<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJMH</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Modern Hydrology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2163-0461</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojmh.2016.61001</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJMH-62683</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Impact of Global Warming on Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Relationship of Precipitation: A Case Study of Toronto, Canada
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>rick</surname><given-names>Carlier</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jamal</surname><given-names>El Khattabi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Polytech’lille, Laboratoire de Génie Civil et Géo-Environnement (LGCgE), Université Lille 1, Sciences et Technologie, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>erick.carlier@polytech-lille.fr(RC)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>12</day><month>01</month><year>2016</year></pub-date><volume>06</volume><issue>01</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>7</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>27</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>9</month>	<year>January</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>12</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2016</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Annual maximum rainfall intensity for several duration and return periods has been analyzed according to the Gumbel distribution. The Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves before and after 1980 have been computed and compared. For the city of Toronto, it is shown that the rainfall intensities after 1980 are lower than those from before this date. This is especially clear for those of short duration. Comparing our results with those of other authors, it appears that, for the moment, no general law on the impact of global warming on the curves intensity duration frequency cannot be made. It appears that the impact of global warming on rainfall varies with geographic location and that it is not possible to draw some general conclusions across the planet.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Climate Change</kwd><kwd> Duration</kwd><kwd> Frequency</kwd><kwd> Intensity</kwd><kwd> Rainfall</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Regarding civil engineering, the knowledge and understanding of climate change is important because, if there are changes in the variables related to hydrological systems, it could imply changes in design criteria, as these are frequently based upon the assumption of the hydrological series stationary. Not doing so, could mean the under or over design of hydraulic infrastructures, thus creating performance deficiencies or over expensive solutions.</p><p>The IDF (Intensity Duration Frequency) relationship constitutes an objective tool to quantify precipitation uncertainty, especially in circumstances when a design rainfall event must be determined for a particular water resources project. To perform the analysis, long-term precipitation data from a recording rain gage must be available. The prediction of uncertain environmental variables is often a hydrologic problem of significance in water resources management and water resources design projects. The Gumbel distribution, named after one of the pioneer scientists in practical applications of the Extreme Value Theory (EVT), the German mathematician Emil Gumbel (1891-1966), has been extensively used in various fields including hydrology for modeling extreme events [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62683-ref1">1</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62683-ref3">3</xref>] . Gumbel applied EVT on real world problems in engineering and in meteorological phenomena such as annual flood flows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62683-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> shows that the temperature increases significantly since 1980. The objective of this present work is to study the impact of this increase on the intensity of the rainfall at Toronto for several return periods and durations.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Statistical Analysis of the Rainfall</title><p>The Gumbel distribution is very suitable for modeling extreme event [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62683-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62683-ref6">6</xref>] . The cumulative distribution function (CDF) is given by Equation (1):</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62683-formula37"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x6.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where X is a random variable. In our case, X is the rainfall intensity or the rainfall depth for a given duration.</p><p>The Gumbel variable is defined by Equation (2)</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62683-formula38"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x7.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>The parameters a and b are defined by:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62683-formula39"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x8.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where σ is the standard deviation and μ is the mean of the variable.</p><p>The empirical distribution of Hazen is used:</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Global temperature anomaly (source: Institute Creation Research (ICR))</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x9.png"/></fig><disp-formula id="scirp.62683-formula40"><label>(4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x10.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where i is the rank of a given data and n is the total number of data.</p><p>The rainfall data of Toronto (Canada) has been used for computing the IDF curves before and after 1980.</p><p>The rainfall data are from 1940 to 2007. The rainfall station is located at latitude 43.67˚N and longitude 79.4˚W. Its elevation is 112 m. The duration of rainfall are 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 6 h, 12 h and 24 h. Equation (2) shows that if the Gumbel distribution is valid, it has to a linear relationship between the empirical intensity x and the Gumbel variable u.</p>Validity of the Gumbel Distribution<p>Starting from Equation (4), the Gumbel variable is computed by:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62683-formula41"><label>(5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x11.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where ln is the natural logarithm, i is the rank of a given data and n is the total number of data.</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> shows the experimental rainfall depth versus the Gumble variable. The fit of the data by the Gumbel distribution is suitable.</p><p>The IDF curves</p><p>The IDF curves are computed for five return periods T (2, 5, 10, 20 and 50 years). For these return periods, the probability associated with the not exceedance is computed by:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62683-formula42"><label>(6)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x12.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>The Gumbel variable are computed by:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62683-formula43"><label>(7)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x13.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> gives the results of Equations (6) and (7).</p><p>For each rainfall duration, there are a specific standard deviation σ and a specific mean μ. Therefore, there are a specific parameters a and b defined by Equation (3).</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> give the different values of these parameters.</p><p>Equation (2) enable to compute the rainfall depth x for the different durations and return periods. Finally, the rainfall intensity is calculated by dividing the rainfall depth by the duration. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> give the computed intensity before and after 1980 and Figures 3-7 shows the IDF curves.</p><p>Examination of <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>, and Figures 3-7, it appears that the impact of global warming on the IDF curves is not very clear, however, their analysis enables to note that the rainfall intensities after 1980 are lower than those from before this date.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Gumbel variables for several return periods</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Return periods (year)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >5</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >10</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >20</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >50</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Probability associated with the not exceedance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gumbel variable</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36651292</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49993999</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25036733</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.97019525</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.90193866</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Values of the gumbel variable parameters for several durations (5 min - 1 h)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Duration</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >5 min</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >10 min</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >15 min</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >30 min</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >1 h</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.76393443</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.4672131</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.5032787</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.9852459</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.4163934</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Standard deviation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.02181687</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.81233558</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.60978989</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.77967038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.0157573</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.13738827</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.75406581</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.15624603</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.84895304</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.81321486</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.95303392</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.3003663</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.5270935</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.0320302</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.9066058</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Values of the gumbel variable parameters for several durations (2 h - 24 h)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Duration</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2 h</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >6 h</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >12 h</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >24 h</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.6983607</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.3305085</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.3409836</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Standard deviation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.6580563</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.7690662</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.7554786</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.7781976</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.31426738</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.96104988</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.7305426</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5283578</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.8993655</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.840482</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.1368393</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.6868155</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Rainfall intensity before 1980 for several durations and return periods</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Intensity mm/h</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >5 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >10 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >20 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >50 years</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >113.4117503</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >161.4166204</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >193.2000214</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >223.6874228</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >263.1502366</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.58690533</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >105.544399</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >124.0546925</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >141.8102105</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >164.7929072</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.53175359</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.23827087</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103.5961351</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119.2869912</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139.5971949</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.15905929</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.73317723</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.04459846</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.93556127</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.73839806</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.92161479</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.28195029</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.81721985</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.1267833</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.99946856</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.73000025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.2794554</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.29159057</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.18090295</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.92082144</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.084464197</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.9127997</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.123316892</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.28447405</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.78747288</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.611399512</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.608573879</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.268790077</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.902085304</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.721821017</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.012225697</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.541975305</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.89271564</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.229154191</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.664639384</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Rainfall intensity after 1980 for several durations and return periods</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Intensity mm/h</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >5 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >10 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >20 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >50 years</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103.1542708</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >135.6783017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >157.2120401</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177.867719</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >204.6043765</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.74453206</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.29262978</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >109.5593454</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >123.2443216</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >140.9581195</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.28632165</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.87858867</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.17454824</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >109.8875759</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >127.6376836</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.38801884</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.05351799</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.42544152</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.37443959</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.25239708</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.0043123</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.57485927</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.91139413</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.98955049</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.85710044</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.8216983</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.70357911</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.935809</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.03624151</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.04943337</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.218241187</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.131638583</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.39847415</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.61365324</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.18657793</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.132853403</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.139250597</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.805573109</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.44472566</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.272043077</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.76292092</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.314501059</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.679695105</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.029998002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.483429171</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>This is especially clear for those of short duration. Their intensity decreased, particularly for the return period of 5, 10, 20 and 50 years.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Conclusions</title><p>Examination of <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>, and Figures 3-7, it appears that the rainfall intensities after 1980 are lower than those from before this date. This is especially clear for those of short duration.</p><p>Fallot and Hertig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62683-ref7">7</xref>] carried out Gumbel analysis of rainfall depth at 429 locations in Switzerland. They computed rainfall depth for a return period of 500 years and concluded that rainfall depth obtained for the period 1961 to 2010 are overall higher than 15% than estimated from the rainfall series from 1901 to 1970 for all stations in Switzerland. Vaz [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62683-ref8">8</xref>] studied annual maximum daily rainfall series from 23 rain gages in Portugal.</p><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Validity of the Gumbel distribution</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x14.png"/></fig><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> IDF curves before and after 1980. T = 2 years</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x15.png"/></fig><fig id="fig4"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref></label><caption><title> IDF curves before and after 1980. T = 5 years</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x16.png"/></fig><p>The research carried out showed that the samples of intensive rainfalls do not exhibit trends, as to affirm or contradict the effects often attributed to the climate change phenomenon (i.e. heavier rainfalls with smaller duration). The study found out that all kinds of behaviors can occur: some samples denote the trends often considered as resulting from the climate change, while exhibit the exact opposite, not allowing the identification of any of the consequences attributed to such phenomenon.</p><fig id="fig5"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref></label><caption><title> IDF curves before and after 1980. T = 10 years</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x17.png"/></fig><fig id="fig6"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref></label><caption><title> IDF curves before and after 1980. T = 20 years</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x18.png"/></fig><fig id="fig7"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref></label><caption><title> IDF curves before and after 1980. T = 50 years</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/1-1630115x19.png"/></fig><p>Comparing our results with those of other authors, it appears that, for the moment, no general law on the impact of global warming on the intensity duration frequency relationships can be made. It appears that the impact of global warming on rainfall varies with geographic location and that it is not possible to draw some general conclusions across the planet</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>ErickCarlier,Jamal ElKhattabi, (2016) Impact of Global Warming on Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Relationship of Precipitation: A Case Study of Toronto, Canada. Open Journal of Modern Hydrology,06,1-7. doi: 10.4236/ojmh.2016.61001</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.62683-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-anazi, K. and El-sebaie, I. (2013) Development of Intensity-Duration-Frequency Relationships for Abha City in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 3, 58-65.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62683-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rizwan, M. and Tae-Woong, K. (2013) Application of a Mixed Gumbel Distribution to Construct Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency (DDF) Curves Considering Outlier Effect in Hydrologic Data. Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, 6, 54-60.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62683-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Solaiman, T.A. and Simonovic, S.P. (2011) Development of Probability Based Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves under Climate Change. Water Resources Research Report, The University of Western Ontario, 93 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62683-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gumbel, E.J. (1958) Statistics of Extremes, Columbia University Press, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62683-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Haan, C.T. (1989) Statistical Methods in Hydrology, Prentice Hall, Eglewood Cliffs.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62683-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kottega, N.T. (1980) Stochastic Water Resources Technology. Macmillan Press, London. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-03467-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62683-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fallot, J.M. and Hertig, J.A. (2013) Détermination des precipitations extremes en Suisse à l’aide d’analyses statistiques et augmentation des valeurs extrêmes durant le 20 ème siècle. Mémoires de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, 25, 23-34.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62683-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vaz, C.M. (2008) Trend Analysis in Annual Maximum Daily Rainfall Series. Thesis. Instituto superior técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>