2.

2 Areal average precipitation over an area

In general, for water resources planning purposes, knowledge is required of the average
rainfall depth over a certain area: this is called the areal rainfall. Some exapmples where
the areal rainfall is required include: design of a culvert or bridge draining a certain
catchment area, design of a pumping station to drain an urbanized area; design of a structure
to drain a polder, etc.
There are various methods to estimate the average rainfall over an area, (areal rainfall) with
area A from n Point-measurements, xi.

1:

2.2.1 Average depth method

The arithmetic mean of the rainfall amounts measured in the area provides a satisfactory
estimate for a relatively uniform rain. But not appropriate for mountainous areas or if the rain
gauges are unevenly distributed. This is expressed as:

Illustration:
The simplest method of obtaining the average depth is the average arithmetically the gauge
amount in the area. To illustrate this method, consider point rainfall records in mm randomly
distributed over a basin (fig.2.1)

Fig.2.1: Basin area with point rainfall to illustrate arithmetic mean method
Arithmetic mean
37.1 + 48.8 + 68.3 + 14.3 + 75.7 + 127.0 = 78.5 mm
6
Note
This method yield good estimates in flat country if the gauges are uniformly distributed and
the individual gauge catches do not vary widely from the mean.
These limitations can be partially overcome if topographic influences and area
representatively are considered in the selection of gauge sites.

2:

2.2.2 Thiessen method

Lines are drawn to connect reliable rainfall stations, including those just outside thearea. The
connecting lines are bisected perpendicularly to form a polygon around each station (see fig.
2. 2).
To determine the mean, the rainfall amount of each station xi is multiplied by the area of its
polygon a i and the sum of the products is divided by the total area, A. The polygon areas are

measured by plannimeter. This method is dependent on a good network , but is not good for
mountanous areas. The is expressed as

Fig 2. 2 Theissen method

Illustration:
Using the same data as in illustration for the average depth method, we will now illustrate the
computation of areal rainfall by the Thiessen method (see fig.2.3 and table 2.1a below)

Fig.2.3: Basin area with point rainfall to illustrate Thiesen polygon method
(1) Observed
(2) Area (sq.km) (3) % total area (4) Weighted precipitation (mm)
precipitation(mm)
( (1) * (3)/100
16.5
18
1
0.2

37.1
48.8
68.3
39.1
75.7
127.0
114.3

311
282
311
52
238
212
197
1621

19
18
19
3
15
13
12
100

7.1
8.5
13.1
1.3
11.1
16.6
13.9
72.1

Average = 71.8mm
Table 2.1a: Calculation of areal average by the Thiesen Polygon method
The Thiessen method attempts to allow for non-uniform distribution of gauges by providing a
weighting factor for each gauge. The stations are plotted on a map and connecting lines form
polygons around each station. The sides of each polygon are the boundaries of the effective
area assumed for the station. The area of each polygon is determined by planimetry and is
expressed as a % of the total area.
Multiplying the precipitation at each station by its assigned area and dividing by 100 compute
weighted average rainfall for the total area. The results are more accurate than those obtained
by simple arithmetical averaging.
The greatest limitation of the Thiessen method is its inflexibility, a new Thiessen diagram
being required every time there is a change in the gauge network.
Also the method doesn't allow for orographic influences. It simply assumes linear variation of
precipitation between stations and assigns each segment of area to the nearest station.
For the data provided below for a particular basin, compute the areal average rainfall by
The average depth method
Thiesen polygon method
(1)
(2)
(3)
Station observed
Area enclosing % Total area
precipitation (mm) station (sq.km)
16.5
18
1
37.1
311
19
48.8
282
18
68.3
311
19
39.1
52
3
75.7
238
15
127.0
212
13
114.3
197
12
Total basin area
1621
100

3:

2.2.3 Isohyetal method

Rainfall observations for the considered period are plotted on the map and contours of equal
precipitation depth (isohyets) are drawn (Fig. 2.4). The areal rainfall is determined by the
average precipitation between isohyets , multipied by its area ai and then dividing the sum
of these products by the total area, A.
The method takes care of non-linear distribution and detects outliers- takes care of
topography-is least subjective but it is laborous.
........................................................2.3

Fig. 2.4 Isohyetal method

Illustration:
This method, when used by an experienced analyst is the most accurate method of averaging
precipitation over an area. Station location and amount are plotted on a suitable map, and
contours of equal precipitation (isohyets) are then drawn as shown in figure 2.5.

Fig.2.5: Basin area with point rainfall to illustrate Isohyetal method

In this method the average precipitation for an area is computed by weighting the average
precipitation between successive isohyets (usually taken as the average of the two isohyetal
values) by the area between isohyets, totaling these products and divide by the total area (see
table 2.1b below)
(1) Isohyet (mm)

(2)

Area (3) Net area

(4) Avg. ppt

(5) Precipitation

127
102
76
51
25
225

enclosed
34
233
534
1041
1541
1621

34
199
300
508
500
80

135
117
89
64
38
20

volume (3) * (4)

4590
23283
26700
32448
19000
1600
107621

Average = 107621/1621 = 66mm

Table 2.1b: Calculation of areal average by the Isohyetal method
The isohyetal method permits the use and interpretation of all available data and is well
adapted to display and discussion.
In constructing an isohyetal map, analysts can make full use of their knowledge of orographic
effects and storm morphology, and in this case the final map should represent a more realistic
precipitation pattern than could be obtained from the gauge amounts alone.
If linear interpolation between stations is used the results will be essentially the same as those
obtained with the Thiessen method.

4:

2.2.4 Other methods of areal averaging of rainfall

The grid-point method: average the estimated precipitation at all points of a superimposed
grid. This approach has certain advantages over the Thiesen method but is practical only with
the aid of a computer.
Kriging method: Is a method for interpolation and averaging of spatially varying
information, which takes account of the spatial variability and which - unlike other methods can also indicate the level of accuracy of the estimates made. The Kriging weights obtained
are tailored to the variability of the phenomenon studied.

5:

2.2.5 Limitations of areal averaging methods

As a result of the averaging process, and depending on the size of the catchment area, the
areal rainfall is less than the point rainfall. The physical reason for this lies in the fact that a
rainstorm has a limited extent.
The areal rainfall is usually expressed as a percentage of he storm-centre value: the areal
reduction factor (ARF). The ARF is used to transfer point rainfall Pp extremes to areal
rainfall Pa:
ARF = Pa / Pp
(2.4)
Basically the ARF is a function of: rainfall depth, storm duration, storm type, catchment size
and return period.
The ARF increases (comes nearer to unity) with increasing total rainfall depth, which implies
higher uniformity of heavy storms. It also increases with increasing duration, again implying
that long storms are more uniform. It decreases with the area under consideration, as a result
of the storm-centred approach.
Storm type varies with location, season and climatic region. Published ARF's are, therefore,
certainly not generally applicable. From the characteristics of storm types, however, certain
conclusions can be drawn. A convective storm has a short duration and a small areal extent
hence, the ARF decreases steeply with distance. The same applies to orographic lifting.
Cyclone also has long duration and a large areal extent, which also leads to a more gradual
reduction of the ARF than in the case of thunderstorms. In general, one can say that the
ARF-curve is steepest for a convective storm, that a cyclonic storm has a more moderate
slope and that orographic storms have an even more moderate slope.
The functional relationship between the ARF and return period is less clear. Bell (1976)
showed for the United Kingdom that ARF decreased more steeply for rainstorms with ahigh
return period. Similar findingsare reported by Begemann (1931) for Indonesia. This is,

however, not necessarily so in all cases. If widespread cyclonic disturbances, instead local
convective storms, constitute the high return period rainfall,the opposite may be true.
Again, it should be observed that cyclones belong to a different statistical population from
other storm types, and that they should be treated separately. If cyclones influence the design
criteria of an engineering work, then one should consider a high value of the ARF.
Whereas the average depth method is simple to use, its limitation lies in the fact that it
assumes a uniform distribution of stations in an area, which often is not the case. Further it
assumes a flat terrain in order to minimize the variation of the point observations from the
mean.
The Thiesen method is more accurate than the average depth method since it takes care of the
distribution of stations in an area by assigning weighting functions to each station record.
However, the method is inflexible in that a new Thiesen diagram has to be constructed each
time there is a change in the station network.
Also the method doesn't allow for orographic influences. It simply assumes linear variation of
ppt. I stations and assigns each segment of area to the nearest station.
The Isohyetal method is the most accurate method especially when used by an experienced
analyst. It takes into account all the information including the physiographic features of the
area under consideration. However, the method is very tedious and time consuming.
Hydrological problems also require an analysis of time as well as areal distribution of storm
precipitation. Depth-area-duration (DAD) analysis of a storm is performed to determine the
maximum amount of precipitation within various durations and over areas of various sizes.
The next section outlines this method.