General Hydraulics Designs

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
ASSIGNMENT 1: URBAN HYDRAULIC DESIGN

ASSIGNMENT 2: POND DESIGN
ASSIGNMENT 3: BOX CULVERT DESIGN
CRISTIAN MANUEL CORSO SÁNCHEZ
NEPTUN CODE: W4PILU
CRISTIAN CAMILO CARO LAYTON
NEPTUN CODE: TV6G7H
December 15th, 2019
THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 1 of 22

TABLE OF CONTENT
Page.
1. HOMEWORK 1 3
2.1 HYDROLOGY 4
2.2 CHEKING GUTTER SECTION 5
2.3 CURB DESIGN 7
2.4 STORM DRAIN DESIGN 7
2.5 CHANNEL DESIGN 9
2. HOMEWORK 2 13
3. HOMEWORK 3 17
3.1 PERFORMANCE CURVE 20
3.2 PROFILE FOR DESIGN CONDITIONS 20
3.3 PROFILE FOR MAIXMUM CONDITIONS 21
4. CONCLUSIONS 22
5. REFERENCES 22

1. HOMEWORK 1
Given a 500m long roadway section. You have to design the roadway drainage system, storm water
collection system, and stable channel. The cross section and plan view area shown. The circle
represents the elevation at the road surface.
Figure 1 – Typical cross section for the road
Figure 2 – Design plan of the project
The following data are the parameters for the input data:
• Return period: T 33 years
• Manning n number for asphalt n=0.013

• Cross slope m/m: 0.025
• Longitudinal slope m/m: 0.025
• Curb height: 0.15m
• Inlet type: Grate P1-1/8
2.1 HYDROLOGY
Based on the return period supplied by the exercise, the hydric analysis is continued in order to obtain
the flow. In the Figure 3 is showed the IDF curves for a station in the centre of the city, considering that
the hydraulic and design analysis will be prepared based on the Colombian design criteria.
Figure 3 – IDF curves for the capital of Colombia, Bogotá. Original language: Spanish (IDEAM, 2017)

The equation 1 summarizing the IDF curves in the above graph is given by the expression:
𝐶1
𝐼= 𝐸𝑞(1)
(𝐷 + 𝑥0 )𝐶2
Where:
I: Intensity (mm/h)
C1: Coefficient 1 equal to 10692.3, value from the table showed in the graph for T=33 years.
C2: Coefficient 2 equal to 1.173, value from the table showed in the graph for T=33 years.
X0: Constant equal to 35.4617, value from the table showed in the graph for T=33 years.
D: Duration (min)
The next step is the calculation of rainfall duration, there are several methodologies suggested by the
design manual for hydraulic structures in Colombia. A recommended equation for calculating the
time of concentration of the basin is the one recommended by Ven Te Chow (Eq 2), where from the
area and the length because it is possible to calculate the time of concentration.
𝐿
𝑇𝑐 = 0.273( 0.5 )0.64 𝐸𝑞(2)
𝑆
Where:
TC: Concentration time (h)
L: Main channel length (km)
S: Total slope of the main channel (m/m)
The total length of the road to be designed is discretised in 7 sub-basins, of which 6 have an average
area of 975 m2 and the last one an area of 650 m2, for each of the sub-basins the concentration time
is calculated from Eq 2, and with these concentration times the intensity with the formula of the IDF
curves (IDEAM).
The rational method will be used to calculate the flow from the surface material and road area.
3600
𝑄 =𝑐∗𝑖∗𝐴∗ 𝐸𝑞(3)
1000
The values used for the calculation of the flow rate are as follows: c=0.7, A=0.000975 km2 or 0.00065
km2.
2.2 CHEKING GUTTER SECTION
The calculation of the water sheet on the sides of the road is necessary for flood control and to reduce
the risk of hydroplaning and improvements in road safety of the corridor. From the geometric data of
the cross section and the kerb height it is possible to validate whether for the previously calculated
flow, the geometric conditions allow to evacuate the flow of water towards the inlets.
According to the Road Drainage Manual from the department of transport in Queensland “the minor
storm flow limits will be adopting the 10% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)”, therefore the
allowed spread for a two-lane road will be as shown in the

Figure 4 – Allowable flow width on roads.

(Deparment of Transport and Main Roads, 2015)
The road that includes the parking lane or any other auxiliary road should guarantee at least a
minimum width of 2.5 m for the safe transit of vehicles.
For the calculation of the spread, Equation 4 will be used, which relates the width of the water sheet
with respect to the flow, and the longitudinal and transversal slopes of the road to be analysed.
𝑛∗𝑄
𝑇=( )0.375 𝐸𝑞(4)
0.376 ∗ 𝑆𝑥1.67 ∗ 𝑆𝐿0.5
Where:
n: Manning coefficient
Q: flow rate (m3/s)
T:Width of flow (spread) (m)
Sx: Cross slope (m/m)
SL: Longitudinal slope (m/m)
For each of the sub-basins developed by the distances assigned for the inlets (one inlet every 75 m)
the width of the water sheet is calculated before entering and from this calculation the efficiency of
each inlet along the corridor.
Analysing the typical cross section of the road, the parking lane has a width of 2.5m, the spread does
not exceed this value therefore the calculated flow is valid, and the safety of the corridor is
guaranteed. In the Figure 5 is showed the graphical presentation of the spread in the two different
lines.

Figure 5 – Cross section in K0+000, point where the flow goes to the channel.
In addition, the proposed curb is enough to control the flow of water resulting from hydrological
analysis without the risk of overflow to the sidewalk. The total height of the curb is 0.15m and the height
spread in the maximum point is 0.041m.
2.3 CURB DESIGN
A comparative analysis with the program Hydraulic Toolbox 4.4 is carried out, obtaining similar results
to those calculated. Attached to this document is the file "Curb And Gutter - HM1.hyd".
The main difference between the values obtained and calculated by the software and the Excel
spreadsheet, could be the type of grid chosen by the software and the efficiency coefficients chosen
automatically by it, however it is important to emphasize that the values are similar and fully describe
the behaviour of the inlets.
2.4 STORM DRAIN DESIGN
Manholes have been designed to be located in the alignment than the inlets as can be seen in the
next figure.

Figure 6 – Manholes and inlets location
Once manholes have been located and the distance between them is known the area of every
watershed can be calculated taking in mind a line width of 13m, therefore those areas between 1
and 6 are going to be 0.000975 Km2 each one, and the last area where the manhole 7 is located, it
is going to be 0.00065 Km2 doubt that this one covers a shorter distance as can be seen in the annexe
one drawings.
Following the process, concentration-time is calculated with equation 2 as it was done to calculate
inlets, but in this case from manhole two, the time of concentration has to be selected the higher
value between the one calculated for the single watershed and the one calculated as the
accumulation of the time of design and time of concentration of the manhole design just before.
Subsequently, caudal is calculate with equation number 3 for each one of the manholes, when the
flow has already calculated the diameter of the corresponding segment is calculated with the
manning equation as shown in the next example.
3
3.21 ∗ 𝑄 ∗ 𝑛 8
𝐷 =( 2 ) ∗ 100 𝐸𝑞(5)
√𝑆
Where:
Q: flow (m3/s)
D: Pipe diameter (cm)
S: Longitudinal slope (m/m)
Replacing all the known values into the equation 5 is possible to calculate the diameter.
3
3.21 ∗ 0.045 ∗ 0.013 8
𝐷 2−3 = ( 2 ) ∗ 100 = 19 𝑐𝑚
√0.025
Because 19 cm is not a commercial pipe diameter it has to be approximated to the next commercial
diameter that in the case of Colombia it is 22.7 cm; Following the process, total flow with the manning
equation is calculated to corroborate that flow of design is lower than 85% of the total capacity of
the pipe.
8
2
(𝐷/100)3 ∗ 3.21 √𝑆
𝑄= 𝐸𝑞(6)
𝑛

Where:
Q: flow (m3/s)
D: Pipe diameter (cm)
S: Longitudinal slope (m/m)
Replacing all the known values into the equation 6 is possible to calculate the total flow.
8
2
(22.7/100)3 ∗ 3.21 √0.025
𝑄 2−3 = = 0.07 m3/s
0.013
Consequently Q/q is lower than 85%, next the Average velocity is calculated with the program
Hydraulic Toolbox 4.4 that in the case is being explained V2-3 = 1.89 m/s, which is higher than 0.45 m/s
what is the low limit to guaranty autocleaning within pipes, finally time of design is calculated with
the velocity operating the next equation.
𝐿
𝑇= 𝐸𝑞(7)
𝑉 ∗ 60
Where:
T: Time of design (min)
L: Length (m)
Replacing all the known values into the equation 7 is possible to calculate the time of design.
75
𝑇 2−3 = = 0.66 𝑚𝑖𝑛
1.89 ∗ 60
Finally, the elevation of the bottom of the manhole is calculated as the elevation of the previous
manhole minus the distance times the slope and minus the depth of the pipe diameter; A table with
results is available in “SewerDesign.xslx” file.
2.5 CHANNEL DESIGN
The design of the channel is the final stretch of the stormwater collection system, this channel will take
the final flow from the system design and take it to discharge into a natural tributary, the next cross
section of the channel is proposed, and it will be verified if it meets the minimum design parameters.

Figure 7 – Cross section final channel
The design flow for the channel will be the last flow calculated for the design of the manholes in the
previous point, for this case the flow is 0.14 m3/s. The longitudinal slope of the canal will be 0.02 m/m
and the construction material will be sandy clay (n=0.020).
The results of the analysis are shown in the following figure:
Figure 8 – First analysis channel design
For the geometric conditions and the level of flow generated by the road, a reconfiguration of the
geometry of the channel is suggested, taking into account the economic factor and the fact that
the volume of water to be transported is not very large, so a larger cross section is not necessary.
In addition, the flow presents a supercritical flow condition, so it is suggested to model it in such a way
that this flow condition is not present, taking into account the material with which the channel is
constructed and which could generate erosion in it.

The following design conditions are proposed in order to fully comply with the minimum parameters
and optimize the construction of the channel, it is also proposed to change the longitudinal slope in
order to prevent the channel from generating enough earth movement, we suggest a slope of 0.5%.
Figure 9 – New proposed cross-section
El resultado final del diseño satisface los requerimientos mínimos de diseño como velocidad mínima
para limpieza (v>0.45m/s, para el caso colombiano) y además se asegura que el flujo sea subcrítico
sin tener riesgo de socavación. In the Figure 10 a summary for the design is showed
Figure 10 – Results for the final design

Figure 11 – Final cross section for the design

2. HOMEWORK 2
In a watershed a construction has started: a new multifamily development. At the outflow for the 10-
year return period rainfall the hydrograph was determined before and after development. The max.
before development hydrograph is shown below in the table. The maximum depth of the water in
the pond is 2m. The after-development hydrograph is shown below in table. Downstream to the
outflow structure the creek cannot carry more water than the before development flow, as a result,
a detention pond design is necessary. Design the detention pond.
Figure 12 – Watershed for pound design
Table 1 – Hydrograph before and after development

Q (before) [m3/s] Q (after) [m3/s]
0,0 0,0
0,5 2,2
0,8 3,6
1,4 4,2
1,8 3,7
2,2 2,9
2,6 2,3
2,5 1,6
2,1 0,8
1,6 0,0
1,2 0,0
0,9 0,0
0,6 0,0
0,3 0,0
0,0 0,0

Flow before and after development is showed in the next graph where is possible to analyse how
much volume must be storage in the detention pond in order to have a peak a bit lower of the one
before the affectation.
4
3.6 Before After
3
Q [m3/s]
2 1.8
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Time [min]
Figure 13 – Q-t diagram before pond design
The objective of building a new pond is to reduce the peak flow of the watershed after development,
as it can be analysed in figure 8 flow at the outflow point has to be reduced from 4.2 m 3/s to a point
below 2.6 m3/s; for this purpose, it was chosen a trapezoidal shape with a base L= 60m x W= 30 m and
a slope of 3:1 as can be observed in the figure below, also the outflow pipe was selected to be a 36
inches conduit which inner diameter is 0.9m. Considering the limitation of construction, after two
meters the flow is going to be discharged over a sided weir of 1m width.
Figure 14 – Pond design measures

Once there was selected the geometry with those parameters it is calculated the volume detained
in the pond and the outflow for different highs as shown in the next table and the total between both
what is shown in the last column.
Table 2 – Pond design detained + outflow
h L W A S (V) Sum S (V) Q outflow Q wier Q sum 2S/Dt+Q

[m] [m] [m] [m2] [m3] [m3] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s]
0.0 60 30 1800 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.5 63 33 2079 970 970 1.20 0.00 1.20 4.43
1.0 66 36 2376 1114 2084 1.69 0.00 1.69 8.64
1.5 69 39 2691 1267 3350 2.07 0.00 2.07 13.24
2.0 72 42 3024 1429 4779 2.39 0.00 2.39 18.32
2.5 75 45 3375 1600 6379 2.67 0.65 3.32 24.58
3.0 78 48 3744 1780 8159 2.93 1.83 4.76 31.95
3.5 81 51 4131 1969 10127 3.16 3.36 6.53 40.28
4.0 84 54 4536 2167 12294 3.38 5.18 8.56 49.54
4.5 87 57 4959 2374 14668 3.59 7.23 10.82 59.71
5.0 90 60 5400 2590 17258 3.78 9.51 13.29 70.81
Following the design, the next equation was used to estimate the flow going to the creek after the
implementation of the pond proposed.
2𝑆𝑛 2𝑆𝑛+1
(𝐼𝑛 + 𝐼𝑛+1 ) + ( − 𝑄𝑛 ) = ( + 𝑄𝑛+1 ) 𝐸𝑞(8)
∆𝑡 ∆𝑡
Where:
I: flow after development
Q: flow (m3/s) determined for time t
S: Volume determined for time t (m3)
Using the hydrograph table, the different variables are calculated in the next table, subsequently
depth of the pond and flow going to the creek is calculated interpolating the data calculated in the
previous table.
Table 3 – Pond design results, evaluation of maximum height
t Q (before) Q (after) I I1+I2 2S/Dt-Q 2S/Dt+Q Q2

n Depth
[min] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s]
1 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 10 0.5 2.2 2.20 2.20 0.00 2.20 0.59 0.25
3 20 0.8 3.6 3.60 5.80 1.01 6.81 1.48 0.78
4 30 1.4 4.2 4.20 7.80 3.86 11.66 1.94 1.33
5 40 1.8 3.7 3.70 7.90 7.78 15.68 2.22 1.74
6 50 2.2 2.9 2.90 6.60 11.23 17.83 2.36 1.95

t Q (before) Q (after) I I1+I2 2S/Dt-Q 2S/Dt+Q Q2

n Depth
[min] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s]
7 60 2.6 2.3 2.30 5.20 13.11 18.31 2.39 2.00
8 70 2.5 1.6 1.60 3.90 13.53 17.43 2.33 1.91
9 80 2.1 0.8 0.80 2.40 12.76 15.16 2.19 1.69
1
90 1.6 0 0.00 0.80 10.78 11.58 1.93 1.32
0
1
100 1.2 0 0.00 0.00 7.71 7.71 1.58 0.89
1
1
110 0.9 0 0.00 0.00 4.55 4.55 1.21 0.51
2
1
120 0.6 0 0.00 0.00 2.13 2.13 0.57 0.24
3
1
130 0.3 0 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.26 0.11
4
1
140 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.05
5
It is shown in the table that the maximum depth for the design is 2m, as requested by the statement.
Finally, the new flow going to the creek versus time is plotted and compare with the graph to verify
the new flow is lower than the one before development.
4 Before
3.6 After
Design outflow
3
Q [m3/s]
2.36
2 1.8
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Time [min]
Figure 15 – Q-t diagram after pond implementation

3. HOMEWORK 3
A new two-lane road will be built. Your job is to design the culvert, that goes underneath the road.
The creek in the current condition is; b=1,5 m, m=2,5, S=0,006m/m, grass channel, fairly well kept
(n=0.03). The design flow is 2,0 m3/s. The maximum flow is 5 m3/s. Follow the design concept outline
during class or read them in the pdf file. Design a culvert for normal flow downstream conditions.
1. Find flow headwater rating curve for design conditions.
2. Show the flow profile for design conditions, and interpret the graph (channel type, flow type,
etc.)
3. What are the conditions for maximum flow? Describe
1m hn
b
Figure 16 – Cross section for the tributary in current conditions
Taking into consideration the definition by the PIARC (The World Road Association), a two-lane road
is a “Road designed to permit two lanes of traffic to be accommodated side by side” (PIARC, 2019).
So, the appropriate configuration for the road design will be as showed in the Figure 17
Figure 17 – Spatial configuration for a “two-lane” road
The proposed cross section for the road will be as follows in the next sketch, based on the definition
above.

Figure 18 – Cross section of the road
The elevation in the outlet is given by the following equation:
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡: 100 − 12.695 ∗ 0.006 = 99.924 𝑚
With all the data set up is it possible to model the best constructive configuration for the culvert.
Special care must be taken with the coating of the pipe, for the Colombian case, it must have a
coating thickness of no less than 1m. With this analysis and having the proposed field configuration
(Figure 18) it is possible to locate a pipe up to a maximum diameter of 1.3m, however the commercial
diameters that are present in the Colombian market are those shown in the following table:
Table 4 – Available pipe diameters Colombian market

Diameter Diameter
(inches) (mm)
4 99
6 145
8 182
10 227
12 284
14 327
16 362
18 407
20 452
24 595

Diameter Diameter
(inches) (mm)
27 670
30 747
33 824
36 900
39 977.6
42 1054
45 1127
48 1202.94
The maximum diameter allowed to use in the design could be 45”, if this diameter does not meet the
design requirements and operability of the culvert system, then a double cell configuration should be
applied in the design. For the maximum flow with the maximum diameter available in Colombia, the
design conditions are showed in the figure below:
Figure 19 – Cross section for the culvert in maximum design conditions
The figure shows the design is not enough for working with this configuration, so a two cells design will
be presented as solution for the problem.
A double pipe design with a diameter of 39" (977.6mm) is proposed, this way the flow behaves better
and ensures that in maximum design conditions, the upstream water sheet will not exceed the crown
of the embankment.
The three questions outlined in the statement will be developed as follows.

3.1 PERFORMANCE CURVE
Figure 20 – Rating curve for the design conditions
As showed in the Figure 20 for the maximum flow value (5m3/s), the elevation of the water level will
not be higher than 103m, the elevation of the crown. So, the design could be accepted.
3.2 PROFILE FOR DESIGN CONDITIONS
Figure 21 – Flow profile for design conditions (2m3/s)

As the Figure 21 shows the flow inside the culverts will be supercritical, the profile flow is classified 1-
S2n, according to the HY-8 classification. However, hydraulic jump will not be generated considering
that the level flow downstream (0.52m) will not be higher than the critical height (0.58m). The
characteristics for the flow design are stable, considering that the inlet and outlet are not in
submerged conditions. The channel is classified as steep. The installation of a downstream energy
dissipation device is recommended for erosion control and sewer stability.
Figure 22 – Cross section of the road with the proposed tubes
3.3 PROFILE FOR MAIXMUM CONDITIONS
Figure 23 – Flow profile for design conditions (5m3/s)

The Figure 23 shows the behaviour of the system with the two tubes running under pressure over a
length of 10.11m. The inlet will function submerged and the outlet with free flow. The final surface
profile will be an M2 while the discharge to the creek is done.
In general, the performance of the culvert under extreme design conditions is acceptable and does
not represent a risk of flooding on the existing road.
4. CONCLUSIONS
• The verification of the width of the spread should always be verified in the design of water
collection systems, mainly to ensure adequate quality of service to the road and to reduce
risks in road safety issues.
• Due to the design of the sewer system was a single line, the longitudinal slope of the road
could be used as the inclination for the pipes, so the with this slope was checked that the
minimal conditions were fulfilled such as the minimum speed and the maximum flow, in the
case where there is more than one line in the system, it should be verified the different
elevations for the pipes in every manhole, this case is presented in urban sewer design due to
there are several intersections.
• The design of water channels must contemplate a balance between constructive costs and
well operation of the structure, with the norms of design to place that exist in the country
where the project is advanced.
• The toolbox software is a useful tool to design and verified data, but it is important to have the
basic theory clear to do not misunderstand the results and verify those are in the possible
range.
• Pond implementation is an important issue for settlements in order to avoid flooding, but these
structures have to be under constant maintained so the outflow pipe dos not get obstructed
other ways the arrangement would be useless.
• For the design of culverts, it must always present the operability of the duct in all possible
conditions (normal and maximum flows), in addition the diameters suggested by design must
be conditioned to the conditions of the terrain and the hydraulic profiles of design.
5. REFERENCES
Deparment of Transport and Main Roads, 2015. Road Drainage Manual. Queensland: Queensland
government.
Federal HIghway Administration, 2013. Urban Drainage Manual. 3th ed. Washington D.C: National
Highway Institute.
Instituto Nacional de Vías, 2009. Manual de drenaje para carreteras. 1st ed. Bogotá D.C: Instituto
Nacional de Vías.

General Hydraulics Designs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

General Hydraulics Designs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

ASSIGNMENT 1: URBAN HYDRAULIC DESIGN

CRISTIAN MANUEL CORSO SÁNCHEZ

NEPTUN CODE: W4PILU

CRISTIAN CAMILO CARO LAYTON

NEPTUN CODE: TV6G7H

December 15th, 2019

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 1 of 22

2.2 CHEKING GUTTER SECTION 5

2.3 CURB DESIGN 7

2.4 STORM DRAIN DESIGN 7

2.5 CHANNEL DESIGN 9

3.1 PERFORMANCE CURVE 20

3.2 PROFILE FOR DESIGN CONDITIONS 20

3.3 PROFILE FOR MAIXMUM CONDITIONS 21

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 2 of 22

Figure 1 – Typical cross section for the road

Figure 2 – Design plan of the project

• Return period: T 33 years

• Manning n number for asphalt n=0.013

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 3 of 22

• Cross slope m/m: 0.025

• Longitudinal slope m/m: 0.025

• Curb height: 0.15m

• Inlet type: Grate P1-1/8

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 4 of 22

2.2 CHEKING GUTTER SECTION

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 5 of 22

Figure 4 – Allowable flow width on roads.

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 6 of 22

2.3 CURB DESIGN

2.4 STORM DRAIN DESIGN

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 7 of 22

Figure 6 – Manholes and inlets location

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 8 of 22

2.5 CHANNEL DESIGN

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 9 of 22

Figure 7 – Cross section final channel

Figure 8 – First analysis channel design

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 10 of 22

Figure 9 – New proposed cross-section

Figure 10 – Results for the final design

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 11 of 22

Figure 11 – Final cross section for the design

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 12 of 22

Figure 12 – Watershed for pound design

Table 1 – Hydrograph before and after development

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 13 of 22

Figure 14 – Pond design measures

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 14 of 22

h L W A S (V) Sum S (V) Q outflow Q wier Q sum 2S/Dt+Q

t Q (before) Q (after) I I1+I2 2S/Dt-Q 2S/Dt+Q Q2

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 15 of 22

t Q (before) Q (after) I I1+I2 2S/Dt-Q 2S/Dt+Q Q2

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 16 of 22

Figure 17 – Spatial configuration for a “two-lane” road

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 17 of 22

Figure 18 – Cross section of the road

The elevation in the outlet is given by the following equation:

𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡: 100 − 12.695 ∗ 0.006 = 99.924 𝑚

Table 4 – Available pipe diameters Colombian market

THOMAS VAN DER HAMMEN DEBATE. Page 18 of 22