water

Article
Relationship of Rainfall and Flood Return Periods through
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling
Harris Vangelis 1 , Ioanna Zotou 1 , Ioannis M. Kourtis 1 , Vasilis Bellos 2 and Vassilios A. Tsihrintzis 1, *

1 Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards and Proactive Planning & Laboratory of Reclamation Works
and Water Resources Management, School of Rural, Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, National
Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechniou St., Zographou, 15780 Athens, Greece
2 Laboratory of Ecological Engineering and Technology, Department of Environmental Engineering,
Democritus University of Thrace, 67100 Xanthi, Greece
* Correspondence: tsihrin@otenet.gr or tsihrin@survey.ntua.gr

Abstract: In order to examine the relationship between rainfall return periods and flood return
periods, the design storm approach is compared to the rainfall–runoff continuous simulation and
flood frequency analysis approach. The former was based on rainfall frequency analysis and event-
based hydrological simulations, while the latter was based on continuous hydrological simulations
and flood frequency analysis. All hydrological simulations were undertaken employing the HEC-
HMS software. For the rainfall frequency analysis, the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) probability
distribution was used. For the flood frequency analysis, both the Extreme Value Type I (Gumbel) and
GEV theoretical distributions were used and compared to each other. Flood hazard (inundation depth,
flow velocities and flood extent) was estimated based on hydrodynamic simulations employing the
HEC-RAS software. The study area was the Pineios catchment, upstream of Larissa city, Greece. The
results revealed that the assumption of equivalent return periods of rainfall and discharge is not valid
Citation: Vangelis, H.; Zotou, I.; for the study area. For instance, a 50-year return period flood corresponds to a rainfall return period
Kourtis, I.M.; Bellos, V.; Tsihrintzis, of about 110 years. Even if flow measurements are not available, continuous simulation based on
V.A. Relationship of Rainfall and re-analysis datasets and flood frequency analysis may be alternatively used.
Flood Return Periods through
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling.
Keywords: design storm approach; intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) curves; event-based hydro-
Water 2022, 14, 3618. https://
logic simulation; continuous simulation; flood frequency analysis; flood hazard
doi.org/10.3390/w14223618

Academic Editors: Ataur Rahman,

Guido Paliaga and
Giuseppe Pezzinga 1. Introduction
Received: 22 August 2022 Flood discharge probabilities and their relationship with extreme rainfall probabilities
Accepted: 7 November 2022 is not a well-addressed subject in the literature; hence, it is a very interesting subject
Published: 10 November 2022 from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Flood design is based on extreme value
analysis of observed flood peak discharges at a site. However, the measurements of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
flood discharges are not often available, at least not in time series of adequate lengths.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
For this reason, hydrologists tend to estimate design floods based on design storms [1,2].
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Observed rainfall is used for extracting extreme values (i.e., annual maxima series approach,
peak over threshold method), estimating the design rainfall of a given return period,
and then, the estimated rainfall is used as an input for a rainfall–runoff model. The
aforementioned approach, called the design storm method, is widely applied and has
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. prevailed in engineering practice (e.g., [3]), especially in urban areas where runoff data are
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. very rarely available. The assumption of equivalent (i.e., equal) return periods of rainfall
This article is an open access article and flood flow may hold true in the case of a block rainfall with fixed duration, invariant
distributed under the terms and rainfall, invariant routing, invariant discharge and a runoff coefficient that remains constant
conditions of the Creative Commons over the rainfall duration. However, in real world basins this is not the case, and the return
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// period of rainfall is not the same as the return period of peak discharge. As a result,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ researchers have raised concerns regarding the design storm method (e.g., [4,5]).
4.0/).

Water 2022, 14, 3618. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223618 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2022, 14, 3618 2 of 20

Pilgrim and Cordery [6] addressed the problem, employing the rational method, by
providing runoff coefficients for which the return periods of the design storm will produce
flood peaks with the same return periods as the observed ones. Alfieri et al. [7] provided
correction factor(s) for the accurate estimation of design floods. Viglione and Blöschl [8]
stated that the relation between the storm return period and flood return period is not well
understood. They concluded that for storms with varying duration, the return period of
floods is always greater than that of the rainfall. Breinl et al. [5] examined the relationship
between flood and rainfall return periods and proposed a novel framework for comparing
(elasticity of floods to rainfall extremes) annual maxima rainfall (in the form of intensity–
duration–frequency curves) with annual maximum streamflow. The proposed approach
was applied in 314 rain gauges and 428 streams in Austria. Sutcliffe [9] reported that storms
with return periods of 2, 8, 17, 35, 50, 81, 140, 300, 520 and 1000 years correspond to flood
flows with return periods of 2.33, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 250, 500 and 1000 years, respectively.
The Extreme Value Theory was introduced by Gumbel [10] and mainly involves the
following steps: (i) observed flood data ordering; (ii) fitting of a theoretical distribution
function and parameter estimation; and (iii) extrapolation of the tails of the distribution to
large return periods (low probabilities of occurrence). Various researchers have applied
extreme value analysis to estimate the probabilities of extreme flood events, rainfall events,
sea levels etc. (e.g., [11–19]). A wide variety of theoretical distributions have been used for
rainfall and flood frequency analysis (e.g., [20]). The most widely used distributions are:
Normal (e.g., [21]), Log-normal (e.g., [22]), Log-normal with three parameters (e.g., [23]),
Exponential (e.g., [24]), Two-component exponential (e.g., [25]); Gamma (e.g., [8]), Pear-
son Type III (e.g., [26]), Log-Pearson Type III (e.g., [27]), Extreme Value Type I (Gumbel;
e.g., [28]), Extreme Value Type II (Fréchet; e.g., [29]), Extreme Value Type III (Weibull;
e.g., [30]), Generalized Extreme Value (GEV; e.g., [31]), Generalized Pareto (e.g., [32]),
Generalized logistic (e.g., [33]) and Wakeby (e.g., [23]). Countries have adopted different
theoretical distributions as standard models for flood and/or rainfall frequency analy-
sis [20]. For example, in the United States of America and Australia, the Log-Pearson Type
III is the standard model for flood frequency analysis, while in the United Kingdom, the
Generalized logistic is the standard model for extreme value analysis of floods. In Greece,
the GEV theoretical distribution is the standard model for rainfall frequency analysis. For a
review of recent applications of frequency analysis in the field of hydrology, the interested
reader is referred to WMO [20], Grimaldi et al. [34] and Madsen et al. [35].
Different approaches have been presented in the literature for the estimation of the
parameters of a theoretical distribution. The most widely used approaches are [34]: the
method of moments, the method of maximum likelihood and the L-moments approach. The
method of L-moments constitutes a combination of the Probability weighted moments and
was standardized by Hosking [36]. In the present work, the GEV distribution was selected
for rainfall extreme value analysis with parameters estimated employing the L-Moments
method, as this is the proposed method by the technical specifications in Greece. For the
flood frequency analysis, two distributions were examined, namely the Extreme Value Type
I (Gumbel) and the GEV with parameters estimated using the L-Moments method [37].
The L-Moments method was preferred as it is rather simple, it characterizes efficiently the
sampled data and it is not affected by the variability of the sampling approach [36].
The aim of this study was to first apply the two above-described approaches (i.e.,
the design storm approach, and continuous simulation and flood frequency analysis)
using satellite rainfall data; then, to relate the rainfall return periods with flood return
periods derived using hydrologic/hydraulic modeling; and finally, compare the results.
Comparison was performed in terms of peak discharge at the outlet of the studied basin
(i.e., design storm results vs. continuous simulation and flood frequency analysis results)
and in terms of flood hazard (i.e., flood extent, inundation depths and flow velocities).
Flood hazard was estimated based on the results of the hydrodynamic model. To the best
of our knowledge, this is one of the very few attempts (e.g., [9]) trying to relate rainfall and
flood return periods.
 terms of flood hazard (i.e., flood extent, inundation depths and flow velocities). Flood
hazard was estimated based on the results of the hydrodynamic model. To the best of our
Water 2022, 14, 3618 knowledge, this is one of the very few attempts (e.g., [9]) trying to relate rainfall and flood
3 of 20
return periods.

2. Materials andand
2. Materials Methods
Methods
TheThe
proposed
proposedmethodological
methodological approach
approachis presented
is presented in Figure 1 and
in Figure fully
1 and described
fully described
in Sections 2.1–2.3. It consists of four modules. The first module
in Sections 2.1–2.3. It consists of four modules. The first module is associated is associated withwith
the the
acquisition of data (digital elevation model, rainfall satellite data land uses,
acquisition of data (digital elevation model, rainfall satellite data land uses, etc.). The etc.). The sec-
ondsecond
module includes
module continuous
includes simulation
continuous employing
simulation employing the widely
the widely usedusedhydrological
hydrological
model HEC-HMS
model HEC-HMS [38][38]
andand
frequency
frequencyanalysis of the
analysis of synthetic
the syntheticpeakpeakdischarges.
discharges.Frequency
Frequency
analysis waswas
analysis based on one
based event
on one per per
event hydrological
hydrologicalyearyear
(1 October
(1 Octoberto 30toSeptember;
30 September; Annual
Annual
Maxima
MaximaSeries approach).
Series approach).TheThethird module
third moduleis associated
is associated withwith
the the
use useof rainfall satellite
of rainfall satellite
datadata
andand
the the
development
development of Intensity–Duration–Frequency
of Intensity–Duration–Frequency (IDF) curves
(IDF) curvesemploying
employing the the
Generalized Extreme Value Distribution
Generalized Extreme Value Distribution (GEV) and (GEV) and the hydrologic simulation
hydrologic simulation (event-based(event-
based simulation)
simulation) of of
thethe basin.
basin. Finally,
Finally, thethe fourth
fourth andand finalmodule
final moduleofofthe theproposed
proposedframework
frame-
work involves
involves hydrodynamic
hydrodynamic simulation
simulation using
using HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS software
software (e.g.,(e.g.,
[38])[38])
basedbased
on theontwo
the aforementioned
two aforementioned approaches
approaches andcomparison
and the the comparison of theofresults.
the results.

Figure 1. Proposed
Figure methodological
1. Proposed approach.
methodological approach.

2.1. 2.1.
StudyStudy
AreaAreaand and
DataData
TheThe above-described
above-described methodology
methodology waswas appliedapplied in part
in part of Pineios
of Pineios River
River basin.
basin. TheThe
Pineios River is the third longest river in Greece; it discharges into the Aegean Sea afterafter
Pineios River is the third longest river in Greece; it discharges into the Aegean Sea it it
crosses the eastern part of central Greece. The basin covers an area of about 11,000 km 2 with
crosses the eastern part of central Greece. The basin covers an area of about 11,000 km2
witha length
a length of of
about
about260260km. TheThe
km. wetwet
period
period is from November
is from November to February
to Februarywithwith
the rainiest
the
months
rainiest beingbeing
months November
November to December.
to December. On the Onother hand,hand,
the other during the summer
during the summermonths
(June(June
months to August), the rainfall
to August), is almost
the rainfall zero.
is almost zero.TheThemean annual
mean flow
annual flowforfor
thethe
Pineios
Pineios River
basin is estimated at about 3500 × 10 6 m3 . According to Bathrellos et al. [39], the regime of
River basin is estimated at about 3500 × 10 m . According to Bathrellos et al. [39], the
6 3

the Pineios
regime River flow,
of the Pineios Riverfor the for
flow, main
thetributary, can be characterized
main tributary, as perennial,
can be characterized with large
as perennial,
differences between winter and summer. For instance, near
with large differences between winter and summer. For instance, near its delta, the mean its delta, the mean average
discharge ranges from more than 150 m 3 /s in February and March to about 10 m3 /s in
average discharge ranges from more than 150 m3/s in February and March to about 10 m3/s
Augustand
in August andSeptember
September[39]. [39].
The study area is
The study area is the Pineiosthe Pineios catchment,
catchment, upstream
upstream ofof Larissacity
Larissa cityininGreece
Greece(Figure
(Figure 2).
It covers an area of approximately 6508 km 2 [38]. The altitude ranges from 67 m a.s.l. to
2). It covers an area of approximately 6508 km [38]. The altitude ranges from 67 m a.s.l.
2
about2700
to about 2700mma.s.l.
a.s.l.with
with thethe mean
mean altitude
altitude estimated
estimated at about
at about 421421 m a.s.l.
m a.s.l. Figure
Figure 2 also
2 also
presents the land uses in the study area, according to 2018 Corine Land Cover. These
presents the land uses in the study area, according to 2018 Corine Land Cover. These data
data were used for estimating different parameters (e.g., CN parameter) needed for the
were used for estimating different parameters (e.g., CN parameter) needed for the
hydrologic simulation. The land use/land cover types are presented in detail in Table 1,
i.e., Corine code, description and percent of the total study area covered per land use/land
cover type.
Water 2022, 14, 3618 4 of 20

Table 1. Corine land use/land cover types for the study area.

Corine Code Description Percent of Total Area (%) Corine Code Description Percent of Total Area (%)
Land principally occupied by agriculture,
111 Continuous urban fabric 0.03 243 5.52
with significant areas of natural vegetation
112 Discontinuous urban fabric 2.12 311 Broad-leaved forest 9.13
121 Industrial or commercial units 0.20 312 Coniferous forest 3.87
122 Road and rail networks and associated land 0.07 313 Mixed forest 2.30
131 Mineral extraction sites 0.06 321 Natural grasslands 7.87
133 Construction sites 0.08 322 Moors and heathland 0.28
141 Green urban areas 0.02 323 Sclerophyllous vegetation 11.84
142 Sport and leisure facilities 0.07 324 Transitional woodland-shrub 7.84
211 Non-irrigated arable land 13.48 331 Beaches, dunes, sands 0.09
212 Permanently irrigated land 30.45 332 Bare rocks 0.02
221 Vineyards 0.18 333 Sparsely vegetated areas 0.66
222 Fruit trees and berry plantations 0.02 334 Burnt areas 0.03
223 Olive groves 0.16 411 Inland marshes 0.09
231 Pastures 1.46 511 Water courses 0.47
242 Complex cultivation patterns 1.47 512 Water bodies 0.11
TOTAL - 100
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

hydrologic simulation. The land use/land cover types are presented in detail in Table 1,
Water 2022, 14, 3618 i.e., Corine code, description and percent of the total study area covered per land use/land
5 of 20
cover type.

Figure
Figure 2. Pineios
2. Pineios basin
basin andand study
study area,
area, Pineios
Pineios catchment
catchment upstream
upstream of Larissa
of Larissa citycity in Greece.
in Greece.

The CMORPH rainfall reanalysis dataset [40] was utilized, as it has the highest spa-
tial (8 km × 8 km) and temporal resolution (30 min) and the longest available record
(1 January 1998–31 December 2019). Data were downloaded from the data server of the
Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA; [41]) for the pixel closest to Karditsa station (lat.: 39.37, long.: 21.93, altitude: 103 m
a.s.l.). The GEV distribution was used for modeling the rainfall annual maxima series. The
parameters of GEV distribution were estimated based on the method of L-Moments [37].
Parameter estimation was undertaken for time scales ranging from 30 min to 48 h and for
return periods ranging from 10 to 100 years. The Hydrognomon software was used for all
the computations [42]. Table 2 presents the sample statistics for several time scales. The
maximum rainfall depth for the different time scales ranges from 37 mm to 140 mm, while
the minimum rainfall depth ranges from about 7 mm to about 38 mm. The coefficient of
skewness was found to be positive for all time scales indicating tail on the right (positive
skewed) and also that the data are not normally distributed. Moreover, it can be observed
that for all time scales examined, the mean is greater than the median. As a result, it can be
concluded that the empirical distribution is positively skewed.
It must be stated that we have chosen to apply this procedure in order to better
understand the differences of the two approaches, assuming that:
• Satellite rainfall is free of biases;
• The rainfall distribution is produced based on the empirical Alternating Block
Method [1] assuming specific time step and storm duration;
• The rainfall losses are estimated using the SCS Curve Number (CN, land uses and soil
in the study area);
• Continuous simulation and flood flow frequency analysis was conducted using the
peak discharges generated by the hydrological model;
Water 2022, 14, 3618 6 of 20

• One flood per hydrological year is selected so that the events are identically distributed
and statistically independent.

Table 2. Sample statistics of rainfall depth (mm) for several time scales.

Time Scale
Statistical Parameter 30 min 1h 2h 3h 6h 12 h 24 h 48 h
Sample size 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Maximum 37.00 40.00 72.00 75.00 105.60 117.35 139.55 149.65
Minimum 6.90 12.75 20.00 29.25 29.55 34.55 37.70 46.05
Mean 15.06 23.44 36.80 44.83 57.35 66.43 74.77 83.47
Geometric mean 13.85 22.15 34.69 43.01 55.12 63.78 71.19 79.88
Median 15.00 21.26 34.85 43.00 50.30 59.81 66.55 76.80
Standard deviation 6.90 8.09 13.48 13.75 17.34 20.18 25.30 26.89
Coefficient of skewness 1.76 0.54 1.06 0.88 1.18 1.02 1.16 1.18
Coefficient of kurtosis 4.33 −0.65 1.08 −0.28 1.64 0.83 0.98 0.76
Coefficient of variation (CoV) 0.46 0.35 0.37 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.32
Q1 10.35 15.90 27.05 35.10 46.35 54.10 60.00 66.70
Q3 16.30 28.04 42.53 53.18 64.71 77.50 77.50 86.70
IQR 5.95 12.14 15.48 18.08 18.36 23.40 17.50 20.00
Quartile Skew −0.56 0.12 −0.01 0.13 0.57 0.51 0.25 −0.01

2.2. Extreme Value Analysis

The GEV distribution combines the three asymptotic extreme value distributions
into a single distribution. The shape parameter (κ) determines the type of extreme value
distribution. If κ is greater than zero, the Extreme Value Type III (Weibull) is indicated,
if κ is lower than zero the Extreme Value Type II (Fréchet) is indicated, and if κ is zero
the Extreme Value Type I (Gumbel) is indicated. The cumulative distribution function of
GEV is:
1
k k
F (x) = exp{−[1 − ( x − µ)] } f or k 6= 0 (1)
α
1
F (x) = exp{− exp[− ( x − µ)]}} f or k = 0 (2)
α
where: µ is the location parameter, α is the scale parameter and k is the shape parameter of
the GEV distribution.
The inverse of Equations (1) and (2), quantile functions, are:

x ( T ) = µ + α{1 − (−logF)}k /k, f or k 6= 0 (3)

x (T) = µ − α log(− log F ), f or k = 0 (4)

where all the parameters have been already defined.
The cumulative distribution function of Gumbel distribution is:
1
F (x) = exp{− exp[− ( x − µ)]} (5)
α
where all the parameters have been already defined.
The quantile function, inverse of Equation (5), for Gumbel distribution is:

x ( T ) = µ − α log(− F ) (6)

where all the parameters have been already defined. The parameters of both probability
distributions were estimated based on the method of L-Moments [37].
Water 2022, 14, 3618 7 of 20

Finally, generalized Intensity–Duration–Frequency (IDF) curves were developed, for

the Karditsa pixel (extracted from the CMORPH rainfall satellite data), based on the
approach proposed by Koutsoyiannis et al. [43]:

α0 ( T k − µ0 )
i= (7)
(1 + t/θ )η

where: i is rainfall intensity (mm/h), α0 = α/k, µ0 = 1 − kµ, t is rainfall duration (h), θ and η
are coefficients and all other parameters have been already defined.
The point rainfall derived from the IDF curve was transformed to the catchment IDF
curve by employing the areal reduction factor (r) proposed by Leclerc and Schaake [44]:

r = 1 − exp(−1.1t1/4 ) + exp(−1.1t1/4 − 0.004A) (8)

where: r is the areal reduction factor, t is rainfall duration (h) and A is the catchment area
(km2 ). Point rainfall depth was transformed to areal rainfall depth by multiplying it with
the aforementioned coefficient.

2.3. Hydrologic-Hydrodynamic Modeling

The basin was not divided into sub-catchments for neither the event-based nor the
continuous simulation schemes. We chose to not delineate our catchment as our goal was to
relate the rainfall return periods with flood return periods and compare the derived results.
In addition, flow measurements were not available in our study area, and as a result, we
decided not to delineate our catchment in sub-basins in order to not introduce uncertainty
related to the estimation of routing (hydrologic or hydraulic) parameters. For the event-
based simulation, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number (CN) approach was
used to model the losses. Based on the land use/land cover data from 2018 Corine Land
Cover and the soil data for the study area, the area weighted average CN was estimated
at about 68. In addition, the Unitless SCS Unit Hydrograph was selected as the transform
method. The time of concentration was estimated, employing the Giandotti empirical
Equation [2,45], equal to 37.6 h.
For the continuous simulation, the following methods were employed: (a) the Simple
Canopy method [46], to represent the precipitation intercepted by the plant canopy and
used for evapotranspiration; (b) the Deficit and Constant loss method [46] in order to
describe infiltration processes in the soil layer; (c) the SCS Unit Hydrograph transform
method [1,2,46]; and (d) the constant monthly Baseflow method [46]. The Deficit and
Constant loss method describes the changes in soil moisture content through a single
soil layer and is suitable for continuous simulation. It employs four parameters, i.e.,
the initial and maximum deficits (mm), the constant rate (mm/h) and the percent of
impervious area (%). The initial deficit parameter denotes the initial condition of the soil
layer at the beginning of the simulation, in terms of the storage capacity that is not filled,
and thus, is available for receiving precipitation either directly or indirectly through the
canopy. Respectively, the maximum deficit stands for the maximum water capacity of
the soil. The constant rate represents the infiltration/percolation rates after the soil layer
reaches its maximum capacity and can be approximated with the saturated hydraulic
conductivity [46]. The Deficit and Constant loss method should be combined with a
Canopy method to simulate the interaction between canopy and soil layers. The plant
canopy intercepts precipitation, as long as its maximum storage capacity is not exceeded,
thus decreasing the total amount of rainfall reaching the soil layer. In addition, by means
of the canopy layer, water is extracted from the soil through the plants according to their
evapotranspiration demands. We decided to represent infiltration through the Deficit
and Constant loss method, since it is suitable for performing continuous simulation, and
also, consists of only one soil layer and, hence, has lower requirements in terms of input
parameters compared to the rest of the methodologies available in the HEC-HMS software.
Similarly, the Simple Canopy method was selected instead of the Dynamic one in an effort
Water 2022, 14, 3618 8 of 20

to not introduce uncertainty associated with the estimation of the input parameters. Initial
values for the Deficit and Constant loss method parameters were estimated as weighted
average values based on the predominant soil texture classes throughout the study area.
Regarding the baseflow, the constant monthly method was selected, according to which a
constant baseflow value is assumed for each month of the year. In this study, mean monthly
baseflow data, acquired from Nalbantis and Koutsoyiannis [47], were utilized.
The continuous hydrologic model was plausibly checked based on the runoff co-
efficient reported by Nalbantis and Koutsoyiannis [47], who, based on rainfall–runoff
measurements for 22 years, reported a mean annual runoff coefficient equal to 0.36. We
used this reported value to adjust the most sensitive parameters of our model, i.e., the crop
coefficient (kc ) and the constant rate of the Deficit and Constant loss method, in a manual
and empirical way. The parameters used and their range are presented in Table 3. Finally,
flood frequency analysis was applied to the annual maxima series, which resulted from
the continuous simulation, using Gumbel and GEV theoretical distributions, in order to
estimate flood quantiles for various return periods (2 years to 100 years) as previously
described.

Table 3. HEC-HMS continuous simulation model parameters and their variation range.

Parameters (Units) Range Adjusted Value

Maximum deficit (mm)-L 35–120 78
Constant rate (mm/h)-L 2–8 2
Initial deficit (mm)-L 15–60 39
Impervious (%)-L 0–100 2
Crop coefficient (kc )-C 0.1–0.5 0.19
Initial storage (%)-C 0–50 50
Maximum storage (mm)-C 2–7 4.5
Note: C refers to parameters used for canopy method and L refers to parameters used for loss method.

The 1D steady state routine of the Hydrological Engineering Center-River Analysis

System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic software of the United States Army Corps of Engineers was
used to route flood peak discharges estimated from both approaches (e.g., [48,49]). Within
HEC-RAS, steady flow calculations are based on the solution of the 1D energy equation,
whereas the Momentum equation is exploited in cases of rapidly varied flow, e.g., hydraulic
jumps and in river junctions [48].
The geometric representation of the simulated river was developed in HEC-RAS
Mapper, upon a fine resolution Digital Elevation Model (5 m × 5 m) and consisted of
305 river cross-sections in total with an average distance spacing of approximately 90
m between the riverbank lines and the stream and flow path centerlines, respectively.
Manning’s friction coefficient value was set equal to 0.03 for the main channel and 0.04 for
the overbank areas [1,2].

3. Results
3.1. Design Storm Approach vs. Flood Frequency Analysis
Prior to frequency analysis, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and chi-squared statistical tests
were performed to test the null hypothesis that GEV probability distribution fits the data,
for different significance levels (1%, 5% and 10%). In all cases, and for both statistical tests,
it was concluded that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. As a result, GEV distribution
can be used to develop IDF curves for the different time scales examined. In addition, a
graphical comparison by fitting the theoretical GEV distribution to the sample is depicted in
Figure 3. The empirical plotting position was estimated by employing the Weibull unbiased
plotting position [50]. The theoretical values using the GEV distribution are presented in
Figure 3 as black lines. It can be observed that for low return periods, the GEV distribution
describes the annual maxima series of rainfall very well for all the examined time scales
(i.e., 30 min to 48 h).
Water 2022, 14, 2022,
Water x FOR14,
PEER
3618REVIEW 10 of 20 9 of 20

Figure 3.Figure
Distribution functionfunction
3. Distribution plot forplot
Annual Maxima
for Annual Series (AMS)
Maxima of various
Series (AMS) time scales
of various and and GEV
time scales
GEV fitted distributions (LM—Linear Moments).
fitted distributions (LM—Linear Moments).
 Water 2022, 14, 3618 10 of 20

As a result, it was concluded that the GEV distribution was consistent with the
data. Equation (9) presents the IDF curve developed from CMORPH data for the pixel
representing Karditsa station:

68.73( T 0.15 − 0.45)

i= (9)
(1 + t/0.996)0.836

where: i is the rainfall intensity (mm/h), t is the rainfall duration (h) and T is the return
period (years).
Finally, Table 4 presents the estimated intensity (mm/h) for various rainfall durations
(2 to 48 h) and for return periods ranging from 2 to 100 years. These intensities were
transformed to areal intensity by applying Equation (8). Since the time of concentration,
as mentioned, was estimated at about 37.6 h, the rainfall duration was chosen for the
event-based simulation equal to 48 h.

Table 4. Intensity (mm/h) for various rainfall durations (2 to 48 h) and for return periods ranging
from 2 to 100 years.

Intensity (mm/h) for Return Period (Years)

Duration (h) 2 5 10 25 50 100
2 18.07 22.54 26.36 32.06 36.92 42.31
3 14.20 17.72 20.72 25.20 29.02 33.26
6 8.89 11.09 12.97 15.78 18.17 20.82
12 5.30 6.61 7.73 9.40 10.83 12.41
24 3.07 3.83 4.47 5.44 6.27 7.18
48 1.75 2.18 2.55 3.10 3.57 4.09

Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 4 presents the 48 h, 50-year hyetograph indicating that the rainfall used was 11 of 20
not constant, and also, the results of the event-based simulation for the rainfall duration of
48 h and return period of 50 years. Peak discharge was estimated at about 4000 m3 /s.

Figure 4. Event
Figure based
4. Event basedsimulation
simulation results forrainfall
results for rainfall duration
duration of h48and
of 48 h and return
return period
period of 50 years.
of 50 years.

The
The resultsofofthe
results the continuous
continuous simulation
simulationare presented
are in Figure
presented 5. The
in Figure simulation
5. The simulation
was undertaken from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019. According
was undertaken from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019. According to Nalbantis
to and and
Nalbantis
3 3
Koutsoyiannis [47], the mean monthly baseflow ranges from 14.8 m /s to3 156.1 m /s. The
Koutsoyiannis [47], the mean monthly baseflow ranges from 14.8 m /s to 156.1 m /s. The 3

maximum flow was estimated at about 5101 m3/s, while the minimum flow was 959.2 m3/s.
The runoff coefficient was calculated equal to 0.36.
 Figure 4. Event based simulation results for rainfall duration of 48 h and return period of 50 years.

The results of the continuous simulation are presented in Figure 5. The simulation
Water 2022, 14, 3618 was undertaken from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019. According to Nalbantis 11 of 20 and
Koutsoyiannis [47], the mean monthly baseflow ranges from 14.8 m3/s to 156.1 m3/s. The
maximum flow was estimated at about 5101 m3/s, while the minimum flow was 959.2 m3/s.
3 /s, while the minimum flow was 959.2 m3 /s.
Themaximum flow was estimated
runoff coefficient at about 5101
was calculated equalmto 0.36.
The runoff coefficient was calculated equal to 0.36.

Figure 5. Continuous
Figure 5. Continuoussimulation resultsfrom
simulation results from1 1January
January 1998
1998 to December
to 31 31 December
2019.2019.

Flood
Flood frequencyanalysis
frequency analysis was
was undertaken
undertakenforforthethe
annual
annualmaxima
maximaseries of synthetic
series of synthetic
peak discharges using Extreme Value Type I (Gumbel) and GEV probability distributions.
peak discharges using Extreme Value Type I (Gumbel) and GEV probability distributions.
For assessing the fitting of both probability distributions to the annual maxima series of
Forsynthetic
assessingpeakthedischarges,
fitting of the
both probability distributions
Kolmogorov–Smirnov to the annual
and chi-squared maxima
statistical series of
tests were
synthetic
performed for various significance levels (1%, 5% and 10%). For both distributions and for were
peak discharges, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and chi-squared statistical tests
performed for various
both statistical significance
tests, it was concludedlevels (1%,
that both 5% and
Gumbel and10%). For both distributions
GEV probability distributions and
forcan
both statistical
be used tests, itannual
for modeling was concluded that
maxima flood bothTable
peaks. Gumbel and GEV
5 presents probability
the sample statisticsdistri-
for the annual maxima series of synthetic peak discharges.
butions can be used for modeling annual maxima flood peaks. Table 5 presents the sample
statistics for the annual maxima series of synthetic peak discharges.
Table 5. Sample statistics for the annual maxima series (m3 /s) of synthetic peak discharges.
Finally, Figure 6 presents the fitting of the theoretical distributions (Gumbel and
GEV) to the empirical ones. The Weibull plotting position was used for estimating empir-
Statistics
ical Sample
quantiles.
size It can be observed22 that both Gumbel
Coefficientand GEV distributions
of skewness 0.64 describe the
Maximum 5101.40 Coefficient of kurtosis 0.33
Minimum 959.20 Coefficient of variation (CoV) 0.39
Mean 2736.36 Q1 2121.93
Geometric mean 2533.70 Q3 3042.55
Median 2640.25 IQR 920.63
Standard deviation 1064.43 Quartile Skew −0.13

Finally, Figure 6 presents the fitting of the theoretical distributions (Gumbel and GEV)
to the empirical ones. The Weibull plotting position was used for estimating empirical
quantiles. It can be observed that both Gumbel and GEV distributions describe the annual
maxima series of synthetic peak discharges at the outlet of the basin very well. Therefore,
both distributions are considered appropriate for modeling annual maxima series.
 Maximum 5101.40 Coefficient of kurtosis 0.33
Minimum 959.20 Coefficient of variation (CoV) 0.39
Mean 2736.36 Q1 2121.93
Geometric mean 2533.70 Q3 3042.55
Water 2022, 14, 3618 Median 2640.25 IQR 920.63 12 of 20
Standard deviation 1064.43 Quartile Skew −0.13

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Distribution
Distribution function
function plot
plot for
for Annual
Annual Maxima
Maxima Series
Series (AMS)
(AMS) and
and Gumbel
Gumbel and
and GEV
GEV fitted
fitted
distributions (LM—Linear Moments).
distributions (LM—Linear Moments).

Table
Table 66 and
and Figure
Figure77present
presentthe
thecomparison
comparisonbetweenbetween thethe results
results derived
derived fromfrom
thethe
de-
design storm
sign storm approach
approach andand
the the continuous
continuous simulation
simulation and flood
and flood frequency
frequency analysis
analysis ap-
approach.
proach.
It can beItobserved
can be observed that thestorm
that the design design storm approach
approach constantlyconstantly
underestimates underestimates
the estimatedthe
estimated flood quantiles. According to the results, the percent
flood quantiles. According to the results, the percent increase for the Gumbel and GEV increase for the Gumbel
and GEV distributions
distributions ranges from ranges from
about 180%about 180%
to 25% to from
and 25% and aboutfrom 185% about 185%respectively.
to 20%, to 20%, re-
spectively.
For instance, Forfor
instance,
a returnfor a return
period of 2period
years, theof 2flood
years,peakthe flood
estimatedpeak based
estimated
on the based on
results
the results
of the of the continuous
continuous simulationsimulation
and the flood andfrequency
the flood analysis
frequency withanalysis
GEV andwithGumbel
GEV and is
Gumbel
185% and is 181%,
185% and 181%, respectively,
respectively, greater than greater thanpeak
the flood the flood
estimatedpeak based
estimated
on the based on
design
the
stormdesign storm(Table
approach approach
5 and(Table
Figure 56).and Figure 6).it In
In addition, canaddition,
be observed it can beflood
that observed that
frequency
flood frequency
analysis based on analysis
Gumbel based
andonGEVGumbel and GEV
theoretical theoreticalyields
distributions distributions yields simi-
similar results. The
percent
lar difference
results. between
The percent the twobetween
difference distributions ranges
the two between 1%
distributions (for abetween
ranges return period
1% (forof
a2 return
years) and
period−4% of (for a return
2 years) andperiod
−4% (forof 100 years).
a return Finally,
period of it100
canyears).
be observed
Finally,that as the
it can be
return period
observed that increases, the percent
as the return difference the
period increases, decreases.
percentThis is expected
difference since our
decreases. Thissample
is ex-
(rainfallsince
pected and our
peaksample
discharges) is only
(rainfall and 22 years.
peak As a result,
discharges) the estimation
is only 22 years. As of alarge return
result, the
periods (tails
estimation of of the return
large distributions)
periodsentails
(tails ofa high degree of uncertainty.
the distributions) entails a high degree of un-
certainty.
Table 6. Comparison of peak discharges estimated using the two approaches.

Return Period Design Storm Flood Frequency

Percent Increase (%)
(Years) Approach (m3 /s) Analysis (m3 /s)
Gumbel GEV Gumbel GEV
2 909.8 2556.5 2589.2 181 185
5 1516.4 3523.9 3554.1 132 134
10 2102.0 4164.5 4162.1 98 98
25 3062.3 4973.8 4896.7 62 60
50 3946.5 5574.2 5418.5 41 37
100 4972.9 6170.1 5917.7 24 19
Water 2022,14,
Water2022, 14,3618
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of
13 of 20
20

Figure7.7.Comparison
Figure Comparisonof ofthe
thetwo
twoapproaches
approaches(design
(designstorm
stormand
andcontinuous
continuoussimulation
simulationand
andflood
flood
frequency analysis) in terms of (a) return period and peak discharges, and (b) relationship of rainfall
frequency analysis) in terms of (a) return period and peak discharges, and (b) relationship of rainfall
return period to flood return period.
return period to flood return period.
Table
3.2. 6. Comparison
Hydrodynamic of peak discharges
Simulations estimated using the two approaches.
and Results
Return Period (Years) Design Hydrodynamic
Storm Approachsimulation
(m3/s) Flood for both approaches
Frequency (i.e.,(m
Analysis design
3/s) storm approach
Percent Increase (%)and
continuous simulation and flood frequency Gumbel analysis approach)
GEV was performed
Gumbel employingGEV
2 the HEC-RAS 909.8 software. It should be noted
2556.5 that the peak
2589.2 discharge 181derived from
185 the
flood frequency analysis using Gumbel probability distribution for a 50-year return period
5 1516.4 3523.9 3554.1 132 134
was exploited instead of GEV. The two distributions yielded similar results as previously
10 2102.0 4164.5 4162.1 98 98
described, thus, we only exploited Gumbel as the estimated peaks are slightly higher.
25 3062.3 4973.8 4896.7
Figure 8 presents the derived results with respect to the flood inundation extent
62 60
50 3946.5 5574.2 5418.5
(Figure 8a) and the difference between the simulated inundation depths (Figure 8b). 41 37 As
100 expected, 4972.9
the continuous simulation combined 6170.1 with the5917.7
flood frequency 24 analysis led
19 to a
larger inundated area, compared to the designed storm approach. Specifically, in the former
3.2. Hydrodynamic
case Simulations
a flood extent greater by 7.7%and Results
was computed, which translates into an approximately
4.4 km 2 larger floodedsimulation
area. Similarly, greater inundation depths storm
emerged from the
Hydrodynamic for both approaches (i.e., design approach andflood
con-
frequency analysis approach,
tinuous simulation and floodresulting
frequency in analysis
discrepancies of upwas
approach) to 1 performed
m betweenemploying
the examined the
scenarios (Figure 8b) for the areas close to the downstream boundary
HEC-RAS software. It should be noted that the peak discharge derived from the flood of the model.
Finally,analysis
frequency Figure using
9a,b present
Gumbel flow velocity distribution
probability distributionfor throughout
a 50-year the modeled
return periodarea
was
for both scenarios examined. Again, higher velocities were computed
exploited instead of GEV. The two distributions yielded similar results as previously when the continu-
de-
ous simulation
scribed, thus, we with
onlytheexploited
flood frequency
Gumbel analysis scenariopeaks
as the estimated was considered.
are slightly In particular,
higher.
according
Figure to 8the derivedthe
presents results,
derived differences in velocities
results with respect towere foundinundation
the flood to range from 0 to(Fig-
extent 0.5
m/s for 98% of the modeled area. The results revealed that the proposed
ure 8a) and the difference between the simulated inundation depths (Figure 8b). As ex- methodology is
viable and could be applied in other basins and/or even substitute
pected, the continuous simulation combined with the flood frequency analysis led to a the prevailing approach
for designing
larger inundated hydraulic structures to
area, compared (i.e.,
thedesign
designedstorm approach).
storm approach. Specifically, in the for-
mer case a flood extent greater by 7.7% was computed, which translates into an approxi-
mately 4.4 km2 larger flooded area. Similarly, greater inundation depths emerged from
the flood frequency analysis approach, resulting in discrepancies of up to 1 m between
the examined scenarios (Figure 8b) for the areas close to the downstream boundary of the
model.
Finally, Figure 9a,b present flow velocity distribution throughout the modeled area
for both scenarios examined. Again, higher velocities were computed when the continu-
ous simulation with the flood frequency analysis scenario was considered. In particular,
according to the derived results, differences in velocities were found to range from 0 to
r 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

0.5 m/s for 98% of the modeled area. The results revealed that the proposed methodology
Water 2022, 14, 3618 14 of 20
is viable and could be applied in other basins and/or even substitute the prevailing ap-
proach for designing hydraulic structures (i.e., design storm approach).

Figure 8. Difference
Figure 8.between design
Difference storm
between approach
design storm and continuous
approach simulation
and continuous and flood
simulation andfre-
flood frequency
quency analysis approach with respect to the (a) flood extents and (b) inundation depths down-
analysis approach with respect to the (a) flood extents and (b) inundation depths downstream of the
stream of the catchment.
catchment.
 Water 2022, 14, 3618 15 of 20
2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20

Figure 9. FlowFigure
velocity
9. (m/s)
Flowdistribution for the
velocity (m/s) (a) designfor
distribution storm
theapproach
(a) designand (b) continuous
storm sim-(b) continuous
approach and
ulation and flood frequency analysis approach downstream of the catchment.
simulation and flood frequency analysis approach downstream of the catchment.

4. Discussion4. Discussion
In this work,In rainfall frequency
this work, analysis for
rainfall frequency developing
analysis Intensity–Duration–Fre-
for developing Intensity–Duration–Frequency
quency (IDF)(IDF)
curves was applied
curves on the
was applied onannual maxima
the annual rainfall
maxima usingusing
rainfall the GEV distribu-
the GEV distribution, the
tion, the method of L-moments for distribution fitting and the generalized approach for
Water 2022, 14, 3618 16 of 20

method of L-moments for distribution fitting and the generalized approach for developing
IDF curves proposed by Koutsoyiannis et al. [43]. The time of concentration for the basin is
large (37.6 h), but to develop accurate IDF curves, data in sub-hourly time scales are needed.
As a result, the CMORPH reanalysis data set was used instead of other reanalysis and/or
satellite derived rainfall datasets (e.g., ERA5-Land). In addition, it must be mentioned that
a study comparing the various or at least some of the existing global rainfall datasets in
terms of rainfall–runoff modeling would be of great interest to the scientific community.
Finally, flood frequency analysis for the annual maxima series of synthetic peak discharges
(i.e., continuous simulation) took place using Gumbel and GEV probability distributions
and the method of L-moments.
Our results suggested that a flood with a return period of 10 years corresponds to a
rainfall with a return period of about 25 years and a flood with a 50-year return period
corresponds to rainfall with a return period of about 110 years (Figure 6b). According to
Sutcliffe [9], a flood with a 10-year return period corresponds to a rainfall with a return
period of about 50 years and a flood with a return period of 50 years corresponds to a
rainfall with a return period of approximately 110 years. As a result, it can be concluded
that in all cases larger return periods of rainfall are needed for the design of hydraulic
structures in the study area.
If we had available discharge measurements of an adequate length, we would be
able to properly calibrate and validate both models (event-based model and continuous
simulation model). However, we believe that our results would not differentiate much
and probably the same conclusions could be drawn (i.e., flood return period calculated
from the event-based rainfall–runoff model differs from the flood return period calculated
based on the results of the continuous rainfall–runoff simulation model). The main reason
is associated with the event-based approach. This approach is interrelated with many
uncertainties and assumptions (fixed rainfall duration, pre-defined rainfall pattern, pre-
determined initial conditions of the catchment, etc.). On the other hand, with the continuous
simulation approach, the uncertainty is still present as a result of the simplifications of
the real world, but to a lesser extent compared to the event-based approach. In order to
account for the inherent uncertainty associated with the design storm approach, the use of
different rainfall distribution approaches (e.g., Alternating Block Method, Chicago Design
Storm approach, etc.) along with the uncertainty analysis of the model input parameters
and the structural uncertainty of the models is proposed.
A different approach than the areal precipitation factor could be examined accounting
for the non-uniformity of rainfall excess. In addition, areal factors generally can reduce
precipitation depth compared to other approaches. However, since the goal of our study is
not to conduct a detailed flood study, the rainfall input to the model is irrelevant. Overall,
our research demonstrated that the return periods of rainfall and floods are not equivalent.
Their relationship depends on various factors, such as climatological characteristics of the
study site, rainfall spatial distribution, antecedent soil moisture conditions, storage capacity
of the soil and climate modes, among others.
It can be concluded that rainfall return period is the same with the flood return period
only under certain circumstances and only for very low probabilities of occurrence. For this
reason, it is proposed that flood quantiles and flood hazard assessment should be estimated
based on flood frequency analysis, either by means of observed flows or by means of
synthetic flows developed by continuous simulation and not by using the design storm
approach. However, as already stated, this is not always possible especially in data-scarce
areas. Thus, the use of continuous simulation is proposed, in conjunction with re-analysis
and/or satellite rainfall data sets. In addition, this study successfully demonstrated that
the flood hazard estimated employing the design storm approach is significantly lower
than the flood hazard estimated by the continuous simulation and flood frequency analysis
approach. For example, the design storm approach underestimated flow velocities by up
to 0.5 m/s and inundation depths by up to 1 m, which may be extremely crucial when
estimating the subsequent flood damage. The main reason for those differences is associated
Water 2022, 14, 3618 17 of 20

with the difference between the return period of rainfall and the return period of floods as
already discussed.
It must be stated that the hydrodynamic simulation was only performed for the 50-
year return period, for both approaches (i.e., design storm and continuous simulation and
flood frequency analysis). In addition, our sample data was rather limited to 22 years of
rainfall. As a result, extrapolation to low probabilities of occurrence (high return periods)
may result in large uncertainties and is not recommended.
The application of the same methodological framework in a different basin, in which
high resolution rainfall–runoff measurements of sufficient length (>50 years) are available,
is envisaged in the future. The same framework could also be used employing regional
frequency analysis. Furthermore, different theoretical distributions could be assessed
(e.g., Log-Pearson type III, Wakeby, etc.) and incorporated in the assessment exercise. In
addition, the same approach should be applied in different basins with different topo-
graphical, physiographical and climatological characteristics. Moreover, the proposed
assessment framework could be expanded to include in the analysis, the rainfall duration,
the rainfall temporal distributions, the antecedent moisture conditions, etc. Finally, the
uncertainty stemming from various sources (e.g., uncertainty of rainfall–runoff measure-
ments, structural uncertainty of the models, parametric uncertainty, etc.) should be studied
and quantified.

5. Summary and Conclusions

The prevailing approach (i.e., design storm approach) for the design of hydraulic
structures is applied and compared with the continuous simulation and flood frequency
analysis approach. The aim is to test the hypothesis if the rainfall return period is equivalent
to the flood return period. Initially, rainfall frequency analysis for the design storm approach
was undertaken. Then, the results of rainfall frequency analysis were used as an input
to a hydrologic model (HEC-HMS; event-based simulation) and the estimated peak, for
a given return period, was used as an input to a hydrodynamic model (HEC-RAS). On
the other hand, rainfall was used an input to a hydrologic model (HEC-HMS; continuous
simulation). Afterwards, the annual maxima series were extracted and flood frequency
analysis was undertaken employing two widely used extreme value distributions (i.e.,
Gumbel and GEV). The estimated quantile (flood peak), for a given return period, was
used as an input to a hydrodynamic model for estimating inundation depth, flow velocities
and flood extent. Finally, the results of the two aforementioned approaches were compared
in terms of estimated quantiles, inundation depths, flow velocities and flood extent.
The results revealed that, in all cases, the design storm approach significantly under-
estimated flood peaks and as a consequence, the inundation depths, flow velocities and
flood extent were also underestimated. This is a crucial finding that shall be taken under
consideration by practitioners and engineers working in the water related industry. A
generalized relationship and the factors that are incorporated (e.g., size or morphology of
the basin) between these two return periods is an open future challenge that should be
addressed by the research community.
The main approach used today for estimating flood hazard is the design storm ap-
proach. Intensity–Duration–Frequency curves are developed using observed rainfall depths
and then used as an input to a hydrologic model for estimating peak discharges. Finally,
estimated discharges are used as an input to a hydraulic model for estimating flood hazard.
The main drawback of the design storm approach is that it assumes that rainfall return
period is equal to flood return period. Another alternative is the use of flow measurements
and flood frequency analysis. In the present work, it is proposed to move from the de-
sign storm approach to the continuous simulation and flood frequency analysis approach
for ungauged or partially gauged basins using satellite estimated rainfall. In order to
successfully apply the continuous simulation and flood frequency analysis approach, the
following steps should be followed: (i) acquisition of high resolution (e.g., 5 min or less)
rainfall measurements; (ii) development of the hydrologic model; (iii) estimation of flood
Water 2022, 14, 3618 18 of 20

peaks; (iv) flood frequency analysis and estimation of return periods of flood events; and
(v) development of the hydraulic model and estimation of flood hazard maps for different
return periods. It must be mentioned that in cases where flow measurements are available,
they can be used in calibrating/validating both models (hydrologic and hydraulic model).
Overall, it can be concluded that the continuous simulation approach is more physically
realistic as it does not entail as many assumptions and simplifications of the real world as
the event-based approach.
The introduction of new or updated approaches in the design procedures is considered
essential. Moreover, especially for data-scarce areas, new and/or emerging technologies
such as reanalysis datasets, satellite datasets and/or radar measurements could be used.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.V., I.Z., I.M.K., V.B. and V.A.T.; methodology, H.V., I.Z.,
I.M.K., V.B. and V.A.T.; software, I.Z. and I.M.K.; validation, H.V., I.Z. and I.M.K.; formal analysis,
H.V., I.Z., I.M.K., V.B., H.V. and V.A.T.; investigation, I.Z., I.M.K., V.B., H.V. and V.A.T.; resources, I.Z.,
I.M.K. and V.A.T.; data curation, I.Z., I.M.K. and V.B.; writing—original draft preparation, H.V., I.Z.
and I.M.K.; writing—review and editing, H.V., I.Z., I.M.K., V.B. and V.A.T.; visualization, I.Z., I.M.K.
and V.B.; supervision, H.V. and V.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The precipitation dataset presented in this study is openly available
in [data server of the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)] at [ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/precip/global_CMORPH/ (accessed on 10
May 2022)], reference number [41].
Acknowledgments: A graduate scholarship to Ioanna Zotou by the Research Committee of the
National Technical University of Athens is greatly appreciated. The authors would like to thank all
the anonymous reviewers whose comments have greatly improved this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chow, V.; Maidment, D.; Mays, L. Applied Hydrology; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
2. Mimikou, M.A.; Baltas, E.A.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Hydrology and Water Resource Systems Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA,
2016.
3. Kourtis, I.M.; Tsihrintzis, V.A.; Baltas, E. A robust approach for comparing conventional and sustainable flood mitigation measures
in urban basins. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 269, 110822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Packman, J.C.; Kidd, C.H.R. A logical approach to the design storm concept. Water Resour. Res. 1980, 16, 994–1000. [CrossRef]
5. Breinl, K.; Lun, D.; Müller-Thomy, H.; Blöschl, G. Understanding the relationship between rainfall and flood probabilities through
combined intensity-duration-frequency analysis. J. Hydrol. 2021, 602, 126759. [CrossRef]
6. Pilgrim, D.H.; Cordery, I. Flood Runoff. In Handbook of Hydrology; Chapter, 9; Maidment, D.R., Ed.; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York,
NY, USA, 1993; p. 1143.
7. Alfieri, L.; Laio, F.; Claps, P. A simulation experiment for optimal design hyetograph selection. Hydrol. Process. 2008, 22, 813–820.
[CrossRef]
8. Viglione, A.; Blöschl, G. On the role of storm duration in the mapping of rainfall to flood return periods. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
2009, 13, 205–216. [CrossRef]
9. Sutcliffe, J.V. Methods of Flood Estimation: A Guide to Flood Studies Report; Institute of Hydrology: Wallingford, UK, 1978.
10. Gumbel, E.J. Statistics of Extremes; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1958.
11. Noto, L.V.; Loggia, G.L. Use of L-Moments Approach for Regional Flood Frequency Analysis in Sicily, Italy. Water Resour. Manag.
2008, 23, 2207–2229. [CrossRef]
12. Eregno, F.E.; Nilsen, V.; Seidu, R.; Heistad, A. Evaluating the Trend and Extreme Values of Faecal Indicator Organisms in a Raw
Water Source: A Potential Approach for Watershed Management and Optimizing Water Treatment Practice. Environ. Process.
2014, 1, 287–309. [CrossRef]
13. Tsakiris, G.; Kordalis, N.; Tsakiris, V. Flood double frequency analysis: 2D-Archimedean copulas vs bivariate probability
distributions. Environ. Process. 2015, 2, 705–716. [CrossRef]
Water 2022, 14, 3618 19 of 20

14. Yannopoulos, S.; Eleftheriadou, E.; Mpouri, S.; Giannopoulou, I. Implementing the Requirements of the European Flood Directive:
The Case of Ungauged and Poorly Gauged Watersheds. Environ. Process. 2015, 2, 191–207. [CrossRef]
15. Razmi, A.; Golian, S.; Zahmatkesh, Z. Non-Stationary Frequency Analysis of Extreme Water Level: Application of Annual
Maximum Series and Peak-over Threshold Approaches. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 2065–2083. [CrossRef]
16. Stojkovic, M.; Simonovic, S.P. Mixed General Extreme Value Distribution for Estimation of Future Precipitation Quantiles Using a
Weighted Ensemble—Case Study of the Lim River Basin (Serbia). Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 2885–2906. [CrossRef]
17. Ullah, H.; Akbar, M. Drought Risk Analysis for Water Assessment at Gauged and Ungauged Sites in the Low Rainfall Regions of
Pakistan. Environ. Process. 2021, 8, 139–162. [CrossRef]
18. Razmi, A.; Mardani-Fard, H.A.; Golian, S.; Zahmatkesh, Z. Time-Varying Univariate and Bivariate Frequency Analysis of
Nonstationary Extreme Sea Level for New York City. Environ. Process. 2022, 9, 1–27. [CrossRef]
19. Tegos, A.; Ziogas, A.; Bellos, V.; Tzimas, A. Forensic Hydrology: A Complete Reconstruction of an Extreme Flood Event in
Data-Scarce Area. Hydrology 2022, 9, 93. [CrossRef]
20. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Statistical Distributions for Flood Frequency Analysis, Operational Hydrology Report No.
33; WMO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.
21. Matalas, N.C.; Wallis, J.R. An Approach to Formulating Strategies for Flood Frequency Analysis. In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium on Uncertainties in Hydrologic and Water Resource Systems, Tucson, AZ, USA, 11–14 December 1972; pp.
940–961.
22. Forestieri, A.; Arnone, E.; Blenkinsop, S.; Candela, A.; Fowler, H.; Noto, L.V. The impact of climate change on extreme precipitation
in Sicily, Italy. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 332–348. [CrossRef]
23. Vogel, R.M.; McMahon, T.A.; Chiew, F.H. Flood flow frequency model selection in Australia. J. Hydrol. 1993, 146, 421–449.
[CrossRef]
24. Todorovic, P. Stochastic models of floods. Water Resour. Res. 1978, 14, 345–356. [CrossRef]
25. Hosseinzadehtalaei, P.; Tabari, H.; Willems, P. Precipitation intensity–duration–frequency curves for central Belgium with an
ensemble of EURO-CORDEX simulations, and associated uncertainties. Atmos. Res. 2018, 200, 1–12. [CrossRef]
26. Kroll, C.N.; Vogel, R.M. Probability distribution of low streamflow series in the United States. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2002, 7, 137–146.
[CrossRef]
27. Bhatkoti, R.; Moglen, G.E.; Murray-Tuite, P.M.; Triantis, K.P. Changes to Bridge Flood Risk under Climate Change. J. Hydrol. Eng.
2016, 21, 04016045. [CrossRef]
28. Kourtis, I.M.; Bellos, V.; Kopsiaftis, G.; Psiloglou, B.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Methodology for holistic assessment of grey-green flood
mitigation measures for climate change adaptation in urban basins. J. Hydrol. 2021, 603, 126885. [CrossRef]
29. Phillips, R.C.; Samadi, S.Z.; Meadows, M.E. How extreme was the October 2015 flood in the Carolinas? An assessment of flood
frequency analysis and distribution tails. J. Hydrol. 2018, 562, 648–663. [CrossRef]
30. Langat, P.K.; Kumar, L.; Koech, R. Identification of the most suitable probability distribution models for maximum, minimum,
and mean streamflow. Water 2019, 11, 734. [CrossRef]
31. Schardong, A.; Simonovic, S.P.; Gaur, A.; Sandink, D. Web-Based Tool for the Development of Intensity Duration Frequency
Curves under Changing Climate at Gauged and Ungauged Locations. Water 2020, 12, 1243. [CrossRef]
32. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K.; Leonardsen, L.; Madsen, H. Evaluating adaptation options for urban flooding based on new high-end
emission scenario regional climate model simulations. Clim. Res. 2015, 64, 73–84. [CrossRef]
33. Atiem, I.A. Assessment of regional floods using L-moments approach: The case of the River Nile. Water Resour. Manag. 2006, 20,
723–747. [CrossRef]
34. Grimaldi, S.; Kao, S.C.; Castellarin, A.; Papalexiou, S.M.; Viglione, A.; Laio, F.; Aksoy, H.; Gedikli, A. Statistical hydrology. In
Treatise on Water Science; Wilderer, P.A., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 479–517.
35. Madsen, H.; Lawrence, D.; Lang, M.; Martinkova, M.; Kjeldsen, T.R. A Review of Applied Methods in Europe for Flood-Frequency
Analysis in a Changing Environment. 2012. Available online: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02597863/document (accessed on 10 May
2022).
36. Hosking, J.R.M. L-Moments: Analysis and Estimation of Distributions Using Linear Combinations of Order Statistics. J. R. Stat.
Soc. Ser. B 1990, 52, 105–124. [CrossRef]
37. Hosking, J.R.M.; Wallis, J.R. Regional Frequency Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; p. 240.
38. Zotou, I.; Bellos, V.; Gkouma, A.; Karathanassi, V.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Using Sentinel-1 imagery to assess predictive performance of a
hydraulic model. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 34, 4415–4430. [CrossRef]
39. Bathrellos, G.D.; Skilodimou, H.D.; Soukis, K.; Koskeridou, E. Temporal and spatial analysis of flood occurrences in the drainage
basin of pinios river (thessaly, central greece). Land 2018, 7, 106. [CrossRef]
40. Joyce, R.J.; Janowiak, J.E.; Arkin, P.A.; Xie, P. CMORPH: A method that produces global precipitation estimates from passive
microwave and infrared data at high spatial and temporal resolution. J. Hydrometeorol. 2004, 5, 487–503. [CrossRef]
41. Data Server of the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available online:
Ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/precip/global_CMORPH/ (accessed on 10 May 2022).
42. Kozanis, S.; Christofides, A.; Mamassis, N.; Efstratiadis, A.; Koutsoyiannis, D. Hydronomon–open source software for the analysis
of hydrological data. In Proceedings of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 2–7 May
2010.
Water 2022, 14, 3618 20 of 20

43. Koutsoyiannis, D.; Kozonis, D.; Manetas, A. A mathematical framework for studying rainfall intensity–duration–frequency
relationships. J. Hydrol. 1998, 206, 118–135. [CrossRef]
44. Leclerc, G.; Schaake, J.C. Derivation of Hydrologic Frequency Curves. Report 142; Department of Civil Engineering, MIT: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1972; p. 151.
45. Giandotti, M. Previsione Delle Piene e Delle, Magre dei Corsi D’acqua; Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato: Rome, Italy, 1934; pp. 107–117.
46. Scharffenberg, B.; Bartles, M.; Brauer, T.; Fleming, M.; Karlovits, G. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS: User’s Manual; US
Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center: Davis, CA, USA, 2018.
47. Nalbantis, I.; Koutsoyiannis, D. Research Project, Upgrading and Updating of Hydrological Information of Thessalia, Volume 4, Final
Report; National Technical University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 1997. (In Greek)
48. Brunner, G.W. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 6.0. Report Number CPD-69; Hydrologic
Engineering Center, US Army Corps of Engineers: Davis, CA, USA, 2020.
49. Efstratiadis, A.; Dimas, P.; Pouliasis, G.; Tsoukalas, I.; Kossieris, P.; Bellos, V.; Sakki, G.K.; Makropoulos, C.; Michas, S. Revisiting
Flood Hazard Assessment Practices under a Hybrid Stochastic Simulation Framework. Water 2022, 14, 457. [CrossRef]
50. Stedinger, J.R.; Vogel, R.M.; Foufoula-Georgiou, E. Frequency analysis of extreme events. In Handbook of Hydrology; Chapter 18;
Maidment, D.R., Ed.; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1993; p. 1143.