Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PRODUCTION NOTE
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.
~ ~ : ::: ::!-~ :~( :I.1~I:;: ::i:!~::: ::,:::r:l:~-: -1:::~: l~ ~^~
by
Ven Te Chow
I. INTRODUCTION 11
A. Purpose of the Study 11
B. Development of the Study 11
C. Scope of the Study 12
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW 13
A. General 13
B. The Myers Formula 13
C. Professor Talbot's Renowned Formula 14
D. Early Contributions by Sewerage Engineers 15
E. Drainage Tables of Railroad Engineers 17
F. Development of Numerous Other Formulas 19
G. Efforts of Agricultural Engineers 20
H. Developments by Highway Engineers 23
I. Classification of Existing Methods 26
J. Chronological Development 27
III. A SURVEY OF DESIGN PRACTICE 30
A. The Questionnaire 30
B. The Design Frequency 30
C. Hydrologic Design Practice 31
D. Hydraulic Design Practice 32
IV. HYDROLOGIC PRINCIPLES, DATA, AND ANALYSES 35
A. Hydrology of a Drainage Basin 35
B. Sources of Hydrologic Data 37
C. Rainfall Analysis 38
D. Development of Unit Hydrographs 41
E. Variation of Rainfall Intensity in a Storm 46
V. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW METHOD 48
A. The Proposed Formula 48
B. Factors Affecting Runoff 48
C. Determination of Runoff Factor X 51
D. Determination of Climatic Factor Y 52
E. Determination of Peak-Reduction Factor Z 53
F. Design Criteria 59
G. Design Procedure by the Proposed Method 60
H. Merits of the Proposed Method 61
VI. FUTURE STUDIES 65
VII. APPENDICES 66
Appendix 1. A Compilation of Formulas for Waterway Area
Determination 66
A. General 66
B. Classification of Formulas 66
C. Grouping of Formulas 67
D. Notation 69
E. Group 1: Waterway Area Formulas 70
F. Group 2: Simple Flood Formulas 72
G. Group 3: Rainfall Intensity Formulas 78
H. Group 4: Frequency Formulas 82
I. Group 5: Elaborate Discharge Formulas 83
Appendix II. References Cited 91
Appendix Ill. Annotated Supplementary Bibliography 96
FIGURES
1. Chart and map for peak flow determination by the Cook method 21
2. Chart for computation of design discharge by the California method 24
3. Peak rates of runoff for drainage basins under 1,000 acres (from
Bureau of Public Roads Manual, August, 1951) 25
4. Rainfall factors - use with Figure 3 in estimating peak rates
of runoff (from Bureau of Public Roads Manual, July, 1951) 25
5. Rainfalls of different frequencies and maximum rainfalls 39
6. Fifty-year one-day precipitation isohyetals, averages, and conversion
factors for four climatological sections of Illinois 40
7. Derivation of unit hydrograph by the S-curve method 41
8. Relationship between the unit hydrograph peak and its duration
for the Boneyard drainage basin, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois 42
9. Dimensionless plot of unit hydrograph peak against duration 43
10. Hypothetical drainage basins 43
11. S-curve and unit hydrographs for a hypothetical circular
drainage basin 44
12. Dimensionless plot of unit hydrograph peak against duration
for hypothetical drainage basins 45
13. Soil types in Illinois 50
14. Relationship between rainfall and rainfall excess for various
runoff numbers 51
15. Runoff factor X for 5- and 10-year frequencies 52
16. Runoff factor X for 25- and 50-year frequencies 52
17. Runoff factor X for 100-year frequency 53
18. Climatic factor Y for climatological sections in Illinois 53
19. Verification of t,-Ko relationship 57
20. Verification of t , -K relationship 57
21. Determination of lag time by Equation 35 58
22. Schematic relation between the duration t, lag to, and lag time t, 59
23. The S-curve and instantaneous unit hydrograph for drainage basins
of an average size of 80 sq. mi. in Illinois based on U.S.G.S. data 59
24. Modification of peak-reduction factor Z 59
25. Relationship between Z and t/t, 59
26. Chart for the determination of design discharge for small
rural drainage basins in Illinois 63
TABLES
tp = Lag time in hours; the time interval x = Part of length of drainage basin in
from center of mass of rainfall to miles for sub-areas.
the resulting runoff peak; the time Y = A climatic factor equal to 1.008R/
of rise of the peak flow in an in- R.; difference in elevation in feet of
stantaneous unit hydrograph. a stream-bed at 0.7L upstream and
V = Total volume of runoff in acre-feet. at the headwater, in which L is the
W = A rainfall factor; weight. length of the stream.
X = A runoff factor equal to R,,/t; dif- Z = A peak-reduction factor equal to
ference in elevation in feet of a Pt/I.008A.
stream-bed at the culvert site and
at 0.7L upstream, in which L is the
length of the stream.
I. INTRODUCTION
dents of hydraulic engineering and to hydraulic (1) A compilation of existing formulas for wa-
engineers. At its meeting of December 8, 1960, the terway area determination.
Committee recommended the preparation and pub- (2) An extensive review of available literature
lication of this final report summarizing the pre- on the subject and compilation of an annotated
vious preliminary reports and presenting a compre- bibliography.
hensive picture of the work done on the project. (3) A historical review of engineering studies
and methods of waterway area determination.
C. SCOPE OF THE STUDY (4) A survey by questionnaire of design prac-
tice employed by different state highway agencies
This study deals with the determination of peak in the United States.
discharge from small rural drainage basins in Illi- (5) Collection and analysis of available hydro-
nois, because such a determination is required for logic data for small rural drainage basins.
an economical design of waterway areas of highway (6) Development of a scientific, simple, and
culverts and small bridges. practical method for the determination of waterway
This study consists of the following major areas and its simplification for practical design
phases: purposes.
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
formations and slopes is of far more value than any modified coefficients to meet local conditions. The
extended formula. formula has been presented by charts' 8 - " o) and
In a subsequent discussion of his paper, Pro- tables,"'" and slide rules for solving it have been
fessor Talbot proposed that "for steep and rocky developed." '2
ground, C varies from %2 to 1." From the modern hydrologic and hydraulic
Concerning the difficulty of developing a ra- viewpoint, the Talbot formula gives only a very
tional formula to determine waterway areas, Pro- crude answer to the problem. The formula assumes
fessor Talbot listed the following considerations: that tie waterway area is directly proportional to
(1) The variation of the rate of rainfall in different the discharge which varies with the %-power of the
localities. drainage area. This is not accurate for a reliable
(2) Paucity of data, since records are generally given design of numerous drainage structures being built
as so much per day and rarely per hour, while the dura- nowadays. The relationship between the waterway
tion of the severe storm is not recorded.
area and the drainage area is far more complex than
(3) The melting of snow with a heavy rain.
the i-power law; it depends on many physical
(4) The permeability of the surface of the ground,
depending upon the kind of soil, condition of vegetation characteristics of the drainage basin, as well as on
and cultivation, etc. the various hydrologic and hydraulic factors in-
(5) The degree of saturation of the ground and the volved in a given problem.
amount of evaporation.
(6) The character and inclination of the surface to the BY SEWERAGE
D. EARLY CONTRIBUTIONS
point where the water accumulates in the water-course
ENGINEERS
proper.
(7) The inclination or slope of the water-course to the Sewerage engineers are interested in waterway
point considered. area determination primarily for the purpose of
(8) The shape of the area drained and the position designing storm sewers. The Biirkli-Ziegler formula
of the feeders.
mentioned in the previous article is one of the
He emphasized that "any formula will be ap- earliest contributions by sewerage engineers.
proximate, that the estimation of the values of the One of the well-known contributions by sewer-
different conditions entering into the subject will age engineers is the rational formula, which was
be almost wholly a matter of judgment, so that the developed primarily for estimating rates of runoff
formula must be considered more as a guide to the from urban areas. The origin of this formula is
judgment than as a working rule." somewhat obscure. In American literature, the
For estimating the discharge of a stream flow formula was first mentioned in 1889 by Emil
in large drainage areas, Professor Talbot recom- Kuichling." 3' The runoff coefficient in the formula
mended the Ch6zy formula for waterway area de- was derived by him from measurements of rainfall
termination. and of the flow in the sewers of Rochester, New
An investigation of the Talbot formula reveals York, during the period from 1877 to 1888. Ac-
the following points of interest: The formula was cording to Dooge, " 14 ) the principles of the method
derived with special reference to areas under 77 sq. were explicit in the work of Mulvaney( 5 ) in 1851.
mi. in size, although it has been applied to an area In England it is often referred to as the Lloyd-
as large as 400 sq. mi. Generally, the results are Davis method and hence by implication ascribed to
much too high for large areas. Since this formula his paper of 1906.0' 6
was based on the runoff data of a large number of The rational formula is
observations in the Midwest, it does not take into
account the variation in intensity of rainfall, ve- Q = CIA
locity of flow, and frequency factor when applied to in which Q = discharge in c.f.s.
other localities. Studies on results obtained by this C = runoff coefficient depending on char-
formula indicate that the maximum rainfall for acteristics of the drainage basin
these observations was probably about 4 in. per hr., I = rainfall intensity in inches per hr.
and the velocity in the observed cases was variable
A = drainage area in acres
but less than 10 ft. per sec.
Because of its simplicity the Tablot formula has Many formulas have been proposed for esti-
been widely used either in its original form or with mating the rainfall intensity in the rational formula
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
(see Appendix I). The general form may be writ- Type of Drainage Area Runoff Coefficient, C
ten as Lawns:
KF, Sandy soil, flat, 2%
I (F+b' (6) 0.05-0.10
(t + b)"? Sandy soil, average, 2-7% 0.10-0.15
in which t = duration of rainfall in minutes Sandy soil, steep, 7% 0.15-0.20
F = frequency factor indicating the fre- Heavy soil, flat, 2% 0.13-0.17
quency of occurrence of the rain- Heavy soil, average, 2-7% 0.18-0.22
fall Heavy soil, steep, 7% 0.25-0.35
K, b and m, n = coefficient, constant, and exponents, The above values were reported by a joint
respectively, depending on condi- committee of the American Society of Civil Engi-
tions which affect the rainfall in- neers and the Water Pollution Control Federation
tensity in "Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm
When using the rational formula, one assumes Sewers," ASCE Manuals of Engineering Practice
that the maximum rate of flow, due to a certain No. 37 and WPCF Manual of Practice No. 9, 1960.
rainfall intensity over the drainage area, is pro- They are applicable for storms of 5-year to 10-year
duced by that rainfall which is maintained for a frequencies. Less frequent higher-intensity storms
time equal to the period of concentration of flow will require the use of higher coefficients because
at the point under consideration. This is the time infiltration and other losses have a proportionally
required for the surface runoff from the remotest smaller effect on runoff.
From the data of the American Railway Engi-
part of the drainage basin to reach the point being
neering Association, Dr. J. A. L. Waddell""' has
considered. In other words, the critical duration of
rainfall t in the rainfall intensity formula (Eq. 6) compiled values of C for different watershed sizes
as follows:
should be equal to the time of concentration.
Values of C commonly recommended for design Drainage Value Drainage Value Drainage Value
Area of Area of Area of
purposes are as follows: sq. mi. C sq. mi. C sq. mi. C
1,00)0 .... 0.95 8,000.... 0.49 15,000.... 0.32
Type of Drainage Area Runoff Coefficient, C 2,000).... 0.82 9,000 ... 0.46 16,000.... 0.30
Business: 3,000. ... 0.74 10,000.... 0.43 17,000.... 0.29
4,000.... 0.66 11,000.... 0.40 18,000 .... 0.28
Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 5,000 ... 0.61 12,000.... 0.38 19,000.... 0.26
6,000. .. 0.56 13,000.... 0.36 20,000.... 0.26
Neighborhood areas 0.50-0.70 7,000.... 0.52 14,000.... 0.34 21,000 .... 0.25
Residential:
Single-family areas 0.30-0.50 These values are for average drainage condi-
Multi units, detached 0.40-0.60 tions in the United States and do not apply to
Multi units, attached 0.60-0.75 drainage basins which have exceptional runoffs.
Suburban 0.25-0.40 The latter cases must receive individual considera-
Apartment dwelling areas 0.50-0.70 tion.
The rational formula is based on a number of
Industrial: )
assumptions. According to Krimgold,'" the as-
Light areas 0.50-0.80
sumptions are:
Heavy areas 0.60-0.90
(1) The rate of runoff resulting from any rainfall in-
Parks, cemeteries 0.10-0.25 tensity is a maximum when this rainfall intensity lasts
Playgrounds 0.20-0.35 as long or longer than the time of concentration.
(2) The maximum runoff resulting from a rainfall
Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 intensity, with a duration equal to or greater than the
Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 time of concentration, is a simple fraction of such rain-
fall intensity; that is, it assumes a straight line relation
Streets: between Q and I, and Q = 0 when I = 0.
Asphaltic 0.70-0.95 (3) The frequency of peak discharges is the same as
Concrete 0.80-0.95 that of the rainfall intensity for the given time of con-
Brick 0.70-0.85 centration.
Drives and walks (4) The relationship between peak discharges and
0.75-0.85 size of drainage area is the same as the relationship
Roofs 0.75-0.95 between duration and intensity of rainfall.
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
(5) The coefficient of rinoff is the same for stormis in the vicinity of Fort Madison, Iowa, that far exceeded
o1f variolls I'frequ ciivi . our tables. In one case, where the drainage area is about
(it The coefficient of riunoff is the same for ill slornms 150 square miles, the area of waterway was about 12,X)0
onl givenl watershed.i square feet, and the current was so swift as to scour out
It is believed that these assumptions might the stream to a( depth of 40 feet. I believe, however,
that these floods are rare exceptions and that it would
conceivably hohl for paved areas with gutters and
not pay a railway company or anyone else to undertake
sewers of fixed dlimensions and hydraulic character- to provide for them.
istics. The formula has thus been rather popular The table referred to is based upon observations taken
for the design iof d(rainage systems in urban areas by nme and others unlder my jurisdiction on floods in NMis-
iand airports. The exactness and satisfaction of souri, Kansas, Indian Territory and Texas. The section
of waterway at the contracted part of different streams
these assumptions in application to other drainage
was accurately measured from tilme to ime as floods
basins, however, have been questioned. In fact, occurred andt the table was made up from these data.
lmany hyli ologists"' "' ) have called attention to Wherever possible, cross-sections were taken in the larger
the inadeqluacy of thii miethod. Bernard ' (2 t reanis at points where rock bluffs canie in on both sides
" hiad
attempted to modify tle rational formula, but his and where the streain has a rock bottom, thus eliminat-
ing tlie question of sco(urT. This, however, was not pra:'-
solution is hardly practicable for design purposes.
ticabile in every case.
Anot her study by Gregory and Arnold' 2 1 resulted
in a general rational foirmula, taking into account The Dun table was prepared from observations
such factors as basin shape and slope, tlihe pattern taken along the line of the Santa Fe railroad systeim
of the stream system, and tile elements of channel in Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and Indian Terri-
flow. However, tihe coimplexity of the miethod tory. This region in general is colmposed of steep
hinders its wide application. rocky slopes, and l)ercolation is a small percentage
)ther well-known formulas developed by sewer-
of the total rainfall. For other sections of the
age engineers includes the Hawksley formula of Santa Fe line, I)un gave in his table coefficients to
1857, the Adams forinmula of 1880, the McMath be applied to the basic values listed. The use of
formula of 1887, the Hering formula of 1889, the the table can alpparently be extended to other
Pariimely fiorlmula of 1898, and the (Gregory formula regions of complarable conditions.
of 1907. These formullas anld Imanly others are listed
Dun was of the opinion that his data could not
in Appendix 1. be expressed by a formula for practical use. How-
ever, Purdon(' 4 ) has derived an approximate water-
E. DRAINAGE TABLES OF RAILROAD ENGINEERS way area formula based on D)un's data:
Table 1
The Dun Drainage Table
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway System (1906)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 1 2 5 6 7 8
.01 2.0 1-24 in. 2 xl B 24 1,060 110 94
.02 4.0 1-24 " 2 x2 26 1,100 110 92
.03 6.0 1-30 2 x3 28 1,140 110 92
.04 7.5 1-36 " 2%x3 30 1,180 110 92
.05 9.0 1-42 3 x3 " East of South of Use Use 32 1,220 East of South of 110 92
.06 10.5 1-42 3 !x3 " Streator Purcell Column Column 34 1,255 Streator Purcell 110 92
.07 12.0 1-48 3 x4 " use 60 use Texas 2 2 36 1,290 use 60 use Texas 110 91
.08 13.5 2-36 2%x3 " per cent Column 38 1,320 per cent Column 110 91
.09 15 2-3 " 2%x3 40 1,350 110 91
.10 16 2-36 3 x3 45 1,435 110 91
.15 25 2-48 "" 3 x4 50 1,510 110 89%
.20 32 3-42 " 6 x4 A 55 1,580 115 89%
.25 38 3-48 6 x5 60 1,650 115 89%
.30 44 6 x5% " 65 1,720 115 88
.35 51 8 x4% " 70 1,780 115 88
.40 56 8 x5 75 1,840 115 88
.45 62 8 x6 80 1,900 115 86%
.50 66 8 x6 85 1,960 115 86%
.55 70 8 x6% " 90 2,015 115 86%
.60 74 10 x4% " 95 2,065 115 86%
.65 78 10 x5 100 2,120 120 85
.70 81 10 x5% " 110 2,220 120 85
.75 85 10 x6 " 120 2,315 120 85
.80 88 10 x6% 130 2,405 125 83%
.85 91 10 x6% " 140 2,500 125 83%
.90 94 10 x6% " 150 2,580 130 82
.95 97 12 x5 160 2,665 130 82
1.0 100 12 x5 " 98% 170 2,745 130 80%
1.1 110 12 x6 105 98% 180 2,820 130 80%
1.2 120 12 x7 105 98% 190 2,900 130 79
1.3 130 12 x8 105 98% 200 2,970 130 79
1.4 140 14 x6% " West of North of 105 98% 220 3,115 West of North of 130 77%
1.5 150 14 x7 Streator Purcell 105 98% 240 3,245 Streator Purcell 130 77%
1.6 160 16 x6% " use 80 use Col- 105 98% 260 3,370 use 80 use Col- 130 76
1.7 170 16 x7 " per cent umn 2 105 98% 280 3,495 per cent umn 2 130 76
1.8 180 16 x7 " 105. 98 300 3,615 130 74%
1.9 190 16 x8 105 98% 325 3,770 130 74%
2.0 200 18 x7 105 98% 350 3,900 130 73
2.2 220 18 x8 " 105 98% 375 4,035 130 73
2.4 240 18 x9% " 105 98% 400 4,165 130 71%
2.6 260 20 x8 "105 98M 450 4,385 130 70
2.8 280 20 x9 105 98% 500 4,610 130 68%
3.0 300 20 x9% 105 98% 550 4,825 130 67
3.2 321 22 x8% 105 98% 600 5,030 130 65%
3.4 340 22 x9 105 98% 650 5,230 130 64
3.6 357 24 x8% " 105 98% 700 5,420 130 62%
3.8 373 24 x9 105 98% 750 5,610 130 61
4.0 388 28 x7 "105 97 800 5,800 130 59%
4.2 403 28 x7% " 105 97 850 5,890 130 58
4.4 417 28 x8 "105 97 900 6,080 130 56%
4,6 430 28 x8% " 105 97 950 6,230 130 ....
4.8 443 28 x9 105 97 1,000 6,380 130
5.0 455 28 x9% " West of North of 105 97 1,100 6,705 West of North of 130
5.5 483 28 xl0 " Streator Purcell 105 97 1,200 6,960 Streator Purcell 130
6.0 509 32 x7% " use 80 use Col- 105 97 1,300 7,230 use 80 use Col- 130
6.5 533 32 x8 " per cent umn 2 105 97 1,400 7,480 per cent umn 2 130
7.0 556 32 x9 105 97 1,500 7,725 130
7.5 579 32 x10 " East of South of 105 97 1,600 7,960 East of South of 130
8.0 601 32 x1l " Streator Purcell 105 97 1,700 8,195 Streator Purcell 130
8.5 622 32 xll " use 60 useTexas 105 97 1,800 8,390 use 60 use Texas 130
9.0 641 32 x12 " per cent Column 105 93% 1,900 8,625 per cent Column 130
9.5 660 32 x12% " 105 93% 2,000 8,820 130
10 679 32 x13 " 105 93% 2,200 9,240 130
11 710 105 93% 2,400 9,605 130
12 740 105 93% 2,600 9,970 130
13 775 Bridges de- 105 93% 2,800 10,320 130
14 805 signed to 105 93% 3,000 10,640 130
15 835 provide area 105 93% 3,500 11,445 130
16 865 according to 105 94 4,000 12,160 130
17 890 (circumstances 105 94 4,500 12,825 130
18 920 105 94 5,000 13,500 130 .
19 945 105 94 5,500 14,080 130
20 970 105 94 6,000 14,520 130
22 1,015 105 94 6,500 15,140 130 ...
The above classification by states is for convenience only, and merely denotes the general characteristics of topography and rainfall.
Column 2 in this table is prepared from observations of streams in Southwest Missouri, Eastern Kansas, Western Arkansas and the southeastern
portions of the Indian Territory. In all this region steep, rocky slopes prevail and the soil absorbs but a small percentage of the rainfalls. It indicates
larger waterways than are required in Western Kansas and level portions of Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico and Western Texas.
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
Professor W. D. Pence, at the University of Wis- intensity frequency data were published in 1935. (31)
consin. A digest of the thesis material was incor- However, actual experience showed that Ramser
porated in a report' 23 ' in 1909. curves could not be applied over a wide range of
At a later date (1934), T. M. Munson ( 27' listed conditions as are encountered in the United States.
36 formulas and 4 sets of curves used at the time The curves were later gradually abandoned because
of his study in determining runoff and sizes of more information was needed on values of C, and
highway and railroad drainage structures. also because the estimation of the time of concen-
Many of the published formulas, such as the tration is uncertain and hence would affect the
Biirkli-Ziegler formula and the Talbot formula, accuracy of the results.
have been very popular for many years. Based on In seeking a reliable coefficient of runoff to be
local experience, various coefficients were developed used in the rational method, the Soil Conservation
to satisfy the local conditions. However, most engi- Service established runoff and experimental drain-
neers have never been satisfied with the wide range age basin studies 3' 2 ) in widely separated locations
of aecuracy provided by these formulas. as early as 1938. The studies covered a broad range
in topography, soils, vegetal cover, and tillage
G. EFFORTS OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS practices. The results obtained indicated that the
Since the formation of the Soil Erosion Service, coefficient of runoff and the time of concentration
the forerunner of the Soil Conservation Service, in could be employed very reliably in the rational
1933, and the establishment of the CCC (Civilian method. However, the assumptions underlying the
Conservation Corps) camps in the following year, method were found to be inadequate and inappli-
the soil and water conservation engineers began to cable to small rural drainage basins. Character-
work actively in the construction of many drainage istics and conditions of such drainage areas, as well
structures on small drainage basins. This stimu- as of the channels, are greatly affected, not only by
lated the need for a reliable and practical method the amounts and intensities of rainfall, but also by
to determine design discharges for these structures. other climatic factors and by land use, tillage, and
One of the early efforts made to satisfy this need cropping practices. In the meantime, Krimgold(' O
consisted of the well-known Ramser curves. ( 2 1 ) It made a study on the relation of peak rates of runoff
is believed that these curves paved the way for the to rainfall intensities for drainage basins of various
development of the refined procedure of waterway sizes and locations, but failed to show the signifi-
area determination later used by the Soil Con- cance of such a relation. He also pointed out that
servation Service and the Bureau of Public Roads. the frequency of runoff cannot be the same as the
Ramser presented three sets of curves, giving frequency of rainfall intensity which is assumed
runoff in c.f.s. for drainage basins of different char- in the rational method (Section II-D). He sug-
acteristics and of sizes up to 30 acres for 10-year gested a frequency study of the recorded peak
rainfall frequency and from 30 to 1,000 acres for discharges and then derived the frequency curves
10- and 50-year rainfall frequencies. The discharge for the Claypan Prairies 333 ' and other areas.
shown by the curves is for the region covering The Soil Conservation Service later developed a
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, procedure known as the Cook method' " 4 after
Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska and parts of Howard L. Cook, in which the working curves are
their neighboring states. For other regions the based on the results of runoff studies undertaken by
value may be multiplied by a factor of rainfall the Bureau of Agricultural Engineering in its cen-
intensity ratio. tral district and on representative formulas of
The Ramser curves were computed by the ra- flood flow and runoff coefficients then in use in the
tional method with values of C and of times of con- North Central States. The method has been modi-
centration based largely on the results of measure- fied by M. M. Culp and others. ( 35' In this pro-
ments made in 1918 on six small drainage basins, cedure, the probable maximum peak discharge from
1.25 to 112 acres, near Jackson, Tennessee. ( 29 ) Rain- a given drainage basin is computed as the product
fall intensities for various durations and the 10- of three factors, namely, the peak flow P in c.f.s.,
and 50-year frequencies were taken from Meyer's the rainfall factor R, and the frequency factor
book on hydrology. ( 30) The curves were extended F; or
beyond Meyer's ranges after the Yarnell rainfall Q = P XRXF (8)
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
Table 3
Runoff Producing Characteristics of Drainage Basins with Corresponding Weights W
(The weights are shown in brackets)
The peak flow P is estimnated from a chart in however, other methods of runoff determination
Figure 1. It depends on runoff producing character- should be used to aid the judgment in arriving at
istics which are measured by tie sumllation of proper peak rates.
weights as shown in Table 3. For a given drainage In recent years the U. S. Agricultural Research
area, the runoff producing characteristics are evalu- Service las developed a method of hydrograph syn-
ated by the sum of the weights, IW, counted for thesis for estimating flow characteristics from the
different conditions. The peak discharge P is then physiographic features of small drainage areas.t" )
determined with this value of )XV from the chart.
10000
Tile rainfall factor R varies with location as indi- 7500
cated in the map of Figure 1. Tile frequency factor 5000
F is 1.00 for 50-year frequency, 0.83 for 25-year
frequency, and 0.71 for 10-year frequency. For 2500
example, the area of a drainage basin in Pike
County, Illinois, is 440 acres. The runoff producing
characteristics of the drainage basin are evaluated /000
750
as follows:
4500
Basin Characteristics Wleights, W
Relief: slightly rolling with -250
20
average slopes of 5 to 16%
Soil Infiltration: normal 10 X
Vegetal Cover: fair 10
Surface Storage: normal 10
XW = 50
The method involves (1) estimation of a char- Mexico, and Colorado. The results were found to
acteristic lag time from readily determined basin be satisfactory for these regions. For other regions,
parameters, (2) use of the basin lag time to predict new correlation formulas may be necessary. The
the hydrograph peak rate for an assumed total method generalizes the rainfall pattern, soil condi-
volume of runoff, and (3) synthesizing the entire tion, land use, and other factors. It ignores the
hydrograph using the lag time, the estimated peak frequency factor which should be considered in the
rate, and a standard dimensionless hydrograph. computation of the total runoff volume.
In developing the method of hydrograph syn- The U. S. Soil Conservation Service has pro-
thesis, multiple correlations of lag time with vari- posed another method of hydrograph synthesis for
ous combinations of basin and channel slopes and developing design hydrographs.': ( In brief, this
lengths, drainage density, shape, and size were method involves the following steps:
made. Of some 50 such multiple correlations a (1) Take a maximum probable 6-hour point
formula for lag time was derived. The lag time t, rainfall amount for the appropriate geographical
is defined as the time interval measured from the location of the structure.
center of mass of a block of intense rainfall to the
(2) Modify the 6-hour point rainfall amount to
resulting peak of the hydrograph. The formula for
account for size of drainage area above the struc-
t,, in hours proposed by the Agricultural Research
ture in accordance with a given synthetic rainfall
Service is
depth-area relationship.
t, = 1.75Ko' 0 6e (9)
(3) Develop a rainfall hyetograph for the modi-
where Ko is a lag-time factor or fied 6-hour point rainfall in accordance with a
A0.3 given synthetic hyetograph distribution pattern.
K,= D.D.(10) (4) Determine the hydrologic soil-cover com-
plex number of the drainage basin above the struc-
in which A = drainage area in acres
So = average land slope of the drainage ture. The number shows the relative value of the
hydrologic soil-cover complexes as direct runoff
basin in percentage
D.D. = drainage density, this is total length producers. The higher the number, the greater the
amount of direct runoff to be expected from a
Lo of visible channels divided by
storm. The numbers for various land uses, crop
drainage area A, expressed in feet per
treatments, hydrologic condition, and hydrologic
acre.
soil groups were prepared using data from gaged
The lag time was found to be a major determi- drainage basins with known soils and cover.
nant of the hydrograph shape, and hence a correla- The determination of the soil-cover complex
tion of the lag time with the ratio of the peak rate number is done with reference to both soil cover
of runoff to the total runoff volume was obtained. and soil type.
Thus, The soil cover, as described from the hydro-
q, = 90.8 (11) logic point of view, is given as either good, fair, or
tp poor, depending on the infiltration capacity. A soil
in which q, = peak discharge in c.f.s. cover of high, medium, or low infiltration capacity
V = total runoff volume in acre-feet is described as being of good, fair, or poor condi-
t, = lag time in hours tion respectively.
A generalized dimensionless hydrograph was The soil types are classified on the basis of
also developed. The coordinates of the hydrograph intake of water at the end of long-duration storms
are expressed respectively in the ratio of discharge occurring after prior wetting and opportunity for
to peak discharge and in the ratio of time to lag swelling, and without the protective effects of vege-
time. By means of this hydrograph and the esti- tation. The major hydrologic soil groups are:
mated t, and q, by the above-mentioned formulas, Type A (lowest runoff potential) includes deep
the synthesized hydrograph can be constructed. sands with very little silt and clay; also deep,
The development of the above method is based rapidly permeable loess.
on the analysis of rainfall and runoff records for Type B includes mostly sandy soils less deep
14 experimental drainage basins in Arizona, New than type A, and loess less deep or less aggregated
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
-EXAMPLt-
EQUATIONS
A culvert site in the Imperial Valley is 3 miles downstream
and 900 feet lower than the critical point on the watershed. L -0. 1(6 T s o'e,
The tributary basin has an area of 2.0 square miles and
P-l.00AL QA oo
average ratio of run-off to precipitation is estimated at 60 percent.
The funicular thru H.900 ft, L- 3 mi., GOQ, A Z tsq.mi , p Rangeof K Volues
and k-60 intersects Q 1700 sec.-ft. the required design discharge. S Thsfactrssnouldh
I mdifiMdd
ST - tinrtion andanlitid 00
avincihsacrof
terain I
a
s l
r
fl
th
t ll
90-95 Imperioussurfaces
~ LIMIT DESIGN DISCHARGE- - 80-90 Steep barrens
3- 60-80 Rolling barrens
u Basedon a flood of 50-100 year frequency and
50-70 Flat barrens
U intensity - frequency data - 65
W40- Rolling meadow
z IL 35-60 Deciduous timberland
n 25-50 Coniferhimberlind
5
10- -o11-40 Orchird oo
I5-4u uplbno Tarms ,
10-30 Vallaj farmland,'
a
- OO
H0U01 s : too k / 00-
o'
5-
- tOO B
-j
1 ,0 -0 1-
500-
-5000
000_- -5
........ S-zooo so-
,,
EP90
DEPARTMEuETAL
JOINT
5000 -
10000-
-i0 iP
-i0O
0-
00.
o t WPT
peP~IOeaa,&cE
CULVERT
f
A"PRACTICE
ON,
TH
is
ACREs SQ. Mi. 1941
CHART "A"
(Foq SMALL BAsINs ONLY) -1
stage, the highway practice in designing drainage both hydrologic and hydraulic aspects of the
structures was based almost entirely on the experi- problem.
ence of railroad engineers and some sewerage engi- Rowe and Thomas of California State Depart-
neers. Even at the present time, many highway ment of Highways presented a new formula for
engineers are still using the Talbot formula and the design discharge in the form of a nomograph in
Dun table, which were developed primarily for 1942. (" S This study was later expanded and revised
railroad engineers, or the rational formula, which under the supervision of Rowe and published in a
was proposed for sewerage engineers.
'
bulletin entitled "California Culvert Practice."* "3
The interest in waterway area determination by The nomograph is shown in Figure 2. In comput-
highway engineers is reflected through the many ing a design discharge from the nomograph, five
papers published by highway agencies and pre- factors are considered: channel slope and length,
sented in highway engineering conferences. Most rainfall intensity-frequency, drainage area, and
of them recommend the use of formulas, charts, and basin texture. This California method is based on
modified rational methods. One of the first compre- the rational formula and hence is subject to the
hensive studies was made by the Oregon State same criticisms as that formula.
Highway Conmmission in 1934.01) This bulletin Other early paplers on the subject of waterway
contains a general description of the economic de- areas for highway engineers in the hydrology field
' 4
sign of waterway areas and the results of research include those by Houk t4"" in 1922, by Springer' "
by the Oregon Highway Department during the 15 presented to Road School at Purdue University in
years preceding the time of publication. It treats 1931, by Greve'4 2'
in 1943, by Mavis ( 43 ) in 1946,
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
Q,,,i,,,sIl'FX
= L x FF X Q (16)
The rainfall factor is obtained from Figure 4. The
land use and slope factor and the frequency factor
are to be selected from the table in Figure 3. The
discharge Q is to be selected from the curve in
Figure 3 corresponding to the given drainage area
in acres. This curve is applicable to localities where
the 25-year frequency of one-hour rainfall has an
intensity of approximately 2.75 in. per hr. For
other localities the peak rate of runoff should ie
increased or decreased in proportion to the one-hour
Figure 4. Rainfall factors- use with Figure 3 in estimating
rainfall intensity fo: this frequency. This correc-
peak rates of runoff (from Bureau of Public Roads Manual, tion is to be applied by means of the rainfall factor.
July, 19511 It, is understood that the land use factors given
in Figure 3 are most reliable for steep land since
(4 4
by Merrel. and Exulml(4 ' presented to the Ohio all of the observed data were for steeply sloping
Highway Engineering Conference in 1951, by Iz- land. The factors for flat and very flat land are
'
zard(4"' 4
in 1951 and 1952, and by Bossy( 41' in estimated from limited data on the effect of slope
1952. on rates of runoff from test plots under simulated
The research engineers of the Bureau of Public rainfall with allowance for increased channel stor-
Roads have recognized the fact that the determina- age. It is therefore noted that land use and slope
tion of waterway areas should be considered in two factors for flat and very flat land slopes are subject
steps. The first is to estimate the peak discharge to revision when more observed data become
of a given frequency and the second is to determine available.
the physical dimensions relating to the culvert site Like the Cook method the BPR method appears
and thus to find the size of culvert required. In to be practical and simple. However, the land use
developing the research work, the Bureau had the and slope factor is still subject to a certain amount
cooperation of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service of personal judgment. Furthermore, since the
and the U. S. Geological Survey. The experimental method is based on the data of different geographic
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
locations, its application to a specific region will guided by personal observation and general infor-
give only a general estimate of the design discharge. mation collected on the ground such as flood height,
In order to consider the climatic and topo- size of channel, openings in the vicinity carrying
graphic features of a special region, the multiple the same stream, etc. This may be a satisfactory
correlation method has also been used to determine method if the judgment is good. However, the dis-
discharge from drainage areas over 100 acres. Pot- advantage lies in the fact that no judgment can be
ter<"'l 2) of the Bureau of Public Roads applied the perfect because the conditions vary so greatly from
method to the analysis of runoff data from 51 problem to problem. Also, the method is not valid
drainage basins in the Allegheny-Cumberland Pla- for beginners or for those who have little practical
teau ranging from 100 to 350,000 acres in size. A experience.
correlation of the runoff data to topography of the (2) Method of Classificationand Diagnosis. By
drainage basins as well as to rainfall data from 89 this method, drainage areas are classified and pre-
stations in the region resulted in a correlation scribed for different sizes and kinds of openings, the
formula: limits for each opening allowing variations to be
Q = 0.038 A'' 70 T-0.554 TV (17) made according to the local conditions, topography,
in which Q = 10-year discharge in c.f.s. slopes, soil, rainfall, etc. This method has some
A = drainage area in acres advantages if a table is prepared with reference to
W = a given rainfall factor a specific territory so that due allowance can be
T = slope factor given by made for the variable rainfall conditions and the
prevailing regional characteristics of the territory.
0.7L 0.3L A glance at the table serves to indicate the general
- 7T=.
V/YO0.3T class of opening required. The final determination,
in which L = length of stream in miles however, will still be dependent on individual judg-
X = difference in elevation in feet of the ment and a personal examination of the area.
streambed at the culvert site and at (3) Method of Empirical Rules. An empirical
0.7L upstream rule of thumb is usually developed to replace judg-
Y = difference in elevation in feet of the ment. Such methods were used frequently in the
streambed at 0.7L and at the head- early days, but have now become almost obsolete
water because of their crudeness and the development of
better methods.
The problem of waterway area determination is
(4) Method of Formulas. By this method, a
continually of keen interest to highway engineers.
formula is developed to determine the waterway
This is indicated by various research projects on
area. In Appendix I, a compilation of a large nun-
this subject sponsored by many state highway
ber of formulas is presented. The formulas range
agencies either with or without the cooperation of
from simple to complex ones; many like the Talbot
the Federal highway agency. For example, a study
formula (" ) are still very popular in engineering
made by Kentucky Department of Highways is re-
' 53 practice. The use of a formula may generally cast
ported by E. M. West and W. H. Sammons.(
a certain amount of scientific glamour on the
Many states are installing stream gages at the cul-
method. The greatest merit of formulas is their
vert sites for collecting data for future analysis and
function of serving as a guide to determine quickly
use in the determination of culvert areas.
the general range of the probable minimum, maxi-
mum, and average values. The method can also be
I. CLASSIFICATION OF EXISTING METHODS
considered as practicable and serviceable for rough
From a comprehensive study of available litera- calculations. However, the disadvantage of the
ture in this investigation, the existing methods of method is the uncertainty involved in the selection
hydrologic determination of waterway areas may of the proper coefficient in most formulas in order
be classified into the following categories: to meet closely the conditions of the problem under
(1) Method of Judgment. By this method, the consideration.
determination of waterway areas is dependent on (5) Method of Tables and Curves. Instead of
practical experience and individual judgment. The formulas, tables and curves are sometimes prepared
judgment developed by the engineer is invariably to serve the same purpose. The Dun table ( 22 ) is a
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
prominent example. The simplicity of this method Cleemann in a paper before the Engineers'
is its chief advantage. However, the table or curve Club of Philadelphia. The formula was then
is too simple and does not usually include the con- published in "Railroad Engineers' Practice,
sideration of the many variables involved in the Discussion on Formulas" in the Proceedings
problem. of the Club."' This is the first known water-
(6) Method of Direct Observations.This method way formula by an American author, Major
involves making careful field surveys of drainage E. T. D. Myers, Chief Engineer of the Rich-
area and stream characteristics and then making a mond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railway
precise hydrologic analysis and hydraulic study. in Virginia.
Finally, it is used to arrive at the required size and 1880 Publication of the Biirkli-Ziegler formula in
shape of the waterway which will carry off the a report'"' by the Swiss hydraulic engineer,
water quickly and without causing either scouring A. Biirkli-Ziegler, Switzerland.
or deposition in the channel. 1881 Introduction of the Biirkli-Ziegler formula to
(7) The Rational Method. This is a method the American technical literature by Rudolph
which is based on the rational formula, such as the Hering in a report on "Sewerage Works in
California method (3") or the Gregory and Arnold Europe," to the National Board of Health. '7
method.(21) 1886 Discussion of the Myers formula and the use
(8) Method of Correlation Analyses. This of waterway formulas in general by Welling-
method involves the correlation of important hy- ton in an "Editorial" in the Railroad Ga-
drologic factors by statistical analysis. The result zette.'(
may be represented by a formula or nomograph for 1887 Publication of the Talbot formula by Pro-
practical applications. The Cook method,' 4 ) the fessor A. N. Talbot of the University of
BPR method,'4 ""- "" and the Potter's multiple corre- Illinois. ()
lation method ( "' "2) are examples.
1889 Publication of the rational method for esti-
(9) Method of Hydrograph Syntheses. By this mating rates of runoff from urban areas by
method, the hydrograph theory is used to derive a Emil Kuichling.' 3)
synthetic hydrograph for design purposes. The U. S. 1897 Publication of a report of Committee on
Agricultural Research Service ('"' and Soil Conser-
Waterway for Culverts by W. G. Berg.' 2 ")
vation Service"' ' have developed such methods.
1897 Issuance of a drainage table for the Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway in blueprint
J. CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
form. This table covers a range of drainage
From a historical review of the literature and areas from 0.1 to 1,000 sq. mi., and was later
the study of existing methods, it appears that the expanded and appeared as the well-known
development of engineering studies of hydrologic Dun Waterway Table in 1906.
determination of waterway areas could be described 1898 Publication of a discharge formula by George
by a series of significant events. A list of such 4
Chainier.(t )
events is:
1906 Publication of the Dun Waterway Table by
1852 Preparation of a table expressing the relation James Dun, Chief Engineer of the Santa Fe
between the diameter and slope of a circular System.(22)
outlet sewer and the size of its drainage area 1909 Publication of Reports of Committee No. I
by John Roe, Surveyor of the Holborn and on Roadway in the Proceedings of American
Finsbury Sewers, London, after numerous ob- Railway Engineering and Maintenance of
servations of the storm discharges. Way Association,( 23 )
including "The Best
1857 Presentation of the Hawksley formula in a Method for Determining the Size of Water-
"Report of Commission on Metropolitan ways," pp. 967-978, and a "Digest of Current
Drainage, London." The original formula Practice" collected from the members of the
seems to have been established at some time Association, pp. 978-1022.
between 1853 and 1856. 1910 Completion of a thesis investigation on wa-
1879 Presentation of the Myers formula by T. M. terway for culverts by A. F. Gilman and
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
1944 Publication of the first edition of California 1957 Publication of Monthly Precipitation and
Culvert Practice by the State of California, Runoff for Small Agricultural IWtersheds in
Department of Public Works, Division of the United States by the I T. S. )Departmentof
Highways, describing the California method Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 0(
of culvert opening design.("") 1958 Publication of Annual Maximum Flows from
1946 Publication of a paper by 1). B. Krimgold on Small Agricultural Watersheds in the United
the hydrology of culverts, introducing the States by the U. S. Department of Agricul-
U. S. Soil Conservation Service's practice to ture, Agricultural Research Service." 8)
highway drainage problems. ('' Publication of a paper by Franklin F. Sny-
1949 Publication of the BPR method in Highway der ( 1"' describing the method developed by
Practice in the United States of America by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the deter-
) mination of peak discharges from small
Public Roads Administration.(4
1951 Publication of a paper by Carl F. Izzard, "'( drainage basins of a given frequency.
outlining some ideas about how the latest 1959 Publication of a paper by R. B. Hickok,
II. A HISTORICAL REVIEW
R. V. Keppel, and 13. H. Rafferty, 1''" describ- Publication of a paper by Neal E. Min-
ing hydrograph synthesis for small drainage shall'( '" on a synthetic metlod of predicting
basins. runoff froni small experimental drainage
1960 Publication of Selected Runoff Eients for basins.
Small Agri'culturaIl 1Vatrshieds in the United( Publication of a pamphllet by W. 1). Pot-
States 1)y the U. S. Department of Agricul- ter,'") describing a correlation analysis of
ture, Agricultural Research Service. ('"
' 1
peak discharges from small drainage basins.
III. A SURVEY OF DESIGN PRACTICE
A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE practice at that time and such knowledge was found
In order to assess the current methods for the valuable in the present investigation.
determination of waterway areas as an important
reference to the present investigation, a nation-wide B. THE DESIGN FREQUENCY
survey was conducted by sending a questionnaire From the replies to the questionnaire regarding
to all State Highway Departments in the United the policy of design frequency, the following major
States in June 1953. Replies were received from 43 findings were obtained:
of the 48 states. (1) The design frequency and its use varied in
As supplements to this survey, additional infor- different states. There was no definite rule for de-
mation was obtained from publications or other termining the design frequency. Generally speak-
indirect sources, and reference was also made to the ing, the design frequency depended mainly on the
report of an earlier survey conducted in 1943 by size, type, importance, and location of the struc-
Tilton and Rowe'" " of the California Division of ture. However, in most cases, the importance of the
Highways. structure depended on economic and social factors.
In the questionnaire used in the 1953 survey,
(2) In several states, the design of important
the following major items concerning the design of
drainage structures was based on historical floods
waterway areas were requested:
or independent investigations of the structures, but
(1) The recommended design frequency of drain- not on design frequency. The historical floods were
age structures. usually obtainable from the records of the U. S.
(2) The methods of calculation of the design dis- Geological Survey. If the flood record was not
charge and the determination of the size of culvert available at the site of the structure under consid-
and bridge openings. eration, independent, investigation became neces-
(3) The consideration of the computation of cul- sary for a proper determination of the design flood.
vert slope and sections.
(3) For culverts, small bridges, and the drainage
(4) The consideration of the computation of structures in secondary highway systems, the de-
head losses through culverts. sign frequency varied widely from 5 to 100 years.
(5) The consideration of the hydraulic effects of The design frequency most commonly used was 25
bridge piers and approach conditions, such as the years.
backwater effects. (4) For bridges, large culverts, and the drainage
The first two items are related to the hydrologic structures in primary highway systems, the design
design of drainage structures and the other items to frequency varied from 5 to 200 years. The design
the hydraulic design. Since the present investiga- frequency most commonly used was 50 years.
tion is concerned primarily with the hydrologic de- (5) Most replies do not specify clearly whether
sign of the determination of waterway areas, the the frequency referred to is the rainfall frequency
main objective of the survey was essentially cov- or the runoff frequency. It is known in hydrology
ered by the first two items. that the two frequencies are not identical. How-
It is obvious that the results obtained from the ever, it may be generally assumed that many cases
survey cannot be considered as conclusive because imply the rainfall frequency rather than the runoff
the information received was in general incomplete frequency, because even at the present time runoff
and inaccurate and it represents only the practice data in most small drainage basins are not enough
in 1953. Nevertheless, the findings of the survey to assure any reliable determination of the runoff
have furnished general knowledge about the design frequency.
III. A SURVEY OF DESIGN PRACTICE
Table 4
Design Frequency for Culverts, Small Bridges, and Drainage Structures in Secondary Highway Systems
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
rhulset
Mlassac
Michigan
M innesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada - - - - - x
New Hlampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North 1)akota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South I)akota
Tennessee s -.
Texas S
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyonling
Culver ts.
Small bridges,
DIrainage structlres in secondary highw\ ay systemn.
Minor drainage structures in general.
No head on crown of the rulvert.
Balanced design w hich is defined as that combination of conduit section, shape, textiure, and gradient with entrance and outlet appurtenances
which will just pass a 100-yr. flood without interruption of traffic and without serious damage to structure, embankment or abutting property.
A summary of the reported design frequencies (2) Of the 43 states. 5 states, or 12%, used tlhe
adopted in different state highway agencies is given Dun table; 8 states, or 19%., used the Bureau of
in Tables 4 and 5. Public Roads charts; and 5 states, or 12%, used
their own charts or tables.
C. HYDROLOGIC DESIGN PRACTICE (3) Of the 43 states, 11 states, or 26%c, used
From the replies to the questionnaire regarding U. S. Geological Survey's flood data or information
the hydrologic design of waterway areas, the major for the design.
findings were as follows: (4) Most states which did not have a formula,
(1) Of the 43 states that supplied information, table, or chart prepared for their own design pur-
25 states, or 58%, used the Talbot formula directly pose used several existing methods in order to ob-
or with modification. Ten states, or 23%, used the tain the most appropriate design. For the design of
rational formula; 8 states, or 19%, used the Biirkli- large or important structures, technical aid from
Ziegler formula; 3 states, or 7%, used their own other agencies, such as the U. S. Geological Survey,
formulas; and 9 states, or 21%, used miscellaneous were frequently sought, and special independent in-
formulas. vestigations were usually made.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Table 5
Design Frequency for Bridges, Large Culverts, and Drainage Structures in Primary Highway Systems
------------ ~ ~~~-
No. State Irequency of I)Dsign Flood Ilistoriial Inde pendiet 'Typle of
-- I'loow I nvestiiation St ructu11res
i 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 100 200
Alabama
Arizona
A rkansas
California
Colorado
(
('Connel(ticot
I)e'iti ft 1
Dvlawaiv
Illinois
Indiana
iKent nky
Maine
Miil soti i
Mi,isisppi
Misiouri
Mi ontallna
NcIraska
Nevada
Newi iampshire
New .hJrs-y
New Mexico
Now Y'o,'k
North Caroilina
Oklahma
I( tllllr Ylalll
North Dakota
VI isylvaiii
South Carolina
IltO Islal
Weasliintoin
West Virginia
Wiisconsin
Wvoniine
(5) Many states were engaged in independent the culvert design. Most states which considered
studies for developing better methods of design. At the slope tried to place the invert of the culvert
least ten states had developed either charts, formu- along the natural slope of the stream or ground. In
las, or manuals for design purposes. Three states, those states where the land is flat, the slope of the
Illinois, Kentucky, and Missouri, were active in floor of the culvert was generally set to achieve a
continuous investigation for an adequate solution safe velocity of flow through the culvert.
of the problelm. (2) Based on the information available, 16
A sunlnlary of the reported hydrologic design states indicated that they considered the head loss
practice is given in Table 6. in the design and 12 states ignored it. In certain
cases the lhead loss was considered but minimized
or avoided in the design.
D. HYDRAULIC DESIGN PRACTICE
(3) Based on the information available, 13 states
From the replies to the questionnaire regarding indicated that they considered the backwater and1
the hydraulic design practice, the major findings apptroach conditions, 7 states ignored tliem, and 4
were as follows: states avoided theim.
(1) Based on the information available, 25 (4) The design references used by lmost states
states indicated that tlhe considered the slope in
III. A SURVEY OF DESIGN PRACTICE
Table 6
Summary of Hydrologic Design Practice
No. State Formula Table or Chart U.S.(.S. Independent No
Data Investigation Information
Talhot Rational Biirkli- State's Miscellaneous )un B.P.R. State's
Ziegler Own Own
1 Alabama
2 Arizona x
3 Arkansas
4 California x
5 (olorado
6 Connecticut Meyer
7 I)elaware
8 Florida
9i (heorgia
10 Idaho
11 Illinois
12 Indiana
13 Iowa
14 Kansas
15 Kentucky
1M Louisiana
17 Maine
18 Maryland
19 M\assachusetts
20 Michigan
21 Minnesota
22 Mississippi
23 Missouri
24 Montana
25 Nebraska
26 Nevada lMelatih. .uller
27 New Hampshire
28 New Jersey
29 New Mexico MeMatli
30 New York
31 North Carolina Wentworth
32 North Dakota
33 Ohio
34 Oklahoma
35 Oregon California
36 Pennsylvania
37 Rhode Island
38 South Carolina
39 South Dakota
40 Tennessee
41 Texas
42 Utah
43 Vermont
44 Virginia
45 Washington
46 West Virginia
47 Wisconsin x Meyer
48 Wyoming x
~---- '
Total 10 8 3 9 5 8 5 11 2
% of 43 States 23 19 7 21 12 19 12 26 5
(a) "Basic Principles of Highway Drain- Channels, by Sherman M. Woodward and Chesley
age," Hydraulic Information Circular No. 1, Au- .1. Posey. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
gust, 1951, and "Special Problems in )rainage," 1941.
Hy!dra dic Information Circular No. 2, September (c) Information or aid given by the U. S.
1, 1951 ,both prepared by the U. S. Bureau of Pub- Geological Survey.
lie Roa tds. A summary of the reported hydraulic design
(b) Hydraulics of Steady Flow in Open practice is given in Table 7.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Table 7
Summary of Hydraulic Design Practice
~~
No. State Head loss Backwater and Remarks
Approach Condition
--
1 Alabama No information
2 Arizona No information
3 Arkansas No information
4 California Considered Considered Considered Use Nagler formula for backwater
computation
5 Colorado Usually ignored Usually ignored Use Manning formula for discharge
Most streams are small
6 Connecticut 0.5 to 1% Ignored
7 Delaware Natural Use B.P.R. Manual
8 Florida Variable Variable Use Kutter or Manning formula
9 Georgia Considered Aid from U.S.(.S.
10 Idaho Computed Considered
11 Illinois Natural or ignored Ignored Considered Use Manning formulai
12 Indiana Natural Ignored Ignored
13 Iowa Considered Studies under way
14 Kansas Natural (onsidered Considered
15 Kentucky No information
16 Louisiana No information
17 Maine Natural
18 Maryland Ignored Use B.Pl.R. Manual
19 Massachusetts Considered
20 Michigan Considered Considered Us(e Kutter formula
21 Minnesota Considered Avoided Use Manning formula
22 Mississippi Natural Usually ignored Usually ignored
23 Missouri Ignored Ignored Ignored Use Portland Cement Association formula
24 Montana No information
25 Nebraska Considered Considered
26 Nevada Considered Use Manning formula and B.P.R. charts
27 New Hampshire Considered Considered Considered Use standard publications
28 New Jersey Considered Considered Considered
29 New Mexico Considered Considered Considered Use Manning formula, and Univ. of
Iowa. Univ. of Minnesota, and B.P.R.
formulas
30 New York Avoided Avoided
31 North Carolina No information
32 North Dakota Considered Ignored Usually ignored
33 Ohio Natural slope Considered Considered Use B.P.R. Charts
34 Oklahoma Natural slope Ignored Ignored
35 Oregon Considered Considered New studies made
36 Pennsylvania Natural slope Avoided
37 Rhode Island No information
38 South Carolina Aided by U.S.(.S.
39 South Dakota No strict design Ignored (onsidered
40 Tennessee No information
41 Texas Considered Use own mianual
42 Utah No information
43 Vermont Considered Considered Ignored Use B.P.R. Manual
44 Virginia Considered Considered Considered Use of B.P.R. Charts and nomographs
45 Washington Overcome friction Considered Use own chart
46 West Virginia Natural slope Ignored
47 Wisconsin No less than 0.5% Ignored Avoided
48 Wyoming Minimized * Use Manning and other formulas
Under the natural condition of rainfall and period 1881-1896 were published in the annual re-
drainage basins, these assumptions can hardly be ports of the Chief of the Weather Bureau 1896-
satisfied perfectly. However, the results obtained 1897. Data for the years 1897 through 1934 were
by using unit hydrograph analysis have been found published in the annual reports of the Chief of the
acceptable for practical purposes. Although the Weather Bureau. For the years 1935 through 1949
unit hylrograph was originally developed for large the data were published in the issues of the United
drainage basins, many investigators ( 6 7, '6 ) have sub- States Meteorological Yearbook. For 1950 and suc-
sequently shown that it is applicable also to small ceeding years excessive precipitation data are pre-
drainage basins as well. It is known that there are sented in the annual issues of the Climatological
some exceptional cases which do not support the Data, National Summary.
use of unit hydrographs for small drainage basins, The data for the intensity-duration-frequency
but in the majority of the cases the results obtained of the excessive precipitation were prepared by
are acceptable within practical limits of error. The Yarnell.'"" A revision of the data was published
method of unit hydrographs is therefore considered recently by the U. S. Weather Bureau. ( ' , 7 1)De-
practical also for small drainage basins. tailed analyses of the Chicago and Urbana
The hydrologic quantities can be treated as sta- data' ( 71'' 7
are also available. However, the results
tistical variables, and in their study reference obtained from these later analyses indicate that
should be made to the frequency of their occur- they are in general much lower in value than the
rence. The frequency is defined here as the average Yarnell data. As valuable references to this inves-
73,
time interval for such a quantity to be equalled or tigation other rainfall frequency data 74, 7, 76, 77)
exceeded. In a hydrologic study of runoff from for Illinois are also available.
small drainage basins, the determination of the A comprehensive compilation of maximum pre-
runoff frequency is important. For numerous small cipitation point data was published by the Weather
drainage structures accommodating floods from Bureau.T( . ') The probable maximum precipita-
small drainage basins along highways and on farm tions based on a hydrometeorological analysis were
lands, the frequency determination offers a logical published by the Hydrometeorological Section of
basis for establishing a design policy and makes the Weather Bureau. (8s ,"8) Unofficial data and data
feasible a rational economic analysis for the design from Weather Bureau Cooperative Stations are also
purpose. It should be noted that the nature of these available for comparative studies.
structures is different from that of large drainage
structures designed for large floods, such as the 2. Runoff
spillway of a dam, flood walls, etc. The failure of The runoff data from large drainage basins in
small structures does not usually involve loss of Illinois have been studied and analyzed by the U. S.
human life, nor does it cause the catastrophe often Ceological Survey. The unit hydrographs' 82 ) and
connected with the failure of large structures. The flood frequencies ('" for basins larger than 10 sq. mi.
design of small structures can therefore be justifi- have been published.
ably made on the basis of a calculated risk deter- The runoff data from small drainage basins in
mined by a frequency analysis. Illinois are limited. The U. S. Agricultural Re-
search Service (abbreviated as ARS, formerly com-
B. SOURCES OF HYDROLOGIC DATA bined with the Soil Conservation Service or SCS)
has maintained experimental plots and small single-
The data used in the present study include the crop drainage basins at Urbana, Dixon Springs,
rainfall, runoff, and other hydrologic data that are and Joliet. For securing information on the drain-
available for the State of Illinois and its neighbor- age properties of the soil and cover, precipitation,
hood. The sources of these data are as follows: runoff, and soil loss, data from plots at Urbana and
Dixon Springs were obtained from the ARS project
1. Rainfall at the Agricultural Engineering Department, Pur-
In the State of Illinois, rainfall records of long due University, Lafayette, Ind. No records for
periods are published by tlie U. S. Weather Bureau ,Joliet were included, however, because these plots
for first-order stations at Chicago, Cairo, Peoria, are not equipped to measure rates of runoff, and
Moline, and Springfield. The excessive precipita- moreover, very little runoff has occurred since the
tion data for short durations at these places for the initiation of the plot study.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
./ .25 .5 .75 1 5 10 50
Duration in hours
Figure 5. Rainfalls of different frequencies and maximum rainfalls
There are some unofficial data in Illinois which at Belleville for 9.5 hr. duration on June 14-15,
are higher than the official maximum recorded rain- 1957 (recorded by a station of the East Side Levee
falls given in Table 8. These data, supplied by and Sanitary District).
Mr. F. A. Huff of the Illinois State Water Survey (b) 12.5 in. at Ocoya for 6 hr. duration on
in a letter dated June 24, 1957, are as follows: ,July 8, 1951 (unofficial).
(1) Field observation values: (c) 12.5 in. at Belvidere for 6 hr. duration
(a) 16.54 in. at East St. Louis and 13.75 in. on July 18, 1952 (unofficial).
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
'/Vn
k duration within the range of the plot.
Table 9
Ordinates of Synthetic S-Curves in Per Cent of Equilibrium Runoff for Drainage Basins
of 80, 500, and 1,200 sq. mi. in Illinois
Time in Basin Area, sq. mi. Time in Basin Area, sq. ii. Time in Basin Area, sq. Imi. Time in Basin Area, sq. mi.
Terms of 80 500 1,200 TPermls of 80 500 1,200 Ter'ms of 80 500 1,200 Terms of 80 500 1,200
Lag t. Lag to Lag to Lag to
0.05 0.12 0.23 0.600 1.05 70.38 66.10 63.85 95.75 9 .84 3.05 98.51 99.58 99.45
0.10 0 72 0.83 1.62 1.10 72.57 019.02 66.8.4 2.10 96.19 95.36 3.10 98.68 9(. .03 99.51
0.15 2.02 1.80 2.88 1.15 74.57 71.76 69.061 2.15 96.591 9(5.84 3.15 98.84 99.(18 99.57
0.20 4.17 3.17 4 49 1.20 76.39 74.33 72.18 2.20 96.95 96.261 3.20 98.9(9 99.72 99.602
0.25 7.27 1. 95 6.51 1.25 78.04 76.73 74.57 2.25 97.27 96.065 3.25 99.13 99.76 99.66
0.30 11.10 7.16 9.14 1.30 79.52 78.96 76,78 2.30 97.55 96.9() 3 30 99.26 99 79 99 70
0.35 15. 8 0.80 12.14 1 .35 80.88 81.02 78.81 2.35 97.81 (97.30 3 35 99.38 99.82 99.74
0.40 20.41 12.95 15.49 1. 40 82.11 82.91 80.68 2.40 98.04 97.58 3 40 99.49 99.85 99.78
01.45 25. (4 16.43 19.09 1.45 83.24 84.(63 82.41 2.45 98.25 97.83 3.45 99.58 99.87 99.81
0.50 30 89 20.26 22 83 1 50 84.29 86.18 84.00 2.501 98.44 98.05 3.501 99.60 99.89 99.8-4
1.55
0 55 35.83 f
24.4 26 71 85.27 87.58 85.47 2.55 98.01 98 25 3.55 99.73 99.91 99.86
0.00 40.47 28.97 30.04 I1.605
.60 80619 88.84 86.83 2.600 98.76 98.43 3.60 99 79 99.9 2 99.88
0. i5 44.82 33.65 34.01 87.00 89.97 88.08 2.05 98 89( 98 59 3.65 99.84 91)9.93 99.90
0.70 48.89 38.45 38,57 1.70 87.88 901199 89.22 2.70 99 01 98 74 3.70 99.88 99.94 99.92
0.75 52. 9 13.12 42 48 1.75 88.65 91.91 90.27 2.75 99.12 98.88 3.75 (99.91 99.95 99.94
0.80 56.23 47.64 46.33 1.80 89.38 92.73 91.2:3 2.80 99 22 99.00 3.80 99 94 99.90 99.96
0 85 59.52 51.91 50.10 1 85 90 07 93.47 92.10 2.85 99.31 99. 11 3.85 99 91 99.97 99.97
0190 62.57 55.89 53.76 1.90 90.72 94.13 92.89 2. 90 99(.39 99.21 3.90 99.98 99 98 99.98
0.95 65.)39 59. 58 57.29 1.95 91 33 94.73 93 61 2.95 99.46 99 30 3, 95 99.99 99.(99 99.99
1.00 1i7.99 62.97 60.60( 2.00(X 91.90 95 27 95.26( 3. 00 99.52 9!. 38 4.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
lIeak discharge, the peak-reduction factor can be assumed to have a length L, which is measured
plotted as the dimensionless ratio of t/ti. The re- along the stream, and to le exlosed tota uniform
sults obtained for the synthetic unit hydrographs and continuous rainfall excess of intensity of 1 in.
of the three areas are presented in Figure 9. per t hours. The slope from the upstream end at A
A study of the curves in Figure 9 indicates that to the point of concentration 0 is S.
they appear to converge to a limiting position as As the rain starts to fall over the whole basin,
the drainage area decreases. For small drainage the water reaching 0 will be in the beginning only
basins, therefore, it can be assumed that the corre- thatl falling in its inlnediate vicinity, say in area
sponding curve would lie somewhere above the
curve for 80 sq. ni.
Circular Rectangular
.5
N
.075
.050
/n01
.01 .025 .05 .075 ./ .5 5
,/o
Triangular - equilateral - Triangular
Figure 9. Dimensionless plot of unit hydrograph peak
against duration Figure 10. Hypothetical drainage basins
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Table 10
Computation of the Dimensionless S-Curve for a
Hypothetical Circular Drainage Basin
z/L t,'t. a a/11.95 I 0
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
0.1 0.17 0.24 0.021 0.021
0.2 0.29 0.77 0.065 0.086 I
0.3 0.40 0.96 0.080 0.166 (0
0.4 0.50 1.26 0.105 0.271
0.5 0.59 1.48 0.124 0.395 I
0.6 0.68 1.54 0.129 0.524 0
0.7 0.76 1.74 0.145 0.669 o
0.8 0.85 1.68 0.141 0.810
0.9 0.92 1.38 0.115 0.925 o0
1.0 1.00 0.90 0.075 1.000
11.95 1.000
age basin, and H is the fall in feet of the basin from The computation for an S-curve of this basin is
the farthest point on the basin to the outlet of given in Table 10. Column 1 of this table gives
runoff. The equation was developed by empirical values of x/L. Column 2 gives values of t,'/t, as
compromise of data from many sources. The lower computed by Equation 24. Column 3 gives the
values of t, obtained by Equation 21 closely follow measured subdivided areas. Column 4 gives the
Ramser's data of 1927 as reduced by Kirpich. 1' 9' proportioned sub-areas so that the sum of the areas
Above 30-min. concentrations, use was made of a is equal to unity. A value in this column is equal
summary of many unit hydrograph computations to the value in column 3 divided by the sum of the
for bridge and culvert design by several engineers values in column 3, or 11.95. Column 5 gives the
from the Bridge Department of the California Divi- cumulative values of column 4. Since the uniform
sion of Highways. Equation 21 can be modified and rainfall excess is assumed to be of an intensity of
expressed as 1 in. per t hr., the runoffs in c.f.s. from the sub-areas
0.77 are 1.008a,/t, 1.008a,/t, 1.008as/t, etc. These are
to = 0.00013 (L/VS ) (22)
the rates that runoff is being generated on the up-
in which L is in feet and S = H/L or approxi- land parts of the sub-areas. Their summation is
mately the average slope of the drainage basin in predicated on those rates combining in phase as they
feet per foot. progress downstream to an equilibrium value of
Now divide the circular basin into ten parts 1.008A/t. To attain this equilibrium the duration
with areas a1 , a2 , a,, etc., in acres. The division is of rainfall excess must continue at the constant rate
made by dividing the stream length into ten equal for a period equal to or greater than t, for A.
IV. HYDROLOGIC PRINCIPLES, DATA, AND ANALYSES
Table 11 I I i ------
I/I S-curv e
Duration t = 0.11
Offset Unit Moment -< (0
__T
____ equilateral
'ZIC-j
S-icurve Hydro- I
-T--
I
^
graph
0)1
0.
(2)
;0.008
(3)
Ordinates
(4)
0.008
(5)
0.000)8
S.50
Triangulor, equ
4 ~
---
0.2 0.025 0.008 0.017 0.0034
0.3 0.088 0.025 0,063 0.0189
0. 0 fii
1. 0088 0.078 0.0312
0,5 0.270 0.166 i.25 _ I--_ __
0.104 0.0520
0.6 0.405 0 270 0.135 I I
0.0810
0.7
0.8
0.561
0.725
0 405
0.561
0.156
0.164
0.1092
0.1313 m
Ip
-Q]
oes
Rectangular
0.9
1.0
0.895
1.(000
0 725
0.805
0.170
0.105
0.1530
0.1050 /0
T
1.000 0000 0.0000
1.000 0.6858t1 rf- For droinge basins of 80sq miles in Illinois
I
0.5x 0. lt = 0.0500f, .050
t 0
Lag = t,,= 0.63580,
.050
.050.075.10 .25
j
.5
[j
.75 1.0
1
2.5 5.0
Therefore, tl1e values il column 5 are the cumula- 'o
tive runoffs expressed in fractions of 1.008A/t. By Figure 12. Dimensionless plot of unit hydrograph peak
against duration for hypothetical drainage basins
plotting these cumulative runoffs against the values
in column 2 and smoothing the plot, a dimensionless
S-curve can be obtained as shown in Figure 11. The
This unit is the same as that used for the S-curvc.
times of concentration t,' marked along the abscissa
The peak discharge of the unit hydrograph is found
to be 0.170 of 1.008A/t. The unit hydrograph is
of the curve are actually equal to the times since
plotted as shown in Figure 11.
the beginning of the rainfall excess, when the flows
The lag to of the unit hydrograph is equal to the
arrive at the gaging station. It is possible therefore
time interval between the center of mass of rainfall
to replace them by a continuous time unit t,,which excess to the center of mass of runoff. The center
is independent of tile mode of subdivision of tile of mass of rainfall excess is equal to 0.5t = 0.5 X
area. 0.1I,. = 0.05t,. from the beginning of the rainfall
After the S-curve is constructed, a unit hydro- excess. The center of mass of runoff may be com-
graph of duration equal to t may be constructed puted as shown in column 5 of Table 11. The values
by the method described previously. For simplicity in this column are the moments of unit hydrograph
of computation, the S-curve ordinates are read from ordinates about t;, = 0, or equal to the products of
the S-curve in Figure 11 for every tenth of tf,/t,. values in column 1 and the corresponding values in
and the values are listed in columns 1 and 2 in column 4. The sum of the values is equal to 0.6858t..
Table 11. The moment arm is equal to 0.6858t,/1.000 =
Considering a duration of the unit hydrogralph 0.6858t,.. Thus, the lag should be equal to t, =
equal to t = 0.1 t,, the computation of the unit 0.6858t, - 0.05t,. = 0.6358t,.. Hence, t/t,, = 0.lt/
hydrograph is shown in columns 1 to 5 of Table 11. 0.6358t,, = 0.157. This ratio corresponds to the
Column 1 gives values of th,/ t , in tenths. Column 2 abscissa of the plots in Figure 9.
gives values of S-curve ordinates in fractions of From the above computation for a unit hydro-
1.008A/t from Figure 11. Column 3 is the offset graph duration equal to 0.1t,, a point with coordi-
values of S-curve ordinates for a time interval nates of Z = 1.008A/Pt = 0.170 and t/t, = 0.157
equal to the unit hydrograph duration t. Column 4 can be plotted in Figure 12. Points with coordinates
gives the difference between values in column 2 and for other durations can also be computed and plot-
column 3. This column gives the ordinates for tile ted, resulting in a dimensionless curve of unit
unit hydrograph. According to tile definition of a hydrograph peak versus duration. The unit hydro-
unit hydrograph, the sum of these ordinates should graphs for the hypothetical circular basin for other
be equal to a correslonding rainfall excess of 1 durations are shown in Figure 11.
inch. Since the intensity of rainfall excess is 1/t and Similarly, such plots for hypothetical rectan-
the duration is t,the amount of rainfall excess is gular and triangular basins (Figure 10) have also
equal to 1. The ordinates of the unit hydrograph been computed as shown in Figure 12. A compar-
are therefore expressed in fractions of 1.008A/t. ison of these curves indicates the effect of the shape
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Table 13
Computation of the Hydrograph Ordinates in Per Cent of Equilibrium Runoff for a Storm of 6-Hour Duration
Having a Rainfall Distribution Pattern Developed by the Soil Conservation Service
tI I/t,, Ordinate- of Rainfall Distribution, Expressed as Ratio to Total Rainfall Driiing a 6-Ilour Period, for Ilalf-hour Tinme
ill hr. 0.5 hr. Unit Incremlents
Ilydroniehl, .035 045 .055 .095 .370 .105 075 .055 .050 .040 .040 .035
11) (2) (3) (1) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
0i .0 0 12 .0042 .0042
1 .0 .10 0.410 .0264
1 .5 . 1 1 30 .011455 .00I)1i; .0791
2.0 .20 2. 15 .0753 .0330( .1782
2.5 .25 3. 10 .10861 .0715 .044411 .3781
3 0 .30 3.83 .1340 .0726; .2220 .7042
3 5 ..3i 1.38 .1534 .1706 .4810 .009() 1 2644
4 0 40 1 !13 .1726 .2107 .796(10 .04150 0)(tili 1.85196
4.5 .15 5>.23 .1833 .2110 1 118 .0975 .0330 2.5593
5.0 .50 5i25 ,1838 .27101 1 117 . 11)13 .0715 .1-148 3.1165
S.5 .55 1 91 .1730 .2880 1 620 .2325 .1183 .0240 .0048 3.6328
.(1 .G10 14 .l .1623 .28!90 1 824 .2875 .1705 .05201 .0240 .0042 4. 1()6
6.5 6.5 I135 .1522 2720 1 937 . 3290 .2108 .)0860 .0520 .0210 4 4406
7 0 .70 4107 .1124 .2550 1 942 S3700 .2-110 .1240 .0860 .0455 4.6129
7.5 .75 3. 80 .1330 .2395 1 824 .3927 .2716 .1533 .1240 .0753 4.6075
8 0 .80 3 5.4 .1240 .2240 1 717 .3940 .2880 .1752 .1533 .1086 4.5336
8.5 .85 3.29 .1152 .2090 1 .610 .3700 .2890 .1973 .1752 .1340 4.3946
9.0 90 3.05 .1068 .1948 1 .505 .3480 .2720 .2095 .1973 .1534 4.2153
9 5 .95 2.82 .0988 .1810 1 -105 .3262 .2550 .2100 .2095 .1726 4.00612
10 0 1 00 2.60 .0910 .1680 1 310 .3060 .2395 .1978 .2100 .1833 '3.7766
10.5 1.05 2.39 .0838 .1551 1.218 .2850 .2240 .1856 .1978 .1838 3.5296
11.0 1.10 2.19 .0766 . 1430 1 130 .2656 .2090 .1740 .1856 .1730 3.2818
11.5 1.15 2.00 .0700 .1315 1 044 .2465 .1950 1630 .1740 .1623 3 0418
12.0 1.20 1.82 .0636 .1204 0.961 .2290 .1810 1521 .1630 .1522 2.8123
12.5 125 1 65 .0578 .1100 0 885 .2115 .1680 .1418 .1521 .1424 2.5961
etc. etc. etc etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
sq. . i. By assuming other values of t/t , different not only be laborious but also unjustified, because
results vwould be obtained. However, it is believedl tle data vary in a wide range, and the magnitude
that the effect of an average non-uniform rainfall of the effect is small. In the present study, it is
distribution in most cases. will not increase the peak therefore assumed that the average effect of non-
discharge by more than 10%. unifornl distribution of rainfall intensity increases
Iit order to support the above analysis, a theo- the peak discharge due to uniform distribution by
retical study by Rihards""'' may be (quoted. He about 6.0%. This is, of course, more or less arbi-
assumned two extreme (cases of linear rainfall distri- trary but it is considered to be a reasonable value.
bution: one with a heavy intensity at tie begin- In order to include this effect of non-uniform dis-
ning and zero at the end, and one with zero inten- tribution of rainfall intensity in the determination
sity at tlhe beginning and a maxilmuml at tlhe end. of a peak discharge, the rainfall intensity used in
The results of the study are shown in Table 14. It the computation assuming a uniform distribution
will be noted that with the increase of the duration may be increased by the same per cent.
t (or the time of concentration for maximum runoff
as implied in Richards' study), the effect of the Table 14
time variation of the rainfall intensity upon runoff Effect of Rainfall Distribution Pattern on Peak Discharge
(Qm.a) According to Richards'"'
peaks is nearly constant. For small drainage basins,
the duration is generally less than 6 hr. The cor- Rainfall Distribution Pattern
Table 15 Table 16
Sele ction of Runoff Number N Hydrologic Soil Groups in Illinois
L,and [l's or Cover Sirface Condition Soil Type (Iroup A-- Soil Series
B C Perks
Fallow St raillit row 86 91 Plainfield
Row crops \Morocco
Straiilit row 80 87 Clhute
Contoured 77 83 Kilbourne
(ontoulred and terraced 73 79
Smalll grains (Group B -- Soil Series
Straight row 76 84
Contoured 74 82 Iandes Port Byron Sable Cartni
Contoured and terraced 71 79 Sharon Joy Atterbery Brenton
Bold Biggrukillh )Drtsdten Caplron
I,vcginws (closed-drillidt Straight row 75 83 XMauitee Mt. Carmll St. es
ltria Miami
ior1brolrdust) or 72 81 Biggs Fall Clinton Birkbeck
rotation (imeadow Contoured and terraced 70 78 Billctt Alvin loona Ringwood
Pasture or rang". Poor W(orttlen Nletea Srlni;> Tanma
79 86(
Normal 69 79 Tailula Decolr a Druntriiiiier Saybrook
(ood I Iagener Hopper Lisbon Sidell
(il 74
(Contoillod. poor 67 81 Littletonl Tinula Beaver Proctor
C(ontoIured, norlimal Disco Seaton Clary MAiseatinte
59 75
(Contoured, good 35 70 Iorllzo Allisoni Il:co Flanagan
Smlluner Sawi iill V\tar.saw Ellison
IMefadow (leralnlnlt) Nornial 58 71 (Illinois)a Fayett'
IoodNls (fillirl
woodI lots) Sparse or low tran- C(roup (' Soil Series
spiration 66 77 Petrolia E'dington Aslhknii Virgil
Normal 60 73 Arnbraw Oronc(e Virden Fay
Dense or high tran- Beallcoup O'Fallon Varna Westville
spirationt t5 70 Elliott Richvieu Bluford Starks
Miillbrook Beeriick Stoy ( rantsburg
Farmntlads Normal 74 82 Shilolt Iosiller Bogota And res
Hoads Dirt 82 87 Ilerrick Hankin Ava
Hard surface 84 90 Group D)-- Soil Series
F'orest Very sparse or low Jacob Brooklyn Luikin Schapville
transpiration 75 86 Iarwin Milrovy Iantouil (lllinois)a
Sparse or low tran- Denny Niota Bryce Clarence
spiration 68 78 Osceolla Mones DeSoto )enrock
Norlial 60 70 Okaw" Weir Whitson Illey
Dense or high tran- WV'ynoos Htenry Flora Racoon
spiration 52 62 Rinard Co)ll (isnt
Very denst or high
transpiration 14 54 SThi iss wlere Illinois plac's thlse soils. Iowa lha grouped Sawinill
ani Sclhalpville differently.
Itnper- iotS sit faet' 100 100
[E
I
E
I
0 /0 30
5 20 40
mr/es
drainage basin contains 37.4% of impervious area For example, with N = 73.7 and R = 3 in., the
and the remaining area of meadow, the weighted direct runoff from either the chart or Equation 32
runoff number is computed as follows: is Re = 0.89 in.
Cover Percentage Runoff No. Product
Impervious
C. DETERMINATION OF RUNOFF FACTOR X
37.4 X 100 = 37.4
Surface When the runoff number is determined, the rain-
'Meadow 62.6 X 58 = 36.3 fall excess or direct runoff for a given rainfall can
l)e either computed by Equation 32 or determined
Sum = 73.7
from the curves in Figure 14. Then, the runoff fac-
The weighted runoff number is 73.7.
tor X for duration t of the rainfall can be computed
After the runoff number is determined, the value
1by Equation 28.
of R,, or rainfall excess for a given rainfall depth
For rainfalls of 5-year frequency at Urbana,
can be computed or found directly from the chart
Illinois, the computation for the runoff factor X is
in Figure 14 developed by the U. S. Soil Conserva-
given in Table 17. In this table, column 1 gives the
tion Service.'7)( The chart shows the relationship
assigned rainfall duration t in hours. Column 2
between the direct runoff (Re) and the rainfall (R)
gives the corresponding rainfall in inches obtained
for different runoff numbers (N). The curves in
from the rainfall frequency curves in Figure 5, with
this chart were computed by Equation 12 which is
an increase of 6.0% to account for the effect of non-
rewritten using the present notation as:
uniform distribution of rainfall in an average storm.
Columns 3 to 11 give the runoff factor X for runoff
1( 200 2
numbers N = 100 to 60. The value of X is com-
, = (32)
+800 () puted by Equation 28. For example, when t = 0.1
R+ -8
V hr., the rainfall for 5-year frequency from Figure 5
R, rainfall in inches
Figure 14. Relationship between rainfall and rainfall excess for various runoff numbers
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
is 0.52 inches. With an increase of 6.0%, the rain- 15, 16, and 17. The value of runoff factor X for
fall is 0.55 inches. For N = 95, the rainfall excess given frequency, runoff number, and duration can
from Equation 32 or Figure 14 is 0.30. By Equa- be readily interpolated from the curves in these
tion 28, X = 3.00. graphs.
Similarly, computations of runoff factor X for
frequencies of 10, 25, 50, and 100 years are given D. DETERMINATION OF CLIMATIC FACTOR Y
in Tables 18, 19, 20, and 21, respectively. The colm-
The climatic factor Y is represented by Equa-
puted values are represented graphically in Figures
tion 29. This is equal to the conversion factor
Table 17
Table 18
Computation of Runoff Factor X for 5-Year Frequency
Computation of Runoff Factor X for 10-Year Frequency
D)ura- Rain- Factor A for equal to
Runioflf
tuin fall ,100 9l 90 85 80I 75 70 65 I)ur1a- li1noff1 IFator X for .N iqral to
in hrs. in in. tion 90 85 80 75 70 65
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)5 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) in brs.
0.10 0.55 5.50 3.00 1.50 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1)
0.20 0.85 4.25 2.50 1.30 0.70 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
0.30 1.07 3.67 2.20 1.20 0,77 0.37 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.20
0.40 1.19 2.98 1.88 1.15 0.73 0.40 0.13 0.03 0.00 .30
0.50 1.31 2.62 1.72 1.08 0.70 0.42 0.18 0.08 0.00 0 40
0.75 1.53 2.04 1.39 0.93 0 63 0.41 0.23 0.13 0.04 0.50
1.00 1.68 1.68 1.18 0.82 0.57 0.38 0.23 0.14 0.07 0.75
1.25 1.78 1.43 1 02 0.72 0.50 0.35 0.21 0.14 0.07 1 00
1.50 1.87 1.25 0.90 0.65 0.45 0.32 0.20 0.13 0.07 1 25
2.00 2.02 1.01 0.76 0.55 0.40 0.29 0.20 0.13 0.08 1 .50
2.50 2.11 0.84 0.64 0.46 0.35 0.26 0.17 0.11 0.08 2 00
3.00 2.20 0.73 0 57 0.42 0.32 0.23 0.16 0.11 0.07 2. 50
4,00 2.35 0.59 0.46 0.35 0.26 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.07 3 00
5.00 2.46 0.49 0.40 0.30 0.23 0.17 0.12 0 09 0.06 4 00
6.00 2.56 04
0.4 0.34 0.26 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.0( 6 00
7 00 2.67 0.38 0.31 0.24 0.18 (014 0.10 0.08 0.07 6. 0(1
8.00 2.72 0.34 0.27 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.05 7.00
8 00
/ .5 / 5 /0
t. Duration in hr f. Duration in hr
Figure 15. Runoff factor X for 5- and 10-year frequencies Figure 16. Runoff factor X for 25- and 50-year frequencies
V. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW METHOD
Table 19
Computation of Runoff Factor X for 25-Year Frequency
Dukra- Rain- Runoff Factor X for N equal to
tion Sfall 90 85 80 75 70 65
in s in in.
(1) (2)
0.10 0.73
0.20 1.17
0.30 1.47
0,40 1.66
0.50 1.81
0.75 2.08
1.00 2.24
1.25 2.36
1.50 2.45
2.00 2.61
2.50 2.72
3.00 2.77
4.00 2.93
5.00 3.04
6.00 3.14
7.00 3.22
8 00 3.31
/C
X5
.5 / 5 /0
I, Duroaion in hr
Figure 17. Runoff factor X for 700-year frequency
Figure 18. Climatic factor Y for climatological sections in Illinois
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
and the corresponding instantaneous unit hydro- age area lying in each slope class. For example, the
graph were derived; and thus, the duration, lag slopes of Watershed W-I at Edwardsville, Illinois,
time, and unit hydrograph peak were determined. are given as "63% in 0-1.5% class; 21% in 1.5-
Most of the storms selected for analyses have a 4%o; 9% in 4-7%; and 7% in 7-12%." The aver-
well-defined single peak of runoff. In cases of mul- age land slope is therefore 2.21%.
tiple peak runoff, the peaks of the hydrograph were The slope S used for computing the lag-time
first separated before making a unit hydrograph factor K may be determined by many methods.""'
analysis. Generally, the length of the channel is measured
For the derivation of an instantaneous unit beyond the upper end of the clearly discernible
hydrograph, the methods developed by O'Kelly, ' ' stream channel to the drainage divide and then
Nash, (1 2' , '' ) or Dooge ( '" may be used. As it can be the difference in elevation between this point on the
shown that the integration of an area covered by ridge line and the outflow point of interest in the
an instantaneous unit hydrograph is proportional channel is divided by the length. In the present
to the ordinate of an S-curve which is a hydrograph determination, the profile of the stream was plotted
due to a uniform rainfall intensity of continuous using the elevation as the ordinate and the distance
duration. In other words, the instantaneous unit up the principal channel as the abscissa. Then, a
hydrograph represents the slope of the S-curve. The straight line through the gaging point was fitted to
time at the point of inflection on the S-curve corre- the stream profile so that the area between the
splonds to the time of the peak flow of the instan- straight line and the stream profile lying below the
taneous unit hydrograph. Therefore, an approximate line was equal to that lying above it. The slope of
procedure to determine the lag time is to construct. this "straight line of best fit" was taken as the
the S-curve of a given direct-runoff hydrograph and channel slope. As a comparative study, broken lines
then to locate its point of inflection. of best fit were also tried, and the weighted average
Table 22 shows the computed values of lag-time of the slopes was taken as the channel slope, but
factors Ko by Equation 10 and K, defined in Equa- the results showed no significant differences. The
tion 33, and the average lag time for each drainage single straight line of best fit was therefore used
basin. The average lag time is taken from the com- owing to its simplicity.
putation in Table 23. The computed lag-time factors are plotted
It should be noted that the slope So used for against the lag time as shown in Figures 19 and 20.
computing the lag-time factor Ko is the average In Figure 19, Equation 9 is plotted as a straight
land slope. The original land slopes given in the line. Similarly, in Figure 20, Equation 33 is plotted
publications of the U. S. Agricultural Research as a straight line. It appears that the data do not
Service"1( 6"')are shown in percentage of the drain- satisfactorily fit either Equation 9 or Equation 33.
Table 22
Computation of Lag-Time Factors
No. State Drainage Basin Size A Visible I)rainage Land Slope K. = Channel K = Av. Lag Time
acres Channel Density S/,% AO." Slope Length L t, in hr.
Length ft/ac S%/ L, ft.
ft. .S'., /D.D.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Illinois W-l, Edwardsville 27.22 1,650 61.0 2.21 0.156 1 51 1,461 1.19 1044 0.315
2 W-4, Edwardsville 28!9.8 19,800 68.32 5,37 0.128 1.29 5,765 5.08x10 0.443
3 W-1-A, Monticello 82.0 3,530 43.05 1.56 0.366 0. 66 2,120 2.62x 10 0.576
4 W-l-B, Montirello 45.5 2,053 .45.13 1.15 0.407 0.54 2,750 3.75x10 0.436
5 West Salem 969( (i,600 6.5 1) 0.60 5.07 0 51 9,926 13.82x10' 1.872
(6 Madden Creek, 992 6,440 6 .49 1.87 1.664 0.58 8,848 10.69x 10 1.809
Edwards County
7 lHurricane Creek 92.2 3,500 38.0 2.00 0.315 0.60 1,900 2.45x 10 0.625
Trib., Witt
8 Ohio W-97, Colshoton 4,580 52,800 11.52 17.21 0.215 0.53 26,100 35.8x10( 1.900
9 W-183 Coshocton 74.2 3,4(X) 45.8 15.86i 0.034 0.65 3,180 1.22x 10 0.240
10 W-196, ('oslhoton 303 19,000 29.7 16.20 0.063 3.70 4,460 2.32x1044 0.310
11 W-l, lamilton 187 5,390 28.8 4.59 0.195 1.15 5,000) 4.66x10 0.286
12 Missouri W-3, Betlany 4.85 1,660 340 7.72 0.011 6.25 675 0.27x 10 0.117
4.48 1,660 370 (av.)
13 Wisconsin W-l, Fenniniore 330 8,200 24.8 5.97 0.191 2.03 5,780 4.05x 104 0.419
14 W-2, Fenninore 22.8 560 24.6 5.92 0.087 4.75 1,000 0.458x104 0.116
15 W-4, Fennimtore 171 4,000 23.4 4.96 0.191 2.17 3,270 2.15x104 0.267
16 W-l, Colby 345 4,490 13.0 2.47 0.648 0.76 6,575 7.55x 10' 0.417
17 Indiana W-5, Lafayette 2.87 280 97.6 1.93 0.072 1.41 l566 0.418104 0.139
18 W-6, Lafayette 2.79 240 86.0 2.26 0.065 1.48 585 0.48x 10 0.165
19 Iowa Ralston Creek, 1,920 64,240 33.4 10.25 0.163 0.60 21,600 27.9x1(0 1.422
Iowa City
20 Nebraska W-3, llastings 481 30,500 63.4 5.30 0.151 0..55 9,000 12.1x101 0.136
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Table 23
Computation of Lag Time and Peak-Reduction Factor Z
N.o. Stitt IVl
Dainage t(Ba-.i. Size A I)Dat- if Storiu, Dluration I.ag T'imn t U nit Z Points
avrcs t t '7 Ilvydrogaphi for
hours hours l'eak I' c.f.s. lhtt ing
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 (2
1 Illinois W-I, Ilwardlvill 27.22 May 27, 1938 0..150 l0.1167 0. i)9 121 2 0 .6(12 l(a)
June 21, 1942 0.2167 0 517 0 .51 3.57-1 0.318 1(1))
NMarl'h 31, 19152 0..550 0. 38( 1. 590 3!9 80 0 7!7 1(c)
March 31, 11152 0.383 0.229) 1I 675 .56 11 0. 78.5 I(d)
.IJly 2, 1!.052 0.317 0.277 1. 145 62 .05 0.717 19')
av. 0.315
2
W I. ldiwvardlsvill, 2811.8 Mlay 27, 1938 0 1533 0.413 1 .292 508. I .!) 27 (a)
himn 21. 19142 0 417 0. 453 0.920 4110 7 0.702 2(11)
March 31. 11152 0.I5.50 0.467 1.1711 333. 8 0. (129 2(v)
lMarch31, 19152 0).450 (105(i7 0.71-4 1419 0.(16913 2(d)
.)uly 2, 19152 0.3(i7 0.313 I 173 I1. 9i 0 1111 2(1 )
iv. 0.I443
3 W-1-A, ,Monlircllo 82,0 Orl. 21, 11119 1 167 0.5!15l 0.280 12 5. ( 187 3(a)
Jlily 9, 19l51 0 217 0.7011 0.30( 13!. 7 0 3117 3(1h)
. 9ly,11)51 0.2(1) 0.I 23 1. 73 (17 I ( 1112 3(') (1,.
a\. 0. 5711
I
1Montir4llo WV-I-B, 1.5.5i ()Oct.21, lltlI 0.150 0 .136 0.314 51. 5 0. 1(18 4
av. 0.43(6
.5 WVsi Sali 0 )ll .July 18, 1958 0.333 1.1120 0. 171 15). I 0. 155 .i5(:
.Ily 1i, 11158 0.1)17 1 .25 0(0.i
. .503 8 0.10811 5(h)
ak. 1.872
(i Mael.n (rek, 1992 J.lyl 18, 1!158 0.333 1.817 0. 1791) .10 0. 152 (ia)
Ilwarils County iuly 11), 1!1.58 I) 1(17 1.75'0 0.015 1)96 0 0.083 Ii(i))
iav. 1.80H(
7
7 lil rli.an'i ('r.k 112.2 Aplril 5. 1958 0.233 0.583 0. I00) 113 8 0.28(1 (a)
Trililitary, Witt. May 1),10, 111519 0. 117 O.i33 0. 213 158 2 11.28- 7(1,)
AUig. (1 )195) (II1)) 0 733 0.(182 1I 8 0. 103 7(v)
A iig.(, 111511 02.50 W.55)0 0. 155l 1 II 8 0.31 I 7(d)
ai. 0. 625
8 Ohio W-117. (Coslhoto ,.580 hJune .I, 1114 0. 1167 2.250 0.017 3,(X)5 0. 108 8(a)
.ilnn 28, 19157 S.(183 1.51) 1.087 2,0301 0.738 8(b))
av. I .!X)
9I W-183 Cosholton 74.2 J.li 11,
o 1111 0.1533 0.2(17 2.0()( 122 7 0.875 !l(a)
Augi. 1(1, 11147 0.2(0) 0.250 0.1)8) 185. 0. 119i !l(h)
Se)t. 1, 1950
Stuit. 1, 1950
0.733
01 5I)
0.233
0.217
3 .113
2.308
87 0
129 2
0.85)1
O. til
i9(c)
!9(d)
~
I Iii c1...ih
.hlun 12, 19157 0 350 0. 233 I .50() 151 .2 0.7229 )(
av. 0 2410
10 W-1i11 (Coshlocton, 303 Jlun 16, 194i6 0.1117 0.323 2.011) 3!13 0.8.58 ll)(a)
Alui. 71, 19117 0.217 10.341 0.i3.5 1173
SI)pt. 1, 11150 0. 11117 0.310 2.150 360 0,7851 10(c) M illtiph')...
h
Sepl. I, 191150 0 3117 0.310 1 180 5:32 0.6311 10(Id)
.Illni 12. 19157 0.317 0. 2117 1.187 11917 0.723 10((.)
av. 0.310
11 W-l, I lanilton 187 .hily 4, 11)391 0.21) 0.317 0.1132 177 0.4150 11(a)
.IJly 7, 11943 0. 117 0.255 1'.(154 37() 1.328 11(I))
av. 0.28(1
12 Mlissouri W-3, liethaliy 1.85 May 21. 11933 0. 067 0.142 0.471 53:.8 0.738 12(u)
4.18 Oct. 19. 11134 0.18:3 0.083 2.21X) 19 5 0.71)0 12(1)
2
.hiune 17, 113.5 0.083 0.125 0(.167 43. 0.7!17 1 (c)
av. 0 117
13 Wisconsin W-1, Feniiiiiinore 330 Aug. 12, N1-43 0.150 0.375 0.41X) 678 0.305 13(ia) M tiltiple h-nkh
.iuly 1, 1!944 0.1117 0..545 0.3061 4191 0.2461 13())
.llline 28, 194.5 0. 133 0.338 0.314 748 0.291) 13(()
av. 0.41!) NItilt i)l eak
W-2, I'eniirnore 22.8 .lline 28, 1114.5 MulltiphPeaklh~
11 0. 1() 0.082 1.22L 120. 8 0..52.5 1l(a)
.,lne 24, 11)911 0.250 0.150 16.117 72 1 0.785 -1(b)) Mlipl Peak.
av. 0.11(1
15 W-1, Fenniinor, 171 July 11, 1914 0.083 0.375 0.222 318 0.1153 15(a)
Juhine 28, 1!9415 0.13:3 0.183 0.727 483 0.372 151b) (i(Do. '.,
Jiune24, 1919) 0. 3(1 0.242 1.242 :1711 0.1151 1.5(c)
av. 0. 267
10( W-1, Colby 3:15 July 28, 191)9 0.233 0.417 0.5538 342 0.221) 16
av. 0.417
17 Indiana W-5, l'afayetto. 2.87 .July 5, 1943: 0.067 0.1(Xi 0. 667 30.11 0.701 17(a)
Juan, (1), 19I16 0.033 0).200 0.167 12.( 0. I14 17(1h)
iiJune24, 195110 0.133 0.117 1.1-13 1610 0.7315 17(c)
av. 0.13i9
18 W-(l, I.afayett( 2.79 J.ily 5, 19i13 0.0(17 0.1(17 0.41 I 11 0.383 18(a)
.hlnie 11), 9IIi 0.117 0.208 0..5(1 13. 0.557 18(1))
.1l111 24, 19150 0. 133 0.120 1.111 11. 0.525 18(81)
av. 0. 11.5
191 Iown Italslon Creek, 1,926 .lillne 1, 19'3: 0.250 1.3(17 0.183 1,710) 0.220 19(a)
Iowa C('y luily 1, 19501 1.1117 1 .l100 I. 155 178 0.811 11())
July 18, 19.56. 0.333 1 .5(11 0.222 1,778 0.30.5 1Il)<)
av. 1.122
20 Nebraska W-3, I Iastings .181 .Jiine 20, 11139 0.250 0.625 (0.-I(0 612 0.31.5 20(a)
.liine 7, 191537 0.717 0.6011 1.102 3911 0.1585 20(01)
hJuly 15, 1957 0,217 (1.(633 ( I.312 7711 0.3 14 211(.)
av. o).(tli
V. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW METHOD
/10
./
.10
.01 .025 .05.075./ .5 5 10 .075
Ko =A S3
.05C
(A in acres; S in per cent; D.D. in feet per a rcre)
.025
Figure 19. Verification of tp-Ko relationship
.0/0
In Figure 20, however, the plotted points do not
scatter as broadly as they do in Figure 19, and they
indicate a well-defined trend. Therefore, a line of
best fit was drawn and its equation was found to be (L in feet ;Sin feet per foot)
Figure 20. Verification of tn-K relationship
t,= 0.00054 (L/VS)o."4 (34)
When S is expressed in per cent, the above equation rainfall excess equal to t as shown in Figure 22a.
becomles The principle and procedure for the development
t , = 0 .00 2 3 6 (L / V~S )o .64 (3 5 ) of the unit hydrograph have been described in Sec-
tion IV-D. Figure 22c shows the instantaneous
where L is in feet.
unit hydrograph derived from the same S-curve.
In deriving the line of best fit the method of
The ordinates of the instantaneous unit hydrograph
least squares was used to compute two regression
are proportional to the slope of the S-curve as men-
lines, one taking abscissas as independent variables
tioned previously. It can be seen from Figure 22c
and the other taking ordinates as independent vari-
that the lag time t, for instantaneous unit hydro-
ables. The line of best fit is the mean of the two
graphs is equal to the time of rise to the peak.
regression lines; that is, its slope is equal to the
In the present discussion, the S-curve derived by
mean slope of the regression lines and it passes
the U. S. Geological Survey from the data for
through the centroid of the plotted data. For
drainage basins of about 80 sq. mi. in Illinois was
practical applications, Equation 35 is shown by a used.' ( 82 This is plotted in Figure 23 with the
chart in Figure 21.
abscissa expressed in terms of the lag to. The in-
3. Conversion of Z Factor stantaneous unit hydrograph was derived from the
In Figure 9 the factor Z is shown as a function slope of the S-curve. It can be seen from Figure 23
of t/t, where t is the duration of rainfall excess in that the relationship obtained between to and t, is
as follows:
hours and to is the lag. The lag can be converted
to lag time by establishing a relationship between t, = 0.47 to (36)
the lag to and lag time tp. This relationship can be From the above relationship, the curve for factor
established theoretically by using the concept of Z in Figure 9 can be readily modified to produce a
instantaneous unit hydrograph. new curve of factor Z versus the ratio t/t,. Both
Figure 22b shows the sketch of a unit hydro- the original and new curves are shown in Figure 24.
graph for the duration t of rainfall excess, with the
lag to and the lag time t, marked on it. This unit 4. Verification of Factor Z by Data
hydrograph was developed from an S-curve and the In order to check the corrected curve for factor
same S-curve in an offset position for a delay of Z, the data for the verification of the lag time were
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
used. The computation for factor Z by Equa- the fitted curve is the converted curve displaced
tion 20 is shown in Table 23. horizontally except its upper portion where Z ap-
The computed values of Z are plotted against proaches unity. Theoretically, Figure 22 indicates
t/t, as shown in Figure 25. The converted curve that t should not be greater than 2t,. Otherwise,
based on the unit hydrograph for drainage basins the peak discharge would occur before the end of
of an average size of 80 sq. mi. in Illinois is plotted rainfall excess. At t = 2t, and greater, the unit
in dashed line. Obviously, the plotted data do not hydrograph should reach and maintain a maximum
fit the converted curve but are shown above the value. In other words, Z - 1 at t/t,, 2. The up-
latter. This is reasonable, because the drainage per portion of the curve was therefore drawn to
basins under consideration are much smaller than satisfy this condition.
80 sq. mi. Figure 9 shows that the curve for smaller It is believed that the general relationship be-
basins has a higher unit hydrograph peak or a tween Z and t/t,, should follow the trend of the
higher value for factor Z. converted curve, whereas the horizontal shifting of
To fit the plotted data, a curve in full line was the data is due to the size of basin areas under
constructed in Figure 25. It should be noted that consideration. In addition to the basin size effect,
.64
1pz.00236(L1
1000,
000
1000100,
1.100, 11011 000
e 000, e -ooo
sko '0;'
pe Z--;i"A Od ;;-o .oo -'".001---o L00,
loo
k oo,
Z A I-loo"
.0000 ko 0
10000 60
loll '.00 0001 11000 0
o
10000,
"ooo"o ..' 1.10 '000
1--oo .0, 0-0
.001 1
'00 10 -.oolroo
1-1 L10
.10
000,
.01010,0
(a)
F. DESIGN CRITERIA
From the nation-wide survey of design practice
on waterway area determination in different state
highway agencies, described in Section III, it was
Time found that there have been no definite criteria con-
Figure 22. Schematic relation between the duration t, lag t., cerning the climatic and physiographic conditions
and lag time tp, of drainage basins forming the basis for the design
of waterway openings of drainage structures. In
the scattering of the plotted data may be mainly the proposed method it is suggested that adequate
due to the errors involved in the accuracy of tlhe design criteria be considered and established as a
data as well as in the processing of the data, such first step towards the design of the structures. For
as the uncertain flow separation in the case of mul- this purpose, a definition of the design discharge to
tiple-peak hydrographs. In four cases: 3c, 8a, 12a, be used by the proposed method is given as follows:
and 16 of Tables 22 and 23, there are strong evi-
/20
80 .8 CIL
S40 .4
I
0
The design discharge is the maximum dis- uniform rainfall the duration is equal to the dura-
charge that would occur under an average physi- tion of rainfall excess. Since thunderstorms of high
ographic condition of the drainage basin due to intensities and short durations usually are the cause
rainfall of a given frequency and various dura- of the peak flows from small drainage basins, this
tions and due to base flow. assumption is reasonably justified. If the true
In Illinois the design of culverts for highway duration of rainfall excess were considered, the
drainage structures is handled in the highway dis- rainfall amount for a given frequency would be
tricts. The design of bridges is handled in tlhe reduced. Therefore, the assumption is on the con-
Bridge Office at the Bureau of Design. The dis- servative side.
tricts, with the exception of District 10, have been
using the Talbot formula almost exclusively in tlhe G. DESIGN PROCEDURE BY THE PROPOSED
determination of the required waterway openings METHOD
for the design of culverts. In District 10, with the To facilitate the application of the proposed
District office at Chicago, there are two designing method, all information necessary for the computa-
agencies; the regular District design office and the tion is shown in a design chart, Figure 26. For a
Expressway design office. Both offices reported drainage basin of given size, runoff condition, and
making use of both the Talbot formula and the location in Illinois, the procedure of computing the
rational formula in culvert design. The regular design discharge is as follows:
District design office reported that when the ra- (1) From the soil type map in the design chart
tional formula is applied, 5-year and 10-year fre- (or Figure 13), determine the soil type.
quencies are used. The use of a 10-year frequency (2) From the runoff number table (or Table
is limited to depressed sections where flooding is 15), determine the runoff number for the soil type
possible. In view of the lack of a universal criterion and the given cover and surface condition. If the
for the design frequency, values of runoff factor X drainage basin has composite soil types and cover
for frequencies of 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years were and surface conditions, a weighted runoff number
prepared for use in the proposed method. The should be computed.
choice of a certain frequency in a design remains to (3) Assign a certain rainfall duration t.
be a matter of policy. From the rainfall analysis (4) From the curves for runoff factor X (or
described in Section IV-C, the maximum recorded Figures 15 to 17), determine the value of X for the
rainfall at Urbana, Illinois, was found to have a assigned duration, the given frequency and the
frequency of the order of 50 years. It may appear runoff number.
reasonable to set the 50-year frequency as a prac-
(5) From the chart for climatic factor (or
tical upper limit for the design of culverts.
Figure 18), determine the value of Y.
The definition of the design discharge signifies
(6) From the chart for lag time (or Figure 21),
it as the maximum discharge due to rainfall of
determine the value of t,, for the given length and
various durations and due to base flow. Accord-
slope of the stream.
ingly, different durations must be assigned in the
computation by the proposed method until a maxi- (7) Compute the ratio t/tp.
mum value of discharge is obtained. This value (8) From the curve for factor Z (or Figure 25)
is then taken as the design discharge. determine the value of Z for the computed t/t,.
It is important to point out that the duration (9) Compute the discharge by Equation 30 or
referred to in the determination of runoff factor X Q = AXYZ.
is the time interval within which the maximum (10) Repeat the steps for other assigned dura-
depth of rainfall of a given frequency would occur. tions.
Therefore, this duration is not necessarily equal to (11) Plot the computed discharges against as-
the duration of the entire storm or to the duration signed durations. The largest computed discharge
of rainfall excess. Unless the true duration of rain- is the design discharge Q,.,x.
fall excess is available and used in the analysis of (12) If the stream is perennial, the base flow
rainfall frequencies, we can only assume that the Qb should be estimated and added to the discharge
maximum depth of rainfall occurs uniformly within determined in step 10. The design discharge is then
the designated duration, and thus for this block of Qd = Qu.ax + Qb.
V. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW METHOD
N, runoff number
Roads Dirt 72 82 87 89
Hard surface 74 84 90 92
Forest Very sparse 56 75 86 9/
Sparse 46 68 78 84
Normal 36 60 70 76
Dense 26 52 62 69
Very dense 15 44 54 6/
Step Procedure
.5
.l
.0/
.01
I 5 i 5 /0
I. Duration in hr ,. Duration in hr
.5
<
.5
.05
.05
.01 .0/
.
05 .1 / 5
L, Length along channel, ft 'p
Figure 26. Chart for the determination of design discharge for small rural drainage basins in Illinois
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
(3) The criterion for the determination of a: improvement will not change the basic schemie, but
design discharge is clearly defined. will involve only the modification of the curves amd
(4) Although the result obtained by tlie method charts which depend on the quantitative part of
ilay still require sonme professional supervision or lie data.
review for final adoption in a design, the method Like most metrhods in scientific and engineering
will provide a unique solution or produce close works, the proposed method lhas disadvantages as
:uswers by different individuals. well as advantages. The mnajor disadvantage is
(5) The procedure of the lmethod is simplified( thel fact t:hat tlle design discharge tlhus determinled
by a design chart so that practicing engineers can; is based on a given frequency of railfall instead of
use it with great case. runoff. This shortcoming is entirely due to the lack
of suitable data of runoffrequencyfr or small drain-
(6) The method can be readily improved lby
age basins. Tihe analysis ol a large quantity of
further verification with the accumulation of rain-
suiitable runoff data may overcome this problem
fall and runoff data and the field explrience. Since
in tie Ifuture.
the methlod is based on analytical principles, hlie
VI. FUTURE STUDIES
The present investigation has led to the develop- ciple, a hydraulic model of drainage basins designed
ment of a practical procedure for the determination for different geometric elements and physiographic
of peak discharges for the design of drainage struc- features should prove most useful. Such a model
tures on small rural drainage areas. Although tile should be capable of testing, for instance, the prin-
procedure illustrated in this report is prepared for ciple of superposition that basically constitutes the
design conditions in Illinois, the concept of the conventional method of unit hydrographs.
method is universally applicable to other states
When suitable rainfall data become available,
provided adequate data in these states are available
a further study on rainfall variables should be in
for similar analysis and development.
order for an improvement of the proposed method.
Generally speaking, hydrologic data for small
The rainfall variables include such items as the
drainage basins are meager as compared to the
frequency range of variation of the effect of ante-
data for large basins. In the present study, how-
ever, the data were available for the development cedent moisture condition upon runoff, the relation-
of the proposed method, but they were not of suffi- ship between the durations of gross rainfall and
cient quantity to justify a refinement of the method rainfall excess (Section V-F), and the areal and
by correlation analyses of the data. When a sub- time distributions of rainfall. Similarly, sufficient
stantial amount of data becomes available in the quantitative information on physiographic condi-
future, correlation analysis should be applied to tions of drainage basins will enable an investigator
the data in order to refine the functional relation- to perform a frequency analysis of the runoff num-
ships between various factors considered in the ber used in the proposed method. At present, the
method. As data become abundant, a program of runoff number based on an average condition of
computation by digital computers should be de- runoff is assumed.
veloped for the selection and analysis of the data Because of the shortage of runoff data pertain-
to be used in the formulation of the design charts. ing to small drainage basins, the design frequency
Simplifying the tedious processing and derivation used in the proposed method is based on the data
of instantaneous unit hydrographs will be of great of rainfall intensities (Section V-F). When more
value. In connection with this future study, a runoff data for small drainage basins are accumu-
comprehensive investigation on various theories lated in the future, there will be a need to perform
that have been proposed for the concept of instan- a frequency analysis of the runoff data and to
taneous unit hydrographs is necessary. From such adopt a design criterion on the basis of runoff fre-
an investigation it will be possible to select the best quencies. The family of curves for the runoff
theory suitable to the present purpose. For a physi- factor will have to be modified accordingly, while
cal understanding and interpretation of some the general concept of the proposed method may
assumptions underlying the unit hydrograph prin- remain the same.
VII. APPENDICES
in which n is an exponent ranging from 0.5 to 1.0. The forms of rainfall intensity formulas are
The value of C varies from 0.2 to 4.0. generally of the following three types:
A collection of 12 formulas is given in this
group.
Type I: I = K
Group 2. Simple Flood Formulas. In these
formulas the flood discharge is expressed directly in Type II: I = K
terms of the drainage area. The waterway area is Ut
then obtained by dividing the computed discharge -
Type III: I = --
by an assigned desirable or safe value of the ve- Vt + b
locity of flow V through the waterway opening,
giving A collection of 24 formulas is given in this
group.
a =-V
Q Group 4. Frequency Formulas. These for-
mulas express the discharge in terms of basin char-
The general form of the formulas is acteristic parameters and the frequency of occur-
Q = C F(A) rence. The formulas are generally developed by
means of a frequency analysis of the flood data.
in which Q is the discharge, C is a coefficient de- The general form of the formulas is
pending on conditions which affect the discharge,
and F(A) is a function of the drainage area. The Q = a + b F(T)
most common form of F(A) is again F(A) = A".
The value of C and n varies widely. in which a and b are constants, and F(T) is a func-
tion of the recurrence interval T in years. The
A collection of 30 formulas is given in this
recurrence interval is defined as the average inter-
group.
val of time within which the magnitude of the flood
Group 3. Rainfall Intensity Formulas. These
will be equalled or exceeded once on the average.
formulas are used to compute the rainfall intensity.
The waterway area for a given design frequency
The discharge is computed by the rational formula
is obtained by dividing the computed discharge of
the corresponding frequency by an assigned de-
Q = CIA
sirable or safe velocity of flow through the drainage
in which Q = discharge in c.f.s. structure.
C = percentage of runoff depending on A collection of 5 formulas is given in this group.
characteristics of the drainage basin Group 5. Elaborate Discharge Formulas.
I = rainfall intensity in inches per hour These formulas express the discharge in terms of a
A = drainage area in acres number of factors indicating climatic variations
and characteristics of drainage basin. These for-
The general form for rainfall intensity formulas
mulas are generally developed by the rational for-
mula or by the method of multiple correlation. The
K 'F n
general form of these formulas is
(1 + b)'
in which A = F (D, W, L, S, F . . )
K, b, and n, n, = respectively coefficients and ex-
in which D, W, L, S, F . . . are factors under con-
ponents depending on conditions
sideration.
which affect the rainfall inten-
A collection of 31 formulas is given in this
sity.
group.
F = frequency factor indicating the
frequency of occurrence of the
rainfall C. GROUPING OF FORMULAS
t = duration of the storm in minutes The following formulas are compiled under
which is equal to the time of various groups; within each group the formulas are
concentration listed alphabetically.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
,.. = Shortest time for infiltration during Remarks: (1) This formula was first published in
a 24-hr. intensive rainfall. a Report of Comnmission of Metropolitan Drain-
V = The average velocity of flow in feet age, 1857, London.
per second or in meters per second (2) The formula is believed to have been estab-
when specifically stated. lished between 1853 and 1856. It was developed to
W = Average width of the drainage basin express analytically the relationship between the
in miles.
diameter and slope of a circular outlet sewer and
0 = Angle of sectors of drainage area in
the size of its drainage area. This relationship was
degrees.
found from numerous observations of storm dis-
charges in sewers and then represented by a tabular
E. GROUP 1: WATERWAY AREA FORMULAS
form in 1852 by John Roe, Surveyor of the Holborn
1-1. The C. B. and Q. formula and Finsbury sewers, London.
0.46875 A (3) A maximum rainfall intensity of 1 in. per
a hr. was probably assunmel.
3 + 0.079 VA
or 300 D Reference: Emil Kuichling, "Storm Water in Town
Sewerage," Transactions, Association of Civil Engi-
3 + 2-\/])
neers, Cornell University, Vol. 1 (1893), p. 46.
Remark: This formula was derived from the Chi-
1-4. The Modified McMath formula
cago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad formula
12-3) for flood discharge, assuming a velocity of a = 0.5908A'"
flow equal to 10 ft. per see.
Remark: This was derived from the McMath
Reference: Thaddeus Merriman and T. H. Wiggin,
formula (5-22) for conditions at St. Louis, Mis-
Aimerican Civil Engineers' Handbook (5th ed.;
souri, with C = 0.75, I = 2.75, S = 15, and a ve-
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1930), p. 2010.
locity of flow of 6 ft. per sec.
1-2. The Fanning formula Reference: Thaddeus Merriman and T. H. Wiggin,
(1) Assuming a velocity of 4 ft. per see., American Civil Engineers' Handbook (5th ed.;
a = 0.23 A l/" New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1930), p. 2010.
1
or a = 50 D' " 1-5. The Myers formula
1-6. The Peck formula drop-inlet culverts. The values computed by the
A formula are used for vertical drops through culverts
a = C up to 5 feet. The values should be multiplied by
0.71 for drops through culverts up to 10 feet and
in which C = 4 for very mountainous country,
by 0.58 for drops through culverts up to 15 feet.
where slopes of hills and mountains
Reference: Q. C. Ayres, Recommendations for the
are steep and abrupt
Control and Reclamation of Gullies, Bulletin 121
= 6 for ordinary flat rolling country,
(Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Engineering Ex-
such as in most agricultural regions
periment Station, 1935).
Remarks: (1) This formula was introduced by
R. M\. Peck for design of structures on the Missouri 1-9. The Talbot fornula
Pacific Railway and St. Louis, Iron Mountain and a = C A"'.
Southern Railway.
in which C = 1.00 for mountainous region
(2) This formula appears to have no great merit. = 0.66 for very hilly country
Reference: W. G. Berg, "How to Ietermine Size = 0.50 for hilly country
and Capacity of Openings for Waterways," Conm- = 0.33 for rolling country
mittee Reports for 1896-97, presented at the 7th = 0.25 for gently rolling country
Annual Convention of the Association in Denver, = 0.20 for flat land
Colorado, October, 1897, and pub)lished in Proceed-
Remark: The values listed above are commonly
ings, Association of Railway Superintendents, employed. For originally recommended values and
Bridges and Buildings, Vol. 7 (1897), pp. 86-100.
discussion of the formula see Section II-C.
1-7. The Purdon-Dun formula Reference: A. N. Talbot, "The Determination of
Water-Way for Bridges and Culverts," Selected
a 640 240 -12 ) Papers of the Civil Engineers' Club, Technograph
No. 2, University of Illinois (1887-88), pp. 14-22.
Remarks: (1) This formula is based on James
1-10. The Tidewater (Virginia) Railway formula
Dun's waterway area data and the data collected
''
from the land adjacent to the Santa Fe Railway. a = 0.62 A"
(2) Purdon found that the formula fitted the
Remark: The computed area may be increased
I)un data for drainage areas of more than 16 sq. mi.
30% for streams having a flat fall, and 20% for
For small areas an arbitrary addition was made to
double openings.
allow for drift, etc.
References: Tables and Data for Estimates and
Reference: C. 1). Purdon, "Discussion on Flood
Comparisons (blue print), Tidewater Railway, Ro-
Flow Characteristics," Transactions, American So-
anoke, Virginia. January, 1905.
ciety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 89 (1926), p. 1090.
1-8. The Ramser formula "Report of Sub-(Committee of Roadway Com-
mittee No. 1, Bulletin 131," Proceedings, American
a = C 130 7-00 Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way As-
A + 600F/ sociation, Vol. 12, Pt. 3 (March, 1911), p. 499.
in which C = 1.4 for cultivated hilly land
1-11. The Wentworth formula
= 1.0 for cultivated rolling land
= 0.8 for pasture in hilly land a = A%;
= 0.6 for pasture in rolling land Remarks: (1) This formula was derived for design
= 0.4 for woods in hilly land on the Norfolk and Western Railway. It was found
= 0.3 for woods in rolling land to fit the conditions along that line satisfactorily.
Remarks: (1) This formula was recommended for It has also been used in the southeastern states.
areas not larger than 800 acres. (2) For very flat ground with less rainfall, the
(2) For fan- or square-shaped drainage basins results obtained by this formula are generally too
the results should be multiplied by 1.25. large. Wentworth observed that 60%A of the com-
(3) The formula was designed primarily for puted area may be taken as the lower limit.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
2-1. The Beale formula in which C = 1.56 or (, = 200 for Madras Presi-
7 dency, India
Q = C A" '
= 3.91 or C, = 500 for Central Prov-
in which C = 1,600 for unforested area inces, India
= 1,400 to 1,000 for forested area in the C = 6.45 or C, = 825 for Bengal and
central provinces of India Bihar, India
Remark: This is an adaptation of the Dickens for- C = 9.37 or C, = 1,200 for Upper Kaveri,
mula (2-3) to suit the conditions of the Western India
Ghats in the Bombay Presidency from the observed C = 17.2 or C, = 2:200 for Gadamatti,
discharges on the Nira Canal. India
Reference: G. R. Hearn, "The Effect of Shape of C = 6.6 or C, = 850 for average condi-
Catchment on Flood Discharge," Proceedings, The tions
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 217 (1923-24), Remark: Other values of C and C, suggested by
p. 289. S. K. Gurtu in Proceedings, The Institution of Civil
Engineers,Vol. 217 (1923-24), p. 386, are as follows:
2-2. The Bahadur formula
C = 11.0-15.6 and C, = 1,400-2,000 for bare
Q = C D[0.02 - (1/14)log D]
drainage basins, covered with precipitous
in which C = 1,600 to 2,000 hills (Class I)
Remark: This formula was proposed by Nawab C = 7.8-9.4 and C, = 1,000-1,200 for basins
Jung Bahadur for drainage basins in Hyderabad- with hills on the skirts, with undulating
Deccan area in India. country below up to the outfall (Class II)
C = 6.3-7.8 and C, = 800-1,000 for undulating
Reference: V. B. Priyani, The Fundamental Prin-
country, with hard indurated clay soil
ciples of Irrigation Engineering (Anand, India:
(Class III)
Charotar Book Stall, 1957), p. 48.
C = 1.6-4.7 and C, = 200-600 for flat, sandy,
2-3. The C. B. and Q. Railroad formula
absorbent, or cultivated plains (Class IV)
59.2 A References: C. H. Dickens, "Flood Discharge of
37.9 + /A Rivers," Professional Papers on Indian Engineer-
VII. APPENDICES
ing, Thomason College Press, Roorkee, India, Vol. soils cast of Crowleys Ridge, and 200% for the
II (1865), pp. 133-136. slopes of Crowleys Ridge.
G. R. Hearn, "The Effect of Shape of Catch- (2) The second formula specifies that the soils
ment on Flood-Discharge," Proceedings, The Insti- are absorptive and easily drained.
tution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 217 (1924), p. 288. (3) The third formula was given to areas of 200
S. K. Gurtu, "Correspondence on Flood- sq. mi. and less.
Discharge," Proceedings, The Institution of Civil (4) These formulas were used for rough approx-
Engineers, Vol. 217 (1924), p. 386. imations. The results should be checked for local
2-6. The El Paso and S. WV. Railway formula conditions.
References: (C. (. Elliot, Engineering for Land
Q = 60 A" -,
Drainages (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Remark: This is practically the same formula de- 1919), pp. 198-199.
veloped by Joseph P. Frizell, which lie obtained
A. E. Morgan, "A Preliminary Report on the St.
from records of flow over the Holyoke Dam, Mas-
Francis Valley Drainage Project in Northeastern
sachusetts, for a period of 50 years, and published
Arkansas," U. S. Departmlent of Agriculture Cir-
in his book on hydraulics.
cular 86, Office of Experimental Stations, 1919, p. 20
Reference: "Report of Sub-Committee of Roadway (for the first formula).
Committee No. 1, Bulletin 131," Proceedings,
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance 2-8. The Fanning formula
of Way Associrtion, Vol. 12, Pt. 3 (March, 1911), Q = 0.92 A%
p. 499. or Q = 200 D%
2-7. The Elliot formulas Remark: The formula was derived from a rela-
(1) For swamps and wet lands in Northeastern tively small number of observations on American
Arkansas rivers.
24 Reference: J. T. Fanning, Practical Treatise on
+ 6) 1)
ND IIater Supply Engincering (New York: D. Van
Nostrand Co., Inc., 1878), p. 66.
=( 0.~A: + 0.00937) A
2-9. The Frizell formula
(2) For, swamps and other wet lands of the Q = 61.3 A"''
Upper Mississippi Valley
Q = 1,550 Do-s
Handbook of Applied Hydraulics, edited by C. V. Reference: Emil Kuichling, Annual Report on the
Davis (1st ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Barge Canal, New York, 1901.
Co., Inc., 1942), p. 109. 2-15. The Kresnik formula
2-11. The Gray formula A
71
.
Q = 0.049 A'" 7.84 +-/A
( = 3,77.U 1) '7' in which C = a maximum of 3.07 for the Pliessnitz
Remark: The original form is Q = 5.89 D%, where River near Bertschodorf, Germany
Q is the discharge in c.f.s. per acre and D is the = up to 6.0 for rivers outside of Europe
drainage area in sq. mi. Remark: Tables and charts have been prepared for
Reference: "Report of Sub-Conmnittee of Roadway the values of C for a number of rivers. They may
Committee No. 1. Bulletin 131," Proceedings,Amer- be found in Hydraulic Structures by A. Schoklitsch
ican Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way I English translation: (New York: The American
Association, Vol. 12, Pt. 3 (March, 1911), p. 499. Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1937), Vol. 1, pp.
58-601.
2-12. The Horn formula
Reference: "Allgemeine Berechnung der Wass.er-
Q = A(10.45 - In A) profile und Gef:illsverhiiltnisse fiur Fliisse und
or Q = 640 D(4 - In D) Kanile." Technischc Vortriige und Abhandlungen,
No. 8, Vienna, 1886.
Remark: This formula was proposed for maximum
discharge in c.f.s. from drainage areas less than 20 2-16. The Kuichling formulas
sq. mi. For frequent
=( 44,000
Reference: G. R. Hearn, "The Effect of Shape of SA + 108,800 42A floods
Catchment on Flood-1)ischarge," Proceedings, the
Q( 127,000 1l For rare
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 217 (1924), pp. A + 23,700 86.57 floods
279-280.
Remarks: (1) The formulas were developed for
2-13. The Inglis formunla floods on streams similar to Mohawk River in New
7,000 1) York State. Kuichling noted ththtthe formulas are
applicable to hilly or mountainous regions, such as
are found in New England, Middle and North At-
Remark: The formula was developed by Sir C. C.
lantic States, and are probably also applicable to a
Inglis for fan-shaped drainage basins in Bombay
rolling country having a clayey surface soil.
State, India.
(2) The original forms of the above formulas are
Reference: V. B. Priyani, The Fundamental Prin-
ciples of Irrigation Engineering (Anand, India: 44,000
Charotar Book Stall, 1957), p. 48. +
-D170 +20
and
2-14. The Italian formulas 127,000 +
q = D + 370 7.4
71.8 A
(1) 7.87 + in which q = discharge in c.f.-. per sq. mi. and D =
A
or drainage area in sq. mi.
1,819 D (3) These formulas apply to drainage areas
Q =
0.311 +V D larger than 100 sq. mi. For drainage areas less than
103.0 A 100 sq. mi., the corresponding formulas are
(2) Q =
7.87 + /A - 25,000
=
q 125 + 15
S 2,600 D + 125
0.311 + D\/ 35,000 +
q = D 10
Remark: The first formula was developed for D + 32
northern Italy and the second formula for small as published in American Sewerage Practice by
brooks in the same region. Leonard Metcalf and Harrison P. Eddy, (Vol. I;
VII. APPENDICES
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1914), 2-20. The Meyer formula (also known as the Min-
p. 250. nesota Flood Flow formula)
Reference: Einil Kuiclling, Annual Report on the
A = 100 C F D"-"
Barge Canal, New York, 1901, p. 848.
in which C = a coefficient depending on different
2-17. The Lauterberg formula
slope, character of soil, and topogra-
Q= A( .000039t + 0.0008275)
phy. Recommended values of C are
\ 6 + 0.0000039 A as follows:
Character of Sandy Loam Clayey nesota Streams and Method of Estimating Probable
Drainage Basin Soil Soil Flood Flows, Conmmissioner, Department of Drain-
8. Hilly agricultural or 2.25 3.00 4.00 age and Waters, State of Minnesota, October, 1922.
timber land with steep Adolph F. Meyer, Elements of Hydrology (New
slopes barely admit- York: John Wilcy and Sons, Inc., 19281, pp. 369-
ting of cultivation; 371.
without lakes, ponds
2-21. The Morgan Engineering Co. fornuila'
or marshes.
9. Very hilly timber or 3.50 4.50 6.00
brush-covered land,
(1) Q =
slopes too steep for / 380
cultivation; ravines = V I)
and gullies with oc-
casional small ponds
(2) = + A
or marshes. S88.82 )
10. Very hilly timber or 5.00 6.00 8.00
brush-covered land
,2, ( -\/D
2.80 + 7.2) D
with much rock out-
cropping; ravines anti Remarks: (1) The first formula was used for the
gullies, occasional Cache River Drainage District.
small ponds and (2) The second formula was used for Mississippi
marshes. County, Arkansas.
11. Very hilly to rugged 9.00 10.00 12.00 (3)These formulas were used by the Morgan
country with much Engineering Company of Memphis, Tennessee, in
rock outcropping; scat- their design of most drainage structures.
tered timber; occasional
(4) These formulas were given for swamps and
small ponds and
wet lands.
marshes.
Reference: D)aniel W. Mead, Hydrology (New
12. Rugged to precipitous ... 15.00 York: Mc( rawl-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950), p. 666.
rocky country with
practically no soil cover; 2-22. The Modified Myers formula
small timber and Q = 10,000 C A"'
brush; ravines and
gullies; no lakes, ponds, in which ( = coefficient representing variable per-
or marshes to retard centage expressing the ratio of max-
runoff. imum flood to an assumed extreme
maximum flood.
F = frequency factor recommended as follows:
= 5% for the Colorado River below
For a flood to be expected Factor F the Gila Junction at Yuma
Once in 10 years 0.85 = 4% for the Nile
Once in 25 years 1.00 = 50% for the Amazon
Once in 100 years 1.40 = 21% for the Mississippi at Cairo,
Illinois
Remarks: (1) This formula was developed by A. F.
= 32% for the Ohio at Paducah, Ken-
Meyer with the aid of C. M. Halseth in the Depart-
tucky
ment of Drainage and Waters, State of Minnesota,
= 10% for the Gila both at Yuma and
particularly for Minnesota conditions.
Florence, Arizona
(2) The formula was found to apply fairly well = 27%1 for the Salt River, before res-
to floods which have occurred at many stations on ervoir controls at the mouth
the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. and at Roosevelt, Arizona
References: E. V. Willard, DrainageAreas of Min- =117% for Salado Creek, Texas
VII. APPENDICES
= 50% for Miami, Dayton, Ohio N. C., Can Creek at Bakersville, N. C., and numer-
= 40% for Otay, Lower Otay Dam,i ous other streams which exhibit somewhat smaller
California rates of discharge than the preceding ones. It may
Remark: The value of 100C is equivalent to tlhe be regarded as applicable to mountainous and hilly
so-called "Myers scale" (Section II-B). Values of drainage basins having areas of not more than
the Myers scale for major floods in the United 10,000 sq. mi. in the part of the country indicated.
States may be found in Applied Hydrology by Reference: Emil Kuichling, "Discussion on Flood
R. K. Linsley, Jr., M. A. Kohler, and J. L. H. Flows," Transactions, American Society of Civil
Paullus (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., Engineers, Vol. 77 (1914), p. 649.
1949), pp. 227-242. 2-26. The O'Connell formula
Reference: C. S. Jarvis, "Flood Flow Characteris-
tics," Transactions, American Society of Civil En- Q= / 458 (4.58 + A) - 45.8
gineers, Vol. 89 (1926), p. 994. Remark: This formula was said to have been based
2-23. The Murphy and Others formula on studies of rivers in Europe, India, and America,
and to be best adapted to small drainage basins.
Q ( 46,790 + 1 A Reference: P. O. L. O'Connell, "Relation of the
A + 205,000 42.7
Freshwater Floods of Rivers to Areas and Physical
S= \( D 40 + 15 1) Features of Their Basins; and on a Method of
+ 320-- Classifying Rivers and Streams, with Reference to
Remark: This formula was developed for streams the Magnitude of Their Floods, Proposed as a
of the northeastern United States from which Mur- Means of Facilitating the Investigation of the Laws
phy had collected the data. of Drainage," Proceedings, Mlinutes of the Institu-
Reference: E. C. Murphy and others, "Destructive tion of Civil Engineers, Vol. 27 (1868), pp. 206-210.
Floods in the United States in 1904," U. S. Geolog- 2-27. The Ryves formula
ical Survey Water Supply and IrrigationPaper No.
147 (1905), p. 189. Q = C A:
2-24. The Nagler formula in which C - local coefficient depending on the rain-
fall, soil and slope of the district
Q = 2.84 A% = 9.1 for upper India
Q = 210 1)
Remarks: (1) In the original form the drainage
Remark: This formula was developed for the 50- area is in sq. mi. and the values of C in India are
year flood to be expected in Iowa streams. as follows:
Reference: F. A. Nagler, "A Survey of Iowa C = 450 within 15 miles of the coast
Floods," Proceedings, Iowa Engineering Society, C = 560 within 15 to 100 miles inland
1928, pp. 48-68. C = 675 for a limited area near the hills
2-25. The New Kuichling formula
(2) This formula is used extensively in India.
0.065 A (396,800 + A) Reference: K. R. Sharma, Irrigation Engineering
15,360 + A (Punjab, India: Ramna Krishna and Sons, 1944),
or
41.6 D (620 + )) p. 575.
24 + 1) 2-28. The Schnackenberg formula
in which Q = maximum discharge Q = 20,000 A0O.
Remark: Kuichling indicated that this formula ap-
plies to river basins in the Southern Atlantic States, Remark: This formula was developed for extremely
and it is based on the greatest observed discharges high runoffs for the worst New Zealand conditions.
of the Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Md., New Reference: E. C. Schnackenberg, Extreme Flood
River at Radford, Va., the Catawba River at Rock Discharges, New Zealand Institution of Engineers,
Hill, N. C., the Little Tennessee River at Judson, 1949.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
The modified exponential formula: Remarks: (1) This formula was developed for
I = .- _ (3
_ -1. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as given in the Annual
(t + b3)"' Report of the Bureau of Survey, 1911.
in which the parameters are as follows: (2) It is based on a rainfall record of 25 years.
Storm C, C, C, Reference: Leonard Metcalf and Harrison P. Eddy,
n2 n:,
American Sewerage Practice (Vol. I; New York:
1-year 76.4 10.11 0.529 38.85 0.842
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1914), p. 22.
2-year 96.3 12.38 0.530 41.62 0.813
5-year 128.0 18.10 0.576 60.53 0.835 3-6. The Clarke formula
10-year 168.0 18.10 0.530 63.75 0.795
25-year 261.0 24.80 0.526 1,468 1.342
50-year 291.0 28.00 0.530 4,201 1.513
Remark: These formulas are said to be applicable in which K = 54 for storms to be expected each year
to New York City. K = 162 for storms to be exceeded once in
Reference: S. D. Bleicl, "Rainfall Studies for New 8 years
York," Transactions, American Society of Civil K = 324 for storms to be exceeded once in
Engineers, Vol. 100 (1935), pp. 618-619 and 621. 15 years
3-3. The Brackenbury formula Remark: The first two values of K were good
representations of the New York rainfall records.
23.95
I .= + 0.154 Reference: E. W. Clarke, "Storm Flows from City
t + 2.15 Areas, and Their Calculation," Engineering News,
Remark: This formula was derived for Spokane, Vol. 48, No. 19 (1892), p. 388.
Washington.
3-7. The Dorr formula
Reference: R. A. Brackenbury, "Construction of a
Large Sewer in Spokane," Engineering Record, Vol.
66, No. 6 (August, 1912), p. 156. t + 30
3-4. The de Bruyn-Kops formula Remarks: (1) This formula was developed for
basis of storm sewer design at Boston, Massachu-
= K.
I __ . K. setts, in 1892.
t+b
(2) Coefficients for the rational formula to be
in which K = 191 and b = 19 for maximum storms
used with this formula vary from 0.15 to 0.90,
K = 163 and b = 27 for storms occurring
which were selected to suit the conditions the dis-
once in 2 years
tricts may attain in 25 or 30 years.
K = 141 and b = 27 for storms occurring
Reference: C. W. Sherman, "Maximum Rates of
once a year
Rainfall at Boston," Transactions, American So-
Remark: This formula was developed for Savan-
ciety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 54 (1905), p. 179.
nah, Georgia, in 1908, and based on U. S. Weather
Bureau Records, 1899-1906. 3-8. The Gregory formula
Reference: J. de Bruyn-Kops, "Notes on Rainfall K
at Savannah, Georgia," Transactions,American So-
ciety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 60 (1908), pp. 248-
257. in which K = 12 and n = 0.5 for ordinary severe
storms
3-5. The Bureau of Survey formula
K = 6 and n = 0.5 for winter storms
I- K K = 32 and n = 0.8 for the maximum
storm
in which K = 27 for a maximum storm Reference: C. E. Gregory, "Rainfall and Runoff
K = 18 for rainfalls of high intensity in Storm Water Sewers," Transactions, American
K = 9 for ordinary storms Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 58 (1907), p. 475.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
in which I = extreme rainfall intensity in inches per Remark: This formula was proposed in 1911 as a
hour likely to cause "catastrophe" basis of design for maximum rainfalls.
t = duration of storms in hours Reference: L. Metcalf and H. P. Eddy, American
Remark: This was developed for the British Isles, Sewerage Practice (Vol. I; New York: McGraw-
and adopted by the Committee of the Institution of Hill Book Co., Inc., 1914), pp. 222, 224, 227-228.
Civil Engineers on "Floods in Relation to Reservoir 3-16. The Meyer formula
Practice." For rainfalls likely to cause normal
maximum floods, one-half the figure arrived by this K
t+ b
t+b
formula was considered sufficient.
Reference: G. B. Williams, Storage Reservoirs in which the coefficients K and b are listed as fol-
(London: Chapman and Hall, 1937), p. 20. lows:
VII. APPENDICES
Regional (Coffi- Storm Frequency, Years K = 25.14 and n = 0.687 for basis of
Group cients 2 5 10 25 50
1 K 180 220 276 355 450 design of maximum
b 24.5 27 32 40 50 storms
2 K 131 171 214 252 289 K = 18 and n = 0.5 for extraordinary
b 21 23.5 26 28 30
conditions
3 K 96 122 150 181 216
b 16 18 19.5 21 23 Remark: This formula was applied to Chestnut
4 K 84 108 132 160 186 Hill, Boston, Massachusetts.
16 17.5 19 20 21
5 K6 75 90 105 126 152 Reference: C. W. Sherman, "Maximum Rates of
b 13 13 13 14 16 Rainfall at Boston," Transactions, American So-
Remark: The rainfall stations used by Meyer as ciety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 54 (1905), pp. 178-
basis for his formula cover the cities which are 179.
grouped in five regions as follows: 3-19. The Schafmayer formula
Group 1 ..... Galveston, New Orleans, K
I -
Jacksonville t+b
Group 2 ..... New York, Philadelphia, Wash- in which thle coefficients are as follows:
ington, 1). C., Norfolk, Raleigh,
Storm frequency,
Savannah, Atlanta, Little Rock, years K
Fort Worth, Abilene, Bcnton- 2 102
ville, St. Louis, Kansas City, Lin- 5 138
coln, Des Moines. 10 166
Group 3 ..... Boston, Albany, Pittsburgh, Elk- (15) * (182)
20 193
ins, Asheville, Knoxville, Meii- (25)* (203)
phis, Cairo, Indianapolis, Cincin- * Inlirpoi lted frlm
iii llcaftiayr's data.
nati, Cleveland, Detroit, Grand
Remarks: (1) This formula was developed for the
Haven, Chicago, Madison, St.
Chicago area in 1938.
Paul, Moorhead, Yanton, Dodge.
(2) This formula was intended for applications
Group 4 ..... Duluth, Escanaba, Buffalo,
to storms not exceeding 120-minute duration.
Rochester.
Reference: A. J. Schafmayer and B. E. Grant,
Group 5 ..... De)cnver, Bismark.
"Rainfall Intensities and Frequencies," Transac-
Reference: Adolph F. Meyer, Elements of Hydrol- tions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 103
ogy (2nd ed.; New York: John Wiley and Sons, (1938), p. 355.
Inc., 1928), pp. 191-200. 3-20. The Steel formula
3-17. The Nipher formula K
360 t+b
I=-
t in which K and b are coefficients depending on
Remark: This formula was based on a study of the regions as shown in the following umap (Figure 27)
rainfall intensity record of St. Louis, Missouri for and table:
a period of 47 years. Fr' e(1luency, Coeffi- Regions
Years cients 1 2 4
Reference: Leonard Metcalf and H. P. Eddy, 2 K 206 140 70
American Sewerage Practice (Vol. I; New York: b 30 21 13
5 K 247 190 97
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1914), p. 220. b 29 25 16
3-18. The Sherman formula 10 K 30() 230 111
b 36 29 16
25 K 327 260 170
6 33 32 27
50 K 315 350 187
b 28 38 24
in which K = 38.64 and n = 0.687 for maxiinuin
100 K 367 375 220
stonms b 33 36 28
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
C CI R A S1'3 Q = 640 RC A%
S57,600 + (27,000,000 C 1 R A) 1/'4 Reference: Emil Kuichling, Annual Report on the
Barge Canal, New York, 1901.
in which C = 186 for rough, natural basins of
rivers. 5-10. The Dredge or Burge formula
C = 697 for smooth, comparatively level. 2.03 A
and impervious areas such as well- L-2/i
built cities. or
_ 1,3001)
R = mean annual rainfall in inches.
L2/3
C, = a coefficient depending on the total
area A in acres, the flat area AI in Remarks: (1) This formula, based on Indian flood
acres, which is likely to be inun- records, was used for the Madras Railway, India.
dated in freshets, and the mean (2) If the area is taken as a rectangle having
annual rainfall R, such relation be- dimensions of L by (1)L in miles, then the for-
ing expressed by: mula reduces to Q = 1,030 D%.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
in which CI = 2.8 for impervious surface; and Remarks: (1) This formula was deduced by
Q = 105 C (84 N/yAS + 25) Charles E. Gregory in 1907 from diagrams of run-
in which C = 0.10 to 0.54 off to be expected in New York City prepared in
1889 by Rudolph Hering.
Remarks: (1) This formula was developed for use
in New York, 1907. (2) The value of CI = 1.02 for suburban areas
to 1.64 for metropolitan areas.
(2) The formula was based on the rational
Rleferences: C. E. Gregory, "Rainfall and Runoff
formula.
in Storm Water Sewers," Transactions, American
Reference: C. E. Gregory, "Rainfall and Runoff in Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 58 (1907), p. 458.
Storm Water Sewers," Transactions, American So-
Leonard Metcalf and H. P. Eddy, American
cicty of Civil Engineers, Vol. 58 (1907), p. 474.
Scwcrage Practice (Vol. I; New York: McGraw-
5-12. The Gregory and Arnold formula Hill Book Co., Inc., 1914), p. 235.
5-14. The Grunsky formula- A
S(3,600 t)4"" ( r (
For maximum urban storm-water flow:
Q =- (1,000)-) -" L ,) ) (2) ~ "
5CIA
in which C = coefficient representing the ratio of Q= V t-
the rate of runoff to the rate of rain-
fall For maximum stream flow from large areas:
C, =constant, depending on shape of
drainage area and its manner of con- Q ~ -- CI-A
0V=3,200
centration. C, = v/V, in which v =
average velocity of water in feet per For general applications:
second in traversing the length L C, IA
Q-
Q=
and V = velocity of Q at outlet of t"
drainage area, based on average val-
in which C = coefficient as function of time = 60/
ues of C, and S for the area
(60 + C, / t)
C2 = constant, depending on shape and
I = maximum rainfall in 1 hour, based
condition of main channel of flow
on the California record
I = average rainfall intensity, in inches
t = critical time in minutes for continu-
perl hour, for a period of t hours ance of rainfall
L = length, in feet, which water must C, = 0.5 for impervious areas
traverse in running from the most
C, = 5.0 for mountainous areas
remote portion of the drainage area
CI = 20.0 for rolling country
to its outlet.
C, = 50.0 for flat country
S= fall, in feet per 1,000 feet of main
Ci = 250.0 for sandy regions
channel of flow
C., = 3,500 and n = 0.5 for impervious
n = a positive fractional exponent in areas
rainfall intensity formula
C2 = 3,300 and n = 0.6 for mountainous
t= time of concentration in hours
areas
n, = 1/(4 - n) C2 = 3,000 and n = 0.7 for rolling country
Remark: This formula was derived by the rational C, = 2,100 and n = 0.75 for flat country
formula with several important basin factors being C, = 600 and n = 0.8 for sandy regions
considered. Remark: This formula was based on California
Reference: R. L. Gregory and C. E. Arnold, "Run- records.
VII. APPENDICES
5-17. The Hering formula where Qnax = maximum discharge in cubic feet per
second
RVA RVA R = mean annual depth of rainfall in
640 L or 640 t inches
in which R = total runoff in inches during a storm D = drainage area in square miles
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
(2) This formula was proposed by R. Iszkowski, Remarks: (1) This formula is based upon data
Chief Engineer of the Austrian Ministry of Public collected in Switzerland.
Works in 1884. It was called an "induction formula (2) In the original form, the drainage area is in
for estimating the normal and flood discharges, square kilometers and a coefficient of 0.03171 is
based on the characteristics of the watershed." used.
Reference: Emil Kuichling, "Discussion of Flood Reference: Abstract in the Minutes of Proceedings,
Flows," Transactions, American Society of Civil Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 149 (1887), p.
Engineers, Vol. 77 (1914), p. 648. 392, from Lauterberg's Schweizerische Striimabflus-
5-19. The Kinnison and Colby formulas singen (Bern: Huber and Co., 1876).
D0l.95 5-21. The Lillie formula
for minor
Q = (0.000036 s.2.+ 124) -.
floods Q = VRC X(O L)
P)O.86
for major in which Q = discharge in c.f.s. at the moment of
Q = (0.0344 st'-+ 200) Lo
floods peak flood
95
Do. V = standard mean velocity in feet per
Q = (0.0595 .s'5+
342) 0.7 for rare floods
second
no.9o R = 2 + annual rainfall/15
for maximum
Q = (0.128 8s.'+ 1,800) L-O C = 1.1 + log L
LO.7 floods
L = length of sectors of drainage area in
in which Q = the peak discharge in c.f.s. miles
s = the median altitude of the drainage 0 = angle in degrees, at the discharge
basin in feet above the outlet point, of the sections into which the
P = the percentage that lake, pond, and catchment is divided. The sections
reservoir surface is to the total are in fan shape having a common
drainage area center meeting at the discharge point.
L = average distance in miles which wa- Remark: This formula was developed with refer-
ter from runoff uniformly distributed ence to rivers in India.
over the basin must, travel to the Reference: G. E. Lillie, "Discharge from Catch-
outlet ment-Areas in India, as Affecting the Waterways
Remark: These formulas were developed by the of Bridges," Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engi-
U. S. Geological Survey for the Commonwealth of neers, Vol. 217 (1924), p. 309.
Massachusetts.
5-22. The McMath formula
Reference: H. B. Kinnison and B. R. Colby, "Flood
Formulas Based on Drainage Basin Character- Q =CAI -
istics," Transactions,American Society of Civil En-
gineers, Vol. 110 (1945), p. 871. in which C = 0.20 for rural sections
5-20. The Lauterberg formula = 0.30 for macadamized streets
= 0.75 for paved streets
Q = 0.0001285 C R A = 0.75 for St. Louis, Missouri
in which Q = average discharge of a river in c.f.s. I = 1.9 to 2.75 for maximum intensity of
R = total annual rainfall in inches rainfall in inches per hour; the latter
C= 0.20 for marshy soil value was used for St. Louis.
= 0.25 for level plains S = slope of the ground surface in feet
= 0.30 for rolling land per thousand; a value of 15 being
= 0.35 for low hills recommended for St. Louis
= 0.45 for hilly country like the Ar- Remark: This formula was proposed for St. Louis,
dennes, the Odenwald and the Eifel Missouri.
= 0.55 for the Black Forest and the Reference: R. E. McMath, "Determination of the
Vosges Size of Sewers," Transactions, American Society of
= 0.70 for high rocky mountains Civil Engineers, Vol. 16 (1887) p. 183.
VII. APPENDICES
5-23. The Parnley formula River Flow, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Balti-
Q= C I S'/4 A /
,' more, Maryland, 1927.
C. R. Pettis, "Flood Probability Formula Modi-
in which C = 0 to 1 fied to Simplify Application," Engineering News-
I = rainfall intensity in in. per hr. for a Record, Vol. 112 (June, 1934), pp. 804-805.
period of 8 to 10 minutes for the C. R. Pettis, "Relation of Rainfall to Flood
Walworth Run River, Cleveland. Run-off," Military Engineers, Vol. 28, No. 158
Use I =4 in. per hr. for the most (1936), pp. 94-98.
violent storms and also for the fur-
5-25. The Possenti formula
ther damage caused by the prevail-
ing direction of the storms. SAR
Q=C R (A2+ A
Remark: This formula was used for the Walworth
Sewer of Cleveland, Ohio. in which C = coefficient with an average of 1.72
Reference: W. C. Parmley, "The Walworth Sewer, A, = flat area in acres
Cleveland, Ohio," Transactions, American Society A2 = hilly area in acres
of Civil Engineers,Vol. 55 (1905), p. 345. R = depth of 24-hr. rainfall in inches
5-24. The Pettis formula L = length of the stream from its source
to the point of observation in miles
1
Q =C (R W) .2 Remark: This formula was found satisfactory for
in which Q = approximately the 100-year flood mountain streams of moderate size in the Appen-
peak in c.f.s. nines.
C = 310 for the humid regions east of the Reference: W. E. Fuller, "Flood Flows," Transac-
Mississippi and along the Pacific tions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 77
Coast (1914), pp. 564-617.
= 100 for level prairie region of Illinois 5-26. The Protodiakonov formula
= 200 for the semi-arid Rocky Moun-
tain region such as Colorado Q,, = 16.67 (Idk - i) Ak
= 40 in desert region in which L, = design rainfall intensity in centimeters
R = 100-year 1-day rainfall in inches per minute
V = average width of the basin in miles k = climatic factor equal to the ratio of
as determined by dividing the area the maximum rainfall intensity at the
of the basin by the length of the given watershed to that at the center
stream, neglecting minor sinuosities of European Soviet Union
Remarks: (1) This formula, also known as the i = permeability of soil in centimeters per
"width formula," is designed for use on unregulated minute to be determined experimen-
basins having areas greater than 100 but less than tally
40,000 sq. mi. The design rainfall intensity is computed by
(2) It was found that the formula was applied
successfully to basins of the areas stated, ranging I, = -
from twice as long as they are wide to others which 1 + 0.06t
are about nine times as long as they are wide. in which t = duration of rainfall in minutes which
(3) This formula was first given as is equal to the time of concentration
or
Q =328 (R W)'-2 5
t = 16.67(+L+ L
in which R is the maximum rainfall in inches to be
expected on the basin within a period of six days, in which L, = length of the channel in kilometers
on the average of once in 100 years. In 1934, the L, = half width of the drainage area in
formula was revised to use a general coefficient C kilometers
in place of 328 as shown above. V, = velocity of flow in the channel in
References: C. R. Pettis, Major, A New Theory of meters per second
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
has been used by the Design Division of tlhe 5-31. The Switzer and Miller formula
U.S.S.R. Department of Interior, Bureau of High-
way Administration, for the design of culverts and Q=RC W"
small bridges. in which Q = 24-hr. flood in c.f.s.
Reference: V. V. Lebedev, Hydrology and Hy- R = rainfall in inches
drometry Manual (Soviet Hydrometeorological V = mean width of drainage basin in
Publication, 1955). miles, obtained by dividing the area
of drainage basin in square miles by
5-30. The U.S.S.R. Scientific Academy formula
the length of tile main stream in
C H 5 /4 r5/4 C 143/4 3IJ/171
W /4 miles
- 3 tq,/4
t/ L L3/4/ 4 C = 80
n= 1.5
in which Q,, = Maximum discharge in cubic meters Remarks: (1) The formula is based on a study of
per second 47 rivers in the United States.
C = coefficient for maximum discharge (2) When Q is expressed for peak flows in c.f.s.,
(for full maximum discharge or then C = 135 and n = 1.4.
Q1oo, C = 1) Reference: F. G. Switzer and H. G. Miller, Floods
H = average water-content of snow in
(Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No. 13),
millimeters before melting and be-
Cornell University, December, 1929, p. 11.
coming runoff as indicated by a long
period observation (to be obtained 5-23. The Walker formula
from a snow isohyetal map) CRD
t, = shortest time for infiltration during L5/6
a 24-hour intensive rainfall (to be
in which C = 4 to 30, being a maximum for drain-
obtained from an isohyetal map)
age basins having impervious sur-
r = parameter for forestation, computed
faces, little storage, steep slopes, lit-
by tile formula--- where tle vegetation, direct alignment of
1 + AsI'/Ak waterways, etc., and minimum for
Ak' in square kilometers is the part previous surfaces, much storage, flat
of the area Ak that is forested and area, much vegetation, and water-
Ak is the sub-drainage area under ways with irregular and meandering
consideration alignment. Most values of C range
C, = roughness coefficient, equal to 6.5 for between 8 to 20 for average condi-
areas without forest and 5.0 for for- tions. A general average of C is
ested areas about 12.
S = average slope of the main channel R = mean, or normal, annual rainfall in
counting from the upstream edge of inches over the entire basin
the drainage area to the culvert L = straight line distance in miles from
W- = average width of the drainage area point of discharge to center of grav-
or AI/L ity of the basin
L = length of the outlet channel from the Reference: Thomas Walker, "Flood Discharge
edge of the drainage area to the Formulas," American Railway Engineering Associ-
outlet ation Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 248 (August, 1922),
A, = total drainage area in square kilo- pp. 23-26.
meters
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES CITED
Reference: M. F. Sribnyi, "Method of Determin-
ing Maximum Flood Discharge from Its Relation (References marked * are also annotated in Appen-
to the Area of the Watershed," Russian Scientific dix III)
Academy News (Isv. AN SSSR otd. tekh nauk) 1*. T. M. Cleemann, "Proper Amount of Water-
No. 1 (January, 1952), p. 151. Way for Culverts," Proceedings, Engineers'
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Club of Philadelphia, Vol. 1 (April 5, 1879), 14*. J. C. I. Dooge, "The Rational Method for
pp. 146-149. Estimating Flood Peaks," Engineering, (Lon-
2*. A. M. Wellington, "Culvert Proportions," Edi- don), Vol. 184 (September 6 and 20, 1957), pp.
torial, Railroad Gazette, Vol. 18 (September, 311-313, 374-377.
1886), pp. 629-630. 15. T. J. Mulvaney, "On the Use of Self-Registering
3. C. S. Jarvis, "Flood Flow Characteristics," Rain and Flood Gauges in Making Observa-
Transactions, A4merican Society of Civil Engi- tions of the Relations of Rainfall and of Flood
neers, Vol. 89 (1926), pp. 985-1032. Discharges in a Given Catchment," Transac-
4. C. S. Jarvis, "Average and Maxinum River tions, Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland,
Iischarges," Appendix I in Low Dams, Na- Vol. 4, Pt. 2 (1850-51), p. 18.
tional Resources Committee, 1938, pp. 393-426. 16. 1). E. Lloyd-Davies, "The Elimination of Storm
5*. A. N. Talbot, "The Determination of Water- Water from Sewerage Systems," Minutes of
Way for Bridges and Culverts," Selected Papers Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers,
of the Civil Engineers' Club, Technograph No. Vol. 164 (1906), p. 41.
2, University of Illinois, 1887-8, pp. 14-22. 17*. D. B. Krimgold, "On the Hydrology of Cul-
6. A. Biirkli-Ziegler. The Greatest Discharge of verts," Proceedings, 26th Annual Meeting,
Municipal Sewers (Grosste Abflussmenge bei Highway Research Board, Vol. 26 (1946), pp.
Stiidtischen Abzugkaniilen). Zurich: Orell, 214-226.
Fiissli & Co., 1880.
18. W. W. Horner and S. W. Jens, "Surface Runoff
7. Rudolph Hering, "Sewerage Works in Europe," Determination from Rainfall Without Using
Report to the National Board of Health, 1881, Coefficients," Transactions,American Society of
and "Sewerage Systems," Transactions, Amer- ('iiil Engineers, Vol. 107 (1942), pp. 1039-1075.
ican Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 10 (1881 1,
19. W. 1). Potter, "Surface Runoff from Agricul-
pp. 361-384.
tural Watersheds," Surface Drainage, Highway
8. W. C. Curd, "Discussion of the Best Method
Research Board Report No. 11-B, 1950, pp.
for Determiining the Size of Waterways," Ap-
21-35.
pendix B of Report of Committee No. 1- on
Roadway, Proceedings, Amnerican Railrway En-
20. Merrill Bernard, "Modified Rational Method
gineering and Maintenance of lWay Association, of Estimating Flood Flows," Appendix A in
Vol. 10, Pt. II (1909), pp. 991-993. The chart Low Dams, National Resources Committee,
entitled "Logarithmic Diagram for Area of Wa- 1938, pp. 209-233.
terway Required by Talbot's Formula" is be- 21. R. L. Gregory and C. E. Arnold, "Runoff-
tween pp. 992 and 993. Rational Runoff Formulas," Transactions,
9*. Bill Turner, "Graph for Talbot's Formula," American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 96
Engineering News Record, Vol. 126, No. 25 (1932), pp. 1038-1099.
(June 19, 1941), p. 971. 22. G. H. Bremner, James Dun, J. W. Alvord, A. N.
10. "Diagram for Solution of Talbot Formula for Talbot, and others. "Symposium on Methods of
Culvert Sizes," Handbook of Drainage and Determining the Size of Waterway for Bridges
Construction Products, Armco Drainage and and Culverts," Journal, Western Society of
Metal Products Inc., 1958, p. 227. Civil Engineers, Vol. 11 (April, 1906), pp. 137-
11. C. B. McCullough, "Design of Waterway Areas 190.
for Bridges and Culverts," Oregon State High- 23*. W. D. Pence, "The Best Method of Determin-
way Commission Bulletin No. 4, July, 1934. ing the Size of Waterways" (Appendix B of
12*. C. B. Coe, "Talbot's Formula by Slide Rule," Report of Committee No. 1 on Roadway),
Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 8 (August, 1939), Proceedings, American Railway Engineering
pp. 496-497. and Maintenance of Way Association, Bulletin
13. Emil Kuichling, "The Relation Between the 108, Vol. 10, Pt. II (1909), pp. 967-1022.
Rainfall and the Discharge of Sewers in Popu- 24. C. 1). Purdon, "Discussion on Flood Flow Char-
lous Districts," Transactions, American Society acteristics," Transactions, American Society of
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 20 (1889), pp. 1-56. Civil Engineers, Vol. 89 (1926), p. 1090.
VII. APPENDICES
25*. W. G. Berg, "How to Determine Size and Ca- 38*. R. R. Rowe and R. L. Thomas, "Comparative
pacity of Openings for Waterways," Report of Hydrology Pertinent to California Culvert
the 7th Convention, American Railway Bridge Practice," California Highways and Public
and Building Association, 1897, pp. 86-100. Works, Vol. 20 (September, 1942), pp. 6-11.
26. "Report of Sub-Committee of Roadway Com- 39. California Culvert Practice. Division of High-
mittee No. 1, Bulletin 131," Proceedings, Amer- ways, Department of Public Works, State of
ican Railway Engineering and Maintenance of California, 1st ed., 1944, 2nd ed., 1953.
Way Association, Vol. 12, Pt. 3 (March, 1911), 40*. I. E. Houk, "Hydraulic Design of Bridge Wa-
pp. 481-528. terways," Engineering News Record, Vol. 88,
27*. T. M. Munson, "Formulas and Methods in No. 26 (June 29, 1922), pp. 1071-1075.
General Use by Engineers to Determine Runoff 41*. G. P. Springer, "Adequate Waterways for Cul-
from Watershed Areas," Texas Engineer, Vol. verts and Bridges," Proceedings, 17th Annual
4, No. 4 (April, 1934), p. 7. Road School at Purdue University, January
28*. C. E. Ramser, "Brief Instruction on Methods 19-23, 1931, Purdue University Engineering
of Gully Control," U. S. Department of Agri- Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 2 (March, 1936).
cultural Engineering (mimeographed), August, 42*. F. W. Greve, "Hydrological Factors in the
1933, pp. 16, 21-23, 26-27. Design of Culverts and Small Bridges," Roads
29*. C. E. Ramser, "Runoff from Small Agricul- and Bridges, Vol. 81, No. 4 (April, 1943), pp.
tural Areas," Journal of Agricultural Research, 32, 66, and 68.
Vol. 34, No. 9 (May 1, 1927), pp. 797-823. 43*. F. T. Mavis, "Reducing Unknowns in Small
30. A. F. Meyer. Elements of Hydrology (1st ed.). Culvert Design," Engineering News Record,
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1917. Vol. 137, No. 2 (July 11, 1946), pp. 51-52.
Table 15. 44*. J. C. Merrell. "Hydrology for Highway Struc-
31. D. L. Yarnell, "Rainfall Intensity Frequency tures," Proceedings of the Ohio Highway En-
Data," U. S. Department of Agriculture Mis- gineering Conference, April 3-5, 1951 (Engi-
cellaneous Publication No. 204, August, 1935. neering Experiment Station Bulletin No. 145).
32*. D. B. Krimgold, "Runoff from Small Drainage Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University,
Basins," Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 1951. Pp. 64-77.
10 (October, 1938), pp. 439-446. 45*. J. F. Exum. "Waterway Area for Culverts and
33*. D. B. Krimgold and N. E. Minshall, "Hydro- Small Bridges," Proceedings of the Ohio High-
logic Design of Farm Ponds and Rates of Run- way Engineering Conference, April 3-5, 1951
off for Design of Conservation Structures in the (Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No.
Claypan Prairies," U. S. Department of Agri- 145). Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Uni-
culture, Soil Conservation Service Research Re- versity, 1951. Pp. 61-63.
port SCS-TP-56, May, 1945. 46*. C. F. Izzard, "Importance of Drainage Design
34. C. L. Hamilton and H. G. Jepson, "Stock-Water in Highway Construction," Proceedings of the
Development: Wells, Springs, and Ponds," 3rd California Conference on Street and High-
Farmers' Bulletin No. 1859, U. S. Department way Problems, Institute of Transportation and
of Agriculture, 1940, p. 39. Traffic Engineering, University of California,
35. "Engineering Handbook," U. S. Soil Conserva- 1951.
tion Service, Milwaukee Office, 1942. 47*. C. F. Izzard, "Peak Discharge for Highway
36*. R. B. Hickok, R. V. Keppel, and B. R. Raf- Drainage Design," Transactions, American So-
ferty, "Hydrograph Synthesis for Small Arid- ciety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 119 (1954), pp.
land Watersheds," Agricultural Engineering, 1005-1015.
Vol. 40, No. 10 (October, 1959), pp. 608-611, 48*. H. G. Bossy, "Simple Methods for Hydraulic
615. Design of Culverts," Proceedings,Southeastern
37. "Hydrology," Supplement A, Section 4 of Engi- Association of Highway Officials, October, 1952,
neering Handbook, U. S. Department of Agri- pp. 34-46.
culture, Soil Conservation Service, 1957. 49. "Highway Practice in the United States of
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
America," Public Roads Administration, 1949, 62*. W. D. Potter, "Peak Rates of Runoff from
pp. 136-137. Small Watersheds," Hydraulic Design Series
50*. "Basic Principles of Highway Drainage," Hy- No. 2, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
draulic Information Circular No. 1, U. S. Bu- of Public Roads, U. S. Government Printing
reau of Public Roads, 1951. Office, April, 1961.
51*. W. D. Potter, "Rainfall and Topographic Fac- 63*. G. A. Tilton and R. R. Rowe, "Culvert Prac-
tors that Affect Runoff," Transactions, Ameri- tice in California," Proceedings, Twenty-third
can Geophysical Union, Vol. 34 (1953), pp. Annual Meeting, Highway Research Board,
68-73. Vol. 23 (1943), p. 205.
52*. W. D. Potter, "Use of Indices in Estimating 64. V. T. Chow, (Chairman) and others, "Report
Peak Rates of Runoff," Public Roads, Vol. 28, of the Committee on Runoff, 1955-56," Trans-
No. 1 (April, 1954), pp. 1-8. actions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 38,
No. 3 (June, 1957), pp. 379-384.
53. E. M. West and W. H. Sammons, "A Study of
65. V. T. Chow, "Hydrologic Studies of Floods in
Runoff from Small Drainage Areas and the
the United States," in Floods, Vol. III of Sym-
Openings in Attendant Drainage Structures,"
University of Kentucky Highway Research posia Darcy, International Association of Sci-
entific Hydrology, Publication No. .2, 1956,
Laboratory Report No. 2, July, 1955.
pp. 134-170.
54*. George Chamier, "Capacities Required for
66. L. K. Sherman, "Stream Flow From Rainfall
Culverts and Flood Openings," Proceedings,In-
by the Unit-Graph Method," Engineering News-
stitution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 134 (1898),
Record, Vol. 108 (April 7, 1932), pp. 501-505.
pp. 313-323.
67*. E. F. Brater, "The Unit Hydrograph Principle
55*. C. S. Jarvis, "General Formula for Water-
Applied to Small Watersheds," Transactions,
ways," Engineering World, Vol. 29 (August,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 105
1926), pp. 79-83.
(1940), pp. 1154-1178.
56*. Tate Dalrymple, "Hydrology in Design of
68. D. L. Yarnell, "Rainfall Intensity-Frequency
Bridge Waterways," North Carolina Engineer,
Data," U. S. Department of Agriculture Mis-
July, 1952.
cellaneous Publication 204, 1936.
57. "Monthly Precipitation and Runoff for Small
69. "Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves
Agricultural Watersheds in the United States,"
for Selected Stations in the United States,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Alaska, Hawaiian Islands, and Puerto Rico,"
Research Service, since July, 1957.
U. S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 25,
58. "Annual Maximum Flows from Small Agricul- December, 1955.
tural Watersheds in the United States," U. S.
70. "Rainfall Intensity-Frequency Regime, Part 4
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Re-
-- The Ohio Valley," U. S. Weather Bureau
search Service, June, 1958.
Technical Report No. 29, 1957.
59*. F. F. Snyder, "Synthetic Flood Frequency,"
71. V. T. Chow. Frequency Analysis of Hydrologic
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Data with Special Application to Rainfall In-
Engineers, Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
tensities (Engineering Experiment Station Bul-
Vol. 84, No. HY5, Pt. 1 (October, 1958), pp.
letin No. 414). Urbana, Ill.: University of
1-22. Illinois College of Engineering, 1953.
60. "Selected Runoff Events for Small Agricultural 72. V. T. Chow, "Hydrologic Studies of Urban Wa-
Watersheds in the United States," U. S. Depart- tersheds, Rainfall and Runoff of Boneyard
ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Creek, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois," Univer-
Service, January, 1960. sity of Illinois Civil Engineering Studies, Hy-
61*. N. E. Minshall, "Predicting Storm Runoff on draulic Engineering Series No. 2, November,
Small Experimental Watersheds," Proceedings 1952.
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 73. F. A. Huff, "Rainfall Intensity-Frequency Data
Journal of Hydraulics Division, Vol. 86, No. for Champaign-Urbana, Illinois," Illinois State
HY8, Pt. 1 (August, 1960), pp. 17-38. Water Survey Division Circular No. 28, 1949.
VII. APPENDICES
74. F. A. Huff and J. C. Neil, "Frequency Rela- and P. T. Veale, "Illinois Soil Type Descrip-
tions for Storm Rainfall in Illinois," Illinois tions," AG-1443, Department of Agronomy,
State Water Survey Division Bulletin 46, 1959. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
75. "Rainfall Frequencies," Illinois State Water Illinois, 1950.
Survey Division Technical Letter No. 1, 1959. 85. S. A. Changnon, Jr., "Second Progress Report,
76. "Rainfall Frequencies for 5 to 60 Minutes," Illinois Cooperative Project in Climatology, 1
Illinois State Water Survey Division Technical July 1955 through 30 June 1956," Illinois Water
Letter No. 4, 1960. Survey CircularNo. 57, 1956.
77. R. H. Shaw, G. L. Barger, and R. F. Dale, 86. F. A. Huff and J. C. Neill, "Frequency Rela-
"Precipitation Probabilities in North Central tions for Storm Rainfall in Illinois," Illinois
States," North Central Region Publication No. State Water Survey Bulletin 46, 1959.
115, Agricultural Experimental Stations of Illi- 87. R. Morgan and D. W. Hullinghors, "Unit Hy-
nois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minne- drographs for Gaged and Ungaged Watersheds"
sota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, (Unpublished manuscript), U. S. Engineers
South Dakota, Wisconsin and the U. S. Depart- Office, Binghamton, New York, July, 1939.
ment of Agriculture cooperating, University of 88. F. F. Snyder, "Synthetic Unit-Graphs," Trans-
Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, June, actions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 19
1960. (1938), pp. 447-454.
78. "Maximum Recorded United States Point 89*. Z. P. Kirpich, "Time of Concentration of
Rainfall for 5 Minutes to 24 Hours at 207 First Small Agricultural Watersheds," Civil Engi-
Order Stations," U. S. Weather Bureau Techni- neering, Vol. 10, No. 6 (June, 1940), p. 362.
cal Paper No. 2, April, 1947. 90. B. D. Richards. Flood Estimating and Control.
79. "Maximum Station Precipitation for 1, 2, 3, 6, London: Chapman and Hall, 1955.
12, and 24 Hours," U. S. Weather Bureau Tech- 91. J.. . O'Kelly, "The Employment of Unit Hy-
nical PaperNo. 15, Part XX: Indiana, (1956); drographs to Determine the Flows of Irish
Part XXI: Illinois, (1958); and Part XXII: Arterial Drainage Channels," Proceedings, In-
Ohio, (1958). stitution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 4, Pt. III
80. "Maximum 24-Hour Precipitation in the United (August, 1955), pp. 365-412.
States," U. S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper 92. J. E. Nash, "Frequency of Discharges from Un-
No. 16, January, 1952. gaged Catchments," Transactions, American
81. J. T. Riedel, J. F. Appleby, and R. W. Schloe- Geophysical Union, Vol. 37, No. 6 (December,
mer, "Seasonal Variation of the Probable 1956), pp. 719-725.
Maximum Precipitation East of the 105th 93. J. E. Nash, "The Form of the Instantaneous
Meridian for Areas from 10 to 1,000 Square Unit Hydrograph," Comptes-Rendus et Rap-
Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 ports, Assemblge de Toronto 1957, International
Hours," U. S. Weather Bureau and Corps of Association of Scientific Hydrology, Vol. 3,
Engineers Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, Publication No. 45 (1958), pp. 114-121.
April, 1956. 94. J. C. I. Dooge, "A General Theory of the Unit
82. W. D. Mitchell, "Unit Hydrographs in Illinois," Hydrograph," Journal of Geophysical Research,
U. S. Geological Survey and Illinois Division Vol. 64, No. 2 (February, 1959), pp. 241-256.
of Waterways, 1948. 95. B. L. Golding and I). E. Low, "Physical Char-
83. W. D. Mitchell, "Floods in Illinois: Magni- acteristics of Drainage Basins," Proceedings,
tude and Frequency," U. S. Geological Survey American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal
and Illinois Division of Waterways, 1954. of Hydraulics Division, Paper 2409, Vol. 86,
84. H. L. Wascher, J. B. Fehrenbacher, R. T. Odell, No. HY3 (March, 1960), pp. 1-11.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Carreker, J. R., and A. P. Barnett. Rainfall and Presentation of the Myers formula for com-
Runoff Characteristicson a Small Watershed in putation of waterway areas.
the Southern Piedmont. U. S. Soil Conservation Coe, C. B., "Talbot's Formula by Slide Rule," Civil
Service, SCS-TP-114, 1953. Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 8 (August, 1939), pp.
Reports observations over a 12-year period 496-497. [12]
on a 19-acre drainage basin near Watkinsville, Slide rule settings for solution of Talbot's
Georgia. Effect of cropping on runoff is evalu- formula for dimensioning of culvert openings.
ated, probable peak flows are estimated, and the
Cornelius, M. G., A. C. Kyser, and S. P. Gilbert,
extent of periods without runoff is summarized
"Rational Design of Culverts and Bridges,"
for design of farm ponds.
Third reprint of District No. 12 Manual, Texas
Carreker, J. R., "The Effects of Rainfall, Land Highway Department, 1946.
Slope, and Cropping Practices on Runoff and Describes hydrologic and hydraulic methods
Soil Losses," Journal, Soil Water Conservation, of designing culverts and bridges. Determina-
Vol. 9 (1954), pp. 115-119. tion of runoff is made by the rational method.
A report of plot tests at Watkinsville, "Curves for Determining Areas of Openings for
Georgia, over a 12-year period. Road Culverts and Bridges," Illinois Society of
Chamier, George, "Capacities Required for Cul- Engineers and Surveyors, Drainage Committee,
verts and Flood Openings," Proceedings, Insti- excerpt published in Engineering and Contract-
tution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 134 (1898), pp. ing, Vol. 39, No. 10 (1913), Pp. 255-256.
313-323. 1541 Compares results using 13 different formulas
Describes basic elements for determination for waterway areas.
of culvert openings, including catchment area, l)alrymple, Tate, "Use of Stream Flow Records in
rainfall, amount of surface-discharge and dilm- Design of Bridge Waterways," 26th Annual
inution in proportionate flood-discharge due to Meeting Proceedings, Highway Research Board
area. Presents a formula and its practical 1946, 1947, pp. 163-179.
applications. Discusses measurement of the physical fea-
Chamier, George, "Flood Discharges," Engineering tures of the stream channel, determination of
Record, Vol. 39, No. 8 (1899), pp. 163-165. the design flood by the Gumbel method of fre-
An elaborate review of runoff from different quency analysis, and the hydraulic computation
areas resulting in a new formula for estimat- of water level at the bridge site and extent of
ing it. backwater upstream.
Chamier, George, "Capacities for Culverts and Dalrymple, Tate. "Discharge Records as Used in
Flood Discharge," Engineering News, Vol. 41 Design of Bridge Waterways," Proceedings of
(January, 1899), p. 61. Ohio Highway Engineering Conference 1949
Gives a formula proposed for average cases (Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No.
and the results of tests. 136). Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Univer-
Chow, V. T., "Frequency Analysis in Small Water- sity, 1949. Pp. 152-168.
shed Hydrology," Agricultural Engineering, Vol. Describes the computation of magnitude and
39 (April, 1958), pp. 222-225. frequency of floods and recommends design pro-
Since a significant difference in hydrology cedure for single-span and multiple-span bridges
exists between small and large drainage basins. and culverts.
the author discusses the application of fre- Dalrymple , Tae, "Cooperative U.S.G.S. Program
quency analysis as it pertains only to small Imlproves Design of Bridge Waterway Areas,"
drainage basins or for upstream regions which Civil Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 3 (1951), p. 50.
comprise most agricultural areas. Outlines the limitations involved in the use
Cleemann, T. M., "Proper Amount of Water-Way of empirical flood flow formulas. Demonstrates
for Culverts," Proceedings, Engineers' Club of application of published hydrologic data to
Philadelphia, Vol. 1 (April 5, 1879), pp. 146- bridge waterway design.
149. [1] Dalrymple, Tate, "Hydrology in Design of Bridge
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
Waterways," North Carolina Engineer, July, Enger, M. L., "The Relation of Waterways to
1952. [56] Drainage Areas," Engineering Record, Vol. 57
Discusses the function of a bridge as a grade (1908), p. 138, reprinted from a paper read at
separation structure for both the vehicular traffic the Annual Meeting of the Illinois Society of
as well as the hydraulic traffic, requirement of Engineers and Surveyors.
magnitude and frequency of flood discharges, Brief notes on the size of waterway for cul-
stage-discharge relationship, and physical and verts and bridges with particular reference to
hydraulic characteristics of channel for a proper Minnesota and Dakota conditions.
calculation of the size of a bridge opening; flow
Exum, J. F. "Waterway Area for Culverts and
through single and multiple spans, factors con-
Small Bridges," Proceedings of the Ohio High-
sidered in design; and factors of safety.
way Engineering Conference, April 3-5, 1951
Davison, A. H., 'Methods of General Application (Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No.
Developed for Finding Peak Flood Flow," Civil 145). Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Uni-
Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 6 (1952), pp. 418-420. versity, 1951. Pp. 61-63. [45]
A series of charts, diagrams, and formulas Emphasizes that changing conditions have
which the author uses to develop an empirical brought about the necessity for more precise and
method of computing peak flow. The method accurate methods of designing the waterway
developed is basically a modification of the area than the old method of the application of
Manning formula. a formula such as Talbot formula. Suggests two
"Design of Waterway Areas for Bridges and Cul- parts of study: (1) ascertaining the quantity of
verts," Oregon State Highway Commission- water to be carried through the structure in a
Highway Department Technical Bulletin No. 4, unit of time, and (2) selecting the optimum size,
1934. shape, and position of the structure. The ra-
Compilation on economic design of waterway tional method is recommended.
areas and results of research by Oregon State
Garstka, W. V., "Hydrology of Small Watersheds
Highway Department in past 15 years, propor-
Under Winter Conditions of Snow Cover and
tioning waterway areas directly from formulas,
Frozen Soil," Transactions,American Geophy!s-
drainage tables, or from flood discharge; reliev-
ical Union, 1944, pp. 838-1060.
ing backwater head, deepening of channel due
Measurements of winter runoff and precipi-
to construction; theory of scour; current
tation on 3 small Michigan drainage basins.
stresses; and ice effect, drift impact.
Greve, F. W., "Hydrological Factors in the Design
Donovan, I). E., "Chart for Drainage Calcula-
of Culverts and Small Bridges," Roads and
tions," Engineering News Record, Vol. 135, No.
Bridges, Vol. 81, No. 4 (1943), pp. 32, 66, 68.
8 (1945), pp. 250-251.
Gives a formula for determining the time of [42]
Various methods of estimating peak flow are
concentration necessary in calculating storm
reviewed, including comparison with other
flows.
streams, empirical formulas, and actual flow
Iooge, J. C. I., "Rational Method for Estimating
measurement.
Flood Peaks," Engineering, (London) Vol. 184,
Greve, F. W., "Bridge and Culvert Flow Areas-
No. 4774 (September 6, 1957), pp. 311-313, and
Culvert Practice in Determining Runoff," Civil
No. 4776 (September 20, 1957), pp. 374-377.
Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 8 (1943), pp. 381-382.
[14]
Method used in determining size of trunk Same as Greve's paper in Roads and Bridges.
sewers, surface drainage channels, highway cul- Griffith, J. R., "Submerged Outlet Culvert Dis-
verts and bridge waterways, attempts of group charge - Construction Design," Western Con-
of Irish engineers, working more than 100 years struction Newus, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1939), p. 102.
ago, to develop a satisfactory method of pre- Gives alignment charts for the solution of an
dicting peak rate of runoff from small drainage exponential formula for culvert discharge.
basins; various steps from state of virtual ig- Gutmann, I., "New Cloudburst Flood Formula,"
norance to fully developed rational method be- Engineering News Record, Vol. 117, Nos. 14, 19,
ing clearly traced. and 26 (1936), pp. 474-475, 655, 905.
VII. APPENDICES
Presents an Italian formula for phenomenal Presentation of a formula for waterway area
cloudburst discharges modified to fit unusually applicable to the unusual combination of slope,
high runoff records in the United States and soil, and cover of eastern Kansas and Missouri.
abroad. The formula applies to drainage basins Horner, W. W., "A Rational Culvert Formula,"
of 1 to 70 sq. mi. in size. Engineering News, Vol. 69, No. 18 (1913), pp.
Harrison, E. A., "Determination of the Area of 912-913.
Waterway Required," Canadian Engineer, June Conversion of a rainfall curve for the St.
5, 1908. Louis area to a formula for the discharge of a
Discusses various methods of computing cul- small stream.
vert areas. Horner, W. W., "The Analysis of Hydrologic Data
Harrold, L. L., "Flow from Drainage Basins De- for Small Watersheds," Soil Conservation Serv-
termined by Short-Term Records," Transac- ice Technical PublicationNo. 30, 1940.
tions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. Analysis of data from several small drainage
111 (1946), pp. 597-608, discussion by Samuel basins by "losses" method.
Roberts and the author, pp. 609-612. Houk, I. E., "Hydraulic Design of Bridge Water-
Runoff data from small agricultural drainage ways," Engineering News Record, Vol. 88, No.
basins of Soil Conservation Experiment Station 26 (June, 1922), pp. 1071-1075. [40]
at La Crosse, Wisconsin, are used to derive Discusses individual design required for each
values of intervals. Suggests procedure for ad- opening, makeshift nature of formulas, cloud-
justing short period to a normal by comparing burst data, applying 1913 flood figures, scour
the rainfall frequency curve for the period to a velocities, and other considerations.
nearby long-record frequency curve. "Instruction for Bridge and Culvert Surveys," Ken-
Harrold, L. L., "Hydrologic Design of Farm Ponds tucky State Highway Department, no date.
and Rates of Runoff for Design of Conservation Describes arrangement of data, drainage
Structures in North Appalachian Region," U. S. areas, culverts and bridge survey items, and
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation methods of determining sizes of openings for
Service - Research SCS-TP 64, Washington 25, culverts and small bridges in Kentucky, the ra-
D. C., 1947, 18 pp. tional method being employed.
Presents the hydrologic design of farm Izzard, C. F., "Importance of Drainage Design in
ponds, gives rates of runoff for use in the design Highway Construction," Proceedings of the 3rd
of conservation structures on agricultural areas California Conference on Street and Highway
up to 10,000 acres, and lists data on sedimenta- Problems, Institute of Transportation and Traf-
tion. fic Engineering, University of California, 1951.
Hickok, R. B., R. V. Keppel, and B. R. Rafferty, [46]
"Hydrograph Synthesis for Small Arid-Land An outline of some ideas as to how the
Watersheds," Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 40, knowledge of hydraulics can be applied to the
No. 10 (October, 1959), pp. 608-611, 615. [36] design of highway drainage structures, including
Method is based on analysis of rainfall and the use of charts and diagrams for investigating
runoff records for 14 experimental drainage ba- the hydraulic properties of culverts, the entrance
sins in Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado; it and outlet controls, the hydraulic jump, the
involves estimation of characteristic lag time determination of peak run-off rates for small
from basin parameters, use of basin lag time drainage basins, and the estimation of back-
to predict hydrograph peak rate of assumed water caused by bridges.
total volume of runoff, synthesizing entire hy- Izzard, C. F., "Empirical Formulas for Bridge Wa-
drograph using lag time, estimating peak rate, terways Questioned," Civil Engineering, Vol. 46
and standard dimensionless hydrograph. (1951), p. 54.
Hoad, W. C., "Waterway Required at Culverts for A rebuttal to an October, 1950 article on
Drainage Areas in Eastern Kansas," Engineer- empirical design formulas, pointing out limita-
ing and Contracting, Vol. 37, No. 17 (1912), tions of empirical equations.
pp. 481-482. Izzard, C. F., "Peak Discharge for Highway Drain-
100 BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
formula for design flood for highway and culvert ican Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Hy-
design. draulics Division, Vol. 86, No. HY8, Pt. 1 (Au-
Mavis, F. T., "Reducing Unknowns in Small Cul- gust, 1960), pp. 17-38. [61]
vert Design," Engineering News Record, Vol. A method is presented for extending the
137, No. 2 (July 11, 1946), pp. 51-52. [43] period of runoff records based on analysis of
Development of rating chart to be used for existing short-term rainfall-runoff records for
determination of discharge through culvert; the watershed and a longer record of the rain-
schematic analysis of rainfall and runoff records fall alone. The method involves: (1) estimat-
shows how time of concentration for drainage ing runoff volumes from the rainfall pattern and
basin and intensity of rainfall can be found antecedent rainfall, and (2) distributing this
easily. runoff by the unit hydrograph principle. A
method is also presented for developing syn-
Merrell, J. C., "Hydrology for Highway Struc-
thetic unit hydrographs for ungaged areas.
tures," Proceedings of the Ohio Highway Engi-
neering Conference, April 3-5, 1951, (Engineer- Munson, T. M., "Formulas and Methods in General
ing Experiment Station Bulletin No. 145). Use by Engineers to Determine Runoff from
Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Watershed Areas," Texas Engineer, Vol. 4, No.
1951. Pp. 64-77. [44] 4 (April, 1934), p. 7. [27]
Recommends aids in obtaining data and Lists 36 formulas and 4 sets of curves in
three design factors pertaining to hydrology determining runoff and sizes of highway and
which should be considered in designing a struc- railroad drainage structures.
ture. Describes hydraulic conditions of channel Murphy, E. C., "Method of Computing Cross-
changes and overflows which are encountered Section Area of Waterways," Water Supply and
but often ignored in practical problems. Irrigation, U. S. Geological Survey Paper No.
Miller, T. F., and J. L. H. Paulhus, "Rainfall-Runoff 147, 1905, pp. 182-193.
Relations for Small Basins," Transactions, Describes factors determining maximum rate
American Geophysical Union, Vol. 38, No. 2 of discharge, data on maximum discharges in
(1957), pp. 216-218. Northeastern United States, and formulas for
Procedures for computing storm runoff from maximum discharge and area of cross-section.
rainfall for large basins are not adaptable to Ordon, C. J., "A Modified Rational Formula for
small ones. A derivation of rainfall-runoff rela- Storm-Water Runoff," Water Sewage Works,
tion for basin of 4.1 sq. mi. and its applications Vol. 101 (1954), pp. 275-277.
are given. Discusses the rational formula proposing new
values of the runoff coefficient. Suggests an area
Minshall, N. E., "Rates of Runoff for the Design
factor to modify (reduce) computed flows for
of Conservation Structures in the Upper Missis-
areas over 500 acres.
sippi Valley Upland Loessial Areas," U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Serv- Pence, W. D., "The Best Method of Determining
ice - Research, SCS-TP-73, Washington 25, the Size of Waterways" (Appendix B of Report
D. C., 1949, 30 pp. of Committee No. 1- On Roadway), Proceed-
Presents a brief history of the work and a ings, American Railway Engineering and Main-
detailed description of the drainage basins, in- tenance of Way Association Bulletin 108, Vol.
strumentation, and procedures employed in the 10, Pt. II (1909), pp. 967-1022. [23]
collection and compilation of data from runoff Describes the need for the best method and
studies near Fennimore, Wisconsin. Outlines gives a comprehensive presentation of several
methods in general use. Includes a digest of
briefly the methods of analysis and presents, in
current practice and items covered by a circular
both tabular and graphical form, recommended
of inquiry to 27 writers on the subject of water-
rates of runoff, from small agricultural drainage
way areas.
basins, to be used in the design of conservation
Pence, W. D., "Waterway for Culverts," Proceed-
structures.
ings, American Railway Engineering and Main-
Minshall, N. E., "Predicting Storm Runoff on Small tenance of Way Association, Vol. 12, Pt. 3
Experimental Watersheds," Proceedings, Amer- (1911), pp. 481-528.
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS
A brief historical account, compilation and Potter, W. D., "Peak Rates of Runoff from Small
comparison of formulas, permissible velocity, Watersheds," Hydraulic Design Series No. 2,
and other features. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Pub-
Pettis, C. R., "A New Theory of River Flood Flow," lic Roads, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Baltimore, April, 1961. [62]
Maryland, 1927. This investigation deals with drainage basins
Flood probability formula modified to im- of 25 sq. mi. or less in size located east of the
prove it both practically and theoretically; rain- 105th meridian. First, a correlation analysis of
fall index for the entire United States developed the ungaged basin sample is established between
from runoff records; limits of applicability. a topographic index T, a precipitation index P,
and the area of the basin A. The result is ap-
Potter, W. D., "Surface Runoff from Agricultural
plied to the gaged watershed sample for devel-
Watersheds," Surface Drainage, Highway Re-
oping satisfactory correlations between the peak
search Board Report No. 11-B, 1950, pp. 21-35.
discharge of 10-year frequency, Q,,, and the
[19]
indices A, T and P. These correlations are used
Describes unsatisfactory attempts to supple-
to correct the errors in Qo for those gaged sam-
ment short-time runoff records with long-time
ples which do not show satisfactory correlations
rainfall records for small watersheds by use of:
but discrepancies of varying degrees.
(1) direct relationships between rainfall inten-
sity and rates of runoff, (2) rational method, Powell, R. W., "Insurance Concept Balances Eco-
(3) unit hydrograph and (4) infiltration theory. nomic Factors in Culvert Design," Civil Engi-
Suggests the Cumbel method for use in proba- neering, Vol. 23 (1953), p. 64.
bility studies of skewed distributions as those Presents an analytical solution to the prob-
of rainfall and runoff data. The method of com- lem of adequacy in culvert design, assuming
puting peak rates based on the probability curve that annual cost of capital recovery plus cost
is described. Peak rates summarized for five of of insurance against damage is least for the
seven physiographic areas are recommended for correct design.
use in the design of conservation structures. Ramser, C. E., "Runoff from Small Agricultural
Potter, W. D., "Rainfall and Topographic Factors Areas," Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol.
that Affect Runoff," Transactions, American 34, No. 9 (May 1, 1927), pp. 797-823. [29]
Geophysical Union, Vol. 34 (1953), pp. 68-73. Description of tests of 6 small drainage ba-
sins in Tennessee to determine runoff coefficient
[51]
Describes a procedure in which easily deter- for various types of cover, soil, and topography.
mined rainfall and topographic factors are used Ramser, C. E., "Brief Instructions on Methods of
to compensate for the lack of long-term runoff Gully Control," U. S. Department of Agricul-
records and to increase the reliability of esti- tural Engineering (mimeographed), August,
mates of peak rates from small drainage basins 1933, pp. 16, 21-23, 26-27. [28]
in Allegheny-Cumberland Plateau area. Discus- The so-called "Ramser Curves" are pre-
sion by R. W. Powell, Vol. 34 (1953), p. 952. sented. These curves for 10- and 50-year expect-
ancies were computed by the rational method
Potter, W. D., "Use of Indices in Estimating Peak
with values of "C" and of "times of concentra-
Rates of Runoff," Public Roads, Vol. 28, No. 1
tion" based largely on the results of measure-
(April, 1954), pp. 1-8. [52]
ments made in 1918 on 6 small drainage basins
Presents results of a sample study for
(1.25 to 112 acres) near Jackson, Tennessee.
estimating peak rates of runoff in the Alle-
gheny-Cumberland Plateau and the glaciated Rowe, R. R., and R. L. Thomas, "Comparative
sandstone and shale areas of New York, Penn- Hydrology Pertinent to California Culvert Prac-
tice," California Highways and Public Works,
sylvania, and Ohio.
Vol. 20 (September, 1942), pp. 6-11. [38]
Potter, W. D., "Upper and Lower Frequency Curves Rainfall and flood frequency data are pre-
for Peak Rates of Runoffs," Transactions, sented for California and compared with those
American Geophysical Union, Vol. 39, No. 1 for other areas. A new formula for design dis-
(February, 1958), pp. 100-105. charge is presented in form of nomograph.
VII. APPENDICES
Smith, W. E., "The Hydrologic Behavior of Agri- the present time, methods involving basin char-
cultural Watersheds," Transactions, American acteristics and climatological effects are used in
Geophysical Union, 1944, pp. 1048-59. place of the old Kochrin approach. Suggests an
Gives runoff data from several small drain- organization to study the problems of flood dis-
age basins in Ohio and discusses the influences charge on a large scale. A formula developed
of type of cover. by the Russian Scientific Academy is presented.
Snyder, F. F., "Synthetic Flood Frequency," Pro- Talbot, A. N., "The Determination of Water-Way
ceedings of the American Society of Civil Engi- for Bridges and Culverts," Selected Papers of
neers, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Vol. the Civil Engineers' Club, Technograph No. 2,
84, No. HY5, Pt. 1 (October, 1958), pp. 1-22. University of Illinois, 1887-8, pp. 14-22. [5]
[59] Proposes a formula for the determination of
A procedure is developed for computing the waterway area for culverts and a method for the
flood discharge probability associated with a calculation of bridge openings. The formula is
given rainfall-duration-frequency pattern on based on the Biirkli-Ziegler formula and on two
natural drainage basins, non-channelized over- assumptions that area of flow in the stream is
land flow areas and areas with storm sewer directly proportional to the discharge, and that
drainage utilizing basin runoff-producing char- velocity in the culvert would be the same as in
acteristics of area, length, slope, friction, and the stream above. For bridge waterways, the
shape. use of Ch6zy formula is suggested. It is stated
Spindler, W. H., "How to Design and Install Cul- that the judgment must be the main dependence,
verts," Public Works, Vol. 87, No. 1 (1956), pp. the formula being a guide to it.
83-90. Tasker, E., "Some Observations on the Carrying
Discusses waterway area determination by of Main Roads over Small Watercourses (Cul-
inspection, Talbot formula, and Jarvis-Myers verts, Bridges, etc.)," Surveyor (Land), Vol. 73,
formula; and also outlet conditions, alignment No. 1876 (1928), pp. 15-18.
problems, lengths required, and installation Discusses waterway areas of small culverts;
procedures. types of structures; steel construction; concrete
Springer, G. P., "Adequate Waterways for Culverts culverts; flat-slab reinforced concrete culverts;
and Bridges," Proceedings, 17th Annual Road materials, parapets, approaches; tests.
School at Purdue University, January 19-23, Tholin, A. L., and C. J. Keifer, "Hydrology of
1931, Purdue University Engineering Bulletin, Urban Runoff," Proceedings, American Society
Vol. 15, No. 2 (March, 1936). [41] of Civil Engineers, Journal of Sanitary Engi-
Describes highway drainage in general, ca- neering Division PaperNo. 1984, Vol. 85 (1959),
pacity of side ditches, and its calculation, infor- pp. 47-106.
mation for design office, determination of drain- A study of rainfall-runoff relationships in
age opening, and study of culverts and small urban areas based upon a design storm on differ-
bridges. ent types of uniform land use is presented. De-
Springer, G. P., "Waterways for Culverts and sign graphs and the effects of variations in areal
Bridges," CanadianEngineering, Vol. 60, No. 17 distribution of rainfall are given.
(1931), pp. 25, 61-62, 65. Tilton, G. A., Jr., and R. R. Rowe, "Culvert Design
Same as Springer's paper in Proceedings, in California," Proceedings, Highway Research
17th Annual Road School at Purdue University, Board, 1943, Vol. 23 (1944), pp. 165-206. [63]
January 19-23, 1931. Reviews hydrologic and hydraulic principles
Sribnyi, M. F., "Method of Determining Maximum used in design of California culverts. Flood
Flood Discharge from its Relation to the Area frequency in California is compared with east-
of the Watershed," Russian Scientific Academy ern states and nomograph for determination of
News, (Izv. AN SSSR otd. teck nauk), No. 1 design discharge is presented.
(1952), pp. 140-152. Turner, Bill, "Graph for Talbot's Formula," Engi-
Describes the brief history and the trend of neering News Record, Vol. 126, No. 25 (June 19,
the development of hydrology in USSR. At 1941), p. 971. [91
BULLETIN 462. HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATION OF WATERWAY AREAS