Land Development Results in Increased

Detention Pond Design Peak Flow Rates and Runoff Volumes

Considering Varying Design
Storms
St Developed area

Robert Pitt
Department of Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering
University of Alabama Similar undeveloped area
Tuscaloosa, AL

Large Rain Small Rain

Receiving Water Effects of

Water Pollutant Discharges Wet Detention Ponds

• Sediment (amount and quality)

• Habitat destruction (mostly through high flows and
sedimentation)
• Eutrophication (nutrient enrichment)
• Low dissolved oxygen (from organic materials)
• Pathogens (mostly from municipal wastewater and
agricultural runoff)
• Toxicants (heavy metals and organic toxicants)
• Temperature
• Debris and unsafe conditions
• etc.

1
 Extended Detention Ponds Dry Ponds with Pilot Channels

Caltrans, San Diego and Los Angeles, California

Unusual Dry Detention Pond Located on Hillside Large Corrugated Pipes used for Underground Detention
to Meet “100 year” Peak Flow Rate Criterion Below Parking Area

2
Examples of Proprietary Underground Detention Systems
Contech Construction Products, Inc.
StormTech
Basinwide Hydraulic Analyses
• Basinwide analyses are needed to identify the most
suitable locations and sizes for flood control detention
ponds
Invisible Structures, Inc. • If just follow “pre” and “post” development peak flow rate
criterion (the peak flow rate after development must be no
larger than the peak flow rate before development for a
specific design storm), worse conditions are likely to occur
at downstream areas
• WinTR-55 is the easiest and cheapest tool available to
perform a basinwide hydraulic analysis to ensure that
hydrographic interferences will not occur.
StormTrap
Predevelopment hydrographs from upstream area and from
Developing developing subarea
subwatershed
requiring
detention pond
3
 Probability
Final hydrographs from subareas and total area with detention distribution of typical
pond to meet predevelopment peak flow criterion
Alabama rains (by
count) and runoff (by
depth).

<0.5”: 65% of rains

(10% of runoff)

0.5 to 3”: 30% of rains

(75% of runoff)

3 to 8”: 4% of rains
(13% of runoff)

>8”: <0.1% or rains

(2% or runoff)
EPA report on wet weather flows, Pitt, et al. 1999

Same general
pattern in other
Design Issues (<0.5 inches)
parts of the
• Most of the events (numbers of rain storms)
country, just
shifted. • Little of annual
ann al runoff
r noff volume
ol me
• Little of annual pollutant mass discharges
• Probably few receiving water effects
• Problem:
– pollutant
ll concentrations
i likely
lik l exceedd
regulatory limits (especially for bacteria and
total recoverable heavy metals) for each
event
Pitt, et al. (1999)

4

Design Issues (0.5 to 3 inches)
• Majority of annual runoff volume and
pollutant discharges
• Occur approximately once a week
• Problems:
• Produce moderate to high flows
• Produce frequent high pollutant loadings
Design Issues (3 to 8 inches)
• This range of rains can include drainage-design storms
(depending on rain intensity and site time of
concentration). Most of these storms last for one to two
days. Drainage design storms of these depths would last
only for a few hours
hours.
• Establishes energy gradient of streams
• Occur approximately every few months (two to five
times a year). Drainage design storms having high peak
intensities occur every several years to several decades)
• Problems:
– Unstable streambanks
– Habitat destruction from damaging flows
– Sanitary sewer overflows
– Nuisance flooding and drainage problems/traffic
hazards

Combinations of Controls Needed to Meet Many Stormwater

Design Issues (> 8 inches) Management Objectives

• Occur rarely (once every several years to once • Smallest storms should
be captured on-site for
every several decades, or less frequently). Three reuse or infiltrated
reuse,
rains were recorded that were >8 inches in the 37 • Design controls to treat
years between 1952 and 1989 in Huntsville, AL. runoff that cannot be
• Produce relatively small fraction of the annual infiltrated on site
pollutant mass discharges • Provide controls to
reduce energy of large
• Produce
P d extremely
t l large
l flows
fl andd the
th largest
l t events that
h would ld
events exceed drainage system capacity otherwise affect habitat
(depending on rain intensity and time of • Provide conventional
flooding and drainage
concentration of drainage area) controls

5
Figure and Table Hours of Exceedence of Developed Conditions with Zero
from Center for Runoff Increase Controls Compared to Predevelopment
Watershed Impervious Cover Model
Protection Conditions (MacRae (1997)
Recurrence Existing Exceedence for Exceedence for Exceedence for
Interval (yrs) Flowrate Predevelopment Existing Ultimate
(m3/s) Conditions (hrs Development Development
per 5 yrs) Conditions, with Conditions,
ZRI Controls with ZRI
(hrs per 5 yrs) Controls (hrs
per 5 yrs)
Urban Steam Sensitive Impacted Damaged
Classification 0 – 10% 11– 25% 26–100% 1.01 (critical 1.24 90 380 900
Imperviousness Imperviousness Imperviousness mid-bankfull
conditions)
Channel
Stable Unstable Highly Unstable
Stability 1.5 (bankfull 2.1 30 34 120
Aquatic Life conditions)
Good/Excellent Fair/Good Poor
Biodiversity
Can calculate the hours of exceedence of various flow targets for
different development scenarios

Example Intensity - Duration - Frequency (IDF) Curve

Rainfall Frequency
• Rainfall frequency is commonly expressed as the
g return pperiod of the event.
average
• The value should be expressed as the probability of
that event occurring in any one year.
• As an example, a 100-yr storm, has a 1% chance of
occurring in any one year, while a 5-yr storm has a
20% chance of occurring in any one year.
• Multiple rare events may occur in any one year, but
that is not very likely.

6
 Developed by
S. Rocky
Durrans

SCS (NRCS) Rainfall Distributions Zones of Different Rainfall Distributions

7
Rainfall Distributions in the Southeastern U.S. Probability of design
storm (design return
period) not being
exceeded during the
project
p j life ((design
g
period).

As an example, if a
project life was 5
years, and a storm
was nott to
t be
b
exceeded with a 90%
probability, a 50 year
design return period
storm must be used.

Estimating Storage Requirements of the Estimating the Effects of Storage (Based

Detention Pond
• The detention basin is the most widely used measure
for controlling peak discharge.
• It is generally the least expensive and most reliable of
the measures that have been considered.
• It can be designed to fit a wide variety of sites and
can accommodate multiple
multiple-outlet
outlet spillways to meet
requirements for multi-frequency control of outflow.
on Chapter 6 of TR-55)
• Hydrologic
y g routingg procedures
p can be used to
estimate the effect on hydrographs.
– Both the TR-20 (SCS 1983) and DAMS2 (SCS 1982)
computer programs provide accurate analysis methods.
WinTR55 also has improved routing.
• This chapter in TR-55 contains a manual method for
quick estimates if the effects of temporary
q p y detention
on peak discharges.
– The method is based on average storage and routing effects
for many structures.

8
 Estimating the Effects of Storage
(Based on Chapter 6 of TR-55) Estimating the Effects of Storage: Input
Requirements
• The figure is used to estimate storage volume
(Vs) required or peak outflow discharge (qo).
• The most frequent application is to estimate
Vs, for which the required inputs are runoff
volume (Vr), qo, and peak inflow discharge
(qi).
• To estimate qo, the required inputs are Vr, Vs,
and qi.

Estimating the Effects of Storage: Estimating the Effects of Storage:

Estimating Vs Estimating Vs
3. Compute qo/qi and determine Vs/Vr from figure 6-1.
• Use worksheet 6a to estimate Vs, storage volume required, by
the following procedure.
procedure
4. Q (watershed runoff in inches) is determined from the CN plot
using the 24-hr rain depth associated with the design storm. It
1. Determine qo. Many factors may dictate the selection of peak must be converted to the units in which Vs is to be expressed—
outflow discharge. The most common is to limit downstream most likely, acre-feet or cubic feet. The most common
discharges to a desired level, such as predevelopment conversion of Q to Vr is expressed in acre-feet:
discharge. Another factor may be that the outflow device has
already
y been selected. Vr = 53.33Q(Am)
Where Vr = runoff volume (acre-ft)
2. Estimate qi by either the graphical peak discharge or tabular
Q = runoff (in)
hydrograph methods. Do not use peak discharges developed
Am = drainage area (mi2), and
by another procedure.
53.33 = conversion factor from in-mi2 to acre-ft.

9
 Solution of the SCS Runoff Equation
(from TR-55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Soil Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture): Estimating the Effects of Storage:
Estimating Vs
5. Use the results of steps 3 to 4 to compute Vs:

V 
Vs  Vr  s 
 Vr 
Where Vs = storage volume required (acre-ft).

6 Th
6. The stage
t in
i the
th detention
d t ti basin
b i corresponding
di tot Vs mustt be
b
equal to the stage used to generate qo.
1. In most situations a minor modification of the outflow device can be
made. If the device has been preselected, repeat the calculations with a
modified qo value.

Detention Pond Size Example for Single “Design Storm Detention Pond Example Sizing, Single Stage (single
• A development is being planned in a 75-acre (0.117 mi2) “design storm” objective) Example 6-2, TR-55
watershed that outlets into an existing concrete-lined channel
designed for present conditions. If the channel capacity is • How much storage (Vs) will be required to meet the maximum
exceeded, damages will be substantial. The watershed is in the outflow discharge (qo) of 180 cfs (calculated to be associated with
type II storm distribution region. the “25-yr design storm,” and what will be the approximate
dimensions of a rectangular weir outflow structure? The peak inflow
had been determined to be 360 cfs for this event.
• The present channel capacity, 180 cfs, was established by
computing discharge for the 25-year frequency storm by the
Graphical Peak Discharge method. • Figure 6-2 shows how worksheet 6a is used to estimate required
storage (Vs = 5.9 acre-ft) and maximum stage (Emax = 105.7 ft). The
rectangular weir was chosen for its simplicity; however, several
• The developed-condition peak discharge (qi) is 360 cfs, and types of outlets can meet the outflow device proportion requirement.
runoff (Q) is 3.4 inches. Since outflow must be held to 180 cfs, a
d
detention
i basin
b i having
h i thath maximumi outflow
fl discharge
di h (q
( o) will
ill
be built at the watershed outlet. • An outlet device should be proportioned to meet specific objectives.
A single-stage device was specified in this example because only
one storm was considered. A weir is suitable here because of the
• How much storage (Vs) will be required to meet the maximum low head. The weir crest elevation is 100.00 ft. Using Vs = 5.9 acre-
outflow discharge (qo) of 180 cfs, and what will be the ft (figure 6-2, step 9) and the elevation-storage curve, the maximum
approximate dimensions of a rectangular weir outflow structure? stage (Emax) is 105.7 ft.

10
 Detention
Pond Size
General Weir Equation
Estimation:
Example for
Q  CLH 3 / 2
single Where C = weir coefficient (see table)
L = weir length
design storm

Detention Pond Size Estimation: Example

Detention Pond Size Estimation: Example
for single design storm
• The rectangular weir equation is:
• Since qo is known to be 180 cfs, solving for Lw yields
• Qo=3.2LwHw 1.5
q0
Lw  1.5
Where qo = peak outflow discharge (cfs) 3.2 H w
Lw = weir crest length (ft)
Hw = head over weir crest (ft) 180 ft 3 / sec
Lw   4.1 ft
• Hw and qo are computed
p as follows:
3.2(5.7 ft )1.5
Hw = Emax – weir crest elevation = 105.7 - 100.0 = 5.7 ft.
• In summary, the outlet structure is a rectangular weir
with crest length of 4.1 ft, Hw = 5.7 ft, and qo = 180
cfs corresponding to a Vs = 5.9 acre-ft.

11
 This flow ratio corresponds to a
Example for Multi-Stage Structure (multi-year Vs/Vr ratio of 0.26 TR-66 Fig 6-1
chart for the type II event.
discharge objectives) (example 6-2, ch 6, TR-55)
The prior runoff volume was
• In addition to the 25-yr design storm objective shown in the determined to be 1.5 watershed-
above example, an additional limit of 50 cfs (associated with the inches, or 9.4 acre-ft, and the
“2 design
“2-yr d i storm”)
t ”) mustt also
l beb met.t The
Th peakk inflow
i fl for
f this
thi storage
t volume
l (Vs)
(V ) is
i therefore
th f
event had been determined to be 91 cfs. 2.4 acre-ft.

• The smallest event is used to design the lower portions of the The storage-stage diagram on the
pond and is calculated first, the larger storm pond requirements left shows that this storage volume
are then added to this, but the volume and outfall discharge for is met at an elevation of 103.6 ft.
the smaller event are “subtracted” from the larger event With an datum elevation of 100 ft
((the bottom of the pond
p and the
requirements.
i t
bottom of the lowest weir), the
• The qo/qi ratio for the small event is therefore 0.55 (50/91). maximum height for the weir crest
elevation is therefore 3.6 ft.

Using the rectangular weir

equation, this corresponds to a
weir length of 2.3 ft.

• The top elevation of the weir (for the larger event) was
previously determined to be at 5.7 ft. in order to provide the
needed Vs. The first stage weir that is 2.3 ft long with a
maximum elevation of 5.7 ft will discharge 100 CFS. Therefore,
another 80 CFS must be discharged through a second stage (or
another discharge) between the 33.6 6 and 55.7
7 ft (a total depth of
2.1 ft).
• Assuming the second discharge structure is completely separate
from the lower one, the weir length can then be calculated with a
depth of 2.1 ft and an 80 CFS discharge rate. For a rectangular
weir, this corresponds to a weir length of 8.2 ft.
• In
I mostt cases, it is
i assumedd that
th t these
th weirs
i are “stacked,”
“ t k d ” but
b t
that likely introduces errors (if stacked, the actual discharge will
be less than assumed).
• If the lower discharge is an orifice (or culvert) and the upper
discharge is rectangular, then they will be separate and this
method can also be used.
• In all cases, it is a good idea to confirm these initial sizing and
discharge device calculations using a routing model.
• The following example shows how WinTR-55 can be used to
evaluate pre- and post-development flows and to evaluate a pond.
Unfortunately, WinTR-55 has some limitations by only allowing
a single
i l stage outlet l device
d i andd only l has
h a few
f outletl devices
d i
available. The inflow calculations and associated flow routing
also assume open channel flow and not pipe flow, but that is
probably OK for a small site having minimal piping.
• Other models can be used. One inexpensive commercial model
that is very flexible is HydroCad, which is based on TR-20
routing
ti technology
t h l andd can handle
h dl many interconnected
i t t d ponds,
d
different outlets, and pipe and open channel routing. TR-20 can
also be used (USDA source) and is free, but is a DOS program
still (WinTR-55 incorporates the TR-20 more accurate routing,
but has the limitations mentioned above. SWMM5 (EPA) is free
and very flexible and can also be used, with few limitations.

12
 Example of Sizing of Underground Detention
Facility Considering Several Design Storms
• Design an underground detention facility
considering the following site conditions and
objectives:
– Area of 5 acres in Tuscaloosa, AL
– Assume pre-development CN of 58 (good woods, B soil)
and Tc of 45 minutes
– Assume post-development CN of 98 (pavement and roofs)
and Tc of 6 minutes
– Post-development peak flows must be equal to, or less than,
pre-development peak flows for the following series of
design storms: 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year events.

Pre-development peak flows for all 1 to 100 year storm:

13
 Post-development Data Summary Table and Sizing Calculations
site runoff volumes Storm Predev. Postdev. Postdev. Postdev. qo/qi Needed Needed Vs,
(Vr), in watershed- event peak Peak Runoff Runoff Vs/Vr (Type ft3
discharge discharge (Vr), (Vr), ft3 III rain
inches (select
(qo), CFS (qi), CFS inches distribution)
“WinTR-20
1-yr 0.94 14.97 3.361 61,000 0.063 0.6* 36,600
Reports/printed page
file” and scroll down 2-yr 1.65 17.50 3.961 71,890 0.094 0.56* 40,260
to the various rains), 5-yr 3.48 22.57 5.160 93,650 0.15 0.50 46,830
and calculated ft3, 10-yr 5.07 26.36 6.060 110,000 0.19 0.46 50,590
using the 5 acre area: 25-yr 6.61 29.73 6.859 124,500 0.22 0.44 54,780
1 yr: 3.361 in 50-yr 8.02 32.68 7.559 137,200 0.25 0.41 56,250
2-yr: 3.961 in 100-yr 9.71 36.04 8.359 151,700 0.27 0.40 60,690
5
5-yr: 5 160 in
5.160 i
• The smallest qo/qi on the NRCS graph is 0.1, which corresponds to a Vs/Vr ratio
10-yr: 6.060 in
of 0.55 for a type III rain distribution. These values are therefore slightly
25-yr: 6.859 in extrapolated.
50-yr: 7.559 in
100-yr: 8.359 in • If using 5 ft tall pre-fabricated StormTrap rectangular modular units, 12,140 ft2
(0.29 acres) of area will be needed for the largest storage volume requirement,
corresponding to about 5.7% of the 5 acre site area.

With a 5 ft elevation for the maximum stage for the 100 yr event, the maximum
stages providing the necessary storage for the other events can be calculated. In this The accumulative discharges of the lower orifices at the higher
simple case with vertical walls (a rectangular box), the elevation for each event is
easily calculated. With circular pipes (or other irregular shape), a storage – stage stages need to be subtracted from the maximum allowable
plot will need to be prepared, like in the TR-55 examples shown previously. discharge for each stage. As the water depth increases for the larger
events, the stage increase causes an increased discharge from the
Design Stage Elevation Storage Max. allowable Difference between
storm (ft) of orifice volume discharge each stage (ft) orifices Therefore,
orifices. Therefore the sizing of the orifices starts at the bottom and
(ft) (ft3) (CFS) works up, with there corrections.
100 – yr 5.00 ft 4.63 60,690 9.71 0.37
50 – yr 4.63 4.51 56,250 8.02 0.12 As an example, the 10-yr event control is located at 4.17 ft from the
25 – yr 4.51 4.17 54,780 6.61 0.34 bottom of the tank in order provide the necessary 50,590 ft3 of
10 – yr 4.17 3.86 50,590 5.07 0.31 storage. At this elevation, the maximum discharge is 5.07 CFS.
5 – yr 3.86 3.31 46,830 3.48 0.55 However,, the 3 lower orifices also contribute flows,, as shown on
2 – yr 3.31 3.02 40,260 1.65 0.29 the following table. The actual increased flow that needs to be
1 - yr 3.02 0 36,600 0.94 3.02 ft from bottom accommodated at this elevation is therefore only 1.03 CFS,
Next is the selection and sizing of the discharge devices to provide these
requiring a much smaller orifice (only about 3 inches in diameter)
maximum allowable discharges at the stages in the storage unit. In this example, than if no discharges were located below this stage.
I used orifices and located them at the bottom of the storage increment
associated with each event, as shown in the above table.

14
 Flow contributions at higher stages for larger events
Peak flow 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr Corrected flow Orifice This was only an example calculation and is not intended to
at stage (3.31 (3.86 (4.17 (4.51 (4.63 (5.0 ft) after subtraction size
allowed ft) ft) ft) ft) ft) (inches) show the “best” design. The flow rate reductions for this site are
1-yr 0.94 CFS 0.98 1.06 1.10 1.15 1.16 1.21 0.94 1.6 extreme (from good woods to complete pavement) and cover a
at 3.02 ft
wide range of design storms. The resulting necessary storage
2-yr 11.65
65 CFS n/a 1 13
1.13 1 33
1.33 1 50
1.50 1 57
1.57 1 74
1.74 1 65 – 0.98
1.65 0 98 = 00.67
67 24
2.4
at 3.31 ft volumes
l for
f allll off the
h events are therefore
h f quite
i large,
l andd the
h
5-yr 3.48 CFS n/a n/a 1.61 1.90 1.99 2.25 3.48 – 1.13 – 1.06 = 2.8 maximum discharge rates are quite low. The resulting rather
at 3.86 ft 1.29 small orifices calculated in this example could be expected to
10-yr 5.07 CFS n/a n/a n/a 1.50 1.63 1.98 5.07 – 1.61 – 1.33 – 2.9 cause operational problems. It may be better to use a shallower
at 4.17 ft 1.10 = 1.03
25-yr 6.61 CFS n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.65 0.87 6.61 – 1.50 – 1.90 – 2.1
unit, but that would result in a larger area for the detention
at 4.63 ft 1.50 – 1.15 = 0.56 facility, likely significantly increasing the cost. However, the
50 yr
50-yr 88.02
02 CFS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 06
2.06 8.02
8 02 – 0.65
0 65 – 1.63
1 63 – 3.7
37 decreased heads on the orifices would result in somewhat larger
at 4.63 ft 1.99 – 1.57 – 1.16 =
1.02 diameters, and fewer expected problems.
100-yr 9.71 CFS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.71 – 2.06 – 0.87 – Slight
at 5.0 ft 1.98 – 2.25 – 1.74 – excess flow
1.21 = -0.4 for 100 yr
event

WinTR-55 Schematic Example WinTR-55 Structure Data Window

• Entry, editing and/or viewing of a
Sub-area 2 pond’s surface area, structure
Outlet outlet type and dimensions, and
(Reach rating can be found on this
Routing) window.
• Up to three outlet sizes (trials)
may be defined for each structure.
Sub-area 3
• If the temporary structure storage
Legend or hydraulics require a complex
rating, use another method like
Storage Area TR-20 or Sites.

Sub-Area Inflow Points

15
 Pre-
development
flow
calculations

Post
development
Predevelopment flow
hydrographs calculations

16

Post development
hydrographs with no
pond
The area is 2 acres at the depth where the discharge begins, and is
3.5 acres in area 6.5 feet above this spillway elevation. If the
upper area was not entered (it is an optional value), the pond is
assumed to then have vertical side slopes (not a good idea). The
Discharge Description”
“Discharge Description is based on the spillway type selected,
selected
either a pipe (using the pipe approach previously described), or a
weir. If a weir is selected, it can be a broad-crested weir and the
weir length entered. If a 0 value is entered for the weir length, the
model will assume a 90o V-notch weir. If a pipe spillway is
selected (as in this example), the pipe diameter (in inches) is
given,, ranging
g g g from 6 to 60 inches. When a ppipe p is selected,, the
height from the invert of the discharge end of the pipe to the
spillway elevation is also needed for the simplified equation. This
height must be at least twice the diameter of the pipe.
Pond sizing
calculations
Up to three pipe diameters (or weir lengths) can be entered. The
model will evaluate all three options, making the selection of the
choice easier. As the dimensions are entered, the rating curves
(flow vs. height) and storage below the elevations are displayed.
This is a g
good indication of the correct spillway
p y size,, as the
maximum discharge close to the desired pond depth can be
observed. In this case, the 40 inch pipe has the desired discharge of
139 cfs at a stage slightly above 4 feet, and well under 10 feet. The
36 inch pipe option would need about 10 feet of stage (greater than
planned), while the 24 inch pipe would require even more (more
than 20 ft). Therefore, it is expected that the 3rd pipe option, the 40
inch pipe would work best.
17
The Much more information on
maximum
total flow
detention ponds at:
rate is
about 450 The Design and Use of Detention Facilities for Stormwater
plus 120 = M
Management t Using
U i DETPOND:
DETPOND
570 cfs, http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/SLAMMDETPOND/WinDetpo
compared nd/WinDETPOND%20user%20guide%20and%20documen
to a tation.pdf
maximum
of about Detention Pond Design and Analysis:
520 cfs http://unix eng ua edu/~rpitt/Class/Water%20Resources%2
http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Class/Water%20Resources%2
without 0Engineering/WREMainPage.htm
detention.
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR-55):
http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Class/Erosioncontrol/Module4/
tr55.pdf

18