall inten-
Minimize : SSEuLS ¼ e2k;y ð10Þ sity–frequency of the k-th duration:
k¼1 y¼1
 acLS
3;k [ 0; for k ¼ 1  Nt ð14aÞ
Subject to : auLS
0;k þ auLS
1;k zpy þ auLS 2
2;k zpy þ auLS 3
3;k zpy þ ek;y ¼ iobs
k;y  2
acLS
2;k 3acLS cLS
1;k a3;k \0; for k ¼ 1  Nt ð14bÞ
for k ¼ 1  Nt ; y ¼ 1  Ny
ð11Þ (c) Intersections avoidance constraints:
  
where SSEuLS denotes the total sum of squared errors acLS  a cLS
0 þ a cLS
 a cLS
0 z T þ a cLS
 a cLS
0 z
2
0;k 0;k 1;k 1;k 2;k 2;k T
(residuals) by the uLS method; Nt ; Ny are, respectively, the 
cLS cLS 3
total number of durations and years in rainfall data set; k, y þ a3;k  a3;k0 zT [ 0;
are indicators for duration and year, respectively; ek;y is the
for two durations tk \tk0
discrepancy (or residual) between observed rainfall inten-
sity of the k-th duration and y-th year; and ð15Þ
auLS uLS uLS uLS
0;k ; a1;k ; a2;k ; a3;k are TPNT coefficients of the k-th where SSEcLS denotes the total sum of squared errors
duration estimated by the uLS approach. by constrained LS (cLS) method; T is the upper
By considering rainfall data of multiple durations in the limit of selected rainfall return period below which
above optimization model, the best set of TPNT coeffi- no crossover of IDF curves is permitted to occur; zT
cients to establish rainfall IDF relations for all considered is the standard normal quantile obtainable from

durations can be simultaneously determined. The optimal
U1 1  T1 ; and all other notations are defined in
uLS solution is obtained by trading-off errors of estimated
rainfall intensity among different durations, not just within Eqs. (10)–(11). Comparing with uLS formulation,
one single duration as the univariate case. It should be the cLS model has additional 2Nt monotonicity
pointed out that the above optimization framework for constraints and Nt - 1 no-crossover constraints. The
simultaneous determination of TPNT coefficients by min- optimization method used for solving the above
imizing SSEuLS does not guarantee that the results will constrained LS model, Eqs. (12)–(15), is the
produce rainfall intensity–frequency relations that satisfy sequential quadratic programming technique which
monotonicity condition for all durations. Also, it does not is described in the next sub-section.

123
2314
2.2.4 Solving TPNT/LS-based models for establishing IDF
relations
The TPNT/LS-based optimization models presented above
is solved by the sequential quadratic programming (SQP)
algorithm developed by Wilson (1963). The SQP solves an
optimization problem having a nonlinear objective function
with both linear and nonlinear constraints. The SQP tackles
a nonlinear optimization problem by successively finding
the approximated solution to the quadratic programming
representation of the original problem. The approximated
solution hopefully would improve by iteratively solving the
quadratic programming problem. Some useful properties of
SQP algorithm are elaborated by Boggs and Tolle (1995).
In this study, a subroutine sqp.m in Matlab is implemented
to solve both TPNT/uLS model [Eqs. (10)–(11)] and
TPNT/cLS model [Eqs. (12)–(15)]. Figure 1 shows the
overall framework to establish TPNT-based IDF relations
by the two LS methods. The contents of each block are
briefly described below.
(a) Prepare rainfall data—
Based on the annual maximum rainfall observations of
different durations, arrange data of each duration in
ascending order and assign a probability to each observa-
tion by a suitable PPF. The general form of PPF is:
  ma
Pr X  xðmÞ ¼ ð16Þ
nþ1b
where m is the rank of the annual maximum rainfall
intensity in ascending order; a C 0 and b C 0 denote the
constants which vary with different PPFs; and n is the
number of observations in data series. In fact, all of the
PPFs give similar cumulative probabilities near the center
(a) Prepare rainfall data
(c) Apply cLS to No
determine TPNT
coefficients
Fig. 1 Flowchart of TPNT-based optimization model for establishing IDF curves
123
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
of the data series but may vary significantly in the two
ends. It has been shown that the Weibull (1939) PPF pro-
vides the best estimate for the underlying non-exceedance
probability and the superiority of the Weibull formula gets
more pronounced with decreasing number of observations
(Makkonen et al. 2013). Hence, the main PPF in TPNT
technique with LS method used in this study is Weibull
(1939). Several other plotting position are also used in
engineering applications (Cunnane 1978). The effects of
different PPFs on TPNT-based rainfall IDF determination
are examined in Sect. 3.4.
(b) Determine TPNT coefficients by uLS method for
establishing IDF relations—
If the TPNT coefficients by uLS passed the monotonicity
and no-intersection conditions, then an empirical IDF
equation is selected to fit TPNT/uLS-based IDF relations.
Otherwise, cLS method is used to determine TPNT coef-
ficients. Note that if TPNT/uLS method produces coeffi-
cients that satisfy monotonicity and no-intersection
conditions, the constraints for TPNT/cLS method (i.e.,
Eqs 13–15) will be redundant.
(c) Determine TPNT coefficients by cLS method for
establishing IDF relations—
If TPNT/uLS failed to produce IDF relations that comply
with monotonicity and/or no-intersection conditions, the
cLS method is used by solving Eqs. (12)–(15).
(d) Fitting TPNT/LS IDF relations by empirical IDF
equation—
Once the TPNT-based IDF relations (by either uLS or cLS
method) pass the monotonicity and no-intersection condi-
tions, they are used to fit a selected empirical IDF equation.
For example, using Sherman’s IDF equation [Eq. (3)], its
(b) Apply uLS to determine TPNT
coefficients.
Pass
monotonicity & no-crossover
conditions?
Yes
(d) Fit selected empirical IDF equation
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
three parameters can be determined, according to the LS
principle, as:
NT X
X Nt
Minimize : e2tk ;Tj ð17Þ
j¼1 k¼1
a Tj TPNT
Subject to : c þ etk ;Tj ¼ itk ;Tj ;
ðtk þ bTj Þ Tj ð18Þ
k ¼ 1  Nt ; j ¼ 1  NT
where aTj , bTj and cTj denote the parameters in the Sherman
IDF equation which depend on the j-th return period Tj; tk
is the k-th duration; and etk ;Tj is the difference between the
TPNT-based IDF values iTPNT tk ;Tj obtained by either uncon-
strained LS method (Eqs. 10, 11) or constrained one
(Eqs. 12–15) and those estimated by the Sherman IDF
equation.
3 Application
In this section, application of TPNT-based approaches is
made to establish at-site rainfall IDF relations using hourly
annual maximum rainfall intensity of various durations at a
rain gauge at Zhongli City (Station number C0C520) in
Taoyuan, Taiwan. The data have record period of 27 years
during 1988–2015, within which 1992 data are not used
due to gauge malfunctioned (i.e., Ny= 27) much of the
time. Results of the application are used to examine the
performance of the proposed TPNT-based approaches for
establishing rainfall IDF relations. Ten storm durations
(i.e., Nt= 10) considered are: 1-, 2-, 5-, 12-, 18-, 24-, 48-,
72-, 96- and 120-h.
By the conventional frequency analysis approach, the
first four sample L-moments for each duration were cal-
culated for estimating parameters of eight candidate dis-
tributions (normal, lognormal, Pearson 3, log-Pearson 3,
Gumbel, generalized extreme value, generalized Pareto,
and generalized logistic). L-moment ratio diagram was
used to identify the best-fit distribution (Vogel and Fen-
nessey 1993). Figure 2 shows the results of rainfall IDF
relations using the individual best-fit distribution model for
each durations considered. It is clearly that the intensity–
duration curves start to undulate for rainfall with high
return period (say, [ 100 yr) and the curves appear to
converge with possible crossing over as the duration gets
shorter.
3.1 Establishing TPNT-based IDF
without constraints
Using Weibull PPF, the TPNT coefficients for all durations
are determined simultaneously by the unconstrained least-
2315
squared (uLS) method, i.e., Eqs (10), (11), and the results
are listed in Table 1. The TPNT/uLS coefficients of two
shortest durations (i.e., 1- and 2-h) do not satisfy the
monotonicity conditions [Eq. (5)] over the entire proba-
bility range. The TPNT/uLS coefficients for 1-h rainfall can
satisfy monotonicity for return period 1.07-yr  T 
230-yr whereas for 2-h rainfall, the valid return period
range is T [ 1.01-yr. It appears that IDF relations derived
by TPNT/uLS herein are applicable for estimating rainfall
intensity in frequency range of practical engineering
problems.
Figure 3 shows the TPNT/uLS-based rainfall IDF curves
at the gauge site. The intersection of IDF curves occur for
high return periods (T [ 200-yr) when rainfall duration is
short (t  1-h). This is mainly caused by non-mono-
tonicity of 1-h intensity–frequency relation. It implies that
the crossover problem of IDF curves can be partially
resolved by constraining TPNT coefficients to satisfy the
monotonicity condition. In addition to intersection of IDF
curves, the undulation appearance of some curves (espe-
cially occur in high return periods) indicate potential
instability of estimating rainfall intensity along the curves.
To get some clue as to IDF curves intersect at t = 1-h,
values of sample coefficient of variation (Cv) are com-
puted. According to the empirical observations by Porras
and Porras (2001) that Cv values should be relatively
constant over the range of duration for no-crossover IDF
curves. At the concerned raingauge, the Cv values corre-
sponding to 1-h and 2-h rainfalls are 0.325 which happens
to be the lowest with 16.4% lower than the averaged Cv
across the 10 durations considered. Almost all other dura-
tions have Cv values larger than averaged Cv with variation
less than 10%. This is indicative that IDF curves could
intersect around storm duration of 1- and 2-h.
According to the TPNT/uLS-based IDF relations, the
optimal Sherman IDF model parameters in Eq. (3) are
sought to fit Fig. 3. The values of parameters determined
for the nine return periods (NT= 9) from T = 2–1000-yr are
listed in Table 2 and the corresponding fitted Sherman IDF
curves are shown in Fig. 4. Clearly, the wavy appearance
of IDF curves in Fig. 3 is removed. However, some
Sherman-based IDF curves remain intersected at the longer
durations.
3.2 Establishing TPNT-based IDF
with constraints
Establishing physically realistic IDF relations can be cast
into a constrained optimization framework. Constraints on
the TPNT-based IDF model are imposed to preserve
monotonicity [Eq. (14a–b)] and to avoid intersection
[Eq. (15)].
123
2316 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324

Fig. 2 IDF relations at Zhongli

rain gauge from L-moment-
based conventional frequency
analysis approach using best-fit
distribution models

Table 1 TPNT/uLS coefficients

TPNT coeff. Duration (hr)
(with Weibull PPF) at Zhongli
raingauge 1 2 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120

a0 52.20 35.92 18.01 10.85 8.53 7.10 4.42 3.23 2.72 2.31
a1 22.58 13.04 6.49 2.32 1.87 1.54 1.54 1.24 1.04 0.88
a2 3.25 2.96 2.55 2.26 1.40 1.00 0.78 0.49 0.28 0.21
a3 - 1.92 0.10 0.86 1.55 1.00 0.69 0.34 0.19 0.10 0.07
SSE = 293.95 (mm/hr)2; RMSE = 1.13 (mm/hr)

Fig. 3 TPNT/uLS-based IDF

relations (with Weibull PPF) at
Zhongli rain gauge

Table 2 Parameters in Sherman

IDF eq. para. Return period, T (year)
IDF Eq. fitted to TPNT/uLS-
based IDF relations 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

aT 68.62 92.55 116.52 126.69 302.49 3298.70 5644.68 8440.76 10,342.27

bT 0.50 0.45 0.69 0.74 3.34 13.37 17.99 24.32 28.37
cT 0.70 0.72 0.68 0.63 0.80 1.33 1.37 1.36 1.35
SSE = 908.55 (mm/hr)2; RMSE = 3.80 (mm/hr)

123
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324 2317

Fig. 4 TPNT/uLS-based IDF

curves fitted by the Sherman
IDF equation

Table 3 TPNT/cLS coefficients

TPNT coeff. Duration (hr)
(Weibull PPF) at Zhongli
raingauge 1 2 6 12 18 24 48 72 96 120

a0 52.39 35.94 18.01 10.85 8.53 7.10 4.42 3.23 2.72 2.31
a1 18.68 12.81 6.49 2.32 1.87 1.54 1.54 1.24 1.04 0.88
a2 3.02 2.94 2.55 2.26 1.40 1.00 0.78 0.49 0.28 0.21
a3 0.16 0.23 0.86 1.55 1.00 0.69 0.34 0.19 0.10 0.07
2
SSE = 399.76 (mm/hr) ; RMSE = 1.32 (mm/hr)

Using Weibull PPF, Table 3 lists the TPNT coefficients
for each duration obtained by the constrained least-square
(cLS) approach. Figure 5 shows the rainfall IDF curves
obtained from the TPNT/cLS-based approach. It is clearly
that the intersection of IDF curves in high return period
range and short duration shown in Figs. 2 and 3 is cir-
cumvented. However, the undulation appearance remains.
Based on the TPNT/cLS-based IDF relations, the Sherman
IDF equation with the best-fit parameters are listed in
Table 4 and the corresponding IDF curves are shown in
Fig. 6. The undulation behavior of IDF curves in Fig. 5 is
smoothed out. Comparing with Figs. 2 and 5, the TPNT/
cLS-based approach yields more reasonable rainfall IDF/
DDF relations than those from the conventional frequency
analysis approach.

Fig. 5 TPNT/cLS-based IDF

relations (with Weibull PPF) at
Zhongli raingauge

123
2318 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324

Table 4 Parameters in Sherman

IDF eq. para. Return period, T (year)
IDF Eq. fitted to TPNT/cLS-
based IDF relations 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

aT 66.82 93.71 110.54 132.71 177.97 256.25 427.79 1322.19 4574.42

bT 0.41 0.51 0.57 0.78 1.33 2.37 4.27 9.56 16.37
cT 0.71 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.70 0.78 1.00 1.24
2
SSE = 1547.12 (mm/hr) ; RMSE = 4.96 (mm/hr)

Fig. 6 TPNT/cLS-based IDF

curves fitted by the Sherman
equation

3.3 Comparison of TPNT/uLS-based and TPNT/
cLS-based IDF relations
Figures 7a, b show the variation of TPNT coefficients with
storm duration by the cLS and uLS approaches. Comparing
the TPNT coefficients by the two LS approaches, one notices
that a0 is only affected by the non-intersection constraints
(Eq. 15); a1 and a2 are affected by both nonlinear mono-
tonicity constraints (Eq. 14b) and no-intersection constraints
Eq. (15); and a3 is affected by all constraints (Eqs. 14, 15).
Hence, TPNT coefficients a3 and a0, respectively, have the
maximum and minimum relative difference (RD) [defined by

Fig. 7 Variation of TPNT coefficients with duration by uLS and cLS approaches (with Weibull PPF) at Zhongli raingauge. a By uLS method,
b By cLS method

123
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
Eq. (19)] and this implies that the TPNT/cLS-based
approach has the most restriction on a3 and the least re-
striction on a0. This is reflected in Fig. 8, which shows that a3
has the largest amplitude of variation between the two LS
approaches whereas a0 has the smallest variation.
acLS  auLS
r r
RD ¼  100%; for r ¼ 0; 1; 2 and 3
auLS
r
where auLS
r and acLS
r denote the TPNT coefficients obtained
from uLS and cLS approaches, respectively.
Figures 9a, b compare TPNT-fitted rainfall intensity–fre-
quency relations for 1- and 2-h rainfall intensity by the two LS
approaches in which monotonicity condition is not satisfied by
the uLS method. For 1-h rainfall, Fig. 9a shows that the esti-
mated rainfall intensity by the two LS methods has significant
difference. As for 2-h rainfall (see Fig. 9b) and other longer
durations, the two LS approaches yield practically the same
estimated intensity–frequency relations. This is also evi-
denced by almost identical TPNT coefficients by the two LS
approaches for the duration t  6-h (see Tables 1 and 3).
Table 5 shows the comparison of the goodness-of-fit
assessment in terms of the root-mean-squared differences
(RMSD) of TPNT-based intensity–frequency relations for
the ten rainfall durations considered. The RMSD is defined
for overall performance with all rainfall durations com-
bined by the LS approach m (RMSDo,m) and individual
duration by LS approach m (RMSDk,m), respectively, as:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u Nt Ny 
uX X
Overall : RMSDo;m ¼ t ^ik;y;m  i obs
k;y
k¼1 y¼1
m ¼ uLS; cLS
Fig. 8 Relative difference in
Weibull-based TPNT
coefficients by uLS and cLS
approaches
2319
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
,
u Ny  2
uX
Duration k : RMSDk;m ¼ t ^
ik;y;m  ik;y obs
DFk ;
y¼1
k ¼ 1; . . .; Nt ; m ¼ uLS; cLS ð21Þ
where iobs
k;y is the observed rainfall intensity of the k-th
duration in year-y; ^ik;y;m denotes the TPNT-based estima-
tion of rainfall intensity of the k-th duration in year-y by
ð19Þ
method m (m = uLS or cLS); Nt, Ny are number of rainfall
durations and record length, respectively (Nt = 10 and
Ny = 27 in this example application); and DFo, DFk denote
the degrees of freedom for computing the overall and
individual duration-based performance indicator, each
respectively equals to Nt (Ny - 4) and Ny - 4.
As shown in Table 5 that the values of RMSDo by uLS
and cLS are close with the uLS method yielding smaller
value as expected. Also shown in Table 5 is that the values
of duration-based RMSDk are almost identical for rainfall
duration t  6-h by the LS approaches. This explains that
major discrepancy between uLS and cLS approaches is
contributed from the 1-h and 2-h TPNT-based IDF rela-
tions, especially from the 1-h rainfall.
To have a close examination of the difference in TPNT-
based rainfall IDF, Fig. 10 reveals that the TPNT-based
intensity–duration relations obtained by the two LS
approaches differ relatively small when T  50-yr. On the
other hand, the figure shows that, when T [ 50-yr, the
difference of the two TPNT-based intensity–duration
, relations becomes more pronounced with rainfall duration
2
around 1-h. Figure 10 also reveals that the 500-yr inten-
DFo ;
sity–duration curve derived by the uLS method has a clear
tendency to intersect with the 50-yr curve in the region
ð20Þ
123
2320 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324

Fig. 9 Comparison of fitted 1-h and 2-h rainfall intensity that do not satisfy monotonicity by TPNT using uLS and cLS approaches. a 1-h rainfall,
b 2-h rainfall

Table 5 Comparison of
m RMSDo,m (mm/hr)* RMSDk,m (mm/hr)*
goodness-of-fit assessment of
TPNT-based IDF model k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4 k=5 k=6 k=7 k=8 k=9 k = 10
1-h 2-h 6-h 12-h 18-h 24-h 48-h 72-h 96-h 120-h

uLS 1.13 2.69 1.19 1.28 1.29 0.59 0.53 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.12
cLS 1.32 3.44 1.20 1.28 1.29 0.59 0.53 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.12
*RMSDo,m Overall root-mean-squared differences for all data by LS method m; RMSDk,m Root-mean-
squared differences for rainfall data of the k-th duration by LS method m

Fig. 10 Comparison of TPNT-

based intensity–duration
relations by uLS and cLS
approaches (with Weibull PPF)
at Zhongli raingauge

where storm duration is shorter than 1-h. If this trend
indeed occurred, the rainfall IDF relations would not
comply the physical reality.
3.4 Effects of plotting position formula on IDF
relations
Referring to Sect. 2, the estimation of TPNT coefficients
by the LS approaches requires the stipulation of probability
by adopting a PPF. As the result, the rainfall intensity–

123
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324 2321

Fig. 11 Comparison of TPNT/cLS-based IDF relations by duration using different PPFs. a t = 1-h, b t = 2-h, c t = 6-h, d t = 72-h

frequency relations for a selected duration defined by   m  0:35

Hosking ð1985Þ : Pr X  xðmÞ ¼ ð25Þ
TPNT is affected by the chosen plotting position. In this n
section, the effect of probability PPF on TPNT-based IDF
Different probability PPFs produce different values of
relations is investigated. The Sherman IDF equation is used
TPNT coefficients rendering different IDF relations.
to fit the TPNT/cLS-based IDF. Among the various PPFs,
Figures 11 and 12 show the comparison of rainfall
four PPFs are selected herein to derive TPNT-based rain-
intensity–frequency relations of varying storm duration
fall IDF. They are: Weibull (1939), Hosking et al. (1985),
under the four selected PPFs. With sample size of n = 27, it
Blom (1958) and Cunnane (1978) and their equations are
can be observed that all four PPFs yield very close results
listed below:
when return period is less than 5-yr. As the return period
  m
Weibull ð1939Þ : Pr X  xðmÞ ¼ ð22Þ increases, the difference in rainfall intensity under the
nþ1 Weibull and Hosking formulae becomes more significant,
  m  0:375 whereas the Blom and Cunnane formulae yield practically
Blom ð1958Þ : Pr X  xðmÞ ¼ ð23Þ
n þ 0:25 the same IDF curves. Among the four PPFs considered, the
  m  0:4 Weibull formula yields the highest rainfall intensity of all
Cunnane ð1978Þ : Pr X  xðmÞ ¼ ð24Þ durations whereas the Hosking formula results in the
n þ 0:2
smallest values for the rainfall data.

123
2322 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324

Fig. 12 Comparison of TPNT/cLS-based IDF relations by duration under different PPFs fitted by the Sherman IDF equation. a t = 1-h, b t = 2-h,
c t = 6-h, d t = 72-h

Table 6 Assessment of goodness-of-fit of different PPF of TPNT/cLS-based IDF model

Plotting positions formula RMSDo (mm/hr) RMSDk (mm/hr)
k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4 k=5 k=6 k=7 k=8 k=9 k = 10
1-h 2-h 6-h 12-h 18-h 24-h 48-h 72-h 96-h 120-h

Weibull 1.32 3.44 1.20 1.28 1.29 0.59 0.53 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.12
Hosking 1.54 4.27 1.55 1.25 0.91 0.46 0.48 0.22 0.16 0.20 0.10
Blom 1.42 3.85 1.32 1.24 1.14 0.53 0.51 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.11
Cunnane 1.43 3.89 1.34 1.24 1.12 0.53 0.51 0.27 0.19 0.22 0.11

Table 6 lists the values of RMSDo and RMSDk of TPNT/ Interestingly, the ranking of the four PPFs varies with the
cLS-based IDF relations according to the selected PPFs. rainfall duration. For short durations of 1-h and 2-h, the
For the overall fitting by RMSDo, the best PPF in this study four PPFs rank the same as the overall performance. On the
is the Weibull, followed by Blom, Cunnane, and Hosking. other hand, for intermediate and longer durations (t [ 6-

123
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
h) the order of ranking reversed, i.e., the Hosking is the
best, followed by Cunnane, Blom, and Weibull. However,
the difference in RMSDk is quite insignificant for duration t
[ 6-h and, therefore, the four PPFs could be considered
comparable for practical purpose. If a probability-unbiased
PPF is preferred for the data in a study, then the Weibull
formula would be the best choice (Makkonen et al. 2013).
4 Summary and conclusions
Rainfall IDF relations are commonly used in hydrosystems
analysis, planning, and design. Such relations are typically
derived through frequency analysis of annual maximum
rainfall data with different durations. Conventional
approach is to adopt parametric distribution models to fit
rainfall data of individual duration separately without
considering their correlations. It is not uncommon to pro-
duce physically unrealistic IDF relations in which rainfall
intensity–duration curves of different frequency may
intersect and/or have wavy shape. This feature is especially
likely to occur when the rainfall record is relatively short
and the IDF curves are extend to the range of high return
period beyond the record length.
This study addresses the issues of crossover and undu-
lation of rainfall IDF curves by applying the third-order
polynomial normal transform (TPNT), in conjunction with
the constrained least square (LS) method. The TPNT has
the advantages of: (1) not having to adopt parametric dis-
tributions of particular form; and (2) being able to estab-
lishing IDF relations with simultaneous consideration of
multi-duration rainfall data when used in the constrained
LS framework. However, like any statistical analysis
method, the TPNT is not immune from the sampling error
induced by the use of limited rainfall data. The two prob-
lematic features of TPNT-based IDF curves can be easily
taken care of in the LS framework by imposing the
monotonicity condition to preserve probabilistic relation
and constraining no-crossover in the IDF curves within the
desired range of return period. The undulation of rainfall
intensity–duration curves of different frequencies can be
removed by using a proper empirical equation to fit the IDF
relations obtained by the TPNT/LS-based approach.
For illustration, the proposed analysis framework is
implemented to establish rainfall IDF relations at a rain-
gauge in Taiwan with record length of 27 years. The IDF
relations obtained by using TPNT/cLS approach appear to
be more reasonable than those by the conventional fre-
quency analysis. Furthermore, to examine the effect of
plotting position formula (PPF) on the derived IDF rela-
tions, four PPFs commonly used in hydrology (i.e., Wei-
bull, Hosking, Cunnane, and Blom) are used in the
proposed TPNT/LS-based approach. It was found that all
2323
four PPFs yield very close results when return period is less
than 5-yr. As the return period increases, the difference in
rainfall intensity under the Weibull and Hosking formulae
becomes more significant, whereas the Blom and Cunnane
formulae yield practically the same IDF curves. Among the
four PPFs considered, the Weibull formula yields the
highest rainfall intensity of all durations whereas the
Hosking formula results in the smallest for the rainfall data
analyzed. There have been some debates about the use of
plotting position formula. Weibull formula has been argued
and proved to be the best choice on the ground being
probability-unbiased (Makkonen et al. 2013). In the con-
text of IDF derivation under the proposed TPNT/LS
framework, a more extensive numerical experiment is
necessary.
The TPNT-based framework presented in this paper
deals with extreme rainfall data that is stationarity. In light
of imminence of global warming induced climate change,
many studies show that extreme precipitations around the
globe are getting intensified (Asadieh and Krakauer 2015).
This implies that the long-term behavior of extreme rain-
falls is becoming non-stationary. Consequently, the rainfall
IDF relations would be subject to non-stationarity. How-
ever, the present form of TPNT/LS-based approach cannot
explicitly account for non-stationarity in the rainfall data
without overhauling the entire procedure. A viable means
to explicitly account for non-stationarity is to bring time-
dependent statistical features of non-stationary extreme
rainfalls into the TPNT formulation, similar to what have
been done by Sarhadi and Soulis (2017) and Yan et al.
(2017) who express distributional parameters adopted in
rainfall frequency analysis as function of time.
Acknowledgements This study is supported by the Joint Research
under the National Research Foundation (Korea)-Ministry of Science
& Technology (Taiwan) Cooperative Program (MOST 105–2923-E-
009-004-MY2). All data used in this paper is properly cited and
referred to in the reference list.
References
Akan AO, Houghtalen RJ (2003) Urban hydrology, hydraulics, and
stormwater quality. Wiley, Hoboken
Asadieh B, Krakauer N (2015) Global trends in extreme precipitation:
climate models versus observations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci
19:877–891
Asikoglu OL, Benzeden E (2014) Simple generalization approach for
intensity–duration–frequency relationships. Hydrol Process
28(3):1114–1123
Bernard M (1932) Formulas for rainfall intensities of long duration.
Trans ASCE 96(1):592–606
Blom G (1958) Statistical estimates and transformed beta-variates.
Wiley, New York
Boggs PT, Tolle JW (1995) Sequential quadratic programming. Acta
Numer 4:1–51
123
2324 Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2018) 32:2309–2324
Cai D, Shi D, Chen J (2013) Probabilistic load flow computation with
polynomial normal transformation and Latin hypercube sam-
pling. IET Gener Transm Distrib 7(5):474–482
Chen XY, Tung YK (2003) Investigation of polynomial normal
transform. Struct Saf 25(4):423–445
Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
Ciapessoni E, Cirio D, Massucco S, Morini A, Pitto A, Silvestro F
(2017) Risk-based dynamic security assessment for power
system operation and operational planning. Energies
10(4):475–490
Cleveland, T.G., Herrmann, G.R., Tay, C.C., Neale, C.M., Schwarz,
M.R., and Asquith, W.H. (2015). New rainfall coefficients—
including tools for estimation of intensity and hyetographs in
Texas, final report. Texas Department of Transportation.
Research Project Number 0-6824
Cunnane C (1978) Unbiased plotting positions—a review. J Hydrol
37:205–222
Demirtas H, Hedeker D, Mermelstein RJ (2012) Simulation of
massive public health data by power polynomials. Stat Med
31(27):3337–3346
Doong DJ, Lo WC, Vojinovic Z, Lee WL, Lee SP (2016)
Development of new generation of flood inundation maps—a
case study of the coastal city of Tainan, Taiwan. Water
8:521–540. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110521
Fleishman AL (1978) A method for simulating non-normal distribu-
tions. Psychometrika 43(4):521–532
Haktanir T (2003) Divergence criteria in extreme rainfall series
frequency analyses. Hydrol Sci J 48(6):917–937
Headrick TC (2010) Statistical simulation: power method polynomi-
als and other transformations. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton
Hong HP (1998) Application of polynomial transformation to
normality in structural reliability analysis. Can J Civ Eng
25(2):241–249
Hosking JRM, Wallis JR, Wood EF (1985) Estimation of the
generalized extreme value distribution by the method of
probability-weighted moments. Technometrics 27(3):251–261
Kite GW (1988) Frequency and risk analyses in hydrology. Water
Resources Publications, Littleton CO
Koutsoyiannis D, Kozonis D, Manetas A (1998) A mathematical
framework for studying rainfall intensity–duration–frequency
relationships. J Hydrol 206:118–135
Lopez-Lambrantilde A, Fuentes C, González-Sosa E, López-Ramos
A, Pliego-Dı́az M, Gómez-Meléndez D, Altamirano-Corro A
(2013) Effect of interception by canopy in the IDF relation in a
semiarid zone. Afr J Agric Res 8(43):5285–5295
Makkonen L, Pajari M, Tikanmaki M (2013) Discussion on ‘‘Plotting
positions for fitting distributions and extreme value analysis’’.
Can J Civ Eng 40:130–139
123
Montgomery DC, Peck EA, Vining GG (2012) Introduction to linear
regression analysis, 5th edn. Wiley, New York
Nhat LM, Tachikawa Y, Sayama T, Takara K (2006) Derivation of
rainfall intensity–duration–frequency relationships for short-
duration rainfall from daily data. In: Proceedings, international
symposium on managing water supply for growing demand,
technical document in hydrology, vol 6, pp 89–96
Porras PJ Sr, Porras PJ Jr (2001) New perspective on rainfall
frequency curves. J Hydrol Eng 6(1):82–85
Rao AR, Hamed KH (2000) Flood frequency analysis. CRC
Publications, New York
Sahoo SN, Sreeja P (2015) Development of flood inundation maps
and quantification of flood risk in an urban catchment of
Brahmaputra river. J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A Civ Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1061/ajrua6.0000822
Sarhadi A, Soulis ED (2017) Time-varying extreme rainfall intensity–
duration–frequency curves in a changing climate. Geophys Res
Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl072201
Sherman CW (1931) Frequency and intensity of excessive rainfalls at
Boston, Massachusetts. Trans ASCE 95:951–960
Singh VP, Strupczewski WG (2002) On the status of flood frequency
analysis. Hydrol Process 16:3737–3740
Stedinger JR (2017) Ch.76—flood frequency analysis. In: Singh VP
(ed) Handbook of applied hydrology, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill,
New York
Stedinger JR, Vogel RM, Foufoula-Georgiou E (1993) Ch.18—
frequency analysis of extreme events. In: Maidment D (ed)
Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York
Sun SA, Djordjević S, Khu ST (2010) Decision making in flood risk
based storm sewer network design. Water Sci Technol
64(1):247–254
Vogel RM, Fennessey NM (1993) L-moment diagrams should replace
product moment diagram. Water Resour Res 296:1745–1752
Weibull W (1939) A statistical theory of the strength of materials.
R Swed Inst Eng Res Proc 151:1–45
Wilson RB (1963) A simplicial method for convex programming,
PhD thesis, Harvard University, Boston, MA
Xu Y, Tung YK (2009) Constrained scaling approach for design
rainfall estimation. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 23(6):697–705
Yan L, Xiong L, Guo S, Xu CY, Xia J, Duc T (2017) Comparison of
four nonstationary hydrologic design methods for changing
environment. J Hydrol 551:132–150
Yang, H., and Zou, B. (2012). The point estimate method using third-
order polynomial normal transformation technique to solve
probabilistic power flow with correlated wind source and load.
In: Proceedings, Asia–Pacific power and energy engineering
conference, Shanghai, pp 1–4
Zhao YG, Lu ZH (2007) Fourth moment standardization for structural
reliability assessment. J Struct Eng ASCE 133(7):916–924