Is the Science and Data underpinning the Rational Method Robust

for use in Evolving Urban Catchments

Peter J. Coombes
Urban Water Cycle Solutions, Carrington, NSW, Australia.
E-mail: thecoombes@bipond.com

Mark Babister
Director, WMA Water, Sydney, NSW, Australia
E-mail: babister@wmawater.com.au

Tony McAlister
Water Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
E-mail: tony.mcalister@watertech.com.au
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the use of the Rational Method to estimate peak stormwater runoff rates
for the design of drainage infrastructure in contemporary urban catchments. The Rational Method is
widely utilised around the world and is simple to implement, however peak flow predictions do not
explicitly represent the complex nature of the 'real' processes occurring within a catchment. This concern
is particularly relevant to modern stormwater management methods, such as Water Sensitive Urban
Design (WSUD), that include integrated solutions involving retention, slow drainage, harvesting and
reuse of stormwater. This paper evaluates the Rational Method from the perspective of such modern
stormwater design approaches. A case study of a small, medium density, urban development is
employed to compare the relative performance of the Rational Method with newer, more contemporary,
approaches for simulating urban stormwater runoff processes that are included in Australian Rainfall
and Runoff.

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper is concerned with the use of the Rational Method to estimate stormwater runoff for the design
of infrastructure in small urban catchments. Many urban drainage networks in small catchments are
designed using peak flows estimated using the Rational Method (Goyen et al., 2014) and an earlier
version of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR) describes the Rational Method as the best known
approach to estimating urban stormwater runoff (IEAust., 1987). All three editions of ARR (1958, 1977
and 1987) have described approaches that incorporate the Rational Method to estimate peak
stormwater flows and have also summarised the inherent limitations of the method. Similarly, the
Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM) explains that the Rational Method is not reliable for the
determination of runoff volumes, the shape of hydrographs or the estimation of discharge rates from real
storms or for catchments that include volume based stormwater management solutions. The method is
considered to have limited application (QUDM, 2013).
Urban stormwater management was described in ARR87 as the hydraulic design of urban drainage
(IEAust., 1987). This approach to urban drainage is based on conveyance of stormwater runoff to meet
minor and major design objectives to mitigate nuisance, and to avoid damage to property and loss of
life. The use of statistical design rainfall bursts and the Rational Method was recommended to calculate
inflows to drainage networks in the Urban Stormwater Drainage Chapter of ARR87. An example of
Rational Method calculations for design of urban drainage networks was provided. The Rational Method
originated in the 19th century as a way of estimating the maximum stormwater discharge generated by
a constant rate of rainfall falling over a duration of time on a catchment (Mulvany, 1851). Determination
of peak stormwater discharges using the Rational Method is dependent on a runoff co-efficient and a
time of concentration of stormwater flows (which determines the incident average rainfall intensity) that
are jointly expected to account for the variable nature of rainfall-runoff processes within a catchment.
The current ARR revision process has identified concerns in regard to the estimation of the parameter

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

values (runoff co-efficient and time of concentration) that are the basis of using the Rational Method
(Babister & Ball., 2014). The basis for questions about the robustness of the Rational Method was
confirmed in Chapter one of ARR87 (IEAust, 1987) as follows:
concerns the manner in which values of parameters are derived from recorded
data, and the manner in which designers regard these values and apply them . if
the runoff coefficient in the Rational Method is to be used to estimate floods resulting
from actual rainfalls, values would have to be derived as the ratio of flood peak to
observed rainfall intensity in individual floods. However for the design case,
coefficients should be derived as the ratio of values taken from frequency analyses
of peak discharge and rainfall intensity.
the common visualisation of the runoff coefficient as the fraction of rainfall that
runs off is correct in the very unusual case where the Rational Method is used to
estimate an actual flood, but this concept is incorrect and fundamentally misleading
in the usual case where a design flood is to be estimated.
The Rational Method may be widely utilised and simple to implement however predictions of peak
stormwater flows may not adequately represent the complex nature of real processes occurring within
catchments. Kuczera et al (2006) highlights the bias associated with the practice of assigning average
initial conditions in design storm approaches, the need for calibration to rainfall runoff records and for
guidance on the reliability of hydrology methods. Continuous simulation was seen as the most rigorous
method available for hydrological design. These discussions are particularly relevant to modern
stormwater management methods, such as Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), that include
cascading integrated solutions involving retention, slow drainage, harvesting and reuse of stormwater
and the disconnection of impervious surfaces (Coombes, 2015). It was the view of Goyen et al., (2014)
that the continued use of the Rational Method for the analysis and design of urban drainage systems
was no longer justified. In addition, Goyen et al., (2014) recommend that the Rational Method should
not be used to provide any independent assessments of the performance of hydrological models in
urban areas unless relevant observations are available to confirm model parameter values and the
catchment does not include storage dependent stormwater management solutions. The new version of
ARR incorporates additional resources to support the estimation of stormwater runoff such as
ensembles of updated peak rainfall bursts and full volume storms, and continuous simulation. This paper
evaluates the Rational Method from the perspective of modern and contemporary stormwater design
approaches. A case study of a small, medium density, urban development is employed to compare the
relative performance of the Rational Method and newer approaches for estimating urban stormwater
runoff.

2. BACKGROUND
The urban Rational Method is presented in previous versions of ARR as a simple approach for
estimating peak stormwater runoff rates using hand calculations and was generally recommended for
the design of drainage infrastructure in small urban catchments. This method provides the estimated
peak or maximum rate of stormwater discharges. It is necessary for this discussion to highlight that peak
discharge can also be defined as the volume and time of stormwater runoff at a given point and time in
a catchment as follows:
=

(1)

Where m is metres and s is seconds.

Clearly, a change in the volume or timing of stormwater runoff in a catchment will produce a different
result for peak discharge. The Rational Method was extensively used internationally and in Australia at
the time of publication of ARR87 (Mein & Goyen, 1988; Goyen et al., 2014). The formula is presented
in ARR87 (IEAust, 1987) as the best known method associated with design of urban drainage as follows:
= /360
(2)
Where Q is the peak discharge from the catchment (m 3/s), C is the runoff coefficient, I is the average
rainfall intensity (mm/hour) for a given storm duration and average recurrence interval, and A is the total
catchment area (ha).

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

2 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

The Rational Method formula has remained largely unchanged across the different versions of ARR.
ARR87 incorporated improvements in the application of the method including the consideration of partial
area effects and improved procedures to estimate the runoff coefficient (C) and the time of concentration
(Tc). Estimation of the time of concentration or overland flow travel times determine the rainfall intensity
selected in the method and has a significant impact on estimates of peak stormwater discharges. A
kinematic wave equation derived from Ragan & Duru (1972) was recommended by ARR87 for the
estimation of overland flow times as:
0.6

t0 =

6.94(Ln* )

0.4 0.3

(3)

Where t0 is the overland flow time in minutes, L is the length of flow path (m), n* is the surface roughness,
I is the average rainfall intensity (mm/hr) and S is the slope (m/m).
Whilst the kinematic wave equation was considered to be a more rigorous evaluation of overland flow
processes, uncertainty about the values for the surface roughness n * has a significant impact on
estimated travel times, and hence the selection of rainfall intensity and calculation of peak stormwater
discharges (Goyen et al., 2014). There are also different interpretations of L as the representative length
for a catchment that can be adjusted to modify catchment responses and I as the rainfall excess intensity
rather than rainfall intensity. The time of concentration of a catchment can also be described at the
response time of the catchment and is further impacted by partial area effects where impervious
surfaces may drain more quickly than pervious surfaces to the inlet to a drainage network. The problem
of partial area effects is addressed in Rational Method calculations by using the overland flow times of
directly connected impervious areas. This issue is described in ARR87 as a major uncertainty in the use
of the urban Rational Method that is created by catchment shape, variation in slopes and land uses. In
the modern era contemporary stormwater quantity and quality management solutions also adds to this
uncertainty. Failure to adequately assess partial area effects can lead to serious under-estimation of
peak discharges (Willing and Partners, 1993).
Estimation of peak flows using the Rational Method is also critically dependent on determination of the
runoff coefficient (C) and estimation of the equivalent impervious area. An equivalent impervious area
is the sum of runoff coefficients multiplied by the areas of each different land use in a catchment. ARR87
recommended values for runoff coefficients that were derived from the experience of drainage
authorities and from few gauged urban catchments with suitable lengths of record. Examination of the
data underpinning these recommended values reveals six (6) data points were used and that these data
provide an indeterminate relationship for runoff coefficients. As explained by Hicks et al. (2009), the
approach to estimation of runoff coefficients in ARR87 was included as necessary guidance on the
application of the urban Rational Method and was not based on science. There are insufficient robust
and reliable gauged data from urban catchments for this purpose and engineering judgement or arbitrary
methods are as such required to derive values for the runoff coefficient (Hicks et al, 2009; Goyen et al.,
2014; Ball et al. 2015). This issue is highlighted by the plethora of publications by Water Authorities and
Government Agencies that provide variations in application of the urban Rational Method with
associated runoff coefficients and times of concentrations (Goyen et al., 2014).
Estimates of peak discharges used for the design of stormwater infrastructure are also dependent on
the scale of analysis. A lumped sub-catchment based approach to deriving inputs to drainage networks
using effective impervious areas can mask the actual processes that are occurring within catchments.
This issue may have influenced the assessment that use of the Rational Method should be limited to
small urban catchments with short times of concentration that do not contain storage solutions. It would
seem that the clarification by Mulvany (1851) about the reliability of the method in the 19 th century
remains relevant today. The use of long rainfall runoff records was considered essential for estimation
of the runoff coefficient and the method should be used within limits of calibration. The runoff coefficient
is also substantially impacted by initial conditions and attributes in catchments. An ongoing paucity of
acceptable gauged flows for urban areas creates uncertainty about values of the parameters
underpinning the Rational Method. This view remains consistent with the observation by Munro et al.,
(1956) that the literature abounds with tabulations of graphs of C for various conditions, but few are
observed from reliable evidence and the comment in ARR58 (IEAust,1958) It is stressed, however,
that these amended values [of the runoff coefficient] are somewhat arbitrary, and based on intuitive
judgement rather than adequately controlled experiments. A number of technical notes are provided in
the Urban Stormwater Drainage Chapter of ARR87 that assist with the design of drainage networks in
small urban catchments. In particular, Technical Note 6 provides an example of Rational Method

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

3 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

calculations and Technical Note 9 for the hydraulic design of pipe systems guide the estimation of
stormwater runoff and design of drainage infrastructure. These methods are utilised in this investigation
of the uncertainties associated with the use of the urban Rational Method.

3. A MODERN CONTEXT
The characteristics of contemporary urban stormwater management have evolved to be different to the
objectives and design solutions for drainage as envisaged in 1987 (Coombes, 2015). Stormwater
solutions are now integrated with urban water management and urban land use planning to meet
multiple objectives. Design of urban water management now seeks to integrate land and water planning
for the enhancement of liveability and sustainability. The design of an urban development can now
include management of the impacts of urban stormwater runoff at source and at multiple scales within
a development by retaining stormwater in landscapes and soil profiles, harvesting rainwater and
stormwater and disconnecting impervious surfaces from downstream drainage networks (Argue, 2004;
Poelsma et al., 2014). Since the 19th century the Rational Method has evolved into modern rainfall runoff
models. The catchment area has been subdivided into sub-catchments. The average rainfall intensity
derived from storm bursts has been modernised to include temporal patterns, spatial variation,
relationships between different burst rainfall depths and durations, and the capture of partial areas
effects. The runoff coefficient for estimation of stormwater runoff has been replaced with processes that
account for the degree of urbanisation and spatial distribution, addition of loss models to determine
rainfall excess, accounting for pervious and directly or indirectly connected impervious surfaces, and
inclusion of depression storages.
Rainfall runoff models have also incorporated connective components including the shape of drainage
networks; addition of drainage network conveyance, travel times and system storages; a separation of
minor and major systems; response times of different components (such as roads and gutters);
bypasses of drainage pits and storages in sag pits. These evolving models account for modern urban
features that include distributed storages such as rainwater tanks and onsite detention; detention basins
and the spatial distribution of urban features. In addition, stormwater runoff is now valued as a resource
(Mitchell et al., 2003; McAlister et al., 2004; Coombes & Barry, 2014). Modern design criteria may include
analysis of the volumes, timing and frequency of stormwater runoff to determine peak flow rates, water
quality and requirements to mimic natural flow regimes to protect waterway health (Walsh, 2004).
Indeed, management of the volume of stormwater runoff and the frequency of runoff events from urban
catchments is now seen as a key design objective to mitigate downstream flooding and also to protect
the health of urban waterways.
Predictions of peak stormwater flows using the Rational Method does not adequately represent the
fundamental processes occurring within contemporary urban catchments. This concern is particularly
relevant to modern stormwater management methods, such as Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD),
that include cascading integrated solutions involving retention, slow drainage via vegetation, harvesting
and reuse of stormwater and the disconnection of impervious surfaces. These distributed solutions
within catchments alter runoff volume and timing in a variable manner throughout a catchment.The
assumptions underpinning the urban Rational Method are often assigned using engineering judgement
and can be used to exclude detailed analysis and merit based decisions about stormwater solutions.
The coarseness of such assumptions may favour large scale and conveyance dominated solutions. As
modern stormwater management is mostly about the control of volume and timing of flows using
cascading storage based management measures within catchments, an obvious question is how can a
single runoff coefficient C applied at a large (lumped) scale account for this behaviour? And similarly,
can the parameters underpinning the Rational Method be assigned to a modern stormwater
management strategy?

4. CASE STUDY
In this Section, a case study is utilised to compare the impacts on estimation of peak stormwater
discharges of using four (4) analysis techniques, the urban Rational Method (ARR87, Ch. 14), design
storm bursts, full volume storms and continuous simulation. A small urban development (4.63 Ha with
69% impervious surfaces) in a large urban catchment located in Ryde in New South Wales was chosen
for this investigation. The estate includes 62 housing allotments (3.065 ha), roads (1.28 ha) and 2 parks

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

4 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

(0.284 ha) as shown in Figure 1.

Detention basin

Road

Lots

Park

Inlet pit
Pipe

Road

Slope

Lots

Lots

Road

Lots
Road

Lots

Lots
Park

Figure 1 Layout of medium density urban development at Ryde.

Figure 1 shows that the urban development includes a pipe drainage network which discharges to a
detention basin that is provided to ensure a no worsening of peak design event stormwater discharges
in comparison to predevelopment conditions. The development is located on clay soil and undulating
terrain that is generally sloping at a grade of 5% to 10% towards the outlet. The analysis includes a
Business As Usual (BAU) scenario with traditional pipe drainage and a Rainwater Tank (RWT) scenario
that incorporates rainwater harvesting on each household. The purpose of the RWT scenario is to
evaluate the impact of the different methods for the assessment of distributed storages within the
catchment. The relative behavior of the different hydrological methods is examined by comparing runoff
peaks and volumes at the catchment outlet, and from the detention basin. The RWT scenario assumed
that each dwelling has an average occupancy of 3 people and includes a 5 kL rainwater storage that
collected roof runoff from an area of 150 m 2 for laundry, toilet and outdoor uses. Average daily water
use of each household was estimated to be 623 litres/day and outdoor use is about 30% of total demand.
Note that the analysis uses a peer reviewed and robust technique of using climatic and behavioural
processes to determine outdoor use (see Coombes, 2006).
This analysis commences with the design of pipe drainage infrastructure and assessment of
predevelopment conditions using the Rational Method in accordance with Technical Note 6 in Chapter
14 of ARR87 (IEAust, 1987). This investigation is focused on an Average Exceedance Probability (AEP)
of 10% (or a 10 year ARI storm) that was assumed to apply to design of urban drainage networks and
utilized the most recent Intensity-Frequency-Duration (IFD) data provided by the Bureau of Meteorology
(see Table 1).
Table 1. Rainfall Intensity-Frequency-Duration data
Duration
(minutes)
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

Rain depth
(mm)
4
6.2
8.8
11.2
13.3
21.7
27.1
31.1

Rainfall Intensity
(mm/hour)
240
186
176
168
159.6
130.2
108.4
93.3

5 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

25
30

4.1

Coombes

34.1
36.5

81.8
73

Design using urban Rational Method

It was assumed that the major objective of the drainage network was to ensure that all site stormwater
runoff up to and including the 10% AEP event was able to be accepted by the drainage inlet pits (no
bypass flows) and conveyed by the pipe network to the site outlet. The pipe drainage network for the
urban development was designed using the procedures outlined in Technical Note 6 in Chapter 14 of
ARR87 (IEAust, 1987). This process evaluated the overland flow time (t0) to each drainage inlet pit using
Equation 3 and derived the effective impervious area for each sub-catchment (allotments, roads and
parks). Impervious and pervious surfaces were assigned runoff coefficients of 0.9 and 0.35 respectively.
A runoff coefficient of 0.85 was assumed for road sub-catchments. This involved selection of appropriate
inlet capacity of pits and derivation of flow times in pipes designed using hydraulic grade line analysis
and an accumulation of equivalent impervious areas for each pipe. This full area analysis used the
longest travel time for each inlet for the selection of rainfall intensity for use in Equation 2 to derive peak
discharges. Travel times for overland and pipe flows were combined to determine the peak discharge
at the outlet. A partial area analysis utilised the shortest overland flow time from impervious surfaces to
each drainage pit for the selection of the rainfall intensity for determination of inflows to each drainage
pit. The partial area analysis produced the highest peak discharge and a time to outlet of 5 minutes
whereas the full area method resulted in a time of outlet of 17 minutes. The design and pre-development
peak discharge and associated event runoff volumes are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Design flowrates and volumes derived using urban Rational Method
Peak discharge (m 3/s)
1.091
0.328

Criteria
Developed
Predeveloped

Volume (m3)
921
591

The volume of stormwater runoff from the developed catchment was derived using the full area time
of concentration of 17 minutes and a corresponding rain depth of 28.8 mm with runoff coefficients of 0.9
for impervious surfaces and 0.35 for pervious surfaces. A travel time of 30 minutes was determined for
the catchment prior to development using the kinematic wave equation. The corresponding rain depth
of 36.5 mm was used with a runoff coefficient of 0.35 to derive the predevelopment runoff volumes. The
values in Table 2 and the triangular hydrograph method were used to estimate the approximate
dimensions of a detention basin employed throughout this investigation as presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Dimensions of the detention basin
Storage
volume (m3)
0
300
400
500
600
1000

Peak outflow
(m3/s)
0
0.01
0.3
0.65
0.9
1.0

A detention basin was included in this investigation to understand the impacts of the different rainfall
inputs and analysis methods on given storage discharge relationship rather than the creation of an
optimum design. We highlight that the urban Rational Method should not be used for design of volume
sensitive stormwater management solutions or to determine runoff volumes.

4.2

Analysis using storm burst and full storms

The new version of ARR will include ensembles of storm bursts and full volume storms within a
framework of design temporal patterns. Ensembles of complete storm patterns for different burst
durations and probabilities were compiled from observed complete storms. The adopted approach
transfers storms from locations that are nearby, have similar IFD characteristics and minimizes how

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

6 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

much storms need to be scaled to fit the desired probability and duration characteristics. The full method
is detailed in ARR Revision Project 3 - Temporal Patterns Parts 2 and 3 (WMA, 2015; 2015a). If the
scaling of the storm is kept to a minimum then less needs to be assumed about the relationship between
the burst and pre-burst rainfall. For each ensemble of storms, the actual embedded design bursts do
not have a fixed duration liked traditional burst patterns but fall in a duration bin. This study employed
an ensemble of ten storm burst and full volume storms from Ryde in NSW to examine the performance
of the drainage network using the ILSAX rainfall runoff model (OLoughlin, 1986). The design information
derived using the Rational Method (discussed in Section 4.1) including pipe diameters, pit inlet
capacities and all other details were incorporated into the ILSAX model. A high level of spatial detail
was included in the model including defined sub-catchments (nodes) for all roofs, roads and each
property discharging to the drainage network. The temporal storm patterns for storm burst and full
storms were used to force the model and an antecedent soil moisture condition of 2.5 was assumed.
Results of the analysis using the storm bursts and full volume storms are presented in Figures 2 and 3
respectively.

Figure 2 Hydrographs generated by the

ensemble of storm bursts for BAU

Figure 3 Hydrographs generated by the

ensemble of full volume storms for BAU

Figure 2 shows that the ensemble of storm bursts includes a variety of temporal patterns that create
different shaped hydrographs and that Burst 1 generates the maximum peak discharge prior to the
detention basin. Figure 3 shows that using the full storm sequences including pre-burst, storm burst and
post-burst rainfall generated (as could be expected) far more elongated hydrographs. It is also
noteworthy that the use of the full storms results in a different storm creating the critical peak discharge
for the development (Storm 2) and that the magnitude of this peak discharge is comparable to that of
Burst 1 using the storm burst technique. The ensembles of storm bursts and full storms also generated
surcharges and bypass flows in the drainage network for burst 1, and for the full storms 1, 3, 6 and 10.
Use of full volume storms and a variety of temporal patterns has revealed up to 40% failure of the
drainage design criteria. These results indicate that stormwater runoff volumes have a significant impact
on the performance of the drainage network. Rainfall depths for each burst and storm event are provided
in Figure 4. The variation peak stormwater discharges from the estate created by the burst and full storm
patterns as compared the peak discharges derived using the urban Rational Method for BAU are
presented in Figure 4. Note that these results are upstream from the detention basin.

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

7 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Figure 4 Rain depths for the burst and storm

events

Coombes

Figure 5 Differences in peak discharges from

burst and full storm rainfall as compared to
Rational Method for each input for BAU

Figure 5 shows that the use of temporal patterns of burst and full storm rainfall in the hydraulic design
process creates significant variation from the peak discharges derived using the urban Rational Method.
In particular, the full storm rainfall creates larger peak discharges for 3 events and the burst rainfall
generates higher peak discharges for 2 events. Comparison of the peak discharges in Figure 5 to the
rainfall depths in Figure 4 highlight that full volume storms do not always generate higher peak
discharges. This indicates that a combination of rainfall volumes and patterns influence peak discharges
from small urban catchments. The variation in volumes of stormwater runoff from the estate created by
the burst and full storm patterns as compared to runoff volumes determined using the urban Rational
Method for BAU are presented in Figure 6. These results are upstream from the detention basin. The
impact of burst and storm rainfall patterns on the detention basin at the drainage outlet from the estate
is compared to the urban Rational Method in Figure 7.

Figure 6 Differences in stormwater runoff

volumes from burst and full storm rainfall as
compared to Rational Method for each input
for BAU

Figure 7 Differences in peak discharges from

burst and full storm rainfall as compared to
Rational Method for each input for BAU at the
outlet from the detention basin

Figure 6 reveals that almost all of the burst rainfall patterns created smaller stormwater runoff volumes
than the determination using urban Rational Method and the majority of full storm rainfall patterns
generated substantially larger stormwater runoff volumes from the estate. This result for the volume of
stormwater runoff from a small urban development within a larger urban catchment has significance for
the stormwater management performance of the entire catchment. These additional volumes of
stormwater runoff that are not revealed by design using the urban Rational Method or the storm burst
approach indicates accumulation of runoff volumes throughout urban catchments that may be a driver
for additional downstream flooding.
Figure 7 reveals a significant increase in peak discharges for a majority of burst and full stormwater
rainfall as compared to the peak discharges derived using the urban Rational Method. The full storm
patterns generated higher peak discharges than the burst rainfall patterns for most events. These results
indicate that the volumes and patterns of stormwater runoff impact on the performance of the drainage
network within a small urban catchment and have an additional impact on the performance of a detention
basin located at the drainage outlet from the estate. The results indicate that volumes and patterns of
rainfall have a substantial impact on peak discharges from a small urban development and the retention
of runoff volumes within the estate may have significant impacts on the performance of drainage
networks. This study selected rainwater harvesting (RWT) to examine the impacts of retention within
catchment and integration with water cycle management. It was assumed that each house included
rainwater harvesting for laundry, toilet and outdoor uses.
The use of the urban rational method requires the urban designer to make a judgement about altering
the runoff coefficient C to account for retention measures within the urban development. For example,
the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual suggests that a rainwater tank will provide volume control but
will not contribute to the control of stormwater discharges or flooding (QUDM, 2013). This investigation

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

8 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

has assumed that the urban designer will make a judgement that distributed retention within the estate
has no impact on stormwater discharges and, therefore, the runoff coefficient in the urban Rational
Method cannot be altered. In contrast, the results from Coombes et al (2003) indicate that 50% of
rainwater storage volumes will be available prior to 1% AEP full storm events derived from continuous
simulation were included in the simulations using burst and full storm rainfall patterns. Results of the
analysis using the burst rainfall and full storm patterns are presented in Figures 8 and 9.

Figure 8 Hydrographs generated by the

ensemble of storm bursts for RWT

Figure 9 Hydrographs generated

ensemble of full storms for RWT

by

the

Figure 8 reveals that simulation using ensembles of burst patterns of the estate with distributed storages
results in reduced peak discharges as compared to BAU. In addition, a different rainfall burst pattern
(Burst 3) creates the maximum peak discharge from the estate. Figure 9 demonstrates that analysis of
distributed storages using full storm patterns creates higher peak discharges than the simulation using
burst rainfall patterns but reduced peak discharges in comparison to BAU. These results highlight that
design of stormwater management in estates that include distributed storages should be conducted
using full volume storms. However, this event based simulation has not accounted for the drawn down
of rainwater storages for indoor uses during the long storm durations and additional within storm volume
effects need to be counted. The variation in peak discharges created by the burst and full storm patterns
as compared the peak discharges from the urban Rational Method for RWT are presented in Figure 10.
Note that these results are upstream from the detention basin. Differences in volumes of stormwater
runoff from the estate generated by burst and full storm patterns as compared to runoff volumes
determined using the urban Rational Method for RWT are presented in Figure 11.

Figure 10 Differences in peak discharges from

burst and full storm rainfall as compared to
Rational Method for each input for RWT

Figure 11 Differences in stormwater runoff

volumes from burst and full storm rainfall as
compared to Rational Method for each input for
RWT

Figure 10 shows a significant decrease in peak discharges for a majority of the burst and full rainfall
patterns when compared with the peak discharges derived using the urban Rational Method. By way of
an exception, the full storm pattern 3 generated a higher peak discharge than the urban Rational
Method. Figure 11 reveals that distributed storages generated significant reductions in stormwater runoff

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

9 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

volumes from the estate as compared to BAU and avoided surcharges in the drainage network. Analysis
using burst and full storm patterns has permitted this understanding. The impact of burst and full storm
rainfall patterns on the performance of the detention basin at the drainage outlet from the estate that
includes rainwater harvesting (RWT) is compared to the urban Rational Method in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Differences in peak discharges from burst and full storm rainfall as compared to
Rational Method for each input for RWT at the outlet from the detention basin
Figure 12 reveals significant decreases in peak discharges as compared to the BAU scenario. However,
a majority peak discharges generated using burst and full rainfall patterns as compared to the peak
discharges derived by the urban Rational Method. The full storm pattern 3 is shown to be the critical
storm event for this estate. These results indicate that the volumes and patterns of rainfall impacts on
the performance of distributed storages and drainage network within an estate, and have an additional
impact on the performance of a detention basin located at the drainage outlet from the estate.

4.3

Analysis using continuous simulation

The hydrology of the estate was also evaluated using continuous simulation to provide a comparison to
the Rational Method predictions and analysis using design storm events. This analysis was expected to
provide additional information about the impact of real antecedent or between storm events processes
(such as water levels in storages and soil moisture) and volumes of rainfall on the generation of
stormwater runoff. Observed rainfall data from Ryde pluviograph (station 066057, length: 1948 to 2010,
average annual rainfall: 863 mm) and temperature from Observatory Hill was used as inputs to the
analysis. Average rainfall intensity from independent storm events (separated by periods of at least two
hours of no rainfall) was used to develop the AEP of rainfall intensity. Storm events that were closest to
the 10% AEP were selected based on plotting position and storm duration, and are summarized in Table
4.
Table 4. Summary of storm events used to select runoff events from continuous simulation
Storm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rain depth
(mm)
10.94
29.2
8.78
37
13.3
12.96
11.68
15.37
29
42

Duration
(minutes)
5
20
5
20
5
5
5
5
45
75

Intensity
(mm/hr)
131.3
87.6
105.4
111
159.6
155.5
140.2
184.4
38.7
33.6

ARR 10% AEP

Intensity (mm/hr)
159.6
93.3
159.6
93.3
159.6
159.6
159.6
159.6
56
39.6

The storm events in Table 4 were utilized to select the associated stormwater runoff results from
continuous simulation to be included in this study. The PURRS (Probabilistic Urban Rainwater and

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

10 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

wastewater Reuse Simulator) described by Coombes (2006) was embedded in a Systems Framework
(Coombes & Barry, 2015a) of drainage infrastructure to continuously simulate water balances and
hydrology of the project at less than 5 minute time steps. The Systems Framework combined water
balances from each sub-catchment generated by the PURRS model with travel time to drainage inlets
and lag routing through the pipe network or road surfaces to generate peak discharges from the estate.
Results of the continuous simulation of the BAU scenario are presented in Figure 13. The variation peak
stormwater discharges from the estate generated by continuous simulation as compared the peak
discharges derived using the urban Rational Method for BAU are presented in Figure 14. Note that these
results are upstream from the detention basin.

Figure 13 Hydrographs generated by

continuous simulation for the BAU scenario

Figure 14 Differences in peak discharges from

continuous simulation as compared to
Rational Method for BAU

Figure 13 reveals that continuous simulation generated a greater variety of different shaped hydrographs
of stormwater runoff and maximum peak discharges prior to the detention basin. Continuous simulation
using the Ryde pluviograph also generated surcharges and bypass flows in the drainage network for
storms 2, 4 and 10. Use of continuous simulation has revealed up to 30% failure of the drainage design
criteria. These results indicate that stormwater runoff volumes and peak discharges have a significant
impact on the performance of the drainage network. Figure 14 shows that use of continuous simulation
generates substantial increases in peak discharges in comparison to the urban Rational Method for
most of the extracted storm events. The highest peak discharge from Storm 4 was generated from an
average rainfall intensity of greater than the 10% AEP intensity but the next highest peak discharge was
generated by Storm 2 that has a rainfall intensity of less than the 10% AEP. The four storms (2, 4, 9 and
10) with longer durations, greater rainfall depth and different temporal patterns generate the highest
peak discharges. These storms were also experienced relatively wet antecedent conditions.
The variation in volumes of stormwater runoff from the estate generated by continuous simulation as
compared to runoff volumes determined using the urban Rational Method for BAU are presented in
Figure 15. These results are upstream from the detention basin. The impact of continuous simulation
on the performance of the detention basin at the drainage outlet from the estate is compared to the
urban Rational Method in Figure 16.

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

11 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Figure 15 Differences in stormwater runoff

volumes from continuous simulation as
compared to Rational Method for BAU

Coombes

Figure 16 Differences in peak discharges

generated by continuous simulation as
compared to Rational Method for BAU at the
outlet from the detention basin

Figure 15 reveals that continuous simulation has generated a high level of variability in runoff volumes
in comparison to the urban Rational Method. This result indicates that rainfall volumes, antecedent
conditions and patterns influence peak discharges from small urban catchments. Figure 16 reveals a
significant variations in peak discharges from continuous simulation for more than half of the storm
events as compared to peak discharges derived using the urban Rational Method. Continuous
simulation has revealed that the volumes and patterns of stormwater runoff impact on the performance
of the drainage network within a small urban catchment and have an additional impact on the
performance of a detention basin located at the drainage outlet from the estate.
The use of continuous simulation avoids assumptions about the runoff coefficient, soil moisture and the
water levels in distributed storages prior to and within storm events. Continuous simulation of the RWT
scenario generated a greater variety maximum peak discharges in comparison to Rational Method and
reduced stormwater runoff from BAU. Surcharges and bypass flows in the drainage network for storms
2, 4 and 10 were also simulated. The magnitude of these bypass flows were diminished in comparison
to BAU. The variation peak stormwater discharges from the estate generated by continuous simulation
as compared the peak discharges derived using the urban Rational Method for RWT are presented in
Figure 17. Note that these results are upstream from the detention basin. Differences in volumes of
stormwater runoff from the estate generated by continuous simulation as compared to runoff volumes
determined using the urban Rational Method for RWT are presented in Figure 18.

Figure 17 Differences in peak discharges from

continuous simulation as compared to
Rational Method for RWT

Figure 18 Differences in stormwater runoff

volumes from continuous simulation as
compared to Rational Method for RWT

Figure 17 shows that a significant variation in peak discharges as compared to the urban Rational
Method values. Continuous simulation also highlighted that the RWT scenario has reduced peak
discharges by 0.004 m 3/s to 0.537 m3/s from the BAU scenario. Figure 18 reveals that distributed
storages generated variable reductions in stormwater runoff volumes from 4 m 3 to 305 m3 as compared
to BAU. Continuous simulation has provided an understanding of the stormwater retention available in

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

12 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

rainwater storages from during each storm event. The results indicate that rainwater storages were
almost full prior to some storm events and empty prior to other events. Importantly, the joint probability
of water levels in storages and critical rainfall events was captured by continuous simulation it is
unlikely that professional judgement about a value of the runoff coefficient can replicate this behavior.
The impact of continuous simulation on the performance of the detention for the RWT scenario is
compared to the urban Rational Method in Figure 19.

Figure 19 Differences in peak discharges from continuous simulation as compared to Rational

Method for RWT at the outlet from the detention basin
Figure 19 reveals decreases in peak discharges by 0.002 m 3/s to 0.274 m 3/s as compared to the BAU
scenario. A majority of peak discharges generated using continuous simulation are different to the peak
discharges derived by the urban Rational Method. These results indicate that the volumes and patterns
of rainfall impacts on the performance of distributed storages and drainage network within an estate,
and have an additional impact on the performance of a detention basin located at the drainage outlet
from the estate.

5. DISCUSSION
This paper has examined the parameters underpinning the urban Rational Method. The hydrological
response of a small urban development to a variety of rainfall inputs and analysis methods was also
compared to estimates of peak discharges and runoff volumes using the urban Rational Method. This
investigation did not seek to optimize the design of stormwater drainage infrastructure or to define
absolute values for stormwater runoff and we highlight that the urban Rational Method should not be
used to determine volumes of stormwater runoff. Similarly, it is understood that the attributes and
characteristics of the case study will influence the design outcomes. It may not be possible to conclude
that peak discharges derived using the urban Rational Method are correct or incorrect. Additionally,
comparisons of these determinations to absolute results from other hydrological methods may be
indeterminate. However, we have asked different questions that focus on the variability of stormwater
runoff that is driven by natural and human processes. This study has shown that it is unlikely that the
parameters underpinning the urban Rational Method capture the variable nature of stormwater runoff
from urban areas. An estimate of a maximum peak discharge from a small urban development was
provided by the urban Rational Method. In the absence of observed values for rainfall runoff from a
similar catchment, this estimation of peak discharge is critically dependent on engineering judgement
about the runoff coefficient (C), time of concentration and hence average rainfall intensity. An uncertainty
of this approach was highlighted by full and partial area times of concentration of 17 and 5 minutes,
respectively. These assumptions also do not account for the temporal patterns and volumes of rainfall,
antecedent soil moisture and the attributes of a particular catchment including connectivity of impervious
areas. Nevertheless, this investigation has utilized commonly accepted values and methods for these
key parameters underpinning the urban Rational Method.
Use of ensembles of design rainfall bursts or storms in a rainfall runoff model includes a selection of
design temporal patterns of rainfall in the simulations of peak discharges within a framework that
represents the spatial details of an urban catchment. These rainfall inputs are not local rainfall patterns
and the event based assumptions required for the rainfall runoff model include estimation of average
values of all initial or antecedent conditions. This requirement cannot be accurate for urban catchments
with directly connected impervious areas where pre and post burst rainfall creates runoff. The use of

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

13 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

design storm events with full volumes of rainfall avoids an industry practice of assumptions about pre
and post burst rainfall in design. This does not include within storm behaviors and processes such as
water use from a rainwater harvesting system that can be significant for long duration storms. Analysis
using long sequences of local pluviograph rainfall in continuous simulation accounts for a wide range of
local storm patterns, volumes and antecedent conditions. This process avoids a requirement to make
judgements about initial conditions which is especially relevant to initial conditions associated with
modern volume sensitive stormwater management approaches, and seeks to capture the actual
integrated behavior of an urban catchment. The statistics of the estimated peak discharges from the
estate in the BAU scenario for the different methods are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. A summary of the statistics of peak discharges from the estate for BAU
Method
Urban Rational Method
Design Bursts in ILSAX
Design Storms in ILSAX
Continuous simulation

Average
0.88
0.97
1.87

Peak discharge (m3/s)

Minimum Maximum
1.02
0.68
1.23
0.69
1.46
0.91
3.37

Range
0.55
0.77
2.46

Table 5 highlights a key insight from this investigation there is increasing variability of results as the
methods become closer to the actual rainfall and hydrological processes. The urban Rational Method
provides a single value that accounts for a maximum peak discharge whereas the continuous simulation
approach incorporates the spatial and temporal characteristics of the estate which generates the highest
level of variability as indicated by the range in Table 5. The increasing details of the methods also
revealed generally increasing rates of failure of the urban drainage network from no failures for the urban
Rational Method, to a single failure for burst rainfall to 40% failure for full storm volumes to 30% for
continuous simulation. Continuous simulation provided the key insight that the maximum peak
discharges were generated by larger volume storms with different temporal patterns that, sometimes,
do not have the highest rainfall intensities. Clearly the urban Rational Method does not permit the full
range of challenges to designs created by design temporal patterns and real rainfall sequences. The
statistics of the estimated peak discharges from the estate in the RWT scenario for the different methods
are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. A summary of the statistics of peak discharges from the estate for RWT
Method
Urban Rational Method
Design Bursts in ILSAX
Design Storms in ILSAX
Continuous simulation

Average
0.67
0.74
1.56

Peak discharge (m3/s)

Minimum Maximum
1.02
0.46
0.93
0.46
1.15
0.6
3.36

Range
0.47
0.69
2.76

Table 6 highlights that inclusion of distributed storages within the urban catchment diminishes the
variability of the peak discharges created by design rainfall inputs. However continuous simulation
generated increased variability of peak discharges that captures the additional complexity of urban
catchment dynamics with distributed storages. Clearly the assumptions underpinning the urban Rational
Method cannot account for changed dynamics of an urban catchment that includes volume sensitive
measures. It is also incorrect to assume that distributed measures do not change peak discharges
because the runoff coefficient cannot account for these dynamics. The statistics of the estimated
stormwater runoff volumes from the estate in the BAU scenario for the different methods are presented
in Table 7.
Table 7. A summary of the statistics of stormwater runoff volumes from the estate for BAU
Method
Urban Rational Method
Design Bursts in ILSAX
Design Storms in ILSAX
Continuous simulation

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

Average
735
1,189
757

Runoff volume (m3)

Minimum Maximum
863
584
887
827
1,940
240
1,876

Range
303
1,113
1,636

14 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

Table 7 demonstrates the increasing variability of stormwater runoff volumes discharging from the urban
catchment that is correlated with increasing complexity of the methods towards reality. The importance
of accounting for the full variability of runoff volumes and patterns is highlighted above for estimation of
peak discharges and is also critical for determining the cumulative impacts of numerous small urban
developments on downstream areas. The urban Rational Method cannot account for these impacts. The
statistics of the estimated stormwater runoff volumes from the estate in the RWT scenario for the
different methods are presented in Table 8.
Table 8. A summary of the statistics of stormwater runoff volumes from the estate for RWT
Method
Urban Rational Method
Design Bursts in ILSAX
Design Storms in ILSAX
Continuous simulation

Average
571
1,030
638

Runoff volume (m3)

Minimum Maximum
863
414
728
658
1,875
161
1,571

Range
314
1,461
1,410

The results in Table 8 further reinforce the observation that the inclusion of distributed storages in urban
catchments increases the variability of the catchment behavior for peak discharges and runoff volumes.
These dynamics are more likely to be revealed by advanced analysis methods. In contrast, the urban
Rational Method does not reveal these dynamics. Importantly the provision of optimum designs for urban
stormwater management is dependent on testing solutions across the full range of urban dynamics
this is not possible using the urban Rational Method. As highlighted by Mulvany (1851), Munro (1956)
and ARR87 (IEAust,1987), availability of a substantial number of long records of rainfall runoff
observations and detailed modelling can determine values for time of concentration and runoff
coefficient in the urban Rational Method that account for catchment characteristics, urbanization
approaches and modern WSUD approaches. However, the limited urban data available for
characterizing the parameters underpinning the urban Rational Method for average urban conditions
remains a challenge.

6. CONCLUSIONS
The simple nature of the urban Rational Method cannot account for the:
1. complexity of contemporary urban catchments and modern WSUD approaches,
2. the temporal and spatial variability of storm events, and
3. variations in antecedent or between storm event processes.
We do not have enough data to characterize times of concentration and runoff coefficients for average
catchments. The recommendations in ARR and QUDM are likely to generate very different results for
urban hydrology as a consequence of a paucity of rainfall runoff observations.

7. REFERENCES
Argue, J. R., (2004). Water Sensitive Urban Design: basic procedures for source control of stormwater
a handbook for Australian practice. Urban Water Resources Centre, University of South Australia,
Adelaide, South Australia, in collaboration with Stormwater Industry Association and Australian Water
Association. ISBN 1 920927 18 2, Adelaide.
Babister M., and Ball J. E., (2014). Introduction to the Urban Rational Method Project, Australian Rainfall
and Runoff Revision Project. Engineers Australia.
Ball J. E., Weinmann E., and Kuczera G., (2015), Estimation of Peak Flows, Book 8, Australian Rainfall
and Runoff, Engineers Australia.
Coombes P.J., (2015), Transitioning drainage into urban water cycle management, WSUD2015
Conference, Engineers Australia, Sydney.
Coombes P.J. and Barry M.E., (2015a). A systems framework of big data for analysis of policy and
strategy. 2015 WSUD & IECA Conference. Sydney.

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

15 of 16

Evaluation of the Urban Rational Method

Coombes

Coombes P.J., and M.E Barry (2014). A systems framework of big data driving policy making
Melbournes water future. OzWater14 Conference. Australian Water Association. Brisbane.
Coombes P.J., (2006), Integrated Water Cycle Modeling Using PURRS (Probabilistic Urban Rainwater
and
wastewater
Reuse
Simulator).
Urban
Water
Cycle
Solutions.
Available
at
http://urbanwatercyclesolutions.com.
Coombes P. J., Kuczera G. A., Frost A. J., O'Loughlin G., and Lees S., (2003), The impact of rainwater
tanks in the Upper Parramatta River Catchment, Australian Journal Of Water Resources, 7: 121-129.
Goyen A., Phillips B. C., and Pathirajas S., (2014). Urban Rational Method Review, Australian Rainfall
and Runoff Revision Project 13. Engineers Australia. Canberra.
Hicks, B., Gray, S and Ball J. E., (2009), A critical review of the urban Rational Method, H2009, 32nd
Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium. Engineers Australia.
IEAust., (1958). Australian Rainfall and Runoff: first report of the stormwater standards. The Institution of
Engineers Australia. Canberra.
IEAust., (1987), Australian Rainfall and Runoff: a guide to flood estimation, Volume 1, Editor in Chief: D.H.
Pilgrim, The Institution of Engineers Australia, Canberra.
Kuczera G. A., M. Lambert, T. Heneker, S. Jennings, A. Frost, P.J. Coombes, (2006). Joint probability
and design storms at the crossroads. Australian Journal of Water Resources, 10: 63-79.
McAlister T., P.J. Coombes and M.E. Barry, (2004). Recent South East Queensland Developments in
Integrated Water Cycle Management - Going Beyond WSUD. Cities as Catchments: WSUD2004,
Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Mein, R.G. and Goyen A.G. (1988). Urban Runoff, Civil Eng Trans., I E Aust., 225-238, Canberra.
Mitchell, V.G., T.A. McMahon and R.G. Mein, (2003). Components of the total water balance of an urban
catchment. Environmental Management, 32, 735-746.
Mulvany, T. J. (1851), On the use of self-registering rain and flood gauges in making observations of the
relations of rain fall and of flood discharges in a given catchment, Proceedings of Institution of Civil
Engineers of Ireland, 4, 18-33.
Munro, C.H., Vallentine, H. R., and Body, D. N., (1956), A method for design of urban storm drainage
systems. Civil Engineering Publication No. 5, The University of New South Wales.
OLoughlin, G. G. (1986). The ILSAX program for urban drainage design and analysis. School of Civil
Engineering. The NSW Institute of Technology.
Poelsma, P.J., Fletcher, T.D., and Burns, M.J. (2013). Restoring natural flow regimes: the importance of
multiple scales. Proceedings of Novatech Conference, Lyon, France, 23-27.
QUDM (2013). Queensland Urban Drainage Manual. Department of Energy, Water and Energy Supply.
Queensland Government.
Ragan ,R.M., and Duru, J.O., (1972), Kinematic wave monograph for times of concentration. Journal of
Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 98, No. HY10, 17651771.
Walsh C.J. (2004) Protection of in-stream biota from urban impacts: minimise catchment imperviousness
or improve drainage design? Marine and Freshwater Research 55:317-326.
Willing and Partners, (1993), Drainage Design Practice Part II. Dept. of Urban Services, ACT City
Services Group, Roads and Transport Branch, Stormwater Section.
WMAwater, (2015), Australian Rainfall and Runoff Revision Project 3: Temporal Patterns of rainfall Part
3 Temporal Pattern Testing, Stage 3 Report, October 2015, Engineers Australia.
WMAwater, (2015a), Australian Rainfall and Runoff Revision Project 3: Temporal Patterns of Rainfall
Part 2- Pre Burst Rainfall, Stage 3 Report, October 2015, Engineers Australia.

HWRS 2015 Coombes, Babister, McAlister

16 of 16