Urban stormwater drainage design methods : a review

Author:
Mohamed Desa, Mohamed Nor
Publication Date:
1986
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/5039
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
Link to license to see what you are allowed to do with this resource.

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/56477 in https://

unsworks.unsw.edu.au on 2023-05-05
The quality of this digital copy is an accurate reproduction of the original print copy
tn
^V'MIRRrcsAnru , ^n^
lit a-''W
;:• • '^oRmRY

NSW,2093

URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE DESIGN

METHODS : A REVIEW

M. N. xMOHAMED DESA
M. ENG. SC. PROJECT
1986

WA
TER REFERENC
E
LIBRARY
 rcpy
W'XTFR RF'^TARr.H lAnORMORY //' WATER
UBUMV'
¿¿"sTrS! manly VAi.L, NSW,.

URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE DESIGN

METHODS : A REVIEW

M. N. MOHAMED DESA
M. ENG. SC. PROJECT
1986
 WATíí! LAHORATriRV
•'" ;! (vrw V ' r- : »,i re

l l )

5iTUDI:N'rS DECLARATION
.. _ . . ^ ^ £ T /y)OHA/)nEÙ ^OR. fnOHAnr^BO OBSÑ

A) D u s is to certify that I
being a candidate for the degree of Master of Engineering Science
am fully aware of the policy of the University relating to the
retention and use of higher degree projects namely that the
University retains the copies of any thesis submitted for examin-
ation, "and is free to alloW the thesis to be consulted or
borrowed. Subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act (1968)
the University may issue thè thesis in whole or in part, in
pKotostat or microfilm or other copying medium".
I also authorize the publication by University Microfilms of a
600 word abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International (D.A.I.)»

B) I hereby declare that none of the work in this project has been
submitted to any other institution for the award of a higher
degree.

Signature

SUPhRVISORS CERTIMCATION

1 certify that thi^. project, »las boon completed under my supervision

and is in my opinion in a ton» suitable for examination as part of
the requirements for admission to the degree offaster of Eng^eering
vScience.

Sigikature
 (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents (i)
List of Tables (iii)
Acknowledgements (iv)
Abstract (V)

CHAPTER 1 URBAN DRAINAGE

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Drainage System 2
1.3 Problem Areas in Urban Drainage 4
Design

CHAPTER 2 METHODS OF URBAN DRAINAGE DESIGN

2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Literature Review 8
2.2.1 Rational Method 8
2.2.1.1 Estimation of Parameters for 12
Rational Method
2.2.1.1.1 Estimating Effective 12
Impervious Area
2.2.1.1.2 Estimating Effective
Runoff Coefficient 13
2.2.1.1.3 Estimating Urban Time
of Concentration 14
2.2.2 Road Research Laboratory
Model - TRRL 17
2.2.2.1 Other Studies of TRRL Model 17
2.2.3 Illinois Urban Drainage Area
Simulator - ILLUDAS 22
2.2.3.1 Other Studies of ILLUDAS Model 22
2.2.4 Storm Water Management Model
- SWMM 26
2.2.4.1 Other Studies of SWMM Model
2.2.5 Australian Road Research Board
- 1985 30
2.2.5.1 Introduction 30
2.2.5.2 Rainfall Runoff Models 31
2.2.5.3 Hydrological Data Base 32
 (ii)

Page
2.2.5.4 Hydraulic Data Base 34
2.2.5.5 Minor Drainage System - Design
Procedure 41
2.2.6 Australian Rainfall and Runoff
- 1986 46
2.2.6.1 Introduction 46
2.2.6.2 Hydrologie Models 46
2.2.6.3 Hydraulic Models 46
2.2.6.4 Steps in Design and Analysis 47

CHAPTER 3 CASE STUDIES

3.1 Introduction 50
3.1.1 Application of Australian Road
Research Board Method 53
3.1.1.1 Major System Design 53
3.1.1.2 Minor System Design 59
3.1.2 Application of Australian
Rainfall and Runoff Method 76

CHAPTER 4 COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 General Comments
87
4.2 Australian Road Research Board
Method 87
4.3 Australian Rainfall and Runoff
Method 89
4.4 Conclusions 89

REFERENCES
APPENDIX
 (iii)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1.1 Causes and Effects of Urban Water Problems 5

1.2 Design Flood Recurrence Intervals for
Urban Drainage 6
2.1 Model Name: Road Research Laboratory-
Model 1 9
2.2 Features of ILLUDAS Model 24
2.3 Guidelines for Management of Surface-
moving Flows in Developed Catchments
(Minor Systems) 37
2.4 Guidelines for Management of Underground-
moving Flows in Developed Catchments 39
2.5 Approximate Values for Coefficient K^:
Pipes Concurrent or at Right Angles 42
2.6 Approximate Values for Coefficient K^:
Pipes not Concurrent or Meeting at
Right Angles 43
3.1 Major Stormwater Drainage System Planning
Table 55
3.2 Network Review for Sub-catchments A,B,C,D 57
3.3 Flow Estimation in Primary Drainage
Lines: N= 5 years 62
3.4 Flow Estimation in Primary Drainage
Lines: N= 5 years 64
3.5 Flow Estimation in Pipelines: N= 5 years 67

3.6-3.6A Pit Water Levels, Pipe Diameters and

H.G.L. Analysis 69
3.7 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Relationship 78
3.8 Runoff Coefficients for Various ARIs 78
3.9-3.9B Design Flow Rates for Major/Minor Systems 80
3.10 Design Flow Rates for Individual Pipe
(Partial-Area) 83
3.1 OA Design Flow Rates for Individual Pipe
(Full-Area) 84
3.11 Hydraulic Design of Underground Pipes 85
 (iv)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The assistance of the following people in the preparation

of this work is gratefully acknowledged :

* Dr. D. K. Robinson ( Supervisor, U.N.S.W )

* Mr. C. J. Dissanayake ( U.N.S.W )
* Mr. M. Savage ( Randwick Municipal Engineer )
 V)

ABSTRACT

Four different types of regularly used Hydrological

Models for use in urban catchments have been described
in this report. Two recently devised procedures for
urban drainage systems design which employ the Rational
Formula for the estimation of design floods have been
reviewed and applied to a case study area to design
both major and minor systems of urban drainage. These
two procedures are the Australian Road Research Board,
1985 (ARRB) and the Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 1986
(AR&R).
Two seperate and distinct drainage systems, i.e. a
"minor" system and a "major" system are highlighted in
this report. The partial-area and full-area effects are
also highlighted in this report.
It was found that the AR&R, 1986 procedure is relatively
easier to use and less complicated than the ARRB, 1985
procedure. Both procedures can give similar end results.
 CHAPTER 1 URBAN DRAINAGE

1 .1 Introduction

Although urbanisation, which may be broadly defined as

the process of expending urban influence, has been ta-
king place for more than 6000 years in some places, its
pace has increased markedly since the begining of the
nineteenth century. The urban growth that has taken place
worldwide since the early 1800s may be largely attributed
to the Industrial i^evolution.
Despite the continuing increase in the extent of major
towns and cities, in many countries the land occupied by
the urban population is small. The concentration of human
activities intensifies local competition for all types
of resources, among the most vital of which is water. In
addition to those uses that are essential for human exis-
tence, water is also used extensively in urban areas for
the disposal of wastes. However, for the majority of most
urban populations, individual rights and responsibilities
in relation to these functions have been delegated to lo-
cal community. Of more immediate concern to individuals
is the role of water as nuisance, among the more obvious
forms of which are flooding, drainage,erosion and sedi-
mentation. These problems are compounded by the modifica-
tions to both the natural environment in general and the
landscape in particular that are a consequence of urban-
isation. These changes are sufficiently radical to justify
that utmost consideration should be given by practicing
engineers when designing urban drainage system not just
as an entity but rather as a part of a whole body of a
system.
This report, however, will cover the design and ana-
lysis that are commonly used in practice which range from
complicated (computer models) to simple manual methods. Two
of the most recent methods devised will be studied and
compared in terms of their simplicity of use.
1 .2 Drainage Systems
Since runoff is a "common e n e m y " to all, the task of
providing adequate drainage systems has become a public
matter in most places, to be carried out by local go-
vernment authorities.
In many cities in Europe and the U.S., pipe drainage
systems have been developed in which stormwater runoff
is combined with sewage. In Australia, this has been
avoided and, except in some older areas, seperate systems
have been provided. Two seperate and distinct systems
are :
. a "minor" (or "convenience" ) system ,
and
. a "major" system.
The minor system, made up of the pits, pipes and
open channels is intended to provide traffic convenience.
It requires sufficient capacity to collect and trans-
port runoff from a storm that"might be expected to occur in
a 2 to 10 years period. Runoff from storms with return
period of, say 25 to 100 years is conveyed by the major
system which is formed by:
. Roadways which carry overland flow in
excess of the minor system capacity, and
. various creeks, artificial and natural
channels
Figure 1.1 shows the general layout of a typical
seperate stormwater drainage system. Runoff from roof
is generally collected by gutters and carried through
pipes to be discharged into street gutters, or directly
into pipe drains under street. Runoff from driveways
and lawns is generally directed into street gutters as
overland flow. It combines with runoff from road surfaces
and travels along the gutters to gully pits, where it
enters through the grating or kerb inlets.
Once the runoff enters a pit it flows into a pipe
system and then travels as full-pipe or part-full flow to
some outlet point in an open channel. From there the
peten
ilOHSeis

Fiyure 1.1 Urban ürainaye System (AR&R, 1986)

runoff is conveyed along a system of natural or artificial
channels to its final receiving waters such as a large
stream, lake or the sea. Thus, it can be said that drainage
system is divided into three major parts:
a) the property drainage system,consisting of down-
pipes and small-diameters pipes for roof drainage, catch
drains and open channels, and flow paths across gardens,
lawns, parking lots and driveways. In residential areas
a system of inter-allotment drainage may be provided to
supplement the main drainage network.
b) the street drainage system,typically made up of
gutters, pits and pipes. This follows the street layout
and is designed to convey the property drainage flows
and the runoff from foothpaths and roads to a point where
it can be released into a creek or open channels, without
causing a nuisance or damage.
c) the trunk drainage system,which usually follows
the natural creek pattern and will consist almost
entirely of open channels. Detention basins and culverts
can be considered as part of this system.

1.3 Problems areas in Urban Drainage

One of the major drawbacks in the design and analysis
of drainage systems is that at present there is no
uniform practice involving the rational selection and
matching of hydraulic components in particular roadway
cross-section profiles and gutter/kerb inlets. The
problem of urban drainage involves the disposal of excess
water in such a way that damage by flooding is minimised.
The solution then, is enhancing the conveyance of the
channel system which carries the water away. The causes
and effects of urban water problems are summarised in
Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Causes and Effects of Urban Water Problems

CAUSES EFFECTS

Removal of vegetation Increased runoff volume

and erosion.
More imperviousness Increased runoff volume
and flooding, structural
damage, pollutant dis-
charge. Less groundwater
and baseflow, reduced
natural storage.
More efficient channels Higher velocities,
increased erosion.
Decrease concentration
time.
Grading and filling Increased runoff volume.
Reduce natural storage,
groundwater and baseflow.
Construction activities Increased erosion,
sediment and turbidity
in streams

The most popular runoff estimating model in use is the

Rational Method. It is well suited for estimating design
flows for drainage areas where the objective is to remove
the water as rapidly as possible. It is a conservative
procedure which tends to overestimate peak discharges.
For larger areas, however, and in situations where storage
and channel routing are of concern this method has several
deficiencies. These include the fact that only peak flows
are produced, rainfall patterns are ignored, runoff
factors must be selected subjectively, concentration times
are subject to uncertainties, and the theory is accurately
applicable only to small areas . These features will be
examined in detail in chapter 2.
Another important problem in planning an urban drainage
system is the selection of the design recurrence interval.
The selection must be made by the designer in the light
of local conditions(customs) and requirements. However
different values of design recurrence intervals may be
used withi n the catchment if it is appropriate to do so.
The best way of selecting a design standard is with a
benefit-cost analysis. This is difficult to do and in
most designs it is often neglected and recommended values
taken from text books or manuals are used. Typical values
are shown in Table 1.2 (AR&R 1977).

Table 1.2 Design Flood Recurrence Intervals for

Urban Drainage

Type of Area Recurrence Interval

(Ultimate Development) (Year)

Intensely developed
business, commercial and
industrial areas and ^^ ,Op
areas where flooding
would cause serious
damage or inconvenience.
Other business, commercial
and industrial areas and
intensely developed resi- 10 to 25
dential areas.
Sparsely developed resi-
dential areas and areas such 1 to 10
as parks and playing fields.

However the problem of relating inundation to benefits

still remains. The sorts of damage which might result
from failures of urban drainage systems are:
a) Direct damages
- to private dwellings and their contents,
- to roads and public utilities,
- to parked vehicles,
- to the drainage system itself.
b) Indirect damages
- due to traffic and pedestrian delays,
- in traffic accidents due to overflows,
- involved in cleaning-up costs.
The first two types of damage can be avoided by keeping
the overflows on roadways and drainage reserves, and by
providing adequate escape routes at locations where the
flows will cause little harm. This is really the rationale
behind the major/minor drainage systems design.
 CHAPTER 2 METHODS OF URBAN DRAINAGE
DESIGN

2.1 Introduction
There are several mathematical models by which a drainage
system can be designed. The degree of complexity depends
upon the nature of the problem to be analysed. A clear
distinction must be drawn between design methods
and simulation methods. The former is able to calculate
the pipe sizes required for a new drainage system, given
the design storm, the layout of the network and other
descriptors of the catchment, whereas the latter analyses
the performance of an existing system or an initial
design produced by applying another method.
Among those models, four of them will be reviewed in
this chapter. Two recent design procedures (manual methods)
will also be reviewed and applied in a case study with
the objective of assessing their simplicity and applica-
bility as a general method for urban drainage designers.

2.2 Literature review

2.2.1 Rational Method
This procedure was first put foreward by Mulvaney (1850)
adapted by Kuichling (1889) and futher modified by Lloyd-
Davies (1906). In 1977^ the Institution of Engineers'
Australia publication^ Rainfall and Runoff recommended
the Rational Method for design of urban and small (less
than 25 km ) rural cathments. There are two clearly
different interpretations of the Rational Formula. The
first one is the deterministic interpretation and the
second one is the statistical interpretation. These
interpretations will be highlighted in this section.
Theory.
The Rational method presumes the existence of a time
of concentration, t^ for every drainage area. It is
defined as the time taken for flow from the most remote
point in the catchment to reach its outlet. The peak
discharge, Qp is then assumed to occur when the whole
of the drainage area contributes to the flow, i.e.
after an interval from the beginning of rainfall equal
to the time of concentration. The magnitude of the peak
flow rate is taken to be proportional to the effective
rainfall excess, i.e. the total rainfall minus losses,
during the time of concentration, giving rise to the
equation,

Q = 2.78xCxixA (Litres/sec) (2.1)

P
where:
A = the total catchment area (ha)
i = the average rainfall intensity (mm/h)
during the time of conc., t_
C = dimensionless runoff coefficient

When the Rational method is applied to the design of

urban drainage systems, the time of concentration is
normally estimated from the sum of the time of flow in
pipe and a time of overland flow. The time of flow in pipe
is usually computed on the assumption that the velocity
of flow will be constant and equal to the value attained
when it is running full. The overland flow time is an
allowance for the time taken for water from the most
remote point in the subcatchment to flow into the
nearest road gully, and for an urbanised area it has
generally been taken between one and three minutes.
The time of concentration is therefore not a measurable
physical quantity.
Equation (2.1) may be rearranged as

Q / A = Cxi and rewritten as

q(T) = (2.2)
 10

where:
q(T) = peak runoff rate per unit area
T = the recurrence interval, in years
t = rainfall intensity averaging time
a
Equation (2.2) implicity emphasizes that the design
peak runoff rate is expected to occur with the same
frequency as the rainfall intensity used in the computa-
tion. Schaake, et al, (1967) made the most thorough
modern examination of the Rational Formula as a statis-
tical model in which he said the equation (2.2) is
approximately correct. The value of C in the above
equation was determined from a frequency analysis of
rainfall and runoff. In Schaake's work on urban catchment
C was then related by regression analysis to the imper-
vious area and slope as the independent variables.
In a survey conducted by Cordery and Pilgrim (1979)
of the use of Rational Method they found that the
estimates of peak rate of runoffs are generally low
compared with the derived values. The principal sources
of error they said are the computation of runoff coeff-
icient, C and the calculation of time of concentration,
t .
c
For drainage systems in which the contributing area
does not increase uniformly with time, the highest peak
of runoff rate may be produced by design storm whose
duration is less than the time of concentration. This
is known as partial effect. The occurrence of this
anomaly is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Application of equation (2.1) to both areas yields the
following ratios of design discharges :

Q1/Q2 = iixAi/i2XA2

=(Ai/A2)(il/i2) (2.3)

where :

Ai = the area between O and P

with time of concentration,
A2 = the area between O and Q
with time of concentration, t^2
 11

Figure 2.1 Catchment illustrating the importance

of rate of increase in contributing
area to the Rational Method.

Runoff coefficient, C is assumed to be uniform . Since

t^2 is greater than t^^, ±2 must be less than i^.
Therefore, the ratio A1/A2 may exceed the ratio
whereupon Qi will exceed Q2.
Argue (1982) applied this concept to a small urban
catchment. He concluded that the partial area storm
method gives results which not only include the Rational
Method flow estimate in a given case but also bring to
light catchment non-uniformity conditions. He also pro-
posed an alternative method for selecting value of C
and calculating the value of t^.
From the above discussion it can be said that the
Rational Method does not take into account variations
in time of :
rainfall intensity,
flow velocity,
temporary storage in the pipe; and
the rate of increase in the contributing area.
Item 4 can be compensated by item 3. Item 1 can be
accounted for if small drainage area is considered for
design.
 12

2.2.1.1 Estimation of parameters for the Rational Method

Limitations of the Rational Method have been discussed
above. More detailed discussions on the estimation of the
various parameters needed for the Rational Formula
are presented below.
2.2.1.1.1 Estimating effective impervious areas
Many hydrological models concerning with urban catchments
require as one of the inputs the estimate of impervious
area . But most models that require impervious area data
do not distinguish between effective and n o n - effective
impervious areas. It is however essential to firstly
distinguish between those types of impervious areas.
Effective impervious area, comprises those impervious
surfaces that are hydraulically connected to the channel
drainage system, e.g. streets with kerb and gutter and
paved parking lots that drain onto streets.
Non-effective impervious area^ comprises those imper-
vious surfaces that drain to pervious ground such as
a roof that drain onto lawn.
Fleming (1975) points out that simulation of urban
areas involves combining the response from the directly
connected impervious area and the response from the per-
vious area with its associated subsurface runoff. How-
ever, he defines the impervious areas as land surfaces
with an infiltration capacity equal to zero. Furthermore
he classifies it into two classes which are called
directly and indirectly connected impervious areas.
William, et al. (1983), Lazaro (1979) describe methods
of estimating impervious area. The former author also
summarises some effective impervious area data, and
analyses the ramifications of effective area concepts
in urban planning. He concludes that many urban runoff
models are sensitive to the value used for impervious
area.
The complexity of urban land use warrants careful and
accurate measurements of each components coupled with
 13

the necessity to supplement the measurements with the

onsite inspection. One common approach in estimating
imperviousness is from a map or aerial photograph. This
method naturally is time consuming. Ragan, et al. (1975)
investigated the use of sattelite data in estimating
percentage of imperviousness. He compares the results
with those obtained from analysis of aerial photographs.
The overall agreement between the two approaches is
generally good. However, less time is required using
LANDSAT data. Linsley (1984) , concludes that landsat-
derived land-use data should be used as a basis for all
hydrologie modelling.
2.2.1.1.2 Estimating runoff coefficient
It is generally viewed that the runoff coefficient, C
as a simple parameter, but the true fact is that it
implicitly governs several factors and processes in
the transformation from average rainfall intensity to
a peak rate of runoff. Pilgrim (1978) and Pilgrim, et al,
(1974) discuss some of these factors and methods available
in estimating the runoff coefficients for both rural
and urban catchments. Distinction between the two
approaches normally used in Rational Method i.e. as a
deterministic model and as a statistical or probablistic
model are explained. Available records for central and
southern N.S.W. were analysed to test the validity of
the latter interpretation of the method. Later, Pilgrim
and Mc Dermott (1982) described a design procedure for
flood estimation for rural catchments smaller than 250
km2 in eastern N.S.W. Subsequently a map of design values
of 10-yr runoff coefficients is produced. The runoff
coefficient for other recurrence intervals can be cal-
culated using the following formula :

Cy = FFyXC^o (2.4)
where:
FFy = Frequency factor for particular
recurrence interval.
 14

For urban catchment little data is available to

do similar analysis. The Australian Rainfall and Runoff
(1 977) presents a graphical relation for
estimation of C. Pilgrim (1978) cited the problems when
using this curve. However in the absence of any data
values from text books can be used as guidance.
In the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1986), OLoughlin
and Robinson use urban runoff coefficients for 10-year
recurrence interval from a graphical relationship of two
locations in Australia, i.e. northern and southern Australia
The problems with this, however, are two things. Firstly
the runoff coefficients for intermediate regions may
be obtained by interpolation. Secondly the runoff coeffi-
cients ascertained by that represent a "lumped" value
which does not reflect the variation within one catchment
itself. The 10-year recurrence coefficient can be converted
in a similar manner as equation (2.4) to coefficient of
other recurrence intervals.
2.2.1.1.3 Estimating urban time of concentration
The most frequently used time parameters in hydrologie
analysis are the time of concentration, the lag time,
time to peak, time to equilibrium, and the time-area curve.
They are usually defined in terms of either the physical
characteristics of a watershed or distribution of rainfall
excess and direct runoff. Two commonly acceptable defini-
tions of time of concentrations (Mc Cuen, et al 1984) are:
1 ) tç, is defined as the time required for a particle
of water to flow hydraulically from the most remote
distant point in the watershed to the outlet or
design point.
2) t^ is defined as the time between the centre of
mass of rainfall excess and the inflection point
on the recession of the direct runoff hydrograph.
Alternatively, t^ is sometimes computed as the
time difference between the end of rainfall excess
and inflection point.
 15

There are many empirical methods for establishing the

time of concentration of a catchment. Time of concen-
tration can also be related to the time lag, which may
be defined as the time from the centre of mass of rainfall
to the peak of the direct runoff hydrograph. Various
formula in use are summarised among others by D. Stephenson
(1981) as well as Mc,Cuen (1984). The later writer
compared eleven empirical equations of time of concentration
and came out with the following conclusions :
" The results indicate that t^ estimates made from
empirical equations are subject to considerable
error when applied to single watershed. " and
" The velocity method is widely recognised as being
the most accurate method for estimating t^. "
One of the methods is the Kinematic Wave. The formula
has proven to provide accurate estimates on small urban
catchments as cited by Mc Cuen (1984) from Kibler, et
al. (1982). The formula is written below:

t^ = (min) (2.5)

where:

L = pipe or overland flow length (m)

n = Mannings roughness coefficient
I = rainfall intensity (mm/h)
S = slope (m/m)

The Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1986), Argue (1985)

adopt this equation to determine the overland flow time.

Gupta, et al. (1976) developed an equation relating

rainfall excess intensity, length of flow path, Mannings

roughness coefficient and average surface slope to

time of concentration. This equation is also applicable

to turbulent flow regime in rural areas. The form of
the equation is written below for comparison with the
above eqution.
 16

T= lO-6/ (hr ) (2.6 )

where:
L= length of reach (m )
n= Mannings roughness coefficien t
S= surface slop e
P= rainfall excess (m/h )

Relationships for time of concentration for rural areas

have been developed by several authors.

 17

2.2.2 Road Research Laboratory Model - TRRL

The Transport and Road Research Laboratory Model was the

outcome of a comprehensive research programme which was
commenced in the United Kingdom in the early 1950s. It
is a special purpose model for the design of storm drainage
systems. Research and development of the model have been
described by Watkins (1962) and application and testing of
the model to systems in the United States have been
presented by Stall and Terstriep (1972).
One feature of the TRRL model is that it considers
runoff from only impervious surfaces directly connected
to pipe systems, an assumption which is largely valid in
the U.K. and some southern parts of Australia. This has
attracted much criticism at the model. Figure 2.2 shows
the flow chart of the model structure (Fleming ,1975).
A unique feature of the TRRL model is its ability to
design pipe diameters to avoid surcharging (Keeps and
Mein, 1974). This is carried out by successively increasing
the pipe diameter and repeating the calculations until
the peak outflow hydrograph (after storage routing) does
not exceed the capacity of the pipe. Table 2.2 gives the
general specification of the TRRL model (Fleming ,1975).

2.2.2.1 Other Studies of the TRRL Model (Aitken, 1975)

(a) Testing of the model - Terstriep & Stall (1969)

In the USA Terstriep & Stall (1969) tested the model on

three urban catchments and compared the observed and
computed hydrographs for 39 events.
In general the results were encouraging and led to the
more detailed investigation described below.

(b) Further Testing of the Model - Stall & Terstriep (1972)

In the USA, Stall and Terstriep (1972) carried out a very

thorough evaluation of the TRRL model using rainfall and
runoff data for 10 urban catchments varying in size from
6 ha up to 2,200 ha.
The principal findings of this study were as follows:
 18

Figure 2.2 TE^ model structure

 19

Table 2.1 Model name: Road Research Laboratory Model

General Specifications

Type—specific purpose
Catchment size—less than 5 square miles
Computer language—Fortran IV
Parameter representai.ion—lumped

Processes Represented

Land Svirfaces
Impervious areas lUinoff considered solely from directly connected impervi-
ous areas
Flow routing By time-area diagram based on flow times obtained from
Manning formula
Subsurfaces
None
Channels
Basin configuration Subdivided into reaches of contributing paved areas and
channel sections
Flow routing Continuity equation and Manning flow formula assuming
uniform flow conditions
Time interval of calculation Variable option, specified b y the user
Applications Civil engineering design—urban storm drainage network
design or redesign of existing networks
Limited to basins with predominant paved area for
design storms of 2 to 20-year frequency
Input/oiutput Design storm hydrographs of rainfall and runoff for
smallest time interval available, output of observed
rainfall and runoff, together with computed runoff for
storm periods—output is printed and plotted
Calibration No calibration is involved; input is physically based
 20

(i) The model is accurate for computing runoff

from paved areas.
(ii) The model is generally satisfactory providing
2
the area is less than 13km
the directly connected impervious area
exceeds 15% of the catchment area, and
the frequency of the storm event is not
greater than 20 years,
(iii) The model breaks down where there is signi-
ficant runoff from pervious areas; this occurs
for pervious areas with steep slopes, tight
soils or high soil moisture conditions,
(iv) The model should not be promoted for general
use (in the USA) because as indicated in (ii)
and (iii) under certain circumtances the
results are not satisfactory,
(v) More good quality rainfall-runoff data are
required immediately,
(vi) The model should be developed to include
pervious runoff.
(c) Adaptation for Tropical Condition - Watkins (1976)

A programme of research was carried out in East Africa

starting in 1 969 in order to make the model suitable for
use in tropical conditions. Three experimental catchments
were set up in Nairobi and two in Kampala. Two modifica-
tions were required in the use of the model under tropi-
cal rainfall conditions. They were :
(i) a method of modelling the delay and attenua-
tion of the rainfall profile by its storage
on the ground surface,
(ii) a means of predicting the proportion of rain-
falling on the unpaved areas that flows into
the drainage system.
Details of the analysis are given in the paper. It was
concluded that the TRRL model can be suitably modified
for use in areas of tropical rainfall.
 21

(d) Independent Comparison of Three Urban Runoff

Models - Keeps and Mein (1973)

Keeps and Mein (1973) evaluate three urban runoff models

by examining the methods of simulation used by each models
and by comparing the hydrographs predicted when the models
were applied to two urban catchments. One of the models
tested was the TRRL model. It was concluded that the TRRL
model was satisfactory for simulating peaks occuring
early in a storm but predicted poorly for storms in which
previous runoff was significant. It was therefore recom-
mended that the model be modified to account for runoff
from pervious areas.

(e) An Improved Procedure for Stormwater Drainage

Design - Tonkin et al. (1982)

In Australia the TRRL model is used by several munici-

palities in the southern parts of the country, but else-
where the problems of allowing for runoff from paved areas
have restricted its use. A program called GENDRAIN (Tonkin
et al., 1982) was developed to account for runoff from
unpaved areas. Two seperate sets of tests have been
carried out on GENDRAIN using data from urban catchments
in Adelaide. It was concluded that a wider range of
options can be examined than is possible with the Rational
Method.
 22

2.2.3 Illinois Urban Drainage Area Simulator -

ILLUDAS

Theory.
The Illinois Urban Drainage Area Simulator is a single
event model adapted from the British Road Research Labo-
ratory storm sewer design model. It has the capacity to
route runoff flows through a sewer network and it treats
the paved and grassed areas seperately, as depicted in
the flow chart of Figure 2.3 (Kibler,1982).
The model was developed to overcome some of the
shortcomings found in the TRRL model. It allows for
runoff from three types of surfaces on each sub-area:

a) the directly connected impervious or "paved"

area
b) the pervious or "grassed" area, and
c) the "supplementary" impervious area not directly
connected to the pipe system.

Storage effects are simulated by routing through reser-

voir-type storage. The model generates runoff hydrographs
from sub-catchments contributing to a pipe network, and
combine and route them through the system, specifying an
appropriate size for each pipe (in design mode), or cal-
culating the extent of any overflows (in evaluation mode).
The model is based on isochronal methods as is the TRRL model

2.2.3.1 Other Studies of the ILLUDAS Model

a) Evaluation of Computer models for Piped Urban

Drainage in Australia - OLoughlin,G.G., and Mein, R.G.
1 983
OLoughlin and Mein (1983) described various types of
computer models applicable to urban drainage systems.
Different approaches used by each model to develop hydro-
graphs from rainfalls are highlighted. One of the models
described was ILLUDAS and its various versions.
 23

READ B A S I C DATA
AND D E S I G N STORM

READ CARDS
FOR NEXT REACH

COMPUTE PAVED
A R E A . HYDROGRAPH

COMPUTE GRASSED
AREA S U P P L Y RATE

COMPUTE TWE
GRASSED AREA
HYDROGRAPH

COMBINE THE PAVED

AND GRASSED AREA
HYDROGRAPH

C O r a i N E OTHER HYDROGRAPHS
T R I B U T A R Y TO T H I S P O I N T

Figure 2.3 Flowchart for ILLÜDAS.

 24

An enhancement of ILLUDAS-SA ( South African version )

called ILLSAX has been developed and included in the
present Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1986). OLoughlin
and Mein came to a conclusion that ILLUDAS model is the
most practical method currently available and appears
to possess the greatest potential for application in
Australia. It is in its present form suitable for
design and analysis of drainage systems at medium level,
concentrating on the main lines, establishing approximate
pipe diameters in design, and locating points of overflows.
It appears that ILLUDAS model has been extensively used
and tested in Australia.

b) Application of ILLUDAS-SA to gauged Urban Catchments

- Mein,R.G., and OLoughlin,G.G. 1985
ILLUDAS-SA version has been applied to three gauged urban
catchments in Sydney and Melbourne by the above researchers
as a follow up to their previous study (1983). The results
of comparisons between observed and computed hydrographs
show a reasonable model performance, with a tendency to
over estimate peak flowrates even when under estimating
volumes. This model is claimed to supercede the TRRL model
because of its greater generality.

c) Review of Models - Stephenson 1981

Several computer models on urban drainage were reviewed
including the ILLUDAS model. Stephenson (1981) summarised
the ILLUDAS model as in Table 2.2 below:
Table 2.2 Features of the ILLUDAS model
Program Prime Hydraulic Quality Comprehen- Ease of
feature routing capabties siveness use

ILLUDAS Storm- Isochronal None Limited Simple

water
routing
 25

He cited that ILLUDAS and TRRL models have proved

satisfactory for small areas (less than 10 km ) and
provided storm is not an extreme event (with a recurrence
interval exceeding 20 years).
 26

2.2.4 Stormwater Management Model - SWMM

Theory
The Stormwater Management Model was developed by three
organisations under contract to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The model is for the study of the
quality and quantity of runoff from urban catchments.
It is divided into six major blocks as shown in Figure 2.4
(Kibler, 1982). Figure 2.5 illustrates a typical urban
drainage system model for SWMM (Stephenson, 1981).

STORMWATtR MANAGEMENT
MODEL (SWMM)

Figure 2.4 EPA stormwater management model subroutines.

It is basically a single-event simulation model but it

also can be run in a continuous mode. It is capable of
simulating runoff quantity and quality, as well as dry
weather flow, treatment facilities, associated costs,
and receiving water quality (Heeps, et al.,1974).
Description of the theory of the SWMM model is described
among others by Heeps, et al., 1974, Kibler, 1982 and
Yen, 1975.

2.2.4.1 Other Studies of SWMM model

 Evapo-Trcnspiration

NJ

Evaporotion

Figure 2.5ryiuc;il Urban nriiinaj'c System Model Tor SWMM - Diay rainnui t i c
 28

a) Independent Comparison of three Urban Runoff Models

- Keeps, D.P., and Mein, R.G., 1974

Heeps and Mein (1974) made a comparison of performance

of three urban runoff models. One of the models was
S W M M . Different infiltration parameters were used. Only
the stormwater quantity simulation sections were consi-
dered. The Runoff Block was used to simulate runoff from
each subcatchment and the storm drainage system in the
study. Twenty simulation runs were made on two catchments.
Observed runoffs were compared with the computed values
for each model. In conclusion, the SWMM model gives the
best overall performance but at the expense of large
computer storage and requirements.

b) Testing of methods for Determination of Urban

Runoff - Papakadis,C.N., and Preul,H.C., 1973

Papakadis and Preul (1973) tested SWMM model and other

models in three case studies. The calculated and recorded
hydrographs for each model were compared. Two of the case
studies involved small urban watershed of diversified
land uses. The results of their study show that all
methods tested successfully reproduced storm-
water runoff hydrographs in the case of small drainage
areas. For large drainage area, the results indicate
that the infiltration capacity to be used in all models
is of vital importance.

c) Design of Storm Sewer Networks - Yen,B.C., and

Sevuk,A.S., 1975

A comparative evaluation of five design methods for

sizing the pipes of storm or combined sewer systems was
presented. The sewer system tested consisted of 14 sewers,
14 manholes and a free-fall outlet. The authors concluded
that the SWMM and Kinematic-wave Models are relatively
accurate and can be used when moderate accuracy is required
 29

and for large sewer network.

d) Overview of Stormwater Models in U.S.A.

Among the more widely used stormwater model, SWMM model

was discussed by Dendrou, 1982 including its variation
called RUNQUAL. The SWMM model is said to be comprehen-
sive and makes its use difficult. Changes and addition
of the SWMM model that were made include prediction of
urban erosion, modeling of new treatment devices and
biological treatment facilities, flexibility in modeling
new types of watersheds, new and improved cost functions
for treatment and storage options, and inclusion of the
St. Venants routing equations.
It therefore appears that SWMM model has since its
appearance been subjected to comprehensive testing and
review in the U.S.A.

/ V
 30

2.2.5 Australian Road Research Board - 1985

2.2.5.1 Introduction
This method is the outcome of Australian Road Research
Board project ( F.S. 1 093) which was initiated in 1979
entitled "Urban Stormwater Collection Systems". The aim
of the project were:
1) To identify those practices about which
there is general concensus among practitioners
and for which there exists a satisfactory data
base.
2) To identify new procedures to replace existing
practices where such new procedures are considered
necessary and/or appropriate.
3) To indicate directions for new (or continuing)
research to improve and/or expand existing data
base to a generally satisfactory level.
In 1981 , Argue produced a report covering many facets
of urban stormwater drainage design, in particular the
great variability of practices which exist across Australia
for reasons of climate, topography, different types of
development, local custom, maintenance difficulties,
availabilitiy of materials, etc. Eventually a draft on
urban surface drainage design handbook was prepared.
The scope of the handbook is limited to systems of
surface drainage lines and underground pipes whose area
is limited to around 20 ha. The Rational Method is used to
estimate design flows. The design aspects covered in the
handbook are as follows:
1) major/minor drainage design philosophy
2) influence of modern roadway construction
techniques on gutter inlet geometry
3) stormwater conservation and public safety
consideration
4) economic consideration.
The following sections will review briefly some of
the more important chapters of the handbook in which
other detail can be referred to.
 31

2.2.5.2 Rainfall-runoff models

The model is strongly influenced by the presence of paved

or impervious runoff surfaces. Where runoff estimates are
required in catchment sub-areas which are predominantly
pervious, the " full-area" approach is used. Where runoff
estimates are required in catchment sub-areas which include
significant areas of paving, the "part-area" approach is
then used. Figure 2.6 illustrates the two approaches.

FULL-AREA

TIME

Figure 2.6 Theoretical basis for full-area/

part-area analysis

(EIA)f^ll = ^w-A (ha) (2.7)

Where:
C = weighted runoff coefficient
w
A = sub-area (ha)
and
(2.8)
(EIA)part = • + Cp.Ap (ha)
tc
Where:
C^ = runoff coefficient for imper-
vious or paved area
 32

C = runoff coefficient for pervious

P
area
directly-channeled impervious or
paved area (ha)
Ap= (A-A^) (ha)

The Rational Formula is then applied to estimate runoff:

Q = (EIA).i (L.S-^) (2.9)
0.36

Where:
i = design storm average rainfall
intensity (mm/h)

The design storm which generates the greater peak flow

estimate is called the "critical design storm" and its
duration the "critical design duration".
2.2.5.3 Hydroloqical Data Base
The hydrological data base comprises six main topics,
details of them can be found in the handbook.
1 ) Ultimate development assessment
2) Storm rainfall-frequency-duration data
3) Australian climatic zones-urban drainage
4) Selection of design average recurrence interval
5) Travel time determination
6) Runoff coefficients for developed catchments.
The following values of average recurrence interval are
likely to be applied in Australia in systems which embrace
the major-minor concept:
Residential sub-divisions:
sparsely populated areas = 1-2 years
moderate-high population
density areas = 2-5 years
commercial/industrial areas
light industrial and sub-
urban shopping areas = 2-5 years
 33

heavy industrial and

office/commercial centres = 5-10 years
The concept of "gap flow" is introduced which is defined
below:

gap flow, Qg, is the difference between the design

extreme flood peak at a particular location and the

peak flow assumed for the underground network at
that location. The entire gap flow is carried in
the surface drainage lines of the major system.

Tables for gap flow design average recurrence interval

for urban catchments in Northern and Southern Australia
have been produced in Tables 6.2A and 6.2B of the handbook,
Travel time determination. Three categories of flow
travel times are recognised:
1) overland or "sheet" travel
2) roof-to-gutter travel
3) other cases
Kinematic wave equation (2.5) is used to determine
the overland travel time. Recommended values of equals
0.015 for paved surfaces, 0.25 for lawn surfaces and
0.50 for densely grassed surfaces.
The minimum overland flow time which should be used
for any catchment is 2 minutes, e.g. travel time from
crown to gutter in a narrow carriageway.
Because of the uncertainty which must surround assess-
ment of overland (pervious area) travel time to gutter
or rear-of-allotment drainage channel in the remote
allotment of a residential catchment component, a standard
15 minutes is recommended.

Roof-to-gutter flow:
residential roofs = 5 minutes
commercial/residential
roofs = 10 minutes

General channel flows:

a chart is provided as shown in Figure 6.4
of the handbook.
 34

Runoff coefficients for developed catchment

Basic values for C-j q for different types of surfaces
and land uses are difficult to estimate. Basic runoff
coefficient values for Northern and Southern Australia
are tabulated in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 of the handbook.
Values for other regions have to be interpolated from
the tables. The values listed for specified land uses
are based on the following relationship.

% impervious in allotment area

= 3.0XRD-5.0 (2.10)

where;
RD = residential density (excludes roadway
reserves, nature strips, etc.). Valid
only for RD<20 residences/ha.

The coefficients are based on the following assumptions

paved areas, generally, are directly-connected
to their associated collection systems, and
25% of paved area is transfered to the pervious
area component in each case.
Frequency conversion factor, F^, is applied to derived
runoff coefficient to obtain design average recurrence
intervals, other than 10 years if required. Table 6.5
oh the handbook lists the factors.

2.2.5.4 Hydraulic data base

This section consists of eight sub-sections:

1) Stormwater conveyance in open channels
2) Gutter inlet hydraulics
3) Guidelines for management of surface-moving
flows
4) Underground network: an overview
5) Guidelines for management of underground-
moving flows
6) Minimum Grade Analysis hydraulic data
 35

7) Hydraulic Grade Line analysis hydraulic data

8) Test for pit surchage and pipe obvert depth
Open channel storm drains
Two equations are used for the design of open channels:

1) Mannings formula

(m/s) (2.11)
and
2) Izzards formula (modified)
(L.S"'') (2.12)
where:
V = flow average velocity
n = Mannings "n"
R = hydraulic radius
SQ= channel bed slope (m/m)
F = shape correction factor = 0.9
Z = reciprocal of channel cross-slope
d = maximum flow depth (m)

For composite kerb-and gutter channels as shown in

Figure 2.7 a special form of Izzards formula is written
in equations (2.13) _ (2.15)

spread,w
K
Q, °t-OF

Manning "n" = nB

Manning n = n.

Figure 2.7 Composite roadside channels

 36

1/2 (L.S ^)
Qp = 375.F ^A - ^B
(2.13)

8/3 1/2 (L.S"'' )

(2.14)

8/3 ^ 8/3
= 375.F - dg ] +[ZB/nB] So,1/2
(L. '' )
(L.S
(2.15)

Equations (2.13) and (2.14) above can be used to derive

design curves such as the one shown in Figure (7.2) of
the handbook. Two criteria are recommended as follows:
1) flow depth in roadway reserves should not
be greater than 50mm above top-of-kerb.
0.200m
2) product of kerb-side depth and average flow
velocity should be limited
d, .V > 0.400 m/s~^
k ave''^
The general hydraulic information contained in Figure
(7.2) of the handbook is used to produce a graph of
(half) roadway flow, Q, versus longitudinal slope, SQ, as
shown in Figure (7.3) of the handbook.
Gutter Inlets
Gutter inlets used to capture surface-moving stormwater
flows and transfer them underground may be divided into
two broad categories:
1) grated inlets
2) side-entry inlets
Much experimental works have been carried out by various
organisations regarding the hydraulic performance of
various types and arrangements of inlets. Typical capture
performance curves of side entry inlets with different
configurations and dimensions are provided in Figures
(7.5) and (7.7) of the handbook. Table 2.3 shows Guidelines
for the management of surface-moving flows in developed
catchments.
 3
7

Table 2. 3 (Australia n Road Research Board , 1985 )

GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE-MOVING FLOWSIN DEVELOPED CATCHMENTS

(MINOR SYSTEMS) ""t "^

Illustrative examples of the guidelines are presented in Figure 7

..6

Guideline 1 Flow at "sag" inlets and in roadside channels near inter-

sections where bypass will cause crossflow, which is
unacceptable, must be:-

° not greater than that giving a flow spread (

fro
rr,kerb-
line) of 2.50 m, and,

° not greater than the 95% capture approach flow of the

"favoured gutter/inlet".

Guideline 2 Flow in roadside channels at pedestrian crossings must

be not greater than that giving a flow spread, from
kerb-line, of 1.0m.

Guideline 3 Roadside channel flow along surface drainage lines

generally must be:-

° not greater than that giving a flow spread (from kerb-

line) of 2.50 m, and,

° not greater than the 80% capture approach flow of the

"favoured gutter/inlet".

Guideline 4 A concentrated flow may be accepted into the roadside

surface drainage line provided that:-

° it is not greater than 20 Ls'S and,

® the accumulated channel flow at the concentrated flow

outlet meets guideline 3 above.

Guideline 5 Where a concentrated flow does not meet guideline 4

above, it must be passed to a junction pit.
 38

Underground network : an overview

Design of an underground network for a minor stormwater
drainage system required a data base comprising the
following items :
1 ) set ofguidelines covering items such as pipe
locations relative to carriageways, junction
pit water levels relative to gutter levels,
inspection pit minimum spacing, minimum per-
missible pipe size, anti sedimentation provision
, cover requirements, etc.
2) Minimum Grade analysis pipe flow charts for
various types of pipes.
3) hydraulic data on pipe friction and junction
pit energy losses.
4) test algorithm for pit surcharge.
5) test algorithm for depth of pipe obvert.
Minimum Grade analysis hydraulic data
Colebrook-White equation is used to determine the Darcy-
Weisbach friction factor :

1//f = -2 log^Qi k/3.7DQ + 2.51/N^^y^ ) (2.16)

where :

f = Darcy-Weisbach friction factor

k = pipe boundary roughness (m)

DQ= pipe diameter (m)

Reynolds number
K

= Vq-DO/v

VQ= pipe average velocity (m/s)

V = kinematic viscosity (water)

= 1.14 10"^ m^/s @ 15

Hydraulic Grade line analysis hydraulic data

Total pit-to-pit headloss has two components as shown in

Figure 2.8.
 39
Table 2.4 (Australia n Road Research Board, 1985 )
GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF UNDERGROUND-MOVING FLOWSIN DEVELOPED CATCHMENTS

DEFINITION OF TERMS:

" Mdin drain pipeline (or "mainline") conveys flow between sub-area node pits of network
' l^^t^iJj'jri^jil i conveys flow collected from, nonnally, more than one inlet to junction pit located onr
r^in
oraJnpipenne

" Cross;Connection pipes convey flow from, normally, single inlets to junction pits located on main drain or lateral
pipelines. Cross-connectio n pipes are usually shorter than 10 m.

PART1

Guideline1 Main drain or lateral pipelines shouldb

e- aligned as follows (see Figure 7. 8):

minor roads (carriageways less maniu m): the y should connecib ucv-c
eu.i
.-^y uLic/- w.ie; v^^i H
side-entry and grated inlet types) located along the drainage path. Th e alignment should favour
the carriageway "high side"in dual channel roads and streets. "Lo w side" inlets on dual channel
mino»- roads should be connected to the line either by inter-inlet cross-connections or by.deviating
the alignmentif necessary. Th e alignment should be just within the carriageway where inlets are
grated and just outside where side-entry inlets are used.

The alignment in single-channel minor roads should be on the "low side" of the street.

major roads (carriageways 10m or greater): mai n drain or lateral pipelines should be located
within carriageways between 1.5m and 2.6m from the "high side" kerb. Gutte r inlet pits should
be cross-connected to on-line junctions.

The alignment in single-channel major roads should be on the "low side" of the street.

Guideline2 Every effort should be made, including the use of angled cross-connections where otherwise
unavoidable, to space on-line junction pits as far apart as possible.

Guideline3 Inspection pits spaced at intervals of not more than 100 m'should be includedin all long,
uninterrupted pipelines of diameter 1050 mm and smaller.

Guideline4 In all gutter inlet pits and junction pits, design water levels assigned to pits should be not
higher than:

(gutter invert level- 0.15 m)

where "gutter invert level"is:

° for gutter inlet pits: underpressed gutter invert level

® fo r junction pits: gutter invert level at the roadway section containing the pit or, where
invert levels differ, the lower of the two.

Guideline5 Regardless of the provisions of Guideline 4, design water levels assigned to consecutive pairs
of pits on main drain or lateral pipelines should differ by not less than 0.10m in the direction
of flow.

Guideline6 A 3-poin t priority sequence should be followed in assigning pit design water levelsin accordance
with Guidelines4 and5 :

priority1 : junction pits along lateral oipelines including the pits where thesepipelir.ei join
with main drain pipelines

priority2 : junction pits along main pipeline branches, where these are present

priority3 : junction pits along main pipeline trunk

In each priority, assignment of pit design water levels should commence at the uostrear.e
xtr
e^.
iity
in1 and2 an d at the downstream extremityin priority 3.
^priontteii
Guideline7 A minimum pipe size ofD = 300n un should be usedin the design

Guideline8 Asa practical design rule, pipe sizes (diameters) snould not decreasein the directior. of flow.

Guideline9 In order to reduce the likelihood of blockage asa result of sedimentation, flow velocitiesir. pipes
operating under design conditions should be not less than 0.5 ms'^. Flow s which leadto violations
of this limit should normally be excluded from the underground network.

Guideline 10 Diameters of cross-connections may be selected from EITHER the table below OR may be set equalto the
diameter of the pipe conveying flow from the connected mainline or lateral pipeline junction pit,
whicheveris smaller.

Flowin nominal pipe Flowin nominal pipe

cross-connection diameter cross-connection diameter
L s'^ mm L sT^ mm

< 55 300 220- 270 750

55- 80 375 270- 320 825
80- 110 450 320- 370 900
110- 140 525 370- 410 975
140- 180 600 410- 500 1050
180- 220 675
 Table 2.4 Par t2 (Australian Road Research Board, 1985 )
Guideline 11 Pit floor level should be not higher than :

(pit water level - 2.5 D )

0'
"Pit water level" is the level assigned under Guidelines 4 and 5; "gutter invert level" is defined
in Guideline 4; D^ is the diameter of the pipe carrying discharge from the pit.

Guideline 12 Pit floor levels in mainline or lateral pipeline junction pits receiving flow from cross-connected
entries must allow for slope of not less than 0.01 in cross-connection pipes. Pit floor level
should coincide with the invert of pipe D^.

Guideline 13 Where concrete pipes are specified for the underground network, class selections should be i
r^d
e
as follows :

S -"--.tr-ffic" situations, e,g. d

rai
n«-
,thrc.igh cr r
.-j
c:'ifjs, c
cvc
-r
less than 1.5 m
Class X - "no traffic" situations where cover is 1.5-2.5 m; carriageways where cover is 1.0-2.0 m
Class Y - "no traffic" situations where cover is 2,5-3.5 m; carriageways where cover is 0.5-1.0 m.
or 2.0-3.5 m
Class Z - "no traffic" situations where cover is greater than 3.5 m; carriageways where cover i
s
less than 0.5 m or greater than 3.5 m

More detailed information is contained in the graph below, supplied by the Concrete Pipe Association
of Australia.

\
S
-5
1
1 71 1
50 2:

A/<;?
4
-5
7-

\
40 r
1 j
TfP^ rnc T/^
3
-5 !
\
i
1

3
-0
'1
r'''
—
¡3 2-5
cc
: X
I
—
LJ Y AF-p-}^
£20 X ! 1
T
1
bJ
a. 1
i
^ 1-5
\ i '
cc

\
>
o >r ' TR r/^
OB

\
>
o 07

\
!

/
0
-6

0
-5
T
- N
\
V \
<•
1

k
0
-3
»A in o
<vj r— a
V9 CO o
^u ^ iO 23

PIPE DIAMETER (MILLIMETRES)

BASED ON :BEDDING - TYPE 'C; MATERIAL - WET CLAY EMBANKMENT CONDITIONS

 41

AWL

' '
'"'
HTG
rLT— -
- BWL

'^o'Qo
D.

AWL = Assigned Water Level

BWL = Bottom Water Level
H.G.L. = Hydraulic Grade Line

Figure 2.8 Friction and pit headloss

hf = f.L/DQ(VQ/2g) (m) (2.17)

where :

f = 0.017 for asbestos-cement pipe in

poor condition
f = 0.023 for concrete in poor codition
Coefficient, K^ (junction pit headloss) is obtained
from Tables 2.5 and 2.6 taken from Tables 7.3 and 7.4
of the handbook.
Test for pit surcharge and pit obvert depth
upstream pit surcharge test :

/2g)^ (AWL-BWL) (m) (2.18)

downstream obvert depth test:

h^+1.5DQ ^ (AWL-BWL) (m) (2.19)

2.2.5.5 Minor drainage system - design procedure

outline
Two broad classes of catchments are recognised :
1) isolated urban catchments, and
2) non isolated urban catchments.
 42

Table 2.5 (Australian Road Research Board, 1985)

APPR0X1^V\TE VALUES FOR COEFFICIENTK : PIPES CONCURRENT OR AT RIGHT ANGLES

tr
ifi-d
lj iitic
t.io
n pit(s ini
ji l
e) systems: Figure (a) INLET/JUNCTION PITS WITH GUTTER FLOW
'rjtcsontsa gciu'ral,s TiDple junctTon pit layout with
itrcair, Idterdl dnd grating inflows, Qy, Q, and Qq 1
respectively. B y assigning values to these parameters, CODE DLSCKIPTION <
"G" w
oil possible simple junction pit configurations can
be uc-scrlbed. Fiaur e (b)isan elevation section
•.ri
ruuyh tne pit taken along the alignment of its
I-l Inlet pit with outflow pipe - -
\ 4.0
L'l^chorge pipe. Th e value s listed are based on the Inlet on through pipeline
findingsof Sanyster etal (195S) known as "Missouri
Charts". I-2A - 2.0
I-2B
° "u^O o % s
ofa
e 0.5

Inlet on through pipe with

lateral(s)
I-3A ° QU»Q L \ some some 0.5
I-3B ° %»Q L y2 some 1.5
I
.-3
C ° Qu« Q L %n some 1.5
I-3D ° QU«Q L some1 some 2.0
"o
I-3E some Q,/2 2.5

1-4 Inlet on "L" pipe junction

i.e.Q^j-0 - seme 2.5
•
Jo

InlcC on"T" pipe junction

i.e. Qy= 0
I-5A ° opposed laterals - some 3.0
1o
I-5B ° offset laterals some 2.5
Fig.(b) »0

CHANGE OF GRADE PART-FULL OUTFLOW FROM JUNCTION PITS

Situations frequently arise, particularlyin upper-basin catchments

Ata junction pit where pipe gradient change
of moderate/steep grade, where pipes operate part-full.' Wate r
IS significant, ALL K^ coefficients listed
level build-upin pits supplying these pipes, is, typically above
in Tables hS and 7.4 should be adjusted as
obvert level (see sketch). Banniga n and Morgan (1981) have suggested
follows:
for such situations that the hydraulic grade line be set at
(discharge) pipe obvert level and the height, h^, fixedinthe same
" grade change: flat to steepin the
manner as other cases consideredin Tables 7.3 and 7.4, Th e value
direction of flow- ADD 0.5
of VQ requiredin the calculation ofh y^is given by VQ= QQ/AQ
® grade change: steepto flatin the where A^is discharge pipe full area.
direction of flow- SUBTRACT 0.5
No experimental or field validation of this has to date been
presented and results ofa pilot study carried out at S.A. Institute
of Technology show water level build-upto be significantly greater
JUNCTION PITS WITHOUT GUTTER FLOW thanKyy (Vo/Zg).I tis therefore recommended that the Bannigan and
Morgan approach be adopted withh fixe d by
j COD
E DESCRIPTION
=
Junction pit on through - 0.2
-
pipeline, i.e. Q^= Q ^^ Oo The results of current research willin time yielda more accurate
I
1 relationship.
( Junction pit on through"
pipe with lateral(s)
J-2A: some 0.5
1o
J-2B
"% = " L
Q„/2 % - 1.0

J-2C. ° % some 2.0

ij-3 Junction pit on "L" pipe

1i i junciioii
,i .t i
.- 0 1
i
'0 - ro"

Junction pit on "T" pipe

junction, i.e. Qy0
J-3A ° oppose
d laterals -
%
%
- 2.5

j J-3
B ° offse
t laterals 2.0
1
 43

Table 2.6 (Australian Road Research Board, 1985 )

APPROXII-WTE VALUES FOR COEFFICIENT K^ : PIPES NOT CONCURRENT OR MEETING AT RIGHT ANGLES

]
. JUNCT
ION PIT WITH SINGLE ENTRY/EXIT PIPES

Hare's (1983) research on the hydraulics of single 1:12 benching

entry/exit pits with pipes non-concurrent and not / towards
meeting at SO", shows that the energy loss cKAnnel
coefficient, K^, which should be applied to the
hydraulic grade line at these structures is
dependent on two main factors :

(0 the location of the entry pipe centreline

(produced) intersection with pit walls; and
in) the n.agnitude of gutter flow, Qg.

Entry pipe centreline intersecting exit

face of pit
Benching in a rectangular Benching in a circular
junction pit junction pit

2. DROP JUNCTION PITS

It is often necessary in steep terrain or where an existing

service (water main, electricity cable, etc.) must be
avoided to construct junction pit entry and exit pipes at
significantly different levels. Unpublishe'^ research Dy
Black and Piggot (Q.I.T.) and by Logan City Council (1983)
suggests the following values for the headless coefficient
^ =

int¿«'sexiiOív
Case 1 situations :
point
PLAK rectangular pits, K = 2.0; circular pits, K = 1.5
w w
Case 2 situations :
Case 2 ;Entry pipe centreline intersecting side
wall of pit rectangular pits, K^ = 2.5; circular pits, K^ = 2.0

Examples Use of these values of lO is restricted to installations in

which both pipe obverts (entry and exit) are subaierged under
design flow conditions AND there is no gutter flow. It i s
considered unlikely that gutter flow, if present, will
in.teri>ectioyL affect the listed values of K^, but this Is presently
unresearched.
po
int
3. MULTI-PIPE JUNCTION PITS

The bulk of practical situations for which pit headloss

^^^^ values are required can be found from Table 7.3 and the
above. Cases not covered are those where flows enter pits
sicie wail d pit
from two or more pipes which are not concurrent with and/or
not at 90° to their respective discharge pipes. The
po'ird ^^^^ multitude of pipe/pit geometries met in practice and the
range of flows which would need to be tested in order to
K values reconmended are : produce generalised design tables make the full research
w of this topic a manmoth if not impossible task.
Case 1 ; K^ = 0.5 for Q^ = 0 or small quantity
The following suggestions are offered to designers who face
= Î-5 for Qg Q,/2 this problem :

Case2 : K =2.5 (with or without gutter flow)
w
Kcbearch suggests that hydraulic shaping of pits to
assist the passage of flow from entry to exit can be
effective.
Pit dimensions : Small pits, generally, result in
swller hea'Hlosses than large pits.
cír^idí^^u. • research by
íTG.íTácT e n
-:T.L. Pingott o f Queensland Institute
of Technology, when compared with the results of
hare (1983), show marginally improved performance
for circular pits in situations which would
otherwise, i.e. using rectangular pits, fall into
Cases'1 and 2 above.
Internal shaping : "Benching" of pits to provide a
curved channel DQ/Z deep between entry and exit pipes
(see sketch) can reduce values obtained in Case 2
situations from 2.5 to about 1.5 (Archer et al, 1978).
It appears to make no significant improvement in
Case 1 situations.
(i) in situations where the risk of property inundation
is highly sensitive to uncertainty in pit loss
estimates, values for K^ should be obtained from
hydraulic models of pipe/pit installations tested
under design conditions; and
(ii) in all other situations use IC = 3.0, with or without
gutter flow.
4. NiCH
OI,S-WATTS FOmHAE
An unpublished report by Nichols, Watts and Associates,
Consulting Engineers of Liverpool N.S.U., proposes a set
of formulae which enable headlosses to be determined for
any arrangement of pipes and full-barrel flows included
in Tables 7.3 and 7.4. Values determined by the formulae
show close agreement with results obtained by Hare (1983)
but are less satisfactory in their reproduction of head-
losses for the cases investigated by Sangster et al
(1958, 1959). It i s considered that the Nichols-Watts
formulae underestimate significantly headloss i n the more
'-omplex pipe/pit and multi-pipe geometry cases.
 44

The various steps of the procedure will briefly

be highlighted here.Guidelines and hydrological/
hydraulic information described earlier are conjuntively
applied to design a system.
Phase One of thisprocedure encompasses two design
principles which govern three aspects of definition
while phase Two encompasses further four design prin-
ciples all of which are elaborated in the handbook.
Phase Three involves the application of design principle
two and guidelinesrelating to the management of under-
ground network "approximate" design.
The above three phases may be sub-divided into
a set of eleven steps as outlined below :
Phase 1 :
i) sub-catchment definition
ii) designguidelines and data (surface moving
flows)
iii) designguidelines and data (underground moving
flows)
Phase 2 :
vi) hydrological model - stage 1
v) hydrological model - stage 2
vi) design flow distribution in primary and
main drainage lines
vii) design flow compilation - all components
of subcatchments
Phase 3 :
viii) pit water levels and first-round pipe sizes
ix) H.G.L. and pipes of approximate network
design
xi) approximate system design - ARI = N-years
xii) cost/frequency insert
xiii) final design detailing.
The outcomes of all the above steps can be represen-
ted in Figure 2.9.
 45

Figure 2.9 (Australian Road Research Board, 1985)

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
PROCEDURE

The following diagrams presentin schematic forman ordered account

ofthe main computational and graphical components ofthe minor drainage P H A S EE — CONTINUE D
system design procedure presentedin the Handbook.

The composition of each component and its roleinthe procedure are

describedin general termsin Section 10.2. oo

PH^SL 1 - CMCHlAtN T OeflKinO N GU»DLL\ML S

STtP
\

G
TABLE.6
STELP FIGURE GAv FIGURE. 6& FIGURE 6 C

1 \

STtP
sUB-cATCH^^t^rT
FLOW
COR.R.LSPOKDIMG
COiAPlLATtON

7
OlSTRl&UTlOM FOB. OTHE R
n&URL A & TKbLt1
SU&-CATCHfAENTS

FIGURE.7

STEP G L\HtS
STEP Table.-
GllKES

Z
- 7-2-

3 - G'hne
-1-tar:
C
TABLL

2> PHAvSL in. — SURFAC E SYSTE M UhJOERGROUN D NtTWOR K OtSiG M

TAELt 8/9 TAbLE

STEP COLUrAHS 1-12 COLUrAKS

CCfAfAEMClNG 5
TLP
8
TOP O F BOTTOWV O F
PHA.SE.IL— i^to w LST4VAAT10 N DVSTR.\6\JTlO N N &TWORK
NETWOP^K
i
i 9
S<it1 HYDRO, NVOOEL

STtP
4
\

I
—I
5TEP STEP
1=3 TA&Lt4
riGUR^ 4 A
FlOURl 4 B 10 LOA

$TAGLZ F
IGURE l
O FlGUfLE, \0 A
!r
i'—
I KYDR-OLOGIC/VL
,
—' J
i1)
J
DitP /AOD£L PlMAL DESIGK -
T=l tZ D STA.GE1 COMSTR.UCHON
-0
I\
STEP DRAW\HGS

a l = ]
FIGURLS N
 46

2.2.6 Australian Rainfall and Runoff's Chapter 14

Urban Stormwater Drainag e.

2.2.6.1 Introduction

This new method of urban Stormwater Drainage design is

to provide guidelines and methods for design flow esti-
mation and hydraulic analysis of small and large urban
drainage systems. The concept of major and minor syste m
of street drainage similar to the one adopted by ARRB
1986 is also adopted here. Thus the overall procedures
adopted by the two methods are similar although this
method is thought to be rather simpler to use.A detailed
description of this method is no t provided here. The
Hydrologie and Hydraulic models used by this method are
described briefly below:

2.2.6.2 Hydrologie Models

Two models for estimating design flow rates for pipe

network as well as for surface drainage system may be used
1)Rational Method (discussed previously )
2) ILLSA X- generates hydrograph by time area
method (ILLUDAS enhanced)
Kinematic wave equation (2.5) is also used in this
method for the determination of the overland flow travel
time in conjunction with the I-D-F relationship. The
algorithm for the determination of the overland flo w
travel time and the design flow rates can be illustrated
in Figure 2.11 .

2.2.6.3 Hydraulic Models.

Equation (2.15) for composite kerb and gutter channels

as shown in Figure 2.7 is also adopted here from which
design curve as shown below in Figure 2.10is produced
(Figure 14.5.3.3 of AR& R, 1986). Two criteria are also
recommended here for the management of surface flow .
1)flow depth in roadway reserves should not
be greater than 50mm above top-of-ker b
(
dj^
)>0.200 m
 47

2) product of kerb-side depth and average

flow velocity should be limited
d, . V 0.4ms"^
k ave ^
2.2.6.4 Steps in Design and Analysis

1) preliminary layout and measurement of sub-

areas
2) approximate calculations for major flows
and capacities of roadways and other major
flow routes
3) estimation of minor design flow rates for
pipes and pits
4) specification of pit types
5) hydraulic calculations to determine pipe
sizes and positions
6) fixing of pipe inverts, allowing for cover
and minimum slope consideration, as well as
hydraulic capacity
6) possible hydraulic gradeline checks, working
upstream from receiving water levels.

Steps for designing pipe system

1) definition of the system and its character-

istics
2) simulation of system behaviour, including
major and minor flows, during a certain
design storms
3) analysis of results
4) development of improved system, with larger
capacities and provisions for overflows
where needed, and
5) simulation of behaviour of improved system.
 48

3c>

- y — ^

m .

v-

£7-1 OZ <7-3

10(7

iZl«
^ilkiilii

¡itili
PÌÌpEÌI

Figure 2.10 Gutter Flow Design Charts for ^50 mm Width Gutter
(Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 1986)
 49

use Mannings
equation, -
Q = 1/n A.Rr-^s'/^

assume total travel

time; estimate gutter
flow time

calculate I for
assumed total time

^Iculate, ,0.6/0.4 0.3

t = 6.94(L.n) /I .S +
'overland gutter flew time (mins.)

calculate,
Q = C.I.A/0.36 (L.S ^)
where •

A = catchment area (ha)

I = rainfall intensity (mm/h)
>'

calculate.
^design = Q .(0.6+0.4P )
end con
(L.S"'')

calculate.
flew velocity and gutter
time of travel (mins.)
>f

calculate,
= t n + gutter rime of
^overland overland ^^^^^
1t

YES

Figure 2.11 Overland flow travel time

and design flowrate algorithm
 50

CHAPTER 3 CASE STUDIES

3.1 Introduction
The Australian Road Research Board, 1985 and the
Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 1986 methods of urban
drainage design described in chapter 2 were applied to
a case study area in Maroubra. Although the two methods
are not yet in final form, it is hoped that the results
of this case study will provide a comparison between
each methods in terms of their generalities and ease of
use. Each step of the two procedures is followed closely
so that the merits of each method may be determined.
Figure 3.1 shows the case study area (26.22 ha) which
is considered to be an "isolated" urban catchment. The
top part of the area is steep and the remaining area being
relatively flat. The existing land use in the catchment
is residential with a density of about 15 residences per
ha. The area is in ultimate urbanised condition.
The first analysis uses the Australian Road Research
Board, 1985 design procedure of urban drainage systems.
Both major and minor systems were designed for the sub-
area B within the study catchment. Figure 3.1 shows the
sub-area B boundaries.
A major system design with Average Recurrence Interval
(ARI) equals 100 years was used in conjunction with a
minor system with ARI equals 5 years. This combination
led to a "gap flow" design ARI equals 50 years for the
surface-moving system by assuming that partial blockage
of 50% occured in the associated underground pipe.
In this case study using the Australian Road Research
Board, 1985 design procedure, it was assumed that major/
minor drainage systems have not been so far designed.
This would give opportunity to apply the design procedure
from the begining.
 51

riyxi
' iZ-
t v ' i r J u ' r-.-, \i L,
(^krt-i
i vr'i l,/ini
ilili-J -
/•ii! f.o 1:1-rc;-; , fi' - "i k at V ^

iv /A4--'' i

c: i

Figure 3.1 Case Study Area

Scale 1 inch = 4 chains
 52

The second analysis uses the Australian Rainfall and

Runoff, 1986 design procedure. Both major/minor drainage
systems were designed although the steps involved were
not as elaborate as in the Australian Road Research Board
procedure.
For the minor system design, ARI equals 2 years was
adopted in line with the example give in the procedure.
This value of ARI does not necessarily have to be adopted
for other design case.
Discussions held prior to this case study with Mr. M.
Savage (Randwick Municipality Engineer) revealed that
detailed ground levels as well as location of existing
underground stormwater pipes are not fully documented. Thus
it was necessary to carry out a survey of the area in order
to determine the general slope and level of each roads,
gutters, etc. because these were needed for the computa-
tions .
 53

3.1.1 Application of the Australian Road Research

Board, 1985 Design Procedure
The procedure was followed step-by-step. The results of
each step are presented below. The reader is referred
to the ARRB Manual for detailed explanation of each step.

3.1.1.1 Major System Design

Step 1 Catchment Definition
Figure 3.2 shows details of the data associated
with the first step of the major system design.
Step 2 Roadway Reserve Capacity Flows
It was found that the roadway forms existing
in the case study area are 7.5 m and 10.0 m
carriageways within 16.0 m and 20.0 m, respec-
tively, roadway reserves. The kerb-and-gutter
profiles and pavement cross-slopes are generally
with Z^= 8 and 2^= 40 respectively. Flow capacities
for the above profiles have been presented in
Tables 9.1 A and 9.IB in the handbook and they were
adopted.
Step 3 Design Extreme Storm Selection
Using the extreme storm ARI equals 100 years as
recommended for major system and partial blockage
of 50% of the associated underground pipe led to
the gap flow design ARI equals 50 years. Storm
duration equal to 10 minutes was adopted as cri-
tical .
For Sydney area, using the AR&R, 1977 the par-
ticular conditions above give average rainfall
intensity equal 150 mm/h.
Step 4 System Planning Table
Using the Rational Formula in the form given in
equation (3.1), the tributary impervious area TA^
was calculated as given in Table 3.1.
 54

^feiPQiWaa .oidb;'-;.-- i l j i i J yiit^.

^ y T i
!

1
L..
L • -

Node point 1
Flood escape network V • --

Dual channel
Sub-area boundaries
< "jrr

Figure 3.2 Structure of Major System

Scale 1 inch = 4 chains
 55

Q sc= (TA.
i' 50 (L/S) (3.1 )
0.36
Where:
Q = storage-corrected capacity
so
flow in flood escape path
(Table 9.1B of handbook)
^50 = average rainfall intensity
(mm/h)
TA^ = tributary (impervious)
area (ha)
rearranged,
TA. = 0.36Q
1 sc
1 50
= Q.sc (ha) (3.2)
416.7

Table 3.1 Major Stormwater Drainage System Planning

Table

Longitudi TRIBUTARY(IMPERVIOUS)AREA TA. WHICH

-nal slope CAN BE SURVICED BY ROADWAY FLOOD ES-
o CAPE PATH IN DESIGN EXTREME STORM (ha)
So 7.5 m carriageways; 10.0 m carriageways;
single dual single dual
channel channel channel channel

0.005 1 .03 2.06 1 .32 2.64

0.01 0 1 .48 2.95 1 .85 3.70
0.020 2.06 4.13 2.62 5.23
0.030 1 .85 3.70 2.41 4.82
0.040 1 .68 3.36 2.20 4.40
0.050 1 .54 3.07 2.00 4.01
0.060 1 .42 2.83 1 .85 3.70

Step 5 Network Review

The two distinct types of land uses found in the
case study area are:
. residential - 15 residences per ha
. roadway reserves - 1 6 m and 20 m width
 56

For residential areas in Sydney, C-) q may be

equal 0.57 and the frequency conversion factor
F5o= 1.10. Therefore the 050= 1.10x0.75= 0.63.
Roadway reserves may comprise of about 50%
carriageway area, 15-30% foothpath and drive-
ways and the remainder nature strips. Single
value of Ci 0= 0.75 was assumed for the roadway
reserves.
Pervious area runoff coefficient, Ci 0= 0.4
was assumed and by applying frequency conversion
factor, C5o= 0.4x1.10= 0.44
The catchment land-use is typically residential
with impervious areas proportion approximated
as below:
. house = 0.25
. road = 0.15, and
. pervious area = 0.60
Therefore a weighted value of c calculated
for the entire case study area,
= (0.25X0.63)+(0.15X0.83)+(0.6x0.44)
= 0.55
Review of the network for all sub-catchments
are presented in Table 3.2. Considering the node
section A.2, the (TA^) for dual channel, 10m
wide and having a longitudinal slope, SQ equal
0.01 from Table 3.1 equal 3.7 ha. This value is
entered inside column 5.
The flood escape path "test" compares the (TA¿),
which could be serviced under design extreme
storm condition with the cummulative (EIA)5o
(col.9) contributing to node section A.2. This
process was repeated at each node sections. If
the test is not satisfactory, the channel width
can be varied, the escape flow path diverted or
using different design rainfall duration for that
particular area.
 Table 3.2 Network r e v i e w f o r s u b - c a t c h m e n t s A , B , C and D

sub Flood escape path d e t a i l Contributing sub-area

Cum.
Ttest Remarks
a Node E scape path Trib. Area Wt. Runoff (EIA)5O u / p
sec. Imp. Area (ha) (ha) (EIA)
liDng. Coeff.
Type (ha)
slope,SQ
A A. 2 dual ch. 0.01 3.70 1.92 0.55 1.06 2.29 2.290.70 o.k.
10.0 m
A. 3 dual ch. 0.008 3.30 2.24 0.55 1.23 1.23 1.23<3.30 o.k.
10.0 m
A.1 disp. pt. 0.040 4.40 2.26 0.55 1 .24 3.53 3.53<4.40 o.k.
10.0 m (rd.way)
B B.2 dual ch. 0.006 2.70 2.27 0.55 1.25 1 .25 1.25<2.70 o.k
10.0 m
B.I disp pt. 0.006 2.70 4.42 0.55 2.43 3.68
10.0 m (rd.way)
design i:low approx. = 3.68,/2.70X1000=1 363 L.S-1
C C.2 dual ch. 0.010 2.95 1.72 0.55 0.95 1.90 1.90<2.95 o.k.
10.0 m
C.3 dual ch. 0.090 3.70 1.72 0.55 0.95 0.95 0.95<3.70 o.k.
10.0 m
C.I disp. pt. 0.003 2.06 2.06 0.55 1.13 3.03
10.0 m (rd.way)
D D.3 dual ch. 0.050 3.07 1.25 0.55 0.83 0.83 0.830.07 o.k.
10.0 m
D.2 dual ch. 0.040 4.40 1.97 0.55 1.08 1.91 1.91<4.40 o.k.
10.0 m
D.1 disp. pt. 0.040 4.40 2.35 0.55 1 .29 3.20
(rd.way)
design i:low approx. =3.20/^4.40X1660=12¡07 L.S"''
for C design flow approx.= 3.03/2.06X780= 1147 L.S"^
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 58

It was found that the present arrangement of the

roads is probably sufficient to contain extreme
design flows without causing damage to the resi-
dential properties,
step 6 System evaluation
Step 5 is considered as satisfactory major drainage
system. Therefore this step was not necessary,
step 7 Sub-area detailing
This step is particularly useful for lateral
streets which are potentially of the single
channel type. It can be seen that for this
particular case study area, carrying out this
investigation would almost certainly yield similar
O.K. results as in step 5.
step 8 Final design and detailing
Not necessary in this case unless outcomes of
steps 6 and 7 are otherwise. Thus results from
step 5 was considered as final major system
design.
 59

3.1.1.2 Minor System Design

Step 1 The data required for this design was partly
obtained from major drainage design carried
out previously. It was however, considered
sufficient for the design of minor system to
take sub-catchment B in order to just apply the
procedure and to become familiarised with it. The
outcomes of step 1 are presented in Figures 3.3
and 3.3b and Table 3.3.
Step 2 Guidelines for Flow Management in Surface
Channels
Table (2.3) guidelines were adopted in this case
for flow management in surface channel which
conform with the requirement of Design Principle 1
set out in the handbook.
Step 3 Guidelines for Flow Management in Underground
Networks
Under this step, guidelines in Table 2.4 were
adopted as requirement for Design Principle 2
of the handbook. This, with the two previous
steps however, completed Phase 1.
Step 4 & 5 Hydroloqical Models - Stages 1 & 2
From results of Phase 1 (Steps 1-3) above, stage
1 - "Hydrological Models" was prepared to enable
design flow estimates and flow distributions in
all drainage path components to be ascertained
in line with Guidelines 1,2 and 4 of Table 2.3.
Figure 3.4 shows the stage 1 Hydrological Model.
Table 3.4 shows the computations of design flows
for all primary (surface) drainage lines. Those
primary drainage lines which satisfy guideline
constraints are called DETERMINATE drainage lines
and those which fails are called INDETERMINATE
lines. For the later case, they were modified
by the addition of in-path gutter inlets without
violating Guidelines 1-4.
 60

ADDI1DNAL NOTES
, Catchment location :
Maroubra Junction
Contour plan of catchmt. :
see Figure 3.2
Roads :
16 m & 20 m roadway resrves
10 m & 7.5 m carriageways,
kerb & gutter, concrete;
width = 375 m ; Za = 8
pavement, hotmix; cross-
slopes Zg = 30 & 40
7.5 m dual-channel Stormwater d i s p o s a l p t .
carriageway in 10 m c o i n c i d e s with B.
road reserve , pavemen|t Residential land use areas :
cross-slope ZB=40 design r/d , 15 res./ha
stonnwater passes to fron-
ting gutters.
Adopted design ARI= 5 yrs.
Road. 0.2P
S=0.603
B.I (node point)

F i g u r e 3 . 3 Sub-catchment B details
of d i v i s i o n s .
 61

B
.2N1R B
.2E1
R
"v \ \

^
J
B.2E2
^ ^B.2E1
B.2

4 Inspectio
n pit
( see Guidlin
e 3
, Tabl
e 2
.4 )

B
.1N1R jI
i
j nspectionpit

B
.1W1R

B
.1W1 .1E1
.
1

NOTE :
Pipe location fixe
d by Guidelin
e 1
,
Table 2
.4 - ma
jor and m
ino
r roads

Table 3.3B Terminal inlets an

d basic
underground networ
k layout
( not to scal
e )
 62
Table 3
.3 Flo
w Estimatio
n i
n Primar
y Drainag
e Lines
: N=
5 year
s

DRAINAGE LIN
E CONVEYING
W FLOW TO REM L INLET
INA
>
H w
a^ PQ• '
s
o >
• Hpc; £ H
EH
w
p E
H
« S
^ H H EH W FF
I P
tiKl
^ O W
w 0 EH W D 2 H EH K < S >H W •-Q \
s > 2 C H
E
OP O fa REMARKS
i s S a EH < cu
TH
ff H
O
EH H
U
H
<
U w ^ U S O W H I So
S 0 c O H S W( J > H V
-
w TH w
P^
Z E
H
H O
O W
^ U H o—
H F
Ö "
faO
O
H £ HiJ
w < o w EH
< 1 H H
s <
S H
< W H H W U S
u c >H H - O « O C W
u 1 1 EH 04 U CCI F
I
4 W <c < H U I
-Q pe
í ui
EH PQ C Q E-I EH 5 W Q PC ; c H H E
H < fa' o « o 1< TJH
C D s Di
J O W >H D( J >HO O fa wq H < tó C
U W W W U Q ff i CO U <•< EH U EH fa H W E H u u U Ü
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16
B .
2 NODE 101
.30 - -

N1R 101
.33 1
0m rd
.paved 0
.31 D 255 20 225 0
.05 ZB=40 60
N1 101
.33 1
0m rd
.paved 0
.31 D 255 20 0
.05 ZB=40
255 60
/ha0
residí.15res .82 D 255 20
E1R 101
.50 1
0m rd
.paved 0
.06 D 65 1 0
.02 ZB=40
32 70
/ha 0
residí.15res .64 C 32 1
E1 101
.30 1
0m rd
.paved 0
.06 D 65 1 .002ZB=40 100
65 0

B 1 NODE 98
. .4 - - - - - - - - - -

N1 98
.81 1
0 .paved
m rd 0
.24 D 220 2
.5 0
.006ZB=40
220 80
/ha 1
residí.15res .23 D 220 2
.5
El 98
.8 1
0 .paved
m rd 0
.13 D 65 0
.4 .003ZB=40
0
65 90
/ha0
residí.15res .5 D 65 0
.4 -

N1R 1 98
.711
0 .paved
m rd 0
.24 D 220 2
.5 0
.006ZB=40
220 80
residí.15res
/ha 1
.73 D 220 2
.5
W1R 98
.61 1
0 .paved
m rd 0
.13 D .5 280 0
280 2 .003ZB=40 90
W1 98
.61 1
0 .paved
m rd 0
.13 D 280 3 .003 ZB=40 90
.7 280 0

Notes :
Road surfac
e - pave
d firs
t grad
e
15 - Approac
h flo
w fo
r 95
% captur
e i
s obtaine
d
from desig
n curv
e fo
r a combine
d inle
t o
f
2 m sid
e entr
y an
d 1 m gratin
g ( D
.P.w
.
report No
. 207
,197
7 )
.
 63

LEGEMD :
C = concentrated contribution
D = distributed distribution
• = gutter i n l e t
—o- = inspection p i t
= main drainage pipeline

Figure 3 . 4 Stage 1 h y d r o l o g i c a l model

( not t o s c a l e )
 6
4

Ta
ble3 .4 F l owE st
im a
tio
ni nP r
im ar
yD rai nageL i
nes:N =5y rs
.
p r
im arydarai- TIM EC F EW I
R
Y aj
ii
p.rainfa
lli n
t. cai
ip
o t p
n rimar
yo o
nt -

n agec o n
ttr i
-c xmp
one
ntt ra v
eltimec h.o ru /gp ipet uD
tali nm
/
h for are a ( E
IA
)^O to
t a
l f
lew
a rea toch.oru /gp ip
e trav e
l to en
t. pte c
avistor
md ur.= o r g •
H
i
a
t.( 20
)o
r(21) e quiv •
H r
H
E
H •co
H ve
rlan dallotmntgut
t er u/g pipe Pt
.
' So • • S• ^4 J
H 1 f
lo
w d
rain n a
t uralt r
avel an
]a
l.fu l
l-part- fH rH H full
-part-• B
EMi
mS
area area 1
1
H U channel •
H an a
l.anal. a
re aarea r H
§^ 4J N N 1 f orf o
r

1 c
u
i i|
rH 5 (T
J
1t
(
i
0 are a
§ r
H
S
1
MH
s 0U5
N
y
=
rs
.
N=
5y
rs.
0
M)0
)
If M
- 0 1 1r
l( H
i
H iH .
H H H
P
i 5y r
s5y r
s r
H
R L.S^11
"
iii £^b (
0- p• HIMI p i w r HH -l'J a
m
inm n irmmi i
i
nmmn inm mm inmJ i hah a L
.S~
1 234 5 6 7 891 01 11 213141 5161 71 81 9202 1r 2n
2n
/hmn
t
2i
/3h 2 4 2 5 2 62 72 82 9 3 0 3 1 3 2
I / O /
X
V
•2R floo^
N fo^cc
t
- - -.SS2
2 02
— é6 / 7r ns • 34 'è
f • 3
/ /S
I iS
i /
A
/^
J-
eT
iE
y
e/
V)
/A/
A
ÉNt to^ f^y^a-dL
- - - —

AoìkU S
r. - - 3 - —- zo 2
- . 6 - ¿
-h
4a — •3/• 3
/ ù>
^odU / S
" .S - IS- - 2,0 2
- . — — /
- 77 - •4
/Z i
cu m .sTOAI
f^ AA. O
I>J '77 114 iGh To
rta
i, 33^> / A
/
o£
-/ V,
/A/
Ar
e
.o r
Bi fOm
f
i. / - 3 - — - / - — ^ ns- — n
s- •oé> ¿> <7oO-EA l/A
/
ATS
/S
-
- f^
— a - - n- 7 114
- - - C 101
/ O
/v» /2 -
E!
f^'OCul - - z -
- - - é n
s - ns
-- ^o (>
— •o
r ¿> </O
D
B> N
to
I /I
ccu
t B
r-• - - - - - - zxo 3 - - '
2
.7 '
24
. ¿>

/
vA
«
a
T»
'. - - - — - a - - - n 7 '62 0

CA t
ri S
7 eA
7fO
r^1 7 114 TOT
/KL >&
) 7
e
<«
/V
7INATS
E
f tonn
AOAU fS
i- — - - 3 — - - / - - é •14
- •f3 o

5 - - /
S
" - - - i
rS-d
. - — 07
IT
I >
S
7OA^ 2A
r 7 114 yoT
fi
su /
7S > 9o i
/^oeTe
fZr^ /
/V
AT
S
N
I /O
r^
Afi^Xeut - - - - - aio 3 - - - 6
- »^7 '9
^
fi
it
'ct
t
s-
s
-— - /
s
-— — — — — 7 '
•3 •
7 r•8
?
CA iT
tC S7OA
/ 2A
7F n 7 /
/4L f
ia
i. TO
TAL I
'
ll 3
rj. >
¿0 IF^OERSA
/yy /
/VA
r
e
W/fO n
A^octo po^nd
d /S tBn 3_ 23C d 2
.— — - é> n
s OS '
/r 3•
•
/ /
3 tS
! /S
I' >90

W/fi^oe^d Aft^iC
to /V
I P^
— - - 3 - _ — i
ic - - n
s n
s .IS •
/
3Ò fS
/ '£1 > tNùE
r&i
/^t
i^A T
c

i
i
 65

This process was carried out graphically as shown

in Appendix 1. In this case step 4 was considered
the final hydrological model as it was seen that
no alteration was necessary. Thus step 5 was left
out.
Step 6 Design Flow Distribution in Primary Drains
and Main Drains Pipelines
The primary drainage line design flows presented
in Figure 3.5 are results from the analysis carried
out in step 4 above. It must be noted that design
flows generated are critical in only their respec-
tive sub-areas.
Flows conveyed by the pipelines, on the other
hand, arised from design storms which are critical
in collections of primary catchments. Results of
this analysis are presented in Table 3.5.
Step 7 Design Flow Compilation - All Components of
Subcatchment
Data and information obtained from Figure 3.5 and
Table 3.5 are presented in Figure 3.6 for this
step. With this additional information, Phase 2
of the minor system design procedure was comple-
ted and this provided the basis of underground
network design in Phase 3.
Step 8 Pit Water Levels and "First Round" Pipe Sizes
In setting pit water levels, requirements of
Guidelines 4 and 5 of Table 2.4 were followed.
The form of the computation carried out is illus-
trated in Table 3.6.
Pipe sizes were selected for all components of
drain pipelines fixed according to minimum grade
practices. Figure 3.7 shows the design chart adopted
in this analysis (Road Manual,The Housing Commision
of N.S.W., 1976)
Design flows from step 7 were modified to take
account of different arrangement (i.e. entry pits
 66
63
V

V,
63

63
63
V.
63

63
r
63
V

25 17

24 148
S.
24

B.I

120
99
30
1 20 99
|30 |ii

I
120
> 99
11

60
99
•l30 11
LJ
108 43 66
s».
43
108 43 12
A
B.2'
43 NOTES:
120>^» = captured flow L.S - 1

7 = bypass flow L.S~

distances from each
Figure 3.5 Design flows in node points of each
primary drainage inlets can be read from
lines : N = 5 yrs. Figures in Appendix 1.
( not to scale )
 67

Table 3.5 Flow Estimation in Pipelines : N= 5 yrs

i1 SUB-ARS lOT. TR GRIT. RAINFALL COMP. CXJM. CUM. FLOWS
COMPOil TIME TOSTORM INT.mm/h (EIA) (EIA)
NODE DUR. FOR GRIT, IC 10 y360
E
H
M STORM D.
1 1 •H -H c •H •H
a

8
£ £ w
I

\1
IQ
1 H ü -P•
H U-P-
H 5 5 5

^
H BH
2 P M ^ -P S
< h
cn S w 5< hCO 2^ t/)U
Z H Q r< Ö ^i-i
1 26 g | g tt-91 ^ >1h in^ H 11-9 >1^% IT^)
sw cn S W PM i p II < II icu M 6P ISI ^ II
C \

1 2 3 4 5 6 t-73 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 31 41 51 6 17 18 19
B •2 ^OiK^cLpCü^tcL
V
Ä// *

1 (fl '3/ •i/

A//
/V2 X
A/3
V4- • rV
V -i- /7 n n 7 •3/ •J/
«V vt
\ *
/03 /•C3 Si/V/- f\J2
N((,

E/p. pco^d 6 (p h
fy
Ä
•2 iE/ lÄÄAi ü G .¿»iT • CT• ! •)
S.z
£2
17 r l-fi Iii S'u/
i'/lJ) JCoo Ö-2
& • / Fk. ^
S i/ß i.
Nt Roo^ct P>CKA/<A

N5 ly 7 •6a ibl i-s-'

1/ ^ •H
Ei
n 7 •JS" '¿r ¿6
r iCi
• U^pu.j' i
Rtfa,f<~
NIH ly •i? •rr ¿.¡S

W/2 f^ti^cl u
.'IL.
W/ n »1 y u 73 •

ic^ 'Oi /n 2 ii^i nox

 68
63

^63
63 '

63 •
[126
63 1

N
63 ' 189
•
,63
63
63 252

,126
25 ' 19 f315

24 148
1 475
M72
24
1
1

194

' 521

120

108
108
108

1102
Figure 3.6 Design flows in all pipe
components
( not to scale )
 69

Table 3.6 Pit Water Levels, Pipe Diameters and H.G.L. Analysis

PIT WATERLEVEL
£ 10
9
» Q) 5 RiMARKS
gline glineassndtrial vel. f
H
^
V^/2g
^ £

4 5 water pipe V K fN a
4
J
r
sj £ BWL &
pipe & pit in.
levels fixed
0 w r^O i
level dia. 5 n m adop hydrau
i by Guidlines
r^O g

s
-ted -lie 11 & 12 tables
S §
^
T
B C
O
• £ H
table table (AWL)
D°
dia. grade (^-f)

8ii
g s fi line except where
1 B t— r
g S^ +
i M
-
S
l<
a S H (m) (m) (m/s) (m) 0 J
G
r
— (
N indicated
r^O 5-i (m) (m)
1 H p
i i e (m) (m)
11
'
^^ > J
Jo i -
U
(0 4
J
U1
B •
H
D I
jA/
)
-
W § i J i
i s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
&WL.= AWi.- ,-A
/.
'S
:
f>ipo
6 •
2U I-4.Z ¿3 bO .
cjr / /
/-i
-g '
'dCC
- V04i •/
79 Z-/ • gy -
5-9
:1 '3oc
N5 fOi-g^no^e s•iis
ro r-dd c /
iS 07-g9
/O^.OOr /S'^Pi fSfOgg .
7pi Pi^ iOg- j
-i/
q
/ og
- S
TJPi- /
N/^ to^.
ifS
•- o
-i:
A/4 0 • o^ 10%.^i; O
-iT •^SG ^
io-
) /
•£>
5:4
•a'
O/ V4- iSxs - loy^
ls
N
i So pg i-97 •976 /OS
,. po^
ff^n
O -/o
iS ' OS i
'^S fQb-
lXS' •vro •/60 •

10^
.(aS /o^. • Ta
iT o
-c •
lit 'c
?7SJ
'X/
\ lS to
t- C
MJ^
-^/
Vvo
.
/oa»g 3«J
7 L
a '
•73 • •S
'
AJX S' •C
f JL.
OO 100•
toh io ys
/>-Ay/ K
JhSS OS f
cpa
N! P
'P-t O oi^
lOf
.f
i eg /
•gr zoo
- 6a
fof-3S A
//- 6J •
/B" Z-3A
S
NodU lOhog /^P
ilNP
'P^L
-l AMC^H O
) fVC
yP
l^TA
/OO
./o p it
EiRi P 'P^
/O .tre
f iRi-e
iR. /Of
.go— /O t
-S-Q ^
•OjL a0 • q '4
-lh /^Sx (
S00 fo
• r^i»x^
thio^
c
/fi
. /
o •c
oat
.c/
.fs/
o/. /<
?h/
i:•
¿/S
o OQ IOC
-
30 •

£/
•ox /o
i 3;
-/ o
/.0
5"/
OA0
5 '
/A. OS •0¿
i-•
¿5/
0 •
033 1- •o
<i3 •
4S0 lOO
- -4.
2f^
-f-
ip^U
NoeU,S.: -40
(no Q
VUL
. /
TOA
/AJP
ipeu v
/e
^ T
/o/
v^
100-
/0
P
iPeiiA
- -'
e /
\NC,H > 8-2 -

No <Lt.
6.:
i
-k'To
'f>;b
B> /oo-/oU i
tK ' Af
P'h- 5-i
/iS .oo6 - - l
-^o 0 • •643 • ^ ^ '
¿00 O
Vvf
^/o
—J
B /NtO)r
f Art
j' f>
p
ipe. • /69 •/
ot T- 1 •/40 /
•/o I
/ -
A/S-
A/76 3
/a- •oo6
s o
-x •

A
/7 /
>./
)«(Jp
.
)
¿
fi
A
/
p
'7
p^- 7 S-
/5 A
. OS" lOA • Oi ' /8
i
7
Nh pi
'pe. U)P. 4/
u
ji'
riy g.-h
p/
fA ^<
10 0s
: •J
-00 l
-jv
fi
T yy .ot
/• //
N
/>~ A/
j
 70

Table 3.6A Pit Water Levels, Pipe Diameters & H.G.L. Analysis

P
IT WATER LEVEL
£
J REMARKS
C
M SB
gline g
line assnd trial vel. ? ^S
v^/2g i pipe & pitin .
ON 5
4 5 water p
ipe V K 4J BWL & levels f
ixe d
0 w r^O 0^0 1
ina adop hydrau by Guidlines
table table level d
ia. J
E
Hi < -ted -lie 11 & 12 tables
T Q° s
g CO i
) 2 4) (AWL
( ) ?1 dia. grade )
• J § m <
E
H J"5 x:- - line except where
H f
N
H« (m
) (m
) (m
) (m
) (m/s
) (m
) 0• CNJ indicate d
8 C
U H 0^0 (m) (m)
i e I
I 4J 4J
i
w > 10
^ •
H^ w
8 É Si 1§ Da • ii
il
i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
A
/5- J-
AiO/V
AX5 99-/o 99 OS

o •ooé.
/ A.i o-s: ,//i J-
J.A - /• vL
f. iiib •
75-
0
N5~N4-
A/4 J-
.P.to/
fi
t
l^r^
'pipa
pè
fyt
•75X
? 2
,! ¿>
0 •
Jo-s J-/ /
•03 •750
/V4
-/V
3
Nh
03 9-
f-
P
'PC
. /I .00
6 •v
ro 0
.3- •3/f .0^
7 !'064- 1 ./So ! i2 /•
iyx •750
J
.f
ì.ùoi
tU
ouo si.

/
/?/ •006 •750 0
-5- •Ih
i J
NO
.' r^
i

X.0
0 •oq-x •/O
:L •
'94 l-s
, f-
iòa
N
i .U
J^P i
.f^
9-f i>g
P
tpe
. a
-
N
i- £»
/ io 'OoG 97- 6
7

•9
cX5 • 07
0 I
'^XO
E
t p
i>^
/rA
8 -

P
'p^ io
ji •
003 «0
7 •/
s-/ •509 / 0-
li 0.40/
/ •
iCT
O /•
rg
E
! JF oo
ifk
.
9P-47
fO
.•003 /• 0-r I-X6

•U
S-o /•
J
Jo og 97-69
/
€fPi'
i
6 7 o
f. -

p/p^ /
o I- /
102 /
•0 • •O
l^ •

\
rJ1 J-p
.UJ
i'
tt,
9.
/
.0 •r •C
SV • 02
-6 • •XS
'é 97-93
W»-P
,/ Ho
 71
LIST Or SURrACr:; \V!iH ROUGilN' Si, U:-0:wr.
r.iii
K) Jf! '.->01 ;,;•.>
fxtco:.!. or v.;'.;, or cOuUu-}.
bfViuotn ll J r,

clay, ¿I'j Cf/J rnrr. cinj a-v." in 1 rn jp.its cr d:

3C0 in/ri ond o/er k; rn jn!-.

POOR GXi;rT-,pleS of: Go;vo',!jccj' iron.

(Icc^A.^ cnsl ron.
SmcoUi-iiur U^cfjcl precast ccr.cfpte pipelin-^s in uniU of 2
over v^itri i.pi^ol and socket joints
GLcied viiriiiti'J clay ur.der GOOmrn d;o m lin ¡jni'.s a 'jr.-je-
ii^ _• ' •
DISCHARGE Q i l / s ) for pipes flov/ing^TuII

CIRCULAR. PIPES
ROUGHNESS FACTOR k = 0,3 rnrr»
 72

from other side of the road are connected by

cross-pipes to the main pipeline) usually prefered
in practice (confirmation from Mr. M. Savage,
Engineer, Randwick Municipality). Figure 3.8 shows
the modified inlets location with the design flows,
Step 9 Hydraulic Grade Line and Pipes of Approximate
Network Design
The hydraulic grade line analysis is also shown
in Table 3.6.
step 10 Approximate System Design - ARI = N years
Information on pipe diameters from Table 3.6 was
extracted. Diameters of the remaining pipes cross-
connections from gutter inlets were fixed by
referring to Guideline 10 of Table 2.4 using the
design flows already estimated. The outcome of
this step is shown in Figure 3.9.
Step 1 OA Cost/Frequency
This step was not carried out.
Step 11 Final Design Detailing
This step is not entirely different from step 10
above but merely its extension. The pit floor
level guidelines adopted from Guidelines 11 and
12 (Table 2.4) and cover requirements were applied.
The outcome of this step is shown in Figure 3.10.
This step completes Phase 3 of the design procedure.
 B
.2N6
73
63

B
.2N5

126
JP1
63
i219

B
.2N4

252

<3
.2N3
Figure 3.8 Desig
n flow
s in
V315 all pipe
s L
.S-
I
JP2
378
B
.2N2

441

B
.2N1
25
V475 B
.2E1
R B
.2E1
R
148^
172
B
.2
197
521
.B
.1N
8
631

g B
.1N
7 (IP
)
120
751

B
.1N5
981

90

37
B
.1W1R
'
'l0
8
B
.1W1
110
 74
50 m
300 mm

15 m
10 m 300 mm
3 7 5 riTTi
32 m
3 7 5 mm

50 m
375 im

Figure 3.9 Diameters and

25 m lengths of pipes
10 m
375 mm
375 nm Notes
22 m
pipe diameters for cross
375 mm
connections adopted from
Guidlines 10, Table 2.4

10 m 8 m
, 300 mm 450 mm

22 m 34 m
4 5 0 mm ? n n nrm^
34 m
3 0 0 mm
88 m 4 m
525 mi li 4 5 0 nm

25 m
10 m 6 0 0 mm
5 2 5 mm
O
37 m
6 7 5 mm

'20 m
6 0 0 mm
10 m
525mm
10 m
6 7 5 mm

24 m
6 7 5 mm

12 m
675 mn
10 m
•—450 mm
22 m
10 m 21 m
750 urn
300 nin 3 7 5 iTiTi

10 m
375 rmi

12 m
3 7 5 mm
 106.68 m
75
108.25 m

108.98 rfn- 107.90 m

105.60 m

Figure 3.10 Pit floor level;

103.20 m

102.62
101.90 m

100.65 m

101.13 m
100.23 m

100.25 m 100.90 m

98.90 5 100.15 m

<98.38 m

99.06 m, ¿98.08 m

97.85 m

98.53 m 97.70 m

¿97.50 m

97.50 m

97.25 m
98.22 m

97.97 m * 97.00 m, 97.65 m

"97.40 m
97.71 m

97.61 m
 76

3.1.2 Application of Australian Rainfall and Runoff

- Urban Drainage Desing Method, 1986

The same sub-catchment B was used to design major and

minor systems using the revised AR&R method of Urban
Drainage Design. Design ARI-2 years was adopted for the
analysis of the minor system. The existing location of the
entry pits and underground pipe layout were considered
as the starting point of this analysis. The same combined
inlet size as used for the previous method was used here.
Figure 3.11 shows the sub-area boundaries upstream of
each inlet.
Design Data
Apart from the design curves, the rainfall Intensity-
Duration-Frequency table was prepared using the AR&R (1977)
method of design storm estimation. Table 3.7 shows the
relationship obtained for the case study area.
Table 3.8 shows the runoff coefficients corresponding
to different percentage of impervious areas for various
average recurrence intervals. The 10 yr. ARI, 1 hr.
intensity for the area is equal 61.1 mm/h.
Therefore C^^ = 0.1+(0.7-0.1)X(61.1-25)/(70-25)
= 0.58
The sub-catchment consists of two types of land uses:
1) residential
- ultimate impervious fraction equal 35%
and 71% of which connects directly to the
street drainage syatem.
2) roads and foothpaths
- assumed to be 85% impervious.
The runoff coefficients for individual area could be
estimated from Table 3.8 as 0.59 and 0.84 for 2 yr. and
100 yrs. ARIs.
For impervious portions of lots, a C^Q value equal
0.9X0.85 = 0.77 was used and for pervious portions, a
value of 0.36x0.85 = 0.31 was used. If 25% of the im-
pervious portion of a lot area drains directly to the
 77

N
•7
\\
\
\

ts-

9 , —

12 11
13

Figure 3.11 Locations of existing inlets

and its drainage area boundaries
 Table 3.7 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Relationship

Duration (Minutes)

6 7. 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60
2 YR ARI (mm.h ^) 1 48.0 137. 6 123. 5 103.1 89. 2 79.1 71.4 60. 5 53. 1 47. 7
t.i-o-'' 44. 3 53. 8 68. 7 95.8 120. 6 143.6 165.4 206. 4 244. 9 281 .6
100 yr ARI (mm.h"^) 258. 9 240. 7 21 6.0 180.5 156. 2 138.4 124.9 105. 8 92. 8 84. 4
Ratio 2:100 • 57 • 57 •
57 .57 57 .57 57 • 57 • 57 • 57

Table 3.8 Runoff Coeffcients for various ARIs.

Fraction Impervious 00

0 0.1 . 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 .0

10 yr ARI
0.58 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.87 0.9
= 0.9 I +C' [(1-1 ) ]
10 mp 1 0 mo'
2 yr ARI
0.49 0.52 0.54 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.76
So
100 yr ARI 0.70 0.73 0.77 0.82 0.85 0.89 0.92 0.96 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00
'1 00
 79

Street, the remaining area will have a c value of

(0.1x0.9+0.65X0.36)7(0.75x0.85) = 0.37
For some subcatchments where the time of concentration
is short, or where directly connected impervious portions
of lots area are limited, partial area calculations were
carried out.
It was assumed that where pipes are running full,
their capacities in a major event would be 1.2 times the
minor system design flow rate as used in the example
given in the method.
Major flow rates were calculated by multiplying the
minor system design flowrates by a factor, derived as
follows :
^ " 00 "" (CIA)^ QQ = C^ 00 (3.3)
Q2 (CIA)2 C2 l2

from tables:
F = 1.41x1.75
= 2.47
Inspection of the Intensity-Duration-Frequehcy table
indicatés that a decrease in duration will increase
intensity by a factor of 1.1. Thus overall factor used
was 2.47x1.1 = 2.72.
The computation of design flow rates for major and
minor systems is presented in Table 3.9. The design flow
rates for individual pipes are presented in Table 3.10.
Table 3.11 shows the hydraulic design computation of thé
underground pipes. Figure 3.^12 shows the imformation.
extracted from Table 3.11 .
 80
Table 3
.9 Desig
n Flo
w Rate
s fo
r Major
/Mino
r System
s PIT INLE
T MAJOR SYSTE
M

EOCV.
FLCW T
IME
S I
IMP.AR. CO
I I CO
w w w w
"
e
•
S V
D
B C
O•
H E
h
c
rv o O
h
CO CO
RHMAE^
i
? I
s S
a 6
00
a
s
C
O
gI
CO
< <
u
11 •
i g
ai H
e
u H u u a •
CQ
N
8 1 011 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 1
8 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
P
/r/ /
sg '
/So 23 •9
/5
C
t^i
i
' o
s^o 72 >0
o
j
-c^
a.)

Cp
aHi
'c
,!
Z
/S-
X
11 '3x
o 0
S2) 2 ^ /a
- ¿»
eg o
.u
<
?D
X> q
r-i
Uf
ir
Jj
z
:2-
j

•
11

f
i^O
CUi To •
/gr a
t

/
^/
f- J
L .
/ro i
C
* 756 O
./C
L i
^l
'cJ
r c
^itU
.Q /
^o O
C r-r(
'
(T
O o
lo 6y •
LCfO 9/ 60 /
•a
- ZT
iJ

f
^Si
ad. /
s
CM- 60 •
C7
S-
0 Xo lo O
^Lf 0
3t ib
S 4
.) 4/ 2 4
i /
•a
- 6
.0 O
.
/t,

p
/t M
l oU
fh
f
i^a
JL 0
^0 IQ
, •?
o Xo
if>
109 2^ /i
/ 60 cii
z wi-

f
'U £ fU
^icd 4
$ o
/b /7
7

CH- , /
^oa
^ 0
2 76 07a O
JTo fS
-4 3? - o
¿)¿2
-2 is fo ¿
».A
:.
=

c
/dl ¿-
J«
CM- 006 6a ar 9/

C o
- (>
oY H
a
 81
Table 3.9A Design Flow Rates for Major/Minor Systems PITINLET MAJOR S
YST
EJy
i

BQIV.
FLOW TIMES
IMP.AR. CO CO 1 I
I CO CO
CO w W W h
i
¿ 5 d
C g
•H V
D
E o
^ r
o f I I
Eh
U E
h 5 o H
CO CO
REMARKS
5 C
l^
I§ H CO
O
a
a 6
C
Q
g I < u ^
E
h 0
H
CM
Q
H U U
u I
I

<
y
^
§
P
Q È
»

8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2
1 2
2 23 24 25 26 27
r
iè'
f
locxT
cL oo
t. ù>
i •
i p
c^- ¿KK
f ecL
,
2J2 "mr
i
P
it0 • oo^ in •^
is
i 9o 0
-u,
.
li/^f-

i
t! /
ay 177

^
/•¿
ci:
, o
/x

f
ioc
ini c
ch i
r? >o

Pa r f^
'sd
l inn io 7
io \7
C;
91
y
y ion
Lpo^
t- 8r
/

f
loCLo
t r ro

P
ii Q i
lo r/
( ^h f^CKO
i so yo 094 r
y IS
^cX
oo6 S/ 2 lè
sr go /
¿i.
7
=/c
;a;
fi»r8
f^
ici
l no ÒO
(, .
59 r
^/
(Hi- 0 <
tG • /ÌO
7< 7
/

/
ay - ioo 77/1
-
yi f^
r I /a ^o /Oéc
17 /
67 /
//6

7 % 7
c /
J.O /If
 82
Table 3.9b Design Flow Rates for Major/Minor Systems PIT INLET , MAJOR SYSTEM

EQIV.
FLOW TIMES IMP.AR, I
CO CO
I I
¿
CO CO CO CO

•
H S KD
E C
O• I
H B C
O
EH CO CO
REMARKS
S
"I? •
g S 9
H a I
5 •'
a 6 a
E
h H C
O H• ^
• C
6
C
O O
g 1 < <
u
II^ I
^ i
0
4 H U U a •PQ
O
Q

8 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

•
Oj
sr
/
A X f
/ l^ 7o 1^ 9
c?
7
/x/
.;
9o C < i
t ^ to
¡ft
'G

2^
/
¿O /
¿o ^f/o
n oa^ op ODS go

Cha
-

Oo^ K^X OS 2
.t^ fo

i^to ^
P /cCI Ho ooi>
EL
C ^
It- ^^o
ckJL8o OPS Ub •
"To •oo^
7
 83
Table 3.10 Design Flow Rates for Individual Pipe {Partial-Area) PIT INLET MAJOR SYSTEM

BQIV.
FLOW TIMES
IMP.AR. CO CO I I
CO CO
CO in w CO

.5 VD
I
H ro Qh
CO CO
REMARKS
5 04
& 6 o a
5
i
H
H • r"
Eh H CO H n
• • Ui X
g I < < pc:
u II I p
s i
PU H U U w a PQ
m

8 jT 12 h3 14 15 16 17 18 T9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
A/xe 9 /¿2

l^o
V-3

if (Xo A /-i«/i^o
g99

-i-L

(Oh C>rx

TJaT ¿,00
9-g

io-n fy^ rt
/ra

Pi'f^

fH cs-^
/a -/3>

/4 io^
 84

Table 3.1 OA Design Flow Rates for Individual Pipe (Full-Area) PIT INLCT MAJOR SYSTEM

EQIV.
FLOW TIMES I
IMP.AR, CO CO I
I CO CO
CO CO CO CO T
¿

•SB 5 VD
H m Eh 1 I
o
CO CO
s
cy\
W a RHyiARKS
CI*
& 6
5
g%
o H
W E-i H CO H• ^• Pn
W CO g
g I
w
< < U ^ CO
Eh
H
S
Q
u II ^
CU H u u IAJ a CP
PQ

8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
PiflSl
/- i y^r
XLfO

P'f^ '9fo
A - 3,

P/fie. ^ f6o

P/p.
7C> ¿3

/i^e-

3 ' G UZc^

6/ 1!
9 - i

Pipe.
fO-l\ 3/
-OS,

H h /3

P.'fx^
Tx-tb

n-fi^
 85

Table 3
.11 Hydrauli
c Desig
n o
f Undergroun
d Pipe
s
U
/S INVER
T LEVEL
S D
/S INVER
T LEVEL
S
r
o (m) (m
)
I w

i
REMARKS

I
w
J
§
00
H Q
Z;^ 5
5 T C
N CO

§
a
f
vj
c
r> vo CM

I
a
c'i

I
H u u ^ 00 S
i —
H H ^ r
o
0 H (
N KD C
N Qro
W 0
4 C
U M <
N
C
N W
pjh
i• C
O
< I CÑ
w
T
a w w C
O g C
O
H •»
w H »W C
OS >i
n S o
c
u D D B ffiC
O C
O Q H(N
fe 0
4 -

8 1
0 11 1
2 13 14 1
5- 17 1? 19 2
.P 21 23 2^ 2S:
(
z-n /O
^- 7
5
'
•97 tob
.ys to6
.é>o 4-
'o /-
or 0/03 •36X tog- /
o - - 7
3^ 033

S
"/ ^
7
:1- /
OS"
-/o /rs
" too
.- <
7/6 /o
i.S
V --
Oá /o
/,¿
¿i
" oro
/o
í^.
ii
r
i
j^o

/
o /02
. c^S-y fo
:L. (% /OX
.5ó fox
. io
o/o/
•77
7 lofni^ 0
/0

39 •
iOc fO
i.60 .Oéo CO/ .oo^ /oxS^ /
COL
.eo/o
r /.
£=3

2
.61 •i6¿ /o o/
a-T oa
.
,ao /
OX
- O
/;
; iS"- •0
- S 3 fo
f- S
^J.
3-6 -

to
f. 6í>r

TTT
7-
6 C
7é 04
.4. n av^ 67a - %
9g
.

•¿
>3 2
/^
é-S
,
'OC
f. ¿
ra. es fb
l 0
({ h H
i, 9B Q< ib
i - • - c
-0/0

/
o 9? éé
i fS
.lcC
f -
- O-CO
')
9x.9
/0

•éo
o O
ÍT 0
/4 •C
f.0
/ 92 O
IX J
iSC ?
f3 - '9
'iS
,
97
-^í
a o. ooé

9
7-9
7^ 9?.r
ían
'WTT
-
' 9
2-X»
lo -K 1\ ¿
fo o
.Olí ¿
s'. 'Sé
., D 0^2
.

9
7- 9
7-¿
o

- •Oi 9q.
09,9á.>C /
•s
- co4 03 /
Se 9í-2SO ¿
3.C
/2
7
7 "7-
.faM9 r
?.-
» '
/^
•¿rr
f
rrTT
<4a
M e
j
ls: •
3SV ¿í
.o Olt e
ro g
92 97. 7a7 •S is
' oco-¿

9?. 97.ró^
 86

105
.43 m

35 m
375 m
m

104
.24 m

51 m
375 m
m

5 m
101
.77^m
10 m ^^01.76 m
300 m

105 m
425 m
m

11 m
98
.67 j
p 300 m
m
98
.60 m

LEGEND

105
.43m= pit inver
t
104 m level
575 m
n

10 m
97
.98 nk—
325L
_n

25 m 97.92 m
600 Tok
'1
0 m
19 m 300 m
m
97
.60 i
f
l 300 m
m
97
.57 m

97
.42 m

Figure 3.12 Undergroun

d pipe networ
k
for ARI= 2 years
.
 87

CHAPTER 4 COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 General Comments

A number of the regularly used methods of urban drainage
designs have been described in this report. Two recently
proposed procedures for the design of a major/minor
drainage system have been applied to a case study area.
It was noted that the Australian Rainfall and Runoff
method of urban drainage design is outlined in broad
manner whereas that of the Australian Road Research Board
method of urban drainage design is outlined in a very
detailed manner. In essence, the two methods are theoretically
similar, though structurally widely different in presentation.
The Australian Road Research Board method gives a very
elaborate steps and guidelines which may not be widely
applicable throughout Australia. However, some of the
steps are repeated and they tend to give similar outcomes.
Generally, the ARRB method is very difficult to follow by
the inexperienced designer.
Although both methods, at the time this report was made,
have not yet been finalised, it is in the authors opinion
that some of the steps, especially in the minor drainge
system design (ARRB method) could be omitted.

4.2 Australian Road Research Board Method

Minor system design procedure:
The steps that could be omitted are as follow:
* step 2 - Guidelines for flow management in surface
channels
- Need not be listed
* step 3 - Guidelines for flow management in underground
networks
- Need not be listed
* step 5 - Stage 2 Hydrological Model
- Can be left out because it is repeated in
step 6
 88

* step 6 - Design flow distribution in primary drains

and main drain pipelines
- The primary drainage line design flows can
already be presented after the execution of
step 4. Other modes of presentation are
regarded as unnecessary.
* step 1 OA cost/frequency
- This is an enormous task to be carried out
for a small design scheme. It is difficult
to evaluate the costs and benefits for a small
drainage scheme. In the local government
context, it is sufficient to adopt the design
average recurrence interval fixed by local
government policy.
* step 11 - Final design detailing
- It serves as a working drawing but the
arrangement of the underground pipe network
determined will likely to be altered due to
other underground services.
Major system design procedure:
The following steps could be omitted:
* step 6 - System evaluation
- It was regarded as unnecessary to carry out
this particular step due to the fact that
in all node sections, the cumulative upstream
(EIA)^Q are found far less than the tributary
impervious area, TA^ that can be served under
major storm events. Also due to the uncertain-
ty in determining the critical storm duration,
practically the results of the first network
review can be regarded as sufficiently accurate
* step 7 - Sub-area detailing
- The analysis in this step is identical to
the one carried out in step 6.
 89

4.3 Australian Rainfall and Runoff Method

Major system design procedure:
The steps involved in this section are not very elaborate
compared to the other method. No alteration is found
necessary.
Minor system design procedure:
The steps involved in this section are not very elaborate
compared to the other method. No alteration is found
necessary.

4.4 Conclusions
The final results of the two methods (Figures 3.10-3.12)
are different because:
* different ARIs were used.
* in the ARRB method, it was assumed that the minor
system did not exist and therefore the design procedure
could be basically followed step-by-step whereas for
the AR&R method, design was based on the existing
location of the inlets and pipe layout.
Had one value of the design ARI for the minor drainage
system been used for both methods, the end results would
invariably be expected to be very similar since
both methods employ the same theoretical concepts. However,
the AR&R method presents an alternative design tool using
the enhenced ILLUDAS model called ILLSAX. Finally it can
be concluded that the AR&R method is more flexible than
the ARRB method.
REFERENCES
 R. 1

AITKEN.A.P. Hydrologic investigation and design of urban

stormwater drainage systems.Australian Water Resources
Council Technical Paper,No.10,1975

ARGUE,J.R.-Urban stormwater collection system-A review

Aust.Road Research Board Project,F.S.1 093 J 982 .

ARGUE,J.R.-Urban stormwater drainage:The major system

for isolated developed catchments.Proc.Aust.Road Research
Board,South Australian Inst, of Technology Combined Symp.,
Adelaide,1983.

ARGUE,J.R.-Stormwater flow estimation for small ungauged

urban catchments.Australian Road Research Board,vol.11,
part 2,1982,pp 193-205.

ARGUE,J.R.-Small urban drainage systems:Summary report

Aust.Road Research Board and South Aust. Inst, of Tech-
nology , Pro j ect 391,1985.

CQRDERY,!.,and PILGRIM,D.H.-Small catchment flood design

-Present problems and guidlines for the future.Hydrology
and Water Resources Symp.,I.E.Aust.,1979,pp 189-193.

HELLIWELL,P.R.(EDITOR)-Urban storm drainage.Proc. of

first international con. on urban storm drainage,
University of Southampton,Pentech Press,London,1978.

KEEP,P.P.,and MEIN,R.G.-Independent comparison of three

urban runoff models.Proc. ASCE,J.Hyd.Div.,vol. 1 00,No.HY7
,pp 995-1009.1974.

GUPTA,V.L.,and SINCLAIR,P.J.-Time concentration of over-

land flow.Proc. ASCE,j.Hyd.Div.,vol.102,NO.HY4,1976,pp
549-553.

HALL,M.J.-Urban hydrology.Elsevier Applied Science Pub-

lishers Ltd.,1984.

HARE,C.M.-Energy losses and pressure head changes at

storm drain junctions.Master of engineering degree thesis
,New South Wales Inst, of Technology,1980.

FLEMING,G.-Computer simulation techniques in hydrology

Elsevier Environmental Science Series,1975.

FRENCH,R.,PILGRIM,D.H.,and LAURENSON.E.M.-Experimental
examination of the rational method for small rural
catchments.Civil Eng. Trans. I.E.Aust.,vol.CEl 6,1 974,
pp95-102.
KUICHLING,E.-The relationship between rainfall and the
discharge of sewers in populous areas.Trans. ASCE,vol.20
,1889,No.1,pp 60.

LLOYD-DAVIES,D.E.-The elimination of stormwater from

sewerage systems.Proc.ICE,vol.164(2),1906,pp 41-67.
 R.2

MEIN^R.G.,and O'LOUGHLIN,G.G.-Application of ILLUDAS-SA

to gauged urban catchments.Hydrology and Water Resources
Symp.,I.E.Aust.,Sydney,1985,pp 151-152.

MULVANEY.T.J.-On the use of self registration rain and

flood gauges in making observations on the relation of
rainfall and of flood discharges in a given catchment.
Trans. ICE Ireland,1850,vol.4,NQ.2,pp 18.

McCUEN,R.H.,WONG,S.L.,and RAWLS,W.J.-Estimating urban

time of concentration.ASCE,J. of Hyd. Eng.,vol.110,N0.7
,1984,pp 887-903.

LAI,R.Y.S.,and LEE,K.K.-Moody diagram for direct pipe

diameter calculation.J. of Hyd.,Proc. ASCE,vol. 1 01,
No.HYl0,1975,pp 1377-1379.

O'LOUGHLIN,G.G.-Energy line analysis of pipe networks.

I.E.Aust.,Seminar on urban drainage. The University of
Newcastle,1982.

O'LOUGHLIN,G.G.,and ROBINSON,D.-Australian Rainfall and

Runoff, preview workshop.Urban drainage.I.E. Aust.,1985.

O'LOUGHLIN,G.G,and ROBINSON,D.-"Chapter 14" of Australian

Rainfall and Runoff,1986.Urban stormwater drainage.

KIBLER,D.F.(EDITOR)-Urban stormwater hydrology. Water

Resources Monograph,series 7,American Geophysical Union
Washington,D.C.,1982.

PILGRIM,D.H.-Runoff coefficients for design flood esti-

mation-a review. Annual Con. of the Local Government
Engineers Association of N.S.W.,vol.71,No.4,1978,pp
176-182.

PILGRIM,D.H.-Assessment of derived rural and urban runoff

coefficients.I.E. Aust. Trans.,vol.CE24,No.3,1 982,pp
235-241.

O'LOUGHLIN,G.G.,and MEIN,R.G.-Use of computer models

for piped urban drainage in Australia. Hydrology and
Water Resources Symp.,Hobart,1983.I.E. Aust.,Nat.con.
pub.No.83/13,pp 156-160.

PILGRIM,D.H.,and McDERMOTT,G.E.-Design floods for small

rural catchments in eastern N.S.W. Trans, of I.E. Aust.
,vol.CE 24,No.3,1982,pp 226-233.

LAZARO,T.R.-A multidisciplinary perspective-Urban hydro-

logy, 1979, An Arbor Science Publishers Inc.
 R.3

PAPAKADIS.C.N.,and PREUL,H.C.-Testing of methods for

determination of urban runoff.J. of Hyd. Div.,ASCE,vol.
99,NO.HY9,PP 1319-1335,1973.

RAGAN,R.M.,and JACKSON,T.J.-Use of satellite data in

urban hydrological models.J. of Hyd. Div. ASCE,vol.101,
No.HYl2,pp 1469-1475.

SCHAAKE.J.C.,GEYER,J.C.and KNAPP,J.W.-Experimental exami-

nation of the rational method.Proc. ASCE,J. of Hyd. Div.
vol.93,No.HY6,1967,pp 353-370.

TERSTRIEP,M.L.,and STALL,J.B.-Urban runoff by road re-

search laboratory method. Proc. ASCE,J. of Hyd. Div.,
vol.95,No.HY6,1969,pp 1809-1834.

TERSTRIEP,M.L.,and STALL,J.B.-Illinois urban drainage

area simulator,ILLUDAS. Illinois State Water Survaey,
Bull. No.58,1974,pp 90.

STEPHENSON,D.-Stormwater hydrology and drainage.

Elsevier, Development in Water Science 14, 1981.

WATKINS,L.H.-The design of urban sewer systems: research

into the relation between the rate of rainfall and the
rate of flow in sewers. Road Research Technical Paper,
No. 55 (HMSO,London),1 962.

WATKINS,L.H.-The TRRL hydrograph method of urban sewer

design adapted for tropical conditions. Proc. ICE, Part
2,vol.61,1976,pp 539-566.

WILLIAM,M.A.and JACK,E.V.-Effective impervious area in

urban runoff modelling. J. of Hyd. Div. ASCE,vol.109,
No.HY2,1983,pp 313-319.

Workshop on urban piped drainage systems. Presented at

New South Wales Inst, of Technology by Department of
Civil Engineering Swinburne Inst, of Technology and
School of Civil Engineering New South Wales Ins. of
Technology,1984.

YEN,B.C.,and SEVUK,A.S.-Design of storm sewer networks.

J. of the Environmental Engineering Div., Proc. ASCE,
vol.101,No. EE4,1975,pp 535-553.

Investigation of kerb inlets and gully pits. Department

of Public Works Coastal Engineering Hydraulics Laboratory
, Report No.207, 1977.

Preliminary survey of the hydraulics of gully pits.

Department of Public Works, N.S.W., Manly Hydraulics
Laboratory. PWD Report No.80027, Report No.263, 1980.

Australian Rainfall and Runoff. Flood Analysis and Design

,1977. The Inst, of Engineers, Australia.
 R.4

Hydraulics capacities of various types of inlets. Aust.

Road Research Board, Report No.222,1978.
ROAD MANUAL. The Housing Commision of New South Wales,
1976, Stormwater drainage design-Hydrology.

SANGSTER,W.M.,WOOD,H.W.,and SMERDON,E.T. Pressure changes

at storm drain junctions. Engineering Series Bulletin,
No. 41, The University of Missouri Bulletin, vol. 59,
No. 35,1958.
LINSLEY,R.K. -Discussion "Effective use of landsat data
in hydrologie models", by Albert Rango, Arlen Feldman,
Thomas S. George 111, and Robert M. Ragan. Water Resources
Bulletin, American Water Resources Association vol.20.
No.2,April 1984.
APPENDIX
 A.I

Step 4 & 5 H y d r o l o q i c a l models - s t a g e s 1 and 2

Flow a c c u m u l a t i o n and c a p t u r e graphs f o r drainage

l i n e s t e r m i n a t i n g a t B.2N1 and B.2N1R - 95% c a p t u r e d
flow.

:: 100 200 250

Drainage length,.from terminal i n l e t (m);

Drainage length from terminal i n l e t (m)

 A.2

Flow a c c u m u l a t i o n and c a p t u r e g r a p h s f o r drainage

l i n e s t e r m i n a t i n g a t B . 2 E 1 and B.2E1R - 90% and
85% T c a p t u r e d f l o w s respectively.

0 50 65
Drainage length from terminal i n l e t (m)
 A.3

Flow a c c u m u l a t i o n and c a p t u r e g r a p h s f o r drainage

l i n e s t e r m i n a t i n g a t B.1N1R and B.1W1R and B.1W1 -
80% and 90% c a p t u r e d f l o w respectively.

B.1N1R

0 50 100 150 200 220

. Etainage length form terminal i n l e t (m)

50 100 150 200 250 280

Drainage length from terminal i n l e t (m)
 A.4

Flow a c c u m u l a t i o n and c a p t u r e g r a p h s f o r d r a i n a g e
l i n e s t e r m i n a t i n g a t B.1N1 and B.1E1 - 90% c a p t u r e d
flow.
400

300
m
'¡J

200
Cn

100

100 200 220

Drainage frem terminal i n l e t (m)

-I !•

50 65
Drainage length from terminal i n l e t (m)
 A. 5

Flow accumulation and capture graphs for drainage

lines terminating at B.1N1R and B.lNl -
80% and 90% captured flow respectively.

Step 6 Design flow distribution in

400
primary drains and pipelines

B.1N1R

50 100 150 200 220

Drinage length from terminal inlet (m)

400

B.1N1

0 50 100 150 200 220

Drainage length from terminal inlet (m)
GENERAL VIEW OF THE CASE STUDY AREA
 A. 6

Looking downstream from Flower Street

Alma Road - Downstream

 A.7

Gale Road - downstream part of

catchment

Galvin Street - top right hand

part of catchment
 A.8

Typical existing combined inlet

 ^ it

y f ,
t .'i
tWßM

•y

.. A

' '"Im

' S . • . r

t <' " ir

w
-f m
- ' „ - • -

-, -f
m

• vx - rJ

I v ' i ,
lfm

, i , • ^

'tis? , )
ß

j - V

t S M

: ^
4 ' ' i

• ; ij

l . t