ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
Assignment 2
Due date: 
14 October 2016 
Weighting: 
25% (250 marks) 
1. Overview
This assessment is designed to test your achievement of selected learning objectives of Modules 6 to 9. In particular, the assignment involves estimation of urban design discharges, reservoir routing and water balance. It is intended to reinforce and extend your knowledge on urban hydrology, using a low density residential subdivision as a case study.
The assignment is divided into three parts:
Part A – Estimation of Minor and Major design flows for the urban subdivision.
Part B – Preliminary analysis of stormwater detention pond for one of the lots
Part C – Preliminary water balance analysis of the pond
2. Part A – Minor and Major Design Discharges
2.1 Proposed residential subdivision
A drainage scheme is to be designed for a residential located at near the Mackay aerodrome, Queensland. A copy of the subdivision layout plan can be downloaded from Studydesk (Subdivision Lots Layout.pdf). The subdivision includes a network of proposed internal roads (Roads 01 and 02).
Your task is to prepare a Minor system design check of the stormwater system along Road 01 upstream and including Pit 03/05 based on the preliminary layout and then a Major system check. The Minor system is to cater for the 2 year ARI storm and the Major system for the 100 year ARI storm. The system includes stormwater line 5 (pit 01/05 to pit 03/05) and line 6 (pit 01/06 to pit 03/05).
Pits will be based on Brisbane City Council standard drawings. Initial surface levels at pit locations are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Initial design details at pit locations
Pit/Location 
Finished Surface Level (m LD) 
01/05 
303.97 
02/05 
303.91 
03/05 
303.65 
01/06 
303.65 
LD = Local datum
Use the following information:
1. The approximate location of the subdivision is 21.17° S, 149.18° E
2. The road kerbs are BCC ‘Type D’ kerb and channel. Roads 01 and 02 will have a 6.5m wide road pavement (kerb to kerb) located within 16m road reserve. All roads have a dual crossfall
1  P a g e
ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
of 1:30 (i.e. roadway has a central crown).
3. Assume all road pits will be 2400 lintel ‘lip in line’. The road pits are on grade, except for the intersection pits (03/05 and 01/06) which are in sag. Sag pits have different hydraulic capacities compared to on grade pits due to the effect of water ponding.
4. The proposed lots will be developed to ‘low residential density’ with an expected percentage impervious within the lot area of 50%. Due to the low development density, do not include an allowance for footpaths to estimate the percentage impervious of the road reserve.
5. Soil permeability can be classed as ‘Medium’. Pervious parts of the subdivision can be classed as ‘Medium density bush’ or “Good grass cover’.
6. Assume no flow of stormwater runoff into lots from neighbouring lots (i.e no flow across shared lot boundaries). Once flow meets an internal shared lot boundary, assume ‘concentrated overland flow’ conditions. Assume flows across lot boundaries to the street can occur. Use the contours shown on the layout plan to identify the subcatchment boundaries draining to each pit. This may mean that the full area of some lots may not drain to the nominated pits.
7. To simplify the analysis, assume that there is no stormwater entry to Road 01 from external areas outside of the proposed subdivision. It is assumed that there is existing drainage to service the existing main road on the eastern entry to the subdivision (e.g. pit 01/07). The plan also shows stormwater drainage along the western side of the existing main road (marked as – SW and including pit 01/E1). Take account of this information when defining the catchment boundaries associated with Lots 22 and 38 and the eastern end of Road 1.
8. The minimum travel time to a pit is 5 minutes and the maximum is 20 minutes. Reminder:
Partial Area check is based on the most remote, directly connected impervious area to the pit. The travel time may be longer than 5 minutes.
9. In completing the Hydrologic Design Sheets, it is acceptable to combine together lot subcatchments that have the same fraction impervious, rather than report CA values for individual lots.
10. It is acceptable to scale up the CA values based on the frequency factor ratio F100/F2– this will simplify the calculations for the Major Storm analysis
11. Do not use standard inlet times
12. For pipe flow travel times for Sheet 2, use a minimum pipe gradient of 0.3% otherwise the road slope.
13. Gutter flows in the street during the Minor storm should be contained within the full roadway width with zero depth at the crown. The maximum flow depth at the road kerb during the Major storm should contain flooding to within the road reserve. This corresponds to a maximum water depth of 0.25m. dV product should not exceed 0.6 m ^{2} /s. At the sag pits, check both the ponded water width at the pit and the roadway flow hazard approaching the pit during the Minor Storm.
14. Unless otherwise defined, the drainage design check will be in accordance to the 2007 edition Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM). (The updated 2013 edition remains provisional). Use 1987 AR&R IFD data to generate design rainfall intensities.
15. Undertake the Major design flow check for Road 01 at just downstream of pit 03/05.
2.2 Scope of Part A
The scope of Part A is to undertake a Minor and Major analysis of the proposed drainage system by completion of Hydrologic Design Sheets 1, 2 and 3 (as per Module 7 of the Study Book).
After completion of the Design Sheets, review the results and make suggestions on revisions to the proposed road drainage system (e.g. requirement for additional pits, if any). It is not required to reanalyse and update the Design Sheets.
The design sheets shall be supported by:
1. A plan showing the boundaries of each pit subcatchment and the flowpath to each pit used in
2  P a g e
ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
the time of concentration calculation.
2. Design assumptions (refer to report template)
3. A worked example of how an (arbitrarily) selected row of each design sheet was determined, by providing the calculations in more detail.
4. An output summary – giving the pit size at each pit location, the Minor discharge in each pipe reach and the Major flow characteristics (discharge, flow width, dV product) at the selected road location.
2.3 Useful materials for Part A
The following materials have been provided and can be downloaded from StudyDesk or from external websites:
1. Subdivision layout base plan
2. Gully pit designs and hydraulic capacity charts can be downloaded from
3. 200708 and 2013 Provisional QUDM can be downloaded from http://www.dews.qld.gov.au/watersupplyregulations/urbandrainage
4. Refer to Bureau of Meteorology website for online IFD tool for design rainfalls.
3. Part B – Stormwater Detention Analysis
3.1 Proposed Lot 38 Stormwater Detention
After the subdivision was constructed, a development application was received by the local Council for a Material Change of Use redevelopment of Lot 38 which fronts the existing main road. The proposal involved a change in land use from low density residential to a plant nursery open to the public. The development will significantly increase the % impervious of the site. Specifically a sealed carpark area 400 m ^{2} in size is proposed.
Council is concerned with increased peak stormwater discharge from the carpark and have requested the developer to include onsite detention within the lot site. The detention storage is to be sized such that the Q2 and Q100 peak discharge from the redeveloped site doesn’t worsen the stormwater discharge to the Road 1 street drainage. The development conditions state that the peak stormwater discharge from the carpark should not exceed that generated from the predeveloped carpark site area (which is zero fraction impervious).
The concept for onsite detention is to provide a small open ornamental pond as shown schematically in Figure 1. This approach was considered by the developer to be consistent with the garden centre architecture. (It is expected that alternatives such as underground detention tanks or bioretention systems would be preferred for a range of maintenance and mosquito hazard reasons). You have been asked to provide an initial estimate of the pond surface area so an assessment can be made on how it may be located within the lot. There are some design constraints such as the maximum water depth (Figure 1). Assume that the pond in plan view is circular.
3  P a g e
ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
Outlet control with notch weir. See detail
Pond Cross Section
Vertical notch (minimum gap =
100mm)
FSL
SWL
Pond outlet weir detail (section view)
Figure 1 – Sketch details of proposed carpark detention pond (Not to scale, all dimensions in mm)
3.2 Scope of Part B
The scope of Part B is to undertake a reservoir routing analysis of the proposed detention pond. For the purpose of the assignment, the following simplifications can be used in the analysis:
1. Calculate the Q2 and Q100 peak discharges from the carpark area using the Rational method, consistent with Part A drainage calculations. Assume that all carpark surface runoff will be directed to the detention pond. Use the same format as Part A Sheet 1 to present the Rational method estimates. Assume the pond will be located near the lot boundary at Road 1.
2. Assume the time of concentration for the 400 m ^{2} carpark site is 8 minutes and 5 minutes for the existing (predeveloped, before the carpark is installed) and future (developed, after the carpark is installed) scenarios, respectively Assume 100% impervious for the carpark when developed. It was decided to use the latest 2013 AR&R IFD rainfall intensities to estimate the design discharges.
3. It was decided to complete the detention analysis based on the 2 year and 100 year ARI 20 minute duration storm and the 2013 AR&R IFD rainfall intensities. This was due to the fact that the Rational method only estimates the peak discharge whereas a full hydrograph is needed to routing. Note that it would be normally expected to test various inflow hydrographs corresponding to a range of design storm durations so the critical duration can be identified (refer Critical Storm Duration, Section 6.3, Study Book). This is outside the scope
4  P a g e
ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
of this assignment.
4. Apply the principles of the TimeArea Method to generate the Q2 and Q100 inflow hydrograph from the developed carpark site into the tank. Assume that the timearea diagram is linear. Assume 1mm initial loss and zero proportional loss.
5. The peak discharges estimated using the Rational Method and the TimeArea Method may be significantly different. Provide reasons why this may be the case. It was decided that the Rational Method estimates be used to set a target expressed as a percentage reduction in peak flow i.e.
%Target Reduction ≥ (Peak developed Q − Peak predeveloped Q) Peak developed Q
Target reductions are required for both the Q2 and Q100 scenarios.
6. Compute the storage routing based on the above inflow hydrographs. Setup reservoir routing computations in Excel. Use a 30 second timestep to achieve stable outflow discharge estimates. Interpolation of data from the lookup table is preferred to using the simpler LOOKUP function in Excel to ensure a more accurate analysis. Use a depth increment of 0.01m to setup the lookup table.
7. Assume that the water level at the start of the storm matches the standing water level (SWL)
of the pond).
8. To define the tank outflow, assume that ‘free flowing’ discharge through the notch weir and the tank is not subjected to any backwater affect. For consistency, adopt a weir coefficient C=
1.6.
9. By trial and error, determine the pond surface area that achieves the adopted Q2 and Q100
flow targets (see Note 5) as a minimum.
10. Consider how modifications could be made to the pond design so the pond area could be made more compact but still achieve the adopted flow targets.
4. Part C – Pond Water Balance Analysis
4.1 Proposed Use of Detention Pond
The concept Stormwater detention pond given in Part B is also intended to function as an ornamental water feature. As part of the desktop analysis, you have been also asked to quantify the requirements for ‘topup’ water to maintain the pond at a relatively stable water depth. It was decided to size the pond open surface area to 20 m ^{2} for landscaping design purposes.
4.2 Scope of Part C
The scope of Part C is to undertake a water balance analysis and document the results. Assumptions can be made to simplify the analysis:
1. Use daily rainfalls observed at Mackay Aerodrome for calendar years 2009 to 2011. This data can be downloaded from the BOM website. Report the percentage of blank or missing data in the data record. For the analysis, assume that no rainfall occurred on days when data is missing.
2. Use the daily evapotranspiration data for Mackay Aerodrome provided in the EXCEL file ‘mackay_aeroET.csv’ available on the course homepage. This file has been compiled from monthly archived data obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/eto/. As a first approximation, assume the reference ETo provides a reasonable estimate of the evaporation from the ornamental pond. Report the percentage of blank or missing ETo data in the data record, For the analysis, infill the missing data with the average daily ETo for that particular month.
3. The pond is fully sealed and it can be assumed that seepage or leakage loss from the pond is zero. Water will not be extracted from the pond for onsite use such as irrigation. Assume that
5  P a g e
ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
the pond at the start of the simulation is full.
4. To simplify the estimation of carpark runoff volumes, assume that an initial loss of 1 mm will apply to daily rainfalls.
5. Model two scenarios – 1) assuming there is no water topup to determine how often the pond may have unacceptably low water levels, and 2) assuming the pond is toppedup as required to estimate the additional water volume needed to maintain the ornamental pond. Assume the top up occurs within the same day.
6. Assume the minimum accepted water level in the pond is 0.3m below the SWL.
Based on the analysis, report the percentage of time that the pond water level may be unacceptably low and the average annual volume of topup water required. What was the longest period of time the pond water level was unacceptable?
It is normal practice to undertake a water balance analysis using significantly more than three years of historical rainfall data. Compare the 2009 to 2011 annual rainfalls with long term statistics and evaluate the likely effect on the pond performance if a longer rainfall input is used.
5.
Submission
Your submission for Assignment 2 should include:
A report that documents the hydrological analyses that have completed. A marking scheme is provided as Table 2. Use this marking scheme to check that you have addressed the full scope of the work. If an element of the assignment has not been documented in the file report than no marks will be given for that element. For reasons of consistency, a report template (ENV3105Report2Template.docx) must be downloaded from Study Desk and used to report your work. Complete each section of the report.
An EXCEL spreadsheet containing your hydrological computations. Multiple spreadsheets will not be accepted – instead put your workings in separate sheets within the one EXCEL file. Include a list indicating the contents of each sheet to aid marking in the above report.
Part of the available marks has been allocated to reward reporting that is well set out and easy to follow. Submissions that are untidy and/or poorly structured and thus difficult to assess will attract less marks for this element.
Electronic submission of this assignment is required. One ZIP file will be accepted containing:
1. A single pdf document based on the template provided (rename the file based on the convention below)
2. A single EXCEL spreadsheet
The following filename convention shall be used: *Ass2.zip, *Ass2.pdf and *Ass2.xlsx, where * is your student name.
6  P a g e
ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
6. Marking Scheme
Table 2: Assignment 2 Marking Scheme
Part A Minor and Major Design Discharges (Technical work) 
Marks 
Design assumptions and output summary 

Catchment plan showing subcatchment boundaries and flowpaths 
10 
Table of pit subcatchment details 
5 
Table of 2 year and 100 year ARI rainfalls 
5 
Table of runoff coefficients 
5 
Izzard table and hydraulic capacity charts 
5 
Output summary table 
10 
Suggestions for revisions to proposed drainage 
5 
Sheet 1 and worked calculation 

Appropriate time of concentration estimates (Col 1 to 8) 
10 
Full area CA values and Rational Q estimates (Col 9 to 14) 
5 
Partial area CA values and Rational Q estimates (Col 9 to 14) 
5 
Pit inlet analysis and road hazard (Col 15 to 25) 
10 
Sheet 1 worked calculation 
5 
Sheet 2 and worked calculation 

Full area calculations (Col 1 to 5) 
5 
Partial area calculations (Col 6 to 11) 
5 
Sheet 2 worked calculation 
5 
Sheet 3 and worked calculation 

Appropriate time of concentration estimates (Col 1 to 8) 
5 
Road Q and capacity check (Col 9 to 18) 
5 
Sheet 3 worked calculation 
5 
Part B Stormwater Detention Analysis 

Design discharges 

IFD rainfall depths table 
5 
Rational Method estimates table 
10 
Rainfall hyetographs, discharge hydrographs and assumptions 
10 
Discharge target reductions, peak discharges and why discharges may be different 
10 
Detention Analysis 

Pond outflow dischargedepth and storagedepth plots 
10 
Discharge equations and assumptions 
5 
Pond hydrograph plots 
10 
Peak pond discharges, depths and storage volumes table 
10 
7  P a g e
ENV3105 Hydrology 2016
Statement of critical storm and design modification 
5 
Part C Pond Water Balance 

Table reporting missing data and average rainfalls and ETo 
10 
Daily rainfall and ETo timeseries plots 
10 
Water balance summary table 
10 
Storage behaviour plots 
10 
Effect on using a longer rainfall record 
5 
Reporting 

Assignment report 
10 
Assignment EXCEL spreadsheet 
10 
TOTAL MARKS 
250 
8  P a g e
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.