SWMM ASSIGNMENT

OBJECTIVE : To study the hydrologic response of a catchment in its virgin and post
development conditions with and without the implementation of sustainable urban
drainage(SUDs)

RAINFALL DATA
The data is taken for the return periods of 2 and 5 years for Chennai city.
Equation used to develop Intensity-Duration-Frequency relationship,
i= kTa/(t+b)n

i= rainfall intensity(mm/hr)
T= return period of the storm(years)
t=rainfall duration(hr)
K, a, b, n are the constants that depends on the geographic location
For Chennai
K=6.126
a=0.1664
b=0.8027
n=0.5 ( Ram Babu et al(1979))

RAIN GAGE DETAILS

120
HYETOGRAPH
100
intensity(cm/hr)

80

60

40

20

0
1.75
0.25
0.5
0.75

1.25
1.5

2.25
2.5
2.75

3.25
3.5
3.75

4.25

4.75

5.25

5.75
4

4.5

5.5
0

TIME(hr)
i(2 YEAR) i(5 years)
VIRGIN CONDITION
ASSUMPTIONS:

• In its virgin condition, the catchment soil has a percentage imperviousness of 5%

• The manning’s roughness coefficient for pervious surface is 0.3
• All the runoff from the catchment is obtained as inflow at outlet O1
• The model used for infiltration is Horton
• Kinematic wave method of routing

PROPERTIES OF CATCHMENT IN VIRGIN CONDITION:

Property Value Property Value
Depression storage, 0.05
Area 1.18 ha pervious areas mm

Depression storage, 0.05

Width 125 m impervious areas mm.

% of impervious area
Slope 3% without depression 25%
storage

Imperviousness 5 % Maximum infiltration rate 76.2

mm/h
Roughness coefficient, 12.7
0.01 Minimum infiltration rate
impervious areas mm/hr
Roughness coefficient, Infiltration decay
0.3 4 hr-1
pervious areas coefficient

The watershed is linked to a rain gage RG1 that provides precipitation input to the
catchment whose runoff drains at outfall O1

SIMULATION DATA

Routing time steps= 15 minutes

Routing method= Kinematic Wave

SUMMARY RESULTS

RETURN PEAK TIME OF

PERIOD(YR) RUNOFF(LPS) CONCENTRATION
2 188.55 3:30
5 229.48 3:30
POST DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SUDs

The subcatchment boundaries were determined by aggregating together sub-areas

whose potential overland flow paths share a common direction and drain to the same
collection channel and share the same landuse property.

ASSUMPTIONS INVOLVED

• All the subcathments are linked to the rain gauge RG1 that provides precipitation
input to the subcatchments which flow to the corresponding subcatchment’s
outlet
• The storm water conduits are laid parallel to the ground slope
• Within a subcatchment the soil properties are more or less same
• All the conduits are assumed to be circular in cross-section

Junction id Invert
elevation(m)
1 100
2 99.4
3 99.1
4 99.2
5 98.35
6 97.8
7 97.1
 8 98.7
9 97.9
10 95.8
11 96.5
12 97.1

SUBCATCHMENT OUTLETS

Subcatchment id Outlet junction Outlet conduit

1 J1 C1
2 J2 C2
3 J4 C4
4 J8 C8
5 J6 C5
6 J5 C6
7 J9 C7
8 J12 C12
9 J9 C7
10 J10 C11

CONDUITS:
The conduits provided are circular single barrel with manning’s roughness of 0.01

CONDUIT LENGTH(m) DIAMETER(m)

C1 17.52 0.3
C2 11.95 0.3
C3 13.11 0.3
C4 9.97 0.3
C5 25.14 0.3
C6 22.09 0.3
C7 24.38 0.3
C8 51.32 0.3
C9 41.38 0.3
C10 23.54 0.45
C11 43.11 0.45
C12 23.54 0.45
STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM LAYOUT

SUMMARY

RESULTS
RETURN PEAK TIME OF
PERIOD(YR) RUNOFF(LPS) CONCENTRATION
2 255.35 3:15
5 298.68 3:15

Thus it is seen that after the development of the watershed, a tremendous increase in
the peak runoff is obtained. Also the time to peak runoff decrease by 15 minutes.
It is due to the fact that a large fraction of the total watershed area is paved and
impervious.
POST DEVELOPMENT PHASE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUDs
ASSUMPTIONS:
• The detention pond is assumed to be trapezoidal in section with the upper and
bottom area as 100 and 50 sqm resp.
• The length to width ratio is 2:1

• The orifice for the detention pond is assumed to be a side orifice with
rectangular cross-section

PROPERTIES OF LID CONTROLS:

1.Rain barrel
• Height=1200 mm
• Diameter=1.15 m
2. Infiltration trenches
• Thickness=1200 mm
• Void ratio= 0.75
• Manning’s roughness=0.1
3. Pervious pavement
• Thickness=1200 mm
• Void ratio=0.75
• Permeability=100 mm/hr
• Manning’s roughness=0.1
4. Vegetative swales
• Berm height= 150mm
• Vegetation volume fraction=0.4
• Roughness=0.1
• Surface slope=1%
• Side slope=20%
LID CONTROLS IN SUBCATCHMENTS

SUBCATCHMENT LID AREA/UNIT(sqm) NO OF UNITS % AREA

CONTROLS
1 Rain barrel 1 20 1.33
Pervious 3.5 10 2.33
pavements
2 Pervious 4 5 2.22
pavement
3 Rain barrels 1 15 1.667
4 Swales 30 4 13.3
5 Rain barrel 1 10 1
Infiltration 1.5 5 0.75
trench
6 Rain barrel 1 15 1.875
9 Rain barrel 1 25 1.923
10 Swales 50 5 11.9
8 Rain barrels 1 20 1.11
Infiltration 3 6 1
trench

DETENTION POND
In addition to the LID controls the watershed is also provided with a detention pond
that stores surplus during peak time and drain the water slowly afterwards using the
two orifice provided.

STORAGE CURVE
DEPTH(m) AREA(sqm)
0 50
1 75
2 100

ORIFICE PROPERTIES
ORIFICE DIMENSIONS(m) Max Inlet
depth(m) offset(m)
1 0.015*0.04 0.5 0
2 0.02*0.04 1.8 0.5

The time of draining the water was obtained as 21 and 23.25 hours for 2 years and 5
years storm respectively
SUMMARY RESULTS

RETURN PEAK TIME OF

PERIOD(YR) RUNOFF(LPS) CONCENTRATION
2 174.64 3:30
5 227.74 3:30

The SUD that has maximum impact is rain barrel as it actually stores a fraction of runoff,
thus helps in bringing down the peak at the subcatchment’s outlet. Also the area
occupied by rain barrels is the minimum.

COMPARISON OF TOTAL INFLOW AT THE WATERSHED OUTLET O1 IN THE PRE,

POST AND LID CONDITIONS

2 YR HYDROGRAPH COMPARISON
300

250

200
FLOW(LPS)

150

100

50

0
00:00:00 01:12:00 02:24:00 03:36:00 04:48:00 06:00:00 07:12:00
-50
TIME

PRE POST LID

 5 YR HYDROGRAPH COMPARISON
350

300

250

200
FLOW(LPS)

150

100

50

0
00:00:00 01:12:00 02:24:00 03:36:00 04:48:00 06:00:00 07:12:00
-50
TIME
PRE POST LID

INFERENCE
On looking at the comparison of hydrograph for the above three conditions, it is
observed that on the implementation of SUD the peak of the post development runoff is
brought down in the range of pre development phase. Also the time for peak runoff is
delayed by 15 minutes. Thus it can be inferred that the SUDs is optimum.