AGRD05A-13 Guide To Road Design Part 5A DrainageRoad Surface Networks Basins and Subsurface Ed1.2

Guide to Road Design Part 5A:
Drainage – Road Surface, Networks, Basins and

Subsurface
Sydney 2021
Guide to Road Design Part 5A: Drainage – Road Surface, Networks, Basins and Subsurface
Publisher
Edition 1.2 prepared by: Road Design Drainage Technical Sub-committee
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Edition 1.2 project manager: Richard Fanning Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
Abstract
austroads@austroads.com.au
The Guide to Road Design Part 5A: Drainage – Road Surface, Networks, www.austroads.com.au
Basins and Subsurface, provides road designers and other practitioners with
guidance on the design of the collection and discharge of water from road About Austroads
surfaces, pit and pipe systems, basins and subsurface drains.
Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian
This Guide needs to be used in conjunction with the other two Parts of the road transport and traffic agencies.
Guide to Road Design that relate to drainage design:
Austroads’ purpose is to support our member
• Part 5: Drainage – General and Hydrology Considerations organisations to deliver an improved Australasian
• Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels, Culverts and Floodways. road transport network. To succeed in this task, we
undertake leading-edge road and transport
This Guide contains information on major/minor drainage systems, and the research which underpins our input to policy
collection and discharge of road surface flows to support the operation and development and published guidance on the
management of the road network. Guidance is provided on aquaplaning, and design, construction and management of the road
the design of drainage inlets and pipe networks receiving the flows. The network and its associated infrastructure.
principles of retention and detention basins and their design are also outlined.
Austroads provides a collective approach that
delivers value for money, encourages shared
Keywords knowledge and drives consistency for road users.
major/minor systems, road surface, aquaplaning, road surfacing, film depth, Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of
kerb drainage, drainage inlets, inlet capacity, underground pipe networks, inlet senior executive representatives from each of its
spacing, access chambers, pipes, basins, retention, detention, subsurface eleven member organisations:
Edition 1.2 published February 2021

• Transport for NSW
• Department of Transport Victoria
Edition 1.2 includes an updated Figure 1.1and additional guidance related to
motorcycle friendly infrastructure in Section 4.8 and 5.2. • Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads
Edition 1.1 published August 2018
Edition 1.0 published May 2013 • Main Roads Western Australia
• Department for Infrastructure and Transport
South Australia
ISBN 978-1-922382-20-7 • Department of State Growth Tasmania

• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Austroads Project No. SRD6219 Pages 205 Logistics Northern Territory
Austroads Publication No. AGRD05A-13 • Transport Canberra and City Services
Directorate, Australian Capital Territory
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
© Austroads Ltd 2021
Regional Development and Communications
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the • Australian Local Government Association
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without
the prior written permission of Austroads. • New Zealand Transport Agency.
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide only. Austroads has taken care to ensure that this publication is correct at
the time of publication. Austroads does not make any representations or warrant that the Guide is free from error, is current, or,
where used, will ensure compliance with any legislative, regulatory or general law requirements. Austroads expressly disclaims all
and any guarantees, undertakings and warranties, expressed or implied, and is not liable, including for negligence, for any loss
(incidental or consequential), injury, damage or any other consequences arising directly or indirectly from the use of this Guide.
Where third party information is contained in this Guide, it is included with the consent of the third party and in good faith. It does not
necessarily reflect the considered views of Austroads Readers should rely on their own skill, care and judgement to apply the
information contained in this Guide and seek professional advice regarding their particular issues.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the role and contribution of the Austroads Road Design Task Force in providing guidance and information
during the preparation of this guide. The panel comprised the following members:
• Mr Pat Kenny – Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales

• Mr Richard Fanning – Roads Corporation, Victoria (Project Manager)
• Dr Owen Arndt – Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
• Mr Rob Grove – Main Roads Western Australia
• Mr Noel O’Callaghan – Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, South Australia
• Mr Shane Gregory – Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmania
• Mr Bryan Matyorauta – Northern Territory Department of Transport
• Mr Ken Marshall – ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services
• Ms Sylvia Soon – Australian Local Government Association
• Mr James Hughes – NZ Transport Agency
• Mr Tom Brock – Consult Australia
• Mr Peter Watts – Australian Bicycle Council
• Mr Michael Tziotis – ARRB Group Ltd.
Road Design Drainage Technical Sub-committee
The Austroads Road Design Task Force and Project Manager acknowledge the role and contribution of the AGRD Part 5: Drainage
Technical Sub-committee in the development and preparation of this Guide. The Sub-committee comprised the following members:
• Ms Marianne Robertson – Roads Corporation Victoria (VicRoads) – Project Manager

• Mr Mike Whitehead – Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
• Mr Michael Vujcich – BG&E and Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)
• Mr Peter McCarten – Opus International for NZ Transport Agency
• Mr David House – Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales
• Mr Jan Mikitczuk – Roads Corporation, Victoria (VicRoads)
• Ms Sylvia Soon – Australian, Local Government Association
• Mr Peter Aumann – ARRB Group Ltd – Project Leader.
ACO Polycrete Pty Ltd., have provided Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7 and have been reproduced with permission. For use of these
figures, approval must be obtained from ACO Polycrete Pty Ltd.
Catchments and Creeks have ownership of the diagrams in Figure 6.8 and have been reproduced with permission. These images
cannot be reproduced within another publication without the written permission from the Director of Catchments and Creeks Pty Ltd.
Summary
The Guide to Road Design – Part 5A: Drainage – Road Surface, Networks, Basins and Subsurface, provides
road designers and other practitioners with guidance on the design of the collection and discharge of water
from road surfaces, pit and pipe systems, basins and subsurface drains. This guide does not provide all the
information necessary to complete a design and needs to be used in conjunction with the other two parts of
the Guide to Road Design that relate to drainage design, namely:
• Part 5: Drainage – General and Hydrology Considerations
• Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels, Culverts and Floodways.
The guide includes design processes and formulae necessary to design effective drainage systems and
infrastructure. It is supported by appendices containing design charts and worked examples that provide
further information.
This guide provides guidelines on good practice in relation to drainage design that will apply in most
situations, rather than specifying mandatory practice. The reason for this is that there are many factors that
influence the design of a road and drainage system for a particular situation or site, and practitioners
therefore need to exercise sound judgement in applying the information contained in this guide.
Austroads 2021 | page i

Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of this Part ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Road Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Major/Minor Drainage Concept ............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Minor System............................................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Major System............................................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Regional Approach ................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Design Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.6 Planning of Major Urban Systems ............................................................................................................ 6
2.6.1 Isolated and Non-isolated (Connectivity of) Catchments ........................................................... 6
2.6.2 Major Urban Drainage Design Concepts.................................................................................... 7
2.6.3 Major Urban System Planning Procedure .................................................................................. 8
2.6.4 Design Recurrence Interval ...................................................................................................... 14
2.7 Worked Examples – Major/Minor Drainage System .............................................................................. 14
2.7.1 Example 1: Estimation of Gap Flow ......................................................................................... 14
2.7.2 Example 2: Major Drainage System Design............................................................................. 16
3. Road Surface Drainage ........................................................................................................................ 30

3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2 Road Surface Flow ................................................................................................................................. 30
3.3 Capture, Movement and Disposal of Surface Flows .............................................................................. 31
3.3.1 Concentration and Capture of Surface Water .......................................................................... 31
3.3.2 Movement of Captured Water .................................................................................................. 31
3.3.3 Water Disposal ......................................................................................................................... 31
3.4 Road Pavement and Subsurface Drainage ............................................................................................ 32
4. Aquaplaning .......................................................................................................................................... 33
4.1 What is Aquaplaning? ............................................................................................................................ 33
4.2 Aquaplaning vs Skidding ........................................................................................................................ 34
4.3 Assessment Process .............................................................................................................................. 34
4.4 Causal Factors ....................................................................................................................................... 34
4.5 Road Surfacing ....................................................................................................................................... 35
4.5.1 Pavement Surface Types ......................................................................................................... 36
4.6 Tyres....................................................................................................................................................... 38
4.7 The Road-tyre Interface ......................................................................................................................... 38
4.8 Skid Resistance ...................................................................................................................................... 41
4.9 Assessment – Water Film Depth ............................................................................................................ 42
4.9.1 Adopted Method ....................................................................................................................... 42
4.9.2 Basis/Limits............................................................................................................................... 43
4.9.3 Texture Depth ........................................................................................................................... 44
4.9.4 Drainage Path ........................................................................................................................... 45
4.9.5 Rainfall Intensity ....................................................................................................................... 47
4.10 Assessment – Aquaplaning Potential ..................................................................................................... 47
4.10.1 Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................................. 48
4.10.2 Basis/Limits............................................................................................................................... 49
4.11 Quick Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 49
4.12 Puddles/Wheel Ruts ............................................................................................................................... 49
4.13 Guidance to Reduce Aquaplaning Potential .......................................................................................... 50
4.14 Worked Example 1 – Aquaplaning ......................................................................................................... 51
Austroads 2021 | page ii

5. Kerbed Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 55

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 55
5.1.1 Scope........................................................................................................................................ 56
5.2 Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.2 Drainage Inlet Types ................................................................................................................ 56
5.2.3 Existing Drainage Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 57
5.2.4 Location of Other Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 57
5.2.5 Bridges and Other Structures ................................................................................................... 58
5.2.6 Non-motorised Road Users ...................................................................................................... 58
5.2.7 Materials ................................................................................................................................... 59
5.2.8 Structural Considerations ......................................................................................................... 59
5.2.9 Safety Considerations .............................................................................................................. 59
5.2.10 Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 59
5.2.11 Computer Programs ................................................................................................................. 60
5.3 Kerbed Drainage Elements .................................................................................................................... 60
5.3.1 Kerbing ..................................................................................................................................... 60
5.3.2 Inlets ......................................................................................................................................... 60
5.3.3 Inlet Capacity ............................................................................................................................ 63
5.3.4 Inlet Locations........................................................................................................................... 64
5.4 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 67
5.4.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 67
5.4.2 Pavement Spread and Gutter Flow Limits................................................................................ 68
5.4.3 Spacing ..................................................................................................................................... 70
5.4.4 Size ........................................................................................................................................... 70
5.4.5 Gradient .................................................................................................................................... 70
5.5 Design Theory ........................................................................................................................................ 71
5.5.1 Gutter Flow ............................................................................................................................... 71
5.5.2 Inlet Capture Rates ................................................................................................................... 74
5.5.3 Blockage ................................................................................................................................... 82
5.6 Design Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 83
5.6.1 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 84
5.6.2 Site Investigation ...................................................................................................................... 85
5.6.3 Identify Drainage Outfalls ......................................................................................................... 85
5.6.4 Establish Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 85
5.6.5 Select Inlet Type ....................................................................................................................... 85
5.6.6 Placement of Trial Inlets ........................................................................................................... 85
5.6.7 Define Sub-catchments ............................................................................................................ 86
5.6.8 Calculate Run-off Coefficients .................................................................................................. 87
5.6.9 Calculate Time of Concentration .............................................................................................. 87
5.6.10 Establish Design Rainfall Intensity ........................................................................................... 87
5.6.11 Calculate Design Flows ............................................................................................................ 87
5.6.12 Spread Compliance Check ....................................................................................................... 87
5.6.13 Establish Inlet Capture Flows ................................................................................................... 87
5.6.14 Design of Underground Piped Network .................................................................................... 88
5.6.15 Major Event Check ................................................................................................................... 88
5.6.16 Design Documentation ............................................................................................................. 88
5.7 Worked Example – Kerbed Drainage ..................................................................................................... 90
5.7.1 Example 1: Gutter Flow ............................................................................................................ 90
5.7.2 Example 2: Pit Spacing ............................................................................................................ 94
6. Underground Piped Networks............................................................................................................. 99

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 99
6.2 Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 99
6.2.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 99
6.2.2 Drainage Outfalls ...................................................................................................................... 99
6.2.3 Access Chamber Location...................................................................................................... 100
Austroads 2021 | page iii

6.2.4 Existing Drainage Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 100

6.2.5 Location of Other Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 101
6.2.6 Bridge Decks .......................................................................................................................... 101
6.2.7 Structural Considerations ....................................................................................................... 101
6.2.8 Road User Considerations ..................................................................................................... 102
6.3 Piped Network Elements ......................................................................................................................102
6.3.1 Access Chambers .................................................................................................................. 102
6.3.2 Pipes ....................................................................................................................................... 104
6.3.3 Materials ................................................................................................................................. 104
6.4 Structural Requirements.......................................................................................................................104
6.4.1 Pipes ....................................................................................................................................... 104
6.4.2 Joint Types ............................................................................................................................. 106
6.4.3 Bedding and Haunch Support ................................................................................................ 106
6.5 Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................................107
6.5.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 107
6.5.2 Size ......................................................................................................................................... 107
6.5.3 Depth of Installation/Minimum Cover ..................................................................................... 107
6.5.4 Pipe Velocities and Grades .................................................................................................... 108
6.5.5 Clearances.............................................................................................................................. 109
6.6 Design Theory ......................................................................................................................................109
6.6.1 Hydraulic Calculations – General ........................................................................................... 109
6.6.2 Hydraulic Grade Line and Total Energy Line ......................................................................... 110
6.6.3 Starting HGL (Tailwater) ......................................................................................................... 112
6.6.4 Losses – General ................................................................................................................... 114
6.6.5 Friction Losses ....................................................................................................................... 115
6.6.6 Losses at Pipe Bends ............................................................................................................. 118
6.6.7 Exit Losses ............................................................................................................................. 120
6.6.8 Pit Losses ............................................................................................................................... 120
6.6.9 Drop Through Pits .................................................................................................................. 123
6.6.10 Drop Pits ................................................................................................................................. 123
6.6.11 Pipe Sizing .............................................................................................................................. 125
6.6.12 Reduction in Pipe Size ........................................................................................................... 127
6.6.13 Special Design Case .............................................................................................................. 127
6.7 Design Procedure .................................................................................................................................127
6.7.1 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 128
6.7.2 Site Investigation .................................................................................................................... 128
6.7.3 Computer Software ................................................................................................................. 128
6.7.4 Design Process ...................................................................................................................... 128
6.7.5 Design Flow Chart .................................................................................................................. 130
6.8 Construction and Maintenance.............................................................................................................132
6.9 Worked Example – Pipes Network .......................................................................................................132
6.9.1 Example 1: Pipeline Design (Hydraulic Gradeline Design) .................................................... 132
7. Basins ..................................................................................................................................................137
7.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................137
7.1.1 Scope...................................................................................................................................... 137
7.1.2 Types of Basins ...................................................................................................................... 137
7.1.3 Characteristics of Basins ........................................................................................................ 137
7.1.4 Basin Construction ................................................................................................................. 138
7.2 Detention Basins ..................................................................................................................................139
7.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 139
7.2.2 Types of Detention Basins...................................................................................................... 139
7.2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Detention Basins ............................................................ 140
7.2.4 Design Principles – Detention Basins .................................................................................... 140
7.2.5 Design Principles – On-site Detention .................................................................................... 141
7.2.6 Design Procedure for a Detention Basin ................................................................................ 143
7.2.7 Initial Design and Feasibility ................................................................................................... 145
Austroads 2021 | page iv

7.2.8 Simple Hydrologic Method of Routing .................................................................................... 147

7.2.9 Other Design Considerations ................................................................................................. 153
7.3 Extended Detention Basin ....................................................................................................................157
7.3.1 Description .............................................................................................................................. 157
7.3.2 Design Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 157
7.4 Retention Basins ..................................................................................................................................158
7.4.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 158
7.4.2 Information Required .............................................................................................................. 158
7.4.3 Location .................................................................................................................................. 158
7.4.4 Layout ..................................................................................................................................... 159
7.4.5 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 159
7.5 Worked Example – Basin .....................................................................................................................160
7.5.1 Example: Calculating Basin Size ............................................................................................ 160
8. Subsurface Drainage .........................................................................................................................164

8.1 Purpose of Subsurface Drainage .........................................................................................................164
8.2 Other Relevant Austroads Guides........................................................................................................164
8.3 Sources of Moisture .............................................................................................................................165
8.4 Control of Road Moisture .....................................................................................................................166
8.5 Types of Subsurface Drains .................................................................................................................166
8.6 Locations of Subsurface Drains ...........................................................................................................168
8.6.1 Longitudinal Subsurface Drains.............................................................................................. 169
8.6.2 Transverse Subsurface Drains ............................................................................................... 169
8.6.3 Cut-off (Formation) Drains ...................................................................................................... 169
8.6.4 Combined Stormwater and Groundwater Drains ................................................................... 170
8.6.5 Locations of Subsurface Drains on Rural Roads ................................................................... 170
8.6.6 Access to Subsurface Drains ................................................................................................. 170
8.7 Drainage Details ...................................................................................................................................172
8.7.1 Size of Drain ........................................................................................................................... 172
8.7.2 Materials ................................................................................................................................. 172
8.7.3 Filters ...................................................................................................................................... 173
8.7.4 Minimum Diameter ................................................................................................................. 173
8.7.5 Minimum Cover ...................................................................................................................... 173
8.7.6 Minimum Grades .................................................................................................................... 173
8.7.7 Sub-pavement Layers ............................................................................................................ 173
8.8 Design Procedures ...............................................................................................................................174
8.8.1 Data Required ........................................................................................................................ 174
8.8.2 Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 174
8.9 Specialist Subsurface Drainage Techniques .......................................................................................175
8.9.1 Lowering of Groundwater Table ............................................................................................. 175
8.9.2 Schilfgaarde’s Method ............................................................................................................ 176
8.9.3 Draining an Inclined Aquifer ................................................................................................... 179
8.9.4 Design of a Drainage Blanket to Lower a Water Table .......................................................... 181
8.9.5 Design of Cut-off (Formation) Drains ..................................................................................... 181
8.9.6 Capillary Rise in Soils ............................................................................................................. 182
8.10 Worked Examples – Subsurface ..........................................................................................................183
References ....................................................................................................................................................184
Appendix A Pit Performance Curves used in Victoria ............................................................................187
Appendix B Discharge-Velocity Curves ...................................................................................................201
Appendix C Example Pipe Chart for Minimum Pipe Cover For Various Compactors .........................205
Austroads 2021 | page v

Tables
Table 2.1: Frequency factors for coefficient of run-off ............................................................................. 12
Table 2.2: Design storm durations for small urban catchments............................................................... 12
Table 2.3: Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) for a 45 minute duration storm in tropical Australia ........................ 15
Table 2.4: Estimation of Qgap for ARI of 100 years ................................................................................... 15
Table 2.5: Capacity flows, Qc, and storage-corrected capacity flows (in brackets) for 7.5 m
and 10.0 m carriageways ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 2.6: Major drainage system planning table .................................................................................... 20
Table 2.7: Network review for catchments L, M, N, P.............................................................................. 23
Table 4.1: Road texture depth ................................................................................................................. 45
Table 4.2: Extract drainage path profile for DP2 ...................................................................................... 53
Table 4.3: Summary of calculations ......................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.4: Summary of water film depth calculation ................................................................................ 54
Table 5.1: Allowable spread widths and gutter flows ............................................................................... 68
Table 5.2: Roadway flow limitations – major storm ................................................................................. 70
Table 5.3: Manning’s roughness coefficient – flow in triangular channels............................................... 73
Table 5.4: Provision for pit blockage ........................................................................................................ 83
Table 5.5: Calculation of areas ................................................................................................................ 95
Table 6.1: Minimum cover on pipes .......................................................................................................105
Table 6.2: Flow velocities for pipes ........................................................................................................108
Table 6.3: Acceptable pipe grades for pipes flowing full........................................................................109
Table 6.4: Manning’s n values for closed artificial channels ..................................................................115
Table 6.5: Minimum lengths of drainage pits .........................................................................................125
Table 6.6: Pipe roughness values, Ks (m) concrete ...............................................................................126
Table 6.7: Maximum allowable reduction in pipe size ...........................................................................127
Table 7.1: Detention basin – advantages and disadvantages ...............................................................140
Table 7.2: General requirements for detention basins...........................................................................144
Table 7.3: Minimum embankment top width for detention basins .........................................................154
Table 7.4: Criteria for outlet structures...................................................................................................155
Table 8.1: Minimum pit width .................................................................................................................171
Table 8.2: Effectiveness of trench drainage systems ............................................................................175
Table 8.3: Surface infiltration coefficient ................................................................................................182
Figures
Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Guide to Road Design ......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.1: Major and minor drainage systems in the urban landscape ..................................................... 4
Figure 2.2: Hydrographs for slope-aligned urban drainage units ................................................................ 7
Figure 2.3: Uneven flows in dual-channel carriageway due to natural cross slope .................................... 9
Figure 2.4: One-way crossfall suitable for upper and/or remote areas of catchments ............................. 10
Figure 2.5: Intensity x frequency factor for various ARI plotted on a logarithmic scale ............................ 15
Figure 2.6: Theoretical residential subdivision in the Adelaide foothills .................................................... 17
Figure 2.7: Sub-areas within catchment.................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4.1: Key texture elements of pavement surfaces........................................................................... 36
Figure 4.2: Schematics of aggregate skeletons for asphalt mix types ...................................................... 37
Figure 4.3: Mechanisms of road-tyre friction ............................................................................................. 38
Figure 4.4: Tyre tread voids ...................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.5: Pavement surface voids below top of aggregate .................................................................... 39
Figure 4.6: Water wedge at separation ..................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.7: Tyre tread depth influence: 1 mm water depth ....................................................................... 41
Figure 4.8: Aquaplaning example (road surface contours) ....................................................................... 43
Figure 4.9: Texture depth .......................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.10: Point-to-point vs equal area slope .......................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.11: Equal area slope ..................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.12: Puddle depth formula .............................................................................................................. 50
Figure 4.13: Road surface contours ............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 4.14: Part of cross-section ............................................................................................................... 52
Austroads 2021 | page vi

Figure 5.1: Road carriageway before and after installing drainage inlets ................................................. 55
Figure 5.2: Road widening with existing inlet ............................................................................................ 57
Figure 5.3: Side entry inlet ........................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 5.5: Combination side entry inlet and grated gully ......................................................................... 62
Figure 5.6: Slotted kerb drain .................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 5.7: Grated trench drain ................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 5.8: Deflector apron slab ................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 5.9: Sag in a road with supercritical approach flows...................................................................... 66
Figure 5.10: Limit condition for a sag to act as an on-grade inlet (n = 0.013) ............................................ 67
Figure 5.11: Profile for flow analysis ........................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.12: Depressed kerb opening inlet ................................................................................................. 76
Figure 5.13: Frontal flow and side flow ....................................................................................................... 77
Figure 5.14: Skip over velocity v length of grate ......................................................................................... 78
Figure 5.15: Definitions for orifice flow (side entry pit) ................................................................................ 81
Figure 5.16: Definitions for orifice flow (grate) ............................................................................................ 82
Figure 5.17: Alternative network systems ................................................................................................... 86
Figure 5.18: Flow chart for pit inlet positions............................................................................................... 89
Figure 5.19: Channel profile ........................................................................................................................ 90
Figure 5.20: Flow in triangular gutter sections ............................................................................................ 93
Figure 5.21: Ratio of frontal flow to total gutter flow .................................................................................... 94
Figure 5.22: Layout plan.............................................................................................................................. 95
Figure 5.23: Run-off coefficients for urban drainage ................................................................................... 96
Figure 5.24: Side entry pit inlet chart .......................................................................................................... 98
Figure 6.1: Inflow pipe directed at centre of outflow pipe........................................................................103
Figure 6.2: Streamlines resulting from inflow pipe directed at pit centre ................................................103
Figure 6.3: Bellmouth entrance to outlet pipe .........................................................................................104
Figure 6.4: Inlet chamber showing water level well above outlet obvert.................................................104
Figure 6.5: Simple steady flow open channel model ..............................................................................111
Figure 6.6: Steady flow, pressured grade line model..............................................................................111
Figure 6.7: Complex, unsteady flow model .............................................................................................112
Figure 6.8: Tailwater at outfall .................................................................................................................113
Figure 6.9: Moody diagram .....................................................................................................................117
Figure 6.10: Friction and pit head losses – definitive sketch ....................................................................118
Figure 6.11: Bend loss coefficient in curved pipes ....................................................................................119
Figure 6.12: Average head loss factors for pits.........................................................................................122
Figure 6.13: Head loss for changes in direction in pits .............................................................................123
Figure 6.14: Definition of ‘drop’ at a pit .....................................................................................................124
Figure 6.15: A drop pit ...............................................................................................................................124
Figure 6.16: Pipe network systems ...........................................................................................................129
Figure 6.17: Underground drainage design flow chart ..............................................................................131
Figure 6.18: Pipe longitudinal section .......................................................................................................135
Figure 6.19: Moody diagram .....................................................................................................................136
Figure 7.1: Typical detention basin .........................................................................................................141
Figure 7.2: Design flow chart for detention basin ....................................................................................143
Figure 7.3: Triangular shaped hydrographs ............................................................................................145
Figure 7.4: Typical storage curve ............................................................................................................148
Figure 7.5: Typical outflow rating curve ..................................................................................................148
Figure 7.6: Division of inflow hydrograph into unit time periods..............................................................149
Figure 7.7: Volumes of storage and outflow for varying flow depths ......................................................151
Figure 7.8: Volumes of storage adjusted by half the outflow volume for varying flow depths ................151
Figure 7.9: Routing procedure ................................................................................................................152
Figure 7.10: Outflow hydrograph ...............................................................................................................153
Figure 7.11: Storage combinations with retention basins .........................................................................162
Figure 7.12: Relationship of basin area to catchment area ......................................................................163
Figure 7.13: Relationship of pollution reduction to residence time ...........................................................163
Figure 8.1: Sources of moisture ..............................................................................................................166
Figure 8.2: Subsurface drain types .........................................................................................................168
Austroads 2021 | page vii

Figure 8.3: Transverse pavement drain ..................................................................................................170

Figure 8.4: Typical flushout riser .............................................................................................................171
Figure 8.5: Typical subsurface drain outlet .............................................................................................172
Figure 8.6: Typical groundwater drainage system ..................................................................................175
Figure 8.7: Geometry of the drainage problem and effect of subsurface drains.....................................176
Figure 8.8: Flow chart of Schilfgaarde’s method .....................................................................................177
Figure 8.9: Equivalent depth for convergence correction .......................................................................179
Figure 8.10: Dependence of factor j on depth to impervious layer ...........................................................179
Figure 8.11: Trench excavated through an inclined aquifer ......................................................................181
Austroads 2021 | page viii

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
Austroads Guide to Road Design (AGRD) seeks to capture the contemporary road design practice of
member organisations (Guide to Road Design Part 1: Introduction to Road Design (Austroads 2006b)). In
doing so, it provides valuable guidance to designers in the production of safe, economical and efficient road
designs.
The purpose of the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage is to provide designers with guidance
to appropriately manage stormwater run-off through the design of an efficient and effective road drainage
system. The Guide comprises three parts:
• Part 5: Drainage – General and Hydrology Considerations (AGRD Part 5)
• Part 5A: Drainage – Road Surface, Networks, Basins and Subsurface (AGRD Part 5A)
• Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels, Culverts, and Floodways (AGRD Part 5B).
AGRD Part 5 of the guide provides an introduction to the three parts, an overview of the drainage
considerations in undertaking a drainage design, safety considerations, environmental issues and a detailed
guidance on the hydrologic assessment of a catchment. AGRD Part 5B provides guidance on open
channels, culverts and floodways.
The purpose of this Part is to provide road designers with guidance on the requirements for assessment of
surface drainage and major/minor flows, the design of the pit and pipe networks and basins and an overview
of subsurface drainage to support the operation and management of the road network.
The AGRD Part 5 is one of eight parts of the Guide to Road Design (Figure 1.1) that provide guidance on
geometric design, intersection design, roadside design and geotechnical design, all of which may influence
the location and design of the drainage system.
Austroads 2021 | page 1

Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Guide to Road Design
1.2 Scope of this Part
The purpose of Part 5A is to provide design procedures and guidance on best practice for managing surface
flows, the design and collection of road surface water, the use of drainage basins as part of the drainage
network, and road subsurface drainage. A major/minor system approach is outlined for managing surface
flows to protect property from inundation.
An important component of road drainage is managing the road surface flows. When the vehicle tyre and
road surface lose contact with each other, aquaplaning can occur. This is an important component of road
safety to retain this contact and the information, provided in the guide covers the method of analysis and
criteria aimed to identify and minimise aquaplaning potential.
When used in conjunction with other relevant parts of the Guide to Road Design, the Guide provides the
information and guidance necessary for a road designer to prepare detailed design drawings that are
adequate to facilitate the construction of the drainage system.

The design of subsurface drainage systems is another specialised field that receives only generalised
guidance within this Guide. Detailed information on the requirements for subsurface drainage materials, the
design of pavement drains and their construction and maintenance may be found in the Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 10: Subsurface Drainage (AGPT Part 10) (Austroads 2009c). AGPT Part 10 provides
advice on the general requirements for subsurface drainage materials, design of pavement drains and
construction and maintenance considerations.
Figure 1.1 outlines the structure of the Guide to Road Design and designers should be aware that there are
nine other subject areas spanning the range of Austroads publications that may also be relevant to the
design of drainage networks (www.austroads.com.au).
1.3 Road Safety
Adopting a Safe System approach to road safety recognises that humans as road users are fallible and will
continue to make mistakes, and that the community should not penalise people with death or serious injury
when they do make mistakes. In a Safe System, therefore, roads (and vehicles) should be designed to
reduce the incidence and severity of crashes when they do occur.
The Safe System approach requires, in part (Australian Transport Council 2011):
• Roads and roadsides designed and maintained to reduce the risk of crashes occurring and to lessen the
severity of injury if a crash does occur. Safe roads prevent unintended use through design and encourage
safe behaviour by users.
• Provide forgiving environments that prevent serious injury or death when crashes occur.
• Speed limits complementing the road environment to manage crash impact forces to within human
tolerance; and all road users complying with the speed limits.
In New Zealand, practical steps have been taken to give effect to similar guiding principles through a Safety
Management Systems (SMS) approach.
Road designers should be aware of and through the design process, actively support the philosophy and
road safety objectives covered in the Guide to Road Safety.

2. Major/Minor Drainage Concept
2.1 General
The level of flood inundation protection required for the various elements of a drainage network depends in
part on the consequences of inundation and the cost of providing the drainage infrastructure. A major/minor
system approach is normally adopted for the planning and design of urban stormwater systems.
The minor system is intended to collect and convey run-off from frequent storm events such that nuisance
flooding is minimised. The major system is intended to safely convey run-off that is in excess of the capacity
of the minor drainage system and thereby manage the risk of inundation to adjacent land or buildings. The
major/minor concept may be described as a ‘system within a system,’ since it comprises these two distinct
but interlinked drainage networks (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Major and minor drainage systems in the urban landscape
Source: Alderson (2006).
In general, minor drainage elements are designed to cater for relatively frequent storms and any excess is
then conveyed in the major system causing minimal disruption to users and the local community. The
capacity of the major system is only infrequently exceeded and the associated storm events are of such high
intensity that the community would be expecting some inconvenience.
2.2 Minor System
Minor drainage system elements typically convey surface run-off and subsurface moisture away from the
pavement and in their normal operation do not impinge on the user or adjacent community. Typically, minor
drainage systems may consist of a number of discrete interconnected elements such as:
• kerb and/or channel
• pits and inlets
• underground pipe networks
• surface channels (e.g. cut-off drains, table drains, and the like)
• retention, detention, sedimentation, infiltration and water quality facilities.

The average recurrence interval 1 (ARI) for each element in the minor system varies depending upon
circumstances and design constraints but typically considers storms of magnitude up to a 10 year ARI. It
should be noted that the design average recurrence interval (ARI) range suggested, is only applicable to
situations where a major drainage system complements the minor drainage system. See AGRD Part 5 –
Section 4 and Section 6 for further information on ARI.
A design may also allow for freeboard, which can be defined as the height between the design water surface
level and a specified control point, e.g. pavement freeboard may be measured to the edge of the shoulder.
See AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.7 for further information the application of freeboard.
The minor system therefore provides convenience and safety for all road users for stormwater flows up to the
design ARI, by controlling such flows within prescribed limits.
2.3 Major System
Major drainage system elements are only used when the capacity of the minor drainage system is exceeded.
This implies that when the major system is called into use, there will be some disruption to the level of
service provided by the road and to the adjacent communities. Typical elements include:
• roadways
• designated surface channels
• some retention and detention facilities (where applicable).
These elements in conjunction with the minor drainage system are designed to contain the run-off for a
particular storm event (e.g. ARI of 50 years), with inundation of adjacent buildings and land prevented or
controlled. Flood paths to designated outfalls need to be investigated and the inundation of adjacent land
estimated.
The major system ensures that floodwater inundation of residential, commercial, industrial, and important
public buildings located in flood-prone landscapes occurs on rare occasions only. During such events, the
velocity and/or depth of flood waters in all readily accessible drainage flow paths are below prescribed limits
to provide a satisfactory level of safety and security. The network of overland flow paths that typically make
up the major system includes roads, natural channels and streams, engineered waterways, culverts,
community retention/detention basins, and other facilities.
The implementation of a major system is likely to pose a more difficult question to resolve than the minor
systems within a catchment area. This is in part due to the greater flows involved than are likely to be
encountered in the design of its ‘nested’ minor system. For these reasons, a major-then-minor design
sequence is recommended.
A common distinction between major and minor system elements is the frequency with which they are called
into use. Minor system elements are used frequently, conveying run-off mostly in underground pipe networks
in urban areas and open channels in rural areas. Major system elements are only required at infrequent
intervals when severe storms cause overflowing of the minor network. The frequency of the storms, or the
recurrence interval, is different for the two systems, and varies depending on the level of flood immunity
appropriate to varying land use.
1
The average recurrence interval (ARI) is the average or expected value of the period between exceedance of a given rainfall total
accumulated over a given duration.

2.4 Regional Approach
It can be advantageous to consider individual drainage schemes in relation to a regional drainage plan. A
thorough analysis of the regional flood estimates can be calculated on a one-off basis and reviewed
periodically. This will reduce the need to fully examine the flood estimates on a project by project basis. The
regional approach:
• permits efficient use of resources in that only a single major hydrologic analysis is required per region
• identifies areas of major risk
• provides a framework in which minor drainage schemes contribute towards an overall objective.
2.5 Design Considerations
The design of drainage systems cannot be undertaken in isolation, but needs to be developed with
consideration for other engineering and social factors. As indicated above, any drainage system should be
incorporated into a master drainage plan (if one exists) for the drainage catchment.
In addition to complying with an overall drainage goal, a drainage scheme must account for differences in
climate, adjacent land use, and any environmental issues. See AGRD Part 5 – Section 3 – Environment, for
further information.
For example, during strategic drainage design of subdivisions, and arterial roads, an appreciation should be
made of the overflows, in an event exceeding the designed capacity of the underground pipes, so that these
flows can be considered in the design process. When the pipe system is full, the roads will carry some of the
excess flows until they break out and follow the steepest slopes or natural gullies. In a properly designed
subdivision, these flows should occur along drainage reserves, or on open spaces, without causing indoor
damage to buildings.
2.6 Planning of Major Urban Systems
The primary aim of this section is to describe a procedure for the planning of major systems for small,
isolated urban catchments. The procedure draws on information presented in other sections.
2.6.1 Isolated and Non-isolated (Connectivity of) Catchments
The major/minor drainage system designed for a specific portion of an urban landscape forms part of the
master drainage plan for the entire drainage catchment within which the particular urban sub-catchment is
located. During storm events, run-off is collected and conveyed along the identified drainage flow paths or
channels of each sub-catchment. Interaction between slope-aligned sub-catchments or catchments may take
place in this process. Two broad classes of catchments are recognised:
• isolated urban catchments: developed areas, planned or existing, which receive no stormwater input from
upstream sources and which discharge to open space or ‘green belt’ natural drainage lines
• non-isolated urban catchments: developed areas, planned or existing, which receive stormwater input
from upstream, slope-aligned developed catchments or which discharge drainage to downstream, slope-
aligned developed catchments or both.
The procedure described in this section for planning major stormwater drainage systems is limited to isolated
catchments and yields solutions for a:
• feasible flood escape paths
• peak outflow (design ‘check’ storm) discharge rate.

The magnitude of this discharge rate determines, in each case, the design of any channels or the hydraulic
structure through which major flows pass before entering a natural drainage line or associated open space
domain.
In non-isolated situations, discharging floodwaters from an upstream drain flow to a downstream drain. In
cases where the computed peak outflow discharge rate of the former is less than the capacity of the
downstream drain, consideration is needed of the receiving sub-catchment’s response to the storm. It may
not be a peak discharge rate isolated in time, but rather a complex discharge/time relationship – a
hydrograph. Where two such hydrographs interact, as in the case of a direct linking, it is almost inevitable
that the peak discharge rate for the combined hydrograph will exceed the individual peak rates of the
component hydrographs, as illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: Hydrographs for slope-aligned urban drainage units
There may well be sufficient ‘spare’ capacity in the downstream drain to accommodate the peak of the
combined flows, but this must be verified by computation. Alternatively, it may be appropriate and consistent
with other objectives of the urban plan (e.g. traffic planning, road hierarchy, etc.) to alter the kerb and/or
channel/pavement profile of a receiving roadway reserve and as a result, provide greater flood escape
capacity.
More frequently, however, designers are forced to reduce the impact of storm run-off originating upstream by
means such as detention basins or other on-site retention.
2.6.2 Major Urban Drainage Design Concepts
The major drainage system associated with an urban development is a network of surface flood paths, that
operate when the capacity of the minor system has been exceeded, or by storm run-off during times when its
subsidiary minor system is rendered partially inoperable as a result of blockage. In a properly planned
scheme, such occurrences are likely to cause flooding of open space areas and inundation of the grounds of
buildings, but no indoor damage, other than to buildings of secondary importance.
While the above advantage may be thought of as primarily associated with schemes for new developments,
major/minor systems also have an important role in existing urban run-off management. This arises due to:
• the difficulty of accurately predicting future development

• a lack of capacity of the existing drainage networks.
The dominant characteristic of an overtaxed system is its inability to contain flows of a given design
frequency. For example, a scheme which was designed originally to accommodate up to the five year ARI
storm is found after 20 years of service, to exceed capacity every two or three years. Such a scheme may
have much to gain from a reappraisal based on the major/minor concept, in which the observed two year or
three year ARI flood capacity of its existing minor system is accepted and all augmentation efforts are
devoted to providing open channel flood paths for major storm run-off flows. The planning/design approach
which should be followed is identical to that described in this section, except that the minor drainage system
has a design ARI of N years. In rehabilitation work of the type briefly discussed here, it enjoys the status of
an ‘observation’ and N is the frequency of exceedance. In new developments, the interval, N, is found in
AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.6.
It should be recognised by drainage designers that sound storm run-off management practice represents but
one of many competing, and at times conflicting objectives of an urban plan. In competition with the
demands of neighbourhood planning, building aspect, road hierarchy, traffic management, etc., the needs of
a major drainage system, whose purpose rarely becomes apparent, frequently rank well down in the
priorities of urban planning.
For this reason drainage designers cannot expect urban landscape plans to be always developed around the
‘most desirable’ flood escape networks. Instead, designers must develop skills enabling them to exploit the
potential of given urban layouts and terrain to achieve their objectives. Ideally, a team that includes
hydrological/hydraulic expertise would compile an urban plan.
2.6.3 Major Urban System Planning Procedure
There are eight steps that should be taken to plan or design a major urban drainage system for a typical
isolated development:
1. catchment definition
2. fixing of roadway reserve capacity flows
3. ‘gap flow’ design storm selection
4. system planning table
5. network review
6. system evaluation
7. sub-area detailing
8. final design detailing.
These steps are:
Step 1 – Catchment definition
Defining the extent of catchments for both new and existing developments involves:
• establishing the location of catchment (i.e. climatic region, rainfall characteristics, etc.)
• preparation of a contour map of the area (one or two metre contours, or closer spacing if the area is very
flat) at a scale of 1:1000 to 1:5000
• definition of the development boundary and boundary constraints consistent with the master drainage
plan
• identification of the pattern of internal roads and collation of relevant traffic management information

• identification of roads and streets as potential dual-channel (i.e. crowned), or single-channel (i.e. one-way
crossfall) flow paths and determination of their hydraulic characteristics
• identification of major (common) land use areas (i.e. the percentage of pervious and impervious surfaces)
• identification of the design ARI for the underground network (the likelihood of partial blockage should be
considered)
• fixing of the ‘natural drainage direction’
• nomination of flood disposal points
• definition of internal isolated catchments and nodes
• definition of flood escape networks, node sections and drainage sub-areas of each isolated catchment.
Execution of the design is aided (and the whole task appreciably shortened), if information on the proposed
road and street layout is available at the catchment definition stage. This information has an important
bearing on the way the drainage designer determines the boundaries of catchments. It also influences the
available options when faced with major flood flows in segments of the catchment where surface movement
of run-off is likely to be obstructed, e.g. roundabouts, street closures, raised median strips, etc.
Identification of the flood escape network and node sections in each catchment is part of the final task and
one which draws together many interacting threads of catchment data. Catchment and drainage sub-area
definitions each apply one of two assumptions relating to the way major floodwater moves through an urban
landscape:
• flow into and/or out of, a sub-area takes one entry and/or exit path only
• the path taken by storm run-off at an intersection is along the roadway path of steepest grade.
It is not difficult to ensure, by appropriate shaping of kerb and/or channel and roadway profiles, that both of
these assumed behaviours occur in urban catchment run-off events of small magnitude. It is very difficult to
ensure similar performance in major storms.
A satisfactory level of conformity to the assumed behaviours can be achieved by making the roadway flood
escape paths dual-channel as this:
• maximises available flood escape channel capacity
• provides, by the presence of the roadway crown, a modest degree of flood proofing in the system.
A continuous roadway crown in a street, which has ‘high’ and ‘low’ verges (Figure 2.3), forces an uneven
distribution of flow to occur in its dual-channel carriageway. The greater flow holds to the high side kerb
where it can be tolerated, while the lesser flow passes along the low side kerb where fronting properties are
usually more vulnerable to damage by roadside channel surcharge.
Figure 2.3: Uneven flows in dual-channel carriageway due to natural cross slope
Run-off
Run-off Run-off
Run-off
Natural surface

The single-channel carriageway form with one-way crossfall (Figure 2.4) may be used with impunity in upper
and/or remote sub-areas of catchments. Storm run-off contributed from such areas is typically well below the
carrying capacities of dual-channel carriageways.
Figure 2.4: One-way crossfall suitable for upper and/or remote areas of catchments
Run-off
Run-off
Run-off
Natural surface
Step 2 – Fixing of roadway reserve capacity flows
This involves two hydraulic calculations, namely:

• the calculation of roadway reserve capacity flow, Qc, for each carriageway used in the catchment
• the application of a storage correction to these capacity flows to establish Qsc for each type of
carriageway.
The calculation of roadway reserve capacity uses the procedures and criteria for calculating capacity flows in
open channels (i.e. roadways) (see AGRD Part 5B – Section 2). Two criteria operate to limit the resulting
capacity flows, namely:
• Criterion 1: limit the maximum flow level to 50 mm above top-of-kerb, where 100 mm fall on footpath
toward kerb.
• Criterion 2: limit the maximum flow level to the top of kerb, where less than 100 mm fall on footpath
towards kerb.
• Criterion 3: limit maximum value of Equation 1 to 0.4 m2/s for pedestrian safety.
𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 < 0.4 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑠𝑠 1
where
𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = Mean flow velocity (m/s)
𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔 = Kerbside flow depth (m)
Where pedestrian safety is not of concern, the maximum value for vehicle safety from Equation 1 should be
0.6 m2/s.
Capacity flows, Qc, are calculated for the range of (channel) longitudinal slopes present in the catchment.
The outcome of the analysis is a table of storage-corrected capacity flows, Qsc, one for each carriageway
type and longitudinal slope occurring in the catchment.

A storage-correction is made to these flows. This is based on the temporary or detention storage of run-off in
the surface channels and underground pipes of an urban stormwater drainage system. This depresses the
peak flow discharge that emerges from the system in much the same way a flood control dam reduces the
peak of an incoming flood wave. In the case of a major/minor system that includes underground pipes, the
reduction is about 10%. Where kerb and channel/pavement storage only is available, the reduction is about
5%.
An upward correction may therefore be applied to the previously calculated capacity flows. Values may be
increased by 10% in catchments where underground pipes are employed and by 5% where open channel
drains only are used.
Step 3 – ‘Gap flow’ design storm selection
The planning of a major drainage system for an urban development is based on the protection of the
development (i.e. structural damage) in a rare flood of specified magnitude (Section 2.6.4 – Design
Recurrence Interval). A specific hydrologic analysis can be undertaken for the catchment under investigation
to determine the major flow run-off and when the minor flow is subtracted to determine the ‘gap flow’, i.e. the
above ground flow to be designed for under the major storm event. This analysis needs to take into account
the changes in catchment run-off characteristics that can occur when parts of the catchment become
inundated as the minor system surcharges and the possibility the catchment boundaries change due to the
flooding. This analysis also needs to take into account the effects of ‘partial blockage’ of the minor drainage
system resulting from conveyance of debris during the major storm event. In practice, risk decisions need to
be made during this hydrologic analysis. In order to simplify and achieve consistency in the hydrologic
analysis the following design methodology can be used.
In this section, the properties of the storm that produces this design rare flood are defined.
The main tasks involved are to:

• select an appropriate design ARI for the major storm (AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.6)
• select an appropriate gap flow, Qgap design ARI (see below)
• select an appropriate design storm duration (Table 2.2)
• determine an average intensity for the design storm (AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.3).
The determination of the flow capacities of the flood escape paths (see Table 2.5 for an example) enables
the designer to confine attention to that component of the design flood ‘gap flow’, Qgap (i.e. the run-off due to
a major event storm which is not carried by an underground pipe network or table drains and the like), which
is moving in the surface channels of the flood escape network. The designer must adopt a likely blockage
condition as part of this process. An example of estimating gap flow is shown in Section 2.7.1 – Example 1:
Estimation of Gap Flow.
The approach adopted here relies on the Rational Method, where the discharge carried in the major system
elements (Qgap), is determined by estimating the total discharge for the catchment at the appropriate ARI for
a major event and subtracting the volume carried by the minor system (with an assumed blockage factor).
Mathematically this can be represented as follows (Equation 2):

Qgap = total run-off during major event – run-off in minor system
𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹𝑌𝑌 (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶)10 𝑌𝑌𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶)10 𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡 2
𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = −
0.36 0.36
or
𝑦𝑦
�𝐹𝐹𝑌𝑌 𝑌𝑌𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡 � (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶)10
𝑄𝑄𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 =
0.36
where
𝐹𝐹 = Frequency factors for coefficient of run-off (Table 2.1)
𝐶𝐶 = Run-off coefficient (for an ARI of 10 years)
𝐴𝐴 = Catchment area (ha)
𝐼𝐼 = Rainfall intensity (mm/h)
𝑦𝑦 = ARI applicable to the minor event
𝑌𝑌 = ARI applicable to the major event (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.6)
𝑡𝑡 = Critical storm duration
Table 2.1: Frequency factors for coefficient of run-off
Y (years) 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
FY 0.80 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.15 1.20
The fixing of the design storm duration may require one or more iterations for determination of the critical
storm event. This is built into the design procedure, however, an approximate duration is needed to initiate
the calculations, and guidance is given in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Design storm durations for small urban catchments
Commercial/industrial
Roadside channel type Residential sub-divisions
developments
Kerb and/or channel, and roadside 10 to 15 minutes 15 to 20 minutes
channels throughout
Grassed swale or blade-cut roadside 15 to 20 minutes Not applicable
channels
Note: These storm durations correspond to catchment impervious-area travel times. They incorporate a roof-to-kerb
and/or channel or roof-to-underground pipe travel time of five minutes or 10 minutes for residential or
commercial/industrial developments respectively.
The final task involves the determination of the design average rainfall intensity (see AGRD Part 5 – Section
4.6), which is used in the calculations in the following section. Design ARI and storm duration result from
decisions made in tasks one to three.

Step 4 – System planning table
A system planning table is the central feature of the procedure, for it enables a designer to evaluate and
modify, and where necessary, trial a major drainage system.
Knowing the storage corrected capacity flows, Qsc, which can be carried in the range of flood escape paths
available in a catchment (as devised under Step 3 – Gap flow design storm selection) and knowing the
design storm average intensity it is possible to determine for each flood escape path the ‘tributary
(impervious) area’, TAi.
TAi, which may be linked to an identified flood escape path, is the impervious area which yields (in a storm of
average intensity) a peak run-off flow matching the storage-corrected capacity flow, Qsc, of that path.
A table listing values of TAi for the full range of flood escape paths available constitutes a system planning
table for the development. The table is used in the Step 5: Network Review discussed below and the data
required to make use of the table are:
• flood escape path carriageway width
• carriageway longitudinal slope.
Further information is available in Australian Rainfall and Run-off: A Guide to Flood Estimation 2 (Vol. 1
Pilgrim 2001, Book 8).
Step 5 – Network review
Of all the data and component information contained in the catchment definition, those relating to the road
geometry (carriageway widths, roadway reserve cross-sections, pavement types, etc.), are the most
amenable to change. The network review procedure enables a trial urban plan to be tested and modified
where necessary, without disturbing the plan itself in any basic way or altering the inter-relationship of its
main components.
With the system planning table for the particular roadways and longitudinal slopes of a developed catchment
drawn up, and using run-off coefficients applicable to its likely ultimate development (AGRD Part 5 – Section
6), it is possible to perform a series of systematic test-and-modify calculations. These can be used to assess
the performance of the flood escape networks. This review is amenable to tabulation and computer-based
methods.
The test procedure involves comparing the equivalent impervious area (CA) computed at successive node
sections along each drainage path, with the value of TAi listed for the drainage path defined in terms of its
width (carriageway) and longitudinal slope in the system planning table. At those sections where CA is less
than TAi, it follows that the flood escape path will satisfactorily convey flood run-off in the selected design
storm. Where it is greater, then the designer must explore alternative flood management options.
The outcome of this process is a ‘first approximation’ major system drainage network for the development.
Step 6 – System evaluation
The first approximation of the major drainage system must be evaluated to ensure that the assumptions
made in the course of its derivation, in particular the assumed design storm duration, are valid. This involves
estimating a corrected, or ‘new’, flow travel time in each catchment of the development and comparing it with
that adopted from Table 2.2.
2
Abbreviated to AR&R through this Guide.

Where they differ significantly (i.e. ‘adopted’ versus ‘new’ in a particular catchment), a revised critical storm
duration based on the new estimate of travel time is usually used and the subsequent steps repeated until
satisfactory alignment is reached.
The outcome of the system evaluation process is a layout of the major drainage network.
Step 7 – Sub-area detailing
Completion of the major drainage system planning procedure involves one further step, the detailed review
of flow movement within each sub-area. This calls for careful application of the principles of hydrology and
laws of open channel hydraulics to ensure that storm run-off finding its way to the roadway reserves and
drainage easements of the flood escape network, moves through and from each sub-area without
surcharging its defined drainage paths.
An example of the type of review referred to here is where a potential single-channel, lateral street which is
not a component of the main flood escape network is required to convey a flow exceeding its single-channel
capacity. Various options must be explored by the designer, e.g. change to dual-channel form, and/or
provide some form of flood proofing such as a raised footpath, etc.
Step 8 – Final design detailing
This step involves all necessary details to define the system of open channels, including the carriageways,
roadway reserves, flood proofing, drainage easements and roadway hydraulic geometries, which will convey
run-off from major system design storms through and beyond each catchment without indoor damage to
residential and other important buildings. The resulting plans form the basis for the design of the minor
drainage system to be incorporated within it.
2.6.4 Design Recurrence Interval
All elements within a drainage system must be designed to provide immunity against some level of
exceedance which is usually expressed as being able to cope with a storm of a given ARI. The standards
applicable to each element will depend upon the specific circumstances and the requirements of the
authority that controls stormwater management at the site. The values in AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.6,
represent basic values that can be applied in the absence of other criteria.
A worked example for a major system drainage design is shown in Section 2.7.2 – Example 2: Major
Drainage System Design.
2.7 Worked Examples – Major/Minor Drainage System
2.7.1 Example 1: Estimation of Gap Flow
For a location in the northern (tropical) part of Australia the rainfall intensities in Table 2.3 apply for a storm
with duration of 45 minutes, previously determined as the critical storm duration. It is desired to determine
what ARI should be used to calculate Qgap for the design of the major system elements.

Table 2.3: Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) for a 45 minute duration storm in tropical Australia
Frequency factor FY Intensity It Intensity x frequency

ARI (years)
(Table 2.1) (mm/h) factor FY x It
1 0.80 65 52
2 0.85 75 64
5 0.95 94 89
10 1.00 105 105
20 1.05 120 126
50 1.15 139 160
100 1.20 154 185
For the particular location and situation it has been decided that the major event occurs with an ARI of 100
years (taken from AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.6). The data in Table 2.3 is plotted in Figure 2.5. The Qgap can be
determined for each of the varying ARIs applicable to the minor drainage system and these are shown in
Table 2.4 (divided by [CA10/0.36]) for an assumption of, zero blockage and with 50% blockage. These values
can then be used to estimate the design ARI for Qgap using Figure 2.5. The final two columns of Table 2.4
are simply rounding up of the design ARI which provides some conservatism in the procedure.
Figure 2.5: Intensity x frequency factor for various ARI plotted on a logarithmic scale
Intensity x Frequency
Factor (mm/h)
Table 2.4: Estimation of Qgap for ARI of 100 years
Qgap = Q100 – QN Estimate ARI for Qgap

ARI rounded up
N (need to multiply by CA10/0.36) (from Figure 2.5)
(years)
0% Blockage 50% Blockage 0% Blockage 50% Blockage 0% Blockage 50% Blockage
1 133 159 21 50 25 50
2 121 153 14 41 15 45
5 96 140 6 26 10 30
10 80 132 3 20 5 20
20 59 122 2 14 2 15
50 25 105 0.5 8 1 10

Example of the determination of the ARI for a Qgap:

from Table 2.3 Q100 = 185
QN in this example:
N = 2 years
from Table 2.3 Q2 = 64
Assuming 0% blockage:
Qgap = Q100 – Q2
= 185 – 64 = 121
Reading from Figure 2.5, Intensity x Frequency aligns with an ARI of 15 years.
If 50% blockage assumed:
Qgap = 185 – 50% x 64 = 153
Reading from Figure 2.5, Intensity x Frequency aligns with an ARI of 35 years.
Using the data in Table 2.4 it is possible to design the major drainage system to cater for Qgap based on a
minor drainage system designed to cope with storms with varying ARI and blockage levels.
2.7.2 Example 2: Major Drainage System Design
Introduction
A step-by-step procedure for planning a major stormwater drainage system for an urban catchment is
applied to a 38 ha hypothetical residential subdivision in the Adelaide foothills, South Australia.
The catchment area is bordered on three sides (north, east and west) by main roads (Figure 2.6). A green
belt reserve forms its southern boundary. The catchment topography slopes generally to the south making
this the natural drainage direction.
Housing density in the subdivision will be, initially, 16 residences per ha of dedicated area i.e. excluding
roadway reserves, etc. Ultimate development during the life of the drainage system is estimated to be
equivalent to 20 residences per ha. Some open space park areas are located within the subdivision.
The road layout uses a road pattern of the conventional grid type adapted to the site. All roads will have
sealed pavement carriageways with concrete kerb/or channel borders. It is anticipated that underground
pipes will be used in the catchment minor drainage system. Partial blockage (50% blockage) of these pipes
in major run-off events is considered likely.
It is assumed, for purposes of illustration, that run-off from individual residences in the ultimately developed
catchment will be directly channelled to the surface stormwater drainage system. Drainage from positive
grade allotments (Figure 2.6) will be conveyed directly to fronting roadways and drainage from adverse
grade allotments to rear-of-allotment channels or rear access lanes.
It may be further assumed that High Street will have the status of a local traffic distributor. All other
residential roads and streets will have access road status. No roundabouts or street closures are anticipated
during the life of the subdivision.

The worked example is presented as an eight step process as discussed in Section 2.6.3 – Major Urban
System Planning Procedure and data and information relating to the example are presented below.
Figure 2.6: Theoretical residential subdivision in the Adelaide foothills
Step 1 – Catchment definition
The following data and information relating to catchment definition are available. Most items are included in
Figure 2.6.
• catchment location: Adelaide foothills
• contour map (Figure 2.6)
• subdivision catchment boundary (Figure 2.6)
• pattern of internal roads and streets (Figure 2.6)
• dual-channel and potential single-channel streets (Figure 2.6)
• major (common) land use areas (Figure 2.6)
• an underground network will be incorporated, design ARI = two years: 50% blockage to be assumed
• natural drainage direction (Figure 2.6)

• flood disposal points (Figure 2.6)

• internal sub-areas within catchment boundaries and node points (Figure 2.7)
• flood escape networks, node sections and sub-areas (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7: Sub-areas within catchment
An assumption is that at the catchment boundary and boundaries, there is no inflow to the roads and streets
of the subdivision from outside its boundary. The passing of storm run-off to side boundary flood paths
(Eastern Highway and West Street) should be minimised. It is assumed that these flood paths convey
sizeable flows from remote catchments and that additional floodwater input in the vicinity of the receiving
domain should only occur if unavoidable.
The preliminary road hierarchy information available for the subdivision is sufficient to force a change in one
item of catchment definition data relating to High Street. Its status as a local traffic distributor requires its
cross-section to be changed from potential single channel (northern segment) to dual channel throughout.
Step 2 – Roadway reserve capacity flows
The particular roadway forms to be used in the development consist of:

• 7.5 m and 10.0 m carriageways within 16.0 m and 20.0 m road reserves, respectively

• kerb and gutter 3 profile – 0.375 m wide with 0.150 m deep

• pavement cross slopes, Zb = 0.033 m/m and 0.025 m/m for the 7.5 m and 10.0 m carriageways,
respectively.
The 7.5 m carriageways are used for access roads, the 10.0 m carriageway for local distributors.
Flow capacities of these carriageways (or half-carriageway flows) are presented in Table 2.5. The capacities
of these carriageways have been increased by 10% to model the storage capacity and these storage-
corrected capacities are shown in brackets in Table 2.5.
Flow capacities for the carriageways can be determined by Izzards Equation or similar.
Table 2.5: Capacity flows, Qc, and storage-corrected capacity flows (in brackets) for 7.5 m and 10.0 m
carriageways
Flow capacities, Qc (L/s)

Longitudinal
slope 7.5 m carriageways: Zb = 30 10.0 m carriageways: Zb = 40
S
Single channel Dual channel Single channel Dual channel
0.005 390 (430) 780 (860) 500 (550) 1000 (1100)
0.010 560 (615) 1120 (1230) 700 (770) 1400 (1540)
0.020 780 (860) 1560 (1720) 990 (1090) 1980 (2180)
0.030 700 (770) 1400 (1540) 915 (1005) 1830 (2010)
0.040 635 (700) 1270 (1400) 830 (915) 1660 (1830)
0.050 580 (640) 1160 (1280) 760 (835) 1520 (1670)
0.060 535 (590) 1070 (1180) 700 (770) 1400 (1540)
Note: Values in brackets indicate the storage corrected capacities.
Step 3 – Design storm selection
The major drainage systems are required to be designed for an ARI of 100 years (AGRD Part 5 – Section
4.6) and partial blockage of 50% of the associated underground network is assumed. Since the minor
drainage system will be designed subsequently for an ARI of two years, it follows that the gap flow, Qgap, is
equal to the total discharge from the catchment minus the run-off carried by the minor drainage system. For
this example the Qgap will be determined based on an ARI of 50 years. The combination of the underground
network (minor drainage system) designed for an ARI of two years and the roadway surface system
designed for an ARI of 50 years, represents an overall design ARI of 100 years. Section 2.7.1 – Example 1:
Estimation of Gap Flow outlines the procedure for determining an ARI for the Qgap.
Design storm duration for the particular conditions which are anticipated for the ultimately developed
catchment may be found from Table 2.2. For this example, storm duration equal to 10 minutes is adopted.
Taking design ARI 50 years for the surface system only, and storm duration of 10 minutes, design storm
average intensity (50I10) was estimated to be 90 mm/h.
3
See AGRD Part 5 – Section 1.2.2 for the use of kerb and channel and gutter.

Step 4 – System planning table
By bringing together data from Step 2 and Step 3, it is possible to determine the tributary (impervious) area,
TAi, which will yield, under design storm conditions, a peak run-off flow matching the storage-corrected
capacity of any roadway flood escape path likely to be used in the Figure 2.6 developments. The TAi value
required in each roadway case can be found from substitution into the Rational Method formula (Equation 3)
(see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6).
(𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 ) 50𝐼𝐼10 3
𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = L/s
0.36
where
𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = Storage-corrected capacity flow in flood escape path (from Table 2.5)
50 Average rainfall intensity storm for design ARI of 50 years and a duration of 10
𝐼𝐼10 =
min
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = Tributary (impervious) area in ha
Therefore:
0.36 𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 4

𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = = ha
90 250
Applying Equation 4 to the storage-corrected capacity data in Table 2.5 gives a set of tributary (impervious)
areas which can, for design storm conditions, be serviced by the 7.5 m and 10.0 m roads and streets. At this
time the flows in the major system elements need to comply with the two criteria in Section 2.6.3 – Major
Urban Planning Procedure.
A major system planning table can now be assembled and this is shown as Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Major drainage system planning table
Tributary (impervious) area TAi (hectares)

Longitudinal which can be serviced by roadway flood escape path in design storm
Slope
7.5 m carriageways: Zb = 30 10.0 m carriageways: Zb = 40
S m/m)
Single channel Dual channel Single channel Dual channel
0.005 1.72 3.44 2.20 4.40
0.010 2.46 4.92 3.08 6.16
0.020 3.44 6.88 4.36 8.72
0.030 3.08 6.16 4.02 8.04
0.040 2.80 5.60 3.66 7.32
0.050 2.56 5.12 3.34 6.68
0.060 2.36 4.72 3.08 6.16
Step 5 – Network review
One final item of information is needed before the network review can be commenced. This is the set of run-
off coefficients that must be applied to convert catchment component areas into equivalent impervious areas
(C x A). Appropriate factors are to be found by the application of Equations 15 to 18 in AGRD Part 5 –
Section 6.7.3.

Three land uses only are included in the subdivision shown in Figure 2.6:
• residential, 20 residences per (excluding roads etc.)
• park areas
• roadway reserves of 16 m and 20 m widths.
Data required:
• 10
Id = rainfall intensity for a storm with an ARI of 10 years and a design storm duration of 1 hour; d = 1 and
10
Id = 26 mm/h.
• f = fraction impervious.
• In the case of residential segments = allow 43%.
• In the case of park lands = allow 0%.
• FY frequency conversion factor = 1.15 (from Table 2.1).
Hence, for residential areas:
C110 = 0.1 + (10I1 – 25) / (70 – 25) x (0.7 – 0.1) (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.7.3, interpolating from
Figure 6.12)
C110 = 0.1 + 0.0133 (10I1 – 25) = 0.1 + 0.0133 (26 – 25) = 0.1133
C10 = 0.9 x f + C110 x (1 – f)

= 0.9 x 0.43 + 0.1133 (1 – 0.43) = 0.45
C50 = FY x C10 = 1.15 x 0.45 = 0.52
In the case of park areas:
C110 = as previous = 0.1133
C10 = 0.9 x f + C110 x (1 – f)

= 0.9 x 0 + 0.1133 (1 – 0) = 0.11
C50 = FY x C10 = 1.15 x 0.11 = 0.13
Roadway reserves comprise about 50% carriageway area, 15–30% footpath and driveways and the
remainder nature strips. Use of a lumped, arbitrary fraction impervious of 0.85 to convert roadway reserve
area to equivalent paved area is recommended. The run-off coefficient that should be applied to the
converted area is:
C110 = as previous = 0.1133
C10 = 0.9 x f + C110 x (1 – f)

= 0.9 x 0.85 + 0.1133 (1 – 0.85) = 0.78
C50 = FY x C10 = 1.15 x 0.78 = 0.90
Using these coefficients it is possible to determine weighted C50 values which may be applied to each sub-
area of the development to determine their individual (C x A)50 values (see worked example in AGRD Part 5
– Section 6.9).

Great accuracy is not warranted in performing this task and the following values, based on the above, are
considered satisfactory:
• residential sub-areas (including surrounding roads)
• weighted run-off coefficient, allow 15% of subdivision to be road reserve and 85% to be residential
development
– weighted C50 = (0.85 x 0.52 + 0.15 x 0.9) / (0.85 + 0.15) = 0.58
• park sub-areas (including surrounding roads), allow 20% of subdivision to be road reserve and 80% to be
park lands
– weighted C50 = (0.80 x 0.13 + 0.2 x 0.9) / (0.80 + 0.20) = 0.28.
These coefficients are incorporated into the network review table (Table 2.7). The areas for each sub-area
within the catchment are summarised in Table 2.7 which is used in the calculation of the discharges.

Table 2.7: Network review for catchments L, M, N, P
Flood escape path details Adjacent contributing sub-area

Cumulative
Sub- Escape path upstream Capacity
Tributary Weighted Remarks
area Node (C x A)50 CA50 check
(impervious Area (ha) run-off
section Longitudinal (ha) (ha)
Path description area, TAi) (ha) coefficient
slope, S (m/m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
L L.4 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.03 6.16 1.14 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.32 < 6.16 Okay
L.3 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.02 6.88 2.15 0.58 1.25 1.57 1.57 < 6.88 Okay
L.2 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.01 4.92 2.15 0.58 1.25 5.56 5.56 > 4.92 Reconsider
L.2 Dual channel, 10 m 6.16 5.56 < 6.16 Okay
L.1 Floodway, 10 m 0.005 4.40 2.20 0.58 1.28 6.84
Design flow at L.1 = 6.84 / 4.40 x 1000 = 1554 L/s
M M.3 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.01 4.92 2.36 0.28 0.66 0.66 0.66 < 4.92 Okay
M.2 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.04 5.60 2.13 0.58 1.24 1.90 1.90 < 5.60 Okay
Note: These calculations indicate that a 7.5 m carriageway for High Street is satisfactory, however a 10 m carriageway is required for traffic management.
N N.1 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.03 6.16 0.63 1.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 < 6.16 Okay
P P.5 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.03 6.16 1.16 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 < 6.16 Okay
P.4 Dual channel, 7.5 m 0.03 6.16 1.89 0.58 1.09 1.79 1.76 < 6.16 Okay
P.1 Floodway, 7.5 m 0.04 5.60 2.33 0.58 1.35 5.06
Design flow at P.1 = 5.06 / 5.60 x 1270 = 1148 L/s

For example, consider Catchment M (Table 2.5 and Table 2.7). At node section M.3 the High Street
carriageway is of dual-channel type and although likely to take the 10.0 m form in the final urban plan is
investigated here as a 7.5 m trial roadway.
The longitudinal slope, S, of High Street at node section M.3 is approximately 0.01 m/m.
Table 2.6 (carriageway 7.5 m, S = 0.01 m/m) reveals that it can convey a capacity flow matching the peak
generated in 4.92 ha of tributary (impervious) area, TAi. This information is summarised in Table 2.7 under
the heading 'flood escape path details' (columns 2–5).
The sub-area which contributes run-off to node section M.3 is, mainly, a park (total sub-area of 2.36 ha) for
which C50 = 0.28. This sub-area is therefore equivalent to 2.36 x 0.28 = 0.66 ha of impervious area (C x A).
These data are listed in columns 6–8 of Table 2.7 under the heading 'adjacent contributing sub-area'. The
'cumulative upstream (C x A)50' for the catchment draining to M.3 is, of course, 0.66 presented in column 9 in
Table 2.7.
The flood escape path capacity check (column 10 Table 2.7) compares the total (C x A)50 contributing to
node section M.3 with the tributary (impervious) area, TAi which could be serviced, under design storm
conditions, by the flood escape path at that section. A successful outcome, 'Okay' (column 11), indicates that
the trial road carriageway is satisfactory.
The same trial road form is then tested at node section M.2 where the cumulative upstream
(C x A)50, column 9, is the sum of the areas draining to M.3 and M.2.
Catchment M has a flood escape path that divides at node M.1 where run-offs from the northern and eastern
arms join.
The trial road form at node section M.4 is a 7.5m dual-channel carriageway (Figure 2.7). The test at this
section also succeeds.
At node M.1 the flood escape path required by storm flows from the two arms of the network is checked
against the TAi which can be serviced by a trial 7.5 m dual-channel carriageway. In this case, the cumulative
upstream (C x A)50 is the sum of the equivalent impervious areas at M.2 and M.4 and the sub-area adjacent
to M.1. The test at node section M.1 shows the 7.5 m carriageway to be adequate here also.
It is concluded from this analysis that the total run-off generated in Catchment M in a design storm of ARI =
100 years, approximately can be contained within the 7.5 m carriageways of its flood escape network acting
conjunctively with its associated underground network, assumed to be 50% blocked. The likely decision to
assign a 10.0 m carriageway to High Street for reasons of good traffic management practice will not conflict
with this conclusion.
Consider now Catchment L (Figure 2.7 and Table 2.7).
The analysis and tabulation proceed in much the same manner as for Catchment M until node section L.2 is
investigated. Here, the test for a 7.5 m dual-channel flood escape path fails (‘Reconsider’ in Remarks,
Table 2.7 column 11) and a 10.0 m dual-channel carriageway is considered. This proves to be hydraulically
satisfactory. However, it is unlikely that an access road will be built with a 10.0 m carriageway for no reason
other than its inability, as a 7.5 m residential street, to convey rare storm flows.
The designer needs to explore a range of alternatives:

• remove roadway L.1–L.2 from the urban plan and extend the floodway north to L.2
• change gutter/pavement profile in roadway L.1–L.2 to one giving greater capacity within the limits of
Criteria 1 and 2 (Section 2.6.3 – Major Urban Planning Procedure)

• retain roadway L.1–L.2 as a 7.5 m dual-channel carriageway carrying flows which exceed the 'kerb-plus-
50 mm' capacity criterion and apply local flood-proofing measures, e.g. raised footpaths, raised floor
levels, etc.
• adopt design ARI = 10 years for minor system pipeline L.O–L.1–L.2, hence ‘gap flow’ would be based on
a design ARI of 30 years.
Detailed design relating to these options need not, of course, be undertaken until Step 7.
The procedures outlined above have been followed for each of the four catchments and the results tabulated
in Table 2.7. The four sub-area catchments cover, between them, many of the common major network
situations met in contemporary urban drainage practice.
Step 6 – System evaluation
Completion of the above network review provides the designer with what should be regarded as a ‘first
approximation’ of a major drainage system. This follows from the fact that important design information
contained in the system planning table (Table 2.6) is based on catchment travel time adopted from the
guidelines of Table 2.2.
Before the design can progress to Step 7, a check on the suitability of the adopted catchment travel time
must be made in each catchment of the derived major system. Note that major system catchment travel time
for an urban development is taken as catchment impervious area travel time (Table 2.2).
Allowing for roof-to-gutter or roof-to-easement travel and adding flow time along road and street gutters it will
be observed that travel time of 10 minutes adopted in Steps 4 and 5 is, in some catchments, short. A travel
time of 15 minutes for some catchments might be more appropriate.
The network review (Step 5) has shown that the flood escape paths of catchments M and P can
accommodate the run-off generated in a 10 minute design storm. Further review of these using a catchment
travel time and hence, storm duration of 15 minutes (lower rainfall intensity) will reach the same conclusion
making it a redundant exercise.
The situation in Catchment L at node section L.2 warrants further attention.
Fifteen minute ARI = 50 years storm bursts in the Adelaide foothills show an average intensity of 78 mm/h.
Applying this value into Equation 4 yields a new relationship for a tributary (impervious) area, namely:
0.36𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = = ℎ𝑎𝑎
78 217
There is no need to completely recalculate Table 2.7 using the above revised expression for TAi in order to
further investigate one ‘trouble spot’ i.e. node section L.2 when in fact, only the TAi value for a 7.5 m dual
channel carriageway with S = 0.01 is required and leads to:
1230
𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = = 5.67
217
For the particular surface channel of interest, comparison of this value with the cumulative
(C x A)50 at node section L.2 ([C x A]50 = 5.56) leads to the conclusion that the 7.5 m carriageway is
satisfactory and that no further consideration needs be given to alternatives (i) – (iv) listed in Step 5.
The above review concerns situations where the originally adopted (Step 3) catchment travel time of 10
minutes was less than that which closer inspection subsequently revealed to be more appropriate.

Of greater concern to the designer is the reverse situation where the adopted travel time proves to be the
longer of the two. Catchment N (Figure 2.6) falls within this category. Recalculation of TAi for the node
section N.1, however, is unnecessary considering the small cumulative (C x A)50 which the catchment
draining to this section presents.
If, however, the difference is significant and widespread, e.g. affecting all main catchments in a development,
then the designers have no alternative but to return the ‘revised’ shorter travel time into Step 3, recalculate
Table 2.7 and repeat Steps 5 and 6.
It is clearly advantageous to adopt travel times which prove to be short rather than long as this builds some
conservatism into the design. Table 2.2 reflects this philosophy.
The above review, while fortuitous in its outcome for development of Figure 2.6, highlights the need for close
liaison to be maintained between the drainage system designer and those responsible for traffic
management, building approvals (floor levels) and city planning generally.
It should be restated here that the major drainage networks identified in Figure 2.7 have been shown
capable of conveying design rare storm run-off flows without surcharge of their flood escape paths. This
does not preclude the possibility of overflow from flow paths within component sub-areas. This matter is
addressed in Step 7.
Step 7 – Sub-area detailing
With a satisfactory major flood escape network in place in each catchment, the next task is to check flow
conditions in all roads and streets which convey flow to the main network. Principal among these are lateral
streets, particularly those which are, potentially, of the single-channel type. The check which needs to be
carried out is a reduced version of the ‘test and modify’ procedure of Table 2.7.
Consider design extreme storm run-off joining the major system network from the lateral street leading to
node point M.5 in Catchment M (Figure 2.6). The terrain cross slope in the vicinity is about 5%; it is
potentially a single-channel carriageway street:
• flood path description: single-channel, 7.5 m longitudinal slope, So = 0.02
• tributary (impervious) area: 3.44 ha (from Table 2.5)
• upstream contributing area: 1.40 ha
• upstream contributing (C x A)50 = 1.40 x 0.58 = 0.81 ha.
Capacity check: 0.81 < 3.44, therefore okay.
Note: The upstream contributing area is that sub-area portion which yields run-off in a design storm to the
channel discharge section under review.
Investigations carried out on streets which deliver storm run-off laterally to major system networks will almost
invariably yield similar ‘Okay’ results. Experienced drainage designers are able to recognise the few problem
situations by inspection.
Of greater concern are the problems that arise at roadway intersections.
The need to employ dual-channel carriageways, generally in flood escape networks, has been highlighted.
This precaution does not preclude, however, the possibility of surcharge at intersections, such as at node
point M.5 in Catchment M. Flood proofing in the form of a low landscaped levee bank within the nature strip
at the south-western corner of the intersection may be warranted.

The channelling of floodwater, making its way to node point M.4 (Figure 2.6), also needs careful attention.
Again, the presence of a low, landscaped nature strip levee bank along the southern boundary of the
intersection would be a valuable safeguard. Calculations carried out to fix the height of this embankment are
part of the necessary hydraulic computations.
Some indication of the height required may be gained from consideration of the following:
If flow moving down slope towards node point M.4 were to be abruptly stopped by a pond of water in the
region of the T-intersection, the maximum height of levee (approximate) which would be required to contain
the pond is given by Equation 5:
2
𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 5
ℎ=
2𝑔𝑔
where
ℎ = Levee height above top of kerb (m)
𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = Average velocity of down slope moving flow (m/s)
𝑔𝑔 = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
In the vicinity of M.4, S, or the down-slope roadway is approximately 0.03 and average velocity
approximately 1.6 m/s in a design flood. Required levee height is, therefore, about 0.13 m. Some freeboard
would need to be added to this.
It will be necessary in some of the hydraulic computations of Step 7 to find the design flood flow rate at
various locations in developed catchments.
Alternatively, an approximation for these flows may be calculated by simple proportion using information from
Table 2.5 and Table 2.6. Flows at all node sections (Figure 2.7) can be computed in the same way
catchment floodway discharges (approximate) are calculated in Table 2.7.
Where flow at a location other than a node section is required, e.g. the flow moving west towards node point
M.5 in Figure 2.6, then the following procedure may be used:
• flood path description: single-channel, 7.5 carriageway longitudinal slope, S = 0.02 m/m
• upstream contributing area (A): 1.40 ha
• upstream contributing (C x A): 0.81 ha
• capacity flow, Qc for flood path: 780 L/s (from Table 2.5)
• tributary (impervious) area for flood path: 3.44 ha.
Required design discharge (approximate):
0.81
x 780 = 184 L/s
3.44
Values computed by this method tend to underestimate required flows by about 10%.
Further discussion of these matters cannot be justified in the Guide. Suffice to conclude that with careful
detailing, thoughtful planning and the use of modest flood-proofing measures, it is possible to handle major
flood flows generated in small, urban catchments without damage indoors and without interrupting the supply
of essential community services or the functioning of strategic installations.

Step 8 – Final design detailing
The outcome of Steps 6 and 7 is a series of design and planning decisions and component detail
computations which will, when realised in the field, enable the goals of a major drainage system to be
achieved. Step 8 involves the process of committing those decisions and detailing to paper in the form of
drawings for a works program.
Contributions from and to other catchments
Where run-off from an adjacent catchment or run-off is channelled to an adjacent catchment, run-off
management planning and design problems are significantly more complex than those presented by the
above example. Typically problems consist of:
• how can peaks flow be reduced?
• how can peaks flow be delayed?
Solutions available to the designer fall into three broad categories:

• flow retention measures
• flow detention measures
• flow retardation measures.
Concluding comments and summary
Validity of the procedure
The design procedure used in the example above incorporates some simplifications that may attract criticism
on the grounds of their violating recognised hydrological principles. Most significant among these is the use
of a ‘blanket’-design storm duration to arrive at a first approximation major drainage system. The same
simplification is also used in revision calculations, where these are needed, in catchments (Step 6) and in
sub-areas (Step 7).
Strict adherence to the conventional Rational Method requires that a series of design storms be applied at
successive node sections down the main drainage path commencing at the highest node. At each node a
design storm of duration equal to contributing catchment travel time should be used to fix average storm
intensity and to compute design flood magnitude at that location.
Such an analysis leads to stormwater node section flows higher than those given by the ‘blanket’ design
storm procedure. Computed disparity between the values is greatest in the uppermost sub-areas of each
catchment tapering to insignificant near its flood disposal point.
Reference to uppermost sub-areas in the catchments (Table 2.7) reveals flood escape path capacities,
represented by tributary (impervious) areas, which are well in excess of demand (Column 10 in Table 2.7).
Strict hydrological analysis requiring significantly increased manual or computing effort would undoubtedly
reduce this gap. Nevertheless, and as a general rule, major system surcharge in an upper catchment sub-
area is unlikely where the tributary (impervious) area of its flood path is greater than twice the equivalent
impervious area being served.

Summary
A 'broad brush' procedure for designing major stormwater drainage systems for small urban catchments has
been described. The resulting system uses only the roadway reserves and floodway easements of the urban
landscape to contain run-off resulting from major storms up to and including that having a design average
recurrence interval of 100 years (approximately). The procedure takes account of flow conveyed in
underground pipes of minor system networks and includes an arbitrary, optional allowance for part
malfunction of the minor system network (50% blockage). Design for zero blockages follows the same
procedure but employs different values for gap flow, Qgap, and design ARI.
The procedure enables trial flood escape networks to be rapidly assessed and focuses on those segments of
the flood path which require particular attention, e.g. special hydraulic design, building restrictions, road
layout modifications, etc.
The procedure assumes that, in general, kerb side flow depths up to 0.20 m, i.e. 0.050 m above kerb, can be
tolerated and incorporates a flood path maximum depth/velocity constraint which ensures the safety of
pedestrian and wheeled traffic during major flood events.

3. Road Surface Drainage
3.1 General
A primary objective in drainage design is the management of stormwater run-off so as to permit the safe
passage of all road users (AGRD Part 5 – Section 2). The safety of road users is most at risk from run-off
that either falls directly upon the road surface or flows onto the road surface from the adjacent road
reservation. Road surface drainage involves the use of a variety of measures to convey this run-off away
from the surface in a timely manner.
The main risk to road users encountering road surface run-off is a loss of control. The manner in which this
loss of control occurs depends largely upon the location that the interaction is experienced. Run-off upon the
middle of a carriageway generally takes the form of sheet flow. This thin film of water can restrict visibility
due to vehicle spray, reduce friction and create the potential for a total loss of contact between vehicle tyres
and the road surface, otherwise known as aquaplaning.
Where roads are kerbed, run-off will accumulate at the low side of the road in the channel. The width of this
hazard is dependent on a number of factors and its impact varies from altering road user behaviour (lane
changes, etc.) to inducing an imbalance in forces (torsion) on motorised vehicles where one side of the
vehicle encounters increased surface flow depth.
A variety of road and drainage design measures must be implemented to effectively remove this run-off from
the road surface to an appropriate outfall. Section 5 – Kerbed Drainage, discusses these drainage design
measures in greater detail.
3.2 Road Surface Flow
Run-off accumulating on the road surface tends to follow the steepest slope. The slope of the pavement
surface is determined by the combination of longitudinal grade and crossfall. Longitudinal grade will largely
be determined by the requirement to balance earthworks, and by the performance characteristics of vehicles
using the road. A general maximum grade of around 10% may be adopted for most roads, though steeper
sections may occur under some circumstances. A minimum longitudinal grading of approximately 0.3–0.5%
will normally be used for drainage purposes on kerbed roads, to minimise the formation of shallow puddles.
Crossfall on straight alignments is influenced by the road surfacing, and it will often fall in both directions
from the centre of the road (i.e. crowned), thus minimising drainage paths. On the approach to curves, the
crown may transition to a one-way crossfall (i.e. superelevation) around the curve. On some curves the
superelevation may be steeper than the normal crossfall, and particular care needs to be taken in these
cases to determine the flow paths as the catchment area will generally be greater leading to greater
quantities of water for disposal.
Where the longitudinal grade is relatively flat, water will flow primarily in the direction of the crossfall leading
to short flow paths and the expeditious removal of water. However, steep longitudinal grades cause the
water to flow along the road. Consequently flow paths will be long (perhaps virtually parallel to the road
centreline) and removal of water from the road surface will be slower. The longer the length of flow path the
greater the depth of the water film, in turn increasing the risk of aquaplaning. Flow path lengths and
aquaplaning are discussed in further detail in Section 4 – Aquaplaning.
Designers should also see the AGRD Part 3: Geometric Design (AGRD – Part 3) (Austroads 2010a), in
particular:
• Section 2.2.8, which provides a general introduction to drainage
• Section 6.4, which discusses drainage in relation to vertical alignment and crossfall.

3.3 Capture, Movement and Disposal of Surface Flows
3.3.1 Concentration and Capture of Surface Water
As noted in Section 3.2 – Road Surface Flow, water on the road will follow the path of least resistance, or
that of the steepest slopes. In most cases, crossfall is the predominant influence and run-off is directed to the
edge of the road where drainage systems capture and convey stormwater for ultimate disposal.
On rural roads, the drainage system generally consists of open channels (i.e. table drains and catch drains)
that convey surface water to cross-culverts. Divided roads with a wide median may also have an open
channel in the median.
In urban environments, the carriageway is generally delineated with kerbing. Kerbing prevents the run-off
from escaping the carriageway, instead concentrating the flow along the kerb invert (channel or gutter) where
it then follows the longitudinal grade of the road. In the absence of any other infrastructure this flow would
continue to the nearest sag vertical curve, building in width as the cumulative catchment increases
downstream. After a certain distance, the width of flow first reaches a point where it affects the road user’s
level of service and ultimately becomes a roadside hazard. In order to remove these flows from the
carriageway purpose built inlets are required to capture them.
Inlet pits typically take the form of either breaks in the kerb, where flows enter from the side (side entry pits,
etc.), or openings in the road surface along the kerb invert (channel or gutter), where flows enter from the top
(grated gully pits, etc.). They should be located at low points, and at sufficient spacing on grades so that
water is removed before the width, depth, or velocity, become a hazard. Critical locations should also be
identified on the approach to specific features (e.g. intersections or pedestrian crossings) where it is
desirable to minimise the spread of kerb and channel (gutter) flows. Inlet pits are discussed further in
Section 5 – Kerbed Drainage.
3.3.2 Movement of Captured Water
When the surface water has been captured, it is carried to the ultimate disposal point through a system of
pipes or open channels and structures, or a combination of both.
Piped drainage systems are most commonly used in urban or heavily built-up areas, in conjunction with
kerbed drainage, and are discussed in detail in Section 6 – Underground Piped Networks.
In sparsely developed or rural areas, water is normally directed into a system of open channels, or natural
creeks and waterways. Movement through structures is generally restricted to cross drainage structures such
as pipes, box culverts or bridges.
Most road agencies have standard designs for different channel types. In designing formed open channels,
consideration should be given to the maintenance regime, as the flow characteristics are greatly affected by
factors such as the type, length and density of grass in the channel. Account should also be taken of the
design water level and velocity in formed open channels, to minimise opportunities for water to seep into the
subgrade and to prevent erosion. The design of open channels and cross-culverts is covered in detail in
AGRD Part 5B.
3.3.3 Water Disposal
Drainage systems will ultimately dispose of water into a natural or artificial waterway or storage device.
These may include natural waterways, bays or tidal inlets, drainage basins or storage dams. Depending on
the nature of the receiving waters, consideration will need to be given to the range of static water levels, tidal
range, storm surges and erosion potential. Consideration also needs to be given to the quality of the water
discharging into the receiving waters, particularly for any ‘sensitive’ bodies of water. In low-lying systems,
consideration may be given to floodgates or tidal flaps to prevent movement of water back into the drainage
system.

The design of drainage basins is discussed further in Section 7 – Basins.
3.4 Road Pavement and Subsurface Drainage
Subsurface drainage deals with the interception and disposal of subterranean (groundwater) flows (see
Section 8 – Subsurface and AGRD Part 7: Geotechnical Investigation and Design, Austroads 2008).
In some cases the subsurface drainage design can be a key vertical control when designing vertical
geometry, particularly where topography is relatively flat and it is proposed to discharge subsurface drainage
into an open drainage system (i.e. table drain, or open channel). Particular care needs to be taken to ensure
that invert levels of subsurface drainage outlets are located sufficiently above the invert level of the receiving
drainage system to ensure that water does not back up into subsurface drains during high frequency ARI
events. Failure to address this issue has the potential to result in undesirable moisture conditions at the
pavement/subgrade interface with the associated risk of premature pavement distress becoming apparent.

4. Aquaplaning
For road users to be able to stop or steer their vehicles, the vehicle tyres must grip the road surface. Grip is
achieved by means of friction generated in the areas where the tyres make contact with the uppermost
particles of the road surface. If the friction available is insufficient to resist the forces generated by
acceleration, braking or cornering manoeuvres, the tyre may slip over the road surface. In dry conditions,
surface friction is generally at a level that supports most normal manoeuvres, however the level of friction
available decreases when a road surface is wet or flooded (see Austroads Guidelines for the Management of
Road Surface Skid Resistance, Austroads 2005).
Many factors exist, including tyre tread and pressure, road surface and geometry, vehicle speed and depth of
water over the surface, which influence effective lateral and longitudinal friction between the tyre and road
surface. When a loss of grip or traction occurs, the effect on a moving vehicle is either skidding or
aquaplaning, both of which represent a major driving hazard. Aquaplaning is the least understood, yet most
dangerous condition.
The information, analysis method and criteria presented in this section is primarily intended for geometric
road design purposes, to identify and minimise aquaplaning potential. This section can also be used to
assess existing road conditions.
4.1 What is Aquaplaning?
Aquaplaning or hydroplaning occurs when the vehicle’s tyres are separated (partially or fully) from the road
surface by a film of water and which results in loss of control of the vehicle. The effect of aquaplaning on
vehicle handling is directional instability, with the worst case being a complete loss of directional control.
Furthermore, as contact with the road surface is lost, braking becomes impossible.
Notwithstanding the above definition, it is technically more accurate to define aquaplaning as the build-up of
hydro-pressure beneath a tyre to the extent that it partially or fully exceeds the capacity of the tyre to
disperse it, thereby reducing the contact area between the tyre and the pavement.
There are three types of aquaplaning as identified by Horne, 1968 (cited in Department of Transport and
Main Roads 2010, pp. 32). The two main types of aquaplaning are ‘viscous’ and ‘dynamic’:
Viscous aquaplaning
Viscous aquaplaning can occur at low speeds where the texture of the road surface is low (i.e. it is tending
towards smooth). It requires minimal water depth to occur as the mechanism is dependent on the viscosity of
water, which prevents it from escaping from under the tyre footprint. This type of aquaplaning is most likely to
occur during braking, such as at an intersection, or at traffic signals, and its occurrence can be exacerbated if
the vehicle is running on tyres with limited or no tread. Viscous aquaplaning can occur at water film depths
as low as 0.01 mm. Almost any condition of pavement wetness, and even the lowest vehicle speeds, may
trigger the onset of a viscous aquaplaning condition. The single most important variable which controls and
regulates the phenomenon is the microtexture at the tips of the pavement asperities (Moore 1975, cited in
DTMR 2010 pp. 33).
Dynamic aquaplaning
Dynamic aquaplaning is the partial or full separation of tyre and pavement which occurs under flooded
conditions. Flooding is said to occur when the thickness of the water film on the pavement surface is such
that, at a given speed, the combination of tyre tread and pavement macrotexture is incapable of discharging
the bulk water from the contact patch. It may equally occur if the tyre is free rolling or locked.

Dynamic aquaplaning will occur once the vehicle has exceeded a critical speed (a function of the tyre
pressure), at which time surface water in front of the tyre, acting as a wedge, can penetrate the tyre footprint
and reduce the surface contact area. At high speeds only a small portion of the tyre footprint has dry contact.
Under full dynamic aquaplaning, virtually no part of the tyre will have any contact with the surface and even
though the vehicle is travelling at great speed, the tyre can be fully locked. Once aquaplaning has occurred,
vehicle speed must be reduced significantly, and to well below the critical speed, for dynamic aquaplaning to
cease completely.
Full dynamic aquaplaning is likely to be rare based on vehicles operating within existing speed limits and with
tyres in good condition. Partial dynamic aquaplaning is more likely to occur. Loss of control may then occur
with change in speed and direction as high demands are placed on either longitudinal or lateral friction.
Tyre-tread rubber reversion
The third type of aquaplaning is called ‘tyre-tread rubber reversion’, however this only occurs when heavy
vehicles, such as trucks or aircraft, lock their wheels when moving at high speeds on wet pavements, with
macrotexture but little microtexture (Section 4.7 – The Road-tyre Interface). Rubber reversion aquaplaning is
not discussed further.
4.2 Aquaplaning vs Skidding
It is important to understand that aquaplaning and skidding are not the same condition. In a skid, the tyre still
has contact with the road surface; there is no separation between the tyre and road. On straight sections of
road, a skid generally results from hard braking or acceleration. On curves, the vehicle may skid or slip over
the surface and ‘track’ wider than the steered path or a yaw condition may occur where the vehicle will
skid/slide sideways, usually with the vehicle ending up on the inside of the curve. A partial aquaplaning
situation is essentially part aquaplaning, part skidding.
4.3 Assessment Process
Aquaplaning potential is assessed via a two-part process:

• determine water film depth (particularly in the anticipated wheel paths) for a flow path across the
pavement
• based on operating speed of the road section, check estimated water film depth against acceptable
depths limits.
These steps are discussed in detail in Section 4.9 – Assessment – Water Film Depth and Section 4.10 –
Assessment – Aquaplaning Potential, however the following Section 4.4 – Casual Factors to Section 4.8 –
Skid Resistance, provide relevant information to help the designer understand aquaplaning and reduce
aquaplaning potential.
4.4 Causal Factors
Key factors which influence (or cause) the occurrences of aquaplaning are:
• road geometry
• road surface texture, porosity and rutting
• operating speed
• rainfall intensity
• water film depth
• tyre tread depth, vertical load, width of tyres and tyre pressure

• driver behaviour.
Some of the above causal factors influence others, but the listing gives an indication of the problem of
defining strict rules for design.
Road geometry and road surfacing are the two key factors that road designers have the most control over.
Road surfacing is an important design consideration and the selection of the most appropriate surfacing is
crucial. Road surfacing is further discussed in Section 4.5 – Road Surface. Aquaplaning is considered more
of a geometrics issue than a drainage issue. The reason for this is that the ‘shape’ of the road surface has a
direct influence on the flow and build-up of stormwater run-off across the surface, which in turn directly
influences aquaplaning potential. Therefore when water film depth exceeds accepted limits, the problem is
best solved through adjustment of the road shape, or more correctly geometrics (alignment and crossfall).
4.5 Road Surfacing
Road or pavement surface properties are not dependent solely on engineering factors, and cannot be
determined in isolation. The required properties have to be developed in the context of and within the
following constraints:
• driver behaviour
• environment
• vehicle characteristics
• regulatory environments (delineation, signs, speed, constraint of driver behaviour)
• road alignment and layout
• maintenance regime
• available funding.
It should be taken into account that pavement surface properties cannot be developed to compensate for
extreme weather conditions, excess speed and/or deficiencies in areas such as poor alignment (geometrics).
Also, there is no one model or formula that can be used to compare varying combinations of road safety
components (vehicle characteristics, driver behaviour, environment, road alignment, pavement surface
properties and so on).
In dry conditions the maximum friction for a particular surface is provided by a tyre with no tread running on a
smooth pavement surface. This is demonstrated by racing cars operating in dry conditions and the
significance of when to decide to change to wet weather tyres (grooved treads) when rain threatens.
The required tyre and pavement surface characteristics are very different when the pavement is wet. To
make provision for water on the pavement surface, the following has to apply:
1. a design rainfall intensity has to be adopted because it is not possible to design the road to accommodate
all rainfall intensities
2. the road alignment and drainage has to be designed to shed the water from the design rainfall intensity to
meet a maximum permissible water film thickness
3. pavement surface macrotexture is required to:
a. reduce the potential for aquaplaning by providing drainage paths for the water to escape from beneath
the tyre, in addition to the drainage paths provided by the grooves in the tyre
b. contribute to friction between the tyre and road through hysteric deformation of the tyre (i.e. providing
resistance to the tyre through deformation of the tyre when it is passing across the macrotexture and
the recovery of the initial shape of the tyre)
4. pavement surface microtexture (asperity) has to be provided to enable the tip of the stone to penetrate
any water film and provide adhesion with the tyre.

Tyres must have a minimum groove depth to provide a drainage path for the water to escape. Sufficient tyre
pressure is also required such that the stress between the tyre and the pavement surface is sufficient to
enable the tyre to displace the water and achieve direct contact.
With reference to point (3) above and Figure 4.1, macrotexture can be affected by the size, shape and
spacing of coarse aggregate particles in the surfacing material; the presence and pattern of grooves
purposely manufactured in concrete surfaces; or the connection between surface and internal pores in the
materials. Macrotexture influences water drainage capacity, which is important in removing water from the
road-tyre contact patch, and allows the vehicle tyre tread to deform, so creating the hysteresis forces.
Macrotexture also has an effect on water spray generated from the road surface. In general terms, the
greater the macrotexture provided, the greater the reduction in water spray.
The terms ‘surface texture’ and ‘texture depth’ are often used by practitioners and these are simply
descriptors of the macrotexture of the road surface.
With reference to point (4) above and Figure 4.1, microtexture is the very fine surface texture of the
aggregate used in the surfacing material. The fine texture is provided either by the crystalline structure of the
aggregate particles in the upper layer of the surfacing material, or by fine particles such as sand in asphalt
and concrete surfacing. Microtexture influences wet and dry skid resistance at all speeds, interacting with the
vehicle’s tyres to generate the adhesive friction forces. It is important to note that very high microtextures can
significantly increase the rate of tyre wear experienced at a location.
When a road surface is wet, the water film on the road surface reduces the intimate contact needed between
the tyre and the microtexture, leading to a reduction in available friction, i.e. it is dependent on the extent to
which the microtexture is able to penetrate the water film. The surface tension properties of water also result
in a water film forming more readily on smooth aggregate, further highlighting the importance of the
microtexture.
Microtexture is gradually polished away by the action of traffic (particularly where high stresses are imparted
to the road surface by acceleration, braking and cornering manoeuvres and/or heavy vehicles).
Figure 4.1: Key texture elements of pavement surfaces
Source: Austroads (2005).
4.5.1 Pavement Surface Types
The following discussion presents general information regarding the various surfaces, in relation to
aquaplaning.

Sprayed seal
Sprayed seals (aggregate size > 10 mm) generally provide the best texture depth of all currently used
surface types. The stone aggregate also provides good microtexture unless it has a low polished aggregate
friction value.
Open graded (OG) asphalt
Open graded asphalt will easily achieve good texture depth and could be considered as the second best
surface type with respect to texture. Open graded asphalt also allows some water flow within the pavement
due to the voids within the mix (Figure 4.2).
It is considered that for vehicle speeds up to 110 km/h, it would be unlikely that there will be much of a film of
water under vehicle tyres as the water will be forced into the pores of the OG asphalt and come out
elsewhere. Furthermore, evidence exists that shows OG asphalt surfaces produce significantly less spray
than other asphalt surfaces, but may clog readily with a limited time. The reduced spray is thought to be as a
result of the surface being able to better ‘absorb’ and dissipate surface flows from under the tyre.
Dense graded (DG) asphalt
It is extremely difficult to achieve good texture depths for dense graded asphalt pavements for traffic speeds
over 80 km/h. Unlike OG asphalt, DG asphalt does not allow flow within the mix (Figure 4.2).
Stone mastic asphalt (SMA)
Stone mastic asphalt has relatively high binder content and a gapped grading with a reduction in
intermediate sized particles. This has tended to give texture depths similar to DG asphalt, although some
SMA mix designs can provide better results. Unlike OG asphalt, SMA does not allow flow within the mix
(Figure 4.2).
Concrete
Depending on the surface treatment of the finished concrete surface, concrete pavements can have poor to
good texture depth.
Figure 4.2: Schematics of aggregate skeletons for asphalt mix types
Source: Austroads (2005).

4.6 Tyres
Tyres are beyond the control of the road designer and therefore not discussed in detail. However it is
important to note that applicable authorities set minimum legal tread depths (e.g. in Queensland this depth is
1.5 mm) which typically represent approximately 80% wear of the tyre. Section 4.7 – The Road-tyre Interface
shows that tyres with a tread depth of 1.6 mm offer little grip at speed when there is minimal water on the
surface.
4.7 The Road-tyre Interface
To enable a vehicle to be driven on a roadway, adequate surface friction must be available to accommodate
the forces required for it to safely complete its manoeuvres. This friction is generated at the road-tyre
interface. This interface is more commonly known as the contact patch and represents the area where the
rubber of the tyre is in contact with the road surface material.
It is important to note that rubber does not conform to the classic laws of friction. This is because the material
is viscoelastic and its frictional properties depend on temperature and rate of deformation. Therefore, the
frictional behaviour of rubber needs to be considered differently.
Gillespie (1992) and others describe the two primary mechanisms responsible for the friction coupling at the
road-tyre interface as ‘surface adhesion’ and ‘hysteresis’ (see Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3: Mechanisms of road-tyre friction
Rubber
Binder
Aggregate
Hysteresis Adhesion
Source: Gillespie (1992) (cited in DTMR 2010).
Surface adhesion arises from the shearing of the intermolecular bonds between the tyre rubber and the
aggregate in the road surface. The adhesion component is the larger of the two mechanisms on dry roads,
but is reduced substantially when the road surface is wet. Adhesion is provided by the microtexture of the
pavement surface.
The hysteresis (or deformation of the tyre) mechanism represents energy loss in the tyre rubber as it
deforms when sliding over the aggregate in the road. Hysteresis is not affected so much by water on the
road surface. The deformation of the tyre is largely provided by the macrotexture of the pavement surface.

On dry roads, both peak and slide friction decrease with velocity. Under wet conditions, even greater speed
sensitivity prevails because of the difficulty of displacing water in the contact patch at high speeds (Gillespie
1992).
In wet conditions, as the tyre rolls over the pavement surface, the water on the surface is displaced from the
contact patch via three paths:
• the area in front and to the side of the tyre
• the voids created by the tread of the tyre (Figure 4.4)
• the voids under the tyre created by the macrotexture of the surface (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.4: Tyre tread voids
Source: Gothié (2005).
Figure 4.5: Pavement surface voids below top of aggregate
The degree of contact that can be established between the vehicle tyre and the road surface is largely
determined by the following factors:
• depth of the water film present on the surface
• surface texture depth (and the capacity of the surface to shed water, which is also a function of the
efficacy of any positive drainage provided at the location)
• tread depth, width and pressure of the tyre

• vehicle speed.
The depth on the water present on the surface is also important as the less water on the surface, the less
water there is to be displaced. Therefore good drainage of the surface is required.
Good surface texture depth and tread depth provide capacity for water on the surface to be pushed or
squeezed away from the contact patch. The time for the surface water to flow into the voids created by the
tread and texture, as the tyre passes over, is considerably less than the time for the surface water to be
pushed in front and then to the side of the tyre. Reduced tread depth and reduced texture depth of the
surface reduce available void capacity which restricts the flow of water away from the contact patch.
Vehicle speed is critical as the higher the speed, the faster the rotation of the tyre, and the less time available
for the water on the surface to be displaced from the contact patch. At low speeds, surface water displaces
via the paths discussed earlier. As speed increases, the small ‘wedge’ of water continues building in front of
the tyre. A point is reached where the surface water does not have the time to displace. The wedge of water
develops enough hydropressure to lift the tyre and allow the water to pass under the tyre, separating the tyre
from the road (see Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6: Water wedge at separation
Source: Foucard (2005) (cited in DTMR 2010).
Gothié (2005) showed a graphic relationship (Figure 4.7) highlighting the effect of speed and tread depth on
the reduction of the contact patch. Figure 4.7 illustrates the reduced voids of the tyre tread (at 50 km/h)
between a new tyre and a tyre approaching the legal minimum depth. Also, the figure shows that a worn tyre
(> 50% wear) at 90 km/h is partially aquaplaning as the contact patch is substantially reduced/almost non-
existent.

Figure 4.7: Tyre tread depth influence: 1 mm water depth
@ 50 km/h @ 70 km/h @90 km/h
New tyre
Tread depth = 8 mm
Worn tyre
50% wear
Worn tyre
Tread depth = 1.6 mm
4.8 Skid Resistance
Skid resistance is a very complex topic. The available and required skid resistance is influenced by the
interaction of many variables, including:
• driver behaviour
• driver expectations
• vehicle characteristics
• tyre characteristics
• climatic conditions
• traffic mix and volume
• pavement surface characteristics (microtexture and macrotexture)
• water film thickness (drainage)
• surface contaminants
• road alignment (horizontal and vertical)
• lane and carriageway width
• crossfall
• signage.

The pavement surface is just one of a large number of contributory factors. The three main areas of control
which relate to the pavement surface, and which many road agencies use internationally to address the
issue of skid resistance are:
• in-service skid resistance (friction)
• aggregate polishing resistance
• surface texture depth.
Poor skid resistance due to water on the road impacts on motorcyclists including tyre spray restricting vision,
a motorcyclist changing riding path, or evasive action when water on the road is identified. A reduction or
loss of friction between surface and tyres affects motorcycle stability when braking and cornering.
An interesting point worth noting is that research has found that the level of skid resistance provided by some
surfacing types in the early period after placement, e.g. some asphalts and materials incorporating polymer-
modified binders, can be less than the level that would normally be anticipated from the individual or
combined properties of the constituents. It is suggested that the reason for this early life phenomenon is the
binder coating on the uppermost surfacing aggregate is taking time to be worn off, and is masking the
potential microtexture of the aggregate. While the binder coating on the uppermost surfacing aggregate
remains, it could have the potential to act as a lubricant to any skidding mechanism in dry weather
conditions.
While there is an implied relationship between aquaplaning potential and skid resistance of the pavement,
there is currently no established direct relationship between them. Therefore, skid resistance test results can
only provide background information when assessing aquaplaning potential at any given location.
4.9 Assessment – Water Film Depth
Several theoretical and empirical methods and a formula exist to predict the depth or thickness of the water
film over the surface.
The method provided in this Guide is not considered appropriate for New Zealand conditions as its suitability
for use in New Zealand has not been fully demonstrated. Practitioners in New Zealand and/or designing for
New Zealand conditions are referred to the NZ Transport Agency website for further advice.
4.9.1 Adopted Method
The method was developed by Gallaway et al. (1979) for the USA Federal Highway Administration U.S.
Department of Transportation.
The metric version of the equation adopted is given below (Equation 6):

0.103 x 𝑇𝑇 0.11 x 𝐿𝐿0.43 x 𝐼𝐼0.59

𝐷𝐷 = − 𝑇𝑇 6
𝑆𝑆 0.42
where
𝐷𝐷 = Water film depth above the top of pavement texture (mm)
𝑇𝑇 = Average pavement texture depth (mm) (see Section 4.9.3 – Texture Depth)
𝐿𝐿 = Length of drainage path (m) (see Section 4.9.4 – Drainage Path)
𝐼𝐼 = Rainfall intensity (mm/h) (see Section 4.9.5 – Rainfall Intensity)
𝑆𝑆 = Slope of drainage path (%) (see Section 4.9.4 – Drainage Path)
Note: Several versions of this formula have been published however the key difference is generally the units
used for the slope variable.
Figure 4.8 provides an example of several drainage paths based on road surface contours, about the
superelevation change when exiting a right-hand curve. Path A crosses the road from one side to the other
where the 3% superelevation is applied. The contour spacing is uniform (constant slope) and the slope would
be slightly flatter than 3%. Where the superelevation starts to ‘roll-down’, e.g. when exiting a curve, drainage
paths start to change and slopes can flatten off (contour spacing increases), as shown by Path B. Paths D
and E indicate drainage paths over normal crossfall situations. Path C is of interest and possible concern.
The path starts to cross the road and then, due to the superelevation rotation, turns back. This situation can
create long drainage paths with a flat section in the middle, as indicated by the large spacing of the contours.
Assessment of this path must check water film depths at both the end of the flat section and the end of the
drainage path, in the vicinity of the anticipated wheel paths.
Figure 4.8: Aquaplaning example (road surface contours)
A B C E
D
Source DTMR (2010).
4.9.2 Basis/Limits
The Gallaway formula is an empirical formula based on the following experiment parameters:
• drainage lengths up to 14.6 m
• rainfall intensities up to 50.8 mm/h
• slopes up to 8%
• several surfaces tested (including sprayed seals, asphalt and concrete).

The flow path tested was over a simple, planar surface and the formula does not contain a term for hydraulic
resistance of the pavement.
The research found that:

• Increasing surface texture resulted in a decrease in water depth for a given rainfall intensity, cross slope
and drainage length. This effect was more pronounced at the flatter cross slopes and lower rainfall
intensities.
• Greater drainage lengths increased water depths: however, the rate of increase in water depth became
smaller as drainage length increased.
Gallaway concluded that water depth as a function of cross slope, texture depth and rainfall intensity can be
reliably predicted for drainage lengths up to 15 m and probably considerably beyond. The direction of the
texturing does not significantly influence the resulting water depths. While it is suggested that the formula
can be used for flow path lengths greater than 15 m, no evidence proving or disproving the use of the
formula over longer paths has been found. Therefore, the use of the Gallaway formula is still considered
appropriate.
It should also be noted that the method is one dimensional and only assesses depth of flow along a single
(zero width) flow path. Flow velocity and width or spread of the flow over the pavement surface is not
assessed. Some situations can occur where water run-off from off the road surface can flow onto the road
and/or where run-off from one flow path crosses a boundary and joins another flow path. The Gallaway
formula is unable to assess these situations properly and cases such as these should be referred to
hydraulic specialists.
4.9.3 Texture Depth
The term ‘texture depth’ refers to the average depth of the macrotexture of the road surface (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9: Texture depth
Source: DTMR (2010).
Suitable values of texture depth (T) for various surface types can be determined using Table 4.1 which
provides a range of texture depths from values researched by the RTA (1994) and Dash (1977) (cited in
DTMR 2010, pp. 11–43) and measurements taken on typical Queensland pavements. Lower values within
the table can be assumed to represent worn surfaces.
To consider future surface wear or possible change of surface type, designers should check flow paths using
T = 0.40 mm and any difference with the proposed surface assessment must be risk assessed and mitigated
if appropriate.
For investigations of existing pavements, actual test measurements are usually obtained and should be
used. Where testing is not available, use Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Road texture depth
Wearing course surface Texture depth(1) (mm)

Dense graded asphalt 10 mm or larger 0.4–0.8
Dense graded asphalt, 7 mm 0.3–0.5
Open graded asphalt(2) > 0.9
Stone mastic asphalt > 0.7
Fine gap graded asphalt 0.2–0.4
Slurry surfacing 0.4–0.8
Spray seals, 10 mm or larger > 1.5
Spray seals, 7 mm 0.6–1.0
Grooved concrete 1.2
Exposed aggregate concrete > 0.9
Tyned concrete 0.4–0.6
Hessian dragged concrete 0.3–0.5
Broomed concrete 0.2–0.4
1 Texture depth is usually measured by the sand patch test using either sand or glass beads.
2 As high as 2 mm when new, but clogs up and needs cleaning.
Source: Donald (1994) and Dash (1977), cited in DTMR (2010).
4.9.4 Drainage Path
The length of the drainage path is relatively simple to determine using contours of the road surface (as
shown in Figure 4.8).
It is important to:
• include the contours of intersections, turnouts and entry/exit ramps
• assess areas where superelevation is applied
• assess hilly and/or winding roads.
The slope of the drainage path used to develop the Gallaway formula was over a simple, planar surface.
Unfortunately, in reality, the full drainage path often contains several sections or sub-paths, each with a
different slope. The ‘point-to-point slope’ or ‘average slope’, as determined by calculating the slope from the
point of analysis straight back to the start of the flow path, has been used for some time. However, incorrect
(or less accurate) answers are generally given as the slope does not represent the full flow path slope that
well.
The best ‘single slope’ representation of a flow path which contains two or more slopes is the ‘equal area
(EA) slope’ (also known as a ‘weighted average slope’) and this slope is to be used for the variable S in the
Gallaway formula. To help explain this, if the flow path is predominately ‘flat’ with some ‘steep’ sub-paths,
then the equal area slope will be relatively flat. Alternatively, if the flow path is predominately steep with
some flat sub-paths, then the equal area slope will be relatively steep. Figure 4.10 illustrates the difference
between the point-to-point slope and equal area slope for a predominately flat flow path and how the equal
area slope better represents the slope of the flow path.
If the water film depth is required at several points along the flow path, then the equal area slope needs to be
determined from each point of analysis back to the start of the flow path.

Figure 4.10: Point-to-point vs equal area slope
The procedure to determine the equal area slope from a point of analysis back to the start of the flow path is
as follows:
• plot the profile of the flow path (long section)
– start at 0 (i.e. point of analysis) and move upstream to start of flow path
• working in metres, calculate total area under profile
• divide area by length of profile then multiply by 2
– this calculates the vertical ordinate of the equal area triangle = equal area ordinate
• plot this new ordinate (at highest point of flow path) and join back to point of analysis
• now calculate slope of this line – the equal area slope
• express as a percentage (%).
Figure 4.11 illustrates the ‘equal area slope’ over a flow path containing several sub-sections.

Figure 4.11: Equal area slope
Point of analysis
Equal Area Ordinate
4.9.5 Rainfall Intensity
For design, rainfall intensity is determined from an appropriate rainfall intensity-frequency-duration (IFD)
chart for a particular site, using a selected ARI and appropriate duration.
For the determination of water film depth over the road surface and in turn assessing the aquaplaning
potential, it is important to also consider driver behaviour. Research and other design documentation
(Yeager 1974, Ibrahim & Hall 1994, Dash 2006, cited in DTMR 2010, pp.11–43) suggest that drivers tend to
slow as rainfall intensity increases and visibility decreases. It was found that this slowing typically occurs at
about 50 mm/h; however some drivers start to reduce speed at rainfall intensities as low as 25 mm/h. As
speed decreases, the potential for aquaplaning also decreases. Considering this, assessing aquaplaning
potential at intensities higher than
50 mm/h could be inappropriate as it will be more difficult to keep water film depths below desirable limits
and potentially increase project costs (to resolve the problem) for little actual benefit in safety.
The rainfall intensity to be used for the determination of water film depth is the lesser intensity determined
using a site-specific IFD chart (ARI 1 year/5 minute duration) and 50 mm/h.
A worked example to determine water film depths is shown in Section 4.14 – Worked Example 1 –
Aquaplaning.
4.10 Assessment – Aquaplaning Potential
Efforts to quantify the probability of an accident occurring due to aquaplaning for a given rainfall intensity and
pavement conditions are made difficult due to the following factors:
• groups of vehicles following each other in lanes may ‘pump’ the lane dry to varying degrees
• tyre tread thickness, vertical load and width vary considerably because of the many types of vehicles
• the number of drivers slowing down or not at the rainfall intensity needs to be quantified.

Furthermore, there are some non-design issues that can affect aquaplaning potential, such as:
• signing for changed weather conditions
• driver education programs to raise awareness of aquaplaning issues
• cleaning of open graded asphalt.
Despite the above statements, guidelines are needed to assist designers and others to assess the potential
for aquaplaning. The following brief discussion provides information to assist in understanding the
assessment criteria/limits below.
In 1970, Staughton and Williams (cited in DTMR 2010, pp.11–47), stated that it is possible to infer that for
vehicles travelling below about 80–100 km/h with tyres in good condition, full aquaplaning is not likely to
occur (partial aquaplaning however may occur). While in 1978, Welleman (cited in DTMR 2010, pp. 11–47)
produced very similar results, he also found that increasing water depth reduces friction coefficient, with the
greatest reduction occurring up to a depth of 4 mm. Beyond 4 mm, full aquaplaning may result, depending
on tyre condition and vehicle speed.
It is not completely possible to define recommended design limits for water depths, however:
• critical depth to cause hydroplaning occurs at about 4 mm and above
• partial hydroplaning may commence at depths of about 2.5 mm.
Designers should also consider:

• likely speed conditions under chosen rainfall
• duration of water flow and depth on pavement after cessation of rain.
What happens immediately after rainfall ceases is important to consider as Yu and McNown (cited in DTMR
2010, pp. 11–47) in 1963 reported that run-off increases immediately after cessation of rainfall and Andrey
and Yagar (cited in DTMR 2010, pp. 11–47) in 1991 found that collision risk returns to normal immediately
after rain stops.
4.10.1 Assessment Criteria
The following criteria are to be adopted for geometric road design and incident investigation purposes.
Where situations do not comply, the aquaplaning potential is considered too high and a review of design is
required:
• road surface geometry should be such that drainage path lengths are less than about 60 m
• a maximum water film depth of 2.5 mm (desirable) to 4.0 mm (absolute) applies to:
– sections where the operating or design speed is 80 km/h or higher
– the approaches to and exits from intersections and roundabouts
– intersections and roundabouts
– steep downhill sections
– the merge section for entry ramps/overtaking lanes/climbing lanes
– the diverge section for exit ramps/overtaking lanes/climbing lanes
– superelevated curves (particularly those approaching limiting curve speed)
• a maximum water film depth of 5.0 mm (desirable and absolute) applies to all other situations.

Every effort to comply with desirable limits and to achieve length requirements should be made. To assist,
superelevation may need to be applied using more than one point or axis of rotation (i.e. one or more lanes
independently rotated crown lines). On high speed, wide flat pavements, it can be difficult (near impossible)
to achieve the 2.5 mm desirable limit, however experience has shown that depths of about 3.25 mm are
achievable. The 3.25 mm flow depth is often accepted by road agencies provided the risks to road users at
the site are low (i.e. the road features and alignment are not adverse) and the expected aged or deteriorated
pavement conditions are unlikely to result in a flow depth exceeding 4.0 mm absolute maximum limit.
It should be noted that the approach to an intersection or roundabout is defined as the stopping sight
distance (on a wet surface) to the end of the anticipated queue.
4.10.2 Basis/Limits
It may first appear that by adopting both a texture requirement and a water film depth requirement, an
authority would be doubling up on its control of aquaplaning. That is, one may ask why a texture requirement
is necessary if water film depth requirements are satisfied. However, a texture requirement is still necessary
for several reasons.
It is possible for a pavement to meet a water film depth requirement, but still have very low texture. In this
case, although aquaplaning may not be a likely occurrence (assuming the tyres are in good condition),
skidding may still be possible in the wet as both the adhesion and hysteresis components of skid resistance
may be low.
It would be difficult and impractical to regularly survey the entire road network and determine water film
depth. Data required would include gradient, crossfall, transverse profile (i.e. rutting), carriageway width,
longitudinal slope length and texture depth.
4.11 Quick Assessment
Review of a flow path, such as those shown in Figure 4.8 may show one or two ‘flat’ sub-paths (see
Drainage Path C). Provided that these sub-paths are about 15 to 20 m in length, designers can use the
Gallaway formula over the section, in isolation of the whole flow path, to determine the water film depth. If the
water film depth is close to or exceeds acceptable limits, then further calculations are not required and
review of the geometrics can commence. If the water film depth is greater than acceptable limits, then full
analysis of the flow path as per Section 4.9.4 – Drainage Path and Section 4.10 – Assessment –
Aquaplaning Potential is required to confirm acceptable depths.
4.12 Puddles/Wheel Ruts
Wheel ruts may produce long puddles (parallel to vehicle travel) or alter the flow path of road surface
drainage. The road crossfall and grade and the wheel path width may influence the potential for ponding in
wheel path ruts.
It is important when assessing existing roads for aquaplaning potential, particularly for incident
investigations, to determine the depth of flow in wheel ruts. This depth can be determined by using the
method as presented in Figure 4.12, which is based on the average wheel rut width of 760 mm (Donald
1994).
Crossfall in this equation is measured at right angles to the road centreline and no allowance is made for
grade.

Figure 4.12: Puddle depth formula
Source: Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (1994).
4.13 Guidance to Reduce Aquaplaning Potential
Aquaplaning may be a greater problem where braking, hard acceleration or change of vehicle direction
occurs as these manoeuvres place additional demands on friction over that of normal driving.
Particular braking situations are:

• the approaches to intersections and roundabouts
• the diverge for exit ramps
• on steep downhill sections.
Particular hard acceleration situations are:

• at the merge section of entry ramp overtaking lanes/climbing lanes
• at the diverge section of overtaking lanes/climbing lanes.
Particular change in direction situations are:

• intersections and roundabouts
• on superelevated curves (particularly those approaching limiting curve speed)
• when entering/exiting roundabouts.
If unacceptable water depths result from the procedure detailed in Section 4.9 – Assessment – Water Film
Depth and Section 4.10 – Assessment – Aquaplaning Potential, the designer must consider methods of
shortening the flow path such as:
• altering the crossfall
• adjusting the rate of superelevation development

• altering either the horizontal or vertical alignments (or both)

• introducing more crown lines.
It is important to consider the interplay of longitudinal grading and crossfall to prevent water film depth
developing to or beyond set limits (see Section 4.10 – Assessment – Aquaplaning Potential).
Any identified problems should be solved and mitigated through amended geometric road design. A drainage
solution to aquaplaning should be only considered as a ‘last resort’ option. If a drainage solution is required,
specialist advice is highly recommended in the development/assessment of design options.
Aquaplaning can occur on existing roads. One remedial treatment of existing surfaces involves
reconstructing the road surface crossfall to allow surface water to drain more quickly/reduce the length of the
flow path. However, the redesigned road surface crossfall needs to comply with the requirements in AGRD
Part 3.
Where it is problematic to modify the crossfall of existing roads to reduce the risk of aquaplaning, the use of
open graded asphalt as an overlay should be considered. This should be an overlay of OG14 (stone size 14
mm), open graded asphalt, generally 40 mm thick (depending on compaction requirements) on top of a tack
coat over the existing pavement. Use of open graded asphalt at other locations where the calculated water
film depth is marginally above the allowable maximum may also be appropriate. It should be noted that open
graded asphalt is not suitable for use in areas where high shearing forces are likely (i.e. where braking or
turning movements are frequent).
For concrete roads, problem locations which have been found to need rectification are usually but not always
confined to transitional areas of superelevation. Surface texture is applied to hardened concrete by carbide
grinding, diamond grinding and/or grooving, sand blasting or water blasting.
4.14 Worked Example 1 – Aquaplaning
This example describes the process to determine the water film depth at key points along a design pavement
surface and to assess the aquaplaning potential.
The example commences after obtaining the road surface contours over a superelevation transition section
of the road and several drainage paths have been identified.
The task for this example is, given the data below, estimate the water film depth at key points along the path
and assess any aquaplaning potential.
Project data required:

• design speed = 100 km/h
• surfacing is dense graded asphalt
• road surface contours and cross-section – (Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14).

Figure 4.13: Road surface contours

Superelevation run-off length = 60 m
DP3 DP4
DP 2
Shoulder
DP1
Shoulder
Source: Adapted from DTMR (2010).
Figure 4.14: Part of cross-section
16.70 min
Carriageway
3.00 3.50 3.70 3.50 3.00
Shoulder Traffic Traffic Traffic Shoulder

lane lane lane
3%

Step 1
Review the contour plan.
Four drainage paths have been identified:

• For drainage Path 1 (DP1), this path, approximately 26 m long, flows from one side to the other and is not
the critical path.
• The remaining three paths (DP2, DP3 and DP 4) all start on one side, travel towards the other side and
then turn to drain off the same side as they started.
• The longest path is considered the critical path, therefore drainage Path 2 (DP2) will be analysed
(Table 4.2).
Table 4.2: Extract drainage path profile for DP2
Point Ht (m) Distance (m)

Start 6.68 0.0
Start of flattest section 6.05 24.2
End of flattest section 5.75 17.7
Outer wheel path – inside lane 5.55 10.5
Outer wheel path – middle lane 5.40 6.4
Outer wheel path – outside lane 5.20 7.2
Step 2
Calculate the water film depth (D) for the longest drainage path (DP2) (see Equation 6 which is repeated
here).
0.103 x 𝑇𝑇 0.11 x 𝐿𝐿0.43 x 𝐼𝐼0.59

𝐷𝐷 = − 𝑇𝑇
𝑆𝑆 0.42
For texture depth T, see Section 4.9.3 – Texture Depth and Table 4.1.
For this example, the pavement is dense graded asphalt, therefore use 0.5 mm for T.
The rainfall intensity I, adopted for analysis is 50 mm/h – see Section 4.9.5 – Rainfall Intensity.
For drainage path length L, and drainage path slope S, see Section 4.9.4 – Drainage Path.
The slope to each point assessed is the calculated ‘equal area slope’ (Se) as per the procedure shown in
Section 4.9.4.
Note: If rainfall intensity is greater than 50 mm/h, use 50 mm/h. If less than 50 mm/h, use the calculated
rainfall intensity (see Section 4.9.5), or obtain the data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) website,
www.bom.org.au (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.3).
A summary of calculations is presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Summary of calculations
Height
Chainage Distance (m) Height (m) Total A (m2) EAO (m) Se (%)
difference
0 6.68
24.20 24.2 6.05 0.63 7.62 0.63 2.60
41.90 17.7 5.75 0.30 17.54 0.84 2.00
52.40 10.50 5.55 0.20 26.97 1.03 1.96
58.80 6.40 5.40 0.15 35.31 1.20 2.04
66.00 7.20 5.20 0.2 47.79 1.45 2.19
Where:
• total A is the total area under the profile
• EAO is the equal area ordinate
• Se is the equal area slope from the start of the path to the point of assessment.
With all variables determined, calculate the water film depth at each point.
0.103 x 0.50.11 x 660.43 x 500.59

E.g.: = − 0.5 (see Equation 6)
2.190.42
= 3.68 mm.
A summary of calculations for all points assessed is presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Summary of water film depth calculation
Chainage Water film depth(mm)

0 0
24.2 2.03
41.9 3.08
52.4 3.47
58.8 3.60
66.0 3.68
Step 3
The assessment criteria for aquaplaning potential over drainage Path 2 (DP2), is discussed in Section 4.10 –
Assessment – Aquaplaning Potential.
The criterion that applies to this section is a maximum water film depth of 2.5 mm (desirable) to 4.0 mm
(absolute).
It can be seen that all three outer wheel path points exceed the desirable limit, but are below the absolute
limit of 4 mm.
Step 4
Every effort to comply with desirable limits should be made, therefore review of the geometrics is required –
see Section 4.13 – Guidance to Reduce Aquaplaning Potential and AGRD Part 3 for guidance.

5. Kerbed Drainage
5.1 Introduction
The use of kerbing along roads serves a number of purposes, including:

• to delineate the edges of carriageways
• to separate carriageways from areas used by other modes of transport, such as pedestrians
• to separate carriageways from areas to be put to other uses, such as landscaping
• to support the edge of the base course of pavement.
With respect to drainage a primary function of kerbing is to collect surface drainage and to convey it to a
point of discharge.
The use of adequate roadway crossfall ensures that run-off upon the road surface will be directed towards
the kerbing, where it accumulates within the gutter (defined as the area formed by the kerb and the adjacent
road surface used for the conveyance of stormwater). In the absence of any other infrastructure the kerbing
redirects run-off downstream, following the longitudinal gradient of the road, until reaching a sag vertical
curve where it would otherwise pond. As the distance from the top of the catchment to the sag vertical curve
increases so too does the volume of run-off within the channel and the width it spreads out from the kerb.
Run-off that encroaches into trafficable areas creates a hazard to road users and therefore drainage
discharge points need to be introduced.
Figure 5.1 shows a typical urban road catchment with and without drainage inlet pits. Inlet pits come in a
variety of forms with the most common being side entry inlets and grated gully inlets. Inlet types are
discussed in further detail in Section 5.2.2 – Drainage Inlet Types.
Figure 5.1: Road carriageway before and after installing drainage inlets
Inlet pits are one component of the overall urban drainage network, which also includes junction pits and
piped conduits. The inlets capture the run-off from the road surface and convey it to the underground piped
network for disposal.

5.1.1 Scope
This section covers the type and selection of drainage inlets, their placement within the road network to meet
drainage and road user requirements, and their captured flow rates for the design of the underground
drainage network.
5.2.1 General
Designers must consider a number of factors when undertaking the design of kerbed drainage infrastructure.
These include:
• the maximum flow width into traffic lanes
• the location of outlets to address flow width
• the location of outlets to provide pedestrian safety
• the location of outlets to address the requirements for safe maintenance
• grading kerb returns at intersections to remove ponding issues
• provision for the discharge and/or disposal of stormwater run-off
• the potential for the kerbed road formation to become the major storm event waterway
• that the kerb will need to be a barrier or traversable type as required.
• locating drainage pits to minimise flows across an intersection
• locating pits around corners, close to the travel paths, particularly for motorcyclists and cyclists
• avoid locating grated pits in braking areas and turning paths
• the type of pit covers to be used to avoid the cover becoming a hazard.
5.2.2 Drainage Inlet Types
Prior to the commencement of kerbed drainage design, it is recommended that designers familiarise
themselves with the various types of inlet pits available to them, their uses and their limitations. Broadly,
drainage inlets can be classified by the manner in which the run-off enters them, namely side entry or top
entry, e.g. grated gully pits.
Side entry inlets are located behind the kerb with an opening in the kerb face for capturing run-off., due to
their method of capture requiring a deviation in flow direction. Variants of side entry inlets include kerb
openings and slotted kerb.
Grated, or top entry, inlets are located within the carriageway directly within the flow path of stormwater run-
off. As a direct consequence of their proximity within channel flows, grated inlets are hydraulically more
efficient across a wider range of locations than comparably sized side entry inlets. Grated entry inlets
generally have relatively small openings between bars and as such tend to be more prone to blockage from
debris. Variants of grated entry inlets include grated gullies, grated trenches, catch pits (median drains) and
slotted inlets.
Note that many jurisdictions use structures that are a combination of grate and side entry inlets which can
provide the benefits of both styles. Side entry, grated, and combination inlets are discussed in further detail
in Section 5.3 – Kerbed Drainage Elements.

The decision to use one style of inlet over another is dependent on many factors, including location of
existing drainage infrastructure, presence of underground services, road geometry, the safety of road users
(including cyclists and pedestrians) and jurisdictional preferences.
5.2.3 Existing Drainage Infrastructure
It is important that designers familiarise themselves with the location and capacity of existing drainage
networks where they exist. Road widening works result in a change in the relative offset between the new
kerb invert and the existing underground drainage conduits. In most cases, leaving existing inlets
(Figure 5.2) where they were will result in inefficient capture of future run-off. However, to completely replace
the underground pipe network may be beyond the scope of the project and the use of manholes within the
trafficable lane is often not favoured. Innovative solutions such as the use of larger drainage pits to bridge
the added distance may be possible.
Figure 5.2: Road widening with existing inlet
The location of existing drainage infrastructure can also provide an indication as to where new inlets might
best be placed. For example, where a road is to become a dual carriageway, the existing drainage pits (that
will now be located within the new median), may dictate the placement of inlets on the new carriageway,
regardless of whether the allowable spread limits may have been reached.
New works in existing environments generally result in an increase in impervious catchment area. Where the
existing underground pipe network is to be utilised then checks will need to be undertaken to establish
whether there is surplus capacity to accommodate the additional run-off.
5.2.4 Location of Other Infrastructure
Often the choice of drainage inlet type is influenced by non-drainage infrastructure within the road reserve.
Features such as traffic signals and road safety barriers are fixed with respect to their lateral location from
the kerb and longitudinal location from holding lines and roadside hazards respectively. Subsurface footings
associated with these features may preclude the location of drainage inlet pits and accompanying pipe.
Similarly, shared paths abutting the back of kerb should be clear of drainage pit covers. Such restrictions
may require the use of on-road inlets such as grated gullies.

Below the surface, underground services can have a similar impact on the choice of drainage inlets.
Horizontally, services may be located behind, or in front of the kerb line, necessitating the use of grated
gullies, or side entry inlets respectively. Vertically, services at a relatively shallow depth may result in the use
of proprietary devices such as a grated trench.
5.2.5 Bridges and Other Structures
Designers must consider the particular requirements of structures that form part of the road network such as
bridges, underpasses and tunnels.
The superstructure of bridges often does not have the required space to accommodate standard drainage
inlets and their associated pits and pipe work. Historically, older bridges in rural environments would use
scuppers to discharge surface flows directly into the adjacent waterways. This practice no longer meets
water quality guidelines and is not acceptable.
With short bridges, it is often satisfactory to place drainage inlets immediately upstream of the bridge and let
the deck itself flow to the downstream end for collection. For longer bridges, drainage designers need to
work closely with the structural design team to establish whether conventional drainage infrastructure can be
accommodated within the superstructure or whether a customised solution needs to be found.
Structures such as underpasses and tunnels present a different set of challenges to designers. There is
often no means of using conventional gravity fed drainage systems to dispose of run-off accumulating in
these structures and pumping becomes the only practical solution. Consequently it is essential that the
drainage design be capable of collecting as much of the incoming flows as possible before they enter these
structures.
The design of drainage systems for underpasses and tunnels is site specific and often requires specialised
design input from experienced hydraulics engineers. As such the design of these systems is beyond the
scope of this Guide.
5.2.6 Non-motorised Road Users
For pedestrians and those with disabilities, the following should be taken into consideration:
• minimising the width of channel flow spread at formal pedestrian crossing points by placing inlet pits
immediately upstream
• minimising the width of channel flow spread at other locations where pedestrians are likely to congregate
(such as at bus stops) to reduce the risk of splashing
• where grated trench inlets are required to be placed through pedestrian areas, ensuring that the style of
cover does not pose a trip hazard, or, catch a wheelchair
• certain side entry covers may be misinterpreted as pedestrian ramps for partially sighted persons.
Cyclists also have particular requirements with respect to drainage infrastructure. The following should be
taken into consideration:
• Grated gully covers should be cyclist friendly (i.e. transverse bars, or other identified safe styles) for all
locations other than where cyclist traffic is specifically prohibited such as freeways.
• Inlet pits within shoulders frequented by cyclists should not contain abrupt depressions of more than 10
mm. This has particular relevance to resurfacing works where inlet covers should be lifted to match the
raised road surface levels.
• Side entry inlet covers should not protrude into abutting cycle paths.
• The channel component of kerb and channel should not be included as part of a defined cycle lane as the
change in grade between the road crossfall and that of the channel can be destabilising for cyclists.

• Metallic covers on grated gully inlets pose a slip hazard when wet and as such they should not be placed
within turn radii where cyclists or motorcyclists would reasonably be expected to travel.
See AGRD Part 3, AGRD Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections (Austroads 2010b), AGRD Part
6A: Pedestrian and Cyclists Paths (AGRD Part 6A) (Austroads 2009d) and Cycling Aspects of Austroads
Guides (Austroads 2011b) for particular requirements for pedestrians and cyclists.
5.2.7 Materials
Kerbed drainage components are typically constructed from precast concrete (in the case of side entry style
inlets) and additionally with galvanised steel or cast iron (for grated gully inserts). Innovative, proprietary
products such as grated trench and slotted kerb have introduced materials such as fibre-reinforced concrete
and plastics.
Jurisdictional requirements may preclude the use of particular materials in kerbed drainage inlets. In the
absence of any requirements, designers should assess the structural capability of the material (see
Section 5.2.8) against the anticipated loading conditions.
5.2.8 Structural Considerations
The choice of inlet structure dictates its location within the road cross-section and the subsequent structural
loadings to which it may be exposed. Side entry style inlet pits are generally located behind the back of the
kerb away from traffic loads. Grated gully inlet pits on the other hand are located in front of the kerb and will
therefore sustain regular highway loadings.
AS 3996, specifies the requirements for access covers and grates for use in vehicular and pedestrian areas.
Side entry inlets are generally required to meet Class C loadings and grated gully inlets should meet Class D
loadings.
5.2.9 Safety Considerations
Drainage pit inlets can present an important safety issue that designers must consider. Considerable debate
exists regarding the recommended maximum clear opening for kerb inlets to provide safety for small
children. Even though past history has shown the likelihood to be low, the consequences of a child being
swept down a flooded kerb and into a stormwater inlet can be extreme.
It should be noted that a maximum clear opening of 88 mm is required where it is necessary to exclude the
entry of the torso of a child (based on test procedures in AS 4685.1/2004). Such consideration applies in
parks, schools and childcare centres. Consideration should be given to the use of grilles across the drainage
pit opening as a prevention measure, if applicable.
5.2.10 Design Criteria
The design criteria for kerbed drainage are detailed in Section 5.4 – Design Criteria. However, the designer
needs to consider local conditions and whether generic criteria are applicable in each case. For example,
some regional locations have rainfall events that have close to twice the rainfall intensities found in the major
cities. Whilst volumes of traffic will be lower away from the major cities, this does not necessarily provide
sufficient justification for the significant drop in safety and level of service that would be experienced by
regional roads users, should rainfall intensities be applied without question.
Any decision to deviate from design standards should however be adequately documented.

5.2.11 Computer Programs
Depending on the complexity of the works, the design of kerbed drainage can involve time consuming
interactive calculations and computer software programs, ranging from spreadsheets to proprietary drainage
packages are available to assist with the task. The more advanced programs carry out hydrological and pit
capture calculations, gutter flow and pipe network analysis. For further information on drainage computer
programs see AGRD Part 5 – Section 1.8.
5.3 Kerbed Drainage Elements
5.3.1 Kerbing
The use of kerbing on roads is in the majority of cases an urban design practice. Kerbing contains run-off on
the carriageway until drainage inlets can convey the water to a suitable disposal point. Generally, this
conveyance also requires pits and pipes. The additional cost of such infrastructure is difficult to justify on
rural roads that may otherwise carry low volumes of traffic and have sparse adjacent development.
Kerbing is available in a variety of sizes and styles depending on its intended purpose. Kerb and channel,
having crossfall significantly greater than that of the adjacent roadway, has the effect of increasing the
proportion of flow immediately adjacent to drainage inlets, which improves capture efficiencies over kerbing
alone.
The types of kerbing and their uses are described in AGRD Part 3.
5.3.2 Inlets
Drainage inlets enable surface water to enter the underground system. The types of inlets have been
standardised to provide economy and simplicity of construction and maintenance. Most road agencies have
standard drawings for the acceptable range of devices that may be used and designers should familiarise
themselves with acceptable local practice.
Inlet pits can generally be:

• side entry inlets – these inlets rely on the ability of an opening in the kerb to capture flow. They are
usually depressed at the invert of the channel to improve capture capacity and may or may not
incorporate subsurface drainage pits (i.e. rural kerb openings discharging to the verge)
• grated inlets – these inlets are placed directly in the path of the flow e.g. grated gully inlets and inlets for
open drains/channels and may need to incorporate subsurface drainage pits
• combination grate and side inlet – these inlets utilise the arrangement of the side inlet with the added
capacity of a grate in the channel.
Other types of inlets include those that provide continuous capture such as grated trench drains, kerb drains
and slotted inlets. These devices are generally suited to particular situations where conventional inlets, such
as those listed above, are unable to be used – for example where there are underground service clashes or
very flat road crossfall. In most cases continuous capture inlets are proprietary products.
Side entry inlets
Side entry inlets are vertical openings in the kerb covered by a top slab (Figure 5.3). They may have their
throat opening depressed below the gutter invert as well as a locally steepened apron to assist in directing
additional flow into the pit. Due to their relatively large openings they are less prone to blockage and are
therefore suited to areas of anticipated debris build-up such as within sag vertical curves. They have
traditionally been considered more ‘cycle-friendly’ than top entry structures such as grated gullies however
today this has less to do with the actual design but rather installation and maintenance practice (i.e. raising
covers to match resealing works).

They are of most benefit when used on flatter slopes where low gutter velocity allows greater inflow. In
addition, their clear opening is not prone to blockage from regular debris and therefore they are more
efficient in sags than grates.
Figure 5.3: Side entry inlet
Kerb openings
Kerb openings are a form of side entry inlet that have no inlet pit, or interconnecting pipework associated
with them. They are useful in isolated, typically rural, locations where kerbing has been installed for
channelisation purposes but for which the installation of a full stormwater drainage network may be cost
prohibitive, but can be limited by not having sufficient throat drop (depressed throat) leading to the tendency
to block quickly due to slow velocities at outlet. The capture performance is similar to a standard side entry
inlet having the same opening width. In general, kerb openings in urban environments should be used
sparingly in lieu of a pit and underground pipe drainage network because of possible maintenance
requirements. Kerb openings should not be considered without consultation with maintenance personnel.
Grated gully inlets
Grated, or top entry inlets consist of an opening in the gutter covered by a grate (Figure 5.4). These inlets
require transverse bars for use on public roads that may be accessed by bicycle traffic. However, this bar
orientation is susceptible to blockage from debris, particularly on flatter grades, where there are known
debris generators like overhanging trees nearby and so need to be of sufficient length to reduce the
likelihood of blockage. On freeways, or other roads where cyclists are prohibited, parallel bars, which are
less prone to blockage and perform with greater hydraulic efficiency, may be used.

Figure 5.4: Grated gully inlet
Combination side entry inlets
Combination side entry inlets consist of a side entry pit and grated gully inlet, cast into the same structure
(Figure 5.5). Smaller units have the gully inlet parallel with the side entry inlet and of the same length. The
side entry inlet, in this case, offers minimal capture increase over the grate alone and provides backup
capture in the event that the grate becomes blocked. Larger combination side entry inlets have an extended
length of side entry inlet that commences upstream of the grated gully section.
Figure 5.4: Combination side entry inlet and grated gully
Source: The Local Government and Municipal Knowledge Base http://www.lgam.info/kerb-inlet.
Continuous capture inlets
There are a range of proprietary products that have been designed for situations where flat crossfalls make
capture of flows with conventional structures difficult. In these areas of minimal crossfall, gutter flow has a
wide spread but has reduced depth. In these locations, it is likely, based on normal design calculations, there
would be a need for a significant number of conventional structures in order to contain the spread. A more
practical solution is to utilise continuous capture devices such as slotted kerb drain (Figure 5.6) or grated
trench drain (Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.5: Slotted kerb drain Figure 5.6: Grated trench drain
Source: ACO Polycrete (reproduced with permission). Source: ACO Polycrete (reproduced with permission).
Continuous capture inlets have the added benefit of a reduced subsurface cross-section. This enables them
to be installed where other constraints such as underground services would otherwise preclude the use of
conventional structures. Manufacturers of continuous capture inlets often provide in-house design services
for appropriately sizing the devices to suit the site hydrology.
In using these types of treatments, consideration should be made of the potential for increased routine
maintenance to ensure their effectiveness.
Other drainage inlets
There are other specialised kerbed drainage inlets, such as slotted inlets, that serve particular situations
however these are deemed to be beyond the scope of this Guide. Designers should see manufacturer’s
literature or publications such as Brown et al. (2009) for more information.
5.3.3 Inlet Capacity
The capacity of the various categories of drainage inlets can vary significantly depending on a number of
factors such as road geometry, size and configuration of the inlet and the amount of depression allowed in
the gutter adjacent to the kerb opening. In addition to the geometric influences, the capacity of inlets can be
reduced by the presence of debris and detritus under storm conditions, which can result in partial blockage of
the drainage inlet and the design must allow for this, see Section 5.5.3 – Blockage.
A flush inlet is one in which the normal gutter cross-section is continued through the location of the inlet
without any alteration to the cross-sectional shape.
A depressed inlet is one in which the crossfall of the gutter is increased locally, so that the grade of the kerb
invert is depressed for the length of the inlet. Depressed inlets provide greater efficiency than flush inlets
primarily because the modified gutter shape contains a greater proportion of the overall gutter flow in the
area where the inlet is located. Depressed inlets are generally shown on the drawings with suitable
transitions.

The gradient of the road (which typically is also that of the gutter) impacts on the performance of an inlet. As
the gradient increases, so too does the velocity of flow within the gutter. Side entry inlets rely on flows being
redirected into the opening, so as the velocity increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to redirect and
capture these flows. Aprons with deflectors (Figure 5.8) are sometimes used to assist with capture, but their
effectiveness varies.
Figure 5.7: Deflector apron slab
Grated inlets are also impacted by steeper gradients and flows across the top of the inlet can eventually
reach velocities where they bounce across the entire length of the grate. This needs to be considered by the
designer in the grate design.
The size and configuration of drainage inlets can vary greatly and so with it their ability to capture flows.
Many inlet structures have had their capture rates independently tested over a variety of gradients and
crossfalls to produce performance curves. Examples of performance curves used in Victoria are shown in
Appendix A. Due to the number of different drainage inlet configurations, it is beyond the scope of this Guide
to provide a comprehensive list of performance curves. Designers should check with their local jurisdiction
regarding availability and use of this information.
Section 5.5 – Design Theory provides empirical relationships for calculating the capture characteristics of
inlets where specific performance charts are not available.
5.3.4 Inlet Locations
In general, drainage inlets should be provided/considered at the following locations:

• In the low points of all sags (i.e. roadway, median, catch drains and table drains).
• Secondary (backup) inlets adjacent to inlets placed at the true sag point (i.e. land locked sags). At sags,
the likelihood of flooding is minimised by providing reserve capacity. After taking into account the
consequences of ponding, the designer may increase available pit capacity by locating one pit at the low
point and another within 10 m and preferably where the channel lip is nor more than 60 mm higher.
• To permit pedestrian access, locate pits immediately upstream of a potential pedestrian crossing,
perambulator crossing, set-down point, bus stop/bud bays, kerb returns, tapers for turning/auxiliary lanes
and noses of islands and ramps to minimise flow widths across traffic lanes and the potential for splash
during the minor design storm.

• Immediately upstream of any reversal of crossfall (e.g. application of superelevation) to minimise cross-
carriageway flows. At a superelevation development, a pit should be placed on the low side where the
cross-slope is 1% (not at the level point), or where the flow width criterion is met if this occurs.
• Immediately upstream of median openings (in cases where run-off accumulates along the median) and at
the downstream end of island noses to minimise cross-carriageway flows.
• Immediately upstream of any bridge abutment where run-off would otherwise flow onto the bridge deck.
Ensure pits are located clear of any guard fence posts on the approaches to the bridge abutment.
• In place of manholes, where manholes would otherwise have been required for maintenance access (or a
change in direction) and an inlet may be used with minor modification.
• On grades, to ensure compliance with the flow width limitations discussed in Section 5.4.2 – Pavement
Spread and Gutter Flow.
• At intersections, place pits where long/oversize vehicles cannot traverse them when turning to minimise
potential for damage.
• maximum pit spacing to facilitate inspection and cleaning of pits should be 200 m for pipes greater than
1800 mm diameter, otherwise 120 m maximum pit spacing. See Section 6.3.1 – Access Chambers.
For kerb inlets on a grade:

• Inlet capacity is controlled by the crossfall of the road pavement and the longitudinal grade.
• Bypass flow from an inlet must be accounted for in the design of the downstream inlet which receives the
bypass flow. There is no limitation to the amount of flow which may be bypassed from an inlet provided
that the flow width criteria discussed in Section 5.4.2 is met.
Inlets in sags must have sufficient inflow capacity to accept the total flow (including bypass flows from
upstream) reaching the inlet. Ponding of water at sag inlets should be limited to the widths discussed in
Section 5.4.2, particularly at intersections, where turning traffic is likely to encounter ponding water.
At landlocked sags where flooding could be potentially hazardous, it may be necessary to provide an extra
pit near the lowest point with a separate pipeline to an alternative outlet.
Where the longitudinal grades on either side of the sag are different, or where the flow from one direction is
dominant, the location of the effective sag may move from the true sag and a hydraulic jump may form
beyond the sag. Care should be taken, by the provision of extended or additional inlets, to ensure that
capture capacity is maintained and that the water level does not result in flow over the footpath into the
adjacent properties. A procedure for checking whether this effect is occurring has been proposed by Black
(1987) (cited by Department of Natural Resources and Water 2007a) and is detailed in Figure 5.9 and
Figure 5.10. The kerb height given in Figure 5.10 ensures the subcritical flow conditions are fully contained
for the given on-grade supercritical flow conditions.

Figure 5.8: Sag in a road with supercritical approach flows
Longitudinal section of road
Plan of road
Note: HJ – Hydraulic jump.

Source: DNRW (2007a).

Figure 5.9: Limit condition for a sag to act as an on-grade inlet (n = 0.013)
Inlet on-grade
zone
Depth near kerb (mm)
Pond sag
zone
Slope approaching sag (%)

Source: Black (1987) (cited in DNRW 2007a).
At intersections
Consideration should be given to the steepness of grade of the road and the possibility of momentum
carrying water past the stormwater inlet(s), across the road and into properties opposite the intersection.
Solutions to such problems may require extra inlets to be installed.
Where two falling grades meet at an intersection, every endeavour should be made to locate the low point of
the kerb and channel (gutter) at one of the tangent points of the kerb return.
Where both grades are steep, it may not be practical to locate the low point at a tangent point. In this case,
inlets should be provided at both tangent points, with additional inlets provided upstream of the tangent
points, if necessary, designed to limit the flow width beyond the kerb return. An anti-ponding drainage inlet
(grate only) installed within the width of the channel – nominally 450 mm long by 300 mm wide, with no kerb
inlet should be provided at the low point.
The location of a kerb inlet, or a grated inlet that protrudes onto the pavement, within a kerb return, is
considered unsatisfactory, due to the risk of damage by and to vehicles.
5.4 Design Criteria
5.4.1 General
AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.6, details the recommended ARI events to be used for the calculation of
stormwater run-off on the road surface. The design of drainage inlets is based on the 10 year design event,
however local conditions should be taken into consideration.

5.4.2 Pavement Spread and Gutter Flow Limits
For the safety of vehicular traffic, other than requirements against aquaplaning, flow width criteria apply.
Water depths and velocities are also limited by the width restrictions.
Flow widths in both the minor and major storms need to be considered.
Special attention to detail should be given to permissible flow widths and pit spacings where reduced or
narrow shoulders are proposed, particularly in high speed environments, such as freeways.
Minor storm flow limits
The placement of kerbed drainage inlets for the collection of road surface run-off is dependent largely on
acceptable limits for the spread of the run-off into the carriageway. Table 5.1 provides the criteria to be used
for spread width as well as for flow depth and velocities during the minor storm design event.
Table 5.1: Allowable spread widths and gutter flows

General requirements (drainage) (10 year ARI)
Number of trafficable Speed environment

lanes in any one
direction <= 70 km/h > 70 km/h
1 1.0 m 0.75 m
2+ 1.5 m 1.25 m
Where shoulders have been constructed the actual flow width is in addition to the shoulder width.
Where the kerbside traffic lane is greater than 3.5 m, then additional width (i.e. actual width of kerbside lane minus 3.5
m) may be added to the allowable spreads shown above.
Where a combined purpose lane is being utilised such as a bus lane or cycle lane at 4 m wide, the maximum
allowable spread is 1.0 m.
Freeways Surface flows should be confined to the shoulders.
Secondary roads and At least one lane each way on secondary roads, and at least one lane width on
residential streets residential streets should be trafficable during a five year ARI storm or to the
requirements of the local road agency.
Arterials There should be no need to change lanes during the design storm.
Where traffic lanes less than 3.5 m are used, it is not practical to achieve the goal of not
changing lanes during the design storm when trucks and buses are considered. Where
commercial vehicles comprise a significant proportion of the traffic, consider
redistribution of lane widths to give a wider outer lane.
Auxiliary and turning lanes Spread at the commencement of auxiliary/turning lane tapers, should be limited to 1.5 m
except where cycle lanes, or sealed shoulders are extended through the taper. In such
cases up to 1.0 m of the cycle lane may be utilised for spread allowance.
Pedestrians Maximum spread from the kerb immediately upstream of pedestrian crossing points
should be 0.5 m.
At perambulator crossing and pedestrian crossings, spread should be restricted to less
than 1.0 m in the 50 year ARI storm.
Maximum spread into the kerbside lane adjacent to bus stops or other locations where
pedestrians are expected in significant numbers should be 0.75 m.
Design rainfall intensity to use for pedestrian facilities should be the greater of the one
year ARI, five minute intensity or 50 mm/h.
Cyclists Where a road contains separate bicycle lanes then the flow spread should be limited to
0.5 m.
For a shared bicycle and vehicle lane, the flow spread width should be limited to 1.5 m.
Design rainfall intensity to use for on-road cyclist facilities is the greater of the five year
ARI, five minute intensity, or 50 mm/h.
On-street parking and car Flow width should be restricted to 2.0 m for the two year ARI.
parks

General requirements (drainage) (10 year ARI)
Number of trafficable Speed environment

lanes in any one
direction <= 70 km/h > 70 km/h
Cross carriageway flows Flows across the carriageway such as those occurring at superelevation changes,
median breaks,
T-intersections of local streets and at the ends of traffic islands to be less than 0.005
m3/s to reduce the risk of aquaplaning. The rainfall intensity to use for this situation
should be the lesser of the one year ARI, five minute intensity or 50 mm/h. See
Section 4.9.5 for further information.
Local road intersections Flows past terminating local roads to be limited to 0.030 m3/s for the applicable local
authority design ARI.
General requirements (safety)
Arterial roads Maximum flow depth x velocity = 0.3 m2/s.
Kerb-side For pedestrian safety, the maximum depth at the kerb side should be no greater than
the top of kerb, and the product of gutter flow depth by average velocity (dg x Vave)
should not exceed 0.4 m2/s.
Braking areas Water depth and width should be restricted at the approaches to traffic signals, freeway
ramp gores and in other areas where braking would be expected to occur frequently.
Source: Based on Alderson (2006).
Major storm flow limits
The major storm is usually of an ARI of 50 to 100 years, depending on the local authority. The ARI 100 year
flood should be used as a check flood, to allow consideration of any detrimental effects.
Table 5.2 gives roadway flow limits for a major storm, with particular reference to floor levels of adjacent
buildings, pedestrian and vehicle safety.
On major roads, such as freeways, highways and arterial roads additional inlets and underground drainage
should be provided, if necessary, to limit ponded water in an ARI 50 year storm so that there is:
• one lane in each direction of travel, free of water, in a multi-lane road
• a width of 3.5 m clear of water down the centre of a two-lane road
• for freeways, in the 50 year ARI storm event, flooding or ponding should not extend across more than half
the lane adjacent to the low side of the pavement (generally the left lane)
• on freeways, any greater than 50 year ARI bypass flows near ramp noses should be captured in pits and
not allowed to cross the ramp surface.
See Section 2 – Major/Minor Drainage Concept for further information.

Table 5.2: Roadway flow limitations – major storm
Situation Roadway flow width and depth limitation

Where floor levels of adjacent buildings Total flow contained within road reserve.
are above road level Peak water levels at least 300 mm below floor level of adjacent buildings
(i.e. freeboard of at least 300 mm).
Where floor levels of adjacent buildings
are less than 350 mm above top of kerb:
• where fall on footpath towards kerb is • Water depth to be limited to 50 mm above top of kerb.
greater than 100 mm
• where fall on footpath towards kerb is • Water depth to be limited to top of kerb in conjunction with a footpath
less than 100 mm profile that prevents flow from the roadway entering onto the adjacent
property.
Where no kerb is provided Above depths shall be measured from the theoretical top of kerb.
Pedestrian Safety(1)
(a) no obvious danger dgVave ≤ 0.6 m2/s.
(b) obvious danger dgVave ≤ 0.4 m2/s.
Vehicle Safety Maximum energy level of 300 mm above roadway surface for areas
subject to transverse flow.
1 Obvious danger is interpreted as areas where pedestrians are directed to, or most likely to cross water paths (such
as marked crossings and corners of intersections).
Notes:
dg = flow depth in the channel adjacent to the kerb i.e. at the invert (m).
Vave = average velocity of the flow (m/s).
Source: Adapted from DNRW (2007a).
5.4.3 Spacing
There are no maximum spacing requirements for drainage inlets. Inlets are placed at essential locations as
discussed in Section 5.3.4 – Inlet Locations and as otherwise required to meet the maximum allowable gutter
spread widths as indicated in Table 5.1. See Section 5.3.4 – Inlet Locations for maximum pit spacing to
facilitate inspection and cleaning of pipes.
Section 6.3.1 – Access Chambers provides the maximum spacing for access manholes that are based on
maintenance and safety requirements. Where circumstances permit it may be advantageous to use inlets in
place of these manhole covers to increase the volume of run-off captured from the road surface.
5.4.4 Size
Minimum pit dimensions and benching/haunching requirements are detailed on jurisdictional standard
drawings. Pits less than 3.6 m deep can be constructed to the full size required, as in these cases benching
does not reduce the cost.
5.4.5 Gradient
In order to provide adequate drainage in sag vertical curves, a minimum slope of 0.3% should be maintained
within 15 m of the low point of the curve. This represents a vertical curve constant, K, less than or equal to
50. Notwithstanding sag vertical curve locations, elsewhere, the minimum drainage grade for kerb and/or
channels is 0.3%.

5.5 Design Theory
5.5.1 Gutter Flow
The relationship between gutter flow and spread width is given by a modified version of Manning’s Equation
for flow in a triangular channel 4. The modification is necessary because the hydraulic radius in the equation
does not adequately describe the gutter cross-section, particularly where the top width of the water surface
may be more than 40 times the depth at the kerb (Brown et al. 2009). The resulting Equation 7 is as follows:
5�
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥3
𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿
1�
2
𝑇𝑇
8�
3
7
𝑄𝑄 =
𝑛𝑛
where
𝑄𝑄 = Flow rate (m3/s)
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = Conversion factor = 0.376
𝑛𝑛 = Manning’s coefficient (see Table 5.3)
𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 = Crossfall (m/m)
𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿 = Longitudinal slope (m/m)
𝑇𝑇 = Width of spread (m)
This may be rearranged into Equation 8 to determine spread width:

3�
8 8
𝑄𝑄 𝑛𝑛
𝑇𝑇 = � 5� 1� �
3
�𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿 2 �
See Section 5.4.2 – Pavement Spread and Gutter Flow Limits for recommended allowable spread limits.
The cross-section of flow in a gutter is basically triangular and the actual width of flow is governed by how far
the water is allowed to encroach onto the pavement. The adopted channel cross-section is shown in
Figure 5.11.
4
This relationship is a rearranged version of Izzard’s Equation (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.7.2) where the units of cross-slope and
longitudinal gradient are in m/m.

Figure 5.10: Profile for flow analysis
1 - Uniform section 2 - Composite section

Source: Brown et al. (2009).
The design of composite gutter sections requires consideration of flow in the depressed segment of the
gutter, Qw. Equation 9, displayed graphically in Figure 5.20, is provided for use with Equation 10 and
Equation 11, below and Figure 5.20, to determine the flow in a width of gutter in a composite cross-section,
W, less than the total spread, T. The procedure for analysing composite gutter sections is shown in
Section 5.7.1 – Example 1: Gutter Flow.
⎡ ⎤ 9
⎢ 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 ⎥
⎢ �𝑆𝑆 ⎥
𝑥𝑥
𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 = 1/ ⎢1 + 2.67 ⎥
⎢ 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 ⁄𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 ⎥
⎢ �1 + 𝑇𝑇 � − 1⎥
⎣ −1 ⎦
𝑊𝑊
𝑄𝑄𝑤𝑤 = 𝑄𝑄 − 𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠 10

𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠 11
𝑄𝑄 =
(1 − 𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 )
where
𝑄𝑄𝑤𝑤 = Flow rate in the depressed section of the gutter (m3/s)
𝑄𝑄 = Gutter flow rate (m3/s)
𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠 = Flow capacity of the gutter section above the depressed section (m3/s)
Ratio of flow in a chosen width (usually the width of the grate) to total gutter flow
𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 =
(𝑄𝑄𝑤𝑤 /𝑄𝑄)
𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤 = 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 + a / W (see Figure 5.11, 2 – composite section)
Table 5.3: Manning’s roughness coefficient – flow in triangular channels
Channel lining n
Concrete gutter (trowelled finish) 0.012
Asphalt pavement:
• smooth texture 0.013
• rough texture 0.016
Concrete pavement:
• float finish 0.014
• broom finish 0.016
Brick and pavement blocks 0.016
Gutter with vegetation and cracks 0.020
Sprayed seal 0.018
The velocity of the flow in the gutter may be taken as:

2� 1�
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥3
𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿2
𝑇𝑇
2�
3 12
𝑉𝑉 =
𝑛𝑛
where
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 0.752
Note that Equation 12 provides instantaneous velocity at a particular point in the gutter. In order to establish
travel time within gutters the average velocity is required. See AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.7.2 for further
information.
The depth at the kerb invert at this location (d) is given by Equation 13:
𝑑𝑑 = 𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 13

The relationship between gutter flow and catchment area is calculated using the Rational Method. This is
given as Equation 14:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 14
𝑄𝑄 =
360
where
𝑄𝑄 = Flow (m3/s)
𝐹𝐹 = Frequency factor
𝐶𝐶 = Run-off Coefficient
𝐼𝐼 = Rainfall intensity (mm/h)
𝐴𝐴 = Catchment area (ha)
For more details on the Rational Method, see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.4.1.
When attempting to use the above formula for calculating spread widths at sag locations, the longitudinal
grade tends to zero, and therefore the spread width tends to infinity. Increasing spread widths are in turn met
with a corresponding decrease in captured flows, theoretically approaching zero, as the longitudinal grade
falls below 0.1%. In reality the presence of an inlet on an otherwise flat section of road will induce flow. It is
recommended that a minimum longitudinal grade of 0.1% be used for all capture calculations. Note that
using the methods discussed it should never be necessary to have conventional drainage inlets spaced less
than 15 m apart. In such circumstances, it is usually a result of geometric constraints and the use of
proprietary drainage products such as continuous capture inlets (see Section 5.3.2 – Inlets further
information).
5.5.2 Inlet Capture Rates
General
To design pit spacing for 100% capture is not economical. A lower capture rate is usually assumed in which
case the bypass flow must be added to the design flow for the next downstream pit. However, where 95%
capture is used, it is not usually necessary to consider bypass flow in the calculations. A conservative
approach to inlet design must be taken to allow for partial blockage, see Section 5.5.3.
Note that Section 5.6.6 provides an alternative approach that is based on placing inlets to achieve particular
spread width rather than a particular capture frequency.
Performance charts
Section 5.3.3 – Inlet Capacity indicates the use of performance charts for estimating run-off capture rates for
particular drainage inlets and these should be used wherever possible. However, due to the cost and
availability of independent testing facilities, performance charts may not be available for each and every inlet.
The theoretical equations detailed within this Guide may be used in the absence of more specific information.
Examples of pit capture performance curves used in Victoria are shown in Appendix A. Further information
on the capacity of drainage pits used in Victoria can be found in Evans and Relph (1988).

Capture equations
Once the fixed locations for inlets have been determined, the designer then determines the spacing of
intermediate inlets. This is done by determining the flow/spread width, flow/catchment area and flow/inlet
geometry relationships. These relationships are sometimes available by means of manufacturer's
performance charts (an example is shown in Appendix A). Where such charts are not available, then the
methods used to calculate these relationships are as described in Brown et al. (2009) and are detailed
below.
Kerb openings and side entry pits
The process of determining the capture ability for a kerb opening involves first calculating the width (or
length) of opening required to capture 100% of the gutter flow. This theoretical 100% capture length, LT, is
given by Equation 15:
1 0.6 15
𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 = 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 𝑄𝑄 0.42 𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿0.3 � �
𝑛𝑛 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥
where
𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇 = Length of inlet required to capture 100% of gutter flow (m)
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = Conversion factor = 0.817
𝑄𝑄 = Gutter flow (m3/s)
𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿 = Longitudinal grade at kerb invert (m/m)
𝑛𝑛 = Manning’s roughness coefficient
𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 = Cross slope at kerb invert (m/m)
For kerb openings, the value Sx is typically the same as the road crossfall. Side entry inlets, however, may
sometimes have incorporated aprons with a locally depressed invert (Figure 5.12) to improve velocity and
assist in keeping the throat clear.
This composite cross slope Se may be determined using Equation 16:
𝑆𝑆𝑒𝑒 = 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 + 𝑆𝑆′ 𝑤𝑤 𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 16
where
𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 = Crossfall of the adjacent section of roadway (m/m)
Relative slope of depressed apron section measured from the normal crossfall of
𝑆𝑆′ 𝑤𝑤 =
the road (m/m)
𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 = Ratio of the flow in the depressed section to total gutter flow

Figure 5.11: Depressed kerb opening inlet
Source: MRWA.
The purpose of depressing the gutter area adjacent to an inlet is to reduce the spread of flow from the kerb
and therefore increase inlet interception. The ratio of flow in the depressed section relative to the total flow,
Eo, is given in Equation 17:
8�
𝑄𝑄𝑤𝑤 𝑊𝑊 3 17
𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 = = 1 − �1 − �
𝑄𝑄 𝑇𝑇
where
𝑄𝑄 = Total gutter flow (m3/s)
𝑄𝑄𝑤𝑤 = Flow in depressed apron width (m3/s)
𝑊𝑊 = Width of depressed apron (m)
𝑇𝑇 = Total spread width of run-off (m)
The efficiency of the actual kerb opening or side entry inlet, E, is then a function of the actual length and the
theoretical length required to capture 100% of flow, LT, as per Equation 18:
𝐿𝐿 1.8 18
𝐸𝐸 = 1 − �1 − �
𝐿𝐿 𝑇𝑇
where
𝐸𝐸 = Inlet efficiency (%)
𝐿𝐿 = Length of proposed inlet (m)
The captured flow is then a product of the efficiency and the total flow. Where an inlet does not have 100%
efficiency (i.e. L < LT) the remaining flow unable to be intercepted, continues down the gutter until the next
inlet. This surplus flow is known as bypass flow.

Grated inlets
The capacity of grated inlets is primarily dependent on the ratio of gutter flow that passes over the width of
the grate itself (W), known as frontal flow (Figure 5.13) to the total width (spread, T) of flow. This ratio is
8�
𝑄𝑄𝑤𝑤 𝑊𝑊 3 19
𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 = = 1 − �1 − �
𝑄𝑄 𝑇𝑇
where
𝑄𝑄 = Total gutter flow (m3/s)
𝑄𝑄𝑤𝑤 = Flow within width of grate (m3/s)
𝑊𝑊 = Width of grate inlet (m)
𝑇𝑇 = Total spread width of water (m)
The ratio of frontal flow intercepted to total frontal flow, Rf, is given by Equation 20:
𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 = 1 − 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 (𝑉𝑉 − 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜 ) 20
where
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 0.295
𝑉𝑉 = Gutter flow velocity (m/s) as defined by Equation 12
𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜 = Gutter flow velocity where the ‘skip over’ of the grate first occurs (m/s)
Note: Rf cannot exceed 1.0 (see below).
For moderate grades, grates will capture 100% of all flow passing directly over the top of it. As grades
increase, the flow velocity reaches a point where run-off begins to 'skip' over the top of the grate, thereby
decreasing its efficiency. This skip over velocity is directly related to the length of the grate. Chart 5A from
Brown et al. (2009) (shown in Figure 5.14), shows the relationship between skip over velocity and grates of
various dimensions.
Figure 5.12: Frontal flow and side flow
Source: MRWA.

Figure 5.13: Skip over velocity v length of grate

SKIP-OVER VELOCITY Vo (m/s)
Source: Adapted from Brown et al. (2009).
Side flow
Side flow may be defined as that portion of the total gutter flow that flows outside the width of the grate (width
= T – W). Some of this flow is intercepted by the grate as it passes by. The ratio of this side flow intercepted
to total side flow, Rs, may calculated with Equation 21:
1 21
𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠 =
𝐾𝐾 𝑉𝑉 1.8
�1 + 𝑐𝑐 2.3 �
𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 𝐿𝐿
where
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 0.0828
Note that where the velocities are high and grate lengths are short, the amount of side flow intercepted is
very small and may be neglected.
The total grate efficiency is therefore given by Equation 22:
𝐸𝐸 = 𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 + 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠 (1 − 𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 ) 22

Thus the inlet capacity of a grate on grade is given by Equation 23:
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 = 𝐸𝐸 𝑄𝑄 = 𝑄𝑄�𝑅𝑅𝑓𝑓 𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 + 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠 (1 − 𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 )� 23
Efficiency and bypass flows
The captured flow (Qi) at an inlet is the product of the inlet efficiency (E) and the total flow (Q). Inlets that are
not 100% efficient (E < 1.0, or L < LT for side entry inlets) are unable to capture the entire flow arriving
upstream of the inlet within the gutter. The portion of flow that is not captured continues past the inlet within
the gutter until the next inlet. This surplus flow is known as bypass flow.
Capacity of inlets in sags
Once all on-grade inlets (including both fixed and intermediate locations) have had their capacities
established in accordance with methods detailed in Section 5.5.2 – Inlet Capture Rates, the designer is able
to determine the total flows accumulating at the low points, and hence the required capacity of the sag inlets.
Inlets in sag vertical curve locations operate as weirs under low head conditions, and as orifices at greater
depths. There is a middle range of depths where the control is ill-defined and flow may fluctuate between the
two. The methods proposed here are taken from Brown et al. (2009) and are considered to be conservative.
The efficiency of inlets in sag locations is critical because all of the run-off that enters the sag must pass
through the inlet. Even a small degree of blockage may result in hazardous ponding conditions. For this
reason, inlets in sags, if a necessity, should always be accompanied by a secondary inlet.
Kerb opening inlets
Due to their open channel outlet, kerb openings will only ever operate under weir flow conditions. For a
typical kerb opening without any localised depressions, the inlet capacity is given in Equation 24:
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 = 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑1.5 24
where
𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 = Weir coefficient = 1.6
𝐿𝐿 = Length of kerb opening (m)
𝑑𝑑 = Depth at kerb invert (m)
Side entry inlets
Capacity depends on water depth at the kerb, the opening length and the height of the opening. Up until
depth reaches the opening height, side entries operate as weirs. When depth exceeds 1.4 times the opening
height the inlet operates as an orifice. In between these depths the flow is in transition.

Weir flow is calculated differently depending on whether the adjacent gutter is depressed or not. For
depressed gutters the inlet capacity is given by Equation 25:
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 = 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 (𝐿𝐿 + 1.8 𝑊𝑊) 𝑑𝑑1.5 25
where
𝐿𝐿 = Length of kerb opening (m)
𝑊𝑊 = Lateral width of depression (m)
Depth at kerb measured from the normal cross-slope (m) as defined by

𝑑𝑑 =
Equation 13
For non-depressed gutters the equation is simplified to Equation 24 above.
The limitation for use of the weir equation is as follows:
𝑑𝑑 <= ℎ + a – Depressed gutters
𝑑𝑑 <= ℎ – Non-depressed gutters
where
ℎ = Height of side entry inlet opening (Figure 5.15)
Where depth at the inlet exceeds 1.4 times the opening height, the interception capacity for both depressed
and non-depressed kerb openings is given by Equation 26:
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 = 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜 ℎ 𝐿𝐿 (2 𝑔𝑔 𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑜 )0.5 26
where
𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜 = Orifice coefficient = 0.67
𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑜 = Effective head on the centre of the orifice throat (m)

Figure 5.14: Definitions for orifice flow (side entry pit)
do
di
h
do = di - (h/2)
Source: MRWA.
Note that where the orifice opening is not vertical, the designer should see Brown et al. (2009) for guidance
on establishing do.
Grated inlets
The capacity of grates in sags is calculated in a similar manner to side entry inlets. For weir flow conditions,
use Equation 27:
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 = 𝐶𝐶𝑤𝑤 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑1.5 27
where
𝑃𝑃 = Perimeter of grate exposed to flow (i.e. neglecting kerb flow)
𝑑𝑑 = Depth of flow at the centre of grate (m)

For orifice conditions, use Equation 28:
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 = 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜 𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔 (2𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔)0.5 28
where
𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜 = Orifice coefficient = 0.67
𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔 = Clear opening area of the grate, neglecting plan area of the bars (m2)
𝑑𝑑 = Depth of flow at the centre of the grate (Figure 5.16)
𝑔𝑔 = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s2)
Figure 5.15: Definitions for orifice flow (grate)
Source: MRWA.
AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001) estimates that grates operate as weirs up to a depth of 0.12 m and as an orifice
once depth is greater than 0.43 m. In between, the situation is indefinite but the weir equation is
recommended. Alternatively, guidance may be found in Brown et al. (2009) under Grate Inlets in Sags.
Spread at sag points may be established through back-substitution for d (in the equations detailed above)
and then through Equation 13. Note however that the depth calculated is not at the kerb invert (Figure 5.16).
5.5.3 Blockage
Blockage of drainage pits (either at an inlet or within the system) needs to be considered as it reduces the
capacity of the underground pipe network (part of the minor system) and therefore increases the flow within
the major system (Section 2 – Major/Minor Drainage Concept). This generally increases flood levels.
As a consequence of debris that accumulates directly upon, or washes onto the roadway, inlets may at times
have their capacities reduced due to blockages. Although this may occur on grade, it is more an issue for
inlets in sags. Table 5.4 indicates the percentage of blockage that is to be applied to the theoretical inflow
capacity of inlets.

Grated inlets in particular are susceptible to blockage from debris that may substantially reduce their capacity
to capture gutter flow. In sag vertical curves the debris may lead to complete blockage and subsequent
flooding of the road surface. The designer should take into account the potential for blockage when
determining the spacing of intermediate inlets. Table 5.4 provides capacity reduction factors for the different
types of inlet pits. These reduction factors should only be applied when analysing the major event; however,
where there are major debris generators adjacent to the road such as overhanging trees the designer may
need to consider their use even for the minor event.
Table 5.4: Provision for pit blockage
Percentage of theoretical capacity

Condition Inlet type
allowed
Sag Kerb inlet 80%
Grated 50%
Combination Note(1)
Continuous grade (On-grade) Kerb inlet 80%
Longitudinal bar grated 60%
Transverse bar grate or longitudinal 50%

bar grate(2) incorporating transverse
bars
Combination 90%(3)
Off road: continuous grade or sag Grated pit with depressed grate 50%(4)
(e.g. drainage of open drains such as
central medians and catch drains)
1 In sag, the capacity of a combination inlet should be taken to be the theoretical capacity of the kerb opening, the
grate being assumed to be fully blocked.
2 Should only be used on controlled access roads or elsewhere, where cyclists are prohibited.
3 On a continuous grade the capacity of a combination inlet should be taken to be 90% of the combined theoretical
capacity of the grate only.
4 Pit blockage allowance to be considered for the minor storm event. A higher figure may be applicable for the major
storm event.
Table 5.4 does not prevent the setting of project-specific, alternative blockage factors for site-specific inlet
designs. Alternative factors must be specified in design/contract documentation.
5.6 Design Procedure
The general procedure for design of kerbed drainage for the minor flood is:
• Define catchments and sub-areas and show the natural drainage flow directions.
• Identify possible drainage outfalls for the catchment areas.
• Calculate design discharge flows from each sub-area.
• Calculate the flow widths along roads and streets (proposed as well as existing).
• If flow widths are unacceptable, provide gully inlets and underground drainage to reduce the widths.
• Trial some gully inlet locations and drainage lines with particular attention to the need to drain sags and
road intersections.
• Calculate preliminary pipe sizes by determining the design discharges in each pipe length, assuming
pipes are flowing full but not under pressure. Discharges in pipes are calculated from the upstream end,
using the sum of the contributing areas and time of concentration for the longest path of flow to the point
under consideration, except where partial area affects occur.

• For the proposed pipe materials determine the minimum grades required to meet acceptable self-flushing
velocities when the pipes are just flowing full.
• Place the pipes in the drainage line, with cover and grading requirements met and junctions and access
chambers at appropriate locations.
• Starting from the extreme downstream water level in each drainage line, calculate the hydraulic gradient
up the line, allowing for head losses and pressure changes for obstructions, bends, junctions and
manholes (design check).
• Refine the design so that all parameters are met.
• Design the total catchment for the major flood, assuming the discharge in excess of that for the minor
flood is surface or open channel flow. On rare occasions, the underground drainage may need to be
increased to avoid problems from the major flood.
Trial pit spacings – inlet pits
Various trials will be required to select the most economic network. When evaluating alternative pit spacings,
the aim is to achieve economical design by minimising the total number of pits in the system. The
implications of construction methods, the need for early drainage construction, drainage during the
earthworks stage, and restrictions imposed if not all the site is available, should be considered.
The initial design of a piped drainage network should commence with the placement of inlets at
predetermined locations. The process involves the location of inlets, initially where it is obvious that surface
run-off and catchment discharge will have to be collected (Section 5.3.4 – Inlet Locations). Intermediate
inlets are subsequently located to meet required gutter flow/spread width requirements (Section 5.4.2 –
Pavement Spread and Gutter Flow Limits).
To simplify design, most road types can have charts prepared which show length of road served by each pit
type. This allows pits to be set out quickly so the trial networks can be established and examined. For final
calculations, the contributory areas, discharges, and pit spacings are accurately determined.
All trial networks, particularly on brownfield construction projects, should be inspected in the field by design
and construction staff before completing the assessment or detailed design to ensure the selected locations
are suitable.
Unless no other drainage solution is feasible, conduits and pits should not be constructed within pavement
layers because of the additional cost, issues associated with construction (e.g. achievement of pavement
compaction) and maintenance, and the possibility that with the passing of time, the surface may not provide
satisfactory comfort for all road users.
5.6.1 Data Collection
The designer should obtain as much information as deemed necessary to undertake the kerbed drainage
design. Such data includes, but is not limited to, the following:
• road design drawings (existing and any proposed works)
• existing drainage network plans
• existing underground services
• intensity-frequency-duration charts for the location
• groundwater information
• topographic survey with ground contour information
• plans for preliminary design that cover the entire catchment area and show all surface features relevant to
drainage

• locations and depths of utility services

• known flood levels or area subject to inundation of the base plan
• plots or overlays of the most recent road geometry information on the base plans
• plots of existing drainage networks, on or near the road reservation and information for the design
discharge, time of concentration and ARI from the drainage authority.
5.6.2 Site Investigation
In order to understand the complexities of the site, the designer should undertake a site investigation, as
maps and survey notes may not show all details relevant to good design. The investigation may include:
• establishing the adjacent land uses, particularly parks, reserves, development, etc.
• confirming that the existing drainage infrastructure and services have been captured on the plans
• assessing the existing road inlet spacing to provide a guide for preliminary inlet spacing
• determining where potential major system overland flow paths are located
• determining the soil characteristics
• checking the extent of pedestrian or cyclist facilities that may influence choice of inlet type
• identifying suitable locations for basins.
5.6.3 Identify Drainage Outfalls
Details on the identification and selection of appropriate outfalls for kerbed drainage are found in
Section 6.2.2 – Drainage Outfalls.
5.6.4 Establish Design Criteria
The design criteria applicable to kerbed drainage is discussed in Section 5.4 – Design Criteria. The primary
criterion is the allowable spread width for stormwater accumulating in the gutter. Allowable spread widths
govern the maximum permissible spacing for drainage inlets.
5.6.5 Select Inlet Type
Section 5.2.2 – Drainage Inlet Types and Section 5.3.2 – Inlets, provide information on the types of inlets
available to the drainage designer. The three conventional styles of inlets are side entry inlets, top entry (i.e.
grated gully) inlets and combination inlets. The designer should also see the other design considerations
discussed in Section 5.2 – Design Considerations in order to determine whether there will be constraints
associated with any of the selected inlet types. An example of such a constraint is a telecommunications
cable immediately behind a kerb which may prevent side entry inlets being used.
Geometric characteristics of the road may require the use of non-conventional drainage products such as
continuous capture inlets (Section 5.3.2). Routine maintenance costs should be considered when adopting
continuous capture inlets.
5.6.6 Placement of Trial Inlets
The placement of trial inlets should commence at those locations required to comply with the design criteria
in Section 5.4.2 – Pavement Spread and Gutter Flow Limits. This includes low points in the road, at selected
island noses and upstream of pedestrian crossing facilities, bus stops, bridge decks and changes in
superelevation.

Further inlets are placed at intermediate locations to ensure that the allowable spread limits of Table 5.1 are
met. Commencing from the top of catchments (i.e. road crest curves) intermediate inlets should be placed
wherever the calculated spread is found to reach the allowable limit. Several iterations may be required
before an acceptable solution is reached. A relatively accurate estimate of inlet spacing may be achieved in
a single iteration by simultaneously solving Equation 7 and Equation 14 for area (A) and then dividing by
catchment width. It should be noted that this is only effective where the surface type across the catchment is
of a homogeneous nature and the width of catchment does not vary significantly.
Inlet locations are also heavily influenced by proposed or existing underground piped networks. Usually there
would be at least two ways to link the pits to create alternative pipe networks: a parallel pattern or a central
pipe pattern. One option or the other may be eliminated by a visual appreciation of the cost as proportional to
the lengths of pipe used, or by a policy decision such as to reduce road crossings to a minimum, which rules
out a central pipe layout (Figure 5.17). While much of the network may be rapidly simplified, it may be
necessary to design parts of it, in more detail in order to select the most economical proposal. The general
procedure for placement of inlets is:
• sketch the layouts of the reasonable options for the network including catch drains and table drains
• consider the construction limitations of each option
• modify the networks as necessary
• obtain utility locations and depths if these are critical to the choice of network layout
• consider service relocation strategy impacts on drainage network location.
Figure 5.16: Alternative network systems
Source: VicRoads (2003).
5.6.7 Define Sub-catchments
Upon selection of inlet locations, sub-catchments can be established from topographic survey or other
suitable methods. Defining the extent and features of the catchment is fundamental to determining the
catchment discharge, as they will largely determine the design rainfall intensity and duration and extent to
which rainfall is converted to run-off.

Catchment analysis is discussed in detail in AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.6 (Rural) and Section 6.7 (Urban).
5.6.8 Calculate Run-off Coefficients
The run-off coefficient relates the volume of water that is discharged from a catchment to the rain falling over
the catchment. The value is not constant, but varies with rainfall intensity and the proportion of impervious
areas. For details on the determination of run-off coefficients applicable to each type of surfacing within the
sub-catchment see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.6.3 (Rural) and Section 6.7.3 (Urban).
5.6.9 Calculate Time of Concentration
In the Rational Method, the time of concentration tc for a catchment is defined as:
• time taken for water to flow from the most time remote point on the catchment to the outlet or point of
interest
• time taken from the start of rainfall until all of the catchment is simultaneously contributing to flow at the
outlet or point of interest.
The significance of the time of concentration is that peak outflow will normally result when the entire
catchment is contributing flow from rainfall on the catchment (excluding partial area effects, see AGRD Part 5
– Section 6.6). The most intense rainfall that contributes to the outflow will be that with duration equal to the
time of concentration.
For details on the determination of the sub-catchment time of concentration see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.7.2
(Rural) and Section 6.7.3 (Urban).
5.6.10 Establish Design Rainfall Intensity
Intensity, frequency and duration are the three parameters used to define rainfall events with rainfall intensity
based on the storm frequency and duration. Details on the process used to establish design rainfall intensity
are discussed in AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.3.
5.6.11 Calculate Design Flows
The most common method for determining sub-catchment design flows is the Rational Method (see
Equation 14).
5.6.12 Spread Compliance Check
The flow along the gutter then needs to be checked to ensure that its spread width upstream of the pit (see
Equation 8) does not exceed the allowable limits (Table 5.1).
The pit charts contained in Appendix A also provide a guide on kerb and channel flow widths and pit capture.
5.6.13 Establish Inlet Capture Flows
The inlet capture rates are calculated using either performance charts (example shown in Appendix A) or
using the equations shown in Section 5.5.2 – Inlet Capture Rates. From the capture rate, the amount of flow
bypassing the inlet can be determined which is added to the flows being received by subsequent inlets. The
effects of partial blockage should be taken into consideration, as detailed in Section 5.5.3.
A worked example using a performance chart is shown in Section 5.7.2 – Example 2: Pit Spacing.

5.6.14 Design of Underground Piped Network
Having established in the intake flows for the inlets, the design of the pipe network can be undertaken. See
Section 6 – Underground Piped Networks for further details.
5.6.15 Major Event Check
The flows for the major storm event need to be calculated and assessed against the flows which can be
contained within the designated flow paths. There will be locations along the roadway where there will be
critical points, such as approaches to intersections, upstream of driveways, where the flows need to be at a
level which can be tolerated, i.e. permissible flows. If the flows exceed the permissible flow, then these flows
need to be reduced to the permissible level. This could be by collecting and discharging more of the surface
flows to the underground drainage system.
Further information on the major/minor flow systems is contained in Section 2 – Major/Minor Drainage
Concept.
5.6.16 Design Documentation
The following information should accompany the kerbed inlet drainage design:
• basis for the calculation of flows
• design recurrence intervals for inlets
• rainfall intensities
• catchment plans showing details of all sub-catchments
• pavement spread widths along the gutter
• types of inlet structures used and their locations
• gutter flow velocities and flow depths at critical locations (Table 5.1)
• any assumptions used in spacing of the inlets
• method used for spacing of inlets (spreadsheets, nomographs, programs).
A flow chart for the procedure is shown in Figure 5.18.

Figure 5.17: Flow chart for pit inlet positions
Obtain background data

Refer to Section 5.6.1
Undertake site investigation

Identify drainage outfalls

Select inlet type

Design criteria
Place inlets at trial locations

Determine inlet subcatchments

Determine runoff coefficients

Adjust inlet location Calculate time of concentration

Determine the rainfall IFD

Calculate flow u/s of inlet

Check spread compliance

Determine inlet capture flows

Refer to 5.6.13
Pipe network design

Major event check

Design documentation

5.7 Worked Example – Kerbed Drainage
5.7.1 Example 1: Gutter Flow
Determine the gutter capacity for the section shown in Figure 5.19:
Figure 5.18: Channel profile
With the following data:

• W = 0.6 m
• SL = 0.01 m/m
• Sx = 0.020 m/m
• n = 0.016.
• Gutter depression, a = 50 mm.
Find:
1. gutter flow at a spread, T, of 2.5 m
2. spread at a flow of 0.12 m3/s.
Solution 1
Step 1
Compute the cross slope of the depressed gutter, Sw, and the width of spread from the junction of the gutter
and the road to the limit of the spread, Ts.
Sw = a / W + Sx
Sw = [(50) / (1000)] / (0.6) + (0.020) = 0.103 m/m
Ts = T – W = 2.5 m – 0.6 m
Ts = 1.9 m

Step 2
From Equation 7, or from Figure 5.20 (using Ts).
Qs x n = Ku Sx 1.67 SL 0.5 Ts2.67
Qs x n = (0.376) (0.02)1.67 (0.01)0.5 (1.9)2.67
Qs x n = 0.00031 m3/s
Qs = (Qs x n) / n = 0.00031 / 0.016
Qs = 0.019 m3/sec
Step 3
Determine the gutter flow, Q, using Equation 9 and Equation 11, or Figure 5.21.
T / W = 2.5 / 0.6 = 4.17
Sw / Sx = 0.103 / 0.020 = 5.15
Eo = 1 / {1 + (Sw / Sx) / [(1+ (Sw / Sx) / (T / W – 1))2.67 – 1]}
Eo = 1 / {1 + [5.15 / (1 + (5.15) / (4.17 – 1))2.67 – 1]}
Eo = 0.70
or
from Figure 5.21, for W / T = 0.6 / 2.5 = 0.24
Eo = Qw / Q = 0.70
Q = Qs / (1 – Eo)
Q = 0.019 / (1 – 0.70)
Q = 0.06 m3/sec (gutter flow at a spread T of 2.5 m)
Solution 2
Since the spread cannot be determined by a direct solution, an iterative approach must be used.
Step 1
Try Qs = 0.04 m3/sec
Step 2
Compute Qw
Qw = Q – Qs = 0.12 – 0.04
Qw = 0.08 m3/sec

Step 3
Using Equation 10, or from Figure 5.21, determine W/T ratio.
Eo = Qw / Q = 0.08 / 0.12 = 0.67
Sw / Sx = 0.103 / 0.020 = 5.15
W / T = 0.23 from Figure 5.21
Step 4
Compute spread based on the assumed Qs.
T = W / (W / T) = 0.6 / 0.23
T = 2.6 m
Step 5
Compute Ts based on assumed Qs.
Ts = T – W = 2.6 – 0.6 = 2.0 m
Step 6
Use Equation 8, or Figure 5.20 to determine Qs for computed Ts.
Qs x n = Ku Sx1.67 SL0.5 T2.67
Qs x n = (0.376) (0.02)1.67(0.01)0.5(2.0)2.67
Qs x n = 0.00035 m3/s
Qs = Qsn / n = 0.00035 / 0.016
Qs = 0.022 m3/s
Step 7
Compare computed Qs with assumed Qs.
Qs assumed = 0.04 > 0.022 = Qs computed
Not close – try again.
Step 8
Try a new assumed Qs and repeat Steps 2 through 7.
Assume Qs = 0.058 m3/s
Qw = 0.12 – 0.058 = 0.062 m3/s
Eo = Qw / Q = 0.062 / 0.12 = 0.52

Sw / Sx = 5.15
W / T = 0.17 (from Figure 5.21)
T = 0.60 / 0.17 = 3.5 m
Ts = 3.5 – 0.6 = 2.9 m
Qs x n = 0.00094 m3/s
Qs = .00094 / 0.016 = 0.059 m3/s
Qs assumed = 0.058 m3/s close to 0.059 m3/s = Qs computed.
Figure 5.19: Flow in triangular gutter sections
0.376 1.67 0.5 2.67

Q= Sx S T
n
EXAMPLE:
GIVEN: n = 0.016; SX = 0.03
S = 0.04; T = 1.83m
FIND: Q = 0.068 m3/s
Q x n = 0.011 m3/s
1) For V-shape use the nomograph with

SX = SX1 SX2 / (SX1 + SX2)
2) To determine discharge in gutter
with composite cross slopes, find Qs
using TS and SX. Then use CHART 2A
(Figure 5.21) to find EO. The total
discharge is Q=QS/(1-EO), and QW =
Q-QS.
Source: Adapted from Brown et al. (2009).

Figure 5.20: Ratio of frontal flow to total gutter flow
5.7.2 Example 2: Pit Spacing
This example provides an outline of the assessment of the inlet capacity using a performance chart.
The project site is a freeway in Melton, Victoria.
Having established a trial pit spacing according to the principles of Section 5.6 – Design Procedure, the
discharges to the pits are calculated using the statistical Rational Method. The average recurrence interval
(ARI) for design is 10 years, as suggested in AGRD Part 5 – Section 4.6, Table 4.3.
For this example the discharges is to be calculated at pit 43, shown on Figure 5.22.

Figure 5.21: Layout plan
Pit 43 Pit 45
Pavement width = 10.4 m

(Two lanes - 3.7 m wide
Shoulders - 1.5 m wide)
Step 1 – Catchment areas
The following catchment areas were measured from the base plan (Figure 5.22):
Table 5.5: Calculation of areas
Batter 0.039 ha
Verge 2.0 x 120 x 10–4 0.024 ha
Median Nil
Pavement 10.4 x 120 x 10–4 0.125 ha
Total 0.188 ha
Step 2 – Fraction impervious
To determine a Run-off coefficient, the fraction impervious is required, and the 10 year ARI one hour duration
rainfall intensity, 10I1 for the project area.

The surface considered to be impervious is the pavement area. The fraction impervious is given by
Equation 29:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 29
𝑓𝑓 =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
where
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 0.125 (from Table 5.5)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 0.188 (from Table 5.5)
Therefore, the fraction impervious f = 0.125/0.188 = 0.66.
Step 3 – Coefficient of run-off
See AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.7 for calculation of coefficient of run-off. Construct design graph, Figure 5.23
and enter from the horizontal scale, at the value for fraction impervious. Extend a line vertically to the design
pivot line, then proceed horizontally to read the 10 year ARI run-off coefficient, C10 = 0.64. To convert the
run-off coefficient to another ARI, use factor FY from AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.7.3, Table 6.8.
Figure 5.22: Run-off coefficients for urban drainage
Run-off coefficients for urban drainage

1.0
0.9
10 year ARI Runoff Coefficient, C10
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
C110
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fraction impervious f

Step 4 – Time of concentration
In order to obtain the relevant rainfall intensity, we need to estimate the time of concentration. See AGRD
Part 5 – Section 6.7.2, for the determination of the time of concentration for overland and channel flows. This
can be done with Equation 30.
𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 + 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐ℎ + 𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝 30
where
𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = Time of concentration (min)
𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 = Time of overland flow (min)
𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐ℎ = Time in channel (min)
𝑇𝑇𝑝𝑝 = Time in pipe (min)
For pavement overland flow time, adopt a three minute travel time as the road carriageway width is greater
than 10 m. The designer may employ a number of equations for overland flow time as outlined in AGRD Part
5 – Section 6.7 to arrive at an appropriate travel time.
For channel flow time, the grade of the channel is 0.6% over the 120 m length between pit 43 and pit 45.
From AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.7.2, Figure 6.10, a channel flow time of 3.5 minutes can be determined.
In this example there is no pipe flow travel time to consider, therefore:
Tc = 3.0 + 3.5 +0 = 6.5 minutes
Rainfall intensity:
Melton IFD, 10 year ARI gives see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.9, Table 6.13:
T = 6.0 minutes I = 96.6 mm/h
By interpolation:
Step 5 – Discharge to pit
Using the Rational Method (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6.4.1):
𝐶𝐶 𝐼𝐼 𝐴𝐴
𝑄𝑄 =
360
0.64 𝑥𝑥 94.3 𝑥𝑥 0.188

𝑄𝑄10 =
360
𝑄𝑄10 = 0.032 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

Step 6 – Acceptance criteria
Check the result against the relevant pit capacity chart, in this case for a side entry pit 1 m inlet, 3% crossfall,
shown in Figure 5.24.
Figure 5.23: Side entry pit inlet chart
Side entry pit 1 metre inlet

3% shoulder crossfall
Channel flow and pit capacity (m3/s)
Channel grade (%)

Enter Figure 5.24 from:
Channel grade = 0.6%, project vertically
Channel flow = 0.032 m3/s, project horizontally, and intersect the two lines (on Figure 5.24):
Capture = 100%
Flow width = 2.00 m (less than the flow spread limits shown in Table 5.1)
Pit location and capacity acceptable.
Step 7 – Record the results.

6. Underground Piped Networks
6.1 Introduction
Run-off that falls upon or flows onto the road surface may become a hazard to road users and so should be
removed in a prompt and efficient manner. The road geometry e.g. pavement crossfall and longitudinal
grade, cause the road surface flows to flow and this flow is directed to the edge of the carriageway for
collection. Where roads do not have kerbs, the collection takes place in open channels such as a table drain
(see AGRD Part 5B – Section 2.13). On kerbed roads, drainage inlets are used to capture the run-off, and
convey it to the underground network for ultimate disposal. This network comprises a series of drainage pits
(including inlet pits and access chambers) and interconnecting conduits.
The major components are as follows:

• drainage inlets
• drainage pits, including access chambers (i.e. manholes) and inlet pits
• underground conduit or pipes
• discharge points.
This section provides designers with guidance for the design of the underground drainage networks which
convey the surface run-off collected from the road surface to the nominated point of disposal or discharge
point (existing network, drainage basin, waterway, etc.). The network includes inlet pits, junction pits and
interconnecting conduit or pipes. Note that whilst other materials and conduit shapes may be used in
particular circumstances this Guide recognises that pipe conduits are the most commonly used. As such the
Guide generally refers to the underground infrastructure as ‘piped’ networks.
6.2.1 General
There a number of factors to be considered in the design of the underground pipe network including the
consideration of the outfall hydraulic conditions, the location and spacing of access chambers, the presence
of the other infrastructure (particularly utility services) and the effects of the drainage infrastructure on the
expected road users. These are further discussed below.
6.2.2 Drainage Outfalls
General
Drainage outfalls include watercourses, bays, open channels, existing underground and aboveground
drainage systems, and even adjacent property. Whilst they are not part of the piped network itself, and
represent the termination of a system, outfall identification and assessment should be one of the first tasks
undertaken as part of any design.
An appreciation of the topography from the contour plans will assist in the identification of possible outlet
points. Discussions with the relevant agency should start as soon as an approximate time of concentration
and discharge are estimated. It cannot be assumed that the maximum road discharge will be accepted and
where issues arise with discharge to an outfall location, it will be necessary to investigate alternative points of
discharge and/or measures to retard, or retain all or some of the flow to meet the capacity of the outfall.
Discussion on the design of piped networks as it applies to drainage outfalls may be found in Section 6.6.3 –
Starting HGL (Tailwater).

Capacity of existing systems
Urbanisation markedly increases discharges and creation of new roads or widening of arterial roads
contributes to this process. Problems can arise where existing downstream pipes and channels have
insufficient capacity. In some cases these can be relieved by storing the water near the top of the catchment.
See Section 7 – Basins for information on retention and detention basins.
Tidal systems and flood gates
Where the outlet from a stormwater network is submerged, such as by tide or a flood, and where it is
necessary to prevent the flow of such waters back up the system, it may be necessary to install flood gates.
Where required, it will be necessary to ensure that only those conduit types for which gates are available are
selected.
Designers should be aware of the issues associated with the proposed installation of gates. These include:
• Gates will generally have a higher hydraulic head loss (designers should see manufacturer’s published
details).
• Regular maintenance is required to ensure their efficient operation, particularly where there is significant
debris or sediment transport, either along the proposed outfall (i.e. a waterway) or within the piped
system. If regular maintenance is unlikely then the use of gates may not be appropriate.
6.2.3 Access Chamber Location
The location of the underground pipelines can vary according to the location of the pipeline in the network
and the location of other infrastructure. The alignment is often dictated by the presence of other roadside
items such as traffic signals, road safety barrier systems and underground utility services.
At the top end of the pipeline network, the pipeline typically is located behind or under the kerbing. Where
the access chambers are not able to be located within the verge and the pipeline is located within the road
pavement, then it is desirable to locate access chambers outside of wheel paths to minimise damage to the
drainage infrastructure and the vehicles. Vehicles travelling over access chambers also results in additional
noise associated with a change in the road surface (particularly where lids have a degree of movement).
The location of access chambers is also governed by the following:

• abrupt changes in vertical alignment (i.e. down a batter slope)
• changes in horizontal alignment induced by other roadside constraints (i.e. corner property boundary)
• maximum spacing between drainage pits to meet maintenance requirements.
On dual carriageways, drainage lines within the central median should be offset approximately 1.5 m from
the centreline as the centreline is where street lighting is often located.
6.2.4 Existing Drainage Infrastructure
It is important that designers familiarise themselves with the location and capacity of existing drainage
networks where they exist. Road widening works result in a change in the relative offset between the new
kerb invert and the existing drainage pipes. In most cases retaining existing inlets may not be practicable as
they may be in the traffic wheel paths or not capture the run-off. However, to completely re-lay the
underground pipe network may be impractical and the use of innovative solutions such as the use of larger
pits to bridge the added distance may be possible.

The location of existing drainage infrastructure can also provide an indication as to where new inlets might
best be placed. For example, where a road is to become a dual carriageway the existing drainage pits (that
will now be located within the new median) may dictate the placement of inlets on the new carriageway,
regardless of whether the allowable spread limits have been achieved.
New works in existing environments generally result in an increase in the impervious catchment area. Where
the existing pipeline network is to be utilised, checks will need to be undertaken to establish whether there is
surplus capacity to accommodate the additional run-off. The design of underground piped networks is
covered in detail in Section 6.6 – Design Theory and Section 6.7 – Design Procedure.
6.2.5 Location of Other Infrastructure
Often the choice of drainage inlet type is influenced by non-drainage infrastructure within the road reserve.
Features such as traffic signals and road safety barrier are fixed with respect to their lateral location from the
kerb and longitudinal location from holding lines and roadside hazards respectively. Subsurface footings
associated with these features may preclude the location of drainage inlet pits and accompanying pipes.
Similarly shared paths abutting the back of the kerb should be located clear of drainage pit covers. Such
restrictions may require the use of on-road inlets such as grated gullies.
Below the surface, underground utility services can have a similar impact on the choice of drainage inlets.
Horizontally, services may be located behind or in front of the kerb line, necessitating the use of grated
gullies or side entry inlets respectively. Vertically, services at a relatively shallow depth may result in the use
of proprietary devices such as a grated trench.
The location of poles for overhead services can impact on the location of a piped network.
6.2.6 Bridge Decks
The installation of conventional drainage infrastructure within the bridge deck is generally not appropriate
due to the constraints posed by the superstructure cross-section. For shorter bridges, it may be acceptable
to omit any formal drainage between abutments provided that spread requirements are met (Section 5.4.2 –
Pavement Spread and Gutter Flow Limits). On longer bridges alternative solutions are required. Such
alternatives have been discussed in Section 5.2.5 – Bridges and Other Structures.
6.2.7 Structural Considerations
Access chambers and pipes are subjected to a variety of loadings that must be taken into consideration.
These include:
• live loads directly upon access chamber covers
• live loads transferred to the subsurface pits and pipe conduits
• dead loads from the height of fill above
• hydrostatic forces from groundwater and internally from pressurised flows.
The ability to withstand these forces depends on a number of factors including but not limited to the strength
of the materials used, the support provided by the surrounding soil, the size of pipes used, the joint types in
the pipes and the installation conditions.
These factors are discussed in further detail in Section 6.4 – Structural Requirements. See AGRD Part 5 –
Appendix B for material considerations.

6.2.8 Road User Considerations
Access chamber covers should be located outside of wheel paths to minimise ongoing maintenance impacts.
Additionally, the lids have the potential to work themselves loose and create an ongoing noise issue for
those in adjacent dwellings.
As with drainage inlets, non-motorised road users also have particular requirements with respect to access
chambers. The following should be taken into consideration:
• Access chambers should not be placed within pedestrian crossings as the inherent level difference
between pit cover and the adjacent road surface can create a hazard for those with disabilities and in
particular the elderly or sight impaired persons.
• Access chambers within shoulders frequented by cyclists should have their lids set flush with the adjacent
sealed surfaces. This has particular relevance to resurfacing works where covers should be lifted to
match the raised road surface levels.
• Access chamber covers should not be placed within shared paths. Where this is unavoidable then the
finished surface level of the cover should be set flush with the adjacent path.
• Access chamber covers that contain metal lids should not be placed within areas regularly frequented by
cyclists such as the sealed shoulders of known cycle routes as they can introduce a slip hazard.
See AGRD Part 3, AGRD Part 4A (Austroads 2010b), AGRD Part 6A (Austroads 2009d) and Cycling
Aspects of Austroads Guides (Austroads 2011b) for particular requirements for pedestrians and cyclists.
6.3 Piped Network Elements
As detailed in Section 6.1 – Introduction a piped network consists of drainage inlets, access chambers,
underground pipes and outlets, ultimately leading to an appropriate disposal point. Drainage inlets are
discussed in Section 5.3.2 – Inlets. Access chambers and underground pipes are discussed below.
6.3.1 Access Chambers
Access chambers or manholes are placed in drain lines:

• to provide access for maintenance
• at changes of direction, grade, or level
• at junctions.
The maximum spacing for access chambers is:

• 100 m to 120 m for pipes less than 1200 mm diameter
• 150 m for pipes 1200 mm to 1800 mm diameter
• 200 m for pipes greater than 1800 mm diameter.
Access chambers, or manholes, should also be located a maximum of 100 m upstream of the outlet of all
pipes discharging into tidal waters and at changes of direction, grade or level and at junctions. The tops of
access chambers in roadways or paved surfaces should be flush with the finished surface. Although
designed for wheel loads, the tops of access chambers should be located away from wheel paths, if
possible, to minimise damage to pavements. The tops of manholes elsewhere should be 25 mm above the
natural surface and tapered down to their surrounds.
In cases where precast chambers are used, the connecting stormwater pipes should not protrude into the
chamber and should be sealed and finished in accordance with an approved construction detail.

Access covers should comply with the requirements of AS 3996.
Access chamber design principles
The geometry of pipes at access chambers is critical in respect of hydraulic head loss. The main principles to
be followed to minimise head loss are:
• minimise changes in flow velocity through the chamber
• minimise changes in flow direction
• avoid ‘opposed lateral’ inflows, i.e. all incoming pipes should ideally be contained within a 90° arc, but
certainly less than 180°
• limit the deflection from inflow to outflow for pipes smaller than 600 mm diameter to 90°, or 67.5° for pipes
600 mm and greater in diameter
• avoid vertical misalignment i.e. ‘drop pits’, unless deliberately intending to induce high head loss, and
where a change in pipe size occurs, it is preferable to align inlet and outlet pipes obvert to obvert,
including where there is an increase in pipe size (otherwise pit drops may apply)
• in cases where precast chambers are used, the connecting stormwater pipes should not protrude into the
chamber and should be sealed and finished in accordance with an approved construction detail. These
details are typically obtained from local jurisdictions in the form of standard drawings and/or specifications
• where practical, direct inlet pipes wholly into the barrel of the outlet pipe (Figure 6.1) (note that for various
reasons, inflow pipes often need to be directed towards the centre of the pit (Figure 6.2), however, this
will increase losses)
• rounding the entrance to the outlet pipe will help to reduce losses (Figure 6.3)
• where significant pit losses are expected (significant changes in flow direction are to be accommodated)
the use of pit invert haunching concrete will assist in reducing losses
• where practical, the change of direction of flow should occur at or near the downstream face of the
chamber
• head losses resulting from surface inflows (Figure 6.4) are reduced if the design water level in the
chamber is well above the outlet pipe obvert.
Note that the number and orientation of connecting pipes is also influenced by the structural requirements of
the access chamber.
Figure 6.1: Inflow pipe directed at centre of outflow Figure 6.2: Streamlines resulting from inflow
pipe pipe directed at pit centre
Fl ow
Fl o
Pipe centreline w
Pipe centreline shown

Figure 6.3: Bellmouth entrance to outlet pipe Figure 6.4: Inlet chamber showing water level well
above outlet obvert
Fl ow
Pipe centreline
Bellmouth to outlet pipe
6.3.2 Pipes
The use of splay pipe components to construct bends in pipelines, particularly between pits/access
chambers, is generally not an accepted practice adopted by road agencies.
However, in particular instances where bends are proposed, then they should adhere to the following
requirements:
• specific locations where it is proposed to use splay pipes to construct bends in pipelines, are to be
reviewed and approved by the relevant agency
• pipes must conform to relevant agency specifications
• bends should be restricted to large pipes only, i.e. for pipe diameters of 1200 mm or greater using
proprietary splay pipe units
• bend angles should be restricted to a total or maximum 22.5° pipe deflection in the horizontal plane only
(grade of conduit should not change)
• only one bend is allowed between any two drainage pits
• the detailed design of any pipe that includes a bend should obtain formal approval from the relevant
agency.
6.3.3 Materials
Access chamber covers are generally constructed from precast steel reinforced concrete, although metal lids
(such as cast iron) are common. As indicated in Section 6.2.8 – Road User Considerations, metal lids may
present a slip hazard to cyclists and where possible they should be suitably treated (i.e. concrete infill) to
reduce the risk or substituted with a concrete lid.
Drainage pits are traditionally constructed from steel or fibre reinforced concrete. Depending on the shape of
the pit these may be either precast concrete units (i.e. liners), or in situ concrete. Some jurisdictions have
historically used masonry block, or brick for construction, though this is becoming less common.
Other materials such as plastics are now being used for pit and pipe construction. They can offer advantages
such as ease of installation and hydraulic smoothness. However some jurisdictions have placed various
levels of restrictions upon their use. Designers should see local agency requirements for further information.
6.4 Structural Requirements
6.4.1 Pipes
Loads on buried pipelines include:

• fill over the pipe, which is a function of:

– height of fill
– type of fill material
– installation conditions (e.g. trench or embankment)
• normal traffic loads
• construction traffic loads
• abnormal load conditions.
The load bearing capacity of a pipeline is a function of:

• pipe strength class (or stiffness for plastic pipes)
• type of bedding and backfill material
• pipe diameter.
For pipe loading charts see the manufacturer’s design and installation requirements.
In the case of culverts, the invert level is generally fixed by the invert level where the network discharges
either into an existing drainage network or a watercourse. The design problem is to select a suitable class of
pipe, and type of bedding to suit the pipe diameter, height of fill over the pipe, type of fill material, installation
condition and traffic load.
In urban drainage design, the depth of the pipeline is usually not a constraint. In this case the design
exercise is to select the most economic combination of pipe depth, strength class and bedding type.
The structural design of pipelines should be carried out in accordance with AS/NZS 3725: Design for
Installation of Buried Concrete Pipes or AS/NZS 2566.2 Buried Flexible Pipelines: Installation, as applicable.
The Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia (CPAA), also have available software for the design of steel
reinforced concrete pipes, PipeClass v2.0 (CPAA 2012a) which is available on the CPAA website,
http://www.cpaa.asn.au/design-software-pipeclass.html.
The minimum cover over any pipe, irrespective of location, class and bedding, should be 300 mm, unless
special protection is provided, such as a structural concrete slab. Table 6.1 details the recommended
minimum cover for typical installations. The cover requirements during construction also need to be
considered and an example of these requirements are shown in Appendix C.
Table 6.1: Minimum cover on pipes
Minimum cover(1) (mm)

Location
Flexible type pipes, e.g. plastic or
Rigid type pipes, e.g. concrete
thin metal
Residential private property, and 300 450
parks not subject to traffic
Private property and parks subject 450 450
to occasional traffic
Footpaths 450 600
Road carriageways, car parks and 600 750
other areas subject to regular
vehicular traffic
1 See AGRD Part 5 – Appendix B for information on pipe materials including cover.

Where pipelines, whether located under road pavements or otherwise, are subjected to heavy construction
loads or required to be installed at depths less than shown in Table 6.1, then consideration should be given
to the need for additional temporary cover, a stronger class of pipe or other forms of protection.
Where aggressive ground conditions exist, or where the system might be exposed to salt water, it may be
necessary to provide additional concrete cover to the pipe reinforcement, or protective coating to exposed
surfaces. The supply and proper installation of high-quality impermeable concrete is the most effective
means of corrosion prevention. Designers should also see AS/NZS 4058 Precast Concrete Pipes (Pressure
and Non-pressure) and the Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia website,
http://www.concrete.net.au/index.php, for additional information.
6.4.2 Joint Types
There are three types of joints for reinforced pipes:

• flush joint
• rubber ring joint/spigot and socket
• jacking.
Flush joint pipes are suitable where the ground conditions are stable and excessive ground movement is not
expected and some infiltration into, or out of, the pipeline can be tolerated. They are an economical option
where installations require a high level of compaction and the surrounding soil is stable. In urban areas flush
jointed pipes allow shallow installation (no need to allow for collars) and are more accommodating for utilities
in close proximity.
Rubber ring joint/spigot and socket type pipes allow for ground movement. This joint type should also be
used where:
• the normal groundwater level is above the pipe obvert
• a pipe must be designed to run under pressure; in this case the elevation of the hydraulic gradeline must
be determined
• pipe movement is possible, such as:
– on the side of fills
– at transitions from cut to fill
– where a pipeline is in a high fill of variable height.
Jacking pipes are used where conventional excavation/laying/backfill methods are not feasible. Designers
should see manufacturer’s guidelines for selection, use and design detail for jacking pipes.
If a pipe must be designed to run under pressure, rubber ring joints should be specified. In this case the
elevation of the hydraulic gradeline must be determined (Section 6.6.2 – Hydraulic Grade Line and Total
Energy Line). Rubber ring joints are also required where relative settlement is likely, for instance, where the
pipeline runs between cut and fill, or for a pipeline in a high fill of variable height.
6.4.3 Bedding and Haunch Support
The bedding and haunch requirements for pipes are generally detailed on the local jurisdiction’s standard
drawings. In the absence of such information, the requirements for concrete pipe may be found in AS/NZS
3725.

6.5 Design Criteria
6.5.1 General
The design of an underground pipe network includes the consideration of elements, in addition to the
hydrological elements, such as the size of access chambers or pits relative to the sizes of the incoming and
outgoing pipe sizes, the pipe grades and resultant flow velocities and clearance to utility services. These are
discussed in the flowing sections and the hydraulic elements are covered in Section 6.6 – Design Theory.
6.5.2 Size
Access chambers/pits
Access chambers, or pits, need to be large enough to provide for the incoming and outgoing pipes, access
by maintenance staff and/or equipment, and retain their structural integrity.
Generally, access chambers and pits should meet the following:

• the maximum nominal outer diameter of any connecting pipe should be less than 60% the internal
diameter of the liner
• a minimum of 200 mm separation should exist between any two adjacent connecting pipes
• a minimum 40% of the pit wall should remain in any plane.
Where the access chamber or pit is over 600 mm deep, step irons, and for very deep pits, ladders fixed to
the pit wall, are required to facilitate the access into the pit. Step irons and ladders and haunching
requirements (including landings) must comply with the requirements of AS 1657. Step irons and ladders
should be located so they do not interfere with the flows through the pit and enable maintenance personnel
to face any approaching traffic when they are using them. An alternative entry system using a harness
system may enable access to be gained without the need to install ladders. Designers should consult with
the drainage maintenance personnel on the access arrangements.
Minimum pit dimensions and haunching requirements (including landings) shall comply with AS 1657 or as
otherwise detailed on jurisdictional standard drawings. Pits less than 3.6 m deep can be constructed to the
full size required, as in these cases haunching does not reduce the cost.
Pipes
The recommended minimum pipe size is 375 mm to 450 mm diameter, in order to reduce the likelihood of
blockage. On parts of the piped network that do not have inlet pits discharging directly into the pipe, the
likelihood of debris entering the pipe is very low and a smaller pipe (e.g. 225 mm or 300 mm diameter) may
be able to be used, subject to the road agency approval.
6.5.3 Depth of Installation/Minimum Cover
The pipelines and resulting access chambers and pits should be kept as shallow as possible to minimise
construction costs. Construction costs can increase significantly when shoring material is required to be
placed to support the sides of pipe trenches or the construction is below the groundwater table.
The depth of the pipeline needs to be sufficient to connect any subsurface drainage (see Section 8 –
Subsurface) beside or above the obvert of the outlet pipe.

Where pipes, access chambers and pits are installed below ground the groundwater table flotation
(buoyancy), foundation stability and ground response under earthquake conditions shall be taken into
account (where relevant). In special cases, the advice from a geotechnical engineer should be sought to
confirm the appropriateness of the proposed design.
Designers should see the manufacturer’s specifications for pipe loadings for trench or embankment
conditions.
6.5.4 Pipe Velocities and Grades
Velocity limits
The velocity of stormwater in pipes should be maintained within acceptable limits to ensure that:
• self-cleaning of the pipe is maintained
• scouring and erosion of the pipe (particularly the invert) does not occur.
The range of acceptable flow velocities are shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Flow velocities for pipes
Flow Absolute Desirable Desirable Absolute

condition minimum(1) (m/s) minimum(1) (m/s) maximum(2) (m/s) maximum(2) (m/s)
Partially full 0.7 1.2 6.0 8.0
Full 0.6 1.0 6.0 8.0
1 Minimum flow velocities apply to the 1 year ARI design storm, and apply to all pipe materials.
2 Maximum flow velocities apply to concrete pipes. For other pipe materials, see manufacturer’s advice.
Note: VicRoads – based on 10 year storm ARI.
Source: Derived from DNRW (2007a) and CPAA (2012b).
In steep terrain, the velocity of flow should not be greater than the maximum velocity of 6.0 m/s under ‘pipe
full’ conditions. To achieve this requirement, it may be necessary to construct access chambers with drops to
dissipate some of the kinetic energy of the flow, or to limit the pipe diameter.
Notwithstanding the above suggested velocity limits, hydraulic considerations may require the velocity to be
controlled to well below the ‘desirable maximum’ and/or the pipe size increased to minimise structure losses
and the slope of the hydraulic grade line.
Pipe gradients
To meet the requirements of the velocity limits (Table 6.2) and to consider construction limitations, the
maximum and minimum grades suggested for design purposes are shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Acceptable pipe grades for pipes flowing full
Pipe diameter (mm) Maximum grade (%) Minimum grade (%)

300 20.0 0.50
375 15.0 0.40
450 11.0 0.30
525 9.0 0.25
600 7.5 0.20
675 6.5 0.18
750 5.5 0.15
900 4.5 0.12
1050 3.5 0.10
1200 3.0 0.10
1350 2.5 0.10
1500 2.2 0.10
1650 2.0 0.10
1800 1.7 0.10
1950 1.5 0.10
2100 1.4 0.10
2250 1.3 0.10
2400 1.2 0.10
Notes:
• Based on a Manning’s n = 0.013.
• Based on a desirable maximum velocity for pipe flowing full of 6.0 m/s.
• Based on minimum velocity for pipe flowing full of 1.0 m/s.
• The maximum grade requirement applies to both the pipe grade and the hydraulic grade.
• The minimum grades apply to the pipe grade only.
6.5.5 Clearances
Where conflicts exist in the alignment and level of services, it will be necessary to ensure that adequate
clearance is provided between the outer faces of each service. The nominated clearance should allow for
collars and fittings on pipes and special protection if required (e.g. a concrete surround). The clearance
distance can vary for each type of utility and these requirements must be obtained from the relevant utility
agency.
Reference should be made to the utility allocations applicable in the area, when designing the stormwater
system.
6.6 Design Theory
6.6.1 Hydraulic Calculations – General
The detailed hydraulic grade line (HGL) method is recommended for the analysis of underground piped
networks. While hydrologic analysis is undertaken accumulating flow from the back of the catchment to the
proposed system outfall, hydraulic analysis is normally undertaken from the boundary condition at the
system outfall and as back water analysis, i.e. analysis proceeding from downstream to upstream through
the system. The method is logically consistent with the concept of backwater analysis and enables the
prediction of hydraulic grade line and water surface level throughout the system. It permits control points, or
points of potential surcharge, to be determined and for system layout and pipe sizes to be optimised.

Normal HGL analysis starts from the downstream boundary condition with the analysis working upstream.
There are special cases that occur when the downstream boundary condition does not result in the outfall
pipe being full. HGL analysis requires all pipes flowing full and under pressure and in this case the designer
needs to assume part full pipes (Manning’s analysis) and work back upstream to see if pipe full conditions
occur. Each section of pipe can be considered as a culvert and inlet and outlet flow conditions need to be
checked.
There are other special cases where the branch outlet is well above the HGL in the connecting pit and the
branch is treated as a culvert with a free fall outlet. The second special case can occur where the pipe is very
steep and part full conditions occur in the pipe. In this case a hydraulic jump must form near the end of the
pipe and high energy dissipation must occur, resulting in surging in the connecting pit with high water levels.
The extra water level needs to be determined and added to the HGL determined form the back water
analysis.
There are some circumstances where hydraulic design on an upstream to downstream basis may be
necessary.
Where a branch line on flat terrain enters a trunk drainage system, a critical hydraulic grade level situation
may occur because of the possibility of surcharging in the branch line system. Accordingly, the branch line
may be designed on an upstream to downstream basis, where the hydraulic grade line predicted at the trunk
line is then used as a control for subsequent downstream to upstream calculations in the trunk line system.
In circumstance where a new drainage network crosses more than one land use category, resulting in a
change in design standard (i.e. some parts of the minor drainage system are designed to a two year ARI
standard, while other parts are designed to a 10 year ARI standard), then the network should be analysed for
each ARI.
6.6.2 Hydraulic Grade Line and Total Energy Line
The HGL represents the pressure head at any point in a pipeline, and is the level to which water within an
underground drainage conduit would rise in an unconstrained environment (i.e. the ‘effective water level’).
Note that at inlet pits and access chambers the water service elevation 5 (WSE) is normally higher that the
theoretical HGL, because the latter reflects the HGL immediately upstream of the structure. The vertical
distance below a point along the HGL is the pressure head, or pressure energy, at that point.
The total energy line (TEL) under steady flow conditions is located above the HGL by a distance equal to the
velocity head, V2/2g, where V is the average velocity in the pipe and g, the acceleration due to gravity. The
elevation of the TEL represents the total energy (velocity plus pressure plus potential) available to the flow.
Where the velocities are negligible (i.e. within a pond) then the HGL and TEL coincide.
There are three models that are applied to hydraulic systems, namely:
• simple steady flow open channel model
• steady flow, pressured grade line model
• complex, unsteady flow model.
5
Water service elevation is the level of water reaches in a pit or access chamber.

The open channel model assumes steady (fixed) flow in each section with the HGL set at the obvert of the
pipes by appropriate selection of pipe diameters (Figure 6.5). The calculated HGL upstream of each pipe is
made to match, or be slightly lower than, the upstream obvert. The design flow in each section is usually
determined by the Rational Method. This model is a series of connected open channels with the system
flowing full but not under pressure.
Figure 6.5: Simple steady flow open channel model
The pressurised grade line model also assumes steady flow in each pipe and link. However, the HGL is
above the obverts of the pipes, and pressure flows occur (Figure 6.6). Allowances are made for pressure
changes and energy losses in pits, which are larger than those for flows in the simple steady flow open
channel model. However, with a possible higher velocity of flow through the pipes and more flexibility in
choosing pipe slopes, a more efficient design than one from the open channel model may result.
Figure 6.6: Steady flow, pressured grade line model
2
V2
2g 2
V3
2g
Q3
The unsteady flow model is dependent on time unlike that of the two steady flow models. Water levels rise
and fall during the design storm event and a computer program is essential (Figure 6.7). This type of design
is not frequently used.

Figure 6.7: Complex, unsteady flow model
Different pit
water levels (and
HGL’s) for various
flow rates
The velocity of flow, and accordingly the discharge capacity of a pipe, is a function of the hydraulic grade
(slope of the HGL), and not necessarily the actual pipe grade. A pipe may be located at any grade and/or
depth below the HGL, without altering the velocity and flow in the pipe, subject to the grade limitations
outlined in Section 6.5.4 – Pipe Velocities and Grades. Hence, the pipe grade may be flattened, to provide
cover under roads, or clearance under other services, without sacrificing flow capacity, provided sufficient
head is available.
During the minor (design) event, the HGL and WSE must be below the surface level at pits and kerb inlets,
or the system will surcharge.
6.6.3 Starting HGL (Tailwater)
In order to carry out a HGL backwater analysis for an urban piped drainage system it is necessary to
determine a starting HGL or downstream HGL, for the calculations.
This section of the Guide deals with determining a starting HGL for the discharge conditions most commonly
encountered. The designer should, in all cases, give careful consideration to the adopted starting HGL and if
necessary, liaise with the relevant regulating authority to establish an agreement on the starting HGL.
Outfalls – general
During subcritical outflow conditions, the position of the starting HGL will depend on the relationship between
the calculated tailwater (TWL) in the receiving waters, the critical depth (dc) of the particular flow under
consideration in the outfall pipe and the obvert level (OL) of the pipe. The following general rules should
apply (Figure 6.8):
1. if TWL > OL, then start HGL = TWL
2. if TWL ≤ OL and TWL ≥ dc, then start HGL = OL
3. if TWL < dc (i.e. free outfall), then start HGL = the normal flow depth (dn) in the outfall pipe for the given
flow rate.

Figure 6.8: Tailwater at outfall
(1) Tailwater above obvert (2) Tailwater below obvert (3) Tailwater below invert
TWL above pipe obvert, Tailwater between OL and TWL below critical depth,
Starting HGL = TWL critical depth,
Starting HGL = normal depth in
Starting HGL = OL pipe (not dc)
Note: The starting HGL conditions presented in Figure 6.8 (2) and (3) do not necessarily apply to the analysis of outflow
from short pipes such as most culverts.
Source: Catchments and Creeks (reproduced with permission) and DNRW (2007a).
In this case where TWL < dc the outfall pipe is not flowing full (Figure 6.8 condition (3)) and normal HGL
analysis cannot be undertaken. The designer needs to check the flow conditions at the inlet end of the outfall
pipe to ascertain whether pipe full conditions occur upstream. A hydraulic analysis method treating the outfall
pipe as a culvert and checking inlet/outlet flow conditions is usually satisfactory. Once the designer has
determined pipe full conditions occur within the proposed system, then normal HGL analysis can be
completed upstream of that point.
Existing pipe network
The designer should determine the HGL of the existing system for the design ARI. Structure losses should
be made in the existing system. If this is considered impractical due to the length or complexity of the
existing pipe network, then an appropriate estimation of the HGL in the existing network must be made.
When determining the starting HGL, consideration should be given to:
• the existence of a downstream surcharge chamber (if any)
• the existence of a downstream pipe possibly operating under partial flow (such a condition may be
unlikely during a design storm event)
• otherwise, with approval from the local authority, adoption of a starting water level 150 mm below the
grate/inlet elevation (minor design storm conditions only).
In any case, modifications to an existing drainage system, including changes to inflows, must not
compromise the system’s performance relative to the desired performance standard without approval from
the relevant local agency.
Future pipe network
Where design of a piped system is being undertaken in the upstream section of a catchment prior to the
design of the downstream system, the designer should undertake sufficient preliminary planning of the
downstream system to permit design of the upstream system.
This planning should incorporate preliminary road layouts and levels, along with preliminary drain locations
and levels. To allow for possible inaccuracies associated with such a preliminary design, a factor of safety
may need to be allowed. For example:

• allow a nominal height above the assessed HGL at the proposed connection to the downstream system
• adopt the HGL equal to the natural surface at the location of the next downstream structure in the
proposed future pipe network
• adopt a starting HGL as approved by the local agency.
6.6.4 Losses – General
Losses due to friction in pipes may be expressed with Equation 31:
ℎ𝑓𝑓 = 𝑆𝑆𝑓𝑓 𝐿𝐿 31
where
ℎ𝑓𝑓 = Head loss in pipe due to friction (m)
𝑆𝑆𝑓𝑓 = Friction slope (m/m)
𝐿𝐿 = Length of pipe in reach (m)
Losses due to obstructions, bends or junctions in pipelines may be expressed as a function of the velocity of
flow in the pipe immediately downstream of the obstruction, bend or junction with Equation 32:
𝐾𝐾𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜2 32
ℎ𝑠𝑠 =
2𝑔𝑔
where
ℎ𝑠𝑠 = Head loss at obstruction, bend or junction (m)
𝐾𝐾 = Pressure coefficient change (dimensionless)
𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜 = Velocity of flow in the downstream pipe (m/s)
Pressure change coefficients K (sometimes referred to as structure, or pit loss coefficients) are dependent on
many factors, e.g.:
• junction structure geometry
• pipe diameters
• bend radius
• angle of change of direction
• relative diameter of obstructions, etc.
See Section 6.6.8 – Pit Losses, for pressure change, or pit loss, coefficients.

6.6.5 Friction Losses
In any hydraulic analysis, the pipe friction loss is assessed by determining the pipe condition over the water
contact surface. The friction and hence head loss calculations must account for both the pipe roughness and
the ‘effective roughness’ caused by the condition and spacing of the pipe joints. At the design stage the
designer should consider the deterioration or blockage that may occur in the pipe system to ensure the
proposed system design is robust and able to meet the hydraulic performance requirements throughout the
system design life. To calculate the head loss due to pipe friction, two procedures are commonly used and
these are described below.
Friction loss based on Manning’s Equation
This formula for friction loss is given by Equation 33:
19.6𝑛𝑛2 𝐿𝐿 𝑉𝑉 2 33
𝐻𝐻𝑓𝑓 = � � � �
𝑅𝑅1.33 2𝑔𝑔
Where
𝐻𝐻𝑓𝑓 = Friction loss (m)
𝑛𝑛 = Manning’s roughness coefficient (see Table 6.4)
𝐿𝐿 = Length of conduit over which the losses are being calculated (m)
𝑅𝑅 = Hydraulic radius (m) (area/wetted perimeter)
𝑉𝑉 = Average flow velocity (m/s) assuming pipe flow is full
Table 6.4: Manning’s n values for closed artificial channels
Type of structure Manning’s n

Concrete pipe 0.011–0.013
Corrugated metal pipe or pipe arch (small
corrugation): 0.024
(i) plain or unpaved
(ii) paved invert – full flow: 0.021
• 25% circumference paved 0.018
• 50% circumference paved 0.012
Fully paved
Structural plate pipe or pipe arch 0.030–0.033
Monolithic concrete (box culvert) 0.012
Vitrified clay pipe 0.012
Source: Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads (cited in DTMR 2010 p. 6).
Losses from Darcy–Weisbach equation
The head loss due to pipe friction is calculated by the following procedure:

Calculate the relative roughness of the pipe with Equation 34:
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠 34
𝑒𝑒 =
𝐷𝐷
and Reynolds number with Equation 35:
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 35
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝑣𝑣
where
𝑒𝑒 = Relative roughness (m/m)
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠 = Roughness value (m)
𝐷𝐷 = Pipe diameter (m)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = Reynolds number
𝑉𝑉 = Average velocity of flow (m/s) assuming pipe flow is full
𝑣𝑣 = Kinematic viscosity of the fluid
Note: the kinematic viscosity, v, of water is 1.01x10-6 m2/s at 20 °C but is temperature dependent (i.e. colder
water generates higher friction and head loss effects). The natural waters in New Zealand have a
temperature of 12 °C with a kinematic viscosity is 1.25 x 10-6 m2/s.
Find the friction factor f from Figure 6.9, the Moody diagram.

Figure 6.9: Moody diagram
Source: Davis (2005).

Calculate the head loss due to pipe friction from the Darcy–Weisbach equation, given in Equation 36:
𝑓𝑓(𝐿𝐿𝑉𝑉 2 ) 36
𝐻𝐻𝑓𝑓 =
2𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
where
𝐻𝐻𝑓𝑓 = Head loss (m)
𝑓𝑓 = Friction factor from Figure 6.9, the Moody diagram
𝐿𝐿 = Pipe length (m)
D = Pipe diameter (m)
𝑉𝑉 = Average flow velocity (m/s) assuming pipe flow is full
The water level at the upstream end of the pipe then would equal the downstream water level plus the friction
head loss, hf , if there were no inlet losses at the upstream end. It is also the HGL elevation at the upstream
end. In Figure 6.10, the HGL is shown as well as an upstream water level reflecting pit losses at this end.
Figure 6.10: Friction and pit head losses – definitive sketch
V2o
Pit water hw = Kw � �
2g
level
bf
Do
L
6.6.6 Losses at Pipe Bends
These losses result from a distortion of the velocity distribution at bends, the distortion causing additional
shear stresses within the water. Figure 6.11 should be used in evaluating the bend loss coefficient, Kb.

Figure 6.11: Bend loss coefficient in curved pipes

The bend losses can also be determined by using the following Equation 37 (Brown et al. 2009):
𝑉𝑉 2 37
𝐾𝐾𝑏𝑏 = 0.0033 ∆
2𝑔𝑔
where
∆ = Angle of curvature in degrees
𝑉𝑉 = Velocity of pipe flow (m/s)
6.6.7 Exit Losses
The exit loss from a storm drain outlet is a function of the change in velocity at the outlet of the pipe. For a
sudden expansion such as at an end wall, the exit loss is given by Equation 38:
𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜2 𝑉𝑉𝑑𝑑2 38
𝐻𝐻𝑜𝑜 = 1.0 �� − � ��
2𝑔𝑔 2𝑔𝑔
where
𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜 = Average outlet velocity (m/s)
𝑉𝑉𝑑𝑑 = Channel velocity downstream of outlet in the direction of the pipe flow (m/s)
Note that when Vd = 0, as in a reservoir, the exit loss is one velocity head. For part full flow where the pipe
outlets in a channel with water moving in the same direction as the outlet water, the exit loss may be reduced
to virtually zero.
6.6.8 Pit Losses
At junctions (including gully pits, pollution control devices and access chambers) pit losses are due to energy
losses resulting from friction and turbulence. Pressure changes also occur, which are changes in the
piezometric head (or HGL), resulting mostly from the inlet and outlet conduits differing in size. The pressure
changes and hydraulic losses at inlets and junctions are expressed in terms of the velocity head of the outlet
conduit with a coefficient Kw. Alternative design aids are available for the calculation of pit losses, such as
those produced by the Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia (CPAA 2012b). Designers should make
themselves familiar with such aids to ensure appropriate analysis.

Figure 6.12 shows the net effect of pit losses and pressure changes in the upstream pit as a head loss, as
𝐾𝐾𝑤𝑤 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜2 39
𝐻𝐻𝑤𝑤 =
2𝑔𝑔
where
𝐾𝐾𝑤𝑤 = Head loss coefficient (dimensionless)
𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜 = Average velocity of flow (m/s)
The water level in this pit becomes the start of the HGL for the next upstream pipe section.
The coefficient Kw depends on the ratios of the inlet and outlet discharges, the ratios of conduit diameters or
heights and on the geometry of the junction. There are a large number of possible configurations, and
information on determining the coefficient, Kw. Kw can be obtained in charts (known as ‘Missouri’ charts) and
coefficients in Sangster et al. (1958) and Hare (1983).
Where pollution control devices are required, an estimate of head loss through the structure will need to be
made. If the configuration of the device does not resemble a standard configuration, the head loss for a
given flow rate should be obtained from the manufacturer.

Figure 6.12: Average head loss factors for pits
Notes:
Qu = flow from upstream pipe; Qo = flow out of pit; QL = flow from lateral pipes; Qg = flow from above the pit water level; K
= pit head loss coefficient.
The pipes are assumed to operate below the water level in the pit. Flows entering from above the water surface should
be added to Qg
Where part full flow occurs in the outlet pipe, tests have shown that the water surface is significantly higher. Assume the
hydraulic gradeline to be at the pipe obvert, and add h = 1.5KVo/2g.
Where the design flows are between the tabulated values, interpolate between the K values.
Where flow is deflected through a horizontal angle at a pit, add the coefficient from Figure 6.13 to the K value from this
figure, Figure 6.12, except at drop pits, for drop pits use the values from Figure 6.12, above.
If Du/Do is less than 0.9, a better estimate of K is required, see design charts in Sangster et al. (1958).

Figure 6.13: Head loss for changes in direction in pits
6.6.9 Drop Through Pits
Drops through pits help to avoid operating pipes under pressure. The drop is measured between inlet and
outlet pipe inverts, projected to the centre of the pit. It is only equal to the head loss if the pipes are flowing
full and are of equal diameter. A nominal drop of 0.1 m is usually sufficient, except for pits where major flows
join, or flow direction changes, in which cases the head loss should be calculated as set out in Section 6.6.8
– Pit Losses.
It is desirable that the obvert level of the upstream pipe be placed at the pit water level for the design
discharge. In flat country where the fall may not be sufficient to provide the nominal drop, the pipe inverts
may lie on a continuous gradeline, provided that the bottom of the pit is shaped to match the lower half of the
pipe, and the hydraulic gradeline is checked to detect any adverse effects.
6.6.10 Drop Pits
Significant changes in level through pits may be necessary in order to avoid existing utility services, or to
convey water down a batter, or as a deliberate means of reducing the energy of flow. In this situation, a drop
pit is often used, as defined in Figure 6.14 and illustrated in Figure 6.15.

Where the drop exceeds 2 m, the pit floor should be protected by a wearing course of concrete, or rock, and
the outlet should be placed about 0.3 m above the floor to leave a permanent water cushion. Where pipes of
1.2 m diameter, or larger, are used, changes in elevation should be made by providing steeper lengths of
pipes between close, successive pits.
The length of a drop pit should be increased to prevent unnecessary thrust on the pit walls. The minimum
length of pit is set out in Table 6.5.
Figure 6.14: Definition of ‘drop’ at a pit
𝑽𝟐𝒐
𝒉=𝑲 � �
𝟐𝒈
Figure 6.15: A drop pit
Du
Drop
Water
cushion
Wearing
course

Table 6.5: Minimum lengths of drainage pits
Du less than or equal to Du less than or equal to

Drop
600 mm dia 1200 mm dia
L minimum L minimum
Less than 0.5 Du Standard size 1.5 Du
0.5 Du – 1.5 Du 1.5 Du 2.0 Du
1.5 Du – 2.5 Du 2.0 Du 2.0 Du
More than 2.5 Du 2.0 Du 2.0 – 3.0 Du
Notes:
Du = diameter of inlet pipe
L = length of pit in direction of flow.
6.6.11 Pipe Sizing
The sizing of the pipe conduits can be undertaken using Manning’s Equation, or the
Colebrook-White formula as outlined below.
Manning’s equation
Manning’s equation may be used for preliminary sizing of pipe conduits assumed to be flowing full and not
under pressure. The formula is shown in Equation 40:
2� 1�
𝑅𝑅 3 𝑆𝑆 2 40
𝑉𝑉 =
𝑛𝑛
where
𝑉𝑉 = Velocity (m/s)
𝑅𝑅 = Hydraulic radius (m)
𝑆𝑆 = Energy slope (m/m)
𝑛𝑛 = Manning’s roughness coefficient
The hydraulic radius, R, is given by Equation 41:
𝐴𝐴 41
𝑅𝑅 =
𝑃𝑃
where
𝐴𝐴 = Cross-sectional area of flow (m2)
𝑃𝑃 = Wetted perimeter (m)
The discharge or flow, Q (m3/s), is given by Q = AV.
Application of the formula is demonstrated in Appendix B – Figure B 1 for pipes flowing full. Manning’s
Equation is one of the methods used to calculate friction losses in pipes.

Colebrook-White formula
The Colebrook-White formula is considered the most representative for defining all flows in a pipe system
when the pipes are flowing full and under pressure. An example of a Colebrook-White pipe chart is shown in
Appendix B.2 – Figure B 2.
The formula is given in Equation 42:
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠 2.51𝑣𝑣 42
𝑉𝑉 = −0.87�2𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑙𝑙𝑛𝑛 � + �
3.7𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷 �2𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
where
𝑉𝑉 = Average velocity flow (m/s)
𝐷𝐷 = Pipe diameter (m)
𝑆𝑆 = Energy line slope (m/m)
𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠 = Pipe wall roughness (m) (Table 6.6)
𝑣𝑣 = Kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
𝑙𝑙𝑛𝑛 = Natural log
Note: the kinematic viscosity, v, of water is 1.01x10-6 m2/s at 20 °C but is temperature dependent (i.e. colder
water generates higher friction and head loss effects). The natural waters in New Zealand have a
temperature of 12 °C with a kinematic viscosity of 1.25 x 10-6 m2/s.
For pipes flowing part full, Appendix B – Figure B 3, gives the ratio of full and part full area, discharges and
velocities. If this velocity exceeds the acceptable velocity in Table 6.2, select a flatter pipe grade.
An example of a Colebrook-White pipe chart for box culverts is shown in Appendix B – Appendix B.4.
Table 6.6: Pipe roughness values, Ks (m) concrete
Concrete
Good condition 60x10-6
Normal condition 150x10-6
Poor condition 600x10-6
Fibre reinforced concrete
Good condition 15x10-6

Normal condition 30x10-6
Plastic
Cemented joints 30x10-6
Spigot and socket 60x10-6
Source: Adapted from Pilgrim (2001).

6.6.12 Reduction in Pipe Size
A reduction in pipe size along a pipeline is not permitted as the discontinuity between the different pipe
sections can ‘catch’ debris causing blockage which in-turn, reduces the capacity of the system and/or can
cause failure of the system.
For some projects, where the inflow to an existing pipe network has been reduced, and the network requires
extension, a reduction in pipe size (for single barrel pipelines only) may be permitted, provided that an
access chamber is placed between the different pipe sections in order to allow access to remove any debris.
Each case must be assessed separately and approval obtained from the local jurisdiction. When a reduction
in pipe size is necessary, Table 6.7 lists the recommended maximum reductions in pipe size.
Table 6.7: Maximum allowable reduction in pipe size
Upstream pipe diameter (mm) Allowable change in diameter

Less than 600 No change
675 to 1200 One pipe size
Greater than 1200 Two pipe sizes
Note: The above recommendations are based upon the nominal sizes of pipes as manufactured in accordance with AS
4058–2007.
6.6.13 Special Design Case
Where the design flow immunity for the road is greater than that required for the adjacent land, it may be
necessary to provide for a surface flow inlet on the upstream side of the road, and an outlet on the
downstream side of the road. If the road is to have immunity for an event with an ARI of 50 years and the
drainage system on adjacent land has an ARI of 25 years, then the inlet and outlet provisions will be
adequate if designed for a flow of Q50 – Q25.
6.7 Design Procedure
Section 5.6 – Design Procedure details the procedure for establishing the spacing of drainage inlets on
grade. This section expands on those steps, and takes the design of stormwater drainage networks through
to completion, therefore passing the captured flows from the road surface below ground and into the network
of pits and pipes for disposal.
The general procedure for design of the underground piped network is as follows:
• Establish drainage catchments, spread width requirements, drainage inlet locations and captured flows
(Section 5 – Kerbed Drainage).
• Commencing from the uppermost point in the piped network calculate preliminary pipe sizes assuming
that pipes are flowing full but not under pressure.
• Place the pipes in the drainage line, with cover and grading requirements met, and junctions and access
chambers at appropriate locations.
• Starting from the extreme downstream water level in each drainage line, calculate the hydraulic gradient
up the line allowing for head losses and pressure changes for obstructions, bends, junctions and
manholes.
• Refine the design so that all parameters are met.
• Design the total catchment for the major flood, assuming the discharge in excess of that for the minor
flood is surface or open channel flow. On rare occasions, the underground drainage may need to be
increased to avoid problems from the major flood.

A detailed breakdown of the steps involved with the design of stormwater drainage networks is given in
Section 6.7.4 – Design Process. A design flow chart is also provided in Section 6.7.5 – Design Flow Chart.
6.7.1 Data Collection
The following tasks covering the collection of data are considered a prerequisite to enable a comprehensive
stormwater drainage network design:
• obtain topographical maps that cover the entire catchment area and detail all surface features relevant to
drainage, including the existing road and drainage network
• obtain any proposed road geometry information
• obtain the information from utility service agencies, covering all assets which may interfere with the
proposed drainage system
• establish the flood levels, or areas subject to inundation, on the plans
• obtain all available information relating to the existing drainage networks, including the design discharge,
time of concentration and ARIs from the relevant agencies.
6.7.2 Site Investigation
A site investigation should be undertaken following the collection of information detailed in Section 6.7.1 –
Data Collection, and confirmed. Information to be obtained on-site includes:
• Confirmation of the existing drainage network including inlet type.
• The existing road geometry, and whether any widening, or other modifications have recently taken place.
• Identifying the presence of underground services, preferably during the initial site investigation. It is
recommended that designers arrange subsequent visits to walk the site with construction delivery
personnel, the asset locators and utility provider representatives to discuss the works, the outcome of the
location works and possible asset remedial measures.
• Undertaking a geotechnical investigation or obtain geotechnical advice to establish the ground conditions
for the construction of the pipeline.
• Obtaining any other features not shown on the plans that may impact on the drainage design such as
pedestrian crossing points, bus stops, traffic signal posts and road safety barrier systems.
6.7.3 Computer Software
Design of pipe networks can involve time consuming interactive calculations and computer software
programs are available to assist with the task. These programs carry out all hydrological and pit capture
calculations, kerb and channel flow and pipe network analyses. Often they will plot the longitudinal drainage
profile, given the necessary plan and level data. For further information on drainage computer software, see
AGRD Part 5 – Section 1.8.
6.7.4 Design Process
The preliminary design phase follows the identification of acceptable major outfalls and essential pit locations
in the strategic design phase and the steps in undertaking this part of the design process are:
Step 1 – Required information

• Ensure that the plans for preliminary design cover the entire catchment area and show all surface
features relevant to drainage.

• Obtain drawings from the utility service agencies, showing the locations and depths of their assets, and
plot onto the road base plan those which may interfere with the proposed drainage system. Also, arrange
to prove the actual locations of these services on site.
• Mark known flood levels or area subject to inundation of the base plan.
• Plot or overlay the most recent road geometry information on the base plans.
• Plot existing drainage networks on or near the road reservation and obtain the design discharge, time of
concentration and ARI from the drainage authority.
• Inspect the site thoroughly, as maps and survey notes may not show all details relevant to good design
and to the ease of construction.
Step 2 – Define sub-catchments

• select access chamber, or pit type, to be used along each drainage line (Section 6.3.1 – Access
Chambers).
• select width of flow criteria (Section 5.4.2 – Pavement Spread and Gutter Flow Limits) and estimate
discharges and pit capacities to determine the required pit spacing
• from the pit locations, mark out the contributing sub-catchments.
Step 3 – Alternative pipe networks
Usually there would be at least two ways to link the pits to create alternative pipe networks – a parallel
pattern or a central pipe pattern. An option, may be eliminated by an initial appreciation of the cost
(proportional to the lengths of pipe used) or by a policy decision, such as to reduce road crossings to a
minimum which rules out a central pipe layout (Figure 6.16). While much of the network may be rapidly
simplified, it may be necessary to design parts of it in more detail at critical locations in order to select the
most economical proposal.
Figure 6.16: Pipe network systems

Step 4 – Preliminary pipe sizes
Start from the upstream end of the network, and proceed from the upstream end of each leg. For each pipe
length:
• calculate the discharge in each pipe length
• assume the pipe follows the surface profile, or a desirable minimum grade (Section 6.5.4 – Pipe
Velocities and Grades) select a pipe design grading
• assume the pipe operates full, but not under pressure. Select sizes from Appendix B – Figure B 1, which
uses the Manning’s Equation, or Appendix B – Figure B 2, which uses the Colebrook-White formula.
Adjustment for part full flow can be made from Appendix B – Figure B 3
• check the design against velocity and cover criteria (Section 6.4 – Structural Requirements and
Section 6.5 – Design Criteria). If criteria are not met, revise the pipe location or type.
Step 5 – Longitudinal section
For each leg of each network option, a longitudinal surface profile should be prepared, showing any
crossroads, utility services, or any other controls on the vertical alignment of the pipeline. Plot the design
progressively on this base information as an aid to checking that the design criteria have been met.
Step 6 – Preliminary quantities and costs
From the preliminary design for each option, schedules of pits and pipes can be prepared as the basis of
cost estimates.
Step 7 – Selection of layout for detailing
The option for detailed design should be selected after considering the estimated costs, construction and
maintenance requirements and a site inspection.
6.7.5 Design Flow Chart
A flow chart for stormwater pipe design is given in Figure 6.17. General instructions for use of the ‘Missouri’
charts are given in Sangster et al. (1958).

Figure 6.17: Underground drainage design flow chart
Select downstream (u/s)

Start WSE d/s HGL = u/s HGL
Refer to note 1
Input reach Select trail reach pipe diameter (Do)

flow Qo Refer to note 2
Calculate pipe friction head loss

(Hf) and HGL
Select obvert level for

this pipe reach
Test: No
HGL = obvert
HGL > Obvert level?
Yes
Test: Yes
HGL > SL – min.
cover?
No
Select trial pipe diameter at
upstream structure
Calculate Ku & Kw from charts

Calculate u/s HGL & u/s WSE
Test: Yes? try again

u/s WSE > SL – 150 mm
Legend Refer to note 3
d/s = downstream No
u/s = upstream
Next reach? Yes
Refer to note 4
No
End
Notes:
1. The downstream HGL should be derived from the tailwater in the receiving waters, or from the HGL calculated in the structure downstream.
2. The pipe size selected becomes Do for the next structure upstream..
3. In this case 150 mm freebpard has been allowed above the WSE. This limit may need to be modified to suit other constraints including the
hydraulics of upstream or lateral pipes..
4. The performance of a reach is dependent on the characteristics of the other reaches. Accordingly the most economic design is not that which
optimise each reach but that which performs best overall.
Source: Based on DNRW (2007a).

6.8 Construction and Maintenance
Drainage facilities should be designed and constructed recognising that periodic inspection and repair will be
required and provide for the safety of maintenance personnel as well as for road users. Investigation of
potentially cracked or failed underground pipes should be carried out using a remote television camera to
reduce the risk to inspection personnel (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 5).
6.9 Worked Example – Pipes Network
6.9.1 Example 1: Pipeline Design (Hydraulic Gradeline Design)
Calculation of the hydraulic grade line starts from a known water level downstream, working along a pipe
system of known attributes. In this example, a check of the system under 50 year ARI discharge has found
that side entry pit no. 246 as shown in Figure 6.18, overflows. Check whether the next pit upstream also
overflows. The 50 year ARI flows for the system have already been calculated and are shown on
Figure 6.18.
(Note that the following calculations are for a section of a pipe system and do not include the outfall pipe
outlet head loss. The outlet head loss for the outfall pipe needs to be included in any HGL analysis.)
Reach: pits 246–247.
Step 1 – Required data
Q = 0.53 m3/s, Diameter (D) = 0.525 m, L = 119 m
Downstream invert = RL 133.41 m
Upstream invert = RL 134.56 m
Upstream top of pit = RL 135.79 m
Select the values for kinematic viscosity, v, and pipe surface roughness, Ks.
v = 1.01 x 10-6 m2/s (Section 6.6.11 – Pipe Sizing)
Ks = 150 x 10-6 m (from Table 6.6)
Step 2 – Hydraulic gradeline at downstream end of pipe
In this case, the downstream pipe has overflowed, so the water level is assumed to be at pit top level, RL
134.38 m.
Step 3 – Estimated friction losses in pipe
Average velocity in pipe:
𝑄𝑄 0.53 x 4
𝑉𝑉 = = = 2.45 m/s
𝐴𝐴 𝜋𝜋 x 0.525 x 0.525

Relative roughness:
𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠 150 𝑥𝑥 10−6

𝑒𝑒 = =
𝐷𝐷 0.525
𝑒𝑒 = 0.000286
Reynolds number describes the state of the flow:
𝐷𝐷 x 𝑉𝑉
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒 =
𝑣𝑣
0.525 x 2.45
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒 =
1.01 x 10−6
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒 = 1 273 500
For friction factor, use e and NR, from the Moody diagram, repeated here for the purposes of the worked
example and shown in Figure 6.19,
f = 1.55 x 10-2
Friction head loss:
𝑓𝑓 x 𝐿𝐿 𝑉𝑉 2
𝐻𝐻𝑓𝑓 =
𝐷𝐷 x 2𝑔𝑔
0.0155 x 119 x 2.45 x 2.45

𝐻𝐻𝑓𝑓 =
0.525 x 2 x 9.81
𝐻𝐻𝑓𝑓 = 1.07 m3 /s
Step 4 – Water level at upstream pit
To the friction loss in the pipe, add the estimated head loss in the upstream pit, using the loss factor in
Figure 6.12.
Estimate the distribution of flows at the pit:
Qu = 0.48 m3/s 90%
Qg = 0.02 m3/s 4%
QL = 0.03 m3/s 6%
QO = 0.53 m3/s 100%

From Figure 6.12, with a normal condition, inlet pit on through pit with laterals, K = 0.5.
Then pit head loss is:
𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜2
𝐻𝐻𝑤𝑤 = 𝐾𝐾 x
2𝑔𝑔
0.5 x 2.45 x 2.45

𝐻𝐻𝑤𝑤 =
2 x 9.81
𝐻𝐻𝑤𝑤 = 0.15 m
Calculation of water level
Water level at pit 246.
(HGL1) = 134.38 m
Add pipe friction loss = 1.07 m
Add pit head loss = 0.15 m
Water level at pit 247 = 135.60 m
Check against overflow
It is preferable to have the water level about 0.3 m (for this example) below the pit top, so that the lid will not
be displaced.
Top of pit 247 = 135.79
Target freeboard = 0.20 (subtracted from top of pit)
Target water level = 135.59
Calculated water level = 135.60
The pit does not overflow, but the water level is at the underside of the lintel and close to the lid.
The water level in pit no. 247 may now be taken as the downstream water level for analysis of the next
reach, pit no. 247 to pit no. 250.

Figure 6.18: Pipe longitudinal section

Figure 6.19: Moody diagram
Source: Davis (2005).

7. Basins
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Scope
This section provides design guidance for basin systems used in the detention or retention of stormwater
run-off. In particular it relates to the design of basins used to either attenuate peak design flows to suitable
pre-determined levels (detention), or store a volume of run-off in a safe and convenient location until it can
infiltrate into the soil or evaporate (retention).
Basins may also be proposed to achieve water quality measures. The identification of sediment, or pollutant
load emanating from the road formation is a specialised field and beyond the scope of this Guide. For further
information see AGRD Part 5 – Section 3.6.
7.1.2 Types of Basins
Drainage basins are characterised by whether their core function is to temporarily or permanently store
stormwater run-off from a design rainfall event. Detention basins are basins or reservoirs where stormwater
run-off is temporarily stored (detained) for the purpose of regulating a flood. Retention basins are basins
which permanently store stormwater run-off for either water harvesting, or groundwater recharge purposes
(allows water to infiltrate into the ground).
Detention basins, also known as retarding basins, provide intermediate ‘holding’ points and are designed to
reduce the peak discharge from a catchment for events at or above a specified ARI. This can lead to
worthwhile cost savings for the project, important benefits to public safety (i.e. volume and velocity of water
discharged into open systems) and reduced risk of scour and erosion. Purpose-built structures may be
constructed or advantage taken of public open space such as lakes, wetlands and sporting fields provided
the discharge characteristics are compatible and the relevant approvals are obtained.
When adequately designed, basins are one of the most efficient means of stormwater pollution control. The
distinction between retention basins and constructed wetlands lies mainly in the depth of open water ponding
provided. The two measures are closely related in terms of their mode of operation and the design
considerations.
7.1.3 Characteristics of Basins
The important characteristics of basins are summarised below:
Flood attenuation features
Both detention and retention basins can provide the benefits of flood attenuation through the separation of
design peak flows arriving at downstream drainage systems. The degree of attenuation depends on the type
of basin, the storage volume and the design of the basin’s outlet system. In the case of retention basins, the
design peak flow is often completely removed from downstream systems.
Pollution control features
During road construction, the primary role of a detention or retention basin can shift from flood attenuation to
water quality improvement and occasionally emergency spill or pollution containment areas.

Ecological features
Wet basins, with their incorporated wetlands or lakes, can provide significant stormwater treatment benefits
as well as the provision of wildlife habitat.
Potential impact on downstream channel erosion
The primary purpose of a flood control system is to reduce the peak height of overbank floods. To achieve
this, detention basins must extend the duration of in-bank flows.
It is noted that channel erosion can usually only be caused by in-bank flows, and the extent of this erosion is
directly related to the velocity and duration of these flows. Bank-full flow is usually used as the indicator of
potential channel erosion.
Thus, even though detention basins marginally reduce the peak flood velocity, they significantly increase the
duration of bank-full flows. Therefore, increased channel erosion is usually expected downstream of flood
control systems.
Required land area
The selection of detention basins as a means for mitigation requires consideration of how much land is
required or available. This could be an important factor for basins in both urban and rural areas.
7.1.4 Basin Construction
Typically, basins are constructed from the same material as the adjacent earthworks and may utilise existing
natural features such as ponds or when a temporary basin is converted to a permanent basin.
Basins can be lined with membranes to provide a water seal. When using a clay seal any exposure to the
elements of the clay might cause moisture loss and cracking in the seal.
The foundation conditions must ensure a firm support for the structure and provide the necessary resistance
to the passage of water. Generally, foundation investigation is a specialised activity, requiring involvement of
a geotechnical engineer.
Precast concrete
While the compressive strength of structural grade concrete typically ranges between 20 and 50 MPa, its
tensile strength is only about one-tenth as large and this precludes the use of plain concrete for most
structural members. Reinforced concrete is used when tensile strength is required. The steel reinforcement
does not prevent cracking in the concrete in regions of tension but prevents the cracks from widening and
provides an effective means for resisting internal forces produced by external loads, as well as shrinkage
and creep.
Plastic
Plastic is lightweight, resistant to aggressive soils, able to transported corrosive leachate, and can be very
scour resistant.

7.2 Detention Basins
7.2.1 General
The need for detention typically arises when catchments contributing to an existing drainage system undergo
development which increases the proportion of the impervious area. This in turn increases stormwater run-off
to an extent which may exceed the capacity of the drainage system. It is common for local regulatory
authorities to specify development conditions which limit flows to that which existed pre-development. This
may be as simple as an on-site detention tank for small, singular catchments or a much larger basin serving
multiple catchments.
Water can be released from the basin through its outlet which may be an overflow weir or conduit such as a
pipe. The storage volume may be recessed below natural ground level or above natural ground level with the
road embankment acting as a dam wall.
In road design, a large basin is usually located in a valley where the road crosses a watercourse. Smaller
basins are often located in suitable areas of land within or adjacent to the road reservation (e.g. the small
triangular areas of land isolated by on-ramps and off-ramps, and occasionally in the centre of major
roundabouts).
The basins are usually dry between storm events, and often used as sporting fields where the rise in water
level is slow. Where a rapid rise of water level is expected, or the design depth is greater than 1.2 m, the
basin should be closed to the public and surrounded by a high fence, with prominent warning signs around
the perimeter indicating water depth and possible contamination. The type of fence to be used is site specific
and depends on the level of protection required but a 1.2 m or 1.8 m chain wire fence may be appropriate.
7.2.2 Types of Detention Basins
There are basically two types of detention basins; a ‘dry’ basin and a ‘wet’ basin.
Between flood events, a dry basin generally has a dry bed which is often achieved with the use of a low-flow
channel or pipe system. Thus, these basins can be used for other land uses such as sporting activities and
open space. Dry detention basins generally provide only minimal water quality improvement.
A wet basin, however, incorporates a permanent pond and retains some water in the bed of the basin
between flood events. These basins provide flood attenuation benefits during a range of flood events and
water quality benefits during more frequent minor flood flows and regular storms. The permanent pond within
a wet basin may consist of a lake, wetland or water quality pond (see AGRD Part 5 - Section 3.5). Some
examples of wet sediment detention basins are:
• riser type basin – where the retained surface is skim drained into a riser pipe, which allows the retained
sediment to settle out of the water column
• extended settling basins – these basins require a much longer residence time to settle
• flocculation basins – soils that contain a significant proportion of fine dispersible materials that will never
settle unless flocculated; often a temporary solution used on construction sites.
Some basins may contain a temporary or permanent sediment basin. These are discussed in detail in AGRD
Part 5 – Section 3.6. In road construction, most detention basins are initially constructed and operated as
temporary sediment basins. On completion of the road works, the basins are converted into either a
permanent or wet or dry detention basin. Most sediment basins will have substantial sediment trapping
capabilities and their trapping ability will vary in accordance with basin hydraulics.

7.2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Detention Basins
The advantages and disadvantages of detention basins (Table 7.1) need to be weighed against the cost of
constructing the basins.
Table 7.1: Detention basin – advantages and disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
• Reduced outflows which are important where the • A lower peaked but attenuated hydrograph may
downstream drainage system has limited capacity, produce unacceptable times of submergence over
particularly in urban areas. water sensitive crops and ecological systems
• Decreased downstream channel erosion (i.e. when (probably only a consideration for very large basins).
the basin is designed to significantly attenuate the • Longer duration of flow may saturate banks
flood events smaller than the bankfull capacity of the downstream in some cases, and erosion risk is
downstream channel) by reducing peak discharges. increased.
• Pollutant control. • Potential hazard for road users and pedestrians,
which require safety measures and warning signs.
• Maintenance requirements, including possible
weeds.
7.2.4 Design Principles – Detention Basins
A typical detention basin is shown in Figure 7.1 and consists of:

• an inlet area consisting of one or more pipes
• a dam embankment that must be compacted and structurally sound
• a low flow drain that permits the basin to be completely emptied
• a spillway to cater for excess flow from extreme flood events.
Three hydraulic design criteria apply, namely the basin:

• should control frequently occurring flows
• must achieve the required attenuation of flow in the design event (typically one year ARI which caters for
over 90% of storm events)
• must be structurally and hydraulically safe in an extreme (100 year ARI) event.
Liaison should also be made with the relevant drainage authority for any further criteria.
The features that may be relevant for each storm event include:
• peak outflows
• peak depths
• storage volumes required for the basin
• duration of ponding
• attenuation of hydrographs downstream
• effect on flood levels upstream and downstream.

Another important consideration is that embankments provided to retain water that are higher than 3 m
should be designed in accordance with the Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD)
guidelines (ANCOLD 2000). ANCOLD is an incorporated voluntary association of organisations and
individual professionals with an interest in dams in Australia. ANCOLD publishes guidelines on many topics
related to large dams and are available on its website. (http://www.ancold.org.au/publications.asp).
Figure 7.1: Typical detention basin
5 m spillway
900 mm dia
1:300
Longitudinal section
100 m
60 m
Not to
scale
Plan
7.2.5 Design Principles – On-site Detention
The analysis of water storage in on-site detention is usually controlled by the volume of run-off and a
comparison of peak inflow versus peak outflow rates or discharge (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 6).
On-site detention (OSD) can be provided as a combination of below-ground and above-ground storage.
Typically, OSD is suitable for small catchments only. The combined above and below-ground storage
capacity is generally sufficient to cater for storms up to 10 year ARI.
The capacity of the above-ground and below-ground storage can be designed for different ARI. The design
ARI for the above-ground storage component needs to be consistent with the tolerable inconvenience level
associated with the area to be flooded and the depth of the flooding. For instance, it may be necessary to
use a paved pedestrian area as above-ground detention storage. The flooding that occurs should be limited
in depth for safety reasons, but it might be acceptable for the flooding to occur frequently (i.e. design ARI of
less than one year), provided that the inundation period was limited.

The permissible site discharge (PSD) can be done at two levels, namely by detaining the water from a
specific site:
• to pre-development levels
• so that its contribution to the catchment discharge is maintained to pre-development levels.
OSD can be considered as having two installation categories, a small catchment installation and a larger
catchment installation.
The small installation:

• Generally the PSD from the OSD will be specified by the local regulatory drainage authority. Local
government agencies normally control run-off from developing areas by means of an OSD policy, which
usually aims to maintain existing flows after development.
• Although the general principles of stormwater detention apply, the particular points are:
– they are typically small facilities and may involve creating detention storages within landscaped areas
or car parks, or using underground tanks or tanks with pump-out facilities
– provision and maintenance of detention systems is typically the responsibility of the property owner
that is employing the OSD requirements.
The larger catchment installation:

• The OSD basins will usually have more than one function, such as operating as a stormwater detention
facility and as a sporting field or recreation area.
• There may be need for the use of a fuse plug weir to cater for larger flood events. This is a section of
embankment which is deliberately constructed of weaker material. When the embankment is overtopped
the fuse plug section will scour out rapidly to provide an enlarged waterway area. This will reduce water
levels and provide added protection to the basin structure.
Where frequent or prolonged inundation is likely in the above-ground storage area, steps should be taken to
ameliorate potential problems. Consideration should be given to:
• paving areas for the first 10–20% of the above-ground storage capacity
• provision of sub-soil drains to reduce extended saturation of the soil
• not using loose materials (mulch, etc.) which could be washed into the outlet leading to blockages
• designing retaining walls in the vicinity of the above-ground storage to cope with hydrostatic loads.
Inundation of parking areas is likely to be very inconvenient to owners and where these areas are used as
part of an OSD, the detention time should be limited. The frequency of ponding in parking areas should be
limited to no more than once per year. This may result in the first 15% of above-ground capacity being sited
in non-sensitive areas.
Underground storage for OSDs should be inspected after heavy rainfall and routinely at appropriate intervals
(every three months for residential areas and every two months for commercial areas). They should be
adequately maintained to cleanout accumulated trash and sediments. The maintenance frequency will vary
depending partly on the catchment characteristics, but typically should be undertaken every six months in
residential areas and every four months in commercial areas. Jurisdictions may have further guidance
available for establishment of an appropriate maintenance regime.
Consideration should be given to protecting discharge outlets using a trash screen to protect downstream
waterways from degradation and to provide stable conditions at the outlet to help achieve predictable
discharge rates.

OSD can be installed either in-line or off-line and the underground storage component can consist of
chambers or a series of large diameter pipes joined at either end by an inlet and outlet chamber. There
should also be provision to bypass flows from storm events greater than the design ARI.
7.2.6 Design Procedure for a Detention Basin
A typical flow chart for the design procedure for a detention basin is shown in Figure 7.2. Principal elements
and activities in the design of a detention basin are shown in the flow chart. The general principles are
summarised in Table 7.2.
Figure 7.2: Design flow chart for detention basin
Catchment Rainfall intensity / Other

characteristics frequency / requirements
duration date
Preliminary sizing of
basin, outlets & spillway
by rational method
Sketch plan of basin
Calculate rainfall
patterns for various ARIs
and durations
Calculate height /
storage/ discharge data
Calculate area /
time data
Route all
storms
Calculate rainfall through
excess data storage
Meets N Adjust basin /outlet /

criteria? spillway
End

Table 7.2: General requirements for detention basins
Element/activity General requirements

Catchment characteristics Where the catchment is complex, with a number of tributaries to the main stream and
combinations of steep and flat terrain, it may be advantageous to prepare a computer
model of the catchment for routing of flows, not only for the detention basin. However,
both manual and computer modelling will require intensive data preparation.
Catchment management The Catchment management authority or relevant authority may specify
authority (CMA) environmental management criteria as well as flood management criteria that would
requirements influence the proposed design.
Rainfall data Data relating to the rainfall intensity, frequency and duration for the catchment may be
derived by the method set out in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001).
Preliminary sizing Preliminary sizing of a detention basin may be carried out using the statistical Rational
Method. For details of the procedure refer to Section 7.2.7 – Initial Design and
Feasibility. The method is simplified and should not be used for detailed design.
Area time data An estimate of the partial catchment area contributing in selected time increments up
to the full area of the catchment is required for calculating the shape of the rising arm
of the inflow hydrograph. This step is necessary where calculation is done manually,
but may be inbuilt if a computer program is used.
Rainfall patterns The Rational Method assumes that rainfall intensity is uniform throughout the storm.
This simplification is not necessarily true, and design rainfall patterns for different
parts of Australia and for different durations of storms should be selected from AR&R
Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001). The total rainfall for the selected storm duration as read from the
rainfall IFD table or chart should be distributed in time increments according to the
percentages shown on the design rainfall pattern.
Rainfall excess To convert rainfall into run-off, some kind of loss model must be assumed, as
discussed in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001).
The losses are deducted from the incoming rainfall pattern. If losses exceed rainfall,
there is no run-off for that time interval. Where there is a rainfall excess, the estimated
depth is multiplied by the contributing area to obtain the run-off volume in that time
interval.
Height/storage/discharge Before starting the routing calculations, the predicted behaviour of the proposed
detention basin must be calculated. A sketch of the basin should be made and an
estimate made of the type and size of the outlet structure. From these, tables or
graphs of basin height vs storage volume and basin height vs outlet discharge can be
prepared.
Routing storms For manual calculation, the direct numerical method as set out in AR&R Vol. 1
(Pilgrim 2001) may be found convenient. As the method is laborious, the routing
would more usually be carried out using a computer program, several of which are
also listed in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001).
To ensure that the maximum discharge has been identified at least three storm
durations will be necessary such that the estimated discharges for greater or lesser
storm durations are clearly less than the maximum.
Assess results The performance of the basin may have been specified for storms of low average
recurrence interval as well as for high average recurrence interval. The results of the
analysis should be compared with the target discharge values and the resulting flood
levels upstream, within and downstream of the basin.
Review design Should the basin not meet specification, the volume of the storage, the openings at
various heights in the outlet tower and/or the spillway dimensions may require
adjustment, and the performance should then be recalculated using the new
height/storage/discharge information until a satisfactory result is achieved.
Review the design for function, aesthetics, constructability, maintainability and public
safety.

7.2.7 Initial Design and Feasibility
Preliminary design may be conducted using a simple set of calculations. This will determine if a detention
basin is feasible, or if there is any significant flood mitigation effect to be obtained from such a basin.
Figure 7.3: Triangular shaped hydrographs

Discharge
Preliminary estimate of
required storage volume Vs
Qi
Inflow
hydrograph Vi
Qo
Outflow
hydrograph
tp
Time
tb
Notes:
tp – time to peak discharge.
tb – can be taken as 2.67 tp when no better information is available.
With reference to Figure 7.3, the steps are:

1. Convert the inflow hydrograph into a simple triangular shape.
2. Estimate the allowable peak outflow discharge, Qo and mark it on the recession or falling limb of the
hydrograph.
3. Draw the outflow triangular hydrograph (the recession limb is nominal only).
4. Initial sizing of a basin volume (Vs) can be undertaken by a comparison of estimation procedures, given
by Equation 43, Equation 44, Equation 45 and Equation 46 (cited in DNRW 2007a, p 12–13):

𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑟 (1 + 2𝑟𝑟) 43
= (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1948)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 3
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 44
= 𝑟𝑟 (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 1989)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑟 (3 + 5𝑟𝑟) 45
= (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1990)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 8
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑟 (2 + 𝑟𝑟) 46
= (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵ℎ𝑎𝑎 1994)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 3
where
(𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 − 𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜 )
𝑟𝑟 = Reduction ratio, calculated as 𝑟𝑟 = (for 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 and 𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜 see below)
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 = Required storage volume (max) (m3)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 = Inflow volume (m3) (see Equation 47 below, or from hydrograph, see Figure 7.3)
𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 = Peak inflow discharge (m3/s) (from hydrologic calculations)
𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜 = Peak outflow discharge (m3/s) (outflow adopted for the basin)
If the Rational Method is used for the determination of Qi then the initial estimate of the inflow volume (Vi)
may be determined as:
4 𝑡𝑡𝑐𝑐 𝑟𝑟 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖 47
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 =
3
where
𝑡𝑡𝑐𝑐 = Time of concentration (sec)
The above equations are most appropriate when it is necessary to limit the peak discharge for only the
nominated design storm, such as the ARI 100 year event. In those circumstances, where it is necessary
to ensure the post-development peak discharge for each tested storm duration is not increased, then
these equations are likely to underestimate the required detention volume.
5. Calculate the required area and depth of the retention basin.
If this assessment shows that the basin is feasible, additional investigations should be completed and
flood routing as described in this section should be carried out to further develop the design.
Additional investigations required to be completed include:

1. Determine groundwater level.
If the basin is to be recessed into the ground, then bore hole testing should be used to determine the
groundwater level.

Dry basins should be located above groundwater level. The wet region of basins may be located below
groundwater level.
In some locations, recessing a basin into the ground and the consequential removal of trees during basin
construction may cause long-term salt intrusion of the basin floor. This can result in very poor grass
cover. In such cases, seek advice from the local environmental agencies.
2. Nominate maximum basin depth.
A maximum depth of 1.2 m during an ARI 20 year flood is generally recommended for publicly accessible
basins.
3. Determine maximum allowable flood level within the basin.
When determining the maximum water level requirements for the detention basin during various flood
events, consideration should be given to the following:
– various issues raised in considerations (1) and (2) above
– elevation of the ARI 20 year flood within the basin should be below the road pavement box
– elevation of the ARI 50 year flood within the basin should be 300 mm below the road shoulder.
7.2.8 Simple Hydrologic Method of Routing
There are many computer programs which will carry out flood routing procedures. However, the basic inflow
hydrograph, the stage-discharge curve and the storage curves described in detail for the simple hydrologic
method of routing in this section, are all required as input into the computer programs in one form or another.
Standard flood routing procedures are incorporated into this method. However, the modification of the inflow
hydrograph into a triangular shape simplifies the calculations and this procedure should be sufficiently
accurate for the smaller detention basins.
A brief description of the input data is given before the following design procedure.
1. Storage curve
This is a plot of water level (height) versus volume of water stored in the detention basin. A typical curve
is shown in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.4: Typical storage curve
2. Outflow rating curve
This is a plot of the discharge from the basin versus the water level (height) in the basin.
The discharge from the basin may be the total of flows over a spillway/weir plus the flow through culverts,
or simply the flow from one of these structures only. A typical outflow rating curve is shown in Figure 7.5.
Figure 7.5: Typical outflow rating curve

Height (m)
Outflow discharge (cumecs)

Although usually under inlet control initially, where there are culverts, it is also necessary to have a rating
curve for the channel downstream of the basin. This is to determine the tailwater level corresponding to
the outflow discharge and to allow culverts to be checked against outlet control as well as inlet control.
3. Triangular inflow hydrograph
The inflow hydrograph is a plot of discharge versus time and the area under the hydrograph curve
represents the total volume of run-off in the flood.
A simple triangular shape may be used to represent the inflow hydrograph so that the area of the triangle
represents the same total volume of run-off in the inflow flood.
Figure 7.6 shows a triangular hydrograph where the base length tb, is 2.67tp, where tp is the time to peak.
This is a common shape for run-off hydrographs and may be used if there is no better calculated
indication of the hydrograph shape. The time of concentration, tc may also be adopted for the time to
peak, tp, in this simplified procedure.
Figure 7.6: Division of inflow hydrograph into unit time periods

Discharge
tp Time
tb
A curvilinear hydrograph may be substituted for the triangular shape, but the same design procedure
applies.
4. Design procedure
The fundamental storage relationship in each time period is given by Equation 48:
∆𝑆𝑆 = ∆𝐼𝐼 − ∆𝑂𝑂 48
where
∆𝑆𝑆 = Increment of storage (min)
∆𝐼𝐼 = Inflow during period (m3/min)
∆𝑂𝑂 = Outflow during period (m3/min)

Equation 49 gives the relationship for time period t:
𝑂𝑂𝑛𝑛 𝑡𝑡 + 𝑂𝑂𝑛𝑛+1 𝑡𝑡 49
∆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝑆𝑆 = 𝐼𝐼𝑛𝑛(𝑛𝑛+1) −
2
This can be rearranged to give the flow/storage equation, Equation 50:
𝑂𝑂𝑛𝑛 𝑡𝑡 𝑂𝑂𝑛𝑛+1 𝑡𝑡 50
𝐼𝐼𝑛𝑛(𝑛𝑛+1) + �𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛 − � = �𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛+1 + �
2 2
where
Inflow volume (m3) between points 𝑛𝑛 at start of time interval 𝑡𝑡, and 𝑛𝑛 + 1 at end of
𝐼𝐼𝑛𝑛(𝑛𝑛+1) =
time interval 𝑡𝑡 on the time axis
𝑂𝑂𝑛𝑛 = Outflow discharge at point 𝑛𝑛 (m3/s)
𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛 = Storage at point 𝑛𝑛 (m3)
Step 1
Calculate the following curves:

• Triangular inflow hydrograph (Figure 7.3)
• Storage curve (Figure 7.4)
• Outflow rating curve (Figure 7.5).
Step 2
Divide the inflow hydrograph into time intervals as shown in Figure 7.6. In smaller catchments, a time interval
of one hour or less is often used. It would be rare to use more than two to four hours intervals in non-dam-
size catchments. It is not essential that the last time interval be equal to the other intervals.
The routing periods should not exceed about one quarter of the time to peak. The larger the number of
intervals that are used, the more the accurate the answers obtained, particularly for larger basins.
Step 3
Calculate the volume of outflow from Equation 51:
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡 51
where
𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜 = Outflow discharge (m3/s)
𝑡𝑡 = Unit time interval used in the routing analysis (sec)
Plot the outflow volume versus height on the storage curve previously calculated.
Both curves are illustrated in Figure 7.7.

Figure 7.7: Volumes of storage and outflow for varying flow depths
Step 4
For a range of heights, read off storage (S), and outflow (Q) and calculate and plot the graphs shown in
Figure 7.8 from the data obtained in Step 3.
Figure 7.8: Volumes of storage adjusted by half the outflow volume for varying flow depths
Step 5
Calculate the storage level/time curve starting at the initial height and working through the inflow hydrograph
as described below to determine the height at each time interval using the flow/storage equation:
First time interval
During the first interval, where n and n+1 are the points along the time axis of the inflow hydrograph and n =
0, the inflow volume is equal to I0,1 (from Figure 7.6).
At the beginning of the interval, i.e. at n = 0, the storage and outflow are both zero, and the flow/storage
equation reduces to (from Equation 50):
𝑂𝑂1 𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼0,1 = 𝑆𝑆1 +
2

Plot these values as shown in Figure 7.9 (RL = reduced levels).
Second time interval
During the second time interval, where n and n+1 are the points along the time axis of the inflow hydrograph
and n = 1, the inflow volume is equal to I1,2.
At the beginning of this interval when n = 1, the flow/storage equation becomes:
𝑂𝑂1 𝑡𝑡 𝑂𝑂2 𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼1,2 + �𝑆𝑆1 − � = 𝑆𝑆2 +
2 2
Plot these values as shown in Figure 7.9.
Third and subsequent time intervals
At the beginning of the third time interval, n = 2, the flow/storage equation becomes:
𝑂𝑂2 𝑡𝑡 𝑂𝑂3 𝑡𝑡
𝐼𝐼2,3 + �𝑆𝑆2 − � = 𝑆𝑆3 +
2 2
Plot these values as shown in Figure 7.9.
This procedure is repeated until the total inflow hydrograph has been put through the routing procedure.
Figure 7.9: Routing procedure

Height m
Volume m3
Step 6
Plot the height versus time values from Figure 7.9.

This becomes the outflow hydrograph shown in Figure 7.10.
Figure 7.10: Outflow hydrograph
st
A = 1 time interval
nd
B = 2 time interval
rd
C = 3 time interval
Height m
Time t
Step 7
Convert the heights in Figure 7.10 to discharges from the outflow rating curve.
A conventional outflow hydrograph of discharge versus time may then be plotted.
7.2.9 Other Design Considerations
This section provides information on topics that need to be considered in the design of detention basins.
Detention embankment design
All major fill embankments for detention basins should be designed as dams and will therefore require the
same degree of geotechnical and hydraulic assessment.
The minimum recommended embankment crest widths are provided in Table 7.3.
Internal batter gradients in detention basins need to be consistent with the requirements of personal safety
and generally within the following upper limits:
• where the permanent water depth is less than 150 mm when surcharging, 1:2 to 1:4 on earth structures,
and vertical on rock gibber or gabion basket structures
• where the permanent water depth is between 150 mm and 1500 mm when unfenced and surcharging, a
maximum slope of 1:5
• where the permanent water depth is between 150 mm and 1500 mm when fenced and surcharging or
greater than 1500 mm:
– 1:2 to 1:4 on earth structures
– 1:1.5 on rock gibber structures

– 4:1 on gabion basket structures

– 4:1 on stacked (rough squared) rock structures.
Table 7.3: Minimum embankment top width for detention basins
Fill embankment height (m) Minimum top width (m)

<3 2.5
3–4.5 3
4.5–6 3.5
6–7.5 4.5
The actual bank gradient will depend on the ‘slipperiness’ of the saturated sediment, i.e. whether a person
can achieve a firm footing and exit the basin. Slippery sediments should have less steep gradients, in the
order of 1:8, or even 1:10. Otherwise, the basin should be fenced.
Allowance for settlement
To allow for settlement, the design height of the basin embankment should be increased by 10%, if hauling
equipment will be the sole means of compaction, or 5% if compaction equipment is used.
Surface drainage of basin floor
If the floor of a basin does not drain freely, then grass cutting can be difficult during winter or the wet season.
Some poorly drained areas may even promote mosquito breeding.
In detention basins and any ‘dry’ areas of retention basins, a minimum bed gradient of 2% or greater is
recommended to allow for efficient drainage of the basin.
Stormwater treatment
If a detention basin is being designed, then some degree of stormwater treatment and pollution containment
can still be achieved. A possible treatment to be incorporated is a wetland. For information on wetlands see
AGRD Part 5 – Section 3.5.9.
In order to achieve pollution control requirements, it may be necessary for the surface area of the basin to be
larger than that determined for flood control.
Detention basins will usually require a gross pollutant trap and/or trash rack facility to be constructed at major
inflow points.
Pollution control
Some basins can be modified to act as pollution traps to contain spills from a road accident. A major
chemical spill from a truck accident can be fully contained within a detention basin if the outlet has been
designed for temporary placement of sandbags or stop boards or similar.
In detention basins, an oil barrier should be constructed around the primary outlet weir. These oil barriers or
guards usually consist of a sheet of aluminium bolted around the outlet at the weir level to force all flow to
pass under the barrier before passing over the weir.
Consideration must be given to the potential contamination of groundwater supplies and the management of
such a problem.

Design of primary outlet structure
The primary outlet is the outlet system that will discharge water from the basin prior to discharge over the
emergency spillway. Some basins will also contain underground drainage designed to bypass at a
predetermined flow rate past the basin.
The primary outlet may consist of an orifice plate, siphon inlet, pipes or culverts.
Detailed hydraulic analysis of the outlet structure is required to determine the storage-discharge relationship
of the basin. This hydraulic analysis must make allowance for issues such as inlet and outlet control and
possible debris blockage.
To achieve the desired hydraulic response, a primary outlet may need to consist of a multi-level outlet
containing a range of outlet pipes of different sizes and set at different levels.
To minimise the risk of initiating or adversely affecting downstream creek erosion, the peak discharge from
the primary outlet should be less than the bankfull discharge of the downstream channel.
Primary inlet protection
Where necessary, controls should be installed to prevent or manage debris blockage of the primary outlet.
Debris blockage should be considered when the upstream catchment currently contains, or is likely to
contain in the future, significant riparian vegetation or litter.
These outlets must also be designed to minimise identified public safety hazards. In many cases it will be
desirable to separate the screens that provide public safety from those that are installed to reduce debris
blockage.
Protection can be achieved with the installation of trash racks, bar screens or fences such as pool fencing. In
public areas, a trash rack or bar screen is usually surrounded by a safety fence (such as a pool fence or
similar).
Design criteria are provided in Table 7.4.
An anti-vortex plate should be attached to the outlet if floating debris is likely to exist in the basin.
It should be noted that clearing a debris-blocked inlet while the basin is full of water can be a very difficult
and dangerous task.
Table 7.4: Criteria for outlet structures
Item Criteria
Spacing of vertical bars 125 mm (max)
Inclined spacing of horizontal supports 600 mm (max)(1)
Net clear opening area ≥ 3 times the calculated outlet area(2)
Limiting velocity through trash racks(3) 0.6 m/s (not readily accessible); 1.5 m/s (accessible)
1 The maximum (inclined) spacing of horizontal supports aims to allow a trapped person to climb up the screen safely.
2 The calculated outlet area may depend upon the level of the outlet relative to the water surface. Where the outlet is
contained in a drop structure the outlet area used to determine the net clear opening for the intake may need to be
adjusted to account for the level difference.
3 The limiting velocity through the trash rack should be related to the accessibility of the intake structure for cleaning
purposes.
Source: DNRW (2007a).

Outlet pipe design
To prevent piping failure, outlet pipes should have spigot and socket rubber ring joints and lifting holes
should be securely sealed.
The bedding material should be carefully specified to minimise permeability and cut-off walls (anti-seep
collars) should be installed.
Spillway design
Where possible, locate the emergency spillway in undisturbed soil at the side of the basin or otherwise at a
location least likely to result in failure.
The spillway should be designed for an ARI 100 year design flood. If significant debris blockage of the
primary outlet is expected, then the spillway should be designed to pass the full ARI 100 year flow rate, i.e.
assuming full blockage of the primary outlet.
If there is a high risk that failure could be expected to result in loss of life, then the spillway should be
designed for the probable maximum flood (PMF). Additional information may be obtained from Guidelines on
Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams (DNRW 2007b). Designers should see the local drainage authority to
determine the desirable spillway capacity.
Outlet protection design
Scour protection and/or energy dissipation should be placed on the outlets of the primary outlet and the
emergency spillway. See AGRD Part 5B – Section 3.13 for the design of scour protection at the outlet of
culverts.
Wildlife migration
Consideration must be given to the necessary migration of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife through the basin,
see AGRD Part 5 – Section 3.3.
Buffer zones
Where space is available, surround the basin with a minimum 20 m buffer zone. To improve the aesthetics,
this buffer zone can be planted with screening plants.
Public safety
A maximum depth of 1.2 m during an ARI 20 year flood is recommended for publicly accessible basins.
All batters that are accessible to the public should have a maximum slope of 1:8.
Provisions should always be made to allow safe egress from the basin during wet weather, i.e. when the
banks are wet and slippery. Clear warning signs should be displayed prominently. Consideration should also
be given to the placement of depth indicators. For example, the inclusion of a fence when side batters down
to the water’s edge are steeper than 1:5 and/or water depths are more than 750 mm for more than 24 hours.
Maintenance access
Maintenance access should aim to position trucks as close to the basin as possible to allow direct placement
of extracted material from the basin into the trucks. The access ramp should therefore ideally have a
maximum grade of 1:10. Absolute maximum grade is 1:6.

If maintenance trucks are located too far from the basin during de-silting operations the access track
between the basin and the trucks can become contaminated with mud. This mud can make the track very
slippery and dangerous if it is too steep.
7.3 Extended Detention Basin
7.3.1 Description
An extended detention basin differs from a detention basin in that it may be defined as a basin that stores
run-off for an extended period of one to two days to provide water quality improvement. In between storm
events, the basin stays dry. Most extended detention basins usually incorporate a water retention
embankment and a water outlet structure that provides a controlled discharge.
The advantages of extended detention basins include:

• generally can be constructed at steeper sites than constructed wetlands
• have multiple uses, particularly as recreational area
• detain flows and attenuate downstream flood peaks.
The disadvantages of extended detention basins include:

• provide only limited removal of fine sediment or dissolved pollutants
• have potential for erosion and re-suspension of deposited sediment
• are prone to clogging of the outlet structure
• may require large land areas.
Due to the absence of a permanent pool, re-suspension of sediments may occur during stormwater events.
Therefore the overall pollutant removal provided by an extended detention basin is lower and less reliable
than that offered by a constructed wetland or water quality pond.
7.3.2 Design Guidelines
Basin design should aim to maximise the retention time for as broad a range of storm sizes as possible.
Ideally a continuous simulation approach should be undertaken and an appropriate storage volume should
be selected on the basis of long-term performance rather than performance for a single event.
As with water quality ponds, extended detention basins should be protected from flood flows larger than the
design storm flow.
Pre-treatment
A sediment trap at the inlet can be provided to enhance pollutant removal of coarse particulates. Provision of
a litter trap will minimise litter pollution within the basin, thereby improving ease of maintenance and basin
aesthetics.
Outlet configurations
Outlet configurations may include orifice-type devices such as:

• reverse sloped pipe
• perforated riser
• single orifice riser.

Maintenance access
An access track should be provided for the maintenance of extended detention basins, including:
• removal of debris and gross pollutants after storm events
• removal of accumulated sediment
• mowing.
Monitoring
Monitoring of an extended detention basin should be undertaken after large storm events or every six
months to assess its performance.
7.4 Retention Basins
Retention Basin is a term that should be reserved for types of storages that do not permit any outflow during
the passage of the storm flow. They retain the inflow for later discharge, possibly by pumping, or by seepage
disposal.
7.4.1 Purpose
In addition to pollution control, retention basins can provide other benefits in that they:
• may be designed with extended detention storage (Figure 7.11), which reduces the peaks of downstream
hydrographs
• provide an attractive habitat for wildlife
• are sources of water for irrigation of public land
• may be used for possible water harvesting
• provide an aesthetically pleasing feature, complementary to a passive recreation area.
7.4.2 Information Required
The information required for layout and analysis is:

• a contoured topographic plan
• a detailed stream survey
• geotechnical information
• soil gradings and dispersivity tests
• average annual rainfall volume.
For large-scale basins or at environmentally sensitive sites, site-specific soil and hydrological information
should be obtained before design, rather than using the design charts provided in this section. System
efficiency should also be monitored after construction.
7.4.3 Location
The prime consideration in determining the layout and design of a retention basin is whether the basin is to
convey the full flow from the catchment, or whether it is to act as an ‘off stream’ storage which captures the
‘first flush’.

It is generally necessary to incorporate a gross pollutant trap and trash rack facility on major discharges into
the retention basin (see AGRD Part 5 – Section 3.5.7). This prolongs the life of the basin by removing the
coarse sediments in a location where they can be removed relatively easily and prevents the accumulation of
litter.
Retention basins should be surrounded by buffer zones (usually grassed foreshores) with clearance of not
less than 20 m between the nearest private housing and the basin. This allows for some infiltration of
drainage from adjacent developments, allows the drainage authority to develop aesthetic surrounds and
reduces the likelihood of dumping of rubbish directly into the basin.
7.4.4 Layout
Where space is limited, the effectiveness of a retention basin can be maximised by creating an off stream
arrangement such that:
• Flows up to the design flow and the ‘first flush’ of larger flows will enter the pond and be subject to the
sedimentation and biological processes in the pond.
• Flows in excess of the design flow and those occurring after the ‘first flush’ of a larger flow will discharge
straight to the receiving environment.
This arrangement has the advantage that the effectiveness of the basin is maximised by capturing smaller
flows and the ‘first flush’ which carries most of the particulate pollutant load. Larger flows which might scour
out the pond and remove sediments and vegetation are forced to bypass the pond.
7.4.5 Design Criteria
The design criteria are:

• Road drainage systems should preferably be constructed to separate water originating outside the road
reserve from the road drainage network.
• The average depth should be 2.5 m and except for the side slopes, the minimum depth should be 1.5 m.
This discourages macrophyte growth in the deeper portions of the basin and discourages the breeding of
mosquitoes.
• The basin should have side slopes of approximately 1:8. This is a public safety measure which also
improves nutrient uptake.
• The maximum velocity through the basin based on a one year ARI storm should not exceed 0.3 m/s. At
velocities above this, there is the risk that sediments that have already been deposited will be re-
suspended and carried out of the basin.
For an ‘on line’ basin taking all the catchment flow:

• A minimum freeboard of 0.3 m should be provided between a restricted discharge outlet for the basin and
a storm overflow weir.
• Inlet and outlet structures should be located at opposite ends of the basin, with short-circuiting further
minimised by the use of baffles or islands.
• The spillway should be designed to carry the 100 year ARI flow.
• Inlet and outlet structures should be designed so as to allow fish migration.

7.5 Worked Example – Basin
7.5.1 Example: Calculating Basin Size
Step 1
Measure catchment area
In the case of roadside drainage, the effective catchment area must include all the road reserve area which
contributes to the flow into the pond.
Step 2
Estimate the basin surface area using Figure 7.12 and adoption of a particle removal rate between 90% and
70%. If this area is not available, use the figure in reverse to estimate the efficiency of the basin using the
available area. If the removal rate is less than 50%, review the need for a basin.
If the basin is to be placed off stream, go to Step 6.
Step 3
Read the average annual rainfall from the relevant chart for the jurisdiction.
Step 4
Calculate the volumetric coefficient of run-off, Cv, from Equation 52:
𝐶𝐶𝑣𝑣 = 0.05 + 0.9𝑓𝑓 52
where
𝑓𝑓 = Fraction impervious

Step 5
On stream pond
Estimate the volume of a one year ARI run-off from Equation 53:
𝑉𝑉𝑅𝑅 = 𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶𝑣𝑣 𝑖𝑖1 𝐴𝐴 53
where
Factor to relate average annual run-off to the annual variations and to adjust for
𝐵𝐵 = the units in the equation, ranging between a desirable value of 25, and a minimum
value of 15
𝐶𝐶𝑣𝑣 = Volumetric coefficient of run-off from Step 4
𝑖𝑖1 = Annual average rainfall at the basin location (mm/yr.) from Step 3
𝐴𝐴 = Contributing catchment area (ha) from Step 1
Off stream pond
The volume of the basin should be sufficient to capture the first 10 mm of run-off from the catchment.
Where the pollution load from the area is high, or the receiving environment is particularly sensitive, the
capture of up to 25 mm of run-off may be desirable.
Step 6
Select retention time for the pond from Figure 7.13, desirably using an efficiency factor in the range 90 to
75%. Design the outlet structure to release the design volume during the required retention time.
Step 7
Sketch the geometry of the pond to meet the area and volume calculated above and the other parameters
set out in Section 7.4.5 – Design Criteria and adjust until a satisfactory layout is achieved.
Step 8
Detail the outlet structures to meet the requirements for retention, extended detention, and maintenance.
The hydraulic performance of the basin should be checked by routing storms of various durations to identify
the event which requires maximum storage and to verify that the outlet structures achieve the design targets.
Also check low flow events to ensure that the required residence time will be achieved.
Maintenance
Regular maintenance includes:

• removal of coarse sediments and gross pollutants from the upstream gross pollutant trap, or
sedimentation basin about every three months
• cleaning the outlet structure to ensure that it is not blocked and to remove any invading weeds which
might reduce the efficiency of operation of the basin.

Public safety
Retention ponds are usually large and accessible to the public. The batters to which the public have access
should have slopes of 1:8 or flatter. Clear warning signs should be displayed prominently.
Figure 7.11: Storage combinations with retention basins
Source: Scheuler (1989) (cited in VicRoads 2003, pp. 49).

Figure 7.12: Relationship of basin area to catchment area
Figure 7.13: Relationship of pollution reduction to residence time

8. Subsurface Drainage
This section provides an introduction to subsurface drainage by summarising some important aspects and
considerations. More detailed information is provided in the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part
10: Subsurface Drainage (AGPT Part 10) (Austroads 2009c) which should be read in conjunction with this
section.
8.1 Purpose of Subsurface Drainage
The purpose of subsurface drainage is to control the moisture content of the pavement and the underlying
material in order to assist in maintaining pavement strength and serviceability throughout the design life.
Subsurface or subsoil drains are required to intercept and drain excessive moisture or groundwater flow in
order to avoid premature pavement failures. This moisture can come from:
• seepage or capillary rise from the water table (when in close proximity to subgrade/pavement)
• seepage from ponded stormwater into embankment/pavement
• seepage from an aquifer or other groundwater flow (e.g. springs).
The design and installation of subsurface or subsoil drains beneath/adjacent to road pavements is essential
where groundwater or seepage is known or considered to be present.
It is important to note that the construction of an underground stormwater drainage system with associated
granular pipe bedding can result in the interception of seepage and the concentration of this intercepted
water at drainage structures. The installation of subsoil drains should be considered in conjunction with the
drainage pipes to allow seepage water to be collected and discharged into the drainage system.
Subsurface or subsoil drains are provided in order to avoid the following types of premature failures:
• loss of subgrade strength and shape due to an increase in moisture content in moisture susceptible
materials
• overload of the subgrade due to hydrostatic transmission of live load through a saturated pavement
• layer separation and potholing.
A common problem that drainage designers need to be aware of is the ‘bath tub’ effect for roads that rely on
lateral movement of groundwater. This effect can occur when road maintenance or rehabilitation work is
undertaken on road shoulders that effectively converts the shoulders to impervious ‘dams’ resulting in high
moisture conditions in the contained pavement materials with likely rapid deterioration of the pavement. The
effective ‘dams’ can arise from in situ materials being subjected to higher levels of compaction or by the
addition of new shoulder materials which are not as free draining as the in situ materials. This effect can be
mitigated by providing lateral drainage through trench, pipe subsoil or sub-pavement drains or by
constructing a drainage blanket under the new shoulder works.
8.2 Other Relevant Austroads Guides
Subsurface drainage is covered comprehensively in AGPT Part 10 (Austroads 2009c). The topics covered in
this Guide include:
• moisture ingress and drainage systems – ingress through the road surface, shoulders, verges and the
subgrade; types of drainage covered are surface drainage, subsurface drainage and drainage blankets
• types and uses of subsurface pavement drains – selection of pavement drain type and filter; pavement
drain cross-sections and pavement drains below kerb and channel

• site investigation and assessment for subsurface drainage – scope of investigation; large-scale
investigations including reconnaissance studies and quantitative subsurface investigations.
• design of subsurface pavement drains – design procedure; estimating inflow; estimating seepage through
pavements; determining required filter permeability and width of trench; compatibility of filters with soils
and pipes; selection of pipe size and grade
• construction and maintenance considerations – design of inlets and outlets; access points; markers.
In addition, designers may wish to see the following parts of the AGPT to acquire a broad perspective of
factors relating to subsurface drainage that are important to other road management activities:
• Part 5 – Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design (Austroads 2011a): Appendix D describes the role
of subsurface drainage in the relation to specific rehabilitation treatments for roads.
• Part 7 – Pavement Maintenance (Austroads 2009a, Section 2.3) discusses aspects of subsurface drains
that relate to pavement maintenance.
• Part 8 – Pavement Construction (Austroads 2009b, Section 5) discusses construction aspects of
subsurface drainage.
The AGRD Part 7: Geotechnical Investigation and Design (AGRD Part 7) (Austroads 2008) provides
information to assist road designers consider and respond to geotechnical matters that may influence a road
design. This Guide discusses the investigation of subsurface soil conditions and the role subsurface drains
play in the interception of subsurface water.
8.3 Sources of Moisture
The main mechanisms by which moisture can enter a road subgrade and/or pavement are shown in
Figure 8.1 and include:
• seepage from groundwater
• movement of a water table under a road
• rainfall infiltration through the road surfacing
• lateral movement of moisture from the road shoulder or table drain
• capillary moisture from the verges
• capillary water from a water table
• vapour movements from below the road pavement.
All road surface materials are permeable to some degree, and may have defects or joints that allow water to
pass into the subsurface layers of the road. Although permeability of asphalt may decrease with time due to
compaction and filling with surface detritus, cracking will become a significant source of water entry as the
pavement ages.

Figure 8.1: Sources of moisture
Source: Adapted from Gerke (1987).
8.4 Control of Road Moisture
The three basic techniques for controlling moisture are:

• Layer protection: For example, seal coats, plastic sheeting and other impermeable barriers placed at
various levels in the pavement structure. The durability of this type of moisture control is suspect, and
pavement failure is likely if the barrier lets some moisture into it.
• Rendering subgrade insensitive: Lime or cement stabilisation reduces the moisture sensitivity of
pavement layers. The advantage is that the load capacity of the stabilised material does not significantly
decrease with increasing moisture content. The disadvantages are additional expense and a significant
reduction in permeability (provided that cracks do not develop).
• Subsurface drainage: A correctly designed and maintained subsurface drainage system is considered
the most effective way of ensuring a stable moisture condition.
This section is concerned only with the subsurface drainage.
8.5 Types of Subsurface Drains
Subsurface drainage systems are generally installed in a road either to remove water from the subgrade and
pavement materials or to intercept water before it reaches the road structure. The former type is known as a
pavement drain, and the latter is called a cut-off drain or a formation drain.
Subsurface drain pipes may be surrounded by a single stage filter, or by two-stage filters. Filter materials can
consist of aggregates (ranging in size from sand to cobble size), geotextiles or combinations of aggregates
and geotextiles.
Filter materials whether of natural or man-made (geotextiles) need to be carefully designed for the following:
• permeability – to allow for free water movement
• piping – to limit the migration of small soil particles

• uniformity – to ensure an appropriate match to the in situ materials

• robustness – to allow for in service changes (e.g. partial blinding due to particle movement)
• constructability.
Road agencies have usually developed considerable local knowledge with the in situ materials and
developed standards or off-the-shelf products (e.g. standard filter material gradings) that can be used by the
industry. See AGPT Part 10 and New Zealand Transport Agency’s F/2 Specification for Pipe Subsoil Drain
Construction and F/2 Notes on Pipe Subsoil Drain Construction Specification (both Transit New Zealand
2000) for further information.
Examples are shown in Figure 8.2. The level of filtering will be determined by the prevailing soil types and
any environmental requirements on the discharge. In some cases a second-stage filtering may be required
and this can take the form of a geotextile wrap either around the pipe or around all the filter material.
A more recent form is the geocomposite drain, sometimes known as a fin drain, or the geocomposite edge
drain. These are prefabricated with a polymer core wrapped in a geotextile. They can be installed in much
narrower trenches than traditional pipe-based drains (see Pavement Drain Type 4 in Figure 8.2).
Where the polymer has the shape of an egg carton it may be easily crushed or buckled. Only the variety
made of high density polyethylene is acceptable for roadwork. A narrow trench is advantageous when
placing the drains along existing pavements that previously had no subsurface drainage, or along the joint of
a pavement widening. The disadvantages are that they:
• have less hydraulic capacity than a subsoil drainage pipe and may not be suitable where there is visible
seepage
• are difficult to clean if they become clogged
• require careful selection of the filter fabric to correspond to the existing permeability conditions.
Flexible pavements are particularly susceptible to absorption of moisture from failure of the waterproof
surfacing, which can allow vehicle tyres to pump water into the pavement under high pressure. This further
emphasises the importance of preventing ponding of water on the surface.

Figure 8.2: Subsurface drain types
300 min Fabric around pipe
Fabric around pipe
Source: Adapted from VicRoads (2003).
8.6 Locations of Subsurface Drains
Where moisture ingress is unlikely, truck traffic is light and similar pavement designs in the vicinity have
already performed satisfactorily without subsurface drains, they may be omitted. It is difficult to describe all
circumstances that warrant the installation of subsurface drains but, where soils are not free draining (i.e.
clays, silts, loam) or where there is a likelihood of water ponding near the pavement, subsurface drains
should be considered.

While provision of subsurface drains without design may appear excessive, it is prudent to provide drains
extensively on arterial roads where soils are not free draining. Omission of subsurface drains on arterial
roads has caused premature pavement failure and considerable expense in installing them afterward. The
following guidelines are offered where seepage is not obvious.
Road agencies may have specific requirements regarding the location of subsurface drainage contained
within supplements and/or specifications.
8.6.1 Longitudinal Subsurface Drains
Subsurface drains should be placed along:

• the low sides of pavements
• both sides of the pavement near any cut-to-fill line
• both sides of a kerbed pavement
• both sides of the pavement where the crossfall is flatter than 0.02 m/m in a superelevation development
• the high side of pavement where seepage is evident, or where water may enter from batters, full-width
pavement, service trenches or abutting properties
• joins between an existing pavement and a pavement widening where pavement depths or permeabilities
could create a moisture trap
• both sides of pavements for freeways, highways and major arterial roads.
Medians
Subsurface drains should be considered along the:

• low side of a dished median where the median drain invert level is less than 0.2 m below subgrade level
of the adjacent pavement
• low side of a kerbed median where the cross slope is 0.10 m/m or more
• sides of a median greater than 2 m wide
• sides of a median with a fixed watering system
• centre of flat grassed medians without fixed watering systems and less than 6 m wide.
8.6.2 Transverse Subsurface Drains
Transverse subsurface drains (Figure 8.3) should be considered:

• approximately 5 m upstream of cut-to-fill lines
• along changes of pavement depth or permeability
• at both ends of bridge approach slabs, that is
– immediately behind the bridge abutment to the full depth of the abutment
– in the subgrade at the interface of the road pavement and the approach slab
• at superelevation changes, to limit the length of the longest drainage path within the pavement to about
50 m.
8.6.3 Cut-off (Formation) Drains
Subsurface cut-off drains should be considered:

• along both sides of cuts where the road is known to be below the water table, or where seepage is
encountered during construction, or where seepage is expected in wet weather
• transversely at any seepage areas, and further downgrade if required. The transverse drains may be laid
in a herringbone pattern if necessary to achieve the minimum grade.
See Section 8.9.5 – Design of Cut-off (Formation) Drains and AGPT Part 10 (Austroads 2009c) for further
details.
Figure 8.3: Transverse pavement drain
8.6.4 Combined Stormwater and Groundwater Drains
Where the road is below the water table for most of the year, and flows are expected to exceed the capacity
of the standard size subsurface drain, it can prove economical to lay slotted pipes in deep trenches to cater
for both groundwater and stormwater flows.
8.6.5 Locations of Subsurface Drains on Rural Roads
Longitudinal pavement drains are seldom placed along lightly trafficked rural roads, except where the
subgrade consists of granitic sands mixed with rock. Factors to be taken into account are the cost of
installing subsurface drains as a proportion of total construction cost, and of subsequent maintenance; as
comprehensive tests are not carried out on many rural roads, provision of subsurface drainage is a matter for
judgement by the designer and the construction manager.
Mitre drains may be used as an alternative to piped subsurface drains on low cost rural roads, but on rural
arterials, slotted pipes should be used, so that maintenance can be carried out.
8.6.6 Access to Subsurface Drains
Inlets and outlets for subsurface drains should be located clear of the traffic lanes. Where the inlet must be
located in the shoulder, a pit with a trafficable steel cover should be used. The inlet should not be located in
a position where it would be possible for stormwater to enter the subsurface drainage system.
In urban areas, subsurface drains usually start and end in drainage pits. In rural areas, the flushout riser inlet
(Figure 8.4) is less expensive than a pit for intermediate access and outlets are as shown in Figure 8.5.

Figure 8.4: Typical flushout riser
Pits for subsurface drainage should be spaced not further than 150 m apart for ease of inspection and
cleaning of the pipes. Maximum distance between a flushout riser and an outlet should generally not exceed
120 m to facilitate inspection and flushing. In cuttings where groundwater is not present, the distance to the
outlet of a pavement drain may be up to 360 m, but intermediate pits should generally be placed at a
maximum spacing of 120 m. Where groundwater occurs in a cutting, the seepage should be conveyed from
the subsurface drain into an impervious collector pipe to minimise water penetration of pavement remote
from the problem area. The minimum size of pits is shown in Table 8.1.
Subsurface drain outlets should be paved to prevent erosion.
Table 8.1: Minimum pit width
Pit depth Minimum pit width or diameter

Less than 1.5 m 0.6 m or 0.75 m x 0.75 m in traffic lane
More than 1.5 m 1.05 m
It is most important that there are no more than three intermediate subsurface drainage pits provided before
an outlet is provided from the system (i.e. into stormwater drainage pits, batter outlets or through a culvert
end wall, etc.). It is suggested that batter outlets should be permanently marked in some way so they can be
easily located by maintenance personnel.
The spacing of access chambers (pits) for stormwater varies depending on the size of the pipe (Section 6.3.1
– Access Chambers). However, the location of these chambers will influence the spacing of subsurface
drainage pits and flushout risers.
Outlets should be in areas that are easily accessible and where possible, visible to personnel standing on
the road surface. An outlet should not hinder road maintenance activities such as cleaning unlined table
drains or grass cutting.
Outlets should be provided with some form of erosion protection commonly referred to as a splash zone.
Typically, this consists of either:

• a masonry or concrete apron

• an area of large aggregate to dissipate the outflow energy.
A typical outlet is shown in Figure 8.5.
Figure 8.5: Typical subsurface drain outlet
8.7 Drainage Details
8.7.1 Size of Drain
The grade line of the drain is generally known as it follows the road geometry. If minimum grades cannot be
achieved for subsurface drainage, independent grading needs to be considered. There are a number of
design charts available which can be used to size the drain given the slope and the volume of water that the
drains are required to carry. However, to avoid the system failing due to partial blocking of the drain, the
drain should be designed to carry at least three times the expected flow. Generally, the diameter of
subsurface drains should be no less than 100 mm. In some cases a combined stormwater and subsurface
drainage system may be used.
8.7.2 Materials
Subsurface drains are manufactured from a range of materials but all require some form of perforation to
allow subsurface water to enter the pipe.
See AGRD Part 5 – Appendix B for further details on the use and application of materials.
Corrugated polyethylene agricultural drain is generally the most cost-effective material. Pipe with a diameter
of 90 mm is regarded as the minimum for roadwork. Class 1000 is used in areas subject to traffic, or
construction and maintenance vehicles. Class 200 is used only where there will be no vehicular traffic.
Smooth polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe is used to convey flows across a pavement, or may be used where
longitudinal gradients are flatter than 0.5%. Since this material is expensive, ‘herringbone grading’ of
corrugated pipe is typically applied. Pipe sizes generally range from 100 mm diameter to 300 mm diameter.

Prefabricated polyethylene (PE) drain, also known as fin drain, may be laid in batters or parallel to the
pavement to intercept groundwater. It may be used across a pavement if the trench is backfilled with no-fines
concrete. This material has less hydraulic capacity than the corresponding diameter of pipe, so this may
have to be checked. Depths of the fin drains are typically 200 mm to 450 mm (Section 8.5 – Types of
Subsurface Drains).
Concrete pipes are typically used where groundwater flows require diameters not available in plastic pipes.
Pipe sizes in common use range from 300 mm to 750 mm in diameter. Concrete pipes (steel reinforced or
fibre reinforced) may be used as outlet pipes or impervious collector pipes.
Smooth plastic may be slotted or unslotted. Smooth plastic pipe should be used where the subgrade drain
gradient must be flatter than 0.5%. Unslotted pipe may be used to convey flows beneath pavement to outlet
or as a collector pipe.
Perforated corrugated steel may be used for deep formation drains where the soil and water are not highly
corrosive. They require specific structural design and proposals for use of this material should be approved
by the road agency.
8.7.3 Filters
Whether the drainage system comprises a vertical trench or a horizontal blanket, it is generally accepted
practice that either a granular filter or a synthetic filter fabric is used to supplement the subsurface drainage
solution.
The design of the filter material should avoid clogging with fines from the adjacent material and ensure that
the size of the filter material and the openings in the drainage pipe are such that entry of filter material into
the drainage pipe will not occur.
AGPT Part 10 (Austroads 2009c, Section 5.6), provides further detail on the use of filters in subsurface
drainage by summarising some aspects and considerations that are important in the selection and checking
the compatibility of a filter.
8.7.4 Minimum Diameter
The minimum diameter used for subsurface drains is 90 mm. For formation drains, outlet from pits, and
transverse drains, 150 mm diameter is preferred.
8.7.5 Minimum Cover
Minimum cover for the various pipe types and classes is shown in AGRD Part 5 – Appendix B.
8.7.6 Minimum Grades
The minimum grade for subsurface drains in expansive clays is 1%, except where the trench is isolated from
the natural clay by at least 100 mm of impermeable material, or by an impermeable membrane. The
minimum grade for corrugated subsurface drain pipes is 0.5%. Smooth bore pipes may be laid as flat as
0.3%.
8.7.7 Sub-pavement Layers
Where springs occur under the road, a permeable layer of no-fines concrete or sandy material may be
provided under the pavement. Detailed design of the layer should be done by a specialist designer. In
expansive volcanic clays, it may be advantageous to place an impermeable layer beneath the pavement at
least 100 mm thick which, in conjunction with the pavement drain, prevents entry of water into the moisture
sensitive subgrade material.

8.8 Design Procedures
As mentioned in Section 8.2 – Other Relevant Austroads Guides, a design procedure for subsurface drains
is provided in AGPT Part 10 (Austroads 2009c, Figure 5.1). It illustrates a procedure that involves
calculations relating to infiltration of water, permeability of materials and the determination of trench
requirements and pipe sizes.
The following design procedure outlines the steps that a road designer should undertake in designing a
subsurface drainage system.
8.8.1 Data Required
Before starting to detail the locations of subsurface drains, the road designer needs to know:
• the extent of each flat area on the pavement, e.g. at superelevation changes
• the pavement composition, and whether full-width or boxed construction is proposed
• the relative permeabilities of the pavement materials and surrounding materials
• the places where groundwater levels are high, or springs occur.
Design of subsurface drainage filter zones usually requires laboratory and field testing of materials,
groundwater investigations, and interaction with the design of the pavement. The filter type for a particular
project should be designed and specified by a geotechnical expert.
8.8.2 Procedure
The steps involved in designing a subsoil drainage system are:

1. to decide on an appropriate materials testing and site investigation program for the project
2. after groundwater investigation, to carry out hydraulic design of cut-off drains (Section 8.9.5 – Design of
Cut-off (Formation) Drains)
3. at the road grading stage, to ensure that fills are high enough to inhibit capillary rise (Section 8.9.6 –
Capillary Rise in Soils) and to allow for subsurface drain outlets, and that cuts can be properly drained
4. to arrange for pavement design. The pavement depth must be known to set subsurface drain levels
5. to obtain a copy of the road geometry
6. to select the appropriate locations of subsurface drains (see AGPT Part 10 (Austroads 2009c, Section
3.3))
7. if subsurface drains can be placed parallel to the road surface in the vertical plane, subsurface drain
detailing can follow stormwater drainage design
8. where the longitudinal grade of the road is very flat (less than 0.5% grade), and there is a need for
independent grading of subsurface drains, both drainage systems could be designed concurrently if
appropriate to do so
9. to identify cut-to-fill lines and locate the transverse drains
10.to detail the locations of inlets and outlet pits where these do not coincide with stormwater pits.
Drainage facilities should be designed and constructed recognising that periodic inspection and repair will be
required and provide for the safety of maintenance personnel as well as for road users. Investigation of
potentially cracked or failed underground pipes should be carried out using a remote television camera to
reduce the risk to inspection personnel.

8.9 Specialist Subsurface Drainage Techniques
The following section identifies techniques for managing subsurface/groundwater issues. However, as these
techniques require specialist knowledge they have been provided for information and general guidance only.
8.9.1 Lowering of Groundwater Table
The lowering of a static water table is achieved through the use of a system of vertical cut-off drains below
the road pavement (Figure 8.6).
Figure 8.6: Typical groundwater drainage system
Table 8.2 is used for a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of a proposed trench drainage system.
However, if the subgrade permeability is less than 1 x 10-7 m/s then vertical drains on both sides of the
roadway are unlikely to be effective in lowering a water table. An alternative solution to subsoil drainage
should be adopted, such as pavement design based on saturated subgrade strength.
Table 8.2: Effectiveness of trench drainage systems
Amount of lowering in (m) after different periods midway between two 1 m deep trenches
Coefficient of (initial water table 1 m above bottom of trenches)
permeability,
k Trench spacing 3 m Trench spacing 10 m Trench spacing 20 m
(m/s)
3 months 1 year 3 months 1 year 3 months 1 year
1 x 10-5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 x 10-6 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.48 0.93
1 x 10-7 0.94 1.00 0.23 0.65 0.06 0.23
1 x 10-8 0.25 0.68 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.03
1 x 10-9 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1x 10-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Source: Adapted from Golden (1979) (cited in DTMR 2010).

8.9.2 Schilfgaarde’s Method
Schilfgaarde’s method (van Schilfgaarde 1963) can be used to determine the drain spacing that will lower the
water table by mo – m (Figure 8.7 and Equation 54). The accuracy of the solution is extremely dependent on
the accuracy of k and f (i.e. permeability and drainable pore space of the subgrade). The location of a water
table that is likely to cause a drainage problem and the effect of a typical subsurface pipe arrangement is
illustrated in Figure 8.7. The design procedure is shown in Figure 8.8.
Figure 8.7: Geometry of the drainage problem and effect of subsurface drains

Figure 8.8: Flow chart of Schilfgaarde’s method
Monitor existing Estimate construction Estimate operation

water quality pollution loads pollution loads
Identify pollutants
Outside N Project specific water Meets Y

sources? quality standards standards End
Y N
Negotiate with other Consider options

authorities
Source N In-transit N Outlet

control? control? control?
Y Y
Select treatment train
Land and other

factors
Preliminary sizing of
devices
Hydrological data
N Area
available?
Analysis outputs
N Meets Y Review
Economy End
standard?

1�
𝑘𝑘(𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 + 𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑜 ) (𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 + 𝑚𝑚)𝑡𝑡 2 54
𝑆𝑆 = 3𝑗𝑗 � �
2𝑓𝑓(𝑚𝑚0 − 𝑚𝑚)
where
𝑆𝑆 = Spacing between drains (m)
𝑗𝑗 = Geometrical factor (determined from Figure 8.10)
𝑘𝑘 = Saturated permeability (m/s)
𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑜 = Depth of drain below original water table (m)
𝑚𝑚 = Depth of drain below the lowered water table (m)
𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑜 – 𝑚𝑚 = Distance water table is lowered
Equivalent depth of drain to impervious barrier (m). Differs from ‘d’ because of
𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 =
convergence of the flow lines
Drainable pore surface, expressed as a fraction of total volume drained at 600 mm

𝑓𝑓 = tension (typically clays range from 0.0 to 0.11, well-structured loams from 0.10 to
0.15 and sands range from 0.18 to 0.35)
𝑡𝑡 = Time to lower water table (sec)
The solution requires that a starting estimate of L (drain spacing) be input with known values of d, mo, m, k, t
and f. The equivalent depth, de is estimated from Figure 8.9. This is then used to calculate a convergence
factor as shown in Equation 55.
𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 55
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =
(𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 + 𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑜 )
The convergence factor estimate is then used with Figure 8.9 to estimate ‘j’. ‘L’ is recalculated and if different
from the initial estimate, a further iteration of calculations is commenced with the revised equivalent depth.

Figure 8.9: Equivalent depth for convergence correction
Figure 8.10: Dependence of factor j on depth to impervious layer
8.9.3 Draining an Inclined Aquifer
The design of a subsurface drainage system which intercepts an inclined aquifer (Figure 8.11) is relatively
straightforward. Darcy’s law, shown as Equation 56, governs the discharge from the aquifer.

𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚 = 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 56
where
𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚 = Discharge per unit length of trench (m3/m)
𝑘𝑘 = Permeability of the aquifer (m/s)
Area of aquifer (but this equation is equal to the thickness, since the discharge
𝐴𝐴 =
required is per unit metre of length (m2))
Slope of the aquifer (when the piezometric heads within the aquifer are equal)
𝑖𝑖 =
(m/m)
To ensure that the subsurface drainage systems intercept all of the seepage, the permeability of the filter
material and the width of the trench need to be checked. This implies that the piezometric head must drop to
zero within the trench filter material. The principle is shown mathematically in Equation 57 below.
Tan (piezometric gradient in trench)/Tan (slope of aquifer) = the ratio of the permeability of the aquifer
material divided by the permeability of the filter material. The nomenclature used is shown in Figure 8.11.
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (𝐵𝐵) 𝑘𝑘𝑎𝑎 57

=
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (𝐴𝐴) 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓
where
Can be approximated by W/T (width of the trench divided by the thickness the
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (𝐵𝐵) =
aquifer)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (𝐴𝐴) = Can be approximated by the slope of the aquifer (shown as ‘s’ in Figure 8.11)
𝑘𝑘𝑎𝑎 = Permeability of aquifer material (m/s)
𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓 = Permeability of filter material (m/s)
There are two values, which can be altered by the drainage designer (W, or kf) to balance Equation 57.
However, trench width is normally fixed to a standard value (typically 300 mm) and so it then becomes a
case of selecting filter material to ensure that the ratio Tan (B)/Tan (A) is less than ka/kf.

Figure 8.11: Trench excavated through an inclined aquifer
8.9.4 Design of a Drainage Blanket to Lower a Water Table
Where a pavement is to be placed within or below the natural groundwater level it may be necessary to lower
the water table. This can be achieved by placing a horizontal drainage blanket below the pavement. The
design of the drainage blanket should be undertaken using analytical procedures such as flow net
procedures and finite element methods. These analytical procedures are beyond the scope of this Guide and
are usually undertaken by a geotechnical expert (see AGRD Part 7 (Austroads 2008).
8.9.5 Design of Cut-off (Formation) Drains
Simple analysis consisting of homogeneous layers of differing permeability rarely applies to natural
conditions. Fissures, joints, faults and bedding planes in soil or rock structures can have large hydrostatic
head differences over short distances that may vary rapidly. Strategic placement of piezometers and
standpipes is therefore of the utmost importance. Theoretical models can give good results only if the ground
conditions, input during design, are close to those in the field.
Road surfaces are more permeable than generally assumed, and the quantity of water entering a pavement
(infiltration rate) may be estimated by multiplying the infiltration coefficient (Table 8.3) by the two year, one
hour rainfall intensity over the surface area.

Table 8.3: Surface infiltration coefficient
Surface type Infiltration coefficient

Sprayed seal 0.2–0.25
Asphalt 0.2–0.4
Cement concrete 0.3–0.4
Unsealed shoulders 0.4–0.6
Once the infiltration rate is estimated (in m/s) and the coefficient of permeability has been determined by
laboratory testing, the quantity of water entering the road or the inflow is determined by applying Darcy’s law
(Equation 56), where:
q = Quantity of water entering the surface (m3/s)
𝑘𝑘 = Coefficient of permeability, or infiltration rate (m/s)
𝐴𝐴 = Area of pavement (taken as one square metre in this application)
Hydraulic gradient, i.e. head of water divided by the length of drainage path
𝑖𝑖 =
(dimensionless)
A hydraulic gradient of unity is suggested for rain falling on a surface. With a hydraulic gradient of unity the
inflow as calculated from Equation 56 is equal to the infiltration rate multiplied by the surface area of the
pavement.
8.9.6 Capillary Rise in Soils
Where a shallow formation is proposed over saturated ground, or fine-grained embankment material is used
to cross swamps, the height of capillary rise of the groundwater should be calculated to ensure that excess
water does not enter the pavement. The rise in capillary water can be calculated using Equation 58 and
Equation 59.
10𝐶𝐶 58
ℎ𝑐𝑐 =
𝑒𝑒𝐷𝐷10
where
ℎ𝑐𝑐 = Capillary rise (mm)
An empirical constant that depends on the shape of the grains and varies from 0.1
𝐶𝐶 =
to 0.5 cm2 (for perfect spheres, 𝐶𝐶 = 0.1 cm2)
Allen Hazen’s effective grain size, based on the sieve opening in cm that 10% of
𝑒𝑒𝐷𝐷10 =
the material passes. The value is obtained from the grading curve.

𝑉𝑉𝑣𝑣 59
𝑒𝑒 (𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟) =
𝑉𝑉 − 𝑉𝑉𝑣𝑣
where
𝑉𝑉 = Total volume (units)
𝑉𝑉𝑣𝑣 = Total volume of voids (units)
8.10 Worked Examples – Subsurface
See AGPT Part 10 (Austroads 2009c) for two worked examples, namely:
Appendix A: Estimation of permeability from Grading
This example should only be used for making a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the proposed
drainage system if accurate soil permeability data is not available.
To be conservative in design, the lowest permeability result should be used for designing a water-carrying
system and the highest result if the material is to act as a barrier in the system.
Appendix B – Pavement Subsurface Drain Design Example.

References
Alderson, A 2006, The collection and discharge of storm water from the road infrastructure, report no. ARR
368, ARRB Group Ltd, Vermont South, Vic.
Australian National Committee On Large Dams 2000, Guidelines on selection of acceptable flood capacity
for dams, ANCOLD, Hobart, Tas.
Australian Transport Council 2011, National road safety strategy 2011–2020, ATC, Canberra, ACT.
Austroads 2005, Guidelines for the management of road surface skid resistance, AP-G83/05, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008, Guide to road design: part 7: geotechnical investigation and design, AGRD07/08,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009a, Guide to pavement technology: part 7: pavement maintenance, AGPT07/09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Guide to pavement technology: part 8: pavement construction, AGPT08/09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009c, Guide to pavement technology: part 10: subsurface drainage, AGPT10/09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009d, Guide to road design: part 6A: pedestrian and cyclists paths, AGRD06A/09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010a, Guide to road design: part 3: geometric design, 2nd edn, AGRD03/10, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2010b, Guide to road design: part 4A: unsignalised and signalised intersections, 2nd edn,
AGRD04A/10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011a, Guide to pavement technology: part 5: pavement evaluation and treatment design, 3rd edn,
AGPT05/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011b, Cycling aspects of Austroads guides, AP-G88/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013a, Guide to road design: part 5: drainage: general and hydrology considerations,
AGRD05/13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013b, Guide to road design: part 5B: drainage: open channels, culverts, and floodways,
AGRD05B/13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Brown, SA, Schall, JD, Morris, JL, Doherty, CL, Stein, SM & Warner, JC 2009, Urban drainage design
manual, hydraulic engineering circular no. 22, 3rd edn, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
USA.
Bureau of Meteorology 2012, Rainfall intensity frequency duration system, BoM, Melbourne, Vic.
Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia 2011, Web home page, CCAA, St Leonards, NSW.
Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation 1994, ‘Aquaplaning prediction model stage 2 final
report’, prepared for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, CERTS, London, UK.
Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia 2012a, Design software: pipe class, CPAA, St Leonards, NSW,
viewed 16 July 2012.
Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia 2012b, Hydraulics of precast concrete conduits: pipes and box
culverts, design manual, 4th edn, CPAA, St Leonards, NSW.
Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia 2012c, Compaction under loads, viewed 7 August 2012,
<http://www.cpaa.asn.au/images/pdfs/CPAACompactionchartsunderconstructionloads.pdf>.

Davis, T 2005, Moody diagram, plot, College of Engineering, University of Southern Florida, Tampa, Florida,
USA.
Department of Natural Resources and Water 2007a, Queensland urban drainage manual, vol. 1, 2nd edn,
DNRW, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Natural Resources and Water 2007b, Guidelines on acceptable flood capacity for dams,
DNRW, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2010, Road drainage manual, 2nd edn, DTMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Donald, G 1994, ‘Draft guidelines for limiting the risk of aquaplaning on roads’, Technology transfer
workshop, Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Technology Development Branch, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW, pp. 14–9.
Evans, AT & Relph, IJ 1988, The capacity of RCA drainage pits, research memorandum no. 29, Road
Construction Authority, Kew, Vic.
Foucard, J 2005 ‘Role of tires in the skid resistance phenomenon’, (in French), Bulletin des laboratoires des
ponts et chaussées, no. 255, pp. 11–22.
Gallaway, BM, Hayes, GG, Ivey, DL, Ledbetter, WB, Olsen, RM, Ross, HE, Schiller, RE & Woods, DL 1979,
Pavement and geometric design criteria for minimising hydroplaning, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Gerke, RJ 1987, Subsurface drainage of road structures, special report 35, Australian Road Research
Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Gillespie, TD 1992, Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Golden, JM 1979, ‘Movement of water in the pavement and subgrade’, Seminar on road drainage, Dublin,
Ireland, National Institute for Physical Planning and Construction Research, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 96–132.
Gothie, M 2005, ‘Water influence on skid resistance: standardisation: input of the HERMES programme’,
International surface friction conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, Transit New Zealand, Wellington,
NZ.
Hare, CM 1983, ‘Magnitude of hydraulic losses at junctions in piped drainage systems’, Transactions of the
Institution of Engineers, Australia: Civil Engineering, vol. CE 25, no. 1, pp. 71–7.
Local Government and Municipal Knowledge Base 2012, Kerb inlet, LGAM Knowledge Base, Australia,
viewed 25 June 2012, <http://www.lgam.info/kerb-inlet>.
Main Roads Western Australia n.d., Standards and technical, MRWA, Perth, WA, viewed 12 November,
<https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/StandardsTechnical/Pages/home.aspx>.
Pilgrim, DH (ed) 2001, Australian rainfall and runoff: a guide to flood estimation, vol. 1, rev. edn, Institution of
Engineers, Australia, Barton, ACT.
Sangster, VM, Wood, HM, Smerdon, ET & Bossy, HG 1958, Pressure changes at storm drain junctions,
engineering series bulletin no 41, Engineering Experimental Station, University of Missouri, USA.
Transit New Zealand 2000, Specification for pipe subsoil drain construction, Transit New Zealand,
Wellington, NZ, viewed 5 November 2012, <http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pipe-subsoil-drain-const/>.
van Schilfgaarde, J 1963, ‘Design of tile drainage for falling water table’, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 1–11.
VicRoads 2003, Road design guidelines: part 7: drainage, VicRoads, Kew, Victoria.
Australia and New Zealand Standards
AS 1657-1992, Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders: design, construction and installation.
AS/NZS 2566.2-2002, Buried flexible pipelines: installation.

AS/NZS 3725-2007, Design for installation of buried concrete pipes.
AS 3996-2006, Access covers and grates.
AS/NZS 4058-2007, Precast concrete pipes (pressure and non-pressure).
AS 4685.1-2004, Playground equipment: general safety requirements and test methods.

Appendix A Pit Performance Curves used in Victoria
A.1 Side Entry Pits – 1 Metre Inlet

Figure A 1: Side entry pit – 0.5% shoulder crossfall

Figure A 1: Side entry pit – 1% shoulder crossfall






A.2 Side Entry Pits – 1.5 Metre Inlet

Figure A 8: Side entry pit – 0.5% shoulder crossfall






Figure A 12: Side entry pit – 6% crossfall

Appendix B Discharge-Velocity Curves
The velocity in pipes may be obtained from the following charts.
B.1 Circular Pipes (Manning’s Equation)

Figure B 1: Discharge and velocity in round pipes flowing full (Manning’s Equation)

B.2 Circular Pipes (Colebrook-White)

Figure B 2: Discharge and velocity curves in round pipes (Colebrook-White)
COLEBROOK-WHITE FORMULA K = 0.06 mm

CIRCULAR PIPES FLOWING FULL
Source: CPAA (2012b).

B.3 Circular Pipes – Part Full

Figure B 3: Discharge and velocity in part full pipes
df
dp
Af = Area of pipe
Ap

B.4 Box Culvert (Colebrook-White)

Figure B 4: Discharge and velocity in box culverts (Colebrook-White)

Appendix C Example Pipe Chart for Minimum Pipe Cover for Various Compactors
Figure C 1: Example of minimum pipe cover chart for various compactors
Source: CPAA (2012c).

AGRD05A-13 Guide To Road Design Part 5A DrainageRoad Surface Networks Basins and Subsurface Ed1.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRD05A-13 Guide To Road Design Part 5A DrainageRoad Surface Networks Basins and Subsurface Ed1.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide to Road Design Part 5A:

Drainage – Road Surface, Networks, Basins and

Edition 1.2 published February 2021

ISBN 978-1-922382-20-7 • Department of State Growth Tasmania

• Mr Pat Kenny – Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales

• Ms Marianne Robertson – Roads Corporation Victoria (VicRoads) – Project Manager

Austroads 2021 | page i

2. Major/Minor Drainage Concept ............................................................................................................. 4

3. Road Surface Drainage ........................................................................................................................ 30

Austroads 2021 | page ii

5. Kerbed Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 55

6. Underground Piped Networks............................................................................................................. 99

Austroads 2021 | page iii

6.2.4 Existing Drainage Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 100

Austroads 2021 | page iv

7.2.8 Simple Hydrologic Method of Routing .................................................................................... 147

8. Subsurface Drainage .........................................................................................................................164

Austroads 2021 | page v

Austroads 2021 | page vi

Austroads 2021 | page vii

Figure 8.3: Transverse pavement drain ..................................................................................................170

Austroads 2021 | page viii

Austroads 2021 | page 1

Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Guide to Road Design

1.2 Scope of this Part

Austroads 2021 | page 2

1.3 Road Safety

Austroads 2021 | page 3

2. Major/Minor Drainage Concept

Source: Alderson (2006).

2.2 Minor System

Austroads 2021 | page 4

2.3 Major System

Austroads 2021 | page 5

2.4 Regional Approach

2.5 Design Considerations

2.6 Planning of Major Urban Systems

2.6.1 Isolated and Non-isolated (Connectivity of) Catchments

Austroads 2021 | page 6

Figure 2.2: Hydrographs for slope-aligned urban drainage units

Source: Alderson (2006).

2.6.2 Major Urban Drainage Design Concepts

Austroads 2021 | page 7

• a lack of capacity of the existing drainage networks.

2.6.3 Major Urban System Planning Procedure

These steps are:

Step 1 – Catchment definition

Austroads 2021 | page 8

Source: Alderson (2006).

Austroads 2021 | page 9

Source: Alderson (2006).

Step 2 – Fixing of roadway reserve capacity flows

This involves two hydraulic calculations, namely:

𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 < 0.4 𝑚𝑚2 ⁄𝑠𝑠 1

𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = Mean flow velocity (m/s)

𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔 = Kerbside flow depth (m)

Austroads 2021 | page 10

Step 3 – ‘Gap flow’ design storm selection

The main tasks involved are to:

Austroads 2021 | page 11

Qgap = total run-off during major event – run-off in minor system

𝐹𝐹 = Frequency factors for coefficient of run-off (Table 2.1)

𝐶𝐶 = Run-off coefficient (for an ARI of 10 years)