Methods of Estimating Time

of Concentration: A Case Study

of Urban Catchment of Sungai
Kerayong, Kuala Lumpur

Rofiat Bunmi Mudashiru, Ismail Abustan and Fauzi Baharudin

Abstract Characterization of hydrologic processes of a catchment in relation to

water resources structures design requires estimation of time-response character-
istics which is used in hydrologic models. The time of concentration (Tc) is an
essential component in hydrological modelling which is used in predicting the
response time of a catchment to a storm event. There are many approaches in the
estimation of time of concentration from literature. At gauged watersheds, Tc can be
estimated using rainfall and a runoff hydrograph, while for ungauged catchments,
empirical equations are used. In this study, variability of empirical methodologies
and hydrograph separation method for evaluating Tc using data from past study on
Sungai Kerayong, Kuala Lumpur is presented. Results of the study showed
Gundlach, Carter and NAASRA methods are suitable for estimating Tc in the study
area while Bransby-Williams and Ventura methods were the poorest in estimation
of Tc in the study.

Keywords Hydrological modelling  Empirical method  Hydrograph  Time of

concentration

R. B. Mudashiru (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal Polytechnic Offa,
PMB 420, Offa, Kwara State, Nigeria
e-mail: [email protected]
I. Abustan
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus,
14300 Nibong Tebal, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
F. Baharudin
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Tecknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam,
Selangor, Malaysia

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 119

F. Mohamed Nazri (ed.), Proceedings of AICCE’19, Lecture Notes in Civil
Engineering 53, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32816-0_8
120 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

1 Introduction

Determination of runoff characteristics in a catchment has always been a critical

subject in hydrological analysis. The time of concentration (Tc) is a basic catchment
response time criteria needed for forecasting of the peak discharge rate and the
timing of the flood event [1]. Nearly all hydrologic analyses depend upon one or
more time-scale parameters as input. The time of concentration (Tc) is the most
commonly used time parameter [2] because it is a key parameter in runoff esti-
mation. Time parameters describe the accumulation of excess rainfall over a
watershed and, as such, they have a direct and significant impact on the peak
discharge and shape of the hydrograph. Time parameters are linked to the physical
characteristics and the morphology of the watershed. Time parameters are an
important part of rainfall-runoff hydrologic design and modelling [3]. Tc cannot be
defined precisely, and likely differs from season to season and from storm to storm
[4]. The time of concentration is the time necessary for water to flow from the
remotest part of the outlet once the soil has become saturated and small depressions
filled to the watershed outlet. On the other hand, time of concentration tc can be
evaluated from a rainfall hyetograph and the resulting runoff hydrograph. From this
perspective, the time of concentration is the time between the centre of mass of
rainfall excess and the inflection point on the recession curve of the direct runoff
hydrograph [3]. A lot of empirical methods have been developed and used by
several authors in estimating the time of concentration in a catchment. Precision in
the estimation of Tc is very important to avoid overestimation in peak discharge
result and vice versa [5]. Still, modelers are having problems in ascertaining the
level of accuracy of these empirical methods. There has been previous effort in
evaluating the accuracy of these methods. Nagy et al. [6] found out that
Wisnovszky-equation underestimated Tc when they used HEC-HMS to model
runoff using Tc as one of the input parameters. Salimi et al. [7] used 22 methods in
estimating Tc and applied the values obtained in HEC-HMS. Their findings showed
that peak runoff values estimate from Bransby-Williams method were the most
consistent and displayed hydrologic condition of the watershed well. Almeida et al.
[8] applied hierarchical cluster analysis (Cluster) to 30 empirical methods priori-
tizing those methods that incorporated rainfall intensity to evaluate the rate of
similarity amongst the methods. Pasini’s and Ventura’s method presented the
highest similarity while Arizona DOT (Arizona Department of Transportation)
showed strong dissimilarities. Sharifi and Hosseini [2] established that California,
Kirpich and Arizona DOT equations performed outstandingly when seven Tc
equations were modified to reduce their bias. Almeida et al. [9] used graphical
method to analyze Tc and compared the results to the results of Tc obtained using
twenty empirical equations from past references. Findings showed that the graph-
ical method was efficient and dependable in determining Tc, and Ventura’s equation
was outstanding for a rural catchment in a tropical climate region.
Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 121

Understanding the role of a catchment in relation to Tc is crucial for determining

rainfall and peak flow [9]. Substantial errors in peak runoff quantification at
catchment scales can be attributed to errors in the estimation of catchment response
times like Tc and eventual false estimation of peak runoff [10]. Techniques for
estimating time parameters generally need one or more watershed characteristics.
For example, a method might require channel length or channel slope [11]. This
paper provides in-depth analysis into the variability of accuracy of the various
methods used for estimation of Tc for Sungai Kerayong Catchment in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. The study will use more referenced empirical methods to
estimate value of Tc. The additional methodologies will be explained and results
with be compared and discussed.

1.1 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to estimate the value of Tc by using Carter,
Johnstone-Cross, Hakatnir-Sezen, Gundlach, revised CUHP (Colorado Urban
Hydrograph Procedure), Papadakis-Kazan, Ventura and Arizona DOT methods.
The eight methods are used and the results of Tc evaluated was compared to the Tc
estimated from direct runoff hydrograph (DRH) for the Sungai Kerayong
Catchment in previous study by Abustan et al. [12], Baharudin [13]. In order to
evaluate the reliability of the results obtained from the DRHs and the extended
empirical formulas, Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index (NS) method was applied using
an objective function.

2 Study Area

Sungai Kerayong catchment is located in Kuala Lumpur of Peninsular Malaysia. It

has an area of 48.3 km2 and consists of four major districts namely Kuala Lumpur,
Ampang, Salak Selatan and Pekan Batu Sembilan. The elevation ranges between 30
and 175 m above mean sea level. The study area has year-round equatorial climate
which is warm and sunny, along with heavy rainfall, especially during the south-
west monsoon from April to September and has a record of 2266 mm mean annual
precipitation. Urbanization has been vast throughout the years whereby continuous
developments and increased population occurs in the study area. This has made
Sungai Kerayong catchment an ideal selection as an experimental urban catchment
to monitor the hydrological characteristics and time response parameters of the area.
The study area is shown in Fig. 1 and the Stream network and subcatchments are
shown in Fig. 2.
122 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Fig. 1 Map of the Sungai Kerayong catchment area

Fig. 2 Stream network and sub catchment map

2.1 Previous Studies

There have been various and extensive studies on Tc estimation. There are two
common approaches developed to estimate Tc, first is the velocity-based method
[3]. (i) The hydraulics aspect wherein empirical equations that are regression based
can be used in the analysis. (ii) The second approach is based on time-lag method
where Tc can be computed from time difference between the end of rainfall excess
Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 123

and the inflection point. For this study various empirical methods will be explained
and summarized here. A review of study of rainfall-runoff characteristics by
Abustan et al. [12], Baharudin [13] for Sungai Kerayong will be conducted and
eight more empirical approach will be used for further analysis to check the most
suitable method for the study area (Table 1).

Table 1 Summarized empirical methods

References/ Equation Remark
equation name
Carter [14] Tc ¼ 0:0015476L0:6 S0:3 Data of an urban basin in the USA
L = Length of the watershed along the (A < 20.72 km2) and (S < 0.005)
main channel from the hydraulically most [15]. Developed for urban
distant point to outlet, m watersheds area less than
S = average slope of watershed, m/m 20:719 km2 (8 mile2)
Tc = Time of Concentration, h Channel length less than 11.26 km
(7 mile) [2]
Applicable to natural watersheds
and partially severed land uses [3]
n o
Chen and Wong 0:21ðKv Þk CL2k Can be applied to small basins with
TC ¼ Sin1 þ k
o

[16] flow regimes from turbulent to

K = 3.6  10 6
laminar [16]
v = kinematic viscosity of water, m2/s Overland flow on test plots of 1 m
Lo = Length of overland plane, m wide by 25 m long. Slopes of 2
S = Slope of overland plane, m/m and 5% [7]
C, k = constants (for smooth paved
surfaces, C = 3, k = 0.5. For grass, C = 1,
k = 0)
i = net rainfall intensity, mm/h
L0:8 ½1000
CN 9
0:7
NRCS [17] Applicable to small rural
Tc ¼ 441Y 0:5
catchment of 1–800 ha, rural
Tc = time of concentration, h catchment with a flow length
L = length of mainstream to farthest divide, between 60 and 7900 m, and an
m average watershed slope between
Y = average watershed slope, % 0.5 and 64%
CN = NRCS curve number
h i
3 0:385
Kirpich [18] Works well for a natural, rural
Tc ¼ 0:948LH basin with well-defined channels,
Tc = time of concentration, h developed for small drainage
L = length of the longest waterway from basins with basin areas of 1–
the point in question to the basin divide, km 112 acres (0.40–45.3 ha)
H = difference in elevation between the
point in question and the basin divide
(omitting drops due to gully overfills,
waterfalls, etc.), m
 0:467
Kerby [19] To ¼ K LNS0:5 Developed for watershed of less
To = time of overland flow, min than 4 ha and slope less than 1%
K = 1.44 Analysis of overland flow in
L = length of flow, m experimental surfaces
N = retardance roughness coefficient (see (L < 0.37 km) [15]
(NRCS)TR 20 Example Problem: Methods
for Calculating Time of Concentration)
S = average slope of overland flow,
decimal
(continued)
124 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Table 1 (continued)
References/ Equation Remark
equation name
FHWA [20] To ¼ 6:92L
0:6 0:6
n Analysis of overland flow in
ðCiÞ0:4 S0:3
experimental surfaces
To = time of overland flow, min
(L < 0.03 km) [15]
L = overland flow length, m
n = Manning roughness coefficient
C = runoff coefficient
i = rainfall rate, mm/h
S = average slope of the overland area,
decimal
Williams [21] Tc ¼ 60LA0:4 D1 S0:2 Applicable to basin areas less than
Tc = time of concentration, m 50 mile2 (129.5 km2)
L = basin length, mile
A = basin area, mile2
D = diameter (mile) of a circular basin of
area
S = basin slope, %
Izzard and Hicks Tc ¼ 41:025ð0:0007i þ cÞL0:33 S0:333 i0:667 Hydraulically derived formula;
[22] Tc = time of concentration, m values of c range from 0.007 for
i = rainfall intensity, in./h very smooth pavement to 0.012 for
c = retardance coefficient concrete pavement to 0.06 for
L = length of flow path, ft dense turf
S = slope of flow path, ft/ft
Morgali and Tc ¼ 0:94L0:6 n0:6 S0:3 i0:4 Applicable to small catchment [7].
Linsley [23] L = length of overland flow, ft For small urban areas with
n = manning roughness coefficient drainage areas less than 10 or
S = average overland slope, ft/ft 12 acres [15]
i = rainfall intensity, in./h
P L 
United States Tc ¼ 1=60 V
Developed as a sum of individual
Soil Tc = time of concentration, m travel times. V can be calculated
Conservation L = length of flow path, ft using Manning’s equation
Service V = average velocity in ft/s for various
(SCS) [24] surfaces
(The exponent of S, if converted from
Manning’s equation, will be −0.5)
Johnstone and Tc ¼ 300L0:5 S0:5 Developed for basins with areas
Cross [25] Tc = time of concentration, h between 25 and 1624 mile2 (64.7
L = basin length, mile and 4206.1 km2)
S = basin slope, ft/mile
Or
Tc ¼ 3:258L0:5 S0:5
Tc = time of concentration, m
L = basin length, km
S = basin slope, m/m
n o0:6
Yen and Chow Developed for overland flow for
To ¼ 1:2 nL o
[26] So small catchments
To = time of overland flow, min
Lo = overland flow length, m
n = Manning roughness coefficient of
overland surface
So = average slope of the overland area,
decimal
(continued)
Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 125

Table 1 (continued)
References/ Equation Remark
equation name
Bransby [27] Tc ¼ A0:1
58L
Se0:2
Specially recommended for rural
Tc = time of concentration, m basin [15]
Lo = overland flow length, m Applicable to big catchments [7]
n = Manning roughness coefficient of
overland surface
So = slope of overland plane, m/m
h i0:27
Gundlach [28] Applicable to urban catchments
Tc ¼ 5:69 SAc ð1 þ 30I Þ0:6
[29]
A = drainage area of the basin km2
Sc = slope of the main channel in the
direction of flow (m km−1)
I = is the fraction of the basin area that is
impervious
ARR [30] 42:6N L0:333 Applicable for urban catchments
To ¼ a o
S0:2
o
To = time of overland flow, min
Lo = overland flow length, m
Nk = NAASRA retardance coefficient
So = average slope of the overland area,
decimal
Haktanir and TL ¼ 0:2685Lm 0:841 Data of 10 basins in Turkey (10–
Sezen [31] Lm = length of the main channel, in km 10,000 km2) [31]
Tl = is lag time, in h
Tc is derived from lag time based on the
NRCS relationship TL = 0.6 Tc [17]
Therefore Tc ¼ 0:4475L0:841 m
USDCM [32] Tc1 ¼ ti þ tt Adequate for distances up to 300 ft
CUHP (2005) Tc1 = computed time of concentration, min in urban areas and 500 ft in rural
ti = overland (initial) flow time, min areas
tt = channel flowptime, ffiffiffi min It was created using the UDFCD
ti ¼ 0:395 ½1:1C 5  Li
0:33
So
database that includes 295 sample
urban catchments under 2-, 5-, 10-,
ti = overland (initial) flow time, min
50-, and 100-year storm events
C5 = runoff coefficient for 5-year frequency
[33]. It indicates that both initial
Li = length of overland flow, ft
flow time and channelized flow
So = average slope of the overland flow
velocity are directly related to the
path, ft/ft
catchment’s imperviousness [34]
tt ¼ 60KLpt ffiffiffi
So
ffi ¼ 60V
Lt
t
tt = channel flow time (travel time, min)
Lt = waterway length, ft
So = waterway slope, ft/ft
Vt = travel time velocity, ft/s = K√So
K = NRCS conveyance n factor o
Lt pffiffiffi
Tc2 ¼ ð26  17iÞ þ 60ð14i þ 9Þ St
Tc2 = minimum time of concentration for
first design point when less than Tc1
Lt = length of channel flow path, ft
i = impervious surface % (expressed as a
decimal)
St = slope of the channelized flow
path, ft/ft
(continued)
126 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Table 1 (continued)
References/ Equation Remark
equation name
 0:5
Salimi et al. [7] Applicable to rural basins [7]
Tc ¼ 7:62 A=S
Tc = time of concentration, min
A = surface of the basin, km2
S = average slope of the hydraulic
way, m/m
0:2
ARIZONA DOT Tc ¼ 0:0097956A0:1 ð1000LÞ0:25 L0:25
ca S
Developed from data of
[35] Tc: time of concentration, h agricultural basins [15]
L: flow path length, km
Lca: mean length starting from the
concentration spot along the L up to the
spot where L is perpendicular to the
centroid of the catchment, m
A: catchment area, km2
S: flow path slope, m/m
Papadakis and Tc ¼ 0:66L0:5 n0:52 S0:31 i0:38 Developed from Agricultural
Kazan [36] Tc = time of concentration, min Research Service (ARS) data of 84
L = length of the longest waterway, ft small rural watersheds from 22
S = slope of the flow path, % states across the United States [37]
i = intensity of the rainfall excess, in./h
n = roughness coefficient (Manning’s n
value for channel)
Guo and Tc ¼ to þ tf Maximum Tc was found to be only
Urbonas [38] to = overland flow time, min applicable to watersheds with
CUHP (2008) tf = channel flowptime,ffiffiffiffi min imperviousness less than 20%
to ¼ 0:395 ½1:1C  Lo
S0:33
TR applicable to Imp > 20%
o in which TR = regional time of
to = overland flow time, min concentration in minutes
Lo = overland flow length, ft
So = overland flow slope, ft/ft
tf ¼ p ffiffiffiffi
Lf
60K Sf
Lf = channel flow length, ft
K = conveyance coefficient,
Sf = channel slope, ft/ft, and
C = design event’s runoff coefficient (i.e.,
not the runoff coefficient for the 5-year
event, C5), in 2001 USDCM
L þL
TR ¼ o180 f þ 10
where TR = regional time of concentration
in minutes for catchments with
imperviousness greater than 20%
Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 127

3 Materials and Methods

The data used in this study are retrieved from study of rainfall-runoff characteristics
of Sungai Kerayong [13]. Rainfall and water level data from Malaysia Department
of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) and parameters for cross sections of the channels
from channel survey and satellite images for assessing initial condition of channels
were used to establish discharge for the storm events using Manning’s equation.
The study area was delineated into three sub-catchments namely the Kg. Cheras
Baru, Taman Miharja and the Taman Desa. A summary of catchment parameters
used for Tc estimation is presented in Tables 2 and 3. The elevation map of Sungai
Kerayong catchment is shown in Fig. 3. Runoff co-efficient value C of 0.60 was
used for the three sub-catchments for revised CUHP because of the level of
urbanization of the study area.
Estimation of Tc for the sub-catchments were done after establishing all needed
parameters for each equation. Five new empirical equations are selected to evaluate
Tc for the study area based on the characteristics of the study area and suitability of
the empirical methods relative to their past recommendations. Rainfall intensity of
150 mm/h was adopted for the study from MSMA [39]. The formula TR was
adopted for the revised CUHP as the percentage of impervious surface for the study
area was 76.2%.
The previous work by Baharudin [13] used direct runoff hydrographs (DRH) to
estimate the time of concentration of the catchments for 20 storm events. The DRH
of a storm event for each catchment is shown in Fig. 4 and other storm events are
presented in the Appendix.

Table 2 Summary of parameters required for estimation of Tc using empirical equations

Sub-catchment Area, Length of Length of Slope of Slope Average
area km2 channel, overland plane overland (Sch) velocity
m (Lo), m plane (So) (Vavg), m/s
Kg. Cheras 13.9 2851 2064 0.027 0.0041 3.07
Baru
Taman Miharja 13.7 5802 3458 0.00434 0.0045 1.76
Taman Desa 20.7 12021 3458 0.00434 0.0040 1.77

Table 3 Summary of additional parameters required for estimation of Tc using empirical

equations
Sub-catchment Time of Manning Channel flow Impervious Equal area
area channel flow roughness length (m) fraction (I) slope of
(tch = Lch/ coefficient channel,
Vavg), min (n) m/km
Kg. Cheras 15.5 0.011 2.437 0.691 2.807
Baru
Taman Miharja 54.9 0.035 1.1806 0.787 2.807
Taman Desa 113.2 0.035 0.86099 0.885 2.807
128 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Fig. 3 Elevation map

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 30 September 2001 at Taman Desa

60 0.0
Rainfall Excess
Losses
1.0
Direct Runoff
50
2.0

40 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

4.0 Rainfall (mm)

30
5.0

20 6.0

7.0
10
8.0
Tc

0 9.0
13:23:00

14:08:00

14:53:00

15:38:00

16:23:00

17:08:00

17:53:00

18:38:00

19:23:00

20:08:00

20:53:00

21:38:00

22:23:00

23:08:00

23:53:00

0:38:00

1:23:00

2:08:00

2:53:00

3:38:00

4:23:00

5:08:00

5:53:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Fig. 4 Tc = 150 min (Taman Desa, 30-09-2001)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 129

Table 4 Summary of estimated Tc for the study area by Baharudin [13] and newly included
methods
Empirical Tc estimated for Tc estimated for Tc estimated for Kg.
equation name Taman Desa, min Taman Miharja, min Cheras Baru, min
Yen and Chow 176.1 117.8 42.2
NAASRA 141.8 83.5 32.2
Kerby 150.5 92.2 34.4
Bransby-Williams 348.8 196.5 103
Gundlach 80.07 76.65 82.91
Hakatnir-Sezen 217.36 117.79 64.80
Johnstone-Cross 178.60 116.99 85.91
Revised CUHP 47.664 73.05 73.04
Carter 136.5 85.11 57.14
Papadakis-Kazan 64.67 43.32 17.12
Ventura 548.16 420.44 443.44
Arizona DOT 192.77 150.60 113.07

The results for estimated Tc by Baharudin [13] and eight new methods are
summarized in Table 4.

4 Results and Discussions

Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index (NS) method was used to evaluate the reliability of
results from the DRH plots and the empirical formulas. This was done between the
estimated Tc and the observed Tc. The results for the newly estimated Tc and
previous study results are summarized in Table 5 for the three catchments in the
study area.
The results of the NS values varied for all the three catchment areas. The
methods which presented the best values for the three sub-catchment areas were
highlighted in red in Table 5. Among the eleven empirical formulas used to eval-
uate Tc for Kg. Cheras Baru, Carter equation showed the best agreement with the Tc
value of 57.14 min when compared to average observed Tc of 52.5 min while the
Ventura method performed worst. The Gundlach equation performed best in Taman
Miharja catchment area with Tc value 76.65 min compared to the average observed
Tc of 79.5 min and Ventura still maintained worst performance for the catchment.
The NAASRA equation maintained its best position of evaluating Tc for Kg. Cheras
Baru from previous study of the catchment area and the Ventura and
Bransby-Williams equation performed worst for this catchment as well. The reason
for this poor output is because both methods have been recommended for esti-
mation of time of concentration rural basins from previous studies.
130 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Table 5 NS values obtained for the Tc empirical equation in comparison to observed Tc

Empirical equation Catchment area
Kg. Cheras Baru Taman Miharja Taman Desa
Revised CUHP −1.6521 −0.1311 −11.3244
Gundlach −3.6116 −0.0256 −4.7424
Hakatnir-Sezen −0.6006 −4.6214 −8.1399
Johnstone-Cross −4.3576 −4.4303 −2.0528
Carter −0.0921 −0.0992 −0.0121
Papadakis-Kazan −4.8856 −4.1261 −7.5187
Ventura −595.5261 −366.3990 −224.2403
Arizona DOT −14.3034 −15.9345 −3.8103
Yen and Chow −0.4216 −4.6238 −1.7987
NAASRA −1.6139 −0.0504 −0.0071
Kerby −1.2848 −0.5084 −0.1625
Bransby-Williams −9.9453 −43.1489 −58.8204

5 Conclusion

Identifying the sensitivity of time of concentration is very crucial in evaluating the

response time of runoff generation in an urban catchment. In this review study,
Gundlach, Hakatnir-Sezen, Carter, Johnstone-Cross, revised CUHP,
Papadakis-Kazan, Ventura and Arizona DOT empirical methods were used to
further estimate the value of time of concentration of Sungai Kerayong urban
catchment area of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Previous study used rainfall-runoff
hydrograph analysis and four empirical methods in estimation of Tc. From the
findings of the study Gundlach, Carter and NAASRA methods performed best in
estimating Tc and can be adopted in the region. Gundlach, NAASRA and Carter
methods level of performance can be attributed to the method incorporating
impervious fraction, area, length, roughness coefficient and slope which are
important parameters in an urban catchment while the Bransby-Williams and
Ventura can be concluded not suitable for evaluating Tc for an urban catchment. It
can be recommended from this study findings that further data of time of con-
centration from several catchments by different methods can be gathered for
machine learning like SVM, ANN which can help in predicting time of concen-
tration of various catchment characteristics.

Appendix

See Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61.
Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 131

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 1 July 2001 at Taman Desa

70.000 0.0

1.0
60.000

2.0

50.000
3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

Rain (mm)
40.000
4.0

5.0
30.000

6.0
20.000

7.0

10.000
Tc 8.0

0.000 0:35:00 9.0

1:35:00

2:20:00

3:05:00

3:50:00

4:50:00

5:50:00

6:35:00

7:20:00
12:05:00

12:50:00

13:35:00

14:35:00

15:20:00

16:05:00

16:50:00

17:35:00

18:20:00

19:05:00

19:50:00

20:35:00

21:20:00

22:05:00

22:50:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 5 Tc = 195 min (Taman Desa, 01-07-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 30 July 2001 at Taman Desa

20 0.0

18

0.5
16

14
1.0

12
Rain (mm)
Discharge (m3/s)

10 1.5

2.0
6

4
2.5

0 3.0
10:17:00

10:47:00

11:32:00

12:02:00

12:32:00

13:02:00

13:32:00

14:02:00

14:32:00

15:02:00

15:32:00

16:02:00

16:47:00
5:17:00

5:47:00

6:17:00

6:47:00

7:17:00

7:47:00

8:17:00

8:47:00

9:17:00

9:47:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 6 Tc = 135 min (Taman Desa, 30-07-2001)

132 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 6 October 2001 at Taman Desa

100.000 0.0

90.000 1.0

80.000 2.0

70.000 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

60.000 4.0

Rain (mm)
50.000 5.0

40.000 6.0

30.000 7.0

20.000 8.0

10.000 9.0
Tc

0.000 10.0
15:23:00

15:53:00

16:23:00

16:53:00

17:23:00

17:53:00

18:23:00

18:53:00

19:23:00

19:53:00

20:23:00

20:53:00

21:23:00

21:53:00

22:23:00

22:53:00

23:23:00

23:53:00

0:23:00

0:53:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 7 Tc = 135 min (Taman Desa, 06-10-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 16 October 2001 at Taman Desa

45.000 0.0

40.000 1.0

35.000
2.0

30.000
Discharge (m3/s)

3.0
Rain (mm)

25.000
4.0
20.000

5.0
15.000

6.0
10.000
Tc
5.000 7.0

0.000 8.0
10:23:00

10:53:00

11:23:00

11:53:00

12:23:00

12:53:00

13:23:00

13:53:00

14:23:00

14:53:00

15:23:00

15:53:00
4:53:00

5:23:00

5:53:00

6:23:00

6:53:00

7:23:00

7:53:00

8:23:00

8:53:00

9:23:00

9:53:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 8 Tc = 165 min (Taman Desa, 16-10-2001)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 133

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 28 October 2001 at Taman Desa

80.000 0.0

70.000
1.0

60.000

2.0
Discharge (m3/s)

50.000

Rain (mm)
40.000 3.0

30.000
4.0

20.000
Tc
5.0
10.000

0.000 6.0
16:23:00

16:53:00

17:23:00

17:53:00

18:23:00

18:53:00

19:23:00

19:53:00

20:23:00

20:53:00

21:23:00

21:53:00

22:23:00

22:53:00

23:23:00

23:53:00

0:23:00

0:53:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 9 Tc = 120 min (Taman Desa, 28-10-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 9 November 2001

120.000 0.0

1.0

100.000
2.0

3.0
80.000
Discharge (m3/s)

Rainfall (mm)

4.0

60.000 5.0

6.0

40.000
7.0

8.0
20.000
Tc 9.0

0.000 10.0
19:37:00

20:07:00

20:37:00

21:07:00

21:37:00

22:07:00

22:37:00

23:07:00

23:37:00

0:07:00

0:37:00

1:07:00

1:37:00

2:07:00

2:37:00

3:07:00

3:37:00

4:07:00

4:37:00

5:07:00

5:37:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 10 Tc = 120 min (Taman Desa, 09-11-2001)

134 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 19 November 2001

180.000 0.0

160.000

140.000 5.0

120.000
Discharge (m3/s)

100.000 10.0

80.000

60.000 15.0

40.000

Tc
20.000
20.0

0.000
3:22:00
3:52:00
4:22:00
4:52:00
5:22:00
5:52:00
6:22:00
6:52:00
7:22:00
7:52:00
8:22:00
8:52:00
9:22:00
9:52:00
10:22:00
10:52:00
11:22:00
11:52:00
12:22:00
12:52:00
13:22:00
13:52:00
14:22:00
14:52:00
15:22:00
15:52:00
16:22:00
16:52:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rain Losses Direct runoff

Fig. 11 Tc = 120 min (Taman Desa, 19-11-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 1 December 2001

160.000 0.0

2.0
140.000

4.0
120.000
6.0

100.000
Discharge (m3/s)

8.0

80.000 10.0

12.0
60.000

14.0
40.000
16.0

20.000
18.0
Tc
0.000 20.0
13:22:00

13:52:00

14:22:00

14:52:00

15:22:00

15:52:00

16:22:00

16:52:00

17:22:00

17:52:00

18:22:00

18:52:00

19:22:00

19:52:00

20:22:00

20:52:00

21:22:00

21:52:00

22:22:00

22:52:00

23:22:00

23:52:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 12 Tc = 165 min (Taman Desa, 01-12-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 135

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 21 February 2002

120 0.0

2.0
100

4.0
80
Discharge (m3/s)

6.0

60

8.0

40
10.0

20
12.0
Tc

0 14.0
15:01:00
15:31:00
16:01:00
16:31:00
17:01:00
17:31:00
18:01:00
18:31:00
19:01:00
19:31:00
20:01:00
20:31:00
21:01:00
21:31:00
22:01:00
22:31:00
23:01:00
23:31:00
0:01:00
0:31:00
1:01:00
1:31:00
2:01:00
2:31:00
3:01:00
3:31:00
4:01:00
4:31:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 13 Tc = 135 min (Taman Desa, 21-02-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 23 April 2002

300 0.0

2.0

250
4.0

6.0
200
Discharge (m3/s)

8.0

150 10.0

12.0

100
14.0

16.0
50

18.0
Tc
0 20.0
15:15:00

15:45:00

16:15:00

16:45:00

17:15:00

17:45:00

18:15:00

18:45:00

19:15:00

19:45:00

20:15:00

20:45:00

21:15:00

21:45:00

22:15:00

22:45:00

23:15:00

23:45:00

0:15:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 14 Tc = 135 min (Taman Desa, 23-04-2002)

136 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 27 April 2002

120 0.0

100 2.0

Rainfall Excess (mm)

80 4.0
Discharge (m3/s)

60 6.0

40 8.0

20 10.0
Tc

0 12.0
14:15:00

14:45:00

15:15:00

15:45:00

16:15:00

16:45:00

17:15:00

17:45:00

18:15:00

18:45:00

19:15:00

19:45:00

20:15:00

20:45:00

21:15:00

21:45:00

22:15:00

22:45:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 15 Tc = 90 min (Taman Desa, 27-04-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 20 May 2002

70.000 0.0

1.0
60.000
2.0

50.000 3.0
Rainfall Excess (mm)

4.0
40.000
Discharge (m3/s)

5.0

30.000
6.0

20.000 7.0

8.0
10.000
Tc 9.0

0.000 10.0
16:40:00
17:10:00
17:40:00
18:10:00
18:40:00
19:10:00
19:40:00
20:10:00
20:40:00
21:10:00
21:40:00
22:10:00
22:40:00
23:10:00
23:40:00
0:10:00
0:40:00
1:10:00
1:40:00
2:10:00
2:40:00
3:10:00
3:40:00
4:10:00
4:40:00
5:10:00
5:40:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 16 Tc = 120 min (Taman Desa, 20-05-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 137

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 2 June 2002

250 0.0

200 5.0
Discharge (m3/s)

150 10.0

Rain (mm)
100 15.0

50 20.0

Tc

0 25.0
17:55:00

18:40:00

19:25:00

20:10:00

20:55:00

21:40:00

22:25:00

23:10:00

23:55:00

0:40:00

1:25:00

2:10:00

2:55:00

3:40:00

4:25:00

5:10:00

5:55:00

6:40:00

7:25:00

8:10:00

8:55:00

9:40:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 17 Tc = 180 min (Taman Desa, 02-06-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 16 June 2002 at Taman Desa

350.000 0.0

2.0
300.000
4.0

250.000 6.0
Discharge (m3/s)

8.0
Rain (mm)

200.000

10.0

150.000
12.0

100.000 14.0

16.0
50.000
Tc 18.0

0.000 20.0
17:27:00

17:57:00

18:27:00

18:57:00

19:27:00

19:57:00

20:27:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 18 Tc = 120 min (Taman Desa, 16-06-2002)

138 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 8 October 2002 at Taman Desa

350.000 0.0

2.0
300.000

4.0

250.000
6.0
Discharge (m3/s)

200.000
8.0

150.000 10.0

12.0
100.000

14.0

50.000
16.0
Tc
0.000 18.0
16:00:00
16:30:00
17:00:00
17:30:00
18:00:00
18:30:00
19:00:00
19:30:00
20:00:00
20:30:00
21:00:00
21:30:00
22:00:00
22:30:00
23:00:00
23:30:00
0:00:00
0:30:00
1:00:00
1:30:00
2:00:00
2:30:00
3:00:00
3:30:00
4:00:00
4:30:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 19 Tc = 195 min (Taman Desa, 08-10-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 7 November 2002

300.000 0.0

250.000
5.0

200.000
Discharge (m3/s)

10.0
Rain (mm)

150.000

15.0

100.000

20.0
50.000

Tc

0.000 25.0
15:25:00

16:10:00

16:55:00

17:40:00

18:25:00

19:10:00

19:55:00

20:40:00

21:25:00

22:10:00

22:55:00

23:40:00

0:25:00

1:10:00

1:55:00

2:40:00

3:25:00

4:10:00

4:55:00

5:40:00

6:25:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 20 Tc = 135 min (Taman Desa, 07-10-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 139

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 13 November 2002 at Taman Desa

100.000 0.0

90.000 1.0

80.000 2.0

70.000 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

60.000 4.0

Rain (mm)
50.000 5.0

40.000 6.0

30.000 7.0

20.000 8.0

10.000 9.0
Tc

0.000 10.0
0:25:00

0:55:00

1:25:00

1:55:00

2:25:00

2:55:00

3:25:00

3:55:00

4:25:00

4:55:00

5:25:00

5:55:00

6:25:00

6:55:00

7:25:00

7:55:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Loss Direct Runoff

Fig. 21 Tc = 150 min (Taman Desa, 13-11-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 13 January 2003

30.000 0.0

0.5

25.000
1.0

1.5
Rainfall Excess (mm)

20.000
Discharge (m3/s)

2.0

15.000 2.5

3.0

10.000
3.5

4.0
5.000
Tc
4.5

0.000 5.0
15:25:00

15:55:00

16:25:00

16:55:00

17:25:00

17:55:00

18:25:00

18:55:00

19:25:00

19:55:00

20:25:00

20:55:00

21:25:00

21:55:00

22:25:00

22:55:00

23:25:00

23:55:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 22 Tc = 135 min (Taman Desa, 13-01-2003)

140 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph of Storm Event on 6 January 2003

140.000 0.0

120.000 2.0

100.000 4.0
Discharge (m3/s)

Rainfall (mm)
80.000 6.0

60.000 8.0

40.000 10.0

20.000 12.0
Tc

0.000 14.0
19:10:00
19:40:00
20:10:00
21:10:00
21:40:00
22:10:00
22:40:00
23:10:00
23:40:00
0:10:00
0:40:00
1:10:00
1:40:00
2:10:00
2:40:00
3:10:00
3:40:00
4:10:00
4:40:00
5:10:00
5:40:00
6:10:00
6:40:00
7:10:00
7:40:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 23 Tc = 150 min (Taman Desa, 06-01-2003)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 19 July 2001 at Taman Miharja

0.0
70

60 5.0

50
Discharge (m3/s)

10.0
Rain (mm)

40

30 15.0

20
20.0
10

0 25.0
16:06:00
16:21:00
16:36:00
16:51:00
17:06:00
17:21:00
17:36:00
17:51:00
18:06:00
18:21:00
18:36:00
18:51:00
19:06:00
19:21:00
19:36:00
19:51:00
20:06:00
20:21:00
20:36:00
20:51:00
21:06:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 24 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 19-07-2001)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 141

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 14 August 2001 at Taman Miharja

200 0.0

180 2.0

160 4.0

140 6.0
Discharge (m3/s)

120 8.0

Rain (mm)
100 10.0

80 12.0

60 14.0

40 16.0

20 18.0

0 20.0
16:00:00

16:30:00

17:00:00

17:30:00

18:00:00

18:30:00

19:00:00

19:30:00

20:00:00

20:30:00

21:00:00

21:30:00

22:00:00

22:30:00

23:00:00

23:30:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 25 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 14-08-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 15 September 2001 at Taman Miharja

250 0.0

200 5.0
Discharge (m3/s)

150 10.0
Rian (mm)

100 15.0

50 20.0

0 25.0
20:33:00

21:03:00

21:33:00

22:03:00

22:33:00

23:03:00

23:33:00

0:03:00

0:33:00

1:03:00

1:33:00

2:03:00

2:33:00

3:03:00

3:33:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 26 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 15-09-2001)

142 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 19 September 2001

200 0.0

180 2.0

160 4.0

140 6.0
Discharge (m3/s)

120 8.0

Rain (mm)
100 10.0

80 12.0

60 14.0

40 16.0

20 18.0

0 20.0
18:33:00

19:03:00

19:33:00

20:03:00

20:33:00

21:03:00

21:33:00

22:03:00

22:33:00

23:03:00

23:33:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff Hydrograph

Fig. 27 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 19-09-2001)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 143

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 30 September 2001 at Taman Miharja

50 0.0

45 1.0

40 2.0

35 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

30 4.0

Rain (mm)
25 5.0

20 6.0

15 7.0

10 8.0

5 9.0

0 10.0
13:33:00
13:48:00
14:03:00
14:18:00
14:33:00
14:48:00
15:03:00
15:18:00
15:33:00
15:48:00
16:03:00
16:18:00
16:33:00
16:48:00
17:03:00
17:18:00
17:33:00
17:48:00
18:03:00
18:18:00
18:33:00
18:48:00
19:03:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 28 Tc = 105 min (Taman Miharja, 30-09-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 16 October 2001 at Taman Miharja

100 0.0

90 1.0

80 2.0

70 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

60 4.0
Rain (mm)

50 5.0

40 6.0

30 7.0

20 8.0

10 9.0

0 10.0
5:33:00
6:03:00
6:33:00
7:03:00
7:33:00
8:03:00
8:33:00
9:03:00
9:33:00
10:03:00
10:33:00
11:03:00
11:33:00
12:03:00
12:33:00
13:03:00
13:33:00
14:03:00
14:33:00
15:03:00
15:33:00
16:03:00
16:33:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 29 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 16-10-2001)

144 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 27 December 2001 at Taman Miharja

30 0.0

0.5

25
1.0

1.5
20

2.0
Discharge (m3/s)

Rain (mm)
15 2.5

3.0

10
3.5

4.0
5

4.5

0 5.0
18:32:00
18:47:00
19:02:00
19:17:00
19:32:00
19:47:00
20:02:00
20:17:00
20:32:00
20:47:00
21:02:00
21:17:00
21:32:00
21:47:00
22:02:00
22:17:00
22:32:00
22:47:00
23:02:00
23:17:00
23:32:00
23:47:00
0:02:00
0:17:00
0:32:00
0:47:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 30 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 27-12-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 19 January 2002 at Taman Miharja

20.000 0.0

18.000 1.0

16.000 2.0

14.000 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

Rain (mm)

12.000 4.0

10.000 5.0

8.000 6.0

6.000 7.0

4.000 8.0

2.000 9.0

0.000 10.0
15:54:00
16:09:00
16:24:00
16:39:00
16:54:00
17:09:00
17:24:00
17:39:00
17:54:00
18:09:00
18:24:00
18:39:00
18:54:00
19:09:00
19:24:00
19:39:00
19:54:00
20:09:00
20:24:00
20:39:00
20:54:00
21:09:00
21:24:00
21:39:00
21:54:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 31 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 19-01-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 145

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 21 February 2002 at Taman Miharja

0.0

140.00

120.00 5.0

100.00
Discharge (m3/s)

10.0

Rain (mm)
80.00

60.00 15.0

40.00

20.0

20.00

0.00 25.0
15:14:00

15:44:00

16:14:00

16:44:00

17:14:00

17:44:00

18:14:00

18:44:00

19:14:00

19:44:00

20:14:00

20:44:00

21:14:00

21:44:00

22:14:00

22:44:00

23:14:00

23:44:00

0:14:00

0:44:00

1:14:00

1:44:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 32 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 21-02-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 22 April 2002 at Taman Miharja

80.000 0.0

70.000
2.0

60.000

4.0
Discharge (m3/s)

50.000
Rain (mm)

40.000 6.0

30.000
8.0

20.000

10.0
10.000

0.000 12.0
13:54:00

14:09:00

14:24:00

14:39:00

14:54:00

15:09:00

15:24:00

15:39:00

15:54:00

16:09:00

16:24:00

16:39:00

16:54:00

17:09:00

17:24:00

17:39:00

17:54:00

18:09:00

18:24:00

18:39:00

18:54:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)
Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 33 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 22-04-2002)

146 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 23 April 2002 at Taman Miharja

200.000 0.0

180.000 2.0

160.000 4.0

140.000 6.0
Discharge (m3/s)

120.000 8.0

Rain (mm)
100.000 10.0

80.000 12.0

60.000 14.0

40.000 16.0

20.000 18.0

0.000 20.0
14:54:00

15:24:00

15:54:00

16:24:00

16:54:00

17:24:00

17:54:00

18:24:00

18:54:00

19:24:00

19:54:00

20:24:00

20:54:00

21:24:00

21:54:00

22:24:00

22:54:00

23:24:00

23:54:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 34 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 23-04-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 26 April 2002 at Taman Miharja

0.0

140.000

120.000 5.0

100.000
Discharge (m3/s)

10.0
Rain (mm)

80.000

60.000 15.0

40.000

20.0

20.000

0.000 25.0
23:39:00

0:09:00

0:39:00

1:09:00

1:39:00

2:09:00

2:39:00

3:09:00

3:39:00

4:09:00

4:39:00

5:09:00

5:39:00

6:09:00

6:39:00

7:09:00

7:39:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 35 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 26-04-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 147

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 27 April 2002 at Tman Miharja

25.000 0.0

0.5

20.000 1.0

1.5
Discharge (m3/s)

15.000 2.0

Rain (mm)
2.5

10.000 3.0

3.5

5.000 4.0

4.5

0.000 5.0
10:09:00

10:24:00

10:39:00

10:54:00

11:09:00

11:24:00

11:39:00

11:54:00

12:09:00

12:24:00

12:39:00
7:24:00

7:39:00

7:54:00

8:09:00

8:24:00

8:39:00

8:54:00

9:09:00

9:24:00

9:39:00

9:54:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 36 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 27-04-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 20 May 2002 at Taman Miharja

100 0.0

90 1.0

80 2.0

70 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

60 4.0
Rain (mm)

50 5.0

40 6.0

30 7.0

20 8.0

10 9.0

0 10.0
16:46:00

17:16:00

17:46:00

18:16:00

18:46:00

19:16:00

19:46:00

20:16:00

20:46:00

21:16:00

21:46:00

22:16:00

22:46:00

23:16:00

23:46:00

0:16:00

0:46:00

1:16:00

1:46:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 37 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 20-05-2002)

148 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 26 May 2002 at Taman Miharja

100 0.0

90 1.0

80 2.0

70 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

60 4.0

Rain (mm)
50 5.0

40 6.0

30 7.0

20 8.0

10 9.0

0 10.0
10:01:00

10:31:00

11:01:00

11:31:00

12:01:00

12:31:00

13:01:00

13:31:00

14:01:00

14:31:00

15:01:00

15:31:00

16:01:00

16:31:00

17:01:00

17:31:00

18:01:00

18:31:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 38 Tc = 120 min (Taman Miharja, 26-05-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 7 June 2002 at Taman Miharja

20.000 0.0

18.000 1.0

16.000 2.0

14.000 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

12.000 4.0
Rain (mm)

10.000 5.0

8.000 6.0

6.000 7.0

4.000 8.0

2.000 9.0

0.000 10.0
17:46:00

18:01:00

18:16:00

18:31:00

18:46:00

19:01:00

19:16:00

19:31:00

19:46:00

20:01:00

20:16:00

20:31:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 39 Tc = 45 min (Taman Miharja, 07-06-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 149

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 11 June 2002 at Taman Miharja

70.000 0.0

60.000 1.0

50.000 2.0
Discharge (m3/s)

Rain (mm)
40.000 3.0

30.000 4.0

20.000 5.0

10.000 6.0

0.000 7.0
18:46:00

19:16:00

19:46:00

20:16:00

20:46:00

21:16:00

21:46:00

22:16:00

22:46:00

23:16:00

23:46:00

0:16:00

0:46:00

1:16:00

1:46:00

2:16:00

2:46:00

3:16:00

3:46:00

4:16:00

4:46:00

5:16:00

5:46:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 40 Tc = 90 min (Taman Miharja, 11-06-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 16 June 2002 at Taman Miharja

250.000 0.0

200.000 5.0
Discharge (m3/s)

150.000 10.0
Rain (mm)

100.000 15.0

50.000 20.0

0.000 25.0
17:16:00

17:46:00

18:16:00

18:46:00

19:16:00

19:46:00

20:16:00

20:46:00

21:16:00

21:46:00

22:16:00

22:46:00

23:16:00

23:46:00

0:16:00

0:46:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 41 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 16-06-2002)

150 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 7 November 2002 at Taman Miharja

500.000 0.0

450.000 5.0

400.000 10.0

350.000 15.0
Discharge (m3/s)

300.000 20.0

Rain (mm)
250.000 25.0

200.000 30.0

150.000 35.0

100.000 40.0

50.000 45.0

0.000 50.0
15:42:00

15:57:00

16:12:00

16:27:00

16:42:00

16:57:00

17:12:00

17:27:00

17:42:00

17:57:00

18:12:00

18:27:00

18:42:00

18:57:00

19:12:00

19:27:00

19:42:00

19:57:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 42 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 07-11-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 6 January 2003 at Taman Miharja

100 0.0

90
2.0

80

4.0
70
Rain (mm)
Discharge (m3/s)

60 6.0

50
8.0

40

10.0
30

20 12.0

10
14.0

0
19:13:00

19:43:00

20:13:00

20:43:00

21:13:00

21:43:00

22:13:00

22:43:00

23:13:00

23:43:00

0:13:00

0:43:00

1:13:00

1:43:00

2:13:00

2:43:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 43 Tc = 75 min (Taman Miharja, 06-01-2003)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 151

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 1 July 2001 at Kg. Cheras Baru

50 0.0

45 1.0

40 2.0

35 3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

30 4.0

Rain (mm)
25 5.0

20 6.0

15 7.0

10 8.0

5 9.0

0 10.0
11:55:00

12:10:00

12:25:00

12:40:00

12:55:00

13:10:00

13:25:00

13:40:00

13:55:00

14:10:00

14:25:00

14:40:00

14:55:00

15:10:00

15:25:00

15:40:00

15:55:00

16:10:00

16:25:00

16:40:00

16:55:00

17:10:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 44 Tc = 45 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 01-07-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 19 July 2001 at Kg. Cheras Baru

50 0.0

45 2.0

40 4.0

35 6.0
Discharge (m3/s)

30 8.0
Rain (mm)

25 10.0

20 12.0

15 14.0

10 16.0

5 18.0

0 20.0
16:40:00

17:10:00

17:40:00

18:10:00

18:40:00

19:10:00

19:40:00

20:10:00

20:40:00

21:10:00

21:40:00

22:10:00

22:40:00

23:25:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 45 Tc = 60 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 09-07-2001)

152 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 30 July 2001 at Kg. Cheras Baru

0.0

70.000

60.000 5.0

50.000
Discharge (m3/s)

10.0

Rain (mm)
40.000

30.000 15.0

20.000

20.0

10.000

0.000 25.0
16:38:00

17:08:00

17:38:00

18:08:00

18:38:00

19:08:00

19:38:00

20:08:00

20:38:00

21:08:00

21:38:00

22:08:00

22:38:00

23:08:00

23:38:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 46 Tc = 30 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 30-07-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 14 August 2001 at Kg. Cheras Baru

30 0.0

1.0

25
2.0

3.0
20
Discharge (m3/s)

4.0
Rain (mm)

15 5.0

6.0

10
7.0

8.0
5

9.0

0 10.0
15:53:00

16:23:00

16:53:00

17:23:00

17:53:00

18:23:00

18:53:00

19:23:00

19:53:00

20:23:00

20:53:00

21:23:00

21:53:00

22:23:00

22:53:00

23:23:00

23:53:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 47 Tc = 60 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 14-08-2001)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 153

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 15 September 2001 at Kg. Cheras Baru

0.0

70

60 5.0

50
Discharge (m3/s)

10.0

Rain (mm)
40

30 15.0

20

20.0

10

0 25.0
19:38:00

20:08:00

20:38:00

21:08:00

21:38:00

22:08:00

22:38:00

23:08:00

23:38:00

0:08:00

0:38:00

1:08:00

1:38:00

2:08:00

2:38:00

3:08:00

3:38:00

4:08:00

4:38:00
Time (hhmmss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 48 Tc = 60 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 15-09-2001)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 30 September 2001 at Kg. Cheras Baru

30 0.0

25

20 5.0
Discharge (m3/s)

Rain (mm)

15

10 10.0

0 15.0
13:24:00

13:39:00

13:54:00

14:09:00

14:24:00

14:39:00

14:54:00

15:09:00

15:24:00

15:39:00

15:54:00

16:09:00

16:24:00

16:39:00

16:54:00

17:09:00

17:24:00

17:39:00

17:54:00

18:09:00

18:24:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 49 Tc = 60 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 30-09-2001)

154 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 19 January 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

30 0.0

25

20
Discharge (m3/s)

Rain (mm)
15 5.0

10

0 10.0
15:45:00

16:00:00

16:15:00

16:30:00

16:45:00

17:00:00

17:15:00

17:30:00

17:45:00

18:00:00

18:15:00

18:30:00

18:45:00

19:00:00

19:15:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 50 Tc = 60 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 19-01-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 21 February 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

0.0

70

5.0
60

10.0
50
Discharge (m3/s)

15.0
40

20.0
30

25.0
20

10 30.0

0 35.0
13:08:00

13:23:00

13:38:00

13:53:00

14:08:00

14:23:00

14:38:00

14:53:00

15:08:00

15:23:00

15:38:00

15:53:00

16:08:00

16:23:00

16:38:00

16:53:00

17:08:00

17:23:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 51 Tc = 30 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 21-02-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 155

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 6 May 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

30 0.0

1.0

25
2.0

3.0
20
Discharge (m3/s)

4.0

Rain (mm)
15 5.0

6.0

10
7.0

8.0
5

9.0

0 10.0
13:43:00

13:58:00

14:13:00

14:28:00

14:43:00

14:58:00

15:13:00

15:28:00

15:43:00

15:58:00

16:13:00

16:28:00

16:43:00

16:58:00

17:13:00

17:28:00

17:43:00

17:58:00

18:13:00

18:28:00

18:43:00

18:58:00

19:13:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 52 Tc = 75 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 06-05-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 20 May 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

60 0.0

50 5.0

40 10.0
Discharge (m3/s)

30 15.0

20 20.0

10 25.0

0 30.0
16:32:00

16:47:00

17:02:00

17:17:00

17:32:00

17:47:00

18:02:00

18:17:00

18:32:00

18:47:00

19:02:00

19:17:00

19:32:00

19:47:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 53 Tc = 30 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 20-05-2002)

156 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 26 May 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

80 0.0

2.0
70

4.0
60
6.0

50
8.0
Discharge (m3/s)

Rain (mm)
40 10.0

12.0
30

14.0
20
16.0

10
18.0

0 20.0
10:02:00

10:17:00

10:32:00

10:47:00

11:02:00

11:17:00

11:32:00

11:47:00

12:02:00

12:17:00

12:32:00

12:47:00

13:02:00

13:17:00

13:32:00

13:47:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 54 Tc = 30 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 26-05-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 2 June 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

60 0.0

50 5.0

40 10.0
Discharge (m3/s)

30 15.0

20 20.0

10 25.0

0 30.0
17:47:00

18:02:00

18:17:00

18:32:00

18:47:00

19:02:00

19:17:00

19:32:00

19:47:00

20:02:00

20:17:00

20:32:00

20:47:00

21:02:00

21:17:00

21:32:00

21:47:00

22:02:00

22:17:00

22:32:00

22:47:00

23:02:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 55 Tc = 60 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 02-06-2002)

Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study … 157

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 11 June 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

25 0.0

1.0

20 2.0

3.0
Discharge (m3/s)

15 4.0

Rain (mm)
5.0

10 6.0

7.0

5 8.0

9.0

0 10.0
18:47:00

19:02:00

19:17:00

19:32:00

19:47:00

20:02:00

20:17:00

20:32:00

20:47:00

21:02:00

21:17:00

21:32:00

21:47:00

22:02:00

22:17:00

22:32:00

22:47:00

23:02:00

23:17:00

23:32:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 56 Tc = 45 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 11-06-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 16 June 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

100 0.0

90

80 5.0

70
Discharge (m3/s)

60 10.0
Rain (mm)

50

40 15.0

30

20 20.0

10

0 25.0
17:36:00

18:06:00

18:36:00

19:06:00

19:36:00

20:06:00

20:36:00

21:06:00

21:36:00

22:06:00

22:36:00

23:06:00

23:36:00

0:06:00

0:36:00

1:06:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 57 Tc = 75 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 16-06-2002)

158 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 5 November 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

50 0.0

45

40 5.0

35
Discharge (m3/s)

30 10.0

Rain (mm)
25

20 15.0

15

10 20.0

0 25.0
15:18:00

15:33:00

15:48:00

16:03:00

16:18:00

16:33:00

16:48:00

17:03:00

17:18:00

17:33:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 58 Tc = 30 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 05-11-2002)

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 7 November 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

0.0

140
5.0

120 10.0

15.0
100
Discharge (m3/s)

20.0
Rain (mm)

80
25.0

60 30.0

35.0
40

40.0

20
45.0

0 50.0
15:33:00

16:03:00

16:33:00

17:03:00

17:33:00

18:03:00

18:33:00

19:03:00

19:33:00

20:03:00

20:33:00

21:03:00

21:33:00

22:03:00

22:33:00

23:03:00

23:33:00

0:03:00

0:33:00

1:03:00

1:33:00

2:03:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Rainfall Excess Losses Direct Runoff

Fig. 59 Tc = 75 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 07-11-2002)

 Discharge (m3/s) Discharge (m3/s)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
15:33:00 17:03:00

15:48:00 17:18:00
16:03:00 17:33:00
16:18:00 17:48:00
16:33:00 18:03:00
16:48:00 18:18:00
17:03:00 18:33:00
17:18:00 18:48:00
17:33:00 19:03:00
17:48:00
19:18:00
18:03:00
19:33:00
18:18:00

Rainfall Excess
19:48:00

Rainfall Excess
18:33:00
20:03:00
18:48:00
20:18:00
19:03:00
20:33:00
19:18:00

Fig. 61 Tc = 75 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 08-12-2002)

Fig. 60 Tc = 45 min (Kg. Cheras Baru, 14-11-2002)
20:48:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)

Losses
19:33:00

Losses
21:03:00

Time (hh:mm:ss)
19:48:00
20:03:00 21:18:00

20:18:00 21:33:00
Methods of Estimating Time of Concentration: A Case Study …

20:33:00 21:48:00
20:48:00 22:03:00
21:03:00 22:18:00

Direct Runoff
21:18:00 Direct Runoff 22:33:00
21:33:00 22:48:00

Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 8 December 2002 at Kg. Cheras Baru

21:48:00 23:03:00
Direct Runoff Hydrograph on 14 November 2002 at Kg. Cheras Bharu

22:03:00 23:18:00
22:18:00 23:33:00
22:33:00

5.0
0.0

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
159
160 R. B. Mudashiru et al.

References

1. Perdikaris J, Gharabaghi B, Rudra R (2018) Reference time of concentration estimation for

ungauged catchments. Earth Sci Res 7(2):58. https://doi.org/10.5539/esr.v7n2p58
2. Sharifi S, Hosseini SM (2011) Methodology for identifying the best equations for estimating
the time of concentration of watersheds in a particular region. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
IR.1943-4774.0000373
3. McCuen R, Wong SL, Rawls WJ (1984) Estimating urban time of concentration. J Hydraul
Eng 110(7):887–904. ISSN 0733-9429/84/0007-0887. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/
doi/pdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9429%281984%29110%3A7%28887%29
4. DID (2010) Hydrological procedure no. 5 rational method of flood estimation for rural
catchments in Peninsular Malaysia, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://h2o.water.gov.my/man_
hp1/HP5_2010.pdf
5. Fang X, Thompson DB, Cleveland TG, Pradhan P, Malla R (2008) Time of concentration
estimated using watershed parameters determined by automated and manual methods. J Irrig
Drain Eng 134(2):202–211
6. Nagy ED, Torma P, Bene K (2016) Comparing methods for computing the time of
concentration in a medium-sized Hungarian catchment. Slovak J Civ Eng 24(4):8–14. https://
doi.org/10.1515/sjce-2016-0017
7. Salimi ET, Nohegar A, Malekian A, Hoseini M, Holisaz A (2017) Estimating time of
concentration in large watersheds. Paddy Water Environ 15(1):123–132. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10333-016-0534-2
8. Almeida IK De, Almeida AK, Ayach JA, Steffen JL, Sobrinho TA (2014) Estimation of time
of concentration of overland flow in watersheds: a review. 1(1):661–671
9. Almeida IK De, Almeida AK, Garcia GS, Alves ST (2017). Performance of methods for
estimating the time of concentration in a watershed of a tropical region. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02626667.2017.1384549
10. Gericke OJ, Smithers JC (2014) Review of methods used to estimate catchment response time
for the purpose of peak discharge estimation. Sci J 59(11). https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.
2013.866712
11. Roussel MC, Thompson DB, Fang X, Cleveland TG, Garcia CA (2005) Time-parameter
estimation for applicable Texas watersheds. Beaumont, Texas. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.248.6150&rep=rep1&type=pdf
12. Abustan I, Sulaiman AH, Wahid NA, Baharudin F (2008) Determination of rainfall-runoff
characteristics in an urban area: Sungai determination of rainfall-runoff characteristics in an
urban area: Sungai Kerayong catchment, Kuala Lumpur. In: 11th international conference on
urban drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, pp 1–11
13. Baharudin F (2007) A study on rainfall-runoff characteristics of urban catchment of Sungai
Kerayong. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Retrieved from http://Eprints.Usm.My/7772/1/A_
Study_On_Rainfall-Runoff_Characteristics_Of_Urban_Catchment_Of_Sungai_Kerayong.Pdf
14. Carter RW (1961) Magnitude and frequency of floods in suburban areas
15. Azizian A (2018) Uncertainty analysis of time of concentration equations based on
first-order-analysis (FOA) method. Am J Eng Appl Sci Orig Res Pap. https://doi.org/10.3844/
ajeassp.2018.327.341
16. Chen CN, Wong TSW (1993) Critical rainfall duration for maximum discharge from overland
plane. J Hydraul Eng 119:1040–1045. ISSN 0733-9429/93/0009. Retrieved from https://
ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9429%281993%29119%3A9%281040%29
17. NRCS (1986) Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Retrieved from https://www.nrcs.usda.
gov/Internet/Fse_Documents/stelprdb1044171.pdf
18. Kirpich ZP (1940) Time of concentration of small agricultural watersheds, vol 6
19. Kerby WS (1959) Time of concentration studies. Civil Engineering
20. FHWA (1984) Drainage of highway pavements hydraulic engineering circular no. 12.
Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hec/hec12.pdf