Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
in small urban
catchments:
a handbook for Australian practice
This Special Report was originally published in 1986. While the fundamental
design approach described is relevant and current, reference to recent
publications, such as the current revisions of Australian Rainfall and Runoff
and the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage: General and
Hydrology Considerations is suggested to ensure the most recent design
inputs and considerations, are applied.
ARRB Group Ltd would like to acknowledge and thank John R. Argue AO,
Adjunct Professor of Water Engineering, University of South Australia,
for allowing this reproduction of Storm Drainage Design in Small Urban
Catchments - a handbook for Australian practice, 1986.
ARRB Group 2013
John R. Argue
Principal Lecturer,
School of Civil Engineering,
South Australian Institute of Technology
South Australian
Institute of Technology
Australian Road
Research Board
CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Drainage Planning
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Introduction
2.2
Flood Classification
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
6.
5
5
5
6
8
8
9
3.4
Detention Measures
3.5
Retardation Measures
11
11
12
13
15
16
3.6
Implementation of Retention/Detention/Retardation
Measures in the Urban Environment
18
3.1
3.2
3.3
5.
1
1
2
2
3
3
Background
4.2
Rational Method
4.3
Time-Area Representation
4.4
4.5
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.2
19
19
19
22
22
23
25
25
25
25
27
28
31
33
33
36
1986
ENGINEERING
AWARD
'STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS'
Submitted by
offices will reduce costs and enhance the effectiveness of drainage works.'
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The contents of this Report have been strongly influenced by input from engineers and
technical officers employed in local government, consulting practices and government
authorities- Commonwealth and State- and from researchers and academic colleagues.
Each Australian state and territory is represented in this array. In addition, contact has
been made with a number of overseas researchers and authorities active in the urban
storm drainage field, the majority of whom have responded generously to appeals for data
and advice.
To the following go the author's special thanks:
Australian Road Research Board and Professor A.P. Mead, Director of S.A. Institute
of Technology for permission to publish the Handbook. Dr M.G. Lay, Executive
Director and Dr J.B. Metcalf, Deputy Director of ARRB for their encouragement and
help throughout the project.
Mr J. Fox (Plantae Drafting Services, Adelaide) who was responsible for drafting the
bulk of the graphics and tables and an army of long-suffering ladies who helped with
typing, library searches or final editing/production - Mesdames C. Wilson,
R. Mielnik, S. Swann, L. Folland, P. Buxton, A. Girard, M. Holdsworth and J. Symons.
Finally to my wife Jan and members of the Argue family go my heartfelt thanks for
their patience and support through the many vicissitudes of the 'drains' project.
Cover
The photograph shows Elizabeth Street, Melbourne during the major storm which struck the city in February
1972. The assistance of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd in providing the photograph is gratefully
acknowledged.
CONTENTS
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
continued
6.3
39
6.4
39
6.5
41
6.6
44
6.7
44
6.8
48
51
7.1
Introduction
51
7.2
7.3
52
52
7.4
54
Introduction
8.2
Introduction
9.2
9.3
9.4
57
57
58
63
63
63
71
71
10.1
Introduction
10.2
73
73
74
83
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
105
12.1
Resume
105
12.2
105
12.3
107
12.4
Research Needs
107
12.5
Future Perspectives
108
REFERENCES
109
115
125
129
AUSTRALIAN ROAD
RESEARCH BOARD
The Australian Road Research Board is the focal point of road research in Australia. It
regularly undertakes and arranges road and road transport research over a comprehensive range of subjects. The results of that research are disseminated to appropriate
organisations and to the scientists, engineers and associated specialists involved with the
design, location, construction, upkeep and use of roads. The need for a national research
centre was realised by NAASRA, the National Association of Australian State Road
Authorities, who founded the Board in 1960. In 1965 ARRB was registered as a non-profit
making company financed by Australia's Federal and State Government Road Authorities.
Each member authority is represented by its permanent head on ARAB's Board of
Directors, whose policies are administered by the Executive Director.
All research is controlled from the Australian Road Research Centre at Vermont in
Victoria, but, since its inception, the Board has sponsored research conducted at
universities and other centres. The 1986-1987 overall program of the Board was budgeted
at $6.4m. The Board also relies on advice from its technical committees in Road
Technology, Road User Behaviour, Road Transport and Local Government and its
overseeing Steering Committee.
ARRB disseminates road research information through conferences and symposia and
through its publications. ARRB also maintains a unique library of road literature and
operates an expanding computer-based information service called Australian Road Index
which collects and collates all Australian road research findings. It also operates the
international lARD data base of OECD in Australia.
DIRECTORS 1986-1987
M.J. Knight, B.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.Sc., F.I.E.Aust., A.F.A.I.M., M.C.I.T., Commissioner of
Highways, South Australia
I.F.X. Stoney, A.A.S.A., Dip.Bus.Studies, M.A.G.I., F.A.I.M., Chairman and Managing
Director, Road Construction Authority, Victoria
D.H. Aitken, I.S.O., B.E., F.I.E.Aust., F.C.I.T., F.A.I.M., Commissioner of Main Roads,
Western Australia
A.S. Blunn, LL.B., Secretary, Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction
E.F.F. Finger, B.E., M.Eng.Sc., F.I.E.Aust., Commissioner of Main Roads, Queensland
B.G. Fisk, A.R.S.M., B.Sc.(Eng.)(Met.), C.E., M.I.M.M., Commissioner for Main Roads,
New South Wales
C.W.M. Freeland, B.E.(Hons), M.I.E.Aust., Secretary, Commonwealth Department of
Transport
I. D. Gordon, B. E., M.Eng.Sc., M.I.E.Aust., M.C.I.T., Secretary, Department of Transport
and Works, Northern Territory
P.J. Wettenhall, Director of Main Roads, Tasmania
M.G. Lay, B.C.E., M.Eng.Sc., Ph.D., F.I.E.Aust., F.C.I.T., M.ASCE, Executive Director,
Australian Road Research Board
Chairman:
M.J. Knight
Deputy Chairman:
I.F.X. Stoney
Executive Director:
M.G. Lay
PREFACE
In June 1979 Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Project 1093 'Urban Stormwater
Collection Systems: A Review' was commenced. The aims of the project were:
(a) to identify those practices about which there is general consensus among
practitioners and for which there exists a satisfactory data base;
(b) to identify new procedures to replace existing practices where such new procedures
are considered necessary and/or appropriate; and
(c) to indicate directions for new or continuing research to improve and/or expand the
existing data base to a generally satisfactory level.
The report on Project 1093 (Argue 1981) recommended that a handbook be devised
by ARRB for Australia-wide use, bringing together best data and information available on
storm drainage design in small urban catchments. It recommended, also, that the
presentation of this material recognise the parlicular needs of an expected audience made
up of technical officers, newly graduated engineers and practitioners whose work does
not keep them in constant touch with the problems of urban drainage.
'Storm drainage design in small urban catchments: a handbook for Australian
practice' is the outcome of these recommendations.
The Handbook presentation reflects master drainage planning principles which have
been developed by leading practitioners in North America since the early 1970's. These
include an array of stormwater management options as well as the 'major/minor'
approach to flood mitigation and stormwater control in urban landscapes. In keeping with
the 'teaching' role recommended for the Handbook from its conception, lhis material is
presented in step-by-step form wherever possible, and includes detailed case study
illustrations. By this means, it is hoped, concepts and principles employed at present only
by leaders in the field of urban drainage design will penetrate Australian practice to its
'grassroots' level.
An important aspect of the Handbook's preparation, and a necesary condition for its
success, has been continued liaison with the compilers of other documents on urban
drainage and with potential users- engineers and technical support staff employed in
municipal engineering departments and consulting practices. Draft versions of the
Handbook's main design procedures have been subject to extensive review and revision.
Australia. Such standardisation, however, stops with the procedures: no altempt is made
in the Handbook to press for uniformity in the selection of roadside channel forms or
ancillary drainage network components. Nevertheless, hydraulic data for a range of
widely-used channel forms and components are included providing designers with the
opportunity to make their own assessments and comparisons of alternatives.
Such considerations may lead, in time, to some reduction in the variety of channels
and components presently used in Australian practice. While some economies may follow
this outcome, the main advantage would be an eventual improvement in the quality of
hydraulic data available for the most popular channel forms and components as a
consequence of more concentrated and effective research effort.
INFORMATION
RETRIEVAL
AND ABSTRACT
The abstracts and keywords on this page are provided in the interests of improved Information retrieval. Each
reference card is designed so that it can be cut out and Incorporated In the reader's own fife.
Keywords, unless carrying an asterisk, are from the 'International Road Research Documentation (lARD)
Thesaurus, 1983'.
Although this report is believed to be correct at the time of itspubiication, the Australian
Road Research Board does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of the information contained in it. People using the information contained in the
report should apply, and rely upon, their own skill and judgment to the particular issue
which they are considering.
Reference to, or reproduction of this report must include a precise reference to the report.
Wholly set up, designed and printed at the Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Victoria, 1986
Introduction
drainage 1 ines.
increased flood
under~round
These changes
peak flows and
lead to
increased
in
flood-prone
landscapes
open
references:
(i l
channels
are
below
prescribed
and
security
in
communities
the
catchment
developments
but
the
concepts,
development
groundwater
levels
without loss of structural integrity
in buildings constructed in areas of
expansive or unstable soil.
There
is
strong
interrelationship
Goal I is achieved in a
This approach
procedures.
goals
of
urban
drainage
under Goa 1 3.
Goals such as these have been set and
achieved overseas since the early 1q70's, have
been strongly advocated in Australian technical literature (Bonham 1974; Henkel 1981:
Thompson 1983) and have been put into practice
by various local authorities (Dandenong Valley
Authority 1980; Nation a 1 Capita 1 Deve 1opment
Commission 1981; Melbourne and Metropolitan
Board of Works 1981).
They are, however, far from 'universally
recognised in Australia and are virtually
unknown at the 'grassroots' level of practice.
Goal 1:
and
2
important
public
buildings
this
gap
and
systematic account of
estimation,
stormwater
system
provide
design
management
full
and
measures
needed
and
by
practitioners.
b)
c)
of
environment
have
occupied
the
minds
of
is essential
accidents.
The Australian community, in
general, expects such flows to be fully
controlled and overflow to occur from their
drainage channels at ARI's of not less than
two or three years,
A rare flood is a flood of great magnitude
therefore infrequent occurrence which
wi 11, if out of control, inundate premises
used by members of the genera 1 pub 1ic either
privately or corporately causing indoor damage
to residential dwellings, work premises and
buildings set aside for education, entertainment, recreation and other community act i vities.
The consequences of an uncontrolled
rare flood can be serious injury, mental
trauma and possibly death to those who suffer
its full impact as well as severe financial
loss to householders and to commercial/
industrial corporations for not only damage to
buildings, equipment and stock, but also lost
income and the cost of clean-up operations.
Reimbursement
for
these
loses
cannot,
normally, be recouped from insurance, as rare
floods are considered to be 1 acts of God'
which invalidate any claim. It is unfeasible
to control floods of rare magnitude but their
effects can be mitigated by ensuring that
floors of important premises and buildings are
placed out of flood reach and that flow depths
and velocities are held below certain adopted
limits.
Australian practice, generally,
recognises floods of ARI
50-years or
100-years as 'rare' flood events.
and
cl""'
Frequency
limits
or
design
average
recurrence intervals (design ARI's) such as
those which place a ceiling on minor stormwater flows or define rare floods, are therefore flexible and may vary across land-use
categories even within flood classes,
Table
2.1 illustrates this for the case of a typical
urban community within whose boundaries landuse varies from sport and recreation areas to
hospitals
and
other community emergency
installations.
The community is located
outside the limits of possible mainstream
(river) flooding,
Classification
Design
Description of Components
Flood
Frequency
Strategic I
Strategic II
P/C/1* I
Design AEP
= 1 in 500
Design AEP
=
1 in200
Design ARI
"" 100 years
P/C/1* II
Open space I
3-5 years
1-3
Open space I I
Open space III
Design ARI
= 5-10 years
ye~~
*Public/Commercial/Industrial
1. t
V (.~r-~~
J~
I/
1-----
I \l\/ind~s\ria~
!~m"'
I I I
.
.
curve 1 - restdenhal
~------
~ 1--
ber
'
U sp ent
valle for
0
t;
10 0
10
Oesign average recurrence interval !years) - - Fig. 2.2- Cost/frequency relationships for two categories of
urban development
requires,
as
part
of
its
data
base,
Increased sense of
security
Improved aesthetics &
recreational benefits
1. Enhanced land values
Reduced injury & loss
of 1i fe
Reduced disruption of
normal community
activlties
Reduced loss of community services
(health, water, power
and gas, transportation, communications,
etc).
Reduced emergency services and relief costs
Reduced damage and
liabillty costs
Reduced production
time and sales losses
Reduced clean-up costs)
Improved aesthetics
Reduced minor traffic
accidents
Reduced health risks
linked with poor drain-
roadway maintenance'
is quantifiable in
engineering terms: the others are either
unmeasurable, unquantifiable or both.
It is
and
minor
system
design
than
is
sys terns.
however,
decision~maker
the
adopted
design
maximum
spread
criterion.
There is no universal practice concerning
TABLE 2.3
SUGGESTED MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN ARI
Category of Development
Design ARI
1-3 years
3-5 years
5 years
Commercial/industrial developments
city centres
suburban centres
10 years
5 years
1-2 years
3
Retention, detention and retardation
measures in urban catchments
The system of
1.
2.
3.
discharge to watercourses;
Detention refers to the holding of runoff for
short time periods to reduce peak flow rates
and then later releasing it into natural or
artificial watercourses to continue in the
hydrologic cycle.
The volume of surface
runoff involved in this process is relatively
unchanged;
a)
12
For
these
retention
measures
to
be
The main disadvantages of the installations described here are the area which must
be set aside for their use, their decreased
performance as a result of clogging by fine
material, oil, plastic bags, etc, transported
in runoff and their role as breeding places
for mosquitoes. Those experienced in the use
of these installations stress the need for
regular, e.g. annual, maintenance.
( i i ) groundwater 1eve 1
of well
Attractive
solutions
to
stormwater
management problems can result from the
diversion of runoff to naturally occurring or
man-made 1 Sumps 1 such as limestone caverns and
abandoned gravel pits where aquifer recharge
LOCATION
3.3 NON-TERMINAL RETENTION MEASURES
a)
significant
portion
of
2.90 m3
2. 70 m3 2.40 m'
Australia *
Intermediate
Australia
Southern
Australia *
roof
5-years 2-years
Northern
10-years
1.10 m'
overflow only
overflow to roadside
channel,rear of allotment
drain,seepage trench etc,
Laro,vel collar
infernal
vet
13
Gutter grating
bed.
Rear Fence
~rface
with
stormwater drainage
Flow
network
DUTCH DRAIN-Rear of Allotment Arrangement
Stormwater from
roof or overflow
from welt or seepage
bed.
SEEPAGE
NOTES
Swale Arrangement
BED
b)
(ii)
is
or
14
{iv)
{v)
b)
Rainwater tanks
Although any available
storage in urban rainwater tanks causes a
reduction in the runoff passing to drainage networks from individual allotments,
the uncertainty which must necessarily be
associated with this reduction disqualifies it as a dependable component of
stormwater drainage planning. The role of
the rainwater tank is, therefore, almost
totally linked to conservation:
it
enables the householder to use part of a
natural resource provided directly to him
and reduces his dependence on water
transferred from catchments outside his
own.
c)
'Microponding'
The temporary ponding of
stormwater on individual allotments and
subdivisions - residential or commercial/
industrial - is a detention measure which
has, to date, found limited application in
Australia, Some excel! ent local contri butions to this aspect of stormwater management have, however, been made by Nicholas
and Cooper (1984), Boenisch (1984) and
Phillips (1985), It is an option which,
given the right soil and topography,
should not be overlooked in the planning
of sub-divisions.
The hydraulic principles upon which micropondlng is based are
the same of those of 'macroponding (see
below): the difference is a matter of
scale.
Catchment elements suitable for
development as microponds are carparks,
sports fields, open space recreational
reserves, etc.
d)
must
incorporate provision
lts design
for outflow
~
Intake ..__.___/
Control
Structure
Retention
Basin
'0:
Emergency
Spillway
a)
Roof storage
'Macroponding'
The use of stormwater
detention basins to temporarily store
runoff from wide areas of urban or rural
landscapes is a tool well known to
15
spill level
Temporary Storage
system
Fig. 3.5- Main elements of typical urban detention basin
(after Robinson and O'Loughlln, 1983}
INFLOW HYOROGRAPH
OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH
TIME
Fig. 3.6- Inflow and outflow hydrographs for a typical urban detention basin
16
c)
d)
e)
below,
with
comment,
according to their
surface-moving flows:
a)
b)
arranged
retarding
in
order
effect
on
mainly,
in
roadway
reserves
whose
carriageway crown levels are significantly
below local natural surface and become
irregular in time in both cross-section
and longitudinal grade. Travel times are
about
3-4 times
those of concrete
kerb-and-gutter channels. [See fig, 3,7
(b)].
(c) stone_ pitcher or cobble kerb and gut~er channel
(d)
concrete
1n
Vicloria,Oueensland, SA and NT
FOOTPATH
17
concrete
kerb-and-gutter
channels
Roadside channels included in this broad
category predominate in Australian urban
areas, old and new.
[See Figs. 3.7
(d)-(f)]. Although forms differ, all are
equally effective in removing stormwater
quickly with little loss to infiltration
and with little peak reduction as a
consequence of surface storage routing
(see 'Macroponding', Section 3,4).
They
represent the most obvious sign of the
'remove runoff' philosophy discussed in
Section 3.1 and as such should only be
used where necessary e.g. city streets and
(traffic)
volume
streets
in
high
industrial
suburbs
and
residential
districts.
Their wholesale deployment
throughout the urban 1 andscape should be
questioned.
but are also prime causes of increased stormwater flow, scour and blockage of downstream
drainage structures (Brotchie 1977).
One planning approach which, broadly,
embodies recommended principles in the context
of
residential
development uses cluster
housing with an open network of streets. This
18
approach has proved to be not only psychologically beneficial and safer for residents,
but is less costly compared with more conventional patterns of urban development (Colman
1978; Land Commission, New South Wales 1984),
This type of development lends itself to
informal stor~~Mater drainage treatments which
can be integrated into natural drainage lines
with minimum disturbance to them.
Unfortunately, the drainage designer does
not always have the opportunity to determine
or even influence the direction taken by an
urban development plan.
He is frequently
faced with an existing or already planned
layout for which he is expected to design a
satisfactory stormwater drainage system. In
this event, the demands of sound environmental
practice should compel him or her to consider
and select from the various measures and
options
described
in
Sections
3.2-3.5
inclusive. The following measures are particularly recommended for suitable locations:
a)
b)
c)
to be exercised to ensure that this characteristic does not lead to building foundation
damage in areas where soils are highly
water-reactive.
The design objective should
always be to maintain uni fonn soil moisture
states below and around buildings on expansive
soils.
4
Rainiallfrunoii mathematical models
a)
b)
4.1 BACKGROUND
of
urban
catchments
in
Rochester,
minutes, the
00
=~L/s
(4.11
0,36
N.Y.,
IMPERVIOUS
CATCHMENT
flow
estimation
procedure
Rainfall
AREA Aha
methods
rely
on
stonn duration
the
all
To 0
--------
)'
0
LL
tc
or
Qo
Draining
Time, t----
runoff
relationship
ConSider
OUTFLOW Q
19
'
"-.. '
-.......
Example 2:
Example 3:
Example 4:
'
---.......\
'
~f\.
.
,.,
..._
c:
zi!'-
~ 30
I)
AR!=10Years["-
QJ
f-.
112)
3)
10
20
30
40
50
60
4)
Relationship
Fig. 4.2- Catchment! -layout and rainfall intensityduration relationship for ARI = 10 years
(4 ,2)
0
~
....~so
Q0 is given by
(CA) ito
- - L/s
0,36
(a) Catchment I
'Vi 40
IMPERVIOUS
CATCHMENT
AREA= 010ha
"\
---.......
If
the
following
stormburst
cases
(intensity constant), all taken from the Fig,
4,2 (b) curve, are appl led to Catchment I the
resulting runoff hydrographs at 0 take the
forms set out in Fig. 4.3.
Example 1:
Note:
tc
= 20
mins
>
0
u::
(4 ,3)
11.7 L/s
( 4,4)
13.3 L/s
(4.5)
20
10
50
20
60
70
80
Time {mins)
Fig. 4.3- Hydrographs for rainstorm bursts on catchment I
Hence:
Example 4: Q
= [1.0
The
following
example
illustrates
conventional application of the Rational
Method to a multi land-use catchment, in this
case Catchment II:
= 11.5 L/s
(4.6)
The trend displayed in the Fig. 4.3
hydrograph peaks is the usual outcome when
Rational Method assumptions and rainfall
lntensity~duration
relationships
are
combined, as above, and it is thus that
Mulvaney's 'hunch' of 1851:
stonos which produce peak outflows from a
catchMent have durations equal to the
impervious area, A.
= 0,10
ha for which
c~ = 1.00
pervious area,
cP = o.4o
P,
ti
= 20
= 60
minutes
minutes
Hence:
weighted runoff coefficient,
cw =
=
= 60
(4.9)
minutes
Mulvane_ys
areas of the
Given
land~us~
containing
coefficient, C , is:
C1A1 + C2A2 + C3A3
which
1
often
results
when
is applied to catchments
time-area
representation
components and the various
procedures.
of
catchment
Tangent Check
P~------.----------------4 f
"
Area
Pervious
Impervious
'- Catchment
c,
( 4. 7)
hunch
Al=010ha.
= lOO
cw =
three
anomaly
components.
catchment
(4 .11)
12.5 L/s
This
(4.10)
I 1 Catchment
\
"\
Area
Ap=020ha.
Cp =040
21
of
pervious
and
impervious
'
ll ll
I -
f------
\ \~ II
-----C
:r{\\ II
time.
22
travel fime
from this
boundary
=i;0
tc
lc 3lc tc
TTT
TIME-
C A0 040x 010
/
/
lo08ha
PERVIOUS
CATCHMEN
1/I~PER
JA
Aha.
010
catchment
total area
_impervious
components.
Time-Area
representation
A of area Aha
i/
0
IOUS
Ct Aj =1-00x010
"010ha
CfTCHMENT
tt =20mins
t c = 60 mins
10 10 30 40 50 60
TIME (minsl-
Rochester
data ,
inc 1uded
in
his
paper,
time
from
the
extremity
of
the
'entire
tributary area .
= (A - A; ) , ha
outflows
arise
from
'full-area'
'part-area' considerations.
and
= (CwA)
(CA)full
where
cw =
Ci
C
CiAi + CpAp
(see eqn (4.7))
A; +A p
impervious or
coefficient
= pervious
paved
area
runoff
b)
( 4. 12)
c)
4.5 THE TWO-VALUE RATIONAL METHOD
a)
by this approach
referred to as
follows
theoretical
from
basis
time-area
for
eqn
(4.12)
representation (see
1umped paved and
Section 4.3)
of the
separately lumped pervious components present
in a multi land-use catchment. This is given
in Fig, 4,7, the main elements of which are
repeated from Fig. 4.6,
Strict time-area representation of the
paved and pervious components of real-world
catchments, differs from the simple model
presented in Fig. 4. 7. Just ifi cation for its
use is therefore claimed on the grounds of
simplicity and adequacy, It is simple because
it
translates
into an easily-understood
tabular
flow
estimation
procedure,
and
it' x(p
Consider the
10- years)
'full-area,
which arise
Fig. 4.7.
"'
~~
p/
ll
If
= 0.18 ha
Qf =
(0.18) 25
iCA full
CA
part
<3
c,
1 =01 ha
CtA({f. Cp Ap]
/_~
tc 60'\
20"
01020J0405060
TlHE {mins)
Fig. 4.7- Timearea representation of multi land-use
drainage unit (catchment II) with derivation of
part-area (CA) algorithm
0.36
Part-area estimate:
(CAl part=
It,
( 4 .13)
12.5 L/s
CpAp =008ha.-
Pervl us
omoo ent
li
~ 010 /
Full-area estimate:
= (C~)
CiAi + [::
(1.0
0.10)
= 0.127 ha
24
CPAP]
G:
(4.14)
0.36
(0.4
0.20~
5
Hydrological data base
b)
c)
d)
Selection
intervals
e)
f)
Runoff
coefficients
catchments
of design
average
for
recurrence
developed
its
'ultimate'
state.
such
sub-
years.
There is one aspect of drainage design
uncertainty which can be significantly reduced
by
'ultimate
development'
considerations.
of
course,
be assumed
in
25
110
TABLE 5.1
f---+\-+-+-1___] _ j _ _ j _ _ j _ _ l _ l_ 1-+--l
_j__
]\
ADELAIDE FOOTHILLS
Average rainfall intensities for
100 l--+\\~*---i-.''"to~cm"'s"o';'f-'s";h"'oc,_t~du"''",'t"'i'"'"~~+---l
or-~~\~+-1~~-+~~~~
f--+1~\1\~~1-f-+~+-+-+-+-1180 1--/HI~--',1--\1
\'\t----t-1---+--+-1-+-1---t---l
CITY
JAN FEB HAR APl HAY JNE Jl y AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC TOTAL
.
Sri sbane
69
72
67
62
aa
69
12
57
47
48
16 95 128 1164
55
53
49
52 39
31
43
50
69
97
15
13
55
49
59
53
49
52
64
56
58
57
50
49
2l
20
Canberra
Darwin
27 533
45
Adelaide
59
24
51
45
30
63
60
629
Hobart
48
41
47
Kelbourne
48
50
53
59
50
59
68
60
58
661
11
20
81
55
21
14
876
81
11
81
78
79 1226
Perth
'''""
631
In the sections which follow, zonedependent hydrological data are presented for
the Northern Austra 1i a and Southern Austra 1 i a
zones only:
data for Intermediate Australia
locations are to be determined by interpolation.
The recommended procedure for interpolating a value for parameter P at station X
is:
0 o~~~1~0~~,~0~-3~0~~4~0~~5~0~~6~0-
1,
need
into
to
divide
climatic
the
Australian
the
10-year,
!-hour
average
i .
X'
3.
bursts.
In all centres listed in Table 5,1,
except Perth, storm bursts occurring during
Summer produce highest intensities:
this is
in sharp contrast with monthly rainfall which
may yield highest gaugings, as in Adelaide, in
Winter.
The
Determine
continent
(P
70 - 25
- P )
s
( 5.1)
NORTHERN AUSTRALIA
10 years, 1 hour average rainfall
l:2J"--'r--~intensity, i 10 1 ~70 mm/h
70 mm/h
26
Perth
10years,1hour average rainfall
intensity,ll-l,\~25 mm/h
~Hobart
Fig. 5.2- Australian climatic zones- urban drainage
STEP 3:
Penri th
44 mm/h
= 0.35
0,10)
(5.2)
nested
within
i 0 (CAho
L/s
On
(5.4)
0.36
and
Ogap
= 01oo
(5.5)
(CA),o
-L/s
= [F1ooi1oo - Fn .i n] -0.36
- 00
(CA),o
- - L/s(5.7)
0.36
This affects the value of M which arises
in a particular case from the general
expression, eqn (5,6).
Values for Northern
and Southern Australia (minor system, 50 per
cent blocked) are also listed in Tables 5.2A
and 5,28.
27
c)
TABLE 5.2A
other cases
kerb-and-gutter channels
underground stormwater drains
allotment
drains
(surface
underground)
easement drains (surface or
underground)
grassed swa 1es
blade-cut earth roadside channels
natural channels
ground network
design A.Rl:
N-years
2-yrs
3-yrs
5-yrs
10-yrs
6-yrs
5-yrs
2-yrs
1-yr
unblocked,
M-years=
30 yrs
25
yrs
20
yrs 15 yrs
N-years
3-yrs
5-yrs
10-yrs
20 -yrs
15-yrs
10-yrs
5-yrs
50-yrs
45-yrs
40-yrs
30-yrs
unblocked,
M-years ""
Gap flow moving in
surface channels
only: design ARI
lnlroducllon
The following categories of flow travel time
in developed catchments are recognised:
a)
grassed surfaces
paved surfaces
b)
roof-to-gutter travel
residential roofs
commercial/industrial roofs
28
tc
= 6.94
(ln)0.6
i o.4
so~
minutes
( 5. 8)
Overland Flow
The kinematic wave formulation for runoff
overland travel timet developed by Ragan and
Ouru (1g72) is recomcmended,
Appropriate
values for the parameter Manning's 'n' enable
travel times to be computed for paved surfaces
and for two categories of grassed surfaces:
TABLE 5.2B
or
)>
JJ
JJ
OJ
(/)
JJ
_.,.
"'
~
co
co
"'
NORTHERN
~ I
~~
{J
{ 1~<':
AUSTRALIA
I
I
'"'~'++tiT_
~v~~~-i--r-
1:.:::::
[0~<
SOUTHERN
o s.~
~
~
;-~s
hq-~"
~
>----r---,-!'9-;ss~L~~
u,p"'~
~~~'}}>
"0
~
'-:f0.
f'
~L''
~"'-'~';:
{
~
..;>;
-~~1<
L _ _,_
(-1
.o;.ct~ ~
G: !;::,
60 50 40 30
20 15
10987654
TIME OF TRAVEL OVER SURFACE, tc (min)
~i><>"''~
~'b I
::.tltJ-t'LYJL
C:
[:; -....'
D~ ~~;;:.,
2605040 30
20 15
10 9 8 7 6 5 4
3
TIME OF TRAVEL OVER SURFACE, tc (min.)
(/)
-1
JJ
s:
0
JJ
)>
)>
G)
m
0
m
(/)
G)
VfYrJ-1/11
z
z
vv
s:
)>
VkrU
,.,
_E_.,I .. 0Y'
'!'
s->'\b
0
~
~
~~
~~
I"" J.._., ~~
~~~~ ~~~~j;;r~~~:b~::~~
~I-
ts ~
l0e_-;;;~ ?-.Oo~
F=~~t:~~::,,;t~~;~~1~-~~~~~~~~~~
'1
~!::::::,
VAA
-~'u~
'<-
~.,,/
.,.,':'~
;,
AUSTRALIA
23456810
20 30 40 50
100
200 300
LENGTH OF OVERLAND FLOW, II metres)
(/)
rr-
JJ
OJ
)>
- L I Northern Aust. I
125 mm/h
- L (Southern Aust.J
50 mm/h
EXAMPLES'
NOTE'
= 27
mins.
etc
Pervious surface flow travel exceeding these limits
"'
co
Fig. 5.3- Overland flow travel time (shallow sheet flow only) for Australian urban catchments
-1
s:
m
z
-1
(/)
Roof-lo-guller Flow
Considerable uncertainty roost also surround
roof-to-gutter flow travel time, Two values
are reconmended :
Non-termi na 1
stormwater
management
measures e,g, on-site retention/overflow wells
and seepage beds, introduce delay into
roof-to-gutter runoff travel times,
Where
these n~asures are employed {see Section 3.3),
10 minutes extra travel time should be added
to the times listed above. {No other altera-
II
f!
?;
v;
50
L.L.
20
0
~
;;}_ 15
~
lO
II ljj;;
V/j/; '@
I 1/f
II
lj I
:j~ ~
I
II I rl I I
I
I
I II 1/;
II, I r;l/l//; 1/!J
I
I I !J/111 '~Ill
,:
/
:;~
/j I;
I
II ? j
,;;;
I/ /l
; I I I I 1/ ~I;!; !jj~ o/
I I II I I 1/ z!, l!.'jIIJ.
I I I I II / ~ / I~ ~ ~ ~1~1!J
!!!
~ 40
1/
II
l j j 'I/;
"'
ii::
I
I
l'
l
/,
-1
I
I I I I I 'I I '/J I /I
I I! If. 'I II /. I 'I! I II
100
I
150
~ '/ ~ // ~~ 0'I;I/
'/, '/ I 1/; ~
200
300
400 500
FLOW DISTANCE !metres)
1000
NOTES
t Flow travel time (approximate) may be obtained directly from this chart for:
1500
2000
Ref: Country Roads Board,
Victoria, 1982.
-kerb-and-gutter channels
-underground stormwater channels
30
2,
3.
therefore be assessed
minutes.
'by inspection as 5
TABLE 5.3
BASIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (Cto) FOR VARIOUS
DEVELOPED CATCHMENT SURFACES
b)
cl
previous,
etc. I
in
c,o = o. 75 c,o = o. 75
catchment
Northern
Southern
Aust. zone Aust, zone
Surface Classification
Study
of
aerial
photographs,
referred
to
31
Northern Australia
Southern Australia
zone
zone
INDUSTRIAL
heavy industry
light industry
0.80-0,90
0.70-0,90
0.80-0.90
0.60-0.80
0.90
0.80-0.90
0.90
0.80-0.90
0,90
0.70-0.80
0.90
0.75-0.85
COMMERCIAL
full-area
20 residences/ha
15 residences/ha
10 residences/ha
5 residences/ha
town house developments
'
0.80
0,55
0.78
0,50
0.75
0,43
0, 72
0.35
0.60-0.90
0.45
0,35
0.25
0 .I5
0.50-0.80
divisions yields
'P' and
F'
conditions
(CAJpart
suffices.
(5.10 I
In Northern and
Intermediate Australia
the pervious area
runoff contribution is frequently comparable
- 5.0
(5.9)
"here RD
resident i a 1 density
in
residences per ha of allotment area, i.e.
excludes roadway reserve, nature strips,
etc.
Eqn (5.9) is satisfactory as a per cent
impervious
approximation
for
RD
< 20
residences per hectare, but should be applied
with caution above this limit. Specifically,
it should not be applied to town house or
strata-title unit types of development.
Table 5.4 lists runoff coefficients (C 10 )
various
1and-uses
in
the
Northern
Australia
and Southern Australia
zones.
Values listed for the residential categories
are based on i mpervi a us percentages given by
eqn (5.9) reduced b.Y one quarter (transferred
to the pervious domain).
This follows Alley
and Veenhuis' (1983) finding that significant
for
may
give
deserves explanation.
Strict adherence to the Two-Value Rational
Method (Section 4.5) in residential sub-
cy
values,
in
certain
cases.
se~ments
32
the
3.0 RO
TABLE 5.5
FREQUENCY CONVERSION FACTOR F,
ARI(years)
10
20
40
60
80 100
6
Hydraulic data base
Manning's formula -
of this section.
a)
b)
These are:-
I 2/3 112
- R
S
m/s
n
o
Izzard's (1946)
(modified) Ot
(6,1)
375~[{~)
triangular
8
}~ 12
13
flow
formula
L/s
(6.2)
= Manning's 'n'
S0
Ot
various
c)
Za
1----
a13 a13
"b
IUt-Utrl
a13]
112
S0
L/s
(6.3)
spread, W - - - - - 1
Utr
Zb
)+{-)db
6.1.
correction factor,
a,
Za
Manning's "n'"= na
Fig. 6.1 - Definition of terms for composite
(I.e. kerb-and-gutter) roadside channels
= o.B;
concrete, na
nb
375a[r~:)
(da
813
db
)Js:
12
- 40;
= 0,012;
(6 .6)
flush seal,l
(6. 7)
= 0.018;
= 8; Zb = 30;
nb = 0.014
Substitution of values Za
= 0,375
gutter width
813
= 25
0fr
Za 8-10; zb
L/s
m;
[2oO(d:
13
d:
13
s:
12
L/s
(6,5)
( 6 ,8)
Eqns (6,3)
1.
2,
3.
a,
(6.9)
for the selected value of da, This relationship may be presented on a graph with values
of da covering the full range of interest,
Graphs representing two of the gutter/pavement
profiles included in eqns (6.6) and (6.7) are
presented in Fig. 6,2, Note that any roadside
channel type (rectangular, triangular, composite, etc.) can be described_& a single curve
on the depth versus Ot (= KIS 0 ) plane of Fig,
6. 2.
001
002
003
~I -~ _
0200
Criterion 1
da ::1> 0200m
__ ___ .-::.A:..._+--~+---1---1-------jl-------j
ll
~~~?
,..v
0180
...._ <.~'
B-
15 0140
Vi 0120
//
~
1--c I/
r-
{
A
f---!1---J'f---lt---+-'---
:0100rn S0 =0015m!m
2
Ut= 5585 sY = 684 L/s
j { d,~OJSOrn
t
8
0080 1-ff----f~--+~5~ =548
So=OOS7mtm
0060
I.
~'Fll
"I
3~c--o
~~~~
I z, ~a
~'::
~~
351
45m
//
0100
375rnrn
",
both cases
B/ v
""'-~
I
--w
-- --~ t ::::!!!::kr[?!:__ <d
i / jJ.
~
~rb-and-gutter sha~e
,,~_......
. ~,
"
010
-"c
to
Ut=2300
I
1
~0~ ~ 3-01
c
-{W~2-Srn..:~0-118rn
[
S0 =0020m/m
11
Ut= 1040 s~ = 147 L/s
f ,0 { W~1-0rn.. d,~006Brn
lzoml
Lis
-;----------:---
Ot =170
sb
30m
--t----j---'f20m ~ 25m
1Sm
S0 =0020m/m
12
3-5m
20m
= 24lls
2000 sd 12
4000 s0112
6000 sd 12
aooo
Half- Carriageway Flow Relationship (Ut = KSd12 )
sJ 12
15m
0 10m!
10000 sJ 12
10m
Fig. 6.2- Depth versus flow relationship (KS 0 'h) for two guitar/pavement channel profiles
34
(6,10)
O,Oll
0,013
0,016
Graphical representations of these criteria have been added to Fig, 6,2. They show,
for the gutter/ pavement profiles featured,
that -
0.009
O,Oll
0,014
(i)
Concrete surfaces:
steel trowel finish
wood float finish
broom finish
0,012
0,014
0,016
(ii)
Corrugated metal :
new condition
normal condition
poor condition
0.021
0,024
0.030
0,013
0.014
0.018
Two other items of hydraulic information, important in the design of minor drainage
0.025
Grassed swales:
well maintained
(no driveway crossings)
poorly maintained
(no driveway crossings)
0,050
0.035
0,060
The general hydraulic information contained in Fig, 6.2 may be applied to a particular gutter/pavement profile of interest to
produce a graph of (half) roadway flow, Ot
versus longitudinal slope, S0 , The characteristic double-cusp curve which results (see
Fig, 6,3) reflects the controlling effects of
Criteria 1 and 2, The derivations of points
A and B on the curve for a 7,5 m carriageway
with pavement cross-slope 1 in 30 (Fig, 6,3)
are to be found in Fig, 6,2,
200 j!L---'---'---.--+-
Fig. 6.3- Hydraulic capaclly, 0 1, data for two carriageway profiles: Zb:::; 30 and 40
Much experimental work - the most re 1iable using full-size rigs - has been carried
out on grated inlets of many different types
(Department of Main Roads, N.s.w. 1979; Earley
1979; Public Works Department, N.S.W. 1985;
Burgi and Gober 1977}. The main finding of
this work is that a grated inlet of any type
will capture the entire 'frontal flow', 0fr
[Fig. 6.1, eqn (6.4)], presented to it provided 1.
2.
3.
carrlageways
categories:a)
b)
36
grated inlets
side-entry inlets
Two additional but subsidiary conclusions may be drawn from the referenced studies:
these concern gutter longitudinal slope and
'side capture .
Except for those conditions which lead
to flow 'skip' across the tops of transverse
bars and hence decreased performance ( S0 >
0.05), gutter longitudinal slope increase
leads to slightly improved capture. Also,
flow entering a flat grade grating (S0 < 0.01)
along its outer edge i.e. 'side capture', can
be as much as 25 per cent of tot a 1 captured
flow. Thus, flow captured by a grated inlet
normally exceeds frontal flow, Ofr the margin
of excess depending on the amount by which the
length and area limits listed above are exceeded.
ARAB SR 34, 1986
Two 'per cent capture levels are employed in the design procedures presented
later in the Handbook - 95 per cent and 80
per cent.
Gutter longitudinal flows whose
frontal flows correspond to these percentages of total flow are listed, for the Section 6.1 carriageway illustrations (Zb = 30
or 40) in Table 6.2.
Additional data of
similar type are presented in Appendix A.
side-entry inlets, with and without deflectors, opening lengths Lis = 1.0 m and 2.0 m,
has been carried out in connection with the
preparation of this Handbook: results are presented in Fig. 6.5. See also Hughes {1974),
Mills and O'Loughlin {1984) and PWD, N.S.W.
{1985).
The following general conclusions may be
drawn from study of these data sources:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
TABLE 6.2
CAPTURE BY 375 mm GRATED INLETS
cent.
The comprehensive report by the Storm
Drainage Research Committee ( 1956) of Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, U.S.A., provides a wealth of design information on sideentry inlets with and without deflectors. The
model scale ratio used in this programme was
1 /3 full-size.
A similar study conducted at
the University of Newcastle, N.S.W., is reported in Henderson et a l {1980). Flow capture
by on-grade side-entry inlets with deflectors
in residential streets in Canberra, A.C.T.,
has been measured and is reported in Willing
and Partners {1978).
Testing of full-size
ARRB SR 34, 1986
A.
Two levels of 'per cent capture' are provided in these graphs- 95 per cent and 80 per
cent. The higher standard has been adopted in
place of 100 per cent capture because of the
uncertainty inherent in rig results in the
capture range 97 to 100 per cent: capture/bypass flow division at the 95 per cent level
is, by COJlllarison, well defined.
capture' units.
Such
systems
can
require
Flow at a grated or side-entry 'sag' inlet obeys the laws of weir flow. U.S, Dept.
of Transportation (1979) offers the following
general formula:Qi = 1,66 LidilS
where Oi
(6,12)
37
110
-\
90
>--
70
Gutter Inlet -
"'w
"'
<{
Q_
Q_
<{
50
0
J
"'w>--
'~
\
002
- - ---+-I
f\r~--~~~~-
Institute of Technology
95% Capture
1-- -+
8~'/o ( apture
t-~
- - ""'
r----.. "'::::.: ~
~lo
-! -
80% Ca pture
!
-+--
-~ ~gend
---.._
iI
'-
\1-)
hl ""k
I
I
--~-~-
\.~ ,
10 ----
---
"" ~
=>
20
l\
zb dl
Test Gutter /Pavement
Profile
80% Capture
~\_2rZ-
~~
I
I
p
L
z =8 ..
. a
i'Y-~
~~
>--
30
--
40
"'
I
1\
--- -1-- - ~\
60
-~~:-
>--
, I J75mm I
15om;]~
- - rm
with deflectors
...,
"-"'':.,_
80
45'
~
.,~
r.
""''t
' ~\
-~
100
(6.13)
Ca pture
--1-
!'----==--
-...._____
95% Ca pture
80% Ca pt ure
-
95% Ca pture
004
GUTTER
006
008
010
LONGITUDINAL
SLOPE
S0 lm/m) -
012
Fig. 6.5- Capture performance of 1.0 m and 2.0 m side entry Inlets
38
The task
within an
of
managing
surface-moving
flows
It is
flows in these paths is complex.
therefore recomnended that the process - in
particular, design of the underground network
- be divided into two tasks:
Task 1.
Task 2.
losses.
These issued have been considered and the
following practices are recommended:Procedure direction: approximate network
design (Task 1, above) should be executed in
two stages. In the first stage, junction pit
water levels are set along all lateral pipelines then along main drain pipeline(s) and
'first-round' pipe sizes nominated using a
Minimum Grade design approach. This stage of
Task 1 proceeds in a generally top-to-bottom
direction.
tree-like.
of an underground network for a minor stormwater drainage system requires a data base
comprising the following:39
not greater than that giving a flow spread (from kerbline) of 2.50 m*, and,
Guideline 2
Guideline 3
Guideline 4
o
0
Guideline 5
not greater than that giving a flow spread (from kerbline) of 2.50m, and,
* see Section 2.6 where the relationship between flow spread and design
ARI is discussed.
bypass 20%
Guideline 2:
W:J. 10m
Dual channel-+-#-'
carriageway
{major road)
Dual channel
carriageway
{minor road l
Guideline 3, case where
flow governs: Q :t 80%
capture approach flow
of "favoured inlet :
Bypass 20%
Guideline 1, "sag"
provisions,case where
spread governs:
W:}25m
I
I
I
I
CROSSFLOW
- Crossftow permitted at
intersections A and C.
-Cross flow unacceptable
at intesection B.
Guideline 1, case
where spread
governs: W) 2Sm
Fig. 6.6- Flow management in surface channels: Guidelines 1-5 (Table 6.3} Illustrated
40
I,
5.
110
90
20
0 02
004
GUTTER LONGITUDINAL
012
008
SLOPE
S0 (m/ml ---
41
DEFINITION OF TERMS
(see
Fig, 6,8)
Main drain pipeline (or 'mainline) conveys flow between sub-area node pits of
network
Lateral pipeline conveys flow collected from, normally, more than one tnlet, to
junction pit located on main drain pipeline
Cross-connection pipe conveys flow from, normally, a single inlet to junction
Cross-connection pipes are
pit located on main drain or lateral pipeline,
Guideline
Guideline
Guideltne
In all gutter and 'sag' inlet pits and junction pits, design
water levels assigned to pits should be not higher than:
(gutter invert level - 0,15 m)
where 'gutter invert level means the undepressed gutter invert level at the roadway section containing the pit, or where
invert levels differ, the lower of the two.
Guideline
Guideline 6
priority 2:
priority 3:
Guideline 8
42
Guidelf ne
Guideline 10
Dr
Flow in
crossconnection
l/s
< 55
55
80
110
140
- 80
- 110
- 140
- 180
nomina 1 pipe
diameter, Dt
mm
Flow in
crossconnection
300
375
450
525
600
180 - 220
220 - 270
320
270
320 - 370
370 - 500
l/s
nominal pfpe
diameter, Dt
mm
675
750
825
900
1050
Guideline 11
Guideline 12
Guideline 13
MINOR
ROAD
(siD_gle- chonnel)
'Y
1.5 -25m from kerbline
LEGEND
Jurn:tion pit (J P) shown, .-......o-..
Gutter inlets :side entry inlet/J.P. ~
grated inlet I JP
pipeline
43
f
k
00
2.6).
The guidelines have been prepared following discussion with a wide range of practitioners and study of the hydraulics of underground systems. They are not all applicable
factory approximate
produced,
If
44
k
2.51:.)
=-21og 10 ( - - + - 3.7 Do
NR /f
(6.14)
network
designs
to
be
Yo
Kw( -)
hw
2g
(6,15)
k
k
of
f
f
f
f
(6.16)
(concrete
(concrete
(FRC pipe
(FRC pipe
o-1oo ,.,rTTTTIT--.-...-.r.nm;'--Ti:n;=;,;.;;:;:;.,
0050
Vl
ui
a.
a.
':3
Vl
Vl
<{
0
:0
<{
z
0 0 010f---Y-++-I-1--11-H4-+-i-+-t--l
0 010f----l+---+--+--++v-+++-++.l-+l
:0
>--
>--
"'z
"'
z
0
50
10 2
500 10'
5000 10 4
PIPE DISCHARGE Ills/
so
PIPE
500 10 3
5000 10 4
DISCHARGE Ills)
Fig. 6.9- Concrete pipes: chart for 'first round' pipe selection
o-1oo rT>--rrmr-.---,.;,-rn:m;:....:;,;-;;.m-:,....,
0050
"'
.:
-~
Vl
ft..?
"'a.
~!(!
!;loq;
E!'c
,.._
::-~
.:23
Vl
~
<{
:,;
0
:0
0010
0050
'E
0
Vl
w'
a.
0
Vl
~
<{
z
0 0010
:0
>--
':::
"'
z
"'z
0
-'
0005
o-oos
50
10 2
500 10 3
5000 10 4
PIPE DISCHARGE Ills)
10 2
500 103
5000 10 4
PIPE DISCHARGE Ills)
so
Fig. 6.10- Fibre-reinforced cement pipes: chart for 'first round' pipe selection
v\
I hw"Kw( fa)
pit
water level
fiGT-
l~
''
Fig. 6.11 -
Vo,0 0
1-
-J-hr-
Gutter
invert
;
roo ..
~.
~l
45
1. INTRODUCTION
Figure (a) represents a general, simple
junction pit layout with upstream, lateral and
grating inflows, Qu, Q1 and Qg respectively.
By assigning values to these parameters all
possible sifr!lle junction pit configurations
can be described. Figure (b) is an elevation
section through the pit taken along the
alignment of its discharge pipe, diameter 0
The K.. values listed are based on the findin3s
of Sa'hgster et al (1958) kno"" as 'Missouri
Charts', de Groot and Boyd (1983), Black and
Piggott (1983).
OESCR!PT!ON
COOE
J-l
Qu"
o,"
Qo
0,2
Qo
sone
0.5
Qg
}\,=
= Qo
J-2B Qu "
o,
0o'2 Qo/2
Ql
some
Qo
Qo
2,0
Qo
2,5
Qo
J-2A , Qu Ql
J-2C , Qu
J-3
I.O
2,0
Figure Ia!
2,0
OESCRIPT!ON
COOE
!-I
Qu"
o,"
Qg"
K,=
Qo
4.0
Qo/2
Qg
I 72B Qu " Qo
Qo
Qo/2
2,0
- some
0,5
Qo
o,
" o,
l-3B Qu >
!.5
!-3C ' Qu
!.5
some
!-30 Qu Ql
!-3E Qu <
l-4
o,
Qo
some 2,0
junctio~
Qo
some 2,5
Qo
some 3,0
Qo
2,5
i.e. Q0
= 0
46
junctio~
some
hw
1.5 Kw[:!]
in
considered above.
Internal shaping
'Benching' of pits to
provide a curved channel D /2 deep between
entry and exit pipes (see sR'etch) can reduce
K values obtained in G > 45 situations from
2~5 to about 1.5 (Archer et al 1978), It
(i)
& < 45
situations.
Similar findings are
reported in Dick and Marsalek (1985),
...JJJ_____
G < 45:
Section XX
('I-
Examples:
exit face
of pit.""-.
-~a.
-==.
Benching in a
circular
junction pit
Benching in a
rectangular
,junction pit
. 0(45
intersection
point.
2. DROP JUNCTION PITS
Examples:
point.
Kw values recommended are:
rectangular pits, Kw
circular pits,
Kw
Kw
~
= 1.5 for Qg
Q0 /2
flow)
Research suggests that hydraulic shaping
of pits to assist the passage of flow from
entry to exit can be effective.
Pit dimensions Small pits, generally, result
in smaller headlosses than large pits.
= 2.0:
= 1,5
G < 45 :
Plan View.
circular pits,
Kw = 2 0
~
47
offered
to
installations
tested
under
design
conditions (see Bates et al 19B4), and,
(II) in all other situations use Kw = 3.0,
with or without gutter flow.
4. NICHOLS-WATTS FORMULAE
cases.
The pipe obvert depth test involves comparison of the quantity (hf + 1,5 D0 )
against allowable head difference and is
illustrated in fig. 6.12(b), This test
incorporates an arbitrary invert depth
1 imit of 2.5 D0 below AWL. (The 2.5 D0
value derives from the test conditions
under which much of the information contained in Tables 6,5 and 6.6 has been
obtained, i.e. pit water level 2,5 D0
above invert.)
b)
-.---~-Test
AWL
Assigned
water
f--=--l
I Kw{ 2~ ) :;J
level
ht_
---
~~--+"'B""W'"-l
Bottom
water
level
v'
Eq.M7
the 'first
round
network
referred to
in
BWL
25Do
Section 6,4.
a)
48
The first involves the comparison of calcui a ted total headloss [hf + Kw(V 0 2 /2g)]
in each component in turn against the head
difference allowable between pits. This
comparison leads to a test for pit overflow, illustrated in Fig. 6,12 (a). 'Allowable' head difference Is based on the
recommendations contained in Guidelines 4
and 5 of Table 6,4.
Eq.616
(6,19)
Vo
BWL
BWL
+ hf + Kw( -)
2g
(upstream) (downstream)
(6.20)
Vo
The situa-
constraints, underground
etc.
service avoidance,
49
50
7
Urban drainage systems:
structure
7.1 INTRODUCTION
When urban development takes place in a
natural basin, the ordered system of drainage
lines present in the landscape uplands its
drainage systems.
Detailed planning and design of a scheme
to control and/or mitigate the effects of
flooding in a rural catchment can only proceed
from a data base which includes information of
the following:
a)
b)
temporary
c)
d)
e)
f)
51
. . ....
;'\)!~-- ~
(\I//\///~
\ /\ 1~
350
I /'\ ( /
I / I .l/
"-
rr---7
_y-
\.
I/
\\
--;:r-~-~
network shown:
~~~~
disposal point
Fig. 7.2- Components of a rural catchment drainage structure
52
b)
c)
catchment boundaries
d)
node points
e)
drainage networks
f)
sub-areas
LEGEND
Catchment stormwater
ST
Drainage network
shown'
'N.
'"'<
,.
!1.3
Scale
'"'
metres
M.3
node
s ectn
park
(
... ---"1--------
''' c
c
"'ID '' ""ID
''
' ID
o-'
"'
M.2
node
E I
- 1 '-----
----1-
sedn.
0:
!2
0:
M.1
(T.NS.I
1-i:s-'II "'c
I ID
~
I
I
ID
noMree
pit
>-'
node
~M.O
--r
'
td~
'
'I
-r-
I
I
~.....,
clc
IDIID
node
pit
0:
"'-
-"'"'H3
~
0:
'
IN.P
''
g_
'~
/~
I __(.....It...
,_
I
~~~
M.2
M.1
sectn.
'
"' ~~~I
I :9
vq v; I :E~I~
M.4
-p~;k-
:( ~ ...
.,;I~
d c
-g a
~
0~
~~
~'I!
d~
ID.9
~~~
~!:::.
LEGEND
Sub-area boundaries
shown:
Primary drainage area
boundaries shown: _- ----Node pits shown:
~~
d
c
d
'
eb
clc
IDIID ~L
Ul:-2
'Vi 1 Vl
~d
~ID
---
M.3
E~
c c
~d
M.4
node pit
~M .o)==-+
sub-area boundaries
shown:-------f lood escape network
shown : -t-->--t-
--1
53
coincide:
drainage sub-areas are almost identical
to those of the major system.
Compare
Fig. 7.3(b) and 7.3(c);
The minor system network, although based
on the drainage network of Fig. 7.3(a) is
more comp 1 ex than it. All runoff is
considered to move in the initial staqes
of the network analysis/design procedure
described in Chapters 10 and 11 by way of
surface drainage paths to individual
terminal gutter inlets (or 'sags' where
present) located close to the node points
of Fig. 7.3(a).
These terminal gutter
inlets are indicated, for Catchment M, in
Fig. 7 .3(c).
The developed areas
contributing runoff to these inlets are
ca 11 ed priiHry drainage areas and their
flow paths pri...,r.J drainage lines in the
Handbook procedures.
Gutter inlet pits
at the ends of these drainage 1ines are
54
0
<{
0
"'
CATCHMENT N
sub-catchments
NA,NB & NC
M3
M5
CATCHMENTS
l &M
M4
M1
Space
MO
Reserve
catchment or sub-catchment runoff disposal
9.q.}'
L2
L-1
.~
. ............
.,_<-
---tl-----<11---
56
8
The major drainage system ......
design procedure outline
6.1 INTRODUCTION
l,
Aim
2,
flood
escape
network,
and
be sufficient
'spare'
feasible
/ - ......_
hydrograph of lower
drainage unit
//
combined hydrograph
\ i n lower drainage unit
\
\
Flow
hydrograph of upper
drainage unit passing
\ \to lower unit
Time
Fig. 8.1 - Hydrographs for slope-aligned urban drainage units
57
More frequently
forced to reduce the
inating storm runoff
described in Chapter
secondary importance.
For a variety of reasons -the impossibility of accurately predicting future development or, perhaps, lack of foresight on the
part of original designers -drainage systems
frequently prove to be inadequate after some
years of service. The dominant characteristic of an overtaxed system is its inability
to contain flows of a given design frequency.
For example a scheme which was designed originally to overflow In flows greater than
those generated in a 5-years ARI storm is
found, after 20 years of service, to exceed
capacity every two or three years.
Such a scheme may have much to gain from
a reapprai sa 1 based on the major/minor concept
in which the observed 2-years or 3-years ARI
flood capacity of its existing minor system
is accepted and all augmentation efforts are
devoted to pro vi ding open-channel fl oodpaths
for major storm runoff flows (see Water Research Foundation 1984), The planning/design
approach which should be followed is identical
to that described in this Chapter except for
the status of the minor system design ARI =
N-years (see Section 5,4).
In new developments this quantity must be adopted : in
rehabilitation work of the type briefly discussed here, it enjoys the status of an
'observation'.
Although the cost of 1and and property
acquisition for drainage easements is likely
to constitute a major outlay, the total programme may well be not only attractive in the
financial short run but may also involve
minimum public and business inconvenience in
its execution. It is also likely to offer a
higher level of flood security than was provided under the original scheme,
It must be recognised by the drainage
designer that sound storm runoff management
practice - important though it is - represents but one of many competing and at times
conflicting objectives of the urban plan. In
58
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
Catchment definition
Fixing of roadway reserve capacity
flows
Gap flow' design storm selection
System planning table
Network review
System evaluation
Sub-area detailing
Final design detailing,
see
Chapter
!.
2.
the path taken by storm runoff at a roadway intersection is along the roadway
path of steepest grade,
a)
b)
apply a storage correction to these capacity flows, hence Qsc for each type of
carriageway,
storage-corrected capacity
flows,
Osc,
one
c)
d)
59
b)
'
TABLE 8.1
DESIGN STORM DURATIONS' FOR SMALL URBAN
CATCHMENTS
Resident i a 1 Commercial/
SUbIndustrial
divisions
developments
kerb-and-gutter
roadside channels
throughout
10 - 15
minutes
grassed swale or
blade-cut roadside channels
15 - 20
minutes
15 - 20
minutes
carriageway widths, roadway reserve crosssections, paVement types, etc., - are the
most amenable to change, The network review
procedure devolves upon this fact, for it
enables a trial urban plan to be tested and
modified, where necessary, without disturbing
the plan itself in any basic way or altering
the inter-relationship of its main compon-
ents.
N.A.
ment impervious area travel times: they incorporate roof-to-gutter travel time of 5
minutes or 10 minutes for residential or
commercial/industrial developments respectively.
The last task in STEP 3 requires consultation of the current edition of 'Australian
Rainfall and Runoff' (I.E. Aust. 1977 or 1987) to determine the design average rainfall
intensity which should be used in the STEP 4
calculations. Oesign ARI and storm duration
come from selections made in the first three
tasks above.
STEP 4: System planning table
60
Completion of the major drainage system planning procedure involves one further step the detailed review of flow movement within
each sub-area, This calls for careful application of the principles of hydrology and
61
62
9
The major drainage system case study applications
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Th~
ma.1or
step-by-step
procedure
stormwater
drainage
for
planning
system
for
an
traffic distributor,
All other residential
roads and streets will have access road'
status. No roundabouts or street closures are
anticipated
during
the
life
of
the
sub-division.
Oata and information relating to STEPS 1-8
inclusive for the two cases are presented
below.
drainage direction.
Housing density in the sub-division will
be, initially, 16 residences per ha of dedi-
Adelaide foothills
zone, Fig. 5,2);
be
50
63
to
'"
108
9a
106
104
110
adverse
grad~
allotment
102
HIGH
flood disposal
points shown ..... .
STREET
118
rear of allotment
drains shown ..... .
116
floodways shown ..
dual-channel road-
114
ways shown . . .
::=::;;;::::
~otential
singlechannel roads
shown ......
~
sub-division
boundary . . . . . . .. . . _ _ _
SCALE
100
102-
100
200
mel res
Fig. 9.1 (b) -Adelaide foothills residential subdivision -Case 2
roadway reserves.
gutter 0.375 m profile and pavement crossslopes (Z = 30 and 40 for the 7,5 m and 10,0
illustrative
the text.
purposes in
The 7,5 m
64
Since
(TA 1) iso
Q
sc
0.36
where Qsc
L/s
(9.1 I
TABLE 9.1A
CAPACITY FLOWS, 0,, FOR 7.5 m AND 10.0 m CARRIAGEWAYS
longitudinal
Slope
so
0,005
0,010
0,010
0,030
0,040
0,050
0,060
10,0 m carriagewavs: zb
single-channel
dual-channel
single-channel
390
560
780
700
635
580
535
780
1110
1560
1400
1170
1160
1070
500
700
990
915
830
760
700
= 40
dua 1-channe 1
1000
1400
1980
1830
1660
1510
1400
TABLE 9.1B
STORAGE-CORRECTED CAPACITY FLOWS, Q"'
FOR 7.5 m AND 10.0 m CARRIAGEWAYS
Longitudinal
Slope
so
0,005
0.010
0,010
0.030
0.040
0,050
0.060
7.5 m carriageways: Zb
30
10.0 m carriageways: zb
single-channel
c1ual-channel
single-channel
430
615
860
770
700
640
590
860
1130
1710
1540
1400
1180
1180
550
770
1090
1005
915
835
770
= 40
dual-channel
1100
1540
1180
1010
1830
1670
1540
65
= 90
0.36 Qsc
= Qsc
storms:
TA.
mm/h in 10 minute
250
90
ha
(9. 2)
= 1.15
c.o
criteria (see
m and 10,0 m
9.1 developTable 9,2,
hence, use:
c.o
converted areas
(9,5)
based
on
the
satisfactory:
per
are
ha
(9.6)
0.58
park sub-areas
roads):
C50
(including
0,28
surrounding
(9. 7)
considered
C50
above,
0,45
( 9.3)
In the case of park areas,
C10 = 0.10 and
hence
C5o = 0. 12
(9 .4)
TABLE 9.2
MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM PLANNING TABLE
so
0.005
O.OIO
D.020
0.030
0.040
D.050
0.06D
66
30
10,0 m carriageways: ~
single-channel
dual-channel
single-channel
I. 72
2.46
3.44
3,08
2 ,8D
2.56
2.36
3.44
4,92
6,88
6 .I6
5.60
5 .I2
4.72
2.20
3 .OB
4.36
4,02
3,66
3.34
3.0B
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
= 40
dual-channel
4.40
6 .I6
8,72
8.04
7.32
6,68
6 .I6
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
= 0.01)
is
considered,
This
proves
to
be
hydraulically satisfactory.
However, it is
unlikely than an access road will be built
with 10,0 m carriageway for no reason other
than its inability, as a 7.5 m residential
street, to convey rare storm flows.
The
designer is forced to exp 1ore a range of
alternatives:
(i)
L.2 i
(ii) change gutter/pavement profile in roadway
L.1-L,2 to one giving greater capacity
within the limits of Criteria 1 and 2
[eqns (6,10) and (6.11), see Appendix A],
(iii)retain roadway L.1-L,2 as a 7.5 m
dual-channel carriageway carrying flows
'kerb-plus-50 mm'
which exceed the
capacity criterion [see eqn ( 6 .10 )] and
apply local floodproofing measures, e,g,
raised footpaths, raised floor levels,
etc.
(iv) adopt design ARI = 10-years for minor
system pipeline L.O-L,1-L.2, hence 'gap
flow', Qgap' design ARI = 30-years (see
Table 5, 2B) for surface-moving flow
L.2.-L.1-L.O.
Detailed design relating to these options
need not, of course, be undertaken unt i 1 STEP
7,
67
STREET
flood escape
network
2-25
l2-
209 I 227
ha : ha
ha
~~--11
c.5--
-,
Z.ZOha
Ml J~~:J
1
M 4
L1- floodway
LO-
MO-~
N1-
NO-
HIGH STREET
flood escape
network
-PO
68
78
adjacent contributing
I1--::=~~===~~~~~~;:;;:;:;:~~'!'!~"':'irt-:-:=-=-'"f.bie-~'~re~a~\,;:~/
esca e at
trlbutary
we1gh~:d
CUTiu
upstream
1at fve
TEST
REMARKS
10
11
0,32
1,25
0,32
1,57
O.K.
O.K.
0,58
0,58
1.43
1,31
1. 43
2.74
O.K.
2,15
0.58
1,25
2.20
0.58
1.28
5,56
5,56
6,84
longftud~nal
(imperv.)
section
description
slope, 50
are?. TA 1
(ha)
(ha)
l,4
dual-channel, 7,5 m
L,3
dual-channel, 7.5 m
0,03
0,02
6.16
6,88
1.14
2,15
0,28
0,58
L,6
dual-channel, 7.5 m
L.S
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0.03
0.005
6,16
3,44
2.47
2.25
1,2
dual-channel, 7,5 m
dual-channel,lO,O m
1,1
flooc:May,
0,01
0,01
0,005
4.92
6,16
4,40
(roadway)
node
path
10,0 m
area
!ha)
(ha)
runoff
(CA) 50
coeff,
{CA) 50
O.K.
N.G.reconsider
O.K.
6,84
from Table 9.1A floodway design flow at l,l approximately(----) x 1000 l/s = 1554 l/s, fl oodway des 1gn flow
4,40
M,3
M.2
dual-channel, 7.5 m
dual-channel, 7.5 m
0,01
0.04
4.92
5.60
2,36
2.13
0.28
0,58
0,66
1.24
0,66
1,90
H.5
M.4
dual-channel, 7,5 m
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,03
0,005
6,16
3,44
2.32
2,27
0,58
0,58
1,35
1.32
1.35
2.67
O.K.
O.K.
O.K.
O.K.
H,l
dual-channel, 7.5 m
0,02
6,88
2,09
0.28
0,59
5.16
5,16 < 6,88
O.K.
Note: These calculations demonstrate that a 7,5 m carriageway in High St. could convey satisfactorily the design
rare storm flood flow. However, the road hierarchv re uires it to be of width 10,0 m, therefore O.K.
N
N.1
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,03
6,16
0.63
1.00
0,60
0,60
O,K,
P,5
P,4
P.3
P.2
P,l
dual-channel,
dual-channel,
dual-channel,
dual-channel,
floo<May,
0.03
0,03
0,04
0,03
0.04
6.16
6,16
5.60
6,16
1.16
1.89
1. 73
1,63
2,33
0,58
0,58
0.58
0.58
0,58
0,67
1,09
1.00
0,95
1,35
0,67
1.76
2.76
3.71
5,06
0.67
1,76
2.76
3.71
< 6,16
< 6,16
< 5,60
< 6,16
O.K.
O.K.
7,5
7.5
7,5
7.5
7.5
m
m
m
m
(ro~~gy)
= 1148
O.K,
O.K.
TABLE 9.4
NETWORK REVIEW FOR CATCHMENTS L, M, NAND P- CASE 2
flood escape path detall
node
section
1
1
esca e a
path
description
adjacent contriouting
sub-area
tr10utary
longitudinal (imperv.)
slope, S0 area, TA 1
'
1.5
1.4
single-channel,7.5m
7,5 m
f1 oodway,
0,01
0,02
(ha)
(ha)
5
2.46
6,88
(roacMay)
runoff
coeff,
(CA) 50
cumulative
upstream
(CA) 50
(ha)
(ha)
0,58
0.58
1.62
2,02
we
area
b
2,80
3.49
gn~e
TEST
REMARKS
'
JO
11
1. 62
3,64
O.K.
3.64
from Table 9.1A floodway design flow at L.4 approximately{----) x 1560 l/s = 825 l/s, floodWay design flow
6,88
0,58
4.45 < 4,92
O,K.
L. 3 dual-channel, 7.5 m
0,01
4,92
1.40
0,81
4.45
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,58
0,85
5,30
5,30 .( 4.92 N.G.reconsider
1.2
0.01
4.92
1.46
O,K,
dual-channel,lO,O m
0,01
5,30 < 6,16
6.16
1,1
floodway,
0,01
1,24
6,54
10.0 m
6.16
2.13
0.58
(roadway)
6.54
from Table 9.1A floodway design flow approximately - - - - ) X 400 L/s
1486 L/s, floodway design flow
6.16
1,26
u,28
0.35 < 3,44
sf ng~ e-channe ~, 7 ,5m
0.02
0,35
0.35
O.K.
M
single-channe1,7,5m
0,06
2,55
0.58
1.48
1,83
1.83 < 2.36
O.K.
M,2
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,03
6,16
4,09
0,28
2,98
2.98 < 6,16
O.K.
1.15
M.1
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,02
6,88
3.10
0.58
4.78 < 6.88
O.K.
1.80
4.78
~:i
~:i~
N,1
0.02
6.88
1.50
0,75
1.13
1.13
O.K.
P. 4
P.3
P,2
dual-channel, 7.5 m
dual-channel, 7.5 m
dua 1-channel, 7,5 m
0,03
0.03
0.04
6,16
6,16
5.60
0.88
1.49
1. 75
0.58
0,58
0,58
0,51
0,86
1.02
o. 51
1, 37
2.39
O,K,
O,K,
O.K.
P, 5
single-channel,7.5m
0.005
1. 72
1.90
0.58
1.10
1,10
O,K,
P. 1
fl oodway,
0.04
3.20
0,58
1,86
5,35
7.5 m
5.60
(roa<May)
5,35
s;6al
270 L/s
1213 L s, fl oodrlay
esign flow
69
section presents.
If, however, the difference is significant
and widespread, e.g. affecting all main
catchments in a development, then the designer
has no alternative but to return the 'new'
shorter travel time into STEP 3, recalculate
Table 9.2 and repeat STEPS 5 and 6,
main network.
Principal
among
these are
70
: 3,44 ha
1.40 ha
1.40 X 0.58
= 0,81 ha
r
I
I
:- c- upstream
contributing
node
I
I
po:,~\ fl I ''
~
area::; 1 40 ha.
k=
landscap ed__/
levee
~~!\ ~j
node p
landscaped levee._/
where
h = y2 /2g
(9.10)
ave
h = levee height about top-of-kerb
V
= average velocity of down-slope
ave moving flow
g =gravity acceleration (9.81 m/s )
1 .40 ha
upstream contributing
0.81 ha
(CA)
(approximate)
L/s
(9.11)
method tend to
by about 10 per
72
Summary
A 'broad brush' procedure for designing major
stormwater drainage systems for small urban
catchments has been described. The resulting
systems use only the roadway reserves and
floodway easements of the urban landscape to
contain runoff resulting from major storms up
to and including that having a design average
recurrence interval of 100-years (approximately). The procedure takes account of flow
conveyed in underground pipes of minor system
networks and includes an arbitrary, optional
allowance for part-malfunction of the minor
system network (50 per cent blockage), Design
for zero blockage follows the same procedure
but employs dlfferent values for gap flow,
Qgap' design ARI adopted from Tables 5.2A
and/or 5,2B.
The procedure enables trial flood escape
networks to be rapidly assessed and focuses on
those segments of the floodpath which require
particular attention e.g. special hydraulic
road
layout
:10
The minor drainage system design procedure outline
Design Procedure- Phase I
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Aim
There are important procedural differences
which distinguish the approach used in the
two previous chapters on major system planning and that presented ~ere in connection with
the design of minor drainage systems, The
planning procedure described previously is
essentially a 'broad brush' operation concerned with the maintenance of order in the
face of potentially devastating flood flows,
Great precision in predicting flow behaviour
in such circumstances is neither possible nor
warranted, The aim of the major system planner is to provide a scheme which, given the
great unpredictability of rare storm events,
should operate at least 'satisfactorily',
The minor system, on the other hand, is
expected to contain and, indeed, control a
prescribed level of flooding: its design
therefore calls for a higher level of predictability than is required of the major system.
The narrower spectrum of events with which
the designer must contend, however, - the
nuisance or frequent storm - makes this task
achievable.
The primary data used in the design of an Nyears ARI minor stormwater drainage system
involve three aspects of definition:a)
b)
c)
catchment definition
design guidelines for surface-moving
flow management
design guidel fnes for undergroundmoving flow management.
73
The same flow estimation concept embodied in D.P.5. is also applied in the case of
the catchment or sub-catchment main drain
pipeline or 'mainline' (see Table 6.4). It
is expressed in Design Principle No. 6:D.P.6.
74
cumstances.
i)
2.6).
STEP 1:
STEP 2:
STEP 3:
STEP 4:
STEP 5:
STEP 6:
STEP 7:
STEP 8:
Sub-catchment definition
Design guidelines and data
(surface-moving flows)
Design guidelines and data
(underground-moving flows)
MYdrological model - stage I
Hydrological model - stage 2
Design flow distribution in
primary and main drainage
1i nes
Design flow compilation all components of subcatchment
PHASE
I
PHASE
area
land use
'distributed' or 'concentrated' flow
entry
drainage line characteristics (type,
length, slope, etc.)
allowable or capacity flow at terminal
inlets.
II
STEP 9:
PHASE
III
P8
M3W1
Ml
M3W1
f,m
M1N1
M1N1
M1E1
P7
M1
a)
b)
c)
M1E1
f)
identify primary drainage 1i ne cont ri buti ng areas and associ ated termi na 1 gutter
in 1ets
g)
pedestrian crossings
h)
P 7E1
P11
Complex System
Simple System
d)
P11N1
P7N1E1
10,1) and are adopted to illustrate the design of minor drainage systems in Chapter 11,
2,
2.
FIGURE !A
FIGURE lB
TABLE 1
3,
Table of sub-catchment
properties
4.
b)
c)
2,
1.
2)
1.
1.
2.
FIGURE 4A
4.
Graphical determination of
gutter inlet positions, etc.,
in INDETERMINATE drainage
1i nes
Stage 2 hydrological model including information on gutter
TABLE 4
FIGURE
4B
FIGURE
FIGURE 6A
FIGURE 6B
2.
3.
4.
5.
TABLE 6
FIGURE 6C
which are critical in their individual catchment areas. Flows determined in this way lead
ARRB SR 34, 1986
7A,
7B,
etc.
(see
Outcomes
77
2.
3.
4.
l
l
FIGURE 7
FIGURES
7A, 7B,
etc.
FIGURES
7A, 7B,
etc.
sizes
2,
3,
TABLE 8/9
The tasks of reviewing the first-round selected pipes and making alterations where necessary in the light of Hydraulic Grade Line
analysis, is conducted in STEP 9 as a combined exercise. It is commenced at the downstream extremity of the sub-catchment and its
main calculations are reported in Table 8/9
(see Outcomes below).
The tabular procedure includes two Hydraulic Grade Line tests, one designed to
maintain H.G.L,
below assigned pit water
level (AWL), the other aimed at keeping pit
floor level above (AWL - 2,5 D0 ). The first
of these aims can be achieved, generally, by
appropriate pipe diameter selection. The
second can be achieved in the majority of
cases but sometimes fails at locations where
high discharges pass through multi-pipe junction pits or where severe direction change is
forced upon such flows.
In practice, Guidelines 7 and 8 (Table
6,4) often limit options and give rise to
situations where H.G.L. falls significantly
below pipe obvert.
In such cases underground-moving flows take the part-ful 1 or
open-channel form and normal pressure pipeline headloss and pit headloss (water level)
values cannot be validly applied, A design
approach to meet these situations is offered
in Table 6,5.
Examples of such situations occur most
frequently in the upper extremities of moderate and steep grade catchment networks, but
they can occur in valley bottoms where there
is a local increase in terrain slope for one
hence,
mainline
junction
pit
I,
78
TABLE 8/9
1.
3.
4,
TABLE
8/9
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
TABLE
8/g
Schematic representation of
}}
sub-catchment approximate
FIGURE
minor stornwater drainage
} 10
system for design ARI = N-years}
2,
Schematic representations of
}
parallel sub-catchment approx- } FIGURES
imate minor system designs
} 10A,10B,
(ARI = N-years} including pipes} etc,
linking their terminal node
}
pits
}
3.
Reference:
TABLES
B/9A,
B/9B,
etc.
sizes,
etc.
- to produce an
b)
c)
d)
e)
into account.
a)
b)
c)
$177,500
$171,500
$156,000
$151,200
$136,500
Stage 8:
80
2.
3.
4.
FIGURES
!lA,
liB,
etc.
) CON)STRUCTION
)DRAWINGS
)
Reference : In situations where final design calls for refinement of the pipe
diameter selection procedure and the
H.G.L., more precise values for pipe friction factor, f, and pit headl ass coefficients must be sought from the literature.
ARAB SR 34, 1986
I Phase I- Catchment
STEP
1
r
m c',, 11
=rnJI [
-~ --~
,~
~:-
STEP
2
FIGURE 1A
FIGURE 1B
T<Jble
Guidelines
6,3
Guidelines Table
1-5
2
STEP
3
Table
64
ruidelines
Guidelines
Table
1-19
TABLE 1
STEP
4
~
~
IJrj
' ',
FIGURE 4A
Stage 2
STEP
Hydrological Model
'''
FIGURE 48
TABLE 4
corresponding
sub-
compilation
catchment
STEP
7
STEP
6
I
FIGURE 6A
flow
istribution
for
other
sub-catchments
FIGURE 6[
FIGURE 7
columns 1~12
, n
commenong
top of
network
network
{/
STEP
10
STEP
10A
'
' ''
Co
8v/
Ill
STEP
9
/~
~---
Frequency
1/
'
FIGURE
Final design
Stage A
STEP
11
columns 1~- 24
commenong
bottom of
' ''
FIGURE 10A
10
{/
Construction drawings
(final design Stage B)
'
c.
{/
' FIGURE
11
81
82
II
The minor drainage system case study applications
INTRODUCTION
The step-by-step procedure for designing
minor stormwater drainage systems for small
urban catchments, described in Chapter 10, is
app 1i ed in Chapter 11 to two hypothet i ca 1
urban developments located in the Adelaide
foothills, South Australia.
Although design of the minor system network for Case 4 using N = 2-years would,
correctly, complement the major system design
already prepared, the present illustration
adopts N = 5-years. This level of design ARI
is employed solely to generate a wider range
of design problems forcing solutions which
demonstrate the scope of the procedure (outlined in Chapter 10) which would not be
revealed by a design at N = 2-years level.
questioned
itional notes.
ChOj
node pit
r/
(h. 680 Ill.
~L1USO~
I
I
I
I
I
Residential
15 res./ha
-------Ch. 7m
gutter inlet
inv RL 10010
FIGURE 1A
NodXAJ
Discussion
{outside catchment)
imt RUOOOO
seasoned designers.
STEP 1,
X~
by
;;;.~
o
o\O
">
Ch.207m
(h. 562 m_
inv. Rl.1041Q
irw Rl.11t20
\point CPJ
ADDITIONAL NOTES
1 Catchment location : Adelaide foothills, South Australia {see Fig.S.21: Rainfall chart Fig. 5.1
2. Roads: 20m. road~tay reserves, 10m dual than net carriage.. ay, kerb and gutter,
concrete width '"37Smm; Za= 8, pavement ,hot mil(; cross slope ,Zb=40,
hydraulics, Fig.6-3{textl
3 Storm'o'ater Disposal: XA-4~XA3~XA-2~XA-l~XO (mainline)
design flood level at XA-3, Rl.998S
4 Policy ltems: adopt design ARI =2 years for minor system
'"preferred inlet .. : side entry inlets lm & 2m with and 'olithout deflectors
hydr au lies, Fig. 6.7 ( le~l)
pipes: wncrele pipes throughout; norfl'al condition
CATCHMENT AND BASI( DESIGN DATA
83
~r
~I
1[
node
XA3
Rl 100 00
concentrated entry
(from carpark)
terminal
XA31R
gutter inlet RQ~0\0
kerb line
CP
20m
J.
XA3E1
70 m
~I
80m
kerb Une
XA-3E1l
RL 10010
~-
~I
~r
200m
a:
"' ;:lz
"'' "'"'
'
0
"'"'
I
w
r
w
<D
<D
"'
:;>;
>
0
0
>-
"'
4
~
~
0
0
w
~
w
;}_
"'
r
w
ow~w~
o<:-
"'~~
o~
., to
"'r"' "'"'
"'r r
ow
z~
wo
"'~ a
~"'
D.,;
D
"'"'
w~
>-::::>:3
I~W
"'d
w
w0
ii'
rn
-.
0
"
o z .!' E
0
>-a r~
rw
:..,
=
"
"'
o-
"
. gee
w-
"
10
11
680
13-5
<:
0~
.
ro
~
o
> 0 'iOrn" .;:-.:
.-
.
. - - . =
" ~~
~E > E
-.:o
.
;:,~
~-
12
13
'
t: ~
"
0
wro "w
14
;:;-;;;
REMARKS
ro o
w~
15
16
node 100 00
...
0
E1R 10010 . road
1 s~aJ~a de 049
residential 15 res/ha. 100
carpark
pavea
2.~grade
H3
r;~Jry 1s.grade
1"'-~. 064
park
pervious 150
E1l
identification~ee note 1
10010
road
1s!".'.'!.
f.~Qfade
044
200
40
200
40
400
:--:--
457
90
562
110
"' "'
40
15
80
note 2 note 3
555 002
see note 4
---
555
"'
note 5
002
40
figure1A
75
"'
note 6
ADDITIONAL NOTES
tldentification of primary drainage area terminal gutter inlets XA-3E1R and XA-3E1L applies code described
in STEP1, Section 102,1'R"and"l"signify [jg!J..t or left looking in direction of flow.
LArea or equivalent area: measured from catchment plan, facfor of 075 used to convert roadway reserve into
road equivalent paved area.
3.Concentraled,"c;'or distributed,"D'; contribution: all carpark runoff considered concentrated at drain discharge
point ;factory roof stormwaler fed to drainage line from many oullets,hence"dislributed"
4. Drainage line total length and fall: drainage line length conveying runoff from most remote element of
componenl;"fall"of drainage line over this length.
5. Effective length of drainage line, Leff: length over which the bulk of contribution enters drainage line;
contribution from upper 118m. of road component terminating al XA3E1R is smal\,hence effective length
;, 562m -7m =555m.
6. Capacity flow, Guideline 1 ! Table 63, text):approach flow for 95% capture {largest preferred inlet) or
25m spread, whichever is lesser {Figure 67,text)
84
CASE 3:
STEP 2;
TABLE 2.
CASE 3:
STEP 3,
TABLE 3.
Table 6 3, text
Guide tines
Guidelines
1- 5
and
Section 63, text
l'!
1 - 13
and
Section 65, text
lJ
c
TABLE 3
XA3E1
runoff is considered to
pass to terminal
gutter inlets
-~~
park' 150 ha
----ZoO~::~~:.-:del,a\1
XA3
TABLE 2
XA 3E1R
\D
XA3E1L
road' 044 ha
I c: concentrated
entry.
O:::distributed entry.
lf--75
246'Jcho7
''
-"!
~
w
c
'ieh2o1
'
''
200
'
:::;
w
~
ro
c
-~
0
~ '
c
ro
100
:"
""
~
0
u::
70
II"
45 11--'0~
from carpark
I
I
94-
u
u
101 L s concentrated
ti
"5
li
145
s
:;:
Ji
Resid ntial
"*
~
Roof
~- 85
r{v,
captu
Park
e~
~ -'Oir. Ponon':\
by ass
ol
7m
100
19{
200
400
300
Chainage I metres)
500
600
ADDITIONAL NOTES
1 Flow is considered to accumulate in the drainage line commencing ch 562 ("effective length" SSSm ).
Road component ftow represents base contribution reaching 45 Lis at ch 07: other contributions
{extract from Table 4) are added.
2 Carpark (concentrated) flow must be diverted underground requiring kerbs ide junction pit at ch 207.
Surface flow accumulated at ch 207 is 94 Lis whtch can be 80% captured by 2m gutter inlet
without deflectors (see Fig. 67, text.). Both requirements are served by combined gutter
inlet /J.P. at ch 207.
3 Surface flow at ch 07 is 70 l/s which can be 95% (or better) captured by 2m gutter inlet
without deflectors.
85
zuwo z
1~wu:t:CeE.
w ~ a: o..
~ o..
g u U:: ::> "'
'E .S E c E c E -~ full- part~ u <(
o
o <( Vl ~ .. '
E
'
. E
'
E 'E ~ E E area
~cb~~
~ w~ >-g~:2g~~~~~~~t~:u~~~
:::::> :::::> :z
:::> -'
ru c
E
c
E c ro . c
ro E
<(
uVlVl
C)
LJ
V1
LJ
OJ
V):..;!
~:;:::
._ +-
'+-
+-
tc
min. min.
min.
5
1 2 3 4
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1-X'-+-'A+.3-+:cElccR+c"a-'-!'"-P'cc'cc'k-c--l-i~ic!~'~de,;uai"'''"~e.,..dce,_-'-+---+-'7-'0+.0'-'3+-'5+200 4.4 3
- - 200 4 1-3'-+~1"1-1---'11=-----j
10 m road
residential
~~~~t qrade
factory roo
park
Pr1~~~ grade
pel'vious
- 665 13~ 6
- 200
4 3
8
18
140
- 400
-450
14
40
14
14.,.
40
14-'
8
8
H-t-+--t--c~~-:-t-'-C'-'-"--'~"t-c-1-o\---o+.-:-!----I-+-E+-+c+--+-+--J-~-t---::----f
15 res/ha
10
-
.o
35
--1-t----1~+-+-+--1--1-+--+-----J
8 4
9 5
Ell
10 m road
RdV~~
first grade
.o
2 -
- 555 11
I
Identification
ex. columns
1-4, Table 1
see Note 1
- I -I-
I I
see Note 3
AODITIONAL NOTES
1.
Data for columns 5 and 6 are t1ansferred directly from columns 6 and 7 of Table 1.
Components of multi-component drainage lines may be listed in any order except fol'
pervious components
2.
\~hich
The decision to discharge a concentrated flOI'I, e.g. that from the carpark in Case 3,
directly underground cannot, strictly, be made until the result of the column 31
comparison is known. The entries in columns 17, 18 and 19 above should therefore
appear, more correctly, in columns 14, 15 and 16 respectively pending this outcome.
Component total travel time (columns 20 and 21) is the same fOl' either listing.
With experience, designers will frequently be able to correctly prejudge the
column 31 result and may use columns 17, 18 and 19 as in the above illustration.
3.
Total travel time : two travel times corresponding to the 'F' and 'P' conditions
of Fig. 4. 7, text, are shown for each component. Where components are paved, both
times are the same. The value of ti shown for pervious components can only be
fixed after all other ti values have been found : it is set equal to the greatest
of these. Two critical stonn durations are shmm, each equal to the greatest
listed value.
4.
Component (CA) : values in columns 26 and 27 are derived, generally, from columns
24 and 25. The entry for pervious components in column 27 is given by :
t.
86
Component flows, columns 29 and 30, are derived from columns 22/26 and 23/27
respectively inserted into Eqn. (5.4), text. This decides the full-area versus
part-area issue in each case.
PRIMARY
lrn>\ITDIBUTING AREA
TOTAL FLOW
AT NOMINATED
ENTRY POINT
aJ
"" ICOIMF'ON
:J;
c
0
REMARKS
(Gutter inlet
selections for
full-area part-area
analysis
DETERMINATE
lines included
here )
<0
. ro 'X t- QJ
QJ
..
..0
~ Li1
<0
see Note 9
aJ
8j
aJ
aJ
VI
6.
Concentrated flow entries to the surface drainage line \~hich violate Guideline 4, Table 6.3, text,
are exc 1uded from surface drainage considerations. Note that only surface drainage contributing
areas and flows are included in 1 totals 1 shown in columns 26/27 and 29/30 respectively.
7.
Full list of
8.
compone~t
INDETERI1INATE.
0
0
surface flows are needed only in cases where drainage lines prove to be
t\'10
sources
Comparison is between the adopted design flm1 (larger of columns 29 and 30) and appropriate
guideline limit, The outcome decides the issues of acceptance into the surface drainage line
or not in the case of concentrated flow entries and DETERrHNAtlCY in other surface drainage
lines.
9.
87
CASE 3:
STEP 5,
FIGURE 5
.!+,
X~1R
CASE 3=
I carpark:1-33haj
XO
I road:044ha
3, table 64. text.
Ch.107
./
19
176
176
55
flows: L/s
XA3D
NOTE:
Flows presented in this figure
same as those shown in Fig. 6A.
55
1
Ch. 7
75
~pass
lev
Nole:lnspecfion pit
included,see guideline
xAr1L
70
70
LP.
Xk3E1
287
176 Xk3E2
Xk3
FIGURE 7
!1
jc:;
XUE3R
STEP 7,
CASE 3:
Ch.207
STEPS 8&9,
next page
TABLE 8/9
CASE 3:
STEP 6, FIGURE 6A
!::l
m
!1
tT\. 70
'-,/
XA3
70
XBE1
287
75
XOE3R
bjpass'- ~
19
176
flows : l/s
I.P
176 Xk32
176
XUE3
55
f
\Y
55
XA.3
7m
525
;i
1 m
375
~~
E~
Nj;;
100m
375
Notes:
oog
FIGURE 10,
XA.3E3
FIGURE 11
XA.3E1R
pit floor level
RL. 9920
XA.3E3R
pit floor level
2 R.l. 102.92
XA,3E2
?/f:: ~
3 ~7~m~~~m~~~~1~00~m~~
XA.
doss Y 375 classY
y
pit floor level
Rl.101,30
"525 '\5
>-
FIGURE 68
TABLE 6
FIGURE 6C
I
I
.g
XA.3E1
pit floor level
R.l. 99.10
LXA.3E3
);;
XA.3E1l
pit floor level
R.L 99.20
Notes:
1. Pipe inverts at pits
coincide with pit floor
levels.
2. Pit floor levels fixed by
Guidelmes 11 - 13 and
Remarks column, Table 8/9.
88
)>
::0
::0
.,
OJ
(f)
::0
zo
"'
!ZO~
~z
t!.:~:j
())
"'
4
1 2 3
LATERAL PIPELINES
' '
~ ~ ~
X A 3
~::3
z~~
~~
~51-
~~
~~
101.10
0
0
0
PIPE
G' LINE
5
G' LINE
4
8~
:2
01 0
o,<e
DIAM.
ASS' NO
PIT
LOSS
CASE
:!l
2g
~~
&
:e
ii
0
00
0
64
Table
6-4
RL
65 &. 66
10
11
12
13
14
Table
Kw
WATER
LEVEL
lAWLI
"
1t
Tables
15
TEST 1
!:
N 0
2:
AWL
hf+Kw[W)
minus
ht .. 15Da
BWL
(AWL- BWLI
Eq. 618
Eq.617
"
0
""
lAWL-BWLl
BWL
"
!;'0
REMARKS
&
HYDRAULIC
GRADE
LINE
BWL
(Pit WL:s.l
16
17
18
19
20
21
"
23
24
(f)
-i
n.a.
10395
pipe
E3to
E2
176
100
002
lm>p.
pit
10210
node
10000
.,.z
"L"junc.
pit
E2
E1
10010
,.
0~
~~~
E3
TRIAL
co
~
z
:!'-
__-r-- first
10195
pipe
E2to
176
100
002
round - -
103-BS
---r-
firs~
0300
0375
N9
J-3
20
032
013
159
Z.03
065
Q-61.
267
026
091
200
1-21
0375
----1
9995
laterals
pipe
E1 to
287
002
101-85
0300
0375
2-49
159
J-1
02
032
013
203
066
006
003
209
069
Z.01
1-22
0375
9995
J.P.
-'
1)
0.31$, ""'TEST 2
Pipe invert (upstream) fh:ed by equation 6.21:11111x, inv. level. EJ ~ RL 103.95-(l,S x .U)- 0.375
~ RL 103.18
water level, E3. fbed at AWL.
I'" o,-
,,,,TEST
TEST 1 O.K.
0,375),
2
P1pe invert upstream) fixed by equation 6.21:max. 1nv. level. EZ ~ RL 101.95~(1.5 x .03)-0.375
RL 101.53
water level. E2. fixed at AWL.
g
R.L 99-94
nod~
multi-pipe
1J
R.L 10195
10195
round .._
E1
J.P. with
RL 10H5
10395
0375
D-4.50
0525
Z60
1-81
1-32
J2A/2B
08
034
017
009
01Z
005
002
Ol7
014
007
039
019
009
010
081
0525
_,.
R ~99-85 ~ B.t
1)
RL 99.34
water level. El. fixed by cc;uction 5.2!1:
BWL at 0 ~ Rl 99.85 + 0.09 ~ RL 99.94
R.l9985
~
~~
l;j:::
~00
1i
2.
3.
())
co
-;;
ex. Tables
65. 66
*~
ADDITIONAL NOTES
1.
Pit water levels are fixed according to the priority set down in
Guideline 5. Table 6.4, text.
In priorities 1 and 2 assigned
water level is the LOWER of the competing levels (Guidelines 4
and 5); in priority 3, the HIGHER of the competing levels is
assigned. The Case 3 developme11t involves only priority 1 pipe
components. The Case 4 development. fol 1owing, i 11cl udes componel1ts from all three priorities.
]~
]~
-"
~~ ~"
derived
t:olumns
17&18
00
]~
derived
columns
12&17
.=:~
"'
sec Note 7
Notes 5 & 6
~8
4.
5.
Hydraulic grade line is calculated from columns 23 and 1g (adopted value) i.e. equation 5.20, text, except where TEST 2 fails.
See remarks, column 24.
6.
2::
)>
Gl
m
0
m
(f)
Gl
s:
)>
See Note 1
~~
::0
,,-
NIL
ex. Fig. 7
s:
(f)
pit identifit:ation;
gutter invert
levels ex. Flg.1A
::0
b)
7.
::0
~
z
()
s:
(jj
I
M3~ 1
(node pit) 1
'---
-,-11
1~1--;;;10::-m
10m
Vl
' 6 I ",
"., ;'
.>::;
...
~, "
Z I
...,
{!
"'
Vl
Vl
~ II~
%
1 z~.
I~
~ ~4J
~ I ~ :':"
'
.,
1il -:;:
t: J ;: f
~
::
~I ~ E
40
<0
,gl ~ 1<=
carriageway in
stope
%.
~I
dual channel
"' 12
.:
9l
10~
- j-75m.dual chan el
I carrtageways
~/
I _j
1::::
~- .~
r=
==t~~:~~j;;;!i,T[JoD:i,J"!!:;;:;Jl~;;;,;,T[O:::~~"c:;:;;::}v.r:~:ss~o~e
M2J.1
(node pit) I
I
'''"
I~
o
I "
9t"'"
t;j~Ji
"'
t:~
ao
1::~
~-
"'
,.,o I =
I"
C>~l
...
~f:!.l
1 road: 024ha
road:;
VI
terminal
node pit
(road' O.OSha
s.,: o-oos
M4
(node pit)
._
0-08ha~
=~~
--/ i.t~:='~::::;:;''~'::,'
,_,-- ~~:;,::s"" t H10s I
LEGEND
.., I~
t'road, 008ha
so" o-oos
Zb =30
sub-area boundaries
shown---primary drainage area
shown - - - - -boundaries
terminal gutter inlets
shown ............ o
~:e
"'"I''
I
:C~r-'/
~
.:f ;'
t;~,=
. .
o...f
~Vl_l~.
:r~f~
M 5 I s,.o01
node p/t)
I
~1~1
I,
l
1
cross stope Zb = 30
g_A!,l
100m_
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Figure 1A:
Catchment dataCase 4
90
10m\ \6m
M3N1R~_M3N1l
1 . I' M3E1
M3J "7m
-I-
Inspection Pit
(see Guideline 3, Table 64 text)
7m
I.P.
I.P.
<1
8m
"'
I.P.
.1...--MO-
91
CASE 4:
CATCHMENT
z
w
>:
=>
0:
0
0
z
w
:E
w
''=>
"'v>
"'1
"'v>=>
3
5
OEFINITlON
z
i--
r
r
>-
"'rwz
4
"'>w
"'"' "'
"'w
v>
:E
=> >
w
;::
r
r
z
w
z
_j
"'Q:ci
" "' so
rr
w-
o;W
o.;"'~"'
oo:"'
>-=>""
.;>
~w~
o;f_
w,
:I:Vld
"'"
E1
f"-'''
086
~.
~
c
rn" ;:;:.::;
'
g.~
~
~
v>~
REMARKS
a.:'!:!
12
13
14
15
200
45
200
03
30
65
290
50
180
40
180
03
30
65
90
02
30
76
185
~3
30
65
005
30
75
90
20
40
10
1sa~:~de
013
200
70
089
185
6~
16
0 06
90
05
40
02
006
90
OS
90
005
30
75
70
07
70
01
40
70
310
60
pervious
038
014
250
128
200
55
280
eo
180
55
90
--
node 11420
40
60
01
40
70
250
03
30
65
200
04
40
65
11180
04
40
65
II
9o
03
30
65
200
02
40
76
1 2oo
02
40
76
005
30
75
005
30
75
oooe 10BO
residential 20 res/ha
077
012
90
20
080
45
10
200
45
200
45
node 10220
park
pervious
084
015
290
068
006
90
E1
->:
~:-:'
11
012
N1l
~~
080
E1
1
:;:::: E
080
residential 20 res/ha.
E1
2
10
.2! ::'
residential 20 res/ha
park
-~
c:E
E1
ro E
rn
c "
node 10JOO
N1
g' ~
~"'
o
o .2!.!::
w,_;
. . g.. "
-""
"'"
.
.
" ~~ -. . . "
.
node 11030
residential 20res/ha
zv>
DATA - CASE 4
~z
1;
<tw r>-o
w r~
STEP 1, TABLE 1
70
05
90
90
CASE 4:
STEP 2,
Guidelines 1-5
Guidelines 1-13
aod
92
TABLE 2
aod
Section 63,1ext
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
o-:-
~lJ
r;;c:-::-:;---,
Road
Reserve
01Sha
0
rn:==;:;~~~==-=-~lnspedion
Road Reserve:0-15 ha.
I.P.
ro~
~~
m'!'
Pit
62
v;
&:ii
~?
1
M
I.P.
MO
,./
!Road Reserve:015ha.l
D I ParH66 ha.
I
~~
M4N1
o &&
r::-
~~
cx6
t;.c
~~
&.
g_
tro
~ro
-~a
M4E1 .~~
C
)---!&ill __ M4E2
xM1E1
M4
)
Cf-.c;::::,n==:n-o.Ci::l
jiR:::-oa:-cd"R"'ec:-s:::-erccve:l
l)-"D"''"
. ._. .
!Road Reserve: 006 ha.l
I 0 06 ha
FIGURE 4A' STAGE 1 HYDROLOGICAL MODEL
FLOW ACCUMULATION & CAPTURE GRAPHS FOR DRAINAGE LINES TERMINATING ATInlet
Inlet
~
MSN1, M4N1 & M2N1
Additional Notes
2
1
2
M2N1~
M4N1
1.The values 6SL/s and 79L/s are obtained from
~32m
~
Figure 67,text. They represent gutter(approachl
100
flows which can be 80% captured in drainage
93
Inlet[~ . ~
90
tines having 50 =003 &004,respectively, in their
MSN1\..~
;:-85L/s
terminal inlet vicinifies{see column 13, Table 1J
~27m
J~
~ 80'i--+-tf'"-1.-..._c-i~t- 2.The ftow accumulation graphs for lines terminating
120 - '
~ :
70
...
at MSN1 &M2N1l are plotted together because
~ 110~r-- ~~~ ; : :!
~ fiJ
l'i... their effective drainage line lengths are, by
~
N
u:
8l/s
f"-. coincidence,both equal to 180m (see
~ 100~=9 >= >:
50
"-column 12, Table 11
1
1
06
"~
M4N1 Line
I '
:'i, 90
"-N.fr6SL/s- 40I---t-HHHISo~003) --+--+--f'-t'---t-
"'J 2
FP--1
e:l ,._~Lis
, -..._~
30~~i~~~~~~f=+=+=+=++~4+
"g? 60
2s
1
-...._
N -~
" 70
E
"t..s
ypass TIL s
'I
1 1
.~ 60
.2 i;.c-- -'N~w,
rs. T
~
~ 50
ro
<w,(
~o
~ ~
rs0 , o.,;,--+-<s~o-+--l-t--+-.1oboc-f-L--'----'-1sboc-'-L--'1~6,ts
]I 40h33- ~~ ~
Y' ' 0 o~'f'>::<::--+--J-I---Drainage line length l m ) - - - - ro
'k--32 ~ ~
)
1
j
~
~u::~ 30 """ 1
MSN1 & M2N1l Line+-'~'"",-t--+- 3. Gutter inlet selections/placements
20
shown here are not necessarily"best
:;;_
17l/s
"~ bypass 16l/s
"'"- solutions':many satisfactory
101---l---t-t-1---t--t--t--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+'~
1
~arrangements are possible
! ..
%f-L_L_J_J_~s~o_L_L_L_L-d1o"oJ_J__L_L~1~so~~~160
93
1-
zw
Q_
0:
cr
LL
Vl
L:
V1
0::
<(
:r:
Vl
Q_
Nl
_j
>-
5
7.5 m road
LJ
lL
::J
Q)
O<(V)~_!
LJ
LJ
ow~:!:cE
1-
.5 HlR
[analysis)
1 2 3
0
0
~~----.-+--.--.-t-~--~t-~~r-+-~~~~
1- L -o
<(aJ.._.
<(
LJ
:::>
_J
q-
g ::::ro
1.-
min.
'
...c.
~
c
QJ
o E
Vl:;::::
QJ
'E -~E
E
1
....c:
~
c
- E
.o:' ~
EEE
E 1 ...c
...c
I
---J
<lJ
1;
+ ~
~ ~
rr; .
4-
-~ full- part-
EE
..._
__.
area area
t( t j
nJ .
min. min.
I
....__
7,5 m road
ditto
residential
20 res/ha
15
2
2
200 4.
290 5
3
4
180 4 2
7.5 m road
f~~~ grade--r------
l'esidential
M
.4 Nl
20 1es/ha
first grade
residential
20 res/ha
El
7.5 m l'oad
ff,~:t grade
residential
20 res/ha
Ell
7.5mload
r-r-~.~~~------
mils
-5
180
mi s ( ee s ction
3
-----
15
10 m road
ditto
NIL
10 m road
ditto
mi s
185
19
l85
6 2
l7
l7
18
--
---~-
40
.2
310
110
pervious
2! 32
32
El
l7
15
mi s
l7
21
200
=~~----1---r-r-r--~t---
.3 NlR
park
mi s
pav;~
7.5 m road
...._
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20
Qaved
first_ grade
~ --t----i'-------+-------~"--
7, 5 m road
f.f\Yif grade
park
pervious
110
~f~~~Qrade
250
2~ 32
32
-/ -
-/ -
32
7"1_
7__;
6
~~-+~~~~~~~~~1---1--~~-t---t-~-~~+--t--1--~-~~--~---~
N1 R 10mroad
--
2005,5 2
--
32
5
6~
6 __;
5
El
M
.1
NlR
15
7,5 m road
QQVed
fll'st Qrade
residential
20 res/ha
15
10 m road
~1~~~
urade
in
180 5,5 2
17
180
200 4. 5 3
45
18
7.5mroad
pave~
first grade
1-t--+-+---lp<ar-k----1-'p-'-e"rv"'i--'ou,._s=-+-_-+l-7-5~-3+40+-_-f--i_c.-_,
94
29of 7
- -L
- I -I -
.lI
40
5
-I -
40
40
6 __;
5
Ln for
PRIMARY
w
z CONTRIBUTING AREA z
0
TOTAL FLOW
-'
w<ll
IAT NOMINATED
REMARKS
o'-.
::::>
--'
en
::::>
ENTRY POINT
L:J,_ !Gutter inlet
a
Iz
I L selections for
I-0
<(
LJ
<(
0
~
LJ
.f
II
lL
tutt- part- , W
Q_
area area >I-
--'
~- DETERMINATE
rn
w.
-D
lines included
here)
95
liliUlJ)
refer Case 4, Step 4, Figure 4A.
Reserve
007 ha.
Road Reserve: 014ha.
Park' 1-26 ha.
060 ha.
45rn
~-~LP.
Road
Reserve
--~-_('R=o=ad=R=e~se,..r:,:ove'-''~0:_c12"h~aCJ. Inspection
Pit
Road Reserve' 015 ha.
M4N2
Park, 064 ha.
015ha.
Road Reserve:015 ha.
26
66
62
J.P.
60
81
I.P.
62{~~ '22) ~ 61
62
11
MO
Case 3, Step 6, Figure 6A
FIGURE 6A' DESIGN FLOWS IN PRIMARY DRAINAGE LINES OF CASE 4 -N
96
5 YEARS
TABLE 6
FIGURE 68
The interpretation of the Stage 2 Hydrological Model presented in Fig, 68 shows, schematically, how catchment sub-areas are gathered
at successive node pits - commencing at the
most remote- to provide the hydrological
basis for flow estimation in successive reaches of main drainage pipelines, Where main1i nes are branched, as in Case 4, then the
two (or more) branches must be considered
separately down to their point of bifurcation.
I.
2,
M3
IL_,___
_j
1"-3--1 ~~3~E1::'313=~
~
I L________.ji
kf
6 I r ( M 2E1
M~J)--'
:;,2 __.../
11NJ
L___
45m
61&
~
~
M2E2
I.J"::.c1
catchment:J, <
LEGEND
refer Case 4, Step 4, Figure 4A.
Note:Ali main pipeline travel times are for lengths
"'
&
MSE1
40m.
MSE2
-=====::::..1
J
t-;l'',>,\'f._'\~ ~_~\ ~y""" ~ ~
., ,., ,. 'i '"""'"' ;"'"' "'' ""' ~ J4=0m==~M~4~E2
'>
f,~~~i~~1~:1 ~s,L1tEI
~
r-
_LC-s
6)---;:::
s,4
TOTAL CATCHMENT
97
COMPONENT
10.
1- UJ
zUJ
::;:
1-
:r:
UJ
';;;:
1-
LJ <(
UJ
L)
LJ <(
0
0.
V) V)
UJ
1 2 3
fl
. 5 IHR
V)
5
-+
u.
V)
V)
<(
-'
LJ
M.l
7.5mroad
~~i-~1
Qtade
ditto
residential
20 res/ha
El
7.5mroad
~1~~~
El
residential
20 res/ha
7.5 m road
1~~~ 1ade
20 res/ha
El
residential
7.5 m mad
Vf~~~ arade
El
!'esidential
20 res/ha
Ell
7.5mroad
Vf~~
"'
.,.-o
~
~~
:0
'E
E .c
"'"' '
' E 'E .c' E E .c' E E
-~ .c
'
'
' c ' "'E' c ~ "''
o=e
"' "'E "'
c -' "'
c
E "'
"' - E
"'
min. ~ Vi :;: "' "' :;: ~ "' :;: ~ "' ~
'- E
0
CL
0
- - -
area area
area
ti
min.
21
tc
min.
22
area
ti
min.
23
19
21
ll
40
14'
32
34
40
11'
40
14
42
16
tc
min.
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
same values as listed Table 4 but
5
results only !columns 20 & 21) needed.
Travel time entry point-node =ZERO
6
~-ro
r--
see Note Nq 2
see additional
t--Note Nq1Table 6
Table 6
1-E:;;:
5
6
l7
19
21
ll
17.
5
.7
5
grade
24
14
El
Ell
7,5 m t'Oad
El
park
19
from upstream
7.5 m road
~~~i_~ qrade
.1
ENTRY
COMPONENT PROGRESSIVE
CHANNEL OR U/G
TOTAL
CRITICAL
PIPE TRAVEL .TO
TRAVEL
STORM
NODE PIT
TIME TO
DURATION
gutter or u/ground NODE PIT
IN TOTAL
natural
pipe
UPSTREAM
channel travel
AREA
analysis
analysis
made
from upst1eam
ditto
pervious
40
14
.3 IHR
IHL
V1~~
10 m road
10 m road
ditto
El
7.5mr-oad
ditto
ll1l
park
pervious
El
patk
d1 tto
32
32
7
7
.2
arade
from upstream
10 m road
10 m road
v~~~~
residential
20 res/ha
"El
7,5 m road
E1
residential
~~~~~ orade
20 res/ha
tHR
Nll
and
ll2l
"
.4
BRANCH 11.3
"
u.
"'
0
"'
>- =>
:I:
7.5 m road
ll2
"
LJ
N1
and
ll2
Ill
and
fl
UJ
LJ
<(
UJ
LJ
""
-'
V)
<(
LJ
"'
::;:
(() (()
>=
0
10.
z
UJ
z
<(
LJ
1-
0
0.
"' >:r:
' ' 1';;;: => => "'
z:
::;:
-'
TIME
Of
-COMPONENT TRAVEL
TIME TO CHANNEL OR
UNDERGROUND PIPE
0
overland allotment
c
flow
drain
o-
.1
qrade
ditto
from upstream
tHR
/Hl
10 m road
10 m road
~f~~i
NIL
park
pervious
qrade
ditto
see Note N%
Table 6
34
l7
1B
36
6
6
40
11
6
6
ll
BRANCH Ml -+ M. 0
Contribution from branch M.S-+ H.4-+ M.l at M.1
Contribution from branch
"
98
~l.3-+ ~1.2
~1.1
from upstream
.0
IIIL
at
~1.1
40
14
40
11
42
16
RAINFAll INTENSITIES
ln mm/h FOR
PROGRESSIVE CRITICAL
STORM DURATION IN
TOTAL UPSTREAM
CATCHMENT AREA
full- area
analysis
part- area
analysis
Ln for
Ln for
N=5 years
~=5years
24
45
42
29
33
<
w
a:
<
CUMULATIVE
MAINLINE FLOWS
COMPONENT CUMULATIVE FROM TOTAL
UPSTREAM
(CAln
(CA}n
CATCHMENT
Ln Lis
0 n= lCAln
036
0
analysis
analysis
full-area part-area
w
analysis analysis
c full-. part- full- partu..
II
area
area
area
area
ha.
28
ha,
29
ha.
30
ha.
31
1.07
1.07
ha.
25
26 27
see note results
only (col's 28&29}
needed
0.10
0,10
0.16
0.37
0,16
0,37
0.10
0.10
0.34
0.34
1.07
1.07
0.11
0.11
0.38
0,38
0.05
0,05
63
0.34
0.34
0.05
2.00
2.00
0.13
0.05
0.13
0.07
l\tx .0
58
2.00
29
28
0.06
0.12
0.12
...........
322
--
flow at M.4
= 30
2.25
2.20
181
318
0.56
0.43
51
81
(75)
L/s
0.21
0.04
ilo X
0.13
1{,-x .1
0.56
0.43
,0
0.13
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.33
0.10
0.10
0,34
0.34
1.64
1.51
0,13
0.13
0.13
input at M.2
1.64
63
II* X
58
1. 51
146
264
(243)
.0
= 77
l/s
21 L/s
input at H.l
24 L/s
1.98
1. 79
160
288
4.23
3,99
341
576
2.20
1. 79
52
233
Nq 4
6
Nq 5
6
input to H.5/H.4 :
0.6:3~ 58 - 79 l/s
input at M,lEI
68
49
2.00
187
(172)
0,05
0.06
0.21
2.25
1.98
134
34
(288)
52
0.08
On for
On for
N=5 years N=5years
L/s
L/s
32
33
rsee Ofell" 3
I Table 6 I
see Note
Table
see Note
Table
0.05
0,13
29
REMARKS
0.33
32
N=5-YEARS
4.23
3.99
(543)
4.23
3, 99
329
543
99
58
--'-::-~-- =
0.36
(0.11 + 0,38) x 58
17 2 L/ s
7g L/s
0,36
segment M.3/M.2
(0.18 + 0,33) x 63
0.36
= 0,51
x 63
= 89
L/s
0,36
0,4g x 58
0.36
segment M,5fM,4
5,
storm durations
which
are
critical
in
NOTES'
INLET
M2N1L
~
~100
INLET
M2N2L
-79
72 L/s
32m
60
0~
ro 80
E
l"
60
.~
~~
40
"
20
27
"'-._
'4-7L!s(bypass)
20
00
40
60
Drainage
80
100
120
140
160
180
;;.
"
-141
;,~
~I
."!
20
73 Lis
<t-j~
89
~
~
"'-l"
1'1
-t.J~
~~-~
1W
100
FIGURE 6C
As a result of the flow estimation computations carried out in or derived from Tab 1e 6
{see 'Remarks', Column 34 and Note 4 above),
it is possible to declare a design flow {N =
5 years) in each segment of the main pipeline
network of Catchment M. These flows are presented in Fig, 6C : only flows essential to
mainline segment design are included,
81
I.P. M2N3
75
61
M5
181
164
I.P. M1N1
I.P. M4N3
65
112
bypass 7'
14
143
311
22
--a
M4 11
RL.10000
CASE 4
STEP 7, FIGURE 7
See
Additional Note
re STEP 1
I.P. M1N3
M5N1
15
11
62
M1N2
M5E2
M1E1
Inspection
pit
243
I.P.
MO
543
543
30
321
M4
81
62 M4E2
101
"'
PIT
WATER LEVEL
n:
""'
a..
v>
1-
:....
Cl
Cl
1z ""'
0::
0
1""' z a.. ""'
::E
>
1- :c
z
z 1- z0 0::
""'
""'
::E
1- 0::
:r:
1""'
u ' co
' z 11- a:>
=>
=>
=>
=>
Vl Vl
t.:J
ci
-'
0
z 1""'
z a..
a..
1 2 3
::E
Vl
"'""'
Cl
-'
"-
"'
""'
-'
-'
-.o
-'
=> "'
=> "' '-"S
'-"t::
9
10
111.20 n.a.
""-'
R.L.
11
m
12
)>
1-i
JJ
JJ
OJ
(/)
JJ
"'
"'
"'
_..,.
00
E1
77
111.15 n.a.
58
;:;
13
2g
V>
14
~ -"'
0
0
-'
htKw[~6 ]
Vl':'
Vl -.o
"'
-' ,_.o
""' -"'
a..c::
>
0
Kw
0::
$
>
~
>?
- ""
"
.<:
;,
m m m
15 16 17 18
htl5Do
-'
a:>
;;.
v>
::>
(AWL- BWLI
Eq. 617
-'
Eq. 618
3:
m
20
""'
1-
a..
0
Cl
m
21
J-3
U.15
~A/2S
u.uo
0.97
0.53
0.10
U,4/
l3nn
110.40 110.15
103.10 n.a. 103.10
0.26
.00
J-S
0.68
0.52
hnn
0.32
2.0 .U4
""
.uo
0.35
0.55
CO!~PUTATIONS
U.l/
0.58
u.o4
U.UD
0.41
U,4/
300
300
.00
J-3
U.lO
1.00
u.oo
U.lU
0.20
u.o
300
.U/ .us
I ii:12B 1.0
"
Cl
300
JJ
s:
0
-'
JJ
)::o::
)>
)>
24
Gl
m
0
m
(/)
300
108.25
7 .029
..,
(/)
-i
>- z
110.15
108.25 n.a.
Jp with
E1
!07.50 utter flow
~1 pe
80
1 7 ~1.2
62 45 .020
REMARKS
""'
110.47
.300 1.68
5 .006
0::
Cl
300
62 40 .006
110.23
119 12 .029
::::;
=>
co t.:J
mm (Pit Wl:s)
23
22
19
Cl
Cl
AWL-BWU
UJ
::E
3:
""'
1-
111.15
27 .024
L.~unction
i\ug7.30
7E M:' JP
1-
"UU LU>
5 .020
2 10E4o 01
m~lti-pipe
,...-
.300 .35
JP, gutter
1
10 o3 flow lat'
o1pe
81
:::1 .... M.4
t'(lro' pi~e
NP~J.Jb-4 w1th
lat s
~~P! El
"
-:?
..,..a
""'
Vl':>
TEST 2
-z L;iunction
4 103.25
~1pe
-~
't._
0
v20
TEST 1
"'
111.20
r;ooE
r-6- 5 T.~unction ~;~;~~~1Y..- 110.15
110.3 D1
111.20
60 40 .024
JP. gutter
110.65 flow lat'
1'-5
-Vl>
""' -'
""'
""'
'"
Cl -'" Vl..,
0::
z 10
~n
>
""-
Cl-
N:::
JP with
111.30 utter flo
'
:>:
t.:J
110.30
p.jP
""'
1-
""'
UJ
t.:J
~i- P! .-1. 5
0::
:c
LATERAL PIPELINES
M 5 nl:3s LitJUnction
p1pe
E2 -~ El
J-P with
:::;-.o
E
1-
3:
0
-'
0::
)::_,
Ci
_,.
Cl3:
"'
z
a..
UJ~ ""'
..,Cl ""' z
n:
z
.
z"'
"'
=>
t.:J -'
-'
1-
Cl
1-
1-
Vl
1-
m \H;I
110.15
1 OK for 00 - 300; fails
103.10 TEST
TEST 2; u/s inv. max RL 102.68
bt egn (6.I1)A r~x. BWL at E2,
R 1 3.10 - WL
102.52 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for 00 = 300;
upstream inv. max. RL 102.19
by eqn (6.19); max. BWL at~
RL 102.52 by eqn (6.20)
102.47
108.25 TEST 1 OK for 00 - 300 fails
TEST 2;b~:s inv. max. RL 1DL.S:
I ~g~ 6.f;l lOJ~~X- 8WL at E2,
107.25 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for 00 = 300;
upstream inv. max. RL 106.88
by eqn (6.19); max. BWL at E1,
107.15 RL 107.25 by eqn (6.20)
gr
Gl
z
(/)
s:
)>
r
r
JJ
CD
)>
)>
-i
s:
-i
(/)
)>
MAIN PIPELINE
:n
:n
aJ
(f)
:n
"'
-"""
: BRANCH M.5-M.4-M.1
1-41"PPUo9~!r~l~i~~~~m~g~a 1 Y I
~e->N3 11871 IODI.D361
Ml
--~3 ,1;~ro'
CD
"'
N2
103.70
1
N -103.15
I .30012.64 J-2B
I I
1-1
W!
83 _036
W!
17 _032
N2
172
JP with
outter flo
N
237
1
---r-1
11.013612.0Z!-36 L2.38
"'"-"' ''"
I
,,.
I.
())
pipe
I I
lnD.l51
.3oo 2.43 J. 1
0 _2 .3D 1.42
o_.s _.24
.os
13.601
2.47
1.48
3 _00
1.87
D.30
0 _89
0.74
1_28
.18 .12
I II I
L_ ___
1 I
0.191 0 53_
lno."lmi!OKforD-=300:fails
~ 1c~1 ~; U/S inv: max RL 109.31
I
I ~n~s.fn;) Aw~f BWL at M.4
106 55 TEST 1 OK for D0 = 300; fails
Lno
1 1
o.62
gutter
flow lat's
R1 pe
318
M.l
~~ tl-plpe
El
101.89
8 00
525
102.05 102.00 102.00
101.80
-1
:n
s:
0
:n
ln?_A7
JP~
(f)
hv ~nn (h
?n)
)>
Gl
m
0
(f)
I~II
Gl
21 NODE M.
114.~
,.
lthro' pipe
110.60 JP
p1pe
N3 + N2
N2
108.40
N3
lA
_.J._
a
p1pe
264 JOO .02 5
M.2 + N2
Nz
104 . 80
'T
Jthpro' pipe
pipe
N2 -r
M.1
243
10 5 . 025
_ L_ _ j___j__
""'~~ctlJ-,
_,,
1oe '
3.0
Io . 2
_t___j_
-<'1','
.251.1 .05
<.
1.22
2.5
28
1.oo
1.73
375
375
IAI
IT1
10 ~1 90
M.O
~~~~ro' pipe
p1pe
543 100 009
N1 + M.O
I DESIGN FLOOD LEVEL RL 100.000
1 1 1 1
1 1
.600
I
BWL
*Design of this pipe fa11s into the 'Outcome 1/0utcome 2' situation
described in Section 6.8 of text
1.9~
J-l
2l .19T.53i.041
0 "I
1 . I
I
1
u.>J
o 751
-r
1.43
600
fails
113.45
at M.3
(f)
s:
)>
,...,...
fails
107.66
at N2,
:n
(=
.uW! \
fails
110.13
at N3,
aJ
)>
)>
-1
s:
-1
(f)
(shown
NOTES:
1 All pipes FRC
2_Pipe diameters in mm.
3.Gutter inlets :see legend Fig 65
4. Pipe diaP.eters for cross-connections
found from Guideline 10, Table 6.4
5. For design flows see Fig. 7
H3N1R
H3Ntl
PIT flCHI
f11
Rl113$0
R111350
M3
"
PIT F4ifJR
Rllll ~0
RL1J~}l
"
~
Rllll b)
g
J.P.
HSN2
H2N2l
pit Inverts
2 Pit floor levels -see Table 8/9
and Guidelines 11 - 13.
3 AH pipes FRC- classes X andY
~~
M2N2
NOTES:
fl(fl~
'
-i>o "'-'
~?~l~0R
'"
value
PIT FLOOR
1 Rl110 SS
HSN1R
3-l,
~~
HS
,,,,,
~~
""
JCO
MSE2
~g
l_p
l.P
::;;g
IP.
IP
H1N2
M1N1R
PIT fl(r()R
RL 1'J15S
"~4>"
!}. ~
H1i'><~,J:~;--49------J;\';~"'--~H~~0-,'ls:"c;-fl'l-':!1,~0"'HM-4E2
.);:<)
LP.
M 4N3
E an 1t:~t1J
~ gM4N2
M4N3
'
H1N2
PIT fLOOR
Ill 1)~ (0
1 PIT flC1lR
IH 101 99
M1Ntl
PIT fl[.(IR
Rll)lSS
M1E1l
PIT FLOOR
RL10150
M-~S>GN
HOOD
104
FLOC~
~g
MON1
FIT
RL1!079
fiT flOOR
H4E1L
PIT Fl(oJR
RL n218
IZ
Concluding discussion
12.1 RESUME
and information provided and procedures described enab 1i ng these categories of works to
be incorporated into Australian urban landscapes.
etc., can be carried out swiftly by hand using the procedure described in Chapters 8 and
9. There is little need for computer assistance.
stable.
Chapters 4 - 7, inclusive, provide the
hydrological/ hydraulic data base for the
major and minor drainage system design procedures of Chapters 8 - 11. The close interrelationship which must exist between these
networks within a Master Drainage Plan is emphasised throughout. While this link must be
constantly recognised by designers, they
should also be aware of important differences
arising from the contrasting goals of each
system and the ways in which these goals are
achieved.
Major drainage system planning employs
a 'broad brush' approach to achieve its goal
-that of mitigating the effects of runoff
generated in the wake of great storms. Precision in the prediction of flow quantities
and behaviour in such events is neither poss i b1e nor warranted.
a}
b)
c)
d)
e)
2)
Schaake et a 1 ( 1967) showed in an experiment-based study of the Rational Method applied to small urban catchments, that errors
made by experienced practitioners are 1ike ly
to exceed 10 per cent in estimating c and
30 per cent in estimating critical storm dur-
ation.
of course, greater.
The criticism that accuracy has been
compromised in the interests of developing a
simple procedure can be partly answered by
reference to the Case 3 and Case 4 i llustrat ions presented in Chapter 11.
Reworking
TABLE 8/9 in each case with headlosses determined by reference to Missouri and Moody
Chart data yields the following outcome:Case 3:
design outcomes produced by the Handbook procedure are well-matched to input data quality
and that therefore the procedure is appropriate for the range of urban catchment cases
for which it is intended,
12.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND THE
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
large
2.
Use of the stormwater retention/detent; on measures and swa 1es recommended in Sect-
3,
ion 3,6
3 X w-6
example,
drainage
ures in
circumstances
which
involve
cost
savings
of
!,
appropriate parameters to assist designers in their prediction of 'ultimate development' likely in catchments (see
Section 5,1)
2,
total cost may be declared which significantly exceeds annual expenditure on all major
dams and flood mitigation schemes,
4.
!.
2.
a)
b)
c)
d)
3,
12
108
headwater build-up in junction pits disella rgi ng under the part -fu 11 condition
(see Table 6,5)
2,
3,
ment on the performance of systems, information on the consequences of cost and costsharing initiatives, shortcomings of procedures, review of guidelines, updating of research data, etc, Contributions on all of
these aspects will be welcomed by Austral ian
Road Research Board and the author, and will
form the extended data base for future revisions and editions.
References
- a review.
Australian
Internal Report,
ARGUE, J.R. (1982), Stormwater flow estimation in small ungauged urban catchments,
Proc. 11th ARRB Cont. 11(2), pp, 193205,
ARGUE, J.R. (1984), Design flow estimation in
small ungauged urban catchments. Proc.
Third Int. Conf. Urban Storm Drainage,
Gotenborg, Sweden, June, pp. 255-64.
Reprinted as ARRB Internal Report,
AIR 391-1,
BURGI, P,H, and GOBER, D.E, (1977), Bicyclesafe grate inlets study. Rep. No.
FHWA-RD-77-24, U,S, Oept. Transp. Nat,
Tech, Info, Service, Springfield,
Virginia.
109
(1982).
On-site
detention
Proposed model
Manual of prac-
(1976).
Capacity of 1atera 1
Ci vi 1 Eng, South
Africa, 18(9), pp. 195-205. Discussion,
19(5). pp. 95-99.
stormwater inlets.
COUNTRY ROADS BOARD, VICTORIA (1982). Road
design manual, Chapter 6 : Drainage,
CULLEN, P., ROSICH, R. and BEK, P. (1978).
A phosphorous budget for Lake Burley
Griffin and management implications for
urban lakes. Aust. Water Resources
Council Tech. Paper No. 31,
(AGPS:
Canberra.)
DANDENONG VALLEY AUTHORITY (1980).
Melton
drainage study.
Master drainage p 1an
prepared for Melton-Sunbury Management
Committee by Dandenong Va 11 ey Authority, March,
de GROOT, C.F, and BOYD, M,J, (1983), Experimental determination of head losses in
stormwater systems, Proc. I .E. Au st.
Second Nat. Conf, on Local Govt. Eng.
Brisbane, September, pp. 2I4-18.
DICK, T,M. and MARSALEK, J. (1985), Manhole
head losses in drainage hydraulics,
Proc, 21st Cong. Int. Assoc. Hydraulic
Res. Melbourne, August, Vol. 6, pp.
123-31,
110
JONASSON, S.A. (1984a). Determination of infiltration capacity and hydraulic conductivity, Proc, 3rd Int. Conf. on
Urban Storm Drain., Goteborg, Sweden,
June, pp. 1073-82.
of
safer
residential
111
Re-
6,
drainage works. Proc. I.E. Aust. Hydrology and Water Resources Symp, Adelaide, pp. 39-43,
search Program,
Tech.
Memor.
No.
MELBOURNE AND
(1981).
I~ETROPOLITAN
BOARD OF WORKS
Interim drainage basin manage-
watercourse,
Counci 1 Tech.
Canberra.)
Paper
No.
45.
(AGPS:
Incipient
~draulic
performance of
An evaluation of the
an
on-site
stormwater
detention storage.
Proc. I.E. Aust,
Hydrology and Water Resources Symp.
Sydney, May, pp. 197-201.
POLIN, M,J, and CORDERY, I, (1979), An economic approach to the selection of a
design flood, Proc, I.E, Aust, Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium,
Perth, September, pp. 194-98,
POERTNER, H,G, (1973), Practices in detention of urban storm water runoff, u.s.
Dept Interior, Washington, D.C.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NEW SOUTH WALES
(Jg85). Hydraulic capacities of gutter
inlets for N,S,W, Housing Commission,
Manly Hydraulics Laboratory Rep. 419,
January,
RAGAN, R,M, and DURU, J.O. (1972).
Kinematic
wave nomograph for times of concentration. Proc. ASCE, J. ~draulics Div.
98(HYIO), October, pp. 1765-7I.
u.s.A.
HydASCE
THOMPSON, D.G. (1983). The one percent probability flood as a basic drainage design criterion. Proc. I.E. Aust.
Second Nat. Conf. on Local Govt. Eng.
Brisbane, September, 1983, pp. 207-13.
TOUBIER, J, T. and WESTMACOTT R. (1980).
and
Effects
of construction on fluvial sediment,
urban and suburban areas of Maryland.
Water Resources Res. 3, pp. 451-64.
113
114
Appendix A
Additional hydraulic data
LEVEL 1
A.
results obtained
= 25-30-40
for
inlet
cases
(b) half-carriageway flow, Ot, versus longitudinal slope, S0 , for spreads of 1.0 m,
2,0 m and 2.5 m, zb = 25-30-40.
(c) grated inlet data, zb
A,
Zb = 25-30-40 :
are:-
TYPE 1
TYPE 2
10
TYPE 3
TYPE 4
TYPE 1
N.s.w.
GUTTER/PAVEf1ENT PROFILE
TABLE A1a
CAPTURE BY 300 mm GRATED INLETS: z, = 10
zb = 25 - 30
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 10 L/s
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Ot = 8 L/s
80% capture :
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 L/s
gutter approach flow, Qt = 18 L/s
Notes:
TABLE A1b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (GUTTER: 300 mm)
Zb = 25 - 30
Zb = 30 - 40
40 L/s
59 L/s
29 L/s
42 L/s
65 L/s
96 L/s
47 L/s
68 L/s
46 L/s
60 L/s
37 L/s
47 L/s
92 L/s
120 L/s
74 L/s
94 L/s
Notes:
1.
Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.
2.
3.
116
"''
Kerb&Guller
!100
1--
!/ ~"::
---
~~~- """
VI
K
/(
--.----
"~
Hotmix paverr.ent
\,2::1'
- -
""
'-.!
,,
"
"'o
"'
--
'-it
__
02030~(6\(:.07
-----
--
Kerb& Gutter
""'
---
""
---.._
't
OTE:
0
200 0
"
02
Zb:25,30 or40
Guller/P<l'emenl Prof1le
---.._
"" 4 ~
?
---
~-
--- t--------r---!'---- ?h
f--'------ !'---- "'25
:------ !---'-
C6
(6
Guller longitudinal
,, ;;;?'"'f
~-~za: to
---
04
03
;!
-------
<00
11
""
"-
"
Holmix pavement
(each case)
'\,
llj I"'
0
10
""
il
WI
:;I
---
470rn to l
Contre~~J,U
-1
!100
~----
~
' _,
<00
25,30 or 40
'---..._
"" -----
:o
300rnm
1100
Gulter/P<!verrenl Prof1\e
--
,__ - ~ ------
Zb
Za: 10
(each easel
"" ~
""
3-70m to t
30<lrr.m
concre'.~-4W
:!
1200
01
So
Stope,
09
10
11
11
(m/ml
0
GUIIH ln!ef
H~raul!c Oafa
Ccpl~re perforNnce of 101'1 a~d 20m side-entry
inleh 'o'ilh cr.:! l<llhout defleckrs
10
-~'\:II
1SOmni!J
:~:_: ;::;ti
lYPE 1
10 0
NOTES
liQIES
1.1nlels vilhcul defledors: lip depressed
9utter lnnrt fOI' full lenglh,lts
7.
N
!!
,"'
"
lO
10
l/
1',
"
"--..
z;.,. ""
,,
oo
\r:;l
001
--1. Si ra,
Zi':i.
""" "'
006
GUTTER LONGilUOINAl
So (r/n)
Figure: A1d
--1--
"""
"'f:VI
80
""
(', ~ ~
~re
~~~-- P2 -
004
'
Q;(
G% Ca_plu
Q~
20
telc..
5()t1n
"
rt
bas~
"
2.lnlels
"
l-fttt+-f-1---l---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-l--+--+----l
Figure: A 1c
lb: }J-1/.1
Gulter/Pavel"'enl Prof1le
Gulter/PaveNnl Proftle
T'l'PE I
\lt\
-- - 008
SlOPE
010
1-
r--__::
011
So (r/m)
117
'
TYPE 2
GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE
TABLE A2a
CAPTURE BY 375 mm GRATED INLETS: Z, = 8
zb = 30 - 40
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 24 L/s
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 L/s
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 52 L/s
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 43 L/s
Notes:
TABLE A2b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (GUTTER: 375 mm)
Zb = 25 - 30
Zb
30 - 40
40 L/s
61 L/s
30 L/s
44 L/s
63 L/s
96 L/s
47 L/s
69 L/s
57 L/s
72 L/S
47 L/s
59 L/s
114 L/s
144 L/s
94 L/s
118 L/s
Notes:
118
I.
Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.
2.
3.
- ~75rnm
Concre~~-4U
1100
Kerb& Gutter
1100
f--
-~
H25m to t
Holmlx pavement
._.,
:.\-:;2"5'
Zb:25,30 or40
j~
!/
W; """"
~
rndical
"--._
: :,:~1 ~;;~!3
f--
~'
:I! K "
!'--- 1------ ,,_
1~/
~
,_
pu_
--- r--.,
II
f/
!...!l.S
!I
1-----
1ll
/. 'I
1----- 1-----
r----
T[;
400
Gu!ler/Pai"E~enf
020304050607
Gu!lu longitudinal Stope, So !m/ml
10
09
11
---
"
----:
1'----
---
'-'.(
~
1;, .?t '"-
N ,,
~ f--
'-"
car~iageway
r-- r----
---- ---------
02030405M07
Gutfer looglludina\ Slope, 5Q {m/m)
"
Prof1le
300
"'o
e'o'ays reduce
by 1 %
Zb=25,30 or40
Za; 8
!nth tasel
Holmlx paverr,ent
Kerb&Gutter
1100
Gutlef/P.M>menl Profrle
"--._
Concre~~4U
A~l
ii
WTE: or flu
4625m fo t
315rcm
Za" 8
luch easel
II
""
1100
10
09
11
11
TYP 2
TYPE 1
2b=25 -30
Gutter/Pavement Profo!e
NOlES
110
t.!~le!:s wit~oul
18 0
~He depress~d
f-
'-f-~+~+--1
"g '"
~ultH
mverl.
~ lnl~l
. -f- --c--f--- --
;"
<
I r;
"
['L
1'-
r-z; ~
'
I;
!Ji
II
"
10
0
GUTTil; LONGITUDINAL
SLOP
So lr/m)
"'
"-:;~ ~\ ,v F---
/5/'
0
---- r-
001
.,
~
""'
!el.l.lr
""- ~ D::
Y..
Figure: A2d
95% (a fu e
5%
a lur
006
'ooa
--
1.1
"'--
--
' w
'::::: ---.__
'I ."----
"
Figure: A2c
"-
1/t;
60
ca~es
" >-Yt'
80
oppro~malety.
;:.
>
~
as !tis),
:s
~ o
1'1 ~aroas
--
,/
J,-.-+-,-+-i
20
+-+-~~- ---~~~-~+-1---
g 110
1(;)"'" tek.;
belt-_.
1!0
~O"'m
010
'"
011
So (10/l'l)
119
TYPE 3
GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE
TABLE A3a
CAPTURE BY 450 mm GRATED INLETS: Z, ~ 12
Zb = 30 - 40
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 23 L/s
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 L/s
80% capture :
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 54 L/s
gutter approach flow, Qt = 47 L/s
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TABLE A3b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (GUTTER: 450 mm)
Zb = 25 - 30
zb = 30 - 40
41 L/s
63 L/s
29 L/s
45 L/s
63 L/s
95 L/s
45 L/s
68 L/s
47 L/s
61 L/s
39 L/s
50 L/s
94 L/s
122 L/s
78 L/s
100 L/s
Notes:
120
1.
Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.
2.
3.
llOO
{j
1100
--
~ "'
aoo
J"
}/ """
WI
5 50 0
---- - -
""' "
~-
~
400
Guii~/Pi!l'e~renl
"----
~~-"-
-r1
1100
Prof1le
""-!
"t___
'---- 4_,
---
I - 1-- f-
reduc
by 1%
e>~ays
10
09
07
ffi
11
11
Slope. So lm/m)
Gut!er longitudinal
'-'-.
""'
'---
Gui!H/Pa~er:ent
" '"
~
~
110
"I .,
"~
<
>
eo
'
-
Caol
'~"
!"--- 1--
,,
--;;..
:I/
o:f I
"'
'di
'if
'
'
'
"
'-,
' ~ :v
'~ ?
'.?-~
o,
,_-,_
---
-tr: -
001
f.Q,~
"
--
~~ ~!Ye
006
;~
,,
"'
i.'
mi.
(a lure
""
"-.v
r-v
_! ~~
~-
'"
'"
--m
012
.:!..
C2 lu e
"
SS%
ss~.r,
10
'>
- ----'-
~-
Gj
'"
'
--'
:-::!l
M.'Y.
t.m. . '"
~l!L
006
GUlTER LONGITUDINAL
So I 0>/m)
Figure:
'
'
' ' v
A~d
r-
...._
-
,.
"
lur
iJip.
aolu
.$7/'
H'
-fA ~%
~ :..t
"
95'
+---
I!
"'
~-lnlel
"
I ,,
Figure: A3c
~
~
Profo!e
li 1-L
11
11
ll
~:
60
20
"
equ~ls
10
NOTES
4 Inlet widlh
09
TYPE 3
Guthr/Pave"'nl Prol<le
1'"
1---
~ide-enfr~
---
TYPE 3
~ ,_____
1-----
02
03
04
OS
06
07
Gvlle-r longitudinal Slope, So {m/ml
180
<'o"f.
<;,
"'-!q_
ndita d flo
"'o
Prof1\e
~ %;;;
....____
HOlE: For I! sh
,__.
3D 0
Guller/~m>ml
-"'-
"-..__
'--
iI
za:12
0
400
_:\.;:2'-'f
lea(h USl!l
'I
l1l__
-'
Holmix pavement
;!
Kerb&Guller
-~- --- -
----
----
45Sm I
(onu~~~4U
1100
"'o
450n:m
Za "'11
g-600
~700
Zb=25,30 cr40
leach easel
~
""'
-II/v """
,,,.
~----
iI
Holmix pavell'.ent
Concrete-+,
l<erb&Guller ;:~.
1100
1,
BSm !o l
O~Pm
~ol\ation
d~t,a :-
Ca
'' '"
"'
..:::::. :L!'!...... ~~
;:;.:: b!!e ~
""
;:Q
oo
SLOPE
-'T- -
ow
.:!..
-- ~
-
011
So fnVml
121
'"
TYPE 4
GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE
TABLE A4a
CAPTURE BY 500 mm GRATED INLETS: NO GUTTER
Zb = 30 - 40
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 10 L/s
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 6 L/s
80% capture :
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 26 L/s
gutter approach flow, Qt = 17 L/s
Notes:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TABLE A4b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (NO GUTTER)
Zb = 30 - 40
41 L/s
63 L/s
30 L/s
45 L/s
62 L/s
95 L/s
44 L/s
68 L/s
31 L/s
44 L/s
23 L/s
31 L/s
62 L/s
88 L/s
46 L/s
62 L/s
DESCRIPTION
Notes:
122
!.
Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.
2.
3.
1500
1<00
. ""- ~
;sljj f'..
~(\ -~
I
Holmi~
- iI
pa~m1ml
Coru:rele '-"
l<erb --.:1
~I"
BOO
1500
4-0m fu
1"'-
'
-
600
""'
0r
1<00
Guller/Pa~ameot
t/ '\.
"" -;I/\
Zb:25,30or40
Profile
1/
!'--I'--- ~'-!
~
'b
educe indic
t~
eways
Ito Yalu
'"
'"'
600
""'
(fJ
05
03
Gutter longitudinal Slope, So lrn/m)
""'
"-._
"
1'\.
'
f-._
"'
I/\
erion
II
09
" "
no gutter
hl-bf-1-----l--1
100
h,ilc:il'----jf--l--1
Kerb/Pa~eme,,l
i
I
Zb=25,30or40
""
1----
1:- ~
b
""
1----
1<l(otfi
....___
2 (f, 6
r--
1'- ~
~
"25
g~way
value
""
by 2 %
---~
12
(fJ
Slop~,
So 11!1/nl
f-+l-1----i--1
TYPE
F~~r----===,=..~,~-,~0~
'"
TYPE 4
N
pave~eol
Hotmix
Gutler/Pal'err.enl Prof1le
04
05
Gutter Longitudinal
12
SOm
I
Concrete .':~
Kerb :i~r
{\
100
1-.Jf--1-+-1
F~~r--=:::::;,:;;;;, ~
_,_:;;;=:.,
t<e,b/Pa\emenl Profole
Profle
O On
"
et
ups r am.
efer o Fi
--
belo
"
~
"
lm ,......-
'i'
~~
""
~
30
-1-i-+-1--+-+-+-1
"
10
Figure : A4 c
So lm/nl
Figure : A4d
$ 0 lm/n)
123
124
AppendixB
Forms for use by designers
. CATCHMENT
"'
SUB-CATCHMENT
...
ENTRY POINT
"'
GUTTER INVERT
LEVEL RL
-l
)>
OJ
rn
._.
COMPONENT
"'
_,
0>
"'
~
:::
~
"'
~
...
~
"'
DESCRIPTION
,.....n
HYDROLOGICAL
SURFACE
CLASSIFICATION
"'
"'"'z
....
AREA OR .
EQUIVALENT AREA
0
TYPE OF CONTRIBUT'N "'
-n
z
CONC. OR DISTR.
=<
Total length,
0
L, metres
Fall, metres
Effective length,
Leff, metres
Slope So near
terminal inlet
0
:0
:z
,.
...
:z
0"'
.... "'
,..,,-
,.~
:o:z
"'"'
zn
)>0
r-:z
_<
Carriageway
:z"'
,-::<:
cross -slope, Zb
Capacity flow
Guideline 1' L/s
""'"',--n
m:z
0
,.;:
:0
~
"'
"'
,.
"'
:0
""
V\
125
<!)
-"'"'
TABLE 6
SUB-AREA
(/)
1--
0:
~~
zO
~0
:::;
::c
(.)
1--
<3
z
~
COMPONENT
~"'
z~
~~
r<
,~
:5
"'
0.
0..
0
0.
"'
~
"'
~
~
"""
2 3
z
0
;:::
""
>~.e:
~
~""
z
u~ "
~.~
1
~
~
r"' z
""c;
0
0
o ~
!: i
TIME
OF
COMPONENT TRAVEL
IME TO CHANNEL OR
UNDERGROUND PIPE
overland allotment
0
-:.:
flo.,..
tlrain
~
~
"' "6
--
travel
IJ')~:.e,E.eeE.c:.eE.z:.ee
._,
ti
lanalys~
fuli- Ipart-
P
area area
tc
min
min.
21
22
-full-area I1 part-crea
...
~---:
in for
"'""'1~
:::l
aJ
<(
=
u
"
analysis
i.n for
"
:3
ha.
ha.
26
27
REMARKS
part-area
part- analysis analysis
On tor
On tor
N::: years N: years
tulh:~rea
2s
'
a:
(/)
a:
a:
On= !Ct~36i.n Us
t i N= years N: years
min.
24
25
23
""'"'a:
N:: -YEARS
CUMULATIVE
MAINLINE FLOWS
COMPONENT iCUMULATIVE FROM TOTAL
UPSTREAM
ICA)n
ICA>n
CATCHMENT
AREA
(analysis)
5. ~ ~ @ .S ~ 5 T .~ ~ .S tuu-1 partI'
ll'loo-CII'-'-'-' area area
~
a ""
"'
>- "' :S
~
ENTRY
COMPONENT PROGRESSIVE RAINFALL INTENSITIES
CHANNEl OR U/G
TOTAl
CRITICAL
i.n mm/h FOR
PIPE TRAVEL TO
TRAVEL
STORM
PROGRESSIVE CR111CAL
NODE PIT
TIME TO
DURATION
STORM DURATION IN
utter or u/ground NODE PIT
IN TOTAL
TOTAL UPSTREAM
natural
pipe
UPSTREAM
CATCHMENT AREA
.ot
channel
ha
29
ha.
30
ha.
L/s
Lis
31
32
33
34
...J
...J
<(
:::;
(/)
z
z
(!)
(/)
TABLE 4
(!)
<(
z
:;;:
a:
....
:::;
a:
0
I(/)
>-
:z
0
w
"-'!;;: 0::
":>:,_,
>:r:,
:z
'
~:::> :::>
'-'CXl CXl
wv>
"'
TIME
ENTRY
OF
COMPONENT
RAINFALL
COMPONENT TRAVEL CHANNEL OR U/G TOTAL INTENSITIES lnmm/h.
TIME TO CHANNEL DR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL
FOR STORM
UNDERGROUND PIPE
ENTRY POINT TIME TO DURATIONS WHICH
ENTRY
ARE CRITICAL
overland allotment gu:;er or u/grouno
0
natural
p1pe
-c
POINT
drain
flow
--'
:z: ~channel travel
~ 0 ~
(analysis) full-area part-area
w
>- ~"0
<( ~
~
w
analysis analysis
0"-'- -c E ~ C
c:: full- part" E c: E
--' w ~ " ~ ,
E.
e
e
'
o < r - ~.!:
.c I I .c' E. E' .:: e e ...c:::: E E area area i..n for i.n for
0:: u.. ~ -o_
0
I
~
~ .!_ OJ
0
0:: o ' ' 0.
~ c - E g'~E
li
>-:::>__, ~ "' "'
c o E
r:::
E t,
N= years N= years
CJ
tg OJ
~ - ~ ~:;:
OJ
PRIMARY DRAINAGE
CONTRIBUTING AREA
"-
w
....
z 00
:>:
"' :z:
o-:r:
0::
>zw
1 2 3 4
:z:
>zw
~
,_
"-
0::
"-
w
w
0
:>:
"'
0
u
--
-11i
---
;g
"'"
0
:;:
y
~
~
w
0::
$>
..E
---
~
~
~
"
"
ha
24
25
PRIMARY
CONTRIBUTING
AREA
z
COMPONENl 0
TOTAL FLOW
;::
:::> AT NOMINATED
ICAln
CXl
ENTRY POINT
o:
....
On=
ICAln Ln L/
:z:
036
s
0
I analysis) w
full-area part-area
analysis ana.!.l:>is
0
full- part- w
On for
On for
area area ">- N= years N= years
~
>-
ha.
ha. Oar(
26
27
26
--'
...,,;
o'-
3--'
~
....
REMARKS
!Gutter inlet
:>:~
here l
0>-
L/s
L/s
u-
29
30
31
32
<!)
"'
CATCHMENT
SUB-CATCHMENT
SUB-AREA NODE PIT
JUNCTION PIT AND
~
N
DESCRIPTION
a-.
FLOW L/s
LENGTH m
LONGITUDINAL SLOPE
"' GUIDELINE 4
=E:
1-+(_:_Ta..:.b:..:l.:_e. . :6:.. .4.:..:1:.___ _ _-J ~
c; GUIDELINE 5
"' -u --1
!-+_:_(T....:a:..:b..:.le::.....:6_4.:. :1_ _ _ _--1 ~ ""'
~ ;o ASSIGNED WATER
~
~
~ r LEVEL (AWL)
co
3
-a
;:;\
TRIAL PIPE DIAMETER Do
6;
VELOCITY, V0 =
~
"'
YAo m/s
z+
v,
.o
0
'
i3
? ADOPTED
-<
Vl
"'
-<
N
DIAMETER
Vl
z
II
I
-<
~
"'
Vl
127
128
A;
hf
Ao
hw
H.G.L.
AEP
ARI
AR&R
AWL
coefficient of S0
Fig. 6.2
BWL
C
runoff coefficient
C;
iy
lf2
(CA)
Kw
llim
Leff
in eqn (6.9),
Do
Dt
na
nb
Fy
NR
FRC
VoDo
v
129
(m/m)
time (mins)
Oc
tc
ti
TAi
Og
T,N,P,
T.N.S.
Ogap
Oi
velocity (m/s)
channel flow average velocity
Vave
01
On
Oo
Op
Y-years
Opeak
Osc
Za
Ot
Ou
Oy
RO
130
N-years
= Y-years
.I