Discussions and Closures
successive evaluation of different design options by routing inflow
Discussion of “Generalized Method for
Storm-Water Pumping Station Design”
by S. David Graber
November 2010, Vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 901–908.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000268
David C. Froehlich, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, M.ASCE1
1 water level (or equivalently runoff storage volume), not on the
Consultant, 303 Frenchmans Bluff Dr., Cary, NC 27513. E-mail:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dcfroehlich@aol.com
The author develops an approximate method for calculating the
constant rate of discharge and accompanying temporary runoff
storage volume for small storm-water pumping stations based on
an idea presented by Burton (1980) along with a variant of the
modified rational method (MRM). Some background information
is provided before discussing the author’s analysis, using the
author’s notation as much as possible to avoid confusion.
The rational formula or rational method (ASCE 1992, p. 90–96)
gives the peak flow rate from a catchment as
I p ¼ ku CA × iðt r Þ ð1Þ
where k u = units conversion factor; C = runoff coefficient that rep-
resents the fraction of incident precipitation that appears as surface
runoff (0 < C ≤ 1); A = catchment area; and iðt r Þ = average rainfall
intensity for a storm of duration tr in depth units of rainfall per hour.
Because average rainfall intensity decreases as rainfall duration
increases, I p given by Eq. (1) will usually reach its maximum value
when t r ¼ t c , where tc = time of concentration. In an ideal sense, tc
is the time needed for water to flow from the most remote point of a
catchment to its outlet, where remoteness relates to the time of
travel rather than the length of the flow path. For t r < t c, less than
the entire catchment will contribute to runoff; for tr > tc, average
rainfall intensity will be reduced.
Catchment runoff hydrographs can be approximated by consid-
ering discharge to increase at a linear rate from the start of rainfall
for a period equal to the time of concentration of the catchment tc .
For rainfall durations t r exceeding t c , the runoff rate remains con-
stant at the peak rate I p , which is given by the rational formula for a
storm of duration tr , until the cessation of rainfall. Once rainfall has
ended (i.e., for t > tr ), flow decreases at a linear rate over a period
equal to tc , after which the runoff rate is nil. This idea produces a
trapezoid hydrograph with a total runoff volume of V r ¼ I p × tr
[i.e., the direct runoff volume from a storm of duration tr that
has a constant rainfall intensity iðt r Þ over this period]. Extension
of the rational formula in this way to obtain a runoff hydrograph
is commonly known as the modified rational method (Baker 1977;
Wanielista 1978, p. 158; Tourbier and Westmacott 1981, p. 49–51;
Chow et al. 1988, p. 522–527; Walesh 1989, p. 105).
The MRM, which is an ASCE standard practice for designing
urban storm-water systems (ASCE 2006, Section 4.1.8), relies on
the same assumptions as the rational formula, along with the belief
that the runoff coefficient is constant with respect to time and
rainfall intensity. Hydrographs for various storm durations obtained
using the MRM for a catchment with a time of concentration of
t c ¼ 10 min are shown in Fig. 1 to illustrate the idea.
Determining pumping capacity and temporary runoff stor-
age volumes for storm-water pump stations typically requires
758 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:761-762.
hydrographs through a detention facility until a satisfactory (usu-
ally the lowest cost) alternative is found. Burton (1980) developed
an approximate relation for calculating the needed storage volume
for pump stations based on the MRM by considering pumping to
begin when the rate of inflow to the storage basin first equals the
selected constant outflow rate (Fig. 2). However, the common prac-
tice is to base the control of pump on-off switches on wet-well
inflow rate. The discusser does not know of any storm-water pump
station that is designed to operate in this way. For this reason,
the concept is of little practical use other than to provide a set
of starting conditions for a more thorough analysis.
The author has used Burton’s idea, along with a variant of the
MRM, to calculate combinations of constant discharge rates and
temporary runoff storage volumes for small storm-water pump
stations. His unconventional form of the MRM uses a hydrograph
recession limb within which flows decrease at a linear rate over a
period R × tc , where R ¼ 5=3, a value chosen based on the standard
triangular unit hydrograph used by the Natural Resources Conser-
vations Service (NRCS), as explained in Graber (2009). As shown
clearly from Eq. (13) in the original paper with tr ¼ tc , the inflow
volume given by the MRM hydrograph with the extended recession
limb V i ¼ 4=3 × I p t c , which exceeds V r ¼ I p tc = runoff volume
from a rainfall of constant intensity iðt r Þ lasting for a duration
of tr ¼ t c given by Eq. (1) by a factor of 1=3. Only R ¼ 1, which
yields the conventional MRM runoff hydrograph, will satisfy the
conservation of mass (or runoff volume) principal. A rational ex-
planation for the additional runoff volume produced by the author’s
implementation of the MRM is needed.
By accepting the pump station operating condition presented in
Fig. 2 (for didactic purposes if for no other reason), the storage
volume S required for a specified constant discharge rate M is


1 M2 tr M
S¼ t þ ðI p
MÞ
t ð2Þ
2 Ip c tc I p c
which can be obtained from the author’s Eq. (9) with R ¼ 1 after
rearranging. Dividing through Eq. (2) by I 0p t c gives the dimension-
less relation


1 M 2 M
S ¼ þ ðI p
M  Þ tr
ð3Þ
2 I p I p
where I 0p ¼ k u CA × iðtc Þ = peak runoff rate from the catchment
for t r ¼ t c ; S ¼ S=I 0p tc , M  ¼ M=I 0p , I p ¼ I p =I 0p , and tr ¼ t r =t c =
dimensionless normalized quantities. Note that the normalized
runoff storage volume S is not the same as the author’s S .
With rainfall intensity calculated by a conventional formula
[see Froehlich (1993) for a summary of various forms of rainfall
intensity–duration formulas in common use] as
a
iðtr Þ ¼ ð4Þ
tr þ b
where a and b = coefficients for a specified average recurrence
interval (ARI), the normalized peak runoff rate from the catchment
is given by
ku CA × iðt r Þ 1 þ b
I p ¼ ¼ ð5Þ
ku CA × iðt c Þ t r þ b
 Fig. 3. Rainfall intensity–duration relation fit to several tabulated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

values obtained from Table 1 in the original paper

of I p by the values of i listed in Table 1 in the original paper yields

Fig. 1. Runoff hydrographs from small catchment given by MRM
the quantity k u CA ¼ 1=1;040, which gives
showing effect of storm duration on peak flow rates and hydrograph
shape I 0p ¼ k u CA × iðt c Þ ¼ 1=1;040 × 4;700=ð6 þ 19Þ
¼ 0:181 m3 =s ð31:38 ft3 =sÞ ð8Þ

for the author’s example in which t c ¼ 6 min. With M ¼

0:0849 m3 =s used by the author, M  ¼ M=I 0p ¼ 0:0849=0:181 ¼
0:469, b ¼ 19=6 ¼ 3:167, and M cr ¼ 0:8929 from Eq. (7).
Because M  < M cr , Eq. (6) applies and gives
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
M  ð1 þ b
32 M  Þ 0:469 × ð1 þ 19 6
2 × 0:469Þ
3
I p ¼ ¼
b 19=6
¼ 0:716 ð9Þ

Rearranging Eq. (5) gives

1 þ b 1 þ 19=6 19
tr ¼
b ¼
¼ 2:651 ð10Þ
Fig. 2. Schematic of Burton’s operating condition for small storm- I p 0:716 6
water pump station where pumping begins when runoff inflow rate to
runoff storage facility equals specified constant rate of discharge Then, from Eq. (3)


1 M 2 M
where b ¼ b=t c . Combining Eqs. (3) and (5), differentiating S ¼ þ ðI p
M  Þ tr

2 I p I p
S with respect to I p , and then setting the result to zero gives 2


the following expression for I p : 1 0:469 0:469
¼ þ ð0:716
0:469Þ 2:651
¼ 0:647
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 0:716 0:716
M  ð1 þ b
32 M  Þ ð11Þ
I p ¼ ð6Þ
b
and the dimensional storage volume is calculated as
The corresponding value of S for a specified value of M  is S ¼ S × I 0p × t c ¼ 0:647 × 0:181 m3 =s × 6 min ×60 s=min
then calculated from Eq. (3), with I p given by Eq. (6) and tr ¼ ¼ 42:16 m3 ð1;489 ft3 Þ
ð1 þ b Þ=I p
b from Eq. (5). However, Eq. (6) is valid only for
M  ≤ I p because the operating condition depicted in Fig. 2 cannot which is close to the author’s solution (S ¼ 44:6 m3 ) in spite of the
exist otherwise. The critical value of M  that cannot be exceeded runoff hydrograph differences.
for Eq. (6) to apply is If M  (i.e., the constant pumping rate) is arbitrary, an optimal
1 þ b operating condition may be one that requires the least runoff stor-
M cr ¼ ð7Þ
3=2 þ b age volume. The value of M  that yields the minimum value of S
can be calculated by iterative solution of Eqs. (3), (5), and (6). Data
for instances where M cr ≤ M  ≤ 1, the solution is simply from the author’s example are used to illustrate a search for the
I p ¼ M  , and S ¼ M  =2. optimal combination of M  and S in this way. Results of the search
To compare the solutions given by Eq. (6) with those of the au- are shown in Fig. 4, in which values of S given by Eqs. (3), (5), and
thor, the values of the coefficients of the rainfall intensity– (6) for 0 ≤ M  ≤ 1 are graphed. Because I p → 0 and t r → ∞ as
duration formula given by Eq. (4) are needed along with I 0p . Fitting M  → 0, Eq. (3) is indeterminate for M  ¼ 0. However, the normal-
Eq. (4) to several tabulated values of i obtained from Table 1 in the ized temporary storage volume needed for M  ¼ 0 (i.e., when no
original paper, the coefficients a ¼ 4;700 and b ¼ 19 are calcu- runoff volume at all is pumped from the storage basin) is just the
lated, giving iðt r Þ ¼ 4;700=ðt r þ 19Þ (Fig. 3). Dividing the values entire normalized runoff volume for tr ¼ ∞, which is calculated as

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 759

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:761-762.

 and then S ¼ 0:4152 is obtained from Eq. (3). Dimensional quan-
tities are calculated as follows:

I 0p ¼ k u CA × iðtc Þ ¼ 1=1;040 × 4;700=ð6 þ 19Þ

¼ 0:181 m3 =s ð31:38 ft3 =sÞ

M ¼ M  × I 0p ¼ 0:7707 × 0:181 m3 =s ¼ 0:139 m3 =s ð4:91 ft3 =sÞ

I p ¼ I p × I 0p ¼ 0:8560 × 0:181 m3 =s ¼ 0:155 m3 =s ð5:47 ft3 =sÞ

t r ¼ t r × t c ¼ 10:2 min
Fig. 4. Values of S corresponding to specified values of M  calculated
by Eqs. (3), (5), and (6); optimal solution point (i.e., value of M  that S ¼ S × I 0p × t c ¼ 0:4152 × 0:181 m3 =s × 6 min ×60 s=min
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

yields minimum value of S ) given by Eqs. (3) and (13)–(15) is also

shown ¼ 27:1 m3 ð957 ft3 Þ

The exact optimal solution for M  and S is also shown in Fig. 4.

The discusser would again like to point out that the aforementioned
analyses are based on the conventional form of the MRM hydro-
Vr I p tr 1 þ b 1 þ ð19=6Þ graph that conserves runoff volume or mass, which is equivalent to
V r ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 1 þ ð19=6Þ
I 0p t c I 0p tc 1 þ b =t r 1 þ ð19=6Þ=∞ the author’s formulation with R ¼ 1.
¼ 4:167 ð12Þ It is the solution for the value of M  given by Eqs. (16) and (17)
that yields the minimum value of S , which the discusser has
From the graph shown in Fig. 4, the minimum value of S occurs previously presented (Froehlich 1994), that the author claims is
for M  ≈ 0:77, which gives the approximate “optimal” solution wrong. However, the author incorrectly believes that the discusser
values of I p ¼ 0:856, t r ¼ 1:702, and S ¼ 0:415 from Eqs. (3), was “maximizing storage volume for both variable I p and variable
(5), and (6), respectively. M,” which is clearly not the case. As shown in this discussion
The optimal solution for S (i.e., the solution that minimizes S ) using the author’s example data, the formulas correctly produce
can be found in a less complicated way by differentiating Eq. (3) the intended result (i.e., the minimum storage volume S and the
with respect to M  and I p and requiring both of the resulting corresponding constant outflow rate M for the pumping station
expressions to equal zero simultaneously. Exact solutions for operated according to Burton’s idea, as shown in Fig. 2). The
optimal values of I p , M  , and tr are then found as follows: maximum S occurs when M ¼ 0, as the author correctly points
out, the value of which is given here in normalized form by
1 þ b Eq. (12) using the rainfall intensity–duration relation given by
I p ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð13Þ
1 þ 4b þ b2 Eq. (4).
Finally, the discusser would like to point out that the evaluation
of Burton’s (1980) operating condition given in Froehlich (1994)
1 was only a digression that had no bearing on the main subject of the
M  ¼ ½1 þ b þ ð1
b ÞI p  ð14Þ paper, which is a more realistic and useful analysis of small storm-
3 water pump station operation based on MRM hydrology.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
tr ¼ 1 þ 4b þ b2
b ð15Þ References
ASCE. (1992). “Design and construction of urban stormwater management
Using data from the author’s example, Eqs. (13)–(15) give the
systems.” ASCE Manuals and Rep. of Engineering Practice No. 77,
exact solutions New York.
ASCE. (2006). “Standard guidelines for the design of urban stormwater
1 þ b 1 þ ð19=6Þ
I p ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 0:8560 systems.” ASCE/EWRI 45-05, Reston, VA.
1 þ 4b þ b2 1 þ 4 × ð19=6Þ þ ð19=6Þ2 Baker, W. R. (1977). “Stormwater detention basin design for small drainage
ð16Þ areas.” Public Works, 17(3), 75–79.
Burton, K. R. (1980). “Stormwater detention basin sizing.” J. Hydraul.
Div., 106(3), 437–439.
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., and Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied hydrology,
1 McGraw-Hill, New York.
M  ¼ ½1 þ b þ ð1
b ÞI p 
3 Froehlich, D. C. (1993). “Short duration rainfall-intensity equations for

  drainage design.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 119(5), 814–828.
1 19 19
¼ 1þ þ 1
× 0:8560 ¼ 0:7707 ð17Þ Froehlich, D. C. (1994). “Sizing small stormwater pump stations.” Water
3 6 6 Resour. Bull., 30(6), 1055–1062.
Graber, S. D. (2009). “Generalized numerical solution for detention basin
design.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 135(4), 487–492.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2ffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Tourbier, J. T., and Westmacott, R. (1981). Water resources protection
19 19 19
t r ¼ 1 þ 4b þ b2
b ¼ 1þ4× þ
technology, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC.
6 6 6 Walesh, S. G. (1989). Urban surface water management, Wiley, New York.
Wanielista, M. P. (1978). Stormwater management—Quantity and quality,
¼ 1:701 ð18Þ Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.

760 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:761-762.


Closure to “Generalized Method for
Storm-Water Pumping Station Design”
by S. David Graber
November 2010, Vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 901–908.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000268
S. David Graber, P.E., F.ASCE1
1 Eq. (12). Then, clearly, if also M  ¼ 0, the required total storage
Consulting Engineer, 118 Larson Rd., Stoughton, MA 02072. E-mail:
sdavidgraber@cs.com
Froehlich’s interest in and augmentation of the writer’s work are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
greatly appreciated. We share like opinions about the continuing
value of the modified rational method (MRM), and his supplemen-
tary explanation of that method is beneficial. Additional discussion
and perspective regarding the rational method and MRM are
given by Graber (2009); the discusser’s Fig. 1 is similar to Graber’s
(2009) somewhat more elaborate Fig. 2. The discusser’s reference
to ASCE/EWRI 45-05 (ASCE 2006) in connection with the MRM
is satisfying, because the writer was one of the writers of that guide-
line, including the cited Section 4.1.8.
The discusser’s Fig. 2 is similar to the writer’s Fig. 1. The
discusser questions the practicality of the assumptions embodied
in the writer’s Fig. 1, stating that the writer and Burton (1980) con-
sidered “pumping to begin when the rate of inflow to the storage
basin first equals the selected constant outflow rate,” whereas
“common practice is to base control of pump on-off switches on
wet-well water level (or equivalent runoff storage volume), not
on the inflow rate.” The writer did not suggest that pump control
be based on an inflow rate, but rather, as described in the paper, the
pump start and stop elevations are wet-well water levels based on
the determined hydrograph and pumped outflow. That is an entirely
practical basis for pump operation in appropriate cases, reduces the
number of variables to be selected and tested by calculation, and
was the basis for the actual design example presented by the writer.
Other assumptions for pump start and stop elevations can be tested
as necessary, e.g., by using the HydroCAD software discussed in
the writer’s paper.
The discusser’s Eq. (2) derives from the writer’s Eq. (9), Eq. (8)
for R ¼ 1, and Eq. (10). The writer concurs with the discusser’s
Eqs. (3) and (6), which are identical to Eqs. (14) and (15), respec-
tively, of Froehlich (1994).
The writer’s use of R > 1 is a compromise between (1) the long-
known fact that the receding limb of the outflow hydrograph
generally has a “time base longer than that for [the rising limb]”
(Williams 1950), the rising limb in our case being linear with time
base equal to the time of concentration; and (2) the recognition that
the slightly conservative assumption of a linear receding limb with
R ¼ 1:67 will give an outflow volume greater than the inflow
volume. A more complex curve could be used for the receding limb
to eliminate the latter conflict but does not seem warranted and
would of necessity be arbitrary and complicate the analysis. The
discusser notes that, for the writer’s example, the discusser’s
required storage volume is “close to [and less than] the writer’s
solution…in spite of the runoff hydrograph differences [referring
to the discusser’s R ¼ 1 versus the writer’s R ¼ 1:67].” The
discusser’s R ¼ 1 solution for storage volume is within 2% of
the solution of 43 m3 given in the writer’s paper for R ¼ 1:67.
Some clarification leading up to the discusser’s Eq. (12) should
be helpful. The discusser’s Eq. (3) is not indeterminate for M  ¼ 0.
Rather, for M  ¼ 0, one has S ¼ I p tr . Furthermore, for M  ¼ 0,
the normalized temporary storage volume is not the entire runoff
volume for tr ¼ ∞ but rather the normalized temporary storage
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 761
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:761-762.
volume for any selected tr . The discusser’s V r equals the writer’s
total inflow volume V i at t r ¼ ∞. Using the writer’s Eq. (13) and
the discusser’s Eqs. (1) and (4) gives V i ¼ k u CA½a=ðb þ t r Þtc ½ðR þ
1Þ=2 þ t r =t c
1 and, using L’Hôpital’s rule, limtr →∞ V i ≡ V r ¼
ku cAa. Combining this result with the discusser’s Eqs. (1), (8),
and (12) then gives V r ¼ V r =ðI 0p tc Þ ¼ ðb þ t c Þ=t c , which, using
the discusser’s b ¼ 19 min and the writer’s t c ¼ 6 min, gives
V r ¼ 4:167, which is equal to the value given in the discusser’s
volume for t r ¼ ∞ is the total inflow volume, which is nondimen-
sionalized to V r .
The writer used the term maximum storage volume in referring
to the need to determine the storm duration giving that maximum
for a particular I p and M, with other durations giving values below
that maximum that should not be used for design. The discusser
notes that his Fig. 4 is based on his Eqs. (3), (5), and (6), with
b ¼ 3:167. His Eq. (6), which is the same as Eq. (15) of Froehlich
(1994), yields “the maximum relative storage volume” (Froehlich
1994). What is “indeterminate” is the value of S at M  ¼ 0
(or I p ¼ 0) when this maximum is sought; that value of S is given
by the V r discussed in the previous paragraph.
It would be precise to state that the discusser’s method attempts
to determine the minimum value of storage S (as noted by the dis-
cusser, the writer’s S differs from the discusser’s S ) for the locus
of (S , M) points corresponding to the storm durations that maxi-
mize that storage. Under certain limited conditions, as discussed in
the following, the writer concurs that the discusser’s theoretical
method accomplishes that. For the more general situation with
R > 1, the equations corresponding to the discussion’s Eqs. (13),
(14), and (15) are given, respectively, by
1 þ b
I p ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
4ð1 þ R=2Þ½b
ðR
1Þ=2 þ ðR
b Þ2
1
M ¼ ½1 þ b
ðR
b ÞI p  ð2Þ
2ð1 þ R=2Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t r ¼ 4ð1 þ R=2Þ½b
ðR
1Þ=2 þ ðR
b Þ2
b ð3Þ
which, respectively, reduce to the discussion’s Eqs. (13), (14), and
(15) for R ¼ 1.
Using the writer’s Eq. (14), one can express the first derivative
as
dðS =V i Þ
tr =tc
R þ 2ðM=I p Þð1 þ R=2Þ
¼ ð4Þ
dðM=I p Þ ðR þ 1Þ=2 þ tr =t c
1
Setting the first derivative equal to zero gives
tr M
¼ 2 ð1 þ R=2Þ
R ð5Þ
tc Ip
which corresponds to a stationary point on the curve of S =V i as a
function of M=I p . The second derivative d 2 S =dV 2i ¼ 2ð1 þ R=2Þ=
½ðR þ 1Þ=2 þ t r =tc
1 > 0 for the realistic situation of t r =tc > 1,
indicating that Eq. (5) gives a relative minimum value of S =V i .
However, for the realistic situation of M=I p < 1, Eq. (5) gives
tr =t c < 2 irrespective of R. This comports with the writer’s Fig. 2,
 and the same can be seen, i.e., no minimum value of S =V i
for t r =t c > 2, from a similar plot for R ¼ 1. Because the writer’s
example had the critical tr =tc ¼ 2:333 (see Table 1 in the original
paper), there was no relative minimum, which is consistent with
the writer’s Fig. 3. This represents a major disadvantage of the
discusser’s method.
Furthermore, what is desired for design is the combination on
the locus of (S , M) points that minimizes life-cycle cost while
satisfying constraints such as the availability of space for S. Owing
to the relatively high cost of pumps and appurtenances associated
with M, the minimum storage S , whether absolute or relative if
such exists, will not necessarily give the lowest cost.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
762 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:761-762.
References
ASCE. (2006). “Standard guidelines for the design of urban stormwater
systems.” ASCE/EWRI 45-05, Reston, VA.
Burton, K. R. (1980). “Stormwater detention basin sizing.” J. Hydr. Div.,
106(3), 437–439.
Froehlich, D. C. (1994). “Sizing small stormwater pumping stations.”
Water Resour. Bull., 306, 1055–1062.
Graber, S. D. (2009). “Rain loads and flow attenuation on roofs.” J. Archit.
Eng., 15(3), 91–101.
Williams, G. R. (1950). “Rational theory of surface runoff for drainage
design.” Section IV.I, Engineering hydraulics, H. Rouse, ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.