Technical Memorandum:

ESTIMATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR THREE

FIRST FLUSH HIGHWAY RUNOFF CHARACTERIZATION
SITES

Prepared for:
California Department of Transportation
Division of Environmental Analysis
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95826

Prepared by:

Joo-Hyon Kang1, Masoud Kayhanian2 and Michael K. Stenstrom1

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
5714 Boelter Hall
University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593

2
Center for Environmental and Water Resources Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
One Shields Avenue, Engineering III
University of California
Davis, CA 95616

June 2006

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Figures................................................................................................................................... 3

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 5

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 6

SECTION 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 9

3.1 ASCE’s Tc Formula ........................................................................................ 10

3.2 Site Description and Monitored Storm Events ............................................... 11

3.3 Frequency Analysis of Rainfall ...................................................................... 12

SECTION 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 16

4.1 Tc for Design Application ............................................................................... 16

4.2 Peak Flow Calculation and Evaluation of Calculated Tc ................................ 17

4.3 Correlation Between Tc and Mass First Flush (MFF) ratios........................... 20

SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 24

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 25

2
 List of Tables

Table 1 Formulas for Time of Concentration (Tc) .....................................................................7

Table 2 Tc Formulas in Two Groups........................................................................................10

Table 3 Summary of Site Dimensions......................................................................................11

Table 4 Storm Event Summary (1999-2005 wet seasons) .......................................................12

Table 5 P2 (2-year, 24-hour rainfall depth) for the Monitoring

Sites from the Frequency Analysis .............................................................................16

Table 6 Time of Concentration for Design of Hydraulic Structures

Calculated with Different Methods .............................................................................17

Table 7 Design Peak Flow Rates (qp) Calculated with Tc Values from Different Formulas…19

Table 8 Average MFF ratios for Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3 ........................................................23

3
 List of Figures

Figure 1 Frequency Histograms of Maximum 24hr Rainfall Depth (in)

for the Monitoring Sites ..............................................................................................14

Figure 2 Probability Plots for 24hr Rainfall Depth in Site1 with Different Partial

Duration Series............................................................................................................14

Figure 3 Probability Plots for 24hr Rainfall Depth in Site2 with Different Partial

Duration Series............................................................................................................15

Figure 4 Probability Plots for 24hr Rainfall Depth in Site3 with Different Partial

Duration Series............................................................................................................15

Figure 5 Unit Peak Flow Discharge with Respect to Tc for Different Ia/P Values

(Type I Rainfall Distribution) .....................................................................................18

Figure 6 Probability Plots for Peak Flow Measured in 1999-2005 ...........................................20

Figure 7 Correlations Between Time of Concentration and Mass First Flush Ratios

for TSS and Conductivity in Site 1 .............................................................................21

Figure 8 Correlations Between Time of Concentration and Mass First Flush Ratios

for TSS and Conductivity in Site 2 .............................................................................22

Figure 9 Correlations Between Time of Concentration and Mass First Flush Ratios

for TSS and Conductivity in Site 3 .............................................................................22

4
 SUMMARY

Values of time of concentration (Tc) for three highway sites were estimated using different

formulas and the best design Tc was determined. Several Tc formulas available for impervious

watersheds were classified into two groups based on whether rainfall intensity is a variable in the

formula or not (Groups 1 and 2). Formulas in Group 1 are modified ASCE, Kirpich, FAA, and

SCS lag equation, returning a unique Tc value for each site. Group 1 formulas were evaluated

based on the calculated peak flow rates, and the best Tc estimation formula was determined for

each monitoring site. Five years’ rainfall data were used to prepare the partial duration series for

the frequency analysis and 2-year, 24-hour rainfall depths (P2) were obtained as a design rainfall

depth. A site survey was also conducted to obtain the longest flow length (L) and bed slope (S),

which are essential for the Tc calculation. The SCS lag formula was the best for the monitoring

sites, avoiding overestimation of design peak flow. Formulas in Group 2 are ASCE and Izzard

formulas, which include rainfall intensity as a variable in the formulas, as well as measured lag

time (distance between the centroids of hyetograph and hydrograph). Event-specific Tcs were

calculated by each formula in Group 2 using measured rainfall intensity, and the correlation

analysis for Tc and mass first flush (MFF) ratio were performed. Few relationships were

observed between Tc and MFF. However, when comparing the average MFF ratios and site-

specific Tc values from the three sites with different watershed areas, smaller watersheds tended

to have a smaller Tc and a higher MFF.

5
1. Introduction

A stormwater best management practice (BMP) is composed of several components: collection,

conveyance, treatment, and disposal of runoff. Design of these facilities requires hydrological

and hydraulic information. Drainage systems such as drain-inlets, pipes, and channels are

designed to carry the maximum flow rate. The capacity of storage systems such as detention

basins or constructed wetlands can be determined based on the runoff volume. On the other hand,

flow-through devices such as filters need flow rate for design.

An important parameter to estimate hydrological and hydraulic condition is the time of

concentration (Tc), which is used to determine peak flow rate, as well as flow patterns under

given rainfall characteristics. Tc is a site-specific parameter that depends on the rainfall and

watershed characteristics, and accordingly numerous Tc formulas have been developed.

Individual formulas have different domains of watersheds with different landuses or geometries

that the formulas were developed from. Therefore, it is important to choose an appropriate Tc

formula for design application because Tc can be underestimated or overestimated if an

inappropriate formula is used (McCuen and Spiess, 1995; Cristina and Sansalone, 2003a).

Several different formulas are available to estimate Tc for highway landuses. Tc for the

sheet flow regime in a watershed is typically determined using equations of kinematic wave form

such as the ASCE formula and the SCS formula. Formulas from Izzard, Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) are also applicable for watersheds

with highly impervious landuses.

In this study, Tc is calculated using different formulas that are considered applicable for

the highway runoff monitoring sites (Sites 1, 2, and 3) which are small impervious landuses

having relatively steep bed slopes. Using the Tc values, peak flow rates are calculated and

6
compared with real peak flow rates measured in the monitoring periods to evaluate and select the

best design value of Tc for each monitoring site. In addition, event-specific values of Tc are

calculated using measured rainfall intensity, and then compared with mass first flush ratios for

TSS and conductivity for each storm event in order to determine the relationships between water

quantity and water quality in the highway runoff.

2. Background

Tc is defined as the time required for a drop of water to travel from the most hydrologically

remote point in the catch basin to the point of collection. With uniform rainfall equally

contributed over a catch basin, outflow becomes equal to net input water after Tc, reaching

equilibrium (Viessman and Lewis, 2003). In a multi-flow segment catch basin, a representative

Tc is the summation of the travel time for each flow regime.

Numerous formulas to estimate Tc have been developed for different landuses and

geometries as summarized in Table 1. Tc is generally associated with weather and geological

parameters such as rainfall intensity, slope, and flow length.

Practically, Tc can be used to calculate a hypothetical peak discharge to determine sizes

of flood control systems such as drain pipes or inlets. The rational formula is the simplest

method for peak flow calculation. Assuming a uniform rainfall, peak discharge is calculated as

follows:

q p = CiA (1)

where qp = peak discharge (L3/T), C = runoff coefficient, i = design rainfall intensity (L/T), A =

catchment area (L2). Tc is considered a design rainfall duration to obtain i in equation (1), which

7
Table 1. Formulas for Time of Concentration (Tc)

Method Formula for tc (min) Remarks

Kirpich (1940) Tc = 0.0078 L0.77 S −0.385 Steep slope: 3-10%

Reduction factor applied for
impervious area (0.4 for
overland flow on concrete
or asphalt surface)

41.025(0.0007i + c) L0.33 Roadway and turf surfaces

Izzard (1946) Tc =
S 0.333i 0.667 i×L <500

Overland flow in urban

FAA (1970) Tc = 1.8(1.1 − C ) L0.50 / S 0.333
basins

0.94 L0.6 n 0.6 From kinematic wave

ASCE (1973) Tc =
i 0.4 S 0.3 analysis (L<300ft)

1.67 L0.8 [(1000 / CN ) − 9]0.7 Small urban basins

SCS lag (1972) Tc =
1900S 0.5 <2000acres

1 L
SCS avg. vel. charts
(1975)
Tc = ∑
60 V

is the rainfall intensity corresponding to a design return period and duration in the intensity-

duration-frequency curve (I-D-F curve), which is developed using historical rainfall data. The

IDF curve for Southern California is available in Bulletin No. 195 published by Caltrans, DWR,

and FHWA in 1976. If iso-hyetal maps are available instead of I-D-F curves, SCS’s graphical

peak discharge method can be used for the peak flow calculation as follows:

q p = qu AmQFp (2)

where qp = peak discharge (cfs), qu = unit peak discharge (cfs/mi2/in), Am = drainage area (mi2),

Q = runoff (in), Fp = pond and swamp adjustment factor.

8
 Tc can also be used to predict flow changes for the design of drain inlets and pipes, and

for the capacity of treatment systems. The detail methods for these calculations are described in

TR-55 and other publications (USDA, 1985; USDA, 1986).

Although flood control has been the main concern for hydraulic structure design, water

quality control has recently become an important issue in the stormwater runoff from highways,

which are known to generate significant amount of pollutants such as heavy metals, oil and

grease, and poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Roger et al., 1998; Furumai et al., 2002).

A representative characteristic of pollutant emission from impervious landuses is the first

flush (FF) phenomenon, suggesting the emission of a greater fraction of pollutant mass or

concentration in the early part of the runoff volume (Ma et al., 2002; Sansalone and Cristina,

2004). This phenomenon enables compact best management practice (BMP) design with high

removal efficiency by treating only the earlier part of runoff. The first flush phenomenon is

believed to be strongly related to hydrodynamic conditions as well as to the geometry of the

catchment. Numerous efforts have been made to relate pollutant washoff behaviors with rainfall

intensity, flow rate, watershed area, or bottom slope, using statistical analyses of empirical

observations (Gupta and Saul., 1996; Deletic and Maksimovic, 1998; Cristina and Sansalone,

2003b). However, no clear relationship has been found. In addition, the performance of a BMP

depends on hydrologic and hydraulic conditions (Jacopin et al., 2001; Persson and Wittgren,

2003), which make it important to consider both water quantity and quality aspects in a BMP

design.

9
3. Methodology

As described in the previous section, a formula is basically used to calculate a unique value of Tc

(for design application), which is site-specific and determines the maximum capacity of

hydraulic structures. To calculate Tc for design application, design rainfall intensity or design

rainfall depths is required. However, event-specific Tc values can also be obtained using event

rainfall intensity instead of design rainfall intensity. The event-specific Tc values depend on the

hydrodynamic conditions of each storm event and therefore can be used for the correlation

analysis with other event-specific parameters such as MFF ratios.

In this study, Tc formulas were classified into two groups as shown in Table 2: one for

design Tc (Group 1) and the other for event-specific Tc (Group 2). Formulas in Group 1 are

modified ASCE, Kirpich, FAA, and SCS lag formulas and calculate Tcs for design applications.

These formulas do not require individual storm characteristics such as measured rainfall and

runoff. Single value of Tc for each site is calculated from each formula and used to calculate

design peak flow rate of the runoff. Group 2 includes ASCE and Izzard formulas and measured

lag time. ASCE and Izzard formulas commonly include rainfall intensity as a variable: as a result,

the iterative process is required to obtain Tc for design application. In this study, these formulas

were only used to calculate event-specific values of Tc using monitored average rainfall intensity

for individual storm events. The calculated Tc values and measured lag time were compared with

mass first flush (MFF) ratios for TSS and conductivity (e.g. MFF10, MFF20) for the monitored

storm events to investigate relationships between water quality and hydrological condition. TSS

and conductivity were selected as representative pollutants in particulate and dissolved forms.

10
Table 2. Tc Formulas in Two Groups

Formulas Purposes

Group 1 Modified ASCE, Kirpich, • Site-specific Tc based on frequency

FAA, SCS lag analyses of rainfall patterns
• Determining sizes of hydraulic
structures
• Hydrological estimation

Group 2 ASCE, Izzard, ***measured • Event-specific Tc based on

lag time*** individual storm data
• Investigating relationships between
water quality and quantity

3.1 ASCE’s Tc Formula

Based on the ASCE’s kinematic wave analysis, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration

suggests the following formula to calculate Tc for the sheet flow:

0.933L0.6 n0.6
Tc = (1)
i 0.4 S 0.3

where L = overland flow length (ft); n = Manning’s roughness coefficient (sec/ft1/3); i = the

rainfall intensity (in/hr); and S = the bed slope (ft/ft). In order to calculate Tc in equation (1), the

trial and error method is used by adjusting rainfall intensity until the calculated Tc matches the

storm duration corresponding to the applied rainfall intensity for the selected recurrence interval

in the I-D-F curve. To avoid the iterative calculation process, the Soil Conservation Service

(SCS) uses the modified ASCE equation as follows:

0.007 L0.8 n0.8

Tc = (2)
P2 0.5 S 0.4

11
where P2 = 2-year, 24-hour rainfall depth (in). To apply equation (2) in this study, design rainfall

depths for three sites were obtained by frequency analysis using five years’ monitoring rainfall

data.

3.2 Site Description and Monitored Storm Events

To acquire site conditions and dimensions, the most recent construction drawings were collected

for the three first flush highway runoff characterization study sites. A site survey was also

conducted to verify the site slope, dimensions, and area for each site. Pertinent site dimensions

and related information is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Site Dimensions

Parameter Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

Area, A (m2) 12,800 16,900 3,900

Longest flow length, L (m) 304.8 370.9 178.9

Average slope, S (%) 0.17 2.70 2.50

A stormwater monitoring program has been performed for six years from 1999 to 2005

and Table 4 summarizes the storm events used for the Tc calculation and correlation study. For

the frequency analysis, the hydrologic data gathered during the 1999-05 rainy seasons were used.

12
Table 4. Storm Event Summary (1999-2005 wet seasons)

First flush highway runoff characterization monitoring sites

Site 1 (7-201) Site 2 (7-202) Site 3 (7-203)
Event Date Avg. Avg. Avg.
(m/d/y) Event Storm Total Event Storm Total Event Storm Total
Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall
Rainfall Duration Flow Rainfall Duration Flow Rainfall Duration Flow
Intensity Intensity Intensity
(cm) (hr) (m3) (cm) (hr) (m3) (cm) (hr) (m3)
(mm/hr) (mm/hr) (mm/hr)
11/08/1999 0.13 2.5 5.0 0.51
11/20/1999 0.18 0.5 5.0 3.56
12/31/1999 0.05 3.0 2.0 0.17
01/17/2000 0.13 9.6 6.4 0.13 0.18 10.2 9.7 0.17 0.15 10.2 5.9 0.15
01/25/2000 1.70 19.4 0.88 2.51 19.4 422.7 1.30 1.83 17.9 71.3 1.02
01/30/2000 0.25 11.8 8.2 0.22 1.27 2.1 205.8 6.05 1.35 14.1 52.5 0.95
02/10/2000 0.74 12.9 91.1 0.57 1.17 19 181.6 0.61 1.50 7.3 58.4 2.05
02/11/2000 1.85 2.8 6.62 2.51 4.6 313.6 5.47 2.11 4.7 82.2 4.49
02/20/2000 9.07 39.6 1092.0 2.29 9.25 38.2 1258.3 2.42 5.89 52.2 229.8 1.13
02/27/2000 0.33 5.4 20.3 0.61 0.74 5.1 71.6 1.44 1.02 4.5 39.6 2.26
03/05/2000 4.57 36.3 283.2 1.26 5.08 36.3 340.7 1.40 0.58 2.5 22.8 2.34
03/08/2000 1.78 10.8 186.6 1.65 2.34 10.6 254.9 2.20 1.88 8.8 73.3 2.14
04/17/2000 1.32 2.0 6.60 4.45 8.6 302.8 5.17 5.64 16.1 219.9 3.50
10/26/2000 2.39 11.0 260.7 2.17 2.39 11 200.8 2.17 2.59 11.8 101.0 2.20
01/08/2001 0.38 3.6 43.7 1.06 0.51 4.3 52.2 1.18 0.53 4.4 20.8 1.21
01/10/2001 12.70 16.3 1327.4 7.79 15.60 17.1 1416.2 9.12 12.85 14.6 501.2 8.80
02/10/2001 1.32 7.2 155.2 1.83 1.55 5.5 60.4 2.82
02/19/2001 0.71 4.1 80.9 1.73 2.39 8.9 261.6 2.68 3.02 6.9 117.9 4.38
02/24/2001 1.45 19.1 165.6 0.76 1.91 19.2 241.6 0.99 1.14 14.2 44.6 0.80
03/04/2001 1.19 10.2 139.1 1.17 0.89 4.6 140.2 1.93 0.51 3.7 19.8 1.37
04/06/2001 2.54 10.8 99.1 2.35
04/20/2001 0.81 5.2 79.0 1.56 3.02 9.3 501.9 3.25
10/30/2001 0.33 1.6 47.5 2.06 0.28 1.6 10.9 1.75
11/12/2001 0.79 3.9 83.9 2.02 1.19 1.7 172.3 7.02 0.74 1.4 28.7 5.26
11/24/2001 4.72 4.4 539.4 10.74 5.03 4.5 737.8 11.18 2.97 4.6 115.9 6.46
12/14/2001 0.36 4.0 52.0 0.89
12/20/2001 1.07 10.1 118.0 1.06 1.22 4.3 47.5 2.84
01/27/2002 1.19 10.1 127.4 1.18 3.18 8.6 445.6 3.69 2.46 8.6 96.1 2.86
02/17/2002 0.20 2.0 16.9 1.02 0.74 4.1 88.0 1.80 0.74 2.9 28.7 2.54
03/06/2002 0.25 4.1 25.7 0.62 0.46 10.0 17.8 0.46
03/17/2002 0.23 0.9 23.5 2.54 1.04 1.4 40.6 7.44
11/07/2002 2.90 47.5 210.3 0.61 5.87 46.5 791.8 1.26 7.14 47.1 278.4 1.52
11/29/2002 0.97 2.1 72.6 4.60 0.18 7.7 17.8 0.23 0.15 6.9 5.9 0.22
12/15/2002 0.25 3.3 30.3 0.77
12/16/2002 2.97 6.0 348.3 4.95 5.99 6.0 825.7 9.99 4.06 4.6 158.5 8.83
12/19/2002 3.61 7.2 436.4 5.01 3.25 10.4 126.8 3.13
02/11/2003 2.34 10.5 235.3 2.23 2.44 11.9 339.2 2.05 2.01 15.6 78.3 1.29
03/15/2003 6.65 18.4 481.1 3.62 12.32 21.7 480.4 5.68
04/12/2003 1.98 15.6 77.3 1.27
04/14/2003 2.13 16.0 311.3 1.33
05/02/2003 5.03 15.0 324.0 3.35
10/31/2003 0.76 12.8 17.0 0.60 1.37 7.3 179.8 1.88 2.06 7.1 80.2 2.90
11/12/2003 0.61 3.8 23.8 1.60
11/15/2003 0.20 3.4 29.5 0.60
10/16/2004 1.19 9.51 19.9 1.26 2.18 14.3 254.3 1.53
10/26/2004 6.15 21.1 704.2 2.91 4.83 21.05 711.0 2.29 4.42 10.0 172.4 4.42
12/05/2004 1.42 16.9 53.2 0.84 1.70 16.8 250.6 1.01 1.47 15.8 57.5 0.93
01/07/2005 15.60 80.6 1847.6 1.93 28.70 80.3 4392.6 3.57 20.22 13.0 788.5 15.55
02/10/2005 6.88 31.7 449.6 2.17 7.82 31.6 1011.2 2.48 5.21 29.6 203.1 1.76
03/18/2005 0.51 18.0 51.6 0.28 0.28 1.4 10.9 2.00
04/28/2005 3.28 3.5 522.0 9.36 2.97 3.5 115.9 8.49

13
3.3 Frequency Analysis of the Rainfall

Frequency analysis was conducted using partial duration series to obtain 2-year, 24-hour rainfall

depth (P2), which is required to calculate Tc in the modified ASCE equation (equation (2)). Three

different partial duration series were prepared by sorting out the three, four, and five largest

storms from each rainy season. P2 values obtained from the three different partial duration series

were compared each other.

Figure 1 shows the frequency histogram of maximum 24-hr rainfall depth from the partial

duration series using five storms for each monitoring year for the monitoring sites. Event

distributions in Figure 1 were assumed to have lognormal distribution. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show

the graphical fits of lognormal distribution from different partial duration series (three, four, and

five largest storms selected for each monitoring year) for Site 1, 2, and 3, respectively. To obtain

the rainfall depth for the 2-year return period (P2), the following equation defining the return

period of partial duration series is used (Stedinger et al., 1992).

1
= m[1 − F ] (3)
T

where T = return period, m = number of storms per year, and F = empirical estimate of frequency.

Using equation (3), F values for 2-year return period for 3-storm (m = 3), 4-storm (m = 4), and

5-storm (m = 5) partial duration series are calculated as 0.83, 0.88, and 0.90, respectively. P2

values corresponding to these frequency values on the regression line in Figures 2, 3, and 4 are

summarized in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, P2 values calculated from different series did not

significantly deviate from each other. Therefore, P2 from the 5-storm series was used in the Tc

calculation.

14
 20 0.8 20 0.8

0.7 0.7

15 0.6 15 0.6

Proportion per Bar

Proportion per Bar

0.5 0.5

Count

Count
10 0.4 10 0.4

0.3 0.3

5 0.2 5 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0.0 0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SITE1 SITE2

20 0.8

0.7

15 0.6

Proportion per Bar

0.5
Count

10 0.4

0.3

5 0.2

0.1

0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SITE3

Figure 1. Frequency Histograms of Maximum 24hr Rainfall Depth (in) for the Monitoring Sites.

Partial Duration Series - Site 1

1

S1_5 Storm
S1_4 Storm
0.5 S1_3 Storm

0
Log P

-0.5

-1

-1.5
.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

F (%)

Figure 2. Probability Plots for 24hr Rainfall Depth in Site 1 with Different Partial Duration Series.

15
 Partial Duration Series - Site 2
1

S2_5 Storm
S2_4 Storm
S2_3 Storm
0.5

Log P 0

-0.5

-1

-1.5
.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

F (%)

Figure 3. Probability Plots for 24hr Rainfall Depth in Site 2 with Different Partial Duration Series.

Partial Duration Series - Site3

0.8

S3_5 Storm
0.6 S3_4 Storm
S3_3 Storm

0.4

0.2
Log P

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

F (%)

Figure 4. Probability Plots for 24hr Rainfall Depth in Site 3 with Different Partial Duration Series.

16
Table 5. P2 (2-year, 24-hour rainfall depth) for the Monitoring Sites from the Frequency
Analysis
Partial Duration Series
Monitoring Sites NOAA*
5-Storm 4-Storm 3-Storm

Site 7-201 2.4 in 2.4 in 2.4 in 3.0

Site 7-202 3.0 in 3.0 in 3.0 in 3.0
Site 7-203 2.5 in 2.8 in 2.2 in 2.9
* Source: Atlas 2 Maps for western U.S published in 1973, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Tc for design application

Table 6 shows values of Tc calculated by the modified ASCE, Kirpich, FAA, and SCS lag

formulas in Group 1. Each formula returns a single value of Tc for each site. The Kirpich

formula returns among the smallest Tc for all sites. This might be caused by the fact that the

Kirpich formula was developed for a steep slope area (3-10%); as a result, it underestimates Tc in

mildly sloped watersheds. In contrast, the SCS lag formula returns among the largest values of Tc.

This may be because this formula was originally developed for agricultural watersheds.

Formulas with the kinematic wave forms (i.e., ASCE, modified ASCE formulas) hold for the

sheet flow with steep bed slopes. Use of this formula is typically limited by a maximum flow

length of 300 ft to insure that the kinematic assumption is valid, although there is no documented

evidence that supports this criterion. McCuen and Spiess (1995) proposed the upper limit as

nL / S less than 100 (English units) from an empirical analysis using data from 59 watersheds.

Values of nL / S for Sites 1, 2, and 3 are calculated as 267, 81, and 41, respectively, using site

dimensions in Table 3 and 0.011 of n for smooth asphalt or concrete beds. This suggests that the

17
kinematic wave Tc formula (Equations (1) and (2)) might estimate well for Sites 2 and 3, and

might not for Site 1. The FAA formula returned slightly larger values of Tc than those by the

modified ASCE formula, with little difference when 0.95 of the runoff coefficient (C) is applied

for asphalt and concrete bed surfaces.

Table 6. Time of Concentration for Design of Hydraulic Structures Calculated by Different

Methods.
Time of Concentration (Tc, min)
Remarks
Methods Site 7-201 Site 7-202 Site 7-203

Modified 13 6 4 n = 0.011 applied for smooth

ASCE concrete or asphalt

Kirpich 7 3 2
Reduction factor (0.4) applied
for concrete or asphalt surface

FAA 15 7 5 C = 0.95 for asphalt and

concrete

SCS Lag 37 11 6 CN = 98 for paved area

4.2 Peak Flow Calculation and Evaluation of Calculated Tc

Peak flow rates were calculated using different values of Tc as shown in Table 6, and evaluated

in terms of their capacity to accommodate actual peak flows generated during the storms events

in 1999-2005. SCS’s graphical peak discharge method was used. Design rainfall depth was 3.0 in

for all three sites, which was obtained from NOAA’s Atlas 2 maps (1973), showing an iso-hyetal

map of 2-year, 24-hour rainfall depth in west Los Angeles. A unit peak flow discharge graph for

type I rainfall area (Figure 5) was used to obtain the qu for the west Los Angeles area. An

example of the peak flow calculation is:

18
 • CN = 98 for all sites (pavement with larger than 95% imperviousness)

• S (potential maximum retention after runoff begins, in) = 1000/CN-10 = 0.2 in

( P − 0.2 S ) 2
• Q (runoff) = = 2.77 in where, P = design rainfall (= 3.0 in)
( P + 0.8S )

• Ia (initial abstraction) = 0.0041 in (from table 4-1 in TR-55)

• Ia/P = 0.0041/3 = 1.37x10-3

• qu is obtained from figure 8 using calculated Ia/P and Tc

o Limiting value should be used for outside of the range.

o qu for site 1, site 2 and site 3 are 400, 500, 500 csm/in, respectively.

• qp for site 1= q p = qu AmQFp = 400×0.004942108×2.77×1= 5.48 cfs (155 L/s)

qp for site 2 = 500×0.006525126×2.77×1 = 9.03 cfs (256 L/s)

qp for site 3 = 500×0.001505798×2.77×1 = 2.09 cfs (59 L/s)

Figure 5. Unit peak flow discharge with respect to Tc for different Ia/P values (type I rainfall

distribution).

19
 Table 7 summarizes peak flow rates and corresponding frequency (F) values for three

sites calculated using Tc values from different formulas through the procedure described above.

A value of F for a qp represent the probability of peak flow of a storm to be less than qp and were

obtained from the probability plots of six years’ monitoring events from 1999 to 2006 (figure 6).

Because all Tc formulas resulted in design qp values large enough to accommodate most of the

peak flows occurred for six years (F > 96%), A Tc formula resulting in less overestimated qp

should be used for cost-effective design. For example, qp obtained from SCS lag formula for site

2 (215 L/s) is among the smallest when compared to results from the other formulas, but still

much higher than the maximum qp occurred during the monitoring period. Therefore, for the

monitoring sites (site 1, site 2 and site 3), SCS lag equation, returning less overestimated peak

flow, was better than other formulas for the design purpose.

Table 7. Design peak flow rates (qp) calculated with Tc values from different formulas.

Site 7-201 Site 7-202 Site 7-203

Methods qp (L/s) F (%) qp (L/s) F (%) qp (L/s) F (%)

Modified ASCE 155 100 256 100 59 97

Kirpich 182 100 256 100 59 97

FAA 143 99 240 100 59 97

SCS Lag 101 96 215 100 59 97

F = Frequency of the qp, corresponding to the probability plot obtained from measured peak
flows (Figure 6).

20
 160
S1_peak flow
140 S2_peak flow
S3_peak flow
120
Mesured qp (L/sec)

100

80

60

40

20

0
.01 .1 1 5 10 2030 50 7080 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

F (%)

Figure 6. Probability Plots for peak flow measured in 1999-2005

4.3 Correlations between Tc and mass first flush (MFF) ratios

Tc is a function of watershed size and slope, which are also factors influencing mass emission

rate. Small watersheds with highly impervious landuse (e.g. highway, parking lot) are supposed

to have small Tc and usually have strong MFF in the pollutant emission (Ma et al., 2003;

Sansalone, 2004). Therefore, it is worth investigating relationships between Tc and MFF ratios.

To examine the relationship between Tc and MFF, values of Tc were calculated by

formulas in group 2 (i.e. ASCE and Izzard formulas) using measured rainfall intensity for each

storm event and compared to the MFF ratios for TSS and conductivity, which were considered

most representative parameters for particulate and dissolved form of pollutants. Figure 7, 8 and 9

are the correlation charts showing the correlation among MFF10 and MFF20 for TSS and

conductivity, calculated Tcs and measured lag times for the storm events monitored in 2000-2003

21
for site 1, site2 and site 3, respectively. As can be seen, no clear relationship between Tc (or lag

time) and MFF ratios was observed. It is likely because there are other factors, independent of

Tc or lag time, but highly impacting on MFF such as antecedent dry days (ADD), antecedent

event rain, rainfall duration. Rainfall type can be also an influencing parameter for MFF, which

can not be considered in Tc calculation.

In addition, calculated Tcs are poorly related to the measured lag time. The poor

correlation between Tcs obtained from formulas and measured lag times may be due to the fact

that average rainfall intensity was used to calculate Tc, but temporal change of rainfall and flow

is a primary factor that determines lag time. Tcs from Izzard and ASCE formulas have a linear

relationship as can be expected.

MFF20_COND MFF20_TSS MFF10_COND MFF10_TSS
ASCE
IZZARD
LAG_TIME

MFF10_TSS MFF10_COND MFF20_TSS MFF20_COND ASCE IZZARD LAG_TIME

Figure 7. Correlations between time of concentration and mass first flush ratios for TSS and

conductivity in site 7-201

22
 MFF20_COND MFF20_TSS MFF10_COND MFF10_TSS
ASCE
IZZARD
LAG_TIME

MFF10_TSS MFF10_COND MFF20_TSS MFF20_COND ASCE IZZARD LAG_TIME

Figure 8. Correlations between time of concentration and mass first flush ratios for TSS and

conductivity in site 7-202

MFF20_COND MFF20_TSS MFF10_COND MFF10_TSS
ASCE
IZZARD
LAG_TIME

MFF10_TSS MFF10_COND MFF20_TSS MFF20_COND ASCE IZZARD LAG_TIME

Figure 9. Correlations between time of concentration and mass first flush ratios for TSS and

conductivity in site 7-203

23
 Table 8 shows the design Tc and the MFF ratios for TSS and conductivity from

monitoring sites. MFF10 and MFF20 larger than 1 were routinely observed in the storm events

with averages of 2.0, 2.0, 2.0 and 1.6 for MFF10 and MFF20 for TSS and conductivity,

respectively. Site 3, with the smallest Tc, has the largest MFF ratios among the three monitoring

sites. Site 1 has similar MFF ratio with site 2 with 2.5 times larger Tc. Although it was difficult

to obtain general relationship between Tc and MFF ratios, a watershed with small Tc (< 37 min)

usually have first flush, having higher MFF with smaller Tc.

Table 8. Average MFF ratios for site 1, site 2 and site 3

Parameters Site 7-201 Site 7-202 Site 7-203 Combined sites

TSS MFF10 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0

MFF20 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.0

Conductivity MFF10 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0

MFF20 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.6

Design Tc (min)* 37 11 6 -
* Obtained from SCS’s Lag formula

24
5. Conclusions

Available time of concentration (Tc) formulas were evaluated to determine design Tc values for

the three highway monitoring sites (site 7-201, 7-202 and 7-203) located in west Los Angeles. In

the frequency analysis to determine 2-year, 24-hour rainfall depths (P2) for the sites, partial

duration series using 3, 4, and 5 largest storms in the periods, 1999-2003, 2004-2005. Different

partial duration series resulted in similar P2 values.

The Tc formulas were evaluated based on the capacity of resulting design peak flow. The

SCS’s lag formula provided the best Tc values with less overestimated peak flow. The values of

design Tc were 37, 11 and 6 minutes for site 7-201, 7-202 and 7-203, respectively. Design peak

flow rates were calculated using SCS’s graphical peak discharge method and larger than the

measured peak flows for 96% or more of the storm events occurred in six years from 1999 -

2006.

In addition, a correlation study for Tc and MFF was performed. Event-specific Tc values

were calculated using two Tc formulas (Izzard, ASCE) and compared with mass first flush ratios

(MFF10, MFF20) for TSS and conductivity for the storm events monitored in 1999 to 2005. No

clear relationship was found between Tc and MFF. However, when comparing average MFF

ratios and design values of Tc, site 3 with among the smallest Tc has higher first flush effect

compared to two other sites.

25
References

Ahlfeld, D.P., and Minihane, M. (2004). “Storm flow from first-flush precipitation in stormwater

design.” J. of Irrigation and Drainage Engr., ASCE, 130(4), 269-276.

Cristina, C.M., and Sansalone, J.J. (2003). “Kinematic wave model of urban pavement rainfall-

runoff subject to traffic loadings.” J. Environ. Engrg., ASCE, 129(7), 629-636.

Vidssman, W, and Lewis, G.L. (2003). Introduction to hydrology. 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, NJ.

Stedinger, J.R., Vogel, R.M., and Foufoula-Georgiou, E. (1992). “Frequency analysis of extreme

events.” Handbook of hydrology,. D.R. Maidment, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Roger, S., Montréjaud-Vignoles, M., Andral, M.C., Herremans, L. and Fortune, J.P. (1998)

Mineral, physical and chemical analysis of the solid matter carried by motorway runoff

water. Wat. Res., 32(4), 1119-1125.

Furumai, H., Balmer, H. and Boller, M. (2002) Dynamic behavior of suspended pollutants and

particle size distribution in highway runoff. Wat. Sci. Tech., 46(1), 413-418.

Jacopin, C., Lucas, E., Desbordes, M., and Bourgogne, P. (2001). “Optimisation of operational

management practices for the detention basins.” Wat. Sci. Tech., 44(2), 277-285.

Persson, J., and Wittgren, H.B. (2003). “How hydrological and hydraulic conditions affect

performance of ponds.” Ecological Engineering, 21, 259-269.

Sansalone, J.J. and Cristina, C.M. (2004). First flush concepts for suspended and dissolved solids

in small impervious watersheds. J. Environ. Engrg., ASCE, 130(11), 1301-1314.

Ma, M., Khan, S., Li, S., Kim, L.-H., Ha, S., Kayhanian, M. and Stenstrom, M.K. (2002) First

flush phenomena for highways: how it can be meaningfully defined. Proceedings of 9th

International Conference on Urban Drainage, September, Portlnad, Oregon.

26
McCuen, R.H. and Spiess, J.M. (1995). “Assessment of kinematic wave time of concentration.”

J. of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 121(3), 256-266.

Gupta, K. and Saul, A.J. (1996) Specific relationship for the first flush load in combined sewer

lows. Wat. Res., 30(5), 1244-1252.

Cristina, C.M. and Sansalone, J.J. (2003) "First Flush", Power law and particle separation

diagrams for urban storm-water suspended particulates. J. Environ. Engrg., ASCE, 129(4),

298-307.

Deletic, A.B. and Maksimovic, C.T. (1998) Evaluation of water quality factors in storm runoff

from paved areas. J. Environ. Engrg., ASCE, 124(9), 869-879.

Ma, M., Khan, S., Li, S., Kim, L.-H., Ha, S., Kayhanian, M. and Stenstrom, M.K. (2002) First

flush phenomena for highways: how it can be meaningfully defined. Proceedings of 9th

International Conference on Urban Drainage, September, Portlnad, Oregon.

Sansalone, J.J. and Cristina, C.M. (2004). First flush concepts for suspended and dissolved solids

in small impervious watersheds. J. Environ. Engrg., ASCE, 130(11), 1301-1314

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, 1985. SCS

National Engineering Handbook.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, 1986. Urban

Hydrology for small Watersheds. Technical Release 55 (TR-55).

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpnfreq.html (Western U.S. Precipitation Frequency Maps)

27